Should we tamper with belief?

[Keneke]

This has led me into a dilemma — is it permissible for me to tamper with someone else's thought processes? Is it proper of me to demonstrate to a believer, through step-by-step reasoning, why he ought not to believe in God? Am I not forcing him to counter something that is likely to be very disturbing and potentially disorienting? I have concluded that it might not be prudent to confront the extremely devout — one ought to work rather on the "borderline" cases, the ones who believe but who are not excessively emotionally attached to their convictions.

This is an excellent question that Randi doesn't directly answer. At the risk of sounding trite, I shall answer.

The difference between having faith in your parentage (the example to which silly beliefs are compared to) and having faith in God is that that man is most likely my father. What is most likely to be true is something that someone can belief in. For example, the sun will most likely rise in the morning for the rest of my life. These things are near self-evident, and are beliefs of a different nature than a belief in something that cannot even be proven to exist.

It's odd that small assumptive beliefs and large, irrational beliefs are both called by the same name. Perhaps there should be two words instead of one.

 

[DVFinn]

is it permissible for me to tamper with someone else's thought processes

Yes, it's called communicating. The negative sounding phrase, "...tamper[ing] with someone else's thought processes." describes any exchange of ideas. How could we hope to advance knowledge of any kind if we were prohibited from raising objections to ideas? Rhetorical nonsense.

Is it proper of me to demonstrate to a believer, through step-by-step reasoning, why he ought not to believe in God? Am I not forcing him to counter something that is likely to be very disturbing and potentially disorienting?

You can't force them to believe anything. Try it and see. It's no more improper to point out the falacy of a supernatural belief then for them to point out the belief itself, unless of course they ask you to go away and leave them alone.

I have concluded that it might not be prudent to confront the extremely devout — one ought to work rather on the "borderline" cases, the ones who believe but who are not excessively emotionally attached to their convictions.

It may yield better results if you pick your battles, but no one is immune from the truth. You can't make people listen if they don't want to, but if they're willing to hear you out then their emotional frailty shouldn't be a concern.

There is an odd assumption in this country (and elsewhere) that a rational naturalistic view of the world is somehow offensive while any sort of "spiritual" mumbo jumbo is acceptable whether it's of the New Age or Old Time Religion flavor. Woo Woos are portrayed as "deep" and skeptics are seen as closed minded.

When we bite our tongues because we are afraid to raise a conflict to the opinions of the theistic majority we further marginalize our own position.

There was a guy who used to work with me who claimed I was the only atheist he ever met. I told him that I was probably just the only one that he was aware of because I'm open about my opinions. I have changed nothing about the guy's opinions or beliefs, but at least now he can identify an atheist with a real person. I like to think it may be harder for him to blindly accept the idea that "dave is going to hell" as opposed to "atheists are going to hell"

Than again I fired him, so maybe a bad example.

 

[AlienX]

I understand the dilema but many people "preach" their belief systems with no such worries.

Arguably you could say that they have HAD their thought processes tampered with in the first place and all Randi is doing is putting forward his belief system which just happens to be counter to theirs. I don't see a problem with that.

I'm not certain that the non borderline believers are open minded enough to listen and believe Randi (or any skeptic) in the first place. So logically speaking it would follow that only those who will be affected are borderline believers anyway.

AX

 

[Suggestologist]

This is an excellent question that Randi doesn't directly answer. At the risk of sounding trite, I shall answer.

The difference between having faith in your parentage (the example to which silly beliefs are compared to) and having faith in God is that that man is most likely my father. What is most likely to be true is something that someone can belief in. For example, the sun will most likely rise in the morning for the rest of my life. These things are near self-evident, and are beliefs of a different nature than a belief in something that cannot even be proven to exist.

It's odd that small assumptive beliefs and large, irrational beliefs are both called by the same name. Perhaps there should be two words instead of one.

The difference is that there is very little emotion attached to the belief of the sun coming up tomorrow.

 

[Suggestologist]

There is an odd assumption in this country (and elsewhere) that a rational naturalistic view of the world is somehow offensive while any sort of "spiritual" mumbo jumbo is acceptable whether it's of the New Age or Old Time Religion flavor. Woo Woos are portrayed as "deep" and skeptics are seen as closed minded.

That's probably partly due to the fact that while skeptics rarely understand the topics they are debunking as much as the believers, the skeptic is often ultimately right, and the believer ultimately wrong, about the fundamental "reality" of what is going on. Still, the fundamental "reality" is not always as important as the existential product of the belief: it's usefulness.

When we bite our tongues because we are afraid to raise a conflict to the opinions of the theistic majority we further marginalize our own position.

If they're emotionally stable, I don't see a problem with that. Indeed, RET (rational-emotive therapy) often challenges the religious ideas of patients, when those ideas contribute to entrenchment of psychological problems. Just remember, that when you pull the table legs out from under the believer, the believer needs something just as sturdy to keep his table from toppling. If you can't provide that level of support, don't try to pull them out.

 

[DrMatt]

Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

The difference is that there is very little emotion attached to the belief of the sun coming up tomorrow.

The heck! If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, we're all in deep doo doo.

 

[Suggestologist]

Re: Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

The heck! If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, we're all in deep doo doo.

That doesn't mean that anybody pays attention to it. If all the oxygen in the air dissappeared tomorrow morning, we'd also be in deep doo doo, but nobody cares because it's taken for granted -- thus very little emotional attachment. Very few phobias of such things exist.

 

[DVFinn]

That's probably partly due to the fact that while skeptics rarely understand the topics they are debunking as much as the believers,

Actually I've usually found just the opposite to be the case. I'm constantly amazed how little believers know about the subjects they so ardently cling to. This seems especially true in the case of religion. Very rarely have I found in debates with christians that they have much if any knowledge about the origin or history of their own religion.

 

[Suggestologist]

Actually I've usually found just the opposite to be the case. I'm constantly amazed how little believers know about the subjects they so ardently cling to. This seems especially true in the case of religion. Very rarely have I found in debates with christians that they have much if any knowledge about the origin or history of their own religion.

Ah, but you see, they may know less about the "boring" construction of the early church, and more about the "important" things that Jesus said, did, preached, whatever - and the meaning of that, or something. Don't confuse what they think is important with what you would think was important if you were in their position.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

The difference is that there is very little emotion attached to the belief of the sun coming up tomorrow.

That's true for the tropics, maybe, and places with electrical or petrochemical heating. But there's a hell of a lot of emotion associated with the sun's coming up in Alaska or northern Norway. People go nuts when it's dark and cold--ever hear of Seasonal Affective Disorder? They also go giddy and a bit nuts after the spring thaw.

Furthermore, in the days without electrical or petrochemical heating and when certain foodstuffs simply could not be gotten in winter, there was a hell of a lot of emotion associated with the sun's coming up almost everywhere.

 

[Suggestologist]

Re: Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

That's true for the tropics, maybe, and places with electrical or petrochemical heating. But there's a hell of a lot of emotion associated with the sun's coming up in Alaska or northern Norway. People go nuts when it's dark and cold--ever hear of Seasonal Affective Disorder? They also go giddy and a bit nuts after the spring thaw.

Furthermore, in the days without electrical or petrochemical heating and when certain foodstuffs simply could not be gotten in winter, there was a hell of a lot of emotion associated with the sun's coming up almost everywhere.

Seasonal Affective Disorder sufferers do not necessarily know why they are being affected. You can always find counterexamples, but I stated that its rare, not that it doesn't occur. Compare the number of elevator-phobias to the number of sun-not-coming-up-tomorrow-morning phobias and you'll find that elevators are responsible for many times more phobias.

In the past many more people worshipped the sun, today they worship more abstract conceptions.

 

[davefoc]

I was moved by this section of Randi's commentary.

I have wondered about that for him and for myself and I enjoyed seeing his musings on the subject.

For me there is this to be said in favor of the particular crusade that Randi has taken on:

1. There were always many in the population who didn't believe the conventional wisdom about religion. Throughout history most non-believers have lived in fear of the religious majority. People like Randi that have the courage to publicly challenge the religious powers that be make it much easier for us more private non-believers to exist without fear of retribution from the religious establishment.

2. There always exist in society a group of cynical people who coldly exploit the believers. Randi plays a small role in making it a little more difficult for some of this scum to succeed.

Beyond these two areas (which are very important in my mind), Randi, probably has only a small influence on the population as a whole. Believers find it easy enough to discount somebody like Randi and his ideas and non-believers already agree pretty much with Randi's view of the world.

I think it is reasonable that he restrain himself from attempting to change the minds of dedicated believers. I hink he rightly understands both that these people are unlikely to change their views and are the people who are likely to suffer the most mental anquish with discsussion of their core beliefs.

 

[Mel]

Perhaps, one should ask what BENEFIT is there in rocking someone elses firm religious belief?

If you take away a person's sense of 'comfort' are you in any way responsible for the sense of emotional void you have created?

What has society gained by stripping a few people here & there of their beliefs while millions more STILL believe and WILL continue to believe?

Also, why is there a need for everyone to conform to the same belief (or lack of)... when 'they' cannot prove god exists just as 'you' cannot prove beyond a doubt that he/she/it doesn't exist?

And can you say for sure that the total irradication of a belief in god would make our world a better place??

Wouldn't humankind quickly find something to replace the lack of a god? I believe they would.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

Seasonal Affective Disorder sufferers do not necessarily know why they are being affected. You can always find counterexamples, but I stated that its rare, not that it doesn't occur.

To anybody who feels slighted, I apologize for overestimating the intelligence of Northern Europeans.

Compare the number of elevator-phobias to the number of sun-not-coming-up-tomorrow-morning phobias and you'll find that elevators are responsible for many times more phobias.

I've never actually met anyone who was afraid of elevators. Met a couple of people who were afraid of flying, and they were both pretty fat. I've met lots of people who were_afraid of hellfire.

 

[Suggestologist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should we tamper with belief?

To anybody who feels slighted, I apologize for overestimating the intelligence of Northern Europeans.

I've never actually met anyone who was afraid of elevators. Met a couple of people who were afraid of flying, and they were both pretty fat. I've met lots of people who were_afraid of hellfire.

Exactly my point. Hellfire is a much more emotionally charged concept than the sun coming up tomorrow morning -- which most people take for granted and rarely care to think about.

Scientific facts are very bland on an emotional level for most people; you cannot compare them to religious emotional attachment -- unless you find ways to spice them up.

 

[Quinn]

And can you say for sure that the total irradication of a belief in god would make our world a better place??

Can't say for certain, but it's a bet I'd happily take. I'd much rather deal with a planet full of people who understood that they alone were responsible for their own, and each others', happiness and sadness, and that this turn on the planet is all they get, so they'd best make the most of it.

Wouldn't humankind quickly find something to replace the lack of a god? I believe they would.

You're probably right. Hopefully, they would replace it with what many on this board and elsewhere have replaced it with: the ecstatic, liberating, mind-blowing knowledge that they have within themselves the power to lead an amazing and fulfilling life, and to help others do the same, without imaginary friends.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Actually I've usually found just the opposite to be the case. I'm constantly amazed how little believers know about the subjects they so ardently cling to...

It's equally amazing how little they even read their own Bible. There are whole tracts of it that rarely if ever get read by the average Christian, mostly because they raise too many difficult questions for the churches to answer.

There's not a Jew or Christian alive who doesn't pick and choose among the many mandates laid out in the Bible. A la carte religion, if you will.

 

[Donn]

Tampering with belief in Aliens and Illuminati and other bollocks.

I have a friend who after a 20 year gap I have run into again and he is, to my utter shock and horror, a very zealous Conspiracy Theorist (I there is such a thing)

He sends me lots of emails, usually entitled "Interesting...", that then contain fiction ranging from his own brand of Newage (Stargates and vibrations and Planet X) to stuff he gets from Hoaxland's site.

I have recently (in the general forum) started a few threads about the colour of the Mars images because he thinks them to be a NASA plot of some stripe. I have also been asking for advice about how to counter his polemics against science and so forth.

The question I ask now, perhaps rhetorically, is whether I should reply to his mindset and attempt to whittle away at the logical inconsistencies - thus trying to force him to see his errors - or just ignore the stuff he sends and let him live on in his own little world of self-deception and delusion? Could he be dangerous for e.g? if I pushed too hard at the walls of his self-imposed comfort-zone.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Tampering with belief in Aliens and Illuminati and other bollocks.

Could he be dangerous for e.g? if I pushed too hard at the walls of his self-imposed comfort-zone.

It wouldn't make the slightest Goddamn bit of difference

 

[davefoc]

Donn asked:

The question I ask now, perhaps rhetorically, is whether I should reply to his mindset and attempt to whittle away at the logical inconsistencies

I think BillyJoe is essentially correct.

I would be interested in reading about the results of an effort by you to modify your friend's beliefs, but I think it would be very difficult to become well versed enough in the minutia of his various beliefs to make a reasonable attempt.

When an individual departs from the use of Occam's razor in any substantial way in the formation of his views it seems like the views become supported by a meandering mass of minutia that doesn't lend itself to easy rebuttle, because rebuttle can be refuted so easily by just meandering some place else in the fact pool associated with the belief.

I think the homeopathy threads in this forum and others are perfect examples of what I am talking about. The skeptic says and thinks something like "it's plain water, and in the absence of extraordinary proof, plain water is no more effective as a treatment than plain water".

However the homeopathic believer quickly departs from this Occam's razor type view and starts meandering through a massive pool of information about homeopathy that just gets continuously larger as the believers pour more apocryphal and fraudulent crap into the evidence pool. No amount of appeal to straightforward reasoning like lack failure of clinical trials, failure to submit claims for million dollar prize, etc. will have any effect on the believers views as the facts are easily countered when one has a non-Occam's razor type view of the world. And an attempt to discuss things on their own level by meandering through the massive pool of homeopathic information with them will not have any effect either because even if there is some difficulty with any particular evidence in that pool one can always meander some place else in it.