A boring old pragmatic approach courtesy of PA…
The JREF seems to be dedicated to exposing woo for woo and thereby, presumably influencing the beliefs of the consumers of woo.
This was the presumption that I had when I first arrived at JREF. I am now undecided.
This would seem to suggest that the JREF, in principle, understands that beliefs are matters of decion or choice, and that people can change their beliefs about, at least, some things.
Providing that the presumed underlying motivation is correct, this is at least one possible perspective…one to which I subscribe.
However, a common "defence" we'll hear from some believers (and some determinists) is that one cannot control one's beliefs and since, as the old ethics maxim goes "one is not responsible what one cannot control," one cannot be responsible for one's beliefs. Interesting idea, that.
Interesting…perplexing…clearly doesn’t fit with any concept I understand relative to personal responsibility; a tempting stance if you desire to alleviate personal responsibility (or believe there is no such personal responsibility).
Even more interesting, some people apparently feel they ARE their beliefs. How do we understand such a view? Does it change how we assign responsibility for beliefs?
This seems to me to fit with the fanatics/fundamentalists (particularly regarding religion), primarily; I can’t even pretend to understand their perspectives.
At most, the majority of believers I have encountered would better fit the perspective of “what I believe helps shape who I am”…It’s worth note that I have spent zero time living in The South/Bible Belt of the USA (a fact for which I am EXTREMELY thankful and is likely influencing my perspective).
Either way, the belief is of no concern to me (but for discussion) until they manifest actions; people (at least consenting adults) should be held accountable for there actions, whatever the source of motivation (this does not include cases of extreme coercion, which certainly exist). When involving discussions of personal beliefs, personal responsibility for those beliefs should apply, IMO.
Now, if beliefs are a matter of choice, is it appropriate to hold the believer responsible for their beliefs?
Again, the belief doesn’t concern me (except specifically in discussion). It is requisite that people are held responsible for their actions to maintain society. Likewise, it is necessary when discussing personal beliefs that the holder of the belief is held accountable, IMO.
Does accepting that one is not responsible for one's beliefs have any impact on the possibility of influencing beliefs, as the JREF clearly attempts to do?
I mean in no way to offend by the statement to follow (but am certain I will, nonetheless): if one accepts that there is no personal responsibility in association with beliefs and no choice, I see no way that the JREF is not reduced to intellectual group masturbation…just my perspective.
If you hold someone responsible for their beliefs are you being a bigot (or intolerant, if the word "bigot" bothers you) or are you empowering them with the possibility of change?
Empowering; though in terms of discussion, depending on the tone and the frame of mind of the believer, the believer may perceive it as prejudice.
Does your assessment change at all when you are talking about, say, religious faith as opposed to belief in chi manipulation?
For your consideration.
My assessment remains the same regardless of the content of the beliefs (in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary).
A common problem with choice is ‘the other side of the coin’: personal responsibility. People want to believe in choice, but often are unwilling to take on the responsibility that comes along with it. Until one learns to take personal responsibility for thoughts and actions, the possibility of choice or change is greatly compromised. Admittedly, prescriptive elements characteristic of many beliefs complicates one’s ability to choose to take personal responsibility; all the more reason to embrace choice/responsibility as existent: this is what conceptually defeats prescription.
Again, just my perspective, FWIW.
