How do cherry-picking believers decide what to believe?

[chakka35]

One would think that a person who could think rationally would be consistent about it. But this seems not to be so. Below is a thread about a chap who rejects God but believes in an afterlife, even though both beliefs have a similar irrational status.

How many other cases are there? People who, for example, reject astrology but believe in Tarot cards; who reject dowsing but accept ouija boards; who reject crystal balls but accept ESP; who reject weeping statues but accept alien abductions; who reject fairies but accept angels…..and so on. How do they discriminate between one lot of nonsense and another? What criteria do they use?

I anticipate one possible answer: a believer (naomi perhaps?) might say that she believes in ghosts because she has seen one. But this cannot always be the answer, surely. What is?

[chakka35]

Sorry about the errors. I lost the post right at the end and, in frustration, rashly PASTED an uncorrected version I had COPIED earlier. As a literate fellow I'm embarrassed.
Hope you can make sense of it. If not, please ask.

[jomifl]

Nadis re. you self relocating ornament.. isn't the most rational explanation that somebody put it back and couldn't recall doing so, or thought that they had put it on the floor when they hadn't. I find it a lot easier to believe that there is somebody else apart from me with unreliable memory than to have to believe in a whole new universe of spooks and ghosties that cannot otherwise be substantiated.

[mibn2cweus]

Chakka, Some friend you turned out to be, raising some of the least understood, most contentious issues needing to be confronted in our time, only to run off to deal with the problems they create in the real world of day to day existence! ;o)

Most if not all of these phenomenon you list have a common thread running through them. To understand why they are not valid phenomena or potential explanations for less easily understood experiences one must first have a basic grasp of the physically interdependent nature of consciousness and how understanding this mutually dependent nature can only be achieved by understanding the process of reason and why that is the only means to determine what can be known and more essentially, what knowledge is. Obviously this is an extremely complex issue and one not easily resolved, especially when very few are even aware of the importance of resolving it if they are even aware that this issue exists or why in failing to do so inevitable confusion ensues.

[mibn2cweus]

In order to find explanations for these experiences we do not understand, it would be of tremendous advantage to rule out as many of these pseudo explanations that only complicate matters as we can and most if not all can be eliminated in one fell swoop by getting to the root of the problem, a misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness and reason. Realising that the scope of this confusion reaches far beyond what might appear to some as trivial matters, such as whether ghosts or psychic phenomena are what they at first appear to be, that they effect our day to day existence in profound ways that are not at first apparent might help us all to understand why resolving this basis issue is of paramount importance.

My apologies if it appears to you that I might have strayed off topic a bit there Chakka but I am hopeful that you, of all people can appreciate the relevance. We all would like explanations for our conscious experiences but just picking one from the many imposters is one of many paths diverting our progress from the path of reason and a better deeper understanding of our existence. I’m so glad you found a moment in the ensuing chaos out there to rejoin us here and maybe help us to resolve this one which would make both perhaps a little more manageable. They are after all intimately related . . . don’t you think?

[naomi24]

Chakka, nothing is happening to me. I'm just as irrational and as deluded as you've always believed me to be in this regard - but it appears your opinion has deteriorated into something even less because you're now expressing your sadness for my perceived mental condition, you're openly claiming that I'm losing something 'up there', and you have concluded that Mibs possesses the sole intellect in this debate. And I'm making personal attacks? I've stated my case decisively, as always, but I do not make a habit of attacking people on a personal level, and as far as I can see, unlike you, I haven't done that here. Yes, I did say you are a monkey for making bogus claims against me, but if despite the little wink and the kiss at the end of that statement you hadn't realised that it was said with affection and attempted humour, then read it as you will and acknowledge that your allegation was utterly dishonest. As I've already told Mibs, if your argument doesn't stand up, that isn't my fault - but resorting to insults to strengthen it is the last bastion of the hopeless, it's the coward's way, and among intelligent people it simply doesn't work because they are capable of seeing through it.

And incidentally your question is daft. The subjects you offer are diverse and since they bear little or no relation to one another you need to separate them - and if you cannot recognise that then I venture to suggest your self-acclaimed stupendously rational intellect is failing you yet again.

[ludwig]

Just for the record chakka, how do you decide what to believe?

[jomifl]

And just for the record Ludwig how do you decide what to believe?

[ludwig]

That's a bit rude jomifl. I asked first, and I asked the questioner - but feel free to explain your methodology too if you like. It wasn't a trick question or anything.

[mibn2cweus]

“…how do you decide what to believe?” An excellent question, one we should all be asking, no less ourselves as others. Perhaps even better yet, “How do you ‘determine’ what to believe?”

My apologies Ludwig, you were there first.

[jomifl]

Of course Ludwig, only too happy to oblige.I do not have any methodology at all. If I hear or read something that sounds like complete bollochs then I try to figure out why it sounds like complete bollochs. If something sounds eminently reasonable and fits with other ideas that have proven reliable then I will add it to the reliable stuff. This said I am happy to change my views if the evidence calls for it. The advantage of not having 'belief' is that I can chuck out an idea that no longer works without feeling guilty for betraying anybody or thing. I have not committed myself to unquestioningly support any deity, philosopher, politician or celebrity. If somebody comes up with an alternative to evolution or relativity that makes better sense then I would be quite happy to accept it or them. An understanding of our universe is not a slave of dogma of any kind. What we believe does not have any affect on what is real.
Over to you..

[ludwig]

Thanks jomifl - You didn't explain it very well, but I think I know what you're saying, and I'm pretty much the same.

[ludwig]

Over to you chakka..how do you discriminate between one lot of nonsense and another, sorry I mean what's nonsense and whats real?

[mibn2cweus]

While we’re awaiting word from our provocative host interlocutor . . .

For the record, I don’t believe Naomi would intentionally attack anyone, except in perceived self-defense. I doubt you will find a more sensitive, caring, compassionate person amongst the lot of us and I commend her for her courage to stand on her own convictions as we all should and I do, this one included until proven otherwise.

Perhaps none of us fully appreciate the underlying complexity and delicate nature of the issue we are confronting, nor the full ramifications of the premises involved. In hind sight perhaps we all could have been a little less defensive and a little more understanding, but we are confronting an issue here which presents an obstacle to that understanding and so we should all try our best to work together to fully comprehend and with any luck eliminate this obstacle to our mutual understanding and ability to cooperate and pool our collective resources to fight the real enemy which is ignorance.

[mibn2cweus]

The real beauty of a rational debate is not in winning or trampling someone else into the ground and rubbing their nose in it. The fact is we all have the treasure of our own unique individual experiences to share, and can benefit from each others perspectives as well once we have learned to speak the same language and comprehend the same reality.

I do not claim to have all the answers and the ones I do have are open to revision as a matter of policy. But I’m fairly confident that if you don’t know what something is, chances are . . . it’s not what you think it is.

[ludwig]

Well said mibs. I second all that. I think this is basically a good question 'How do we decide what to believe and what not to believe'.
I think it's a shame it was phrased in a deliberately aggressive* way, but never mind - we've all done it - I know I have.

*not sure if that's the right word but you know what I mean

[mibn2cweus]

Another very good question Ludwig. Seems rather ironic that he can be rational is all these other respects and yet be so apparently oblivious to the sensitive nature of the question. Perhaps we could all benefit from a little ESP with regards to the effect our words have on those on the other side of our computer screen.

[naomi24]

Mibs, other than disagreeing with you I have no idea what I said to upset you so much, but thank you. That's appreciated.

Ludwig, thank you very much.

[chakka35]

ludvig, I don't have a problem in deciding what to believe:

If what I am told is perfectly credible - as are, I would guess, 99.99% of the things I am told from day to day, then I believe it because I have no reason not to.
If it is surprising, then I require the minimum of reassurance to make me believe it.

If it borders on the incredible then I require a good solid lump of evidence. But If I receive that, then I believe it.

If it is truly incredible in that it makes no sense, that it breaches all the laws of nature as we know them and no-one can supply a scintilla of evidence to support it then I have no reason to believe it unless and until those laws are found to be inadequate or that evidence appears.
(Just commonsense really.)

All the examples I gave in my original question come into that last category, which is why I asked by what criteria some people reject some of them but accept others that are equally irrational.

Lots of discussion but no answer from such a cherry-picking believer. Maybe one before post 100?

[ludwig]

Again, pretty similar to my approach. I'll tell you where we might differ though...on the following section..

// If it borders on the incredible then I require a good solid lump of evidence. But If I receive that, then I believe it. //

I perceive that alot of skeptics are in a hurry to either classify any proposition as either truth or nonsense. A decision has to be made immediately, and if the evidence is not immediately forthcoming then it's filed under nonsense.

I have a third category called 'decision pending', and I'm more than happy to stick things in there indefinately if need be.
ESP for example - don't know much about it, haven't researched it particularly, lots of people claiming there's something in it, but it does border on the incredible as you say. However, I'm in no hurry to classify it, so I'll stick it in the pending for now, and wait to see if any evidence does turn up.

The reason I'm happy to sit on that fence indefinately is because it has absolutely no bearing on my life whether it's truth or nonsense. No-one is holding a gun to my head and demanding a decision one way or the other - if they were I'd make one, but they're not.

[Ankou]

"However, I'm in no hurry to classify it, so I'll stick it in the pending for now, and wait to see if any evidence does turn up."

isn't that the same as....

"I have no reason to believe it unless and until those laws are found to be inadequate or that evidence appears."

pretty much? not sure what difference you are really trying to portray.