Beliefs: how do they work?

[RandFan]

I don't believe "beliefs are beliefs", lest that is not clear. Well actually it is probably not, because on another level I do believe "beliefs are beliefs".

I wasn't trying to commit a tautology. It's a take off from "parts is parts" or, in other words, all beliefs, being beliefs, are equal.

I suspect that even if religion can not be demonstrated to meet criteria i, that is to have objective proof with reference to an external utility, for religious beliefs to work at all and propagate they must possess option ii, utility. This could get very complex, and my refinement of my model will hopefully clarify m thinking here, but I suspect a major issue may be the divide you make between human culture and thought and the natural world, which to me is a curious distinction. I regard New York City, an operetta or say our current economics models as inherently natural and part of nature, as natural as a beaver's dam or an ant colony f'r instance.

I accept, as Dan Dennett posits, that all human endeavor is in fact natural. I'm reasonably certain that I've made no such distinction.

However you imply rationality is not a property of the religious argument. on the contrary, I think one can make a perfectly rational case for say theism or atheism, because rationality is a property of an arghument, not a conclusion. The reasoning can be completely sound but mistaken, unless we possess all relevant evidence, as the history of say science demonstrates. I don't think religious people or atheists are rational - I think individual arguments made by each may or may not be rational, in that they are logically internally consistent. An argument can be completely rational and yet completely wrong, if the premises are incorrect.

If I were George Bush, son of George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush, I would be President of The United States. I am George W. Bush son of George H. W. and Barbara Bush. I am Batman the President.

It's a rational argument but there is no rational basis to believe that I am George Bush.

That's where you go south. Religious people can make rational arguments in support of their beliefs but is there a rational basis to accept their premises?

Yes, but you make a qualitative judgement here...

• I am Napolean ruler of France.
• I am not Napolean ruler of France.

I reject, for good reason, that I'm Napolean. That's not simply a qualitative judgement. This is important and I feel it important to stress the point. If it helps then replace "good" with logically valid and demonstrable.

 

[RandFan]

I also believe religious beliefs can have predictive and utilitarian value.

Utility doesn't make it true. Give me an example of "predictive value"?

 

[cj.23]

Utility doesn't make it true.

Agreed absolutely, but it does have bearing on the survival of an idea.

Give me an example of "predictive value"?

Religious beliefs being complex structures are bound to possess some ideas that can be empirically verified, and as much early religion f'rinstance included astronomical data for example many religious claims have subsequently been empirically verified. You can say "hey they were not really religious ideas" - sure, but that si because you are defining religious beliefs as those not empirically demonstrable or with predictive value. The prediction the universe came in to existence, as opposed to having a steady state, and time with it, is a classic example of a prediction that can be made from a religious belief.

Most religious beliefs however revolve around relationships with entity X, a deity -and relationships predictability, as psychology has shown, is complex. Hell it's not so long ago we finally were able to empirically demonstrate that the concept of personality is meaningful!

From my limited interaction with say yrreg, yourself, athon, soapy sam, fls and arthwollitpot I might make limited judgments as to how you might respond - frequently in error. It's the same thing with deities really. Allow me to illustrate...

Friday night on Olympus, and Zeus gets in from a hard day at the office, mating with mortal females in the form of a golden light or bull or -- hey, the girl changes, the modus operandi varies, the same old grind...

Hera: Working late again ... really? (suspiciously)
Zeus: yep, just been the usual, y'know lightning bolts at the blasphemous, making sure Titans still chained, same old, same old.
Hera: So no maidens then?
Zeus: Of course not dear. Oh by the way, I asked a couple of the lads over for a sip of nectar and some hot ambrosia, I trust that is ok?
Hera: Not again! OK, who is this time? That nice Mr Cernunnos and the lovely Epona?
Zeus: (mumbling) er, nope. Yahweh and Odin actually
Hera: or maybe Belobog and Cislobog? Such nice folks!
Zeus, er, no (trying to look regal) Yahweh and Odin actually!
Hera: THOSE TROUBLEMAKERS! After the last time it took me a month to get the blood out of the carpet! You know Odin will always turn up drunk, and insist on feasting all night, and at dawn will start a huge fight. He always bloody does!
Zeus: i know dear, but I have to work with him!
Hera: And that Yahweh! He always has to be top dog, its like no one else gets a look in. He'll be going oin about how he is number one, the only real God, and then him and Odin will get down to some serious smiting - and he is such a prude!
Zeus: yes dear, but ---
Aphrodite sassys in
Hera: Hello dear, you might want to head out for a stag night or something, or take a bath or something. You will never guess who his nibs has asked over? Yahweh and Odin!
Aphrodite: (Looking appalled) - oh but we can't have them tonight! I asked Ba'al Hadad and his friend the nice Mr Loki over! It will be like last Christmas and Baldur and the darts competition all over again! You know this will be trouble if they all turn up here...

The doorbell rings - all three deities turn to look at it aghast.

END OF ACT ONE

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Religious beliefs being complex structures are bound to possess some ideas that can be empirically verified, and as much early religion f'rinstance included astronomical data for example many religious claims have subsequently been empirically verified. You can say "hey they were not really religious ideas" - sure, but that si because you are defining religious beliefs as those not empirically demonstrable or with predictive value. The prediction the universe came in to existence, as opposed to having a steady state, and time with it, is a classic example of a prediction that can be made from a religious belief.

There are a number of problems with this line of thinking but let me keep it simple. Sylvia Browne has been correct in predicting some things. One could say that she has predictive power. The problem is that given that her predictions are no better than one would get by chance then it's reasonable to assume that she is just guessing. Before you make such a claim that Sylvia has predictive ability you need to ask first if there is a prosaic answer for any such ability (chance for instance). Given the fact that Sylvia is wrong about so many things Occam's razor would suggest that her correct predictions are simply due to chance. We can all do that. That isn't the same as the predictive ability of science and it is wrong for you to equate the two.

Given that religious belief has led to so many spurious conclusions about the natural world i.e. firmament, geocentricism, etc., etc. Occam's razor would have to cut off any part of any explanation that was more than simple logical inference and chance.

 

[Malerin]

Belief can be pretty easily defined, I think. The hang-up is going to be on what “true” means, but I’m jumping ahead.

A person has a belief if they think (conclude, realize, etc.) X is more, less, or as likely as true as not X.

A theist has a belief because they’ve concluded (for whatever reason) that “God exists” (X) is more likely true than “God does not exist” (~X). An agnostic also has a similar belief: “God exists” is as likely as “God does not exist”. A strong atheist is a person who has concluded “God exists” is less likely than “God does not exist”. No matter where you’re at on the God spectrum, if you’ve thought about it at all, you have a belief. Even agnosticism is the belief that there’s not enough evidence to form a belief.

This avoids the objection that people have beliefs about trivial things they’ve never heard of, like the existence of dwarves on the 5th moon of Saturn. Since they’ve never thought about it (never had a chance to evaluate the evidence for/against), there’s no belief associated with it. Of course, after reading this, people probably WILL have a belief about those dwarves (most will probably think their existence is not likely, but a few may believe it’s as likely as their non-existence).

The problem is what is meant by “true”. A lot of people here are pragmatists and support the pragmatic view of truth (whatever works is true). This avoids the messiness of having to deal with an ultimate reality- it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain-in-a-vat or not, it is still true that shooting myself in the head is not a good idea.

There is also the correspondence view of truth, which basically says X is true if X corresponds to reality. “The cat is on the mat” is true if there’s actually a cat on the mat. I’ve noticed a lot of atheists here take the pragmatic approach when dealing with issues about reality, but then curiously switch over to the correspondence view when talking about God- the theist is supposed to provide evidence for the literal existence of God (not whether the idea of God works or not). However, when the theist, for example, asks for evidence of the existence of matter, the atheist switches back to the pragmatic view and claims it’s not important what the “Ur” substance is.

Both views of truth have limitations. The correspondence view never really gets us anywhere because reality is ultimately unknowable. All we can go by is what our senses tell us and what they tell us is consistent with countless versions of reality. The pragmatic view runs into trouble when you try to flesh out what “works” means. Some really weird stuff can appear to “work”. Example: a volcano erupts and an Aztec priest decides to sacrifice a person a week to appease the gods. No volcanic eruptions for the next 50 years. Is it then true that “sacrificing people prevented volcanic eruptions”? You can object that it’s not true because we know better now, but then that calls into question all the things we currently think are true- will they all be falsified in a thousand years? Based on what the priest knew, the sacrifices worked (you can even apply the scientific method to it): he observed there was an eruption, he had a hypothesis (human sacrifices will prevent eruptions), he tested the hypothesis for decades, and then concluded that since what he was doing “worked” it was true.

Another example: a lapsed Catholic buys a lottery ticket every week for years and wins nothing. He decides to pray when he buys the next ticket. He hits the jackpot. He believes it to be true that God answered his prayer. Pragmatically, he can make a justified claim that his prayer worked- Out of hundreds of attempts, the one time he prayed is the one time he hit it big.

So herein lies the problem: no matter how pragmatic you view yourself, we all have core beliefs about reality that are correspondence based. Nobody here is a true solipsist or believes the world is five minutes old and we’ve all been given false memories. On the other hand, I don’t think anybody here is really agnostic about those things either. Almost everyone I talk to dismisses the idea that only they exist or the world is five minutes old. I certainly do. Most people have a definite belief that reality is a certain way (other people exist, the universe is 14 or so billion years old, etc.). But what is the evidence for these beliefs? It is impossible to prove or disprove the claim that we were created five minutes ago with false memories. Likewise, the existence of other beings.

This lack of agnosticism tells me there’s a lot of faith on display on both sides, theist and atheist. It would be kind of depressing if reality consisted of just yourself, or the world was five minutes old and you had been tricked on every level. But with no evidence either way (no way to get outside yourself and your senses) the correct position should be agnosticism. Any other belief is “faith-based”. The atheist cannot criticize the theist for a faith-based belief when they have their own.

As Plumjam stated, if people around here were truly pragmatic and agnostic about reality-claims, idealism, immaterialism, and solipsism would not get the rough treatment they always do. It wouldn’t matter to a true pragmatist how reality really is, only that their beliefs work in the context of their own experiences. Instead those claims are vehemently denounced in pages long posts, suggesting that there are very few agnostics among us.

 

[RandFan]

A person has a belief if they think (conclude, realize, etc.) X is ... as likely as true as not X.

Agreed, but an irrational belief.

 

[RandFan]

There is also the correspondence view of truth, which basically says X is true if X corresponds to reality. “The cat is on the mat” is true if there’s actually a cat on the mat. I’ve noticed a lot of atheists here take the pragmatic approach when dealing with issues about reality, but then curiously switch over to the correspondence view when talking about God- the theist is supposed to provide evidence for the literal existence of God (not whether the idea of God works or not). However, when the theist, for example, asks for evidence of the existence of matter, the atheist switches back to the pragmatic view and claims it’s not important what the “Ur” substance is.

Nonsense.

• The pragmatic view that an internal combustion engine works isn't contradicted by other pragmatic views that an internal combustion engine doesn't work.
• The pragmatic view that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god "works" (whatever that might mean) is in fact contradicted by beliefs that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god does not work.

 

[Malerin]

• The pragmatic view that an internal combustion engine works isn't contradicted by other pragmatic views that an internal combustion engine doesn't work.

• 
  
  That just means it's consistent with other beliefs. You could make the same claim about the Aztec priest in my example- other priests who have tried human sacrifices to prevent eruptions have also had success.
  
  

  [*]The pragmatic view that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god "works" (whatever that might mean) is in fact contradicted by beliefs that a belief that Christ is the living embodiment of god does not work.

  
  So is the belief that Prozac helps depression. For some it works, for others it doesn't. Does that mean Prozac doesn't work?

 

[Malerin]

Agreed, but an irrational belief.

What you quoted was my definition of belief. What was irrational?

 

[Malerin]

Randfan, are you denying my claim that theists aren't constantly challenged for proof that God actually exists, in the correspondence sense? I have seen very few atheists ask for proof that a belief in God "works" or not. And by "very few", I mean none.

Likewise, I have seen many atheists dismiss questions about reality as irrelevant because what they believe in "works".

 

[RandFan]

That just means it's consistent with other beliefs.

No. See falsifiability.

You could make the same claim about the Aztec priest in my example- other priests who have tried human sacrifices to prevent eruptions have also had success.

Actually you can't make the same claim. To do so would be to make a causal error. There is no mechanism for the belief to work. Not true with internal combustion engines and the fact is the human sacrifices didn't always work. There are serious fundamental differences between these two examples.

So is the belief that Prozac helps depression. For some it works, for others it doesn't. Does that mean Prozac doesn't work?

Again you are making an error. Prozac has a mechanism to work and it is based on more than self reporting so the example is spurious because there is science behind the use of Prozac.

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread. In the mean time please feel free to peruse the following:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is such a complex issue and I have no expertise other than personal observation with great interest over the years, but it seems to me the first problem is making an assumption our brains perceive reality. Some brains perceive the Universe more closely to its real nature than others.

We have examples of people whose perceived reality is clearly pathologic. That would be someone who is experiencing psychosis. But then it is assumed psychosis is an either or condition, when the evidence suggests there may be more of a continuum from accurate perception of reality to grossly inaccurate perception.

To get to the bottom of irrational beliefs, (which I call non-evidence based beliefs), there are two things then to consider. 1) Is the person even perceiving the evidence rationally to begin with, and 2) How good are that person's critical thinking skills?

I separate these because they influence beliefs in different ways. Someone who doesn't understand evidence of causality, for example, may perceive reality correctly but draw erroneous conclusions from what they perceive. While someone else may draw erroneous conclusions because they distort the incoming messages before they get around to analyzing them.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, are you denying my claim that theists aren't constantly challenged for proof that God actually exists, in the correspondence sense? I have seen very few atheists ask for proof that a belief in God "works" or not. And by "very few", I mean none.

Likewise, I have seen many atheists dismiss questions about reality as irrelevant because what they believe in "works".

Whether or not god works is irrelevant at best and spurious at worst. That there are so many contradictory claims about god and that belief in god leads to more and more fragmenting, dissonance and disagreement of the nature and "efficacy" of god lends to the conclusion that god does not work any way that has to do with the truth of whether or not god exists.

But I ask for proof that god "works" on this forum almost daily. I point out that a belief in a jug of milk is demonstrably as effective as a belief in god. If you want I'd happily post the links.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for the Aztec belief sacrifice controls the success of the crops or whatever, that would likely be based on a mix of the two problems. Poor critical thinking skills would lead the person to believe the sacrifice had causality. But irrational perception would lead the person to discount the evidence which contradicted the belief in sacrifice before it is considered in the analysis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Everyone weighs the evidence (perceived reality) based on prior experiences. People who believe in gods discount evidence which doesn't support that preexisting conviction. For example, how many studies showing prayer has no effect does it take to convince a god believer that prayer has no effect? When asked to provide evidence supporting the success of prayer, bad science is touted as evidence. The criticisms of the positive outcome prayer studies are ignored. And where that fails, the apologies start. That is the rationalization of how the studies failing to provide evidence of the effect of prayer don't prove prayer doesn't work because [fill in the blank].

 

[cj.23]

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread.

i'd be interested in a discussion of good old fluoxetine. I'm amusing myself at the moment by teaching myself a little pharmacology, as you may have guessed from a couple of references on other threads. As there is variability across the population of the enzyme cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) , one of the P450's I mentioned in the Evidence for God thread, which as i recall is involved in the uptake of fluoxetine, and in I think about 5-10% of the population that enzyme action is significantly increased, I'd estimate that flouxetine would be ineffective in a small part of the population. Other SSRI options would be more suitable. Of couse some people will have a CYP2D6 action which is less efficient - given that as far as i know Prozac absorbs and delivers avery high percentage of the active ingredients, I don't think this would matter at clinical doses. Dunno - ask a pharmacist!

Drugs generally vary, depending on all kinds of factors, in their effects on people. The P450 enzyme grtoup is really interesting though. If you are interested in the biochemistry I can look it up by hitting my books, but I really am at the "just started to get interested" level. Asking a phramacologist, GP or doctor would be a wiser move. My thinking above is based on probably falwed logic, not any empirical evidence. I just like to think about things. Never take my thoughts on any medical issue too seriously!

cj x

 

[Malerin]

Actually you can't make the same claim. To do so would be to make a causal error.

But you're assuming you're not making the same error with your belief that engines work (which is kind of vague- HOW do they work?). How do you know that in 500 years, scientists won't laugh at our ideas of how things work?

There is no mechanism for the belief to work.

Sure there is, you just don't believe in it. You sacrifice the body, the gods are pleased, no more eruptions. You switched back into correspondence mode just then. You assumed there was no mechanism because you assumed reality was such that there are no gods who are swayed by human sacrifices. Of course you don't know this and it may be true that there would have been a lot more volcanic eruptions had those gods not been pacified!

Not true with internal combustion engines and the fact is the human sacrifices didn't always work.

Engines always work? Tell that to my mechanic! I'm sure the priest would tell you that sacrifices, done properly, work. After all, he's been doing it for 30 years and no eruptions. He can also point you to priests that have tried the same thing to prevent earthquakes. One priest and his son and grandson haven't had an earthquake in over 100 years. If there IS an earthquake, well the priest didn't do the sacrifice right.

There are serious fundamental differences between these two examples.

Not really, that's the problem with pragmatism. It makes no claims about reality and depends on a nebulous meaning of "work". Did prayer work for the lottery winner? I'm sure you would reply that it hasn't worked for other people who have prayed and lost, and I'm sure you know my reply- the winner did not pray for OTHER people to win, only himself. If other people pray and don't win, then God must not have wanted them to win.

Again you are making an error. Prozac has a mechanism to work and it is based on more than self reporting so the example is spurious because there is science behind the use of Prozac.

Theists have "mechanisms" too (prayer being one). And any trial of an anti-depressant is going to rely heavily on self-reporting. What good is an anti-depressant if no one claims they're any less depressed? How would the chemicals associated with depression ever have been identified if it wasn't for a person reporting they were depressed? It's all based on self-reporting. So then, how do you evaluate the truthfulness of a theist's claim that prayer "works"? We have a mechanism in place, self-reporting, and a whole bunch of people who claim it "works".

If you are seriously interested in a discussion on the merits of Prozac and whether or not there is any scientific basis for its use I'd happily join you in a new thread. In the mean time please feel free to peruse the following:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172

I believe it works. My point is A) it doesn't work for some, which doesn't invalidate it) and B) we're not going to get anywhere until "work" is fully defined.

 

[RandFan]

But you're assuming you're not making the same error with your belief that engines work (which is kind of vague- HOW do they work?). How do you know that in 500 years, scientists won't laugh at our ideas of how things work?

How Car Engines Work.

You are abusing skepticism. It's true, we might be laughed at 500 years from now but our understanding of the internal combustion engine is very detailed and precise. It doesn't lead to dissonance or controversy (unlike religious beliefs).

Sure there is, you just don't believe in it. You sacrifice the body, the gods are pleased, no more eruptions.

A.) It's not true that it always worked and B.) there is no mechanism for how it would work (how does a god cause a volcano to erupt? You rely on magical explanations. No magical explanations are needed for internal combustion engines. Perhaps a better understanding of engines will emerge in 500 years but the current explanation is well understood, non-controversial, predictiable, fits with all other fields associated with it and damn precise and functional.

You assumed there was no mechanism because you assumed reality was such that there are no gods who are swayed by human sacrifices.

• There is no mechanism for magical gods causing volcanoes to erupt.
• There is no evidence that if there were gods they were always pacified.

The belief is unfounded and unreasonable and one must abuse skepticism to assert that a belief in pacifying gods is as reasonable a belief as the theory of the internal combustion engines.

Nonsense.

Engines always work?

You are making a serious error. When they don't we can diagnose why they don't work and fix them. Not possible for gods. See, that's the power of science. We can understand the workings of an internal combustion engine, why it works and when it doesn't why it doesn't.

Not really, that's the problem with pragmatism. It makes no claims about reality and depends on a nebulous meaning of "work".

Again, you are wrong. We can explain how something like an internal combustion engine works and we can measure that work (horse power) very precisely. We know that based on any number of measurable variables like gas flow, stroke, weight, aerodynamics, etc how efficient a system with an engine will be.

God? We know nothing. Will sacrifice guarantee that the volcano won't erupt?

Can you begin to see the difference?

Theists have "mechanisms" too (prayer being one).

Demonstrated to work no better than masturbating.

I believe it works. My point is A) it doesn't work for some, which doesn't invalidate it) and B) we're not going to get anywhere until "work" is fully defined.

If you are going to abuse skepticism then the conversation will get nowhere.

If not then I would recommend the use of horsepower as a measurement of the ability to work. Work then, in this case, would be to propel a vehicle forward. To overcome the initial inertia of a body at rest (the vehicle) and to overcome the force of gravity and air to continue moving the vehicle to a desired distance (from point A to point B).

Thanks and please don't tell me that you would rather play obtuse and abuse skepticism and/or play semantical games.

 

[Malerin]

Just a quick follow-up on predictive value: I think prayer has a certain predictive value. Many people report that if they're feeling down, they pray and then feel better. Of course this doesn't work for everyone, but then neither does Prozac.

The point is that Prozac and prayer take on the same form: X is depressed, X does action Y (prayer or Prozac), X feels better. You claim to know WHY Prozac works scientifically, but then the theist claims to know why prayer works, theistically: prayer brings them closer to God, which makes them happier.

The Scalpel and the Soul is a wonderful book about a neurosurgeon (Allan Hamilton), his take on spirituality and medicine, and some paranormal experiences he's had.

 

[RandFan]

The point is that Prozac and prayer take on the same form: X is depressed, X does action Y (prayer or Prozac), X feels better. You claim to know WHY Prozac works scientifically, but then the theist claims to know why prayer works, theistically: prayer brings them closer to God, which makes them happier.

No. This is wrong. I realize now that you are just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming but I'll be redundant for those who are listening.

There is a mechanism for Prozac to work. It's understood from a scientific POV. Prayer does not work the same way or with the same level of confidence. At best prayer is the same as meditation and masterbation.

I'll post the links again for those interested. I normaly don't argue via link but there is no way I could do justice to the science the way Novella does. Please, for anyone who honestly believe that Prozac is no better or worse than praying see the links. Psychiatry is a valid scientific field.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=168
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=169
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=170
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=171
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=172