Belief Is Dangerous And Should Be Avoided

REBUTTAL The definition for belief that we discussed in the beginning was "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." At the outset of your argument you attempt to modify this definition by adding "ideas or experiences of life." I do not consent to your modification because it could be misconstrued as an attempt to alter the definition to support your argument. I ask that the audience reject this modification and assume that Con was not attempting to undermine my arguments by changing the definition. I disagree that beliefs come from "places like our environment" but this debate is not about where beliefs come from. We are also not debating what "the greatest belief you can have" is. I accept Con's implied assertion that 'self-confidence is a belief' and agree that this is one case where it's not in our best interest to avoid belief entirely. However, the goal of my argument is to "persuade the audience that all beliefs present a threat of harm." Believing in oneself too much definitely presents a threat which we have words for: overconfidence and pride. I assume most people attribute negative connotations to these words. Con states that "positive illusory, or irrational, beliefs can be beneficial" for "well being and mental health." I don't think it's valid to disregard the dangers I presented for the positive feelings that come from delusional beliefs. Con stated "There is no one cognitive tendency for all our beliefs" but forgot to put quotes around it. I went to the study he cited and the words were actually spoken by Mr. Barrett. I will assume that lack of quotes was a mistake rather than an intentional deception. I encourage the audience to do the same. Con cites a study that concludes "people are primed to see signs and patterns in the world around them" and that "belief is in many ways an unavoidable by product of the way our minds work." This contradicts my assertion that "belief is optional." The key words in these statements are "primed" and "in many ways." First, how are people "primed?" Certainly our brain looks for "signs and patterns" naturally but it's difficult for me to ignore the fact that most children on our planet are programmed with beliefs by their parents at a young age. A lawnmower can be primed but that does not mean that starting the engine is unavoidable. Second, the statement that belief is "in many ways an unavoidable by product..." is quite ambiguous. Also, the qualifier "in many ways" implies that there are other "ways" that belief is avoidable. Con states "As pointed out, believing is part of our nature and is essential for our growth throughout life." I did not see enough evidence these assertions. Con makes the jump from "belief is in many ways an unavoidable by product" to "belief is part of our nature." How does Con explain the qualifier "in many ways"? Con states, "Belief and development are seemingly inseparable" but again does not put quotes around the statement. The actual quote, made in the conclusion of Con's reference #5 is "Religion and development are seemingly inseparable." The attempt by my opponent to substitute the word "Belief" for "Religion" seems like an extremely deliberate attempt to deceive the audience. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt when Con previously attempted to change the definition for belief and failed to use quotes for a statement made by someone else. However, the additional step of changing what the reference was saying seems to reveal the true intention. As a result, I encourage the audience to be very skeptical of Con's willingness to engage in honest debate. Con states that religions "provide believers a guideline about life" that provide "much-needed incentives for indulging in productive activities." Con assumes that this is a good thing. Con writes (without quotes) "Most of the empirical studies point to a positive relationship between beliefs and economic growth and development." The actual quote is "Most of the empirical studies point to a positive relationship between religion and economic growth and development." Again, the subsitution of belief for religion. Since my opponent chose to end the argument on this note, I will just say that Con's objective "to show that it is in peoples best interest to use belief systems (we should not avoid it but embrace it)" has been undermined. Whatever belief "system" my opponent is using seems to condone deliberate deception. For one, I have no interest in using it. RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL In disussing the article published by The American Psychologist, I stated that I would "summarize the five beliefs they discussed" with the end goal of highlighting some dangerous beliefs. Superiority- the point was not that "so many believe" or disbelieve but that belief in one's superiority can lead to conflict. Injustice- Again, the point is not how many "people believe in this" or how much "harm to society" is caused but belief that one is being treated unfairly can lead to conflict. Vulnerability- Since I was summarizing points made in the article, the statements cannot be misconstrued as my "beliefs." The threat mentioned is that belief that one is vulnerable can lead to conflict. Distrust- The article may have assumed that "all hostile parties can not determine what is hostile." I can't speak for the authors. However, the point was that belief in the hostility of others can lead to conflict. Helplessness- The article did not mention "beliefs that portray helplessness" but "belief in helplessness" and said that it can lead to conflict. 1) Con states, "it would take belief in what is the facts." In the interest of grammar, a more proper statement might look like "it would take belief in what the facts are." Con asks, "If we did not believe in what we perceive then how could we ever be sure of anything?" I agree that we have to have some level of confidence in our perceptions. However, my goal is to show that all beliefs have some degree of danger. Perceptions can certainly be wrong so it would be wise not to believe in them too much. Con states that since "facts and knowledge" might not be true that we must also use "beliefs from perception." I'm sure exactly what that means. 2) Con asserts, "If we did not believe in something then we would never even have a learning process." If we substitute "have facts and evidence" for "believe in something" I would agree. Con states that I take "lack of scientific knowledge for exposing belief as harmful." This misrepresents my position. I used the belief "that mental illness was caused by demons" that was "promoted for thousands of years" as an example to show how beliefs "keep us from finding real solutions." Con asserts "My opponent fails to see that belief also has found solutions, cures, and philosophies, for society." I think my opponent is confusing belief with curiosity and experimentation. Con did not address my discussion of Einstein and misrepresented my mental illness discussion. 3) Con states "This is less belief than a lack of knowledge." I ask that my opponent show how thinking that "humors" "had to remain in proper balance to maintain health" is not a belief. Since Con accepts facts and perception as beliefs it's hard to see how my opponent can avoid this. Con states, (in the interest of grammar) "If beliefs were [as] harmful as my opponent suggest[s] then we would not have many of the things we have today [that] we consider useful." Like what? Con did not address the problem of confirmation bias whatsoever. 4) Con wrote, "People can be cruel regardless of beliefs." This contradicts his assertion "believing is part of our nature." If people can be cruel without beliefs, then beliefs are not part of our nature. Which is it? CONCLUSION I have the burden of proof. ince Con did not address many of the points I made and misrepresented others, I ask my opponent to provide a comprehensive response to my arguments.