# So what is wrong with just "believing"?



## Lisa (Jun 4, 2007)

I have been around this board long enough to have seen more then a few discussions and arguments regarding spirituality and religion.  I have seen zealots on both sides argue their point vehemently to the point of insults, threats, suspension and bannings.  I find the whole situation sad and usually I stay the heck out of it cause it makes my head spin and sometimes my blood boil.

So, I have a question.  What is wrong with just believing?  What is wrong with believing in something that you can not prove with an absolute?  I started thinking about this when I posted in the "angels" thread about believing in angels because it made me feel closer to those I had lost.

What is really wrong with that?  Why is it that some people need to have things "proven" while others base things on belief.  What is wrong with just believing in something that makes you feel more secure with why things are in the world and where you will end up when it is all said and done?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2007)

Lisa said:


> So, I have a question.  What is wrong with just believing?  What is wrong with believing in something that you can not prove with an absolute?



Nothing, unless...

It effects your judgement on things that there is a solid basis for belief on.  Just "believing" that your God has commanded you to kill of infidels is wrong, at least IMO.

You try and push your beliefs, which lack basis, on other people who demand a basis for there beliefs.

You use your beliefs, that have no substantiating evidence in order to prove a point against someone who's beliefs do have evidence.

You use your beliefs that have no supporting evidence to effect law and the moral choices of others.  Homosexuality = abomination because the bible says so.

Basically you can believe whatever you want, if you keep it a personal issue.  Once it goes beyond that it can cause problems.

And the "Absolute" phrasing is a straw man, no one wants absolute proof.  That's impossible for most things.  What is asked for is solid supporting evidence that makes predictions which can be verified. "Cognito ergo sum" is basically the end of it as far as absolute goes


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

What's wrong with just believing?  Nothing at all.  Everyone has a set of beliefs, something they can rely on to orient themselves and put their mind at ease.  It doesn't really matter what it is either.

The problems begin when it becomes more than just believing.  When it becomes believing you are right and everyone else is wrong.  When it becomes a need to make others believe the way you do.  That is when things begin to go wrong.

I am a follower of Daoist philosophy but I am fascinated by physics, especially modern astro and nuclear physics, am interested in religions of all kinds, though I don't prescribe to any, and am interested in spiritualism and its various manifestations.  I have friends who are Catholic and atheist, and Muslim, and Jewish.  But at no time do I question their beliefs or try to change them to believing what I believe.  

That would be wrong.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 4, 2007)

For every spiritual person "pushing his beliefs" on another there is a person painting every spiritual person as a gap toothed, cousin lovin redneck with a "W" bumpersticker on his pick-up truck. I believe (here in the US at least) that a substantial majority of people consider themselves as persons of faith. I also believe that the knee-jerk "anti-spirituals" are covering just as many insecurities and "issues" as a bible thumper.

Dont believe whatever you want, if you keep it a personal issue. Once it goes into stamping all spiritual beliefs out of the public realm it can cause problems.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 4, 2007)

Andrew and Steel Tiger have both hit on points I would have made, except they beat me to it!  You can believe anything you want... right up to the point where where it justifies injuring those who have different beliefs, in the name of "punishing" them or "bringing them to the light" or however you want to phrase it.

As a member of a minority religion (Judaism) I have been approached by people across the spectrum of telling me why my beliefs are wrong - mostly centering on the concept that I am damned to eternal perdition because I don't believe in Christ as the Messiah - and they are welcome to their opinions, just as I am welcome to mine.

To answer your question more directly, I think that the reason why people are so passionate about "believing" is because, for many people, no matter how intelligent, informed, educated, etc., that they are, faith is an emotional reaction.  Certainly, there are plenty of people who have investigated their religion of choice - sometimes in the religion in which they are raised, and sometimes across a variety of religions - and have _chosen_, consciously, at some point to _believe_ - to believe in something abstract, something for which there is no objective proof, even if they look at inexplicable events and decide that they are the proof necessary to substantiate their _belief_.  This emotional base - no matter how deep it is, no matter how much it is overlaid with research, with fact, with things that can be _proven_ - is why people react the way they do.  And because they have made a decision on an emotional level, they will accept circular reasoning of a type they would not accept anywhere else - for example when asked, "why do you believe" they may answer with something like "I believe because the Bible tell me to"; when asked "how do you know that the Bible is true?" they may then answer "because my faith tells me that it is".

Unlike scientific data, or mathematical concepts, _faith_, or _belief_ can be neither proven nor disproven.  And because the basis for _belief_ is emotional, the response to challenges to that belief is emotional as well.  Certainly, there are people who believe that the Bible is the literal truth; there are those who believe the Bible is allegory; there are people who believe the Bible is oral history distorted by time and the interpretation of the scribes; there are people who believe that the Bible is significant as the oldest and/or most widely spread piece of literature on the planet; there are people who believe the Bible is not significant; there are many other beliefs as well, along with gradations between each of those listed.  

No matter what you believe, no matter how strong your faith, no matter how many facts you use to substantiate what you believe, at the base it is an emotional response - and therefore challenges to that belief tend to bring those emotions to the surface.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I believe (here in the US at least) that a substantial majority of people consider themselves as persons of faith.



More so in the US then other developed countries.  But those with some belif outweigh those with none up here as well.



> I also believe that the knee-jerk "anti-spirituals" are covering just as many insecurities and "issues" as a bible thumper.



Any attempts to polarize the issue are ridiculous, because it is not a black and white issue.

Peoples beliefs span a very wide range, it is not 2 groups lining up on opposite sides.  One side religious, the other not.

You could look at 2 Christians and a atheist and find that the beliefs between the atheist and one of the Christians are actually closer then between the 2 Christians.  Christian belief, the dominate one in North America, spans a very large range.

You could also take 2 atheists and a Christian and find that the beliefs of the Christian and one of the atheists are closer then between the two atheists, because among atheists there is a wide spectrum as well.


----------



## Callandor (Jun 4, 2007)

Nothing is wrong with believing. Some things are better understood when felt or experienced rather than when explained or reasoned. So:

Q: What's wrong with believing?
A: What's wrong with believing!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 4, 2007)

I've stated my beliefs here before and didn't care if other people didn't like them. It's not for me to decide what someone wants to believe in and I'll stand by my own personal right to believe what I want to believe in. If it's not jiving with what the other person wants to believe then that's fine... it's their right and not my own to try and change them. 
So many people seem to forget that. So many people sadly don't want to accept that. So many people WANT to be right in their beliefs... what does that say? Their not wholly sure about their own beliefs... and that's sad. What I see is simple fear. They're afraid of being mocked, they're afraid of being rejected, they're afraid of being WRONG. It's natural it's universal isn't it? Well yeah, sure. If you're allowing it to happen. 
I've gotten into an (one sided) argument with my brother about certain beliefs. He got all mad and bent out of shape and was raising his voice. The beliefs were far and above his own range of experience of what he's learned about his faith. The ideas were radical and different and totally unexpected. He asked a lot of questions however that I wasn't able to answer... but later when I got the answer to ONE of his questions he took it as scornfully as he could and said it's an "out". Instead of being mad I just let it go. Some people don't WANT to be convinced or WANT to hear truth when it's given to them. 
Soooo, :idunno: nothing I *can* do about it. Nothing I *will* do about it. Because also... it's not my place to *JUDGE*. 
If I'm not mistaken it's stated somewhere in scripture that "...we are responsible for our *own* salvation..." (if we *choose* to believe that there is a salvation to be had). Thus meaning for me that we are responsible for our own beliefs and how strongly we will cling and defend them. 
Defend them? Yeah, defend. Problem is people take that word literally and do so vehemently. To me defending your faith is standing by it and LIVING it while allowing others to go on their own ways. 
"Hmm, well, if that's what they want to believe... okay. I'll stick to what makes ME feel good and let them stick to what makes THEM feel good. And all the while I'll be the best person I can be, be the best friend that I can be and respect as best as I can while asking to be respected."  
Sounds rather cheeky doesn't it? Sounds hokey, unrealistic, a fantasy? Maybe... but it's something along those lines. 

There's a lot more I can say about this... but  it would be getting into my own personal belief system. 

In short... there's not a damn thing wrong with simply believing.


----------



## Ray (Jun 4, 2007)

I suppose it is our right to "just believe" if we want to. 

I try to keep in mind "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into the world."  and "if ye will awake and arouse your faculties , even to an experiement upon my words and excercise a particle of faith..." 

To me, it makes sense in religion, philosophy, science and business to test things to see whether they are true.  No one would be very secure in their footing if they just believed whatever they were told by whomever.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 5, 2007)

To believe is fine but that dose make your belief real
to disbelieve is fine but that dose not make it unreal 

believing is a persons own personal inner property and no amount of discussion, argument , etc. will usually change that  belief in a person


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 5, 2007)

Lisa, I would say that your question has at least two predicate questions. 

What is it that you are 'believing'?
What actions does your belief cause you to take?
I believe that any two objects that have mass, exert a gravitational force toward each other. Personally, there is no way that I can prove this to you, athough others probably can (a priest or rabbi of forces, if you will).

Having this belief, I will not ever be convinced that were I to step off a cliff, I will be able to fly. This belief keeps me safe. 

Having this belief, if something comes out of a pocket, unexpectedly, I would know which direction to start looking for the object (down). This belief helps me predict specific occurances. 


I believe that if I stop drinking McDonalds' milk shakes, I may lose a little bit of weight (a personal hope, more than a belief. I drink too many milkshakes - I'm currently attempting to abstain).

I understand the relationship between calories and weight. I know that McDonalds offers coffee to drink, as well as milkshakes. I hope that if I order coffee instead of milkshakes when I am travelling during the day, I won't substitute other calories elsewhere, later in the day. And may be able to lose a few pounds by this change. Only time will tell. 


If I believe there is a grandfatherly supernatual being that created me, loves me, and wants me to make specific choices, else he will extert an eternal punishment ... what are the consequences of those beliefs? Will this belief cause me to take an action that is unhealthy for myself? (for instance, evangelical Christian teenagers become sexually active at a younger age than their non-evengelical peers. Although with all young people, safer sexual practices are less frequently and less properly used).

If we look at the beliefs in a supernatural being, and look at the actions taken by those with those beliefs, I think we get a better understanding of the actual question you ask; 'what is wrong with believing'.


I was heavily involved in christian beliefs before I came to athiesm. I am also a recovering alcoholic ~ which through AA sort of demands a belief in a 'higher power'. And in my experience, one of my favorite passeges in the Christian Bible is where we are admonished to pray in private; do not demonstrate in the streets, but 'enter into the closet, and pray in secret'.


If you have a personal belief that helps you come to decisions in your life, or comforts you in some way, I am not certain there is anything not 'right' about the choice to believe. It is when your belief begins to makes demands of me, that it becomes an issue.

Of course, the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of belief is not the same thing as the 'reasonableness' of belief. We should always recognize the difference there, as well.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 5, 2007)

See..theres the problem. Everybody knows that a regular diet of McDonalds milkshakes is unhealthy. Implying that regular spiritual practice results in kids having early sex? Thats an assumpton of causality with no proof.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 5, 2007)

Nothing is wrong with belief!

However, the actions someone takes? :idunno:  Well that could be a different story.


----------



## Ray (Jun 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I believe that any two objects that have mass, exert a gravitational force toward each other. Personally, there is no way that I can prove this to you, athough others probably can (a priest or rabbi of forces, if you will).
> 
> Having this belief, I will not ever be convinced that were I to step off a cliff, I will be able to fly. This belief keeps me safe.
> 
> Having this belief, if something comes out of a pocket, unexpectedly, I would know which direction to start looking for the object (down). This belief helps me predict specific occurances.


Aye, there's the rub --- it is only necessary to believe that things will fall down (in our normal circumstances), whether we believe it is due to mass attracting other mass, or mass creating a distortion of space, or whether we believe that things just fall down cause that's the way it is; our resultant actions will be the same.  ( For most of us earth-bound, non-trajectory-calculating people, it's all the same. )

But it certainly is more entertaining and fulfilling to know the why of it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I believe that any two objects that have mass, exert a gravitational force toward each other. Personally, there is no way that I can prove this to you, athough others probably can (a priest or rabbi of forces, if you will).
> 
> Having this belief, I will not ever be convinced that were I to step off a cliff, I will be able to fly. This belief keeps me safe.



Your belief and your reasons have a disconnect.  For you to believe that stepping off a cliff will make you fall does not require you to believe that 2 objects with mass will exert a force towards each other.  Just that things fall down.  Aristotles description, basically things fall down because it is in there nature, serves just as well for that purpose.

In fact I think that while you know the theory intellectually, that things of mass attract, in reality that's not how your brain processes things.  It's complicating the explanation when it isn't needed.  Theoretically I understand that my monitor and my phone exert a gravitational force on each other, but in reality that understanding has nothing to do with how I interact with the world.

Basically that Occam's Razor principle.

For all our purposes, 99.9% of the worlds population functions just fine based on nothing but "Stuff falls down" as a theory of gravity, even if they intellectually know that it is more complex, that is what they use to function.



> Having this belief, if something comes out of a pocket, unexpectedly, I would know which direction to start looking for the object (down). This belief helps me predict specific occurances.



People understood that stuff that falls out of there pocket ends up on the ground long before Newton.  Simple induction without any theory gives you that.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 5, 2007)

I suspect this has to do with a disparity of values and priorities.

Some of us (such as myself) happen to believe that the truth is an endeavor worth pursuing in and of itself. Whether it makes me feel "good" or not is irrelevant to me, because I believe finding the truth has its own intrinsic value. 

In fact, I would argue it is noble to pursue the truth in the face of discomfort or opposition (even violence). Humanity tends to posthumously revere those that do just that.

I can't really say there's anything wrong with "just" believing. The problem is that this is a public discussion forum and you shouldn't expect others to accommodate your beliefs just because you're the one doing the believing.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 5, 2007)

Ray and Andrew Green, you both said pretty much the same thing, as I understand it. 

That "things fall down" regardless of why my belief is. You posit that whether I choose to believe in Newtonian physics (gravity) or not, the result will be the same.

But, can we use this argument as analogy for things without an obvious relationship; 

I believe it was a guardian angel that brought the hot air balloon over that field just as our third tank of fuel was running dry.
I believe it was a guardian angel that cause me to slow my car down just before I reached that speed trap.
Here, the 'nature of things' can not explain the result. Into these actions, we push our belief in guardian angels. Which begs the question, why doesn't the guardian angel prevent everyone from getting a speeding ticket?


I suppose one could argue the underlying cause of the belief in gravity is irrelevant - it could be because 'Mother Earth is greedy and reaches out to take everything from us' - yet I choose to recognize what we all induce from observation according to the law of gravity.

I do this because I can take this principle and apply it to otherworldly things, just as effectively. My one belief allows me to understand danger in high places, and why a comet shows up every 76 years, and why galaxies look the way the do, and why the moon doesn't float away from Earth. Some of those things don't fit into the "Stuff falls down" paradigm. 

Occam's Razor allows me to have one belief that explains many, seemingly, disconnected things.


----------



## Ray (Jun 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray and Andrew Green, you both said pretty much the same thing, as I understand it.
> 
> That "things fall down" regardless of why my belief is. You posit that whether I choose to believe in Newtonian physics (gravity) or not, the result will be the same.
> 
> ...


You may have meant your initial mention of things falling down as an analogy.  I meant my response to the instance, not the generality of your suggestion; your resultant generalization of a specific is an incorrect application.  

In other words, a civilization or person may be smart enough to understand that things fall down and the dangers associated with it in an early stage of development -- not necessarily developed enough to argue about gravitons and so on -- but developed enough for the majority to avoid great falls.  On the other hand, those who are developed enough to make a hot air balloon understand the connection between the fuel tank and the bouyant (sp) hot air.

I, for one, believe that there is gravity.  There are evidences, but none that I personally have experienced beyond "things fall down."


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 5, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I have been around this board long enough to have seen more then a few discussions and arguments regarding spirituality and religion. I have seen zealots on both sides argue their point vehemently to the point of insults, threats, suspension and bannings. I find the whole situation sad and usually I stay the heck out of it cause it makes my head spin and sometimes my blood boil.
> 
> So, I have a question. What is wrong with just believing? What is wrong with believing in something that you can not prove with an absolute? I started thinking about this when I posted in the "angels" thread about believing in angels because it made me feel closer to those I had lost.
> 
> What is really wrong with that? Why is it that some people need to have things "proven" while others base things on belief. What is wrong with just believing in something that makes you feel more secure with why things are in the world and where you will end up when it is all said and done?




Lisa,

I have never had an issue with anyone believeing in something.  My issues raised here in the past were the use of "GOD" in the Pledge for the USA Flag. Also on our money. When they were first created they were not there. They were added later by those who could not just let others be, but wanted to make sure that others had to follow what they wanted. 

All I want is for my government to not tell me what I should or have to believe. 

So, I have no problems with people next door to me believing in Kali as a god of war or Thor, or Athena or in the other religions, including not believing at all. 

Thanks


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2007)

Lisa said:


> What is wrong with just believing? What is wrong with believing in something that you can not prove with an absolute?


 
I would say the biggest problem that I can see is the disconnect of a persons reasoning.  In order to just "believe" something, you have to stop asking questions.  You have to stop probing.  You may even ignore evidence that contradicts what you believe.  

I can think of quite a few examples where suspending your disbelief has proven to be bad outright.  But I think that even with innocent things, like angels or heaven or faeries or even Santa Clause, suspending your disbelief can make it easier to do it in other realms.  

Lastly, I think that it leaves you open to manipulation.  When you cease to question, when you cease to probe for the truth, when you cease to disbelieve, all it takes is for someone to weave the right message into that area of your life...and you will succumb to the suggestion without question.


----------

