"Is there a need for "belief"? All we ever have is one thing, the current moment.-the now. It doesn't require belief. It's all there is. Nothing has ever occurred in the past or the future. There is no need for "belief" in anything, is there?
Your comment is intriguing, newgreen, but I'd like to understand it better. I'm not sure if there is a "need" for belief, but believing in certain things (e.g. tomorrow, the transformative power of love, the potential for friendship) helps me do the things I'd like to do. Tell me more. I'll post it to the blog.
Your blog says "We choose our beliefs," but I am increasingly coming to doubt this. It seems clear that our desires and intentions play a role in forming our beliefs, but I tend to think that is mostly, or entirely, irrational behavior: wishful thinking, bias, and error. You have to put yourself into a very intentional and unusual state of mind to not believe a statement like "I am alive" and "I am reading Hubski right now." It is hard to imagine functioning without having beliefs like "If I stop going to work, my employer will stop paying me" or "If I press the brake pedal, the car will slow down" or "If I eat well, I will be healthier and feel better." thenewgreen, what does it mean to "need" to believe something? Is it the same as wanting to believe?
I tend to agree with you. I think that our beliefs are a set of inescapable conclusions we draw about the world based on our upbringing, disposition and life experience. For example, I was raised Christian, but I found very early on in life that I thought the whole thing was silly. I can't say that I 'chose' that line of thinking, but rather, that I arrived at it after reflecting on the teachings I had received in Sunday School. I don't think the difference is purely semantic. I think it's conceptual. If each of us simply chose what to believe, I think our beliefs would be disingenuous.
Isn't the only good reason for holding a belief the fact that it is true? And one decides that something is true or false by collecting and evaluating evidence. I can think of no better description than "inescapable conclusions" -- though the conclusions are held tentatively, subject to future contradiction. My examples were intentionally concrete and pragmatic, but I don't see why the principle wouldn't apply to a belief like "love is better than anger." There's a wonderful story about Niels Bohr, which like so many stories probably isn't true. A friend visited the great physicist at his home in Tisvilde, and was astonished to see a horseshoe nailed over the door. Asked if he really thought such a talisman would bring good luck, Bohr replied "Of course not, but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."If each of us simply chose what to believe...
I want to believe (despite contrary evidence ) that this hypothetical is not even possible. On what basis could someone "simply choose" what to believe? Because it made them feel good about the world? Because they believe that belief in X will bring them a better future? So then, if another belief comes along, making even greater promises, it's time to upgrade. And how does the thinking get off the ground? "I choose to believe this, because I believe that by believing this...."
I was on peyote when I wrote that. Seriously though, do you have the link to me saying it so I can have more context? When I talk about "belief" I tend to mean as it relates to something that requires "faith." I'm sure this is an incorrect way to define the word. In my answer, I guess I'm saying that from a spiritual perspective, I don't need faith in anything. I don't require the conjuring of imaginary scenarios to comfort me. All I need is all I have, which is the present moment. It's all any of us have, we have no way around it. For some reason, all of us tend to fight with it by fretting about the past or longing for the future. Those that are able to be fully present and actually in the moment, know what I mean. I recall b_b mentioning a while back how he enjoys hearing the sound of his footprints in the snow. My guess is that when he does this, he is rooted squarely in his present moment, whether he knows it or not. I literally have no idea whether this answers your question given that I have no context for where I said the above statement you want me to clarify. But, there you have it :)
I wrote that 828 days ago before I understood the comments or shoutout feature. I must have posted my blog and while it went mostly unnoticed, kind-hearted person that you are, responded directly to the blog. Fast-forward to the present and the lovely wasoxygen has been mining into the deep hubski. If you see his post on this page (click parent a few times), you'll see that he posted a link to the original blog and you'll see your comment posted back when we were two and a quarter years younger. This was long before mirroring. You will also see that after Was dredged this up from the deep web, b_b is right along with him, stomping in the snow. The discussion has now morphed into whether we choose our beliefs or not (see Was and b_b's comments). b_b says that we arrive at a belief rather than choosing it. Then he says this:
In the recent Thanksgiving post, I reiterated this idea saying, "I'm grateful for the ability and freedom to question all dogma, including self-created and self-imposed dogma - how do I know what I know? What assumptions and mythologies do I subscribe to?" Over and out on this topic for now, but tng, do check the link to the original post. I hope you had a lovely Thanksgiving. I'm currently in NYC and about to do a bunch of citystuff. Edit: Spellcheck wanted to change citystuff to crystal meth. I have a very idiosyncratic spellchecker.If each of us simply chose what to believe, I think our beliefs would be disingenuous.
I disagree. We can arrive, after some searching and critical thinking, at beliefs that seem right, that sustain us or throw us into despair, but after that arrival, I still think we are choosing. I can consciously choose despair or hope, compassion or rage.