Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

Why is this such a common behavior do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ego dominance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Care to expand on what you mean?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Belief is easier to come by than knowledge. And any fool can do it.

 

Most are incredibly bound by deeply embedded beliefs, and are unable to let go of these beliefs they have identified with for most, if not all of their life. Anything that comes into conflict with these beliefs can be extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant to the ego. The ego loves to attach itself to any belief that makes it feel good. The ego loves to attach itself to pretty much anything. The challenge for most is the ability to control or master the ego, and to let go of their very strong attachments to beliefs. For many they will defend their beliefs to satisfy the demands of the ego at the expense of everything else.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ego or beliefs in and of themselves. Beliefs are what shape our reality, and are also what binds us to this reality. Without beliefs we wouldn't be here. The challenge is our ability in letting them go.

A belief is just a belief, and is only relevant to the individual who believes it. The belief of one does not have to be the belief of another, nor does it have to apply to another regardless of the proof or evidence. There are many however who feel very strongly otherwise, and will debate very strongly that what they believe to be true must apply to everyone regardless of what others believe.

The desire to defend a belief is a fear based egoic emotion. The desire to defend the pursuit of truth is a fear based egoic emotion.

 

I agree. Well stated IMO.

Try,
re: Pursuit of truth:

The desire to defend the "pursuit of the truth" only stems from the fear of self deception,....due to our natural inclination to defend our beliefs [egoistic comfort zone.]
Given that the "truth" itself is typically unavailable, it is only the pursuit of truth as means of placating the fear of self deception that is left to confirm and validate or non-confirm or invalidate the egoistic comfort zone brought on by that self deception. [belief in this context is always a state of self deception]

No one likes to have their self esteem invalidated and proven to be a self deception. It means that their sense of self value is tenuous. [Yet if the truth is what is used to measure the value of"core" self esteem then the esteem will always be tenuous and in trouble]

The question: "Would you prefer the truth or a lie?"

The truth seeker will say always "the truth"

The egoist will more likely say "It depends" thus conditional-izing the truth to suit their comfort zone.

 

but belief is the belief in what is believed to be knowledge [truth] is it not?
[presumption that you are equating truth with knowledge]

 

I find pursuing truth easy, which is why I look under every rock and don't explain things only one way. There are grains of truth everywhere, not just in one place. I do find that dogma abounds many areas of science, even though history shows science is a work in progress and has not yet reached steady state. This means one should welcome the future, like I do. The dogmatic institutions within science make a stepping stone appear like the final destination. Much of this has to do with atheism, which is a type of religion in the shadows of the law. It uses the dogmatic approach of a religion, applied to a work in progress, to set up institutions of blind faith and worship. Zealousness comes from repressed unconscious doubt.

Evolution, for example, is a weak form of science, closer to history supported by science, since it can't be used to make accurate future predictions. If truth was important, this 19th century theory foundation would be open to the future of change. Yet this is the most dogmatic of all the sciences, to the point of using government to force feed people to learn it. This should raise a yellow to red flag. There is no need to force feed weak science except for deception.

I like physics for its open minded pursuit of truth, since it is much more open to alternate theory, as long as there some rational support. There are some dogma, but also an awareness of conflicting data allowing open debate.The big bang theory is not treated with the same level of dogma as the evolutionary religion. Physics was able to splinter off from the atheist religion in favor of logic and long term truth.

 

What a boneheaded paragraph.

 

I find this very ironic coming from you.

 

The first step in the direction you are advocating against is to confuse the meanings of words. Since this question revolves around semantics, I'll offer a better way to give this Edsel a jumpstart:

be·lief /biˈlēf/ Noun An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.​

Compare to:

knowl·edge /ˈnälij/ Noun Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information. ​

 

but you appear to ignore the fact that facts are only facts because you believe them to be true. How often are so called facts found to be, in fact, un-factual?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Everyone has some type of belief. Some are philosophical in nature and others are religious in nature.

Regardless of what someone thinks or believes their views and beliefs have been shaped by society, whether by some sort of cultural norm, trend, fad or a sub-culture. Giving the nature of a belief, and not a particular belief system, because a belief can be anything even in theory. I think people for the most part feel the need to defend a belief, because it is just what they have been raised or influenced by peers (or society) to believe. People after all are not born to be freethinkers, yet everyone can have a sense of assertiveness and say "that is stupid" or reject something without giving it any thought. The same in principle can be said for those who hold a belief, no matter what that belief is.

 

got the above from another forum discussing this topic...

 

This is an interesting thought ...care to expand on it...??
I would have thought the exact opposite was the case...

 

You are dismissing the all-important distinction that evidence makes all of that moot.

This is more word play. In a court, facts are averments, to be tried against available evidence. All of human knowledge is equivalent to convening of courts of personal jurisdiction. Whether or not a fair trial was given is all that is at stake here.

 

I too believe it's the opposite - strongly, in fact.

We are born with a clean mental slate. From that moment forward, we start gathering information from everything around us, our parents, the environment, other people and everything we experience and observe.

Shortly thereafter, we begin trying to make sense of it all and start to form impressions. Eventually, those impressions will turn into ideas that become our system of beliefs. Our thinking and conclusions are strictly of our own making. Much later on, we discover that others do not have the same, exact systems of beliefs that we do. But until that time we are VERY much free-thinkers and our version of reality is ours and no one else's.

 

Yes, I thought I was clear with my original post, but I will further explain.

The environment can shape or have a rather significant influence on a species survival, same with the individual and how the survival of a species is grounded in the theory of evolution.

Does a belief determine the survival of a species? Do you believe the environment plays a significant factor in a species survival?

 

Based only on the evidence discovered or uncovered so far...yes?


Example:

• The "civilized" world believed the world was flat until someone proved it other wise.
• The world believed Nuclear energy was safe to use: try telling that to the ongoing sufferers and problem in Chernobyl and the huge current issues in Fukushima Japan

Do you believe that no further evidence is possible that may contradict existing scientific belief?

 

On the contrary it's impossible to talk of any sort of knowledge divorced from belief.
Belief always is a requirement before one can even begin to talk of knowledge