Made uneasy by strong beliefs

Is anyone else slightly unsettled by strong belief?

Perhaps it is just I have none of my own. But when some one has a belief that they do not question whatever happens it just troubles me, the fact that the idea is so firmly routed in there.

I believe that there is an objective reality. Is that so terrible?

Is it a strong, unshakable, narrowly defined belief that could survive strong contradicting evidence?

Nothing in philosophy is narrowly defined, but there usually isn't physical evidence.

I'm made uneasy by strong beliefs because they tend to be largely immune to the unpleasantness of reality.

Mainly, people with strong beliefs tend to attack those who think differently and in my case, being conservative in a largely liberal environment, I've learned its better to give lip service (especially with some professors) and move on since the discussions cover about as much ground as an average soldier did in a week during World War I.

The 'no room for doubt' element is one thing that troubles me, the acceptance of an idea so fully that any suggestion of otherwise is enough to provoke rage.

That or repeating the same argument endlessly/making threats to try and stop the questioning.

One explanation for this may be a subconscious fear of falling into the Golden Mean Fallacy upon accepting the notion that an ideology runs into disadvantages when taken to extremes.

There's something decidedly romantic about standing firm in one particular set of beliefs in spite of opposition, and entertaining a middle ground or alternative approach that may supplement the parent ideology (or even defeat it) is a less attractive prospect to many people.

edited 4th Jan '11 4:23:49 PM by Aprilla

The problem is that romantic ideals are almost wholey incapable of applying to the real world.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Sir Winston Churchill.

I've always loved this line.

"A zealot is someone who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his aim" I think that one was by Bernard Shaw.

There's something decidedly romantic about standing firm in one particular set of beliefs in spite of opposition

That's precisely the problem.

Exactly what sort of belief are we talking about? For some beliefs, there is literally nothing you could say or do to disprove them. They're not falsifiable.

Or are you talking about more physical things, that you can actually test?

One explanation for this may be a subconscious fear of falling into the Golden Mean Fallacy upon accepting the notion that an ideology runs into disadvantages when taken to extremes.

There's something decidedly romantic about standing firm in one particular set of beliefs in spite of opposition, and entertaining a middle ground or alternative approach that may supplement the parent ideology (or even defeat it) is a less attractive prospect to many people.

That and if you build you way of life, your personality on a belief, how would you react to somebody swinging a hammer near the foundations?

That and the possible alternatives may seem bleak to them.

Take for example creationism versus evolution:

• One theory states that we are perfect creations of a perfect being, that we where placed on earth by this perfect being and will be rewarded for obeying them.

• The other states that we are a flawed product of a flawed process that is cold hard and unforgiving, that we dragged ourselves up though death, disease and misery to get where we are now.

I can see why one theory might appeal more than the other.

Exactly what sort of belief are we talking about? For some beliefs, there is literally nothing you could say or do to disprove them. They're not falsifiable.

Or are you talking about more physical things, that you can actually test?

Any strong unwavering belief without the consideration that being wrong is a possibility, that is why I support the idea of the theory of evolution being taught along side the theory of creationism. (In biology and religious studies classes)

edited 4th Jan '11 4:37:51 PM by MCE

For some beliefs, there is literally nothing you could say or do to disprove them. They're not falsifiable.

That is also precisely the problem.

Loni: I might have overstepped the OP's question, but I'm more concerned with ideologies than beliefs since ideologies are systems of beliefs and cultural values. The belief that beef tastes better than chicken has a smaller frame of reference than the belief that the United States should be a pro-life free-market economy or a pro-choice democratic socialist state. That's probably where the critical differences lie.

Loni: I might have overstepped the OP's question, but I'm more concerned with ideologies than beliefs since ideologies are systems of beliefs and cultural values. The belief that beef tastes better than chicken has a smaller frame of reference than the belief that the United States should be a pro-life free-market economy or a pro-choice democratic socialist state. That's probably where the critical differences lie.

I don't think you overstepping here. Some time the challenging of a belief is all but impossible because it is interconnected with other beliefs, culture, history and values. You start chipping away at one part and other parts can respond, one supports the other.

There is also the fact that at a certain point any change is seen as bad and some times a strong, in or out, with us or against us philosophy can exist.

I hope that makes sense, it getting a little hard to tell.

A quote from Assassin's creed seems oddly appropriate here

"You can never know anything, only suspect, you must expect to be wrong, to have overlooked something"

—> Dr. Warren Vidic: There's no room for misinterpretation.

—> Desmond Miles: There's always room.

edited 4th Jan '11 4:55:18 PM by MCE

What if you believe that any questioning of your belief will inevitably lead to pointlessly repeating the same arguments over and over?

For example, I have yet to see a single creationist with intelligent arguments, so I've learned through experience that it's better to just reject debate before you waste your time yet again with someone who doesn't even understand what evolution is.

edited 4th Jan '11 4:51:24 PM by storyyeller

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but it might have something to do with limitations in a person's willingness to observe facts.

To expound on your example, I don't believe in the existence of vampires because no one has provided me with sufficient scientific data to prove that they exist or once existed. I won't believe otherwise until someone does that.

edited 4th Jan '11 4:57:05 PM by Aprilla

I found that anything related to religion and evolution, on both sides, tends to be garbage.

For example, I have yet to see a single creationist with intelligent arguments, so I've learned through experience that it's better to just reject debate before you waste your time yet again with someone who doesn't even understand what evolution is.

Assumptions are an sometimes unfortunate but necessary part of life. You can't question everything without going mad. The key lies in knowing what should be questioned (beliefs, way of doing things) and what should not be (tables, that fire is dangerous)

I found that anything related to religion and evolution, on both sides, tends to be garbage.

All of it?

edited 4th Jan '11 4:59:15 PM by MCE

Classic Golden Mean Fallacy.

There is a difference between believing in creationism and believing in a philosophy, or a deity. I mean, you can come up with evidence against creationism. If people refuse to look at that evidence and cling to it despite all reason, then in my mind that is a flawed viewpoint.

But if you have a belief in, say, the existence of a soul, there is nothing you can produce as evidence against that. So believing in that regardless of what you hear isn't flawed. In my opinion.

I see it as taking two dissimilar pieces and trying to connect them together. I don't see why there needs to be a competition between evolution and creationism for which is more correct.

This one tends to become uneasy around people who's belief in whatever is so strong that they would justify violence in it's name. Scares me, even. I mean, umm, here is a nice person, but if someone told them to, or if I'd get in the way of whatever new world order they stand for, they will, with much regret, kill me...It is scary. And yes, there are people here I am scared of. Some of them I respect a the same time, and feel drawn towards, and can almost forget that they might kill me, but it always stays at the back of my mind.

It depends on what the strong beliefs are based on. It makes me uneasy when people build a foundation on something that is obviously false and refuse to deviate from it. Think of 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts, birthers, etc.