You don’t have a right to believe whatever you want to
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo by Ben Brooks/Flickr
Do we have the right to believe whatever we want to believe? This supposed right is often claimed as the last resort of the wilfully ignorant, the person who is cornered by evidence and mounting opinion: ‘I believe climate change is a hoax whatever anyone else says, and I have a right to believe it!’ But is there such a right?
We do recognise the right to know certain things. I have a right to know the conditions of my employment, the physician’s diagnosis of my ailments, the grades I achieved at school, the name of my accuser and the nature of the charges, and so on. But belief is not knowledge.
Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer.
Such judgments can imply that believing is a voluntary act. But beliefs are often more like states of mind or attitudes than decisive actions. Some beliefs, such as personal values, are not deliberately chosen; they are ‘inherited’ from parents and ‘acquired’ from peers, acquired inadvertently, inculcated by institutions and authorities, or assumed from hearsay. For this reason, I think, it is not always the coming-to-hold-this-belief that is problematic; it is rather the sustaining of such beliefs, the refusal to disbelieve or discard them that can be voluntary and ethically wrong.
If the content of a belief is judged morally wrong, it is also thought to be false. The belief that one race is less than fully human is not only a morally repugnant, racist tenet; it is also thought to be a false claim – though not by the believer. The falsity of a belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a belief to be morally wrong; neither is the ugliness of the content sufficient for a belief to be morally wrong. Alas, there are indeed morally repugnant truths, but it is not the believing that makes them so. Their moral ugliness is embedded in the world, not in one’s belief about the world.
‘Who are you to tell me what to believe?’ replies the zealot. It is a misguided challenge: it implies that certifying one’s beliefs is a matter of someone’s authority. It ignores the role of reality. Believing has what philosophers call a ‘mind-to-world direction of fit’. Our beliefs are intended to reflect the real world – and it is on this point that beliefs can go haywire. There are irresponsible beliefs; more precisely, there are beliefs that are acquired and retained in an irresponsible way. One might disregard evidence; accept gossip, rumour, or testimony from dubious sources; ignore incoherence with one’s other beliefs; embrace wishful thinking; or display a predilection for conspiracy theories .
In exploring the varieties of religious experience, James would remind us that the ‘right to believe’ can establish a climate of religious tolerance. Those religions that define themselves by required beliefs (creeds) have engaged in repression, torture and countless wars against non-believers that can cease only with recognition of a mutual ‘right to believe’. Yet, even in this context, extremely intolerant beliefs cannot be tolerated. Rights have limits and carry responsibilities.
Unfortunately, many people today seem to take great licence with the right to believe, flouting their responsibility. The wilful ignorance and false knowledge that are commonly defended by the assertion ‘I have a right to my belief’ do not meet James’s requirements. Consider those who believe that the lunar landings or the Sandy Hook school shooting were unreal, government-created dramas; that Barack Obama is Muslim; that the Earth is flat; or that climate change is a hoax. In such cases, the right to believe is proclaimed as a negative right; that is, its intent is to foreclose dialogue, to deflect all challenges; to enjoin others from interfering with one’s belief-commitment. The mind is closed, not open for learning. They might be ‘true believers’, but they are not believers in the truth.
Believing, like willing, seems fundamental to autonomy, the ultimate ground of one’s freedom. But, as Clifford also remarked: ‘No one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone.’ Beliefs shape attitudes and motives, guide choices and actions. Believing and knowing are formed within an epistemic community, which also bears their effects. There is an ethic of believing, of acquiring, sustaining, and relinquishing beliefs – and that ethic both generates and limits our right to believe. If some beliefs are false, or morally repugnant, or irresponsible, some beliefs are also dangerous. And to those, we have no right.
Tags
Who is online
461 visitors
This article is not simple. It requires thought from the reader. If you do not want to read carefully and Reply thoughtfully and with pertinence... please do not Reply at all. Thank you.
I have the right to do my own research from a variety of sources and come to a conclusion, which could be called a belief. I was force-fed Christianity as a young person but it never took because the evidence was lacking and there were too many inconsistencies about the narrative. My current belief is that all religion is a product of human imagination seeking some kind of answer. I cannot believe that we are the only form of life in the Universe...it's just too vast and timeless. I believe in a very old earth and in evolution....the preponderance of evidence from all kind of types of scientific disciplines is overwhelming. But I cannot say the same of climate change, which relies on too many assumptions that lack scientific rigor. The older I get, the less I am influenced by the beliefs of others or supposed authorities or "experts".
Do we have the right to believe whatever we want to believe?
IMO: Freedom of thought is essential to happiness and growth.
Interesting sentence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "freedom of thought". How can thought not be free?
The seed is about "belief". Do you consider "thought" and "belief" to be synonyms? The seed puts no limits on thought but does put limits on belief.
No, so I may be a bit off topic
Beliefs are the product of thoughts. Thoughts lead to beliefs. Freedom of thought is essential to belief. Unless brainwashed which is lack of freedom of thought resulting in no freedom of belief.
My original reply was what came to mind after carefully reading the seed. I'll expand:
I believe freedom of thought (and belief) is essential to happiness and growth so therefor I guess I do believe we have a "right" to "believe" whatever we choose.
However, that right changes if we choose to disseminate that belief outward.
..................................................
Do we have any kind of "moral" obligation to seeking truth in our beliefs ? I'd say yes.
How does that square with the excerpt I quoted:
Doesn't reality constrain what we "may" believe?
As I said, we have a kind of "moral" obligation to seeking truth in our beliefs.
However because we are constantly discovering and redefining our "reality" who is to specify what is reality ?
If no one ever looked beyond known "reality" we would not advance.
IMO: Our knowledge of reality is constantly expanding, if not reality itself.
.................................................................
If some beliefs are false, or morally repugnant, or irresponsible, some beliefs are also dangerous. And to those, we have no right.
once again because beliefs come from thoughts, yes we do have the right to hold false beliefs.
Take an alcoholic for example they have the right to believe they can have one more drink ... dangerous belief... YES.. however perfectly legal and their right.
Indeed.
As the seed says
The crux is in our choice of "reliable sources", I guess... Will we "believe" Alex Jones?
I believe...lol
that IF a person has a solid established non-restricted (freedom) environment to grow and learn and experiment with, they will learn enough reality to be able to ( the majority of times and circumstances) be able to separate fact from fiction.
Ever hear the saying , "I can spot a conman a mile off" ?
A major exception to this would be a person who had been brainwashed and or restricted in their intake of reality. So their "established" base of knowledge needed to "Judge" reality would be biased.
The scientific method is essential to freedom of thought.
Off-topic. Please stay on topic. Thank you.
If the scientific method, that is used to separate fact from unsupported belief, is off topic then there isn't much to discuss in this thread.
if we want to stay on topic? we must agree that we all need to be told what to believe.
imagine the chaos if everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs? OMG the humanity of it all... LOL
Cheers
Without freedom of thought and freedom of belief, there is no freedom of speech.
Man are we off topic
"Freedom of speech" is definitely off-topic. If we go there, we will never get back to the actual topic of the seed. Please stick to "the right to believe whatever we want". Thank you.
The right to come to your own conclusions is essential for progress. There was a time when all the experts and all the published scientific date said that Homosexuality was a Mental Illness, by your rules those conclusions would never, could never have been Challenged and proven wrong. Secondly the fact that we have freedom of religion proves we do have the right to believe anything we want even if it's unprovable and contradicts known scientific facts. The fact is if it were true that "we don't have the right to believe whatever we want" then the only permissible belief system would be the first one introduced, and in this Country that would be the Bible and any beliefs that run counter to Biblical teachings would be Illegal. By your rule the only acceptable beliefs would be at the very least a popularity contest or at the worst imposed by a totalitarian Government or Church, either way once the rule is enforced the world will never change because we wouldn't be allowed to think "WHY" or WHY NOT" or God forbid "WHAT IF".
Do you consider "come to your own conclusions" to be synonymous with "believe?
I have expressed no" rules. I didn't write the seed... but I don't see any "rules" in it, in any case. Your example proves that beliefs can be wrong, but what does it say about "believing whatever you want"?
And if it's evil? Requires human sacrifice? Still OK?
How do you figure? "You don't have the right to believe whatever you want" is not at all the same as "you must believe xxxxx".
Again... I did not write the seed... and it contains no "rules". Did you actually read it?
And that is how fascism flourishes. Sometimes folks of good conscience need to stifle it.
Off-topic. Please stay on topic. Thank you.
There is apparently nothing that is on-topic in this thread unless we all just agree with you, and that isn't a discussion. You need to decide if you want a discussion or do you just want people to agree with you?
Tomcraig tried to approach the subject from a constitutional rights point of you and you shut that down. Cjcold tried to approach it from a logical point of view and you also shut that down. What is it that you are trying to achieve in this thread, unless you just want people to agree with you that belief isnt the same as truth and that confusing beliefs for facts creates problems?
As I wrote in my First Comment:
I meant it. Just because the word "right" appears in the title does not mean that any Comment that includes the word "rights" is on-topic.
Anyone who has (as I specifically requested) "read carefully" knows that "Constitutional rights" are not in any way the topic. The Constitutional right of free speech is a good topic, and very often addressed on NT. Ad nauseum, IMHO. It's an easy topic, and if I let this conversation go down that road the seed will quickly be forgotten.
The scientific method is another easy topic, having nothing to do with the seed. And following that path would also lead to abandoning the seed.
As I wrote in my First Comment:
It would be hard to "agree with me", since I have expressed no opinion of my own. I have presented a thoughtful seed, in the hopes that members would read it with a minimum of care, and then Comment with a minimum of pertinence.
OTOH, the notions that you mention here ("belief isnt the same as truth", "confusing beliefs for facts creates problems") are a good preliminaries to actually getting to the seed. If you think those things, what are their consequences for what you allow yourself to believe?
There. Now you're on topic.
Bob,
The Scientific Method is a means of gaining a belief through observation and experimentation. When I talked about the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech, my point was it comes from being able to believe whatever you want and think whatever you wish to think about. When it comes to belief, EVERYTHING is ON TOPIC as each of us come to our beliefs in our own ways. Either by what we were taught by the people round us, our own experiences, or through our own observations and experimentations. The fact you are trying to take a 18 lane freeway and turn it into a narrow 2 lane road should bother you.
You're entitled to your opinion... and since the author has no more authority over their seed than any visitor... you are free to post whatever you wish.
That said... I would very much prefer that you read the seed and then post something in relation to it. If every visitor posts in a different direction, the result is an unpalatable goulash.
But hey! I'm just the seeder. Do as you please.
You have chocked off any chance of a discussion other than simply agreeing or disagreeing with you.
You also failed to credit the source and as such are claiming it as your own by default. That is plagiarism.
Not easy to either agree or disagree... since I haven't expressed any position on anything.
But hey! If you're pissed off, I'm happy to serve as a punching ball.
You previously stated that you believe in god, despite any supporting evidence.
Are you now saying or hinting that you prefer to put unsupported beliefs over facts that have objective empirical evidence to support them?
No.
Beliefs are factive
Not attempting to be disruptive, but off the top of my head I would say that religious beliefs belie this. To the best of my knowledge all mainstream religions are based on blind faith, there are no factual claims to substantiate their teachings that I am aware of.
Do folks have the right to believe? Of course they have the right, they just may not be right.
You're using "factive" backwards:
A religious believer takes their belief to be true.
Yes, but belief does not equal fact!
For the believer, it does.
We have AGW believers and AGW "anti-believers". Since climatology at this level is completely beyond the competence of even an enlightened amateur, both sides are operating on faith. They differ in their choice of "trustworthy sources".
For both sides... two opposing sides... belief equals fact.
But as I said, although they have the right to believe whatever they wish, it does not necessarily make them correct. Facts are facts whether one chooses to have concrete evidence supersede belief is up to the individual I suppose.
Why do folks do this? I honestly have no idea other than amending the actual to fit their version of our surroundings perhaps.
But not necessarily in reality.
Climatological issues like climate change has supporting objective empirical evidence. Therefore, no faith is required or necessary.
There's a lot to unpack in such a short post...
Why do "they have the right to believe whatever they please"? On any topic? Regardless of consequences?
"Facts are facts." Ummmm.... Which ones? I don't seem to have the same facts as, say, President Trump. Which facts are facts?
"... whether one chooses to have concrete evidence supersede belief is up to the individual I suppose." Is that a choice? Is it possible to know something contrary to one's beliefs, but maintainthe beliefs anyway?
Belief is an emotionally-based alternative to logic and is an equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU"
For many people logical though is unnerving because it means that you may have to surrender or question your currently held beliefs, and there are some people who cannot do that because they are afraid of the consequences.
Do you "believe" in AGW?
Why would believing in something preclude listening to others? If a belief cannot support conversation, it's a sadly weak belief. A healthy belief welcomes discussion because it demonstrates the belief's strength.
I agree... On the condition that we insist on "many people", which is not the same as "all believers".
In many cases, beliefs (not limited to religious beliefs) are acquired involuntarily, inherited from parents, imposed by one's tribe, and so on. Such a belief has no foundation. The holder never learned "why" the belief is "true", and therefore feels vulnerable if someone starts asking questions. Which raises the question (getting back to the seed): Do we have the right to believe something if we haven't given it enough thought to defend it in fairly vigorous de ate?
I have little place in my life for subjective beliefs outside of opinions. I follow where the evidence leads, and I have learned not to become emotionally entangled with any belief.
The strength in any belief is the objective evidence that supports the belief.
Yes, AGW is occurring.
You can believe whatever you want. An intelligent person (IMO) habitually questions everything and rejects what doesn't fit, even when the social implications might be severe. I would rather say "I don't know" than to blindly believe something that I cannot support.
It's bedtime (nearly midnight) here... but I'll get back to you tomorrow morning.
Good morning...
That's a matter of semantics.
What is "little place"? Do you mean "by percentage" of all the thousands of decisions you make every day, almost all of them with little or no conscious thought? All of us operate mostly on a subconscious level, and that's a very good thing. We'd be paralyzed if we had to consider every gesture.
Do you mean that you are objective when making "significant" decisions? OK... but what is your process for determining what is significant? It cannot be a conscious decision because you are running on autopilot when you reach it.
Don't misunderstand, and more importantly, don't be offended. I'm not criticizing anything. I'm pointing out that you probably wrote what you wrote without really thinking about it... as we all do with most of what we do and say...
You are a smart person. You've demonstrated that many times since you came to NT. I'm hoping you'll apply those smarts when Replying to one of my "serious" seeds.
So please don't take offense. You didn't invest much thought in what you wrote, so you needn't put any at all into defending it. Let's just move ahead...
What is a "subjective belief"? Does that indicate that you consider that there is such a thing as an "objective belief"? What would that be?
How do you define "opinion"? This is a word that each of us uses slightly differently... and that's very dangerous for a conversation. My own operating definition is "an evaluation of something (person, idea, event, whatever, ...) on the basis of a dataset that I recognize to be weak, and therefore subject to overthrow".
Surely not. You have overwhelming evidence, every day, that the Sun orbits the Earth... but you "know" it's the contrary... because you have "learned" to ignore the "evidence" in favor of something told to you by a trusted source.
We have two overlapping sets of "knowledge": what we observe and what we learn. We often forget that they may be contradictory. "AGW is stupid: it's cold today!"
Please do not take offense at my pickiness. My point is not that you posted some stuff that's not right. My point is that you didn't really think before posting. Almost no one does, on NT. Quick come-backs are the standard, rather than actual thought. But there are a few members who make a bit more of an effort, and I hope you'll be one of them.
--
The word "belief" is one of the worst in the English language. We use it to mean two radically different things... and then we sink in the ensuing confusion!
- I believe that the Earth is about four billion years old.
- I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.
In the first case, "believe" means "I have seen evidence (or am reasonably certain of knowing where it may be found) that..." In the second case, "believe" means "I have faith that..."
In one case, the notion of "evidence" is essential. In the other it is completely absent.
You state this as fact. You "know" it. But if I ask the same question of about half of NT's members, they will respond "AGW is hogwash!" They state that as fact. They "know "it.
I'm too long-winded, so ... "Do we have the right to believe 'whatever'?" Including both sides of the AGW debate? Why not?... Except that one is true and the other not. Is there any relation between "what we may believe" and "truth"? Who decides what is true?
I hope you'll give this some serious thought.
Thank you.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. The truth is always the same, whether we discover it today or a thousand years from now.
Once you have been presented with the indisputable truth, such as it is raining and you're standing outside in the middle of it soaking wet, you can still believe it is a bright sunshiny day, but you will be believing a lie. If it makes you happy, enjoy the sunshine while it last.
The problem arises when it becomes a requirement to follow the narrow path of believing what everyone thinks is the truth, because although the truth never changes, you may be the only one who has discovered what it is.
I don't understand, six...
You first say "believe whatever", then give the "raining" example that we cannot believe just anything, and finally close with something about "the only one who has discovered"
Could you please be more explicit?
I'd love to stay and chat with you Bob, but I must go stand in the rain. We have a tropical storm coming from the gulf moving to the west of us, but we'll still be getting plenty of rain while I'm out working in it today, tomorrow and maybe some the next day. You can rest assured by this evening I will believe it was raining all day long, but I'd like to believe it was a sunshiny day, because that is my right to believe whatever I want to believe, whether it is true or not.
Believing it is raining is easy when you see it or standing outside in the middle of your yard getting all soaked, but people still have the right to believe whatever they want to believe.
It is up to us to give them enough information to help them come to a conclusion that is true and it is up to them to accept it, but they are not required to do so. Now that is the frustrating part of having to convince someone what they believe it not true. And what we believe to be true may only be true until a later date when it is proven untrue. But the truth is always the same, it never changes.
We may think we know the truth and have concrete evidence to prove something is true, but as science becomes more advanced many things that were thought to be true and seemed to have concrete evidence at the time have been proven untrue at a later date. If some way of proving something thought to be true at some time in the past had not been developed at a later date by intention or accident, saying people don't have the right to believe whatever they want to believe may have prevented them from exploring the possibilities and found what is now considered the real truth.
So our belief in what is considered true is subject to debate, even with concrete evidence to support it. I suspect there is an underlying motive for this conversation that will eventually expand into other things people should accept as being true, but are too ignorant to accept.
True to me describes reality.
Reality is ever changing. So to a degree truth is also ever changing.
truth describing reality however never changes. Truth is always the "description of reality" as it is at that time.
What is the relation between truth and belief? Which comes first?
IMO:
Truth and belief are separate things, truth is the description of reality. Many people believe stuff that cant be proven as truth,
truth is not required for belief.
I agree... and the result can sometimes be hilarious... or horrifying.
Does our observation that "truth is not required for belief" mean that we are free to believe "whatever", without regard to truth?
So it appears. However truth and reality contain consequences for not recognising or dealing with the reality of truth.
Ignoring reality and paying the consequences is always a risk of one's own choice.
erroneous beliefs can certainly result in unexpected and sometimes undesired results.
we are free to believe "whatever", without regard to truth?
Yes but, knowingly disseminating erroneous beliefs can sometimes result in not being a "free" act however because, to a degree, we have laws to help protect us from that happening.
To me the truth is and always was. Our perception of reality can change, but reality is truth and neither ever changes.
See, you got me to delay doing what I know I need to do, but that's alright. Later
True however mankind is still explaining reality. The Changes we see are not new to reality but they can just be being discovered by men as what we then call truth.
Little to none.
I believe that the Higgs Boson exists.
I believe that the universe is some 13 billion years old.
I believe that atoms exist.
I cannot personally prove any of those things. I have them on faith from sources I trust.
Sources which can provide evidence and repeated or replicated observation and experimentation for confirmation and falsification.
Not really. My sources are third-hand at best. I count on a chain of trustworthy sources.
Oh, and... I also believe God exists... but in this case, I have no source at all.
Your belief in a god is not evidence of anything except an emotional decision based on a dearth of empirical evidence. Even the scientific concept of a hypothesis, that is well below any evidence needed for an accepted theory, has more supporting evidence than religious belief.
Thanks ever so much for explaining this to me.
I prefer primary sources myself.
Like I said, belief does not equal fact. But you can believe what you like.
You're OK with Flat-Earthers?
why not ? they are entitled to believe as they wish - just as you and everyone else is. As soon as I tell someone else what they are allowed/not allowed to believe - then they can do the same to me in return.
I don't agree with them. But they can believe their brand of nonsense if they wish.
Are you OK with racists, anti-Semites, and their ilk?
I guess you didn't bother to read the seed.....
Refer to my post 7.2.16.
incorrect assumption . apparently you missed:
i cannot tell anyone what "state of mind" or "attitude" they can or cannot have unless i am giving them the same ability in concerns to me .
plus:
this dives into perception of the world - we may see the same situation and have two completely different thoughts/beliefs on it , you are no more able to say mine is wrong than i am to say yours is wrong , it deals with perceptions (this is negating any facts that are present or that the facts are present and interpreted differently by each of us, which would form our "beliefs") . this article implies there is an authority on "beliefs" :
ok, so who defines those limits and responsibilities on "intolerant" beliefs ? It may seem "intolerant" to me, but my perception of the world is quite different than yours, just as my "culture" and "cultural" beliefs may be different . They have the same "rights" to believe anything they want just as I do .
next time - you shouldn't be so hasty to make baseless assumptions - i read the article and the implication there is an "authority" on beliefs or the premise wouldn't be that you don't have a right to believe anything you want (because, who would enforce it ?)
i didn't like this part because you are blending belief with action - they are separate . I can believe the sky is blue but make choices and actions that indicate i believe the sky is plaid, while still maintaining my belief the sky is blue .
and yes we do have the right to those beliefs , unless you (the author, not you personally, unless you want to take a crack at it) can tell everyone who would enforce otherwise . I can't tell someone what they are "allowed" or "not allowed" to believe without giving them the same authority over me in concerns to my beliefs. anything else you wish to discuss ?
Ok... You did read it. You just didn't understand it.
Nowhere is mentioned any form of constraint...
constraint:
and:
and:
there's a constraint there since you are stating the "problem" is that they refuse to disbelieve or discard - you are trying to "restrict" them to beliefs that you (the author, not you) feel is not "ethically" wrong .
Apparently i did understand the article. Again: I can't tell someone what they are "allowed" or "not allowed" to believe without giving them the same authority over me in concerns to my beliefs. Anything else you wish to discuss ?
Beliefs are factive to the individual or system until challenged with empirical evidence or life experience.
Further, the empirical evidence and/or experience that now forms the newest factive belief is subject to further challenge given additional evidence and experience to the belief. Find this particularly true relating to religious and social beliefs.
... often to the point of rejecting any challenge out of hand. It takes an especially open mind to constantly accept challenges to ingrained beliefs.
Choosing to shut oneself off to differing beliefs surely stunts personal growth. Seekers of truth will forever be challenged. The wealth of beliefs encountered on this forum, with other platforms, challenge me daily. I'm just a work in progress.
It seems to be self-fulfilling.
I wonder, too, if there isn't a question of self-confidence. If I don't welcome any and all testing of my beliefs (not just religious, of course), then what confidence can I have in them? If I want to trust my beliefs, then I must test them in every way. No?
Absolutely!
True however everyone has a different level of self confidence, while some may have the self confidence to welcome questioning others may be afraid to question even their own beliefs much because of lack of their self confidence.
and
BTW this is IMO already off topic once again. See why I dont seed stuff ?
It's because of My Beliefs ... lol
kind of off topic,
I saw a documentary a while back about beliefs and changing peoples minds.
It showed that humans are a constantly making decisions as we move thru our daily lives.. We are constantly intaking information and are constantly deciding what to do with it, whether it is real or not, whether to act on it or even believe it. But once we have enough information WE think we need to make that decision it is made and we move on to other decisions.
Once we make a decision, our brain automatically starts wanting to reject any new information that contradicts our decision. (its kind of a time factor thing)
.......................................................
I found that very enlightening
I hadn't realized not easily changing others minds had a natural reasoning.
It also made me be able to look at my own and others closed minded reasons in a different light.
After first reading I found myself chaffing, not from the premise, but from it's implications. I think that is what drives many of the comments so far read here. Upon rereading I narrowed some questions, the primary being that of "when". At what point do we call the right to believe or not believe, right (a Right)? There is a point where the factive inserts itself into our thinking and becomes a belief, and that moment is different for everyone; as well, is an ongoing process. No one has all the answers; and, we are also coevolving in our beliefs imho. One could make the call "you should know and thus believe differently now, you have the necessary facts/experience to do so" as the author references in this statement:
...it is not always the coming-to-hold-this-belief that is problematic; it is rather the sustaining of such beliefs, the refusal to disbelieve or discard them that can be voluntary and ethically wrong.
Is the time to question the right to believe when the inert falseness of belief and knowledge is "flouted" as suggested by the article? Yeah, I think so. That also leaves a huge grey area in all of our collective and individual beliefs; one which we may think we know and believe factually, and make the call that another doesn't have the right to their beliefs.
In the meantime I have a new word for the incorrect beliefs/knowledge of those who intentionally promulgate false knowledge and beliefs: Factiveishness.
;~)
LOL, I like it... almost better than "alternative facts".
Yes, but... I am right and you are wrong!
Factiveishness is great because it includes the recursive aspect of forcing the person to hold tight!
I think a lot of things but I do not actually believe anything I can not see with my own two eyes. or can rationalize based on available data ( things like air or even politics ) some believe trump will be impeached, others like me believe the opposite. who is to say who is wrong today? are the belief police psychic?
on the hard sciences, the belief police have some ground to stand on. but in the softer sciences of politics, morality, and spirituality, the belief police will have a very bad day.
perception is ones reality and they will act on it... count on that.
here is a very simple rule / FACT that might save your life..
challenge ones idea... they might talk about it.
challenge ones belief... they might kill you.
choose wisely.
Cheers
It's obvious that the Sun circles the Earth; all you have to do to know it... is... look up.
It's obvious that a feather falls slower than a rock. Just watch them!
It's obvious that maggots develop spontaneously on spoiling meat. One day there are none, and the next day there are many.
So... Do we have a right to believe "whatever"?
of course. does not mean anyone else has to believe us or tolerate any bs because of our beliefs.
right or wrong perception is one's reality and people will act on it. what happens after that is another conundrum.
facts and belief / two different animals. treating them the same is very dangerous.
the question your working your way around?
tell us exactly who has the authority to tell us what to believe? ( so we can push them off this rock. )
Cheers
btw... I do not believe in gravity because someone told me about it.
I believe in gravity because my perception tells me I'm extremely attracted to this rock.
Why do you believe in heliocentrism?
I have explained myself well enough for now...
tell me exactly, by name if possible. who has the right to tell me what to believe?
without that enforcement entity?
yes I believe we can believe what we like no matter what anyone believes about this subject.
(I also believe that is a fact until proven otherwise)
Cheers
Off Topic "BF"
Off-topic. Intentionally. Please go away.
The contention of the article is asinine, at best. The idea that an individual doesn't have the right to their beliefs if they don't fall inside of some acceptable mainstream spectrum is absurd.
People do not have the "right" to have their beliefs taken seriously.
I agree. However they do have the right to those beliefs, it's inherent to the individual and can't be taken away. It can be altered, maybe, over time though coercive or passive means.
Well alrighty then, apparently you have no problem popping off about something being off topic but suddenly find your pie hole snapped shut about something on topic.
Ah, yes.... I omitted "Be polite" in my First Comment. My bad....
Damn!
I also forgot, "Be intelligent."
Oh, wait... I can't ask the impossible...
My apologies Bob, didn't realize you were old school,
Well... if wanting to have intelligent contributions to one's seeds is "old school" then I certainly fit the description. Sadly, things aren't so simple. For example, there are some people who post music videos to a philosophical seed.
No matter... Perrie has made it clear that anyone may post anything anywhere on NT... so feel free to be as off-topic as you wish.
Yes and yes!
have you read the first amendment?
freedom of religion IS freedom to believe "whatever"
so yes, we even have a constitutional right to believe whatever we like.
Cheers
The only place where there is "the truth" is when you refer to something like "When counting to ten by whole numbers, 6 comes after 5. " That is true and unless you change the parameters of the statement it can never not be true.
There are otherwise relative truths and agreed upon truths.
Is Jimmy lined up on the left side of the net in the volleyball game? From the perspective of his side of the net he is indeed lined up on the left side of the net, but if you walk around to the other side of the net and observe Jimmy from the perspective of the opposing team, he is lined up on the right side of the net. Both perceptions are true.
Is it hot outside? It's 80 degrees. To one person 80 degrees temperature may be hot, to another person it may be mildly warm.
Then there is "agreed upon" truth. Is Tom Brady a great quarterback? I feel confident that agreed upon truth will describe Brady as a great quarterback. He has won multiple championships and his own personal statistics are at a very high performance level. There is a "consensus" that he is a great quarterback, or an agreed upon truth. People who think he is lucky, or the product of the system of the New England team that he plays for have a "right to their opinion" but they will always be in a small minority.
You have to consider what "truths" are relative to perspective and what truths are "agreed upon" , and what truths are objective.
I agree. My own personal definition of truth is "the words used to describe reality to the best of the person's ability and knowledge who is delivering the truth." Therefore every truth is subject to scrutiny.
Also IMO Truth changes with the changes of reality and Reality changes as we discover more of it.
So truth is not only open to change with perspective but with changing knowledge as well.
At least that's my belief.
I said "it is a beautiful day
they said "no, it is raining cats and dogs outside
I said "yes, it is also raining outside, what is your point?
Cheers
You forgot to mention the cheating. Number of Superbowls Tom [Flatballs] Brady and the New England Cheatriots won without cheating: 0
Go Vegas!! The Vegas Golden Knights are going to win the Stanley Cup in their very first season!
There, now THAT'S off-topic...
Be proud!
It's time for another one of your 'green rules' seeds Bob! They rock...
Nah...
Real assholes don't need encouragement... and the assholes of NewsTalkers are very real assholes. They are already experts in vandalism, so they don't need any further inspiration.
Each day I am a little more discouraged about the loss of unity in America by its inhabitants as I watch the dividing cancer of America grow, slowly weakening our country.
Families divided usually don’t last, cities divided don’t thrive and governments divided eventually tend to fall apart and/or are taken over.
Considering this is a really personal choice we all make and the loss of unity weakens us a nation Why do we do this ?
I suggest it stems in a large part from our environment. Our leaders and media divide us up as best they can to gain power and profit.
The constant division pushed by both our leaders and the media is hard to mentally fight against and for many it's easier to join in.
After being subjected to many years of this now many individuals have joined in the promoting of dividing this country up over everything and anything. Some of these same folks even fought in battles with outside enemies at one time for the sanctity and unity of our country.
Now they fight with their countrymen seemingly on everything and anything.
WHY ? What do they gain ?
Is that the future we are all actually working towards ? A divided weaker American country.
At this time it appears so. That discourages me and I think it should all of America.
if this continues forward as it is I say "good Luck to America and our future "
Smile(s) ... It really is still at this time, each individual's choice...
I hope we all choice wisely for the sake of our nation and our children.
However, I doubt we all do.
Thanks for reading my beliefs on this. steve
........................................
Note to Bob, sorry about posting this somewhat off topic long comment, I felt it needed somewhere to go though and this seemed like as good a place for it as anywhere.
Sorry and Thanks
You also have my permission (although its not needed) to poof it (delete it) if you so desire.
... would be a good basis for an article.
I would be pleased to participate.
I would be pleased to participate.
...............................
Thanks Bob, I had kind forgotten I had written this early this morning. Shortly after I got up and got on here I was reading comments on your article and I asked myself what I believed and this started flowing out of me.
Yes It may be the good basis for an article so I have copied it and may (when I get the time to properly oversee it as a seed) may reevaluate it and perhaps seed it as an article.
Thanks for the suggestion.
You know what Bob, after much consideration and internal debate. I dont think I'll bother to post this as a seed after all.
I dont think it would be appreciated here anyway. All I see is constant fighting on here and my opinion wouldn't change that. Chances are my opinion would just be viciously attacked anyway and I could do without that. So why bother ?
So, Maybe someday. But not at this time.
Sadly... my own experience demonstrates that you're probably right.
When some people actively endeavor to destroy... and the rules help them more than hinder them... trying to create a constructive conversation is kinda tough.
But... don't lose your idea. Your thoughts are in a good place. Maybe someday NT will be capable of hosting them.
I sure hope so.
trying to create a constructive conversation is kinda tough.
But... don't lose your idea. Your thoughts are in a good place. Maybe someday NT will be capable of hosting them.
Thanks Bob. I won't lose it, it is more than an "Idea" it is what I believe.
At least NT is much more conducive to divulging this kind of thinking than nv was sometimes.
Towards the end of nv I kept getting blocked by people of both ideologies from their news chat "nations". So I started "The Blocked Posters Nation" .. I expressed my thoughts on total freedom of speech and said I would not be blocking anyone for stating their thoughts..Period.. In return, I was viciously attacked for even starting a "nation" like that at all and my belief of free speech for damn sure...
It was ironic actually that it was the nv monitors themselves who started deleted the attacks against me and I had to post it wasn't me deleting anything in the nation ....
I did happen to think I believe it's possible to seed an article here and not accept comments. Although wimpy... I may consider that option
I hate "monitoring" others as well. I don’t do that kind of stuff well. My way is I monitor myself and live and let live is my way and motto. IF I'm not happy with where I am and the people I'm with, I figure that's why I have feet.
In my opinion the worlds (and America) is a huge place and I don’t need to be somewhere that's too unhappy for me for too long. Life is too short.
In my world there are lots of spaces where no one is fighting or trying to constantly belittle each other, me or my thoughts and beliefs so why be or stay where it exists for long or encourage it at all ? .. I usually don't.
But I do like to try to productively share where and when I can.
Thanks again, steve
It's technically possible to "Lock" an article immediately after posting it... and I know of nothing in the CoC that forbids doing so. But i'd bet Perrie would not like it, so you'd better check with her before doing it.
True.
I've dropped off NT several times over the decade I've been here. But I keep coming back. There are some jerks, for sure... but there a quite a few people whom I appreciate, too. Once in a while, there's a conversation worthy of the time invested in it. And I haven't found any other forum that's any better moderated.
There's a fundamental problem for the owners/managers of any online forum: many people come because anonymity permits them to be assholes with impunity. It's not a simple problem for the owners/managers, who want as many members (clicks!!) as possible and so are tempted to not be too strict about behavior.
True Bob, I certainly would not want to start a trend. That could be counterproductive to the overall vibe of the site. Thanks for your input.
I'll sit on it for now instead.
The context won't change. Perhaps someday if I feel like defending every line of it if and when challenged, I may repost it as a seed.
And I agree with you about your assessment of this site, the owner and their "responsibilities" the people who come here.
My opinion:
Belief - Anything you want it to be
Fact - Static, Fixed, Unchanging
But is it OK to believe... "whatever"? Is racism OK? Pedophilia? No limits whatsoever?
Of course it's ok to believe whatever. Anyone is free to believe whatever they want. The difference is how one acts on or according to those beliefs.
there seems to be a purposeful conflation between belief and action with this article.
Arr you comfortable around overt racists? Vehement anti-Semites?
My comfort level is irrelevant. It doesn't change what I said.