From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:20:59 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <C0098x.78K.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.224401.9789@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>step 1. "I believe X" = "X appears true to me." Only a skilled practitioner
>>of doublethink can believe something that appears false to them. If you
>>deny this, consider: can you believe in Ahura Mazda? No? You can't make
>>yourself, can you?
> 
> Hmm...is that a compliment or a criticism?  'Cuz I've got no problem doing
> that right now.  My life is based on that ability, to a large extent.

Well, I'd need you to elaborate a bit more before I could really comment
on that. Are you saying that you can believe in anything you want to?

>>step 2. One has no control over what appears true to one. A thing either
>>seems true or it doesn't. One can look for more info, but the new info will
>>either seem true or false and you can't do a thing about it. Sometimes
>>one might want very much to believe something, but it just seems false.
> 
> Off the wall, but did you watch the STTNG double-episode, "Chain of
> Command?"  Sometimes one might want very much to believe something, and
> it becomes true.  Picard's closing line says it all.

I saw enough of it to see that it was kind of a crude reworking of
something Orwell did much better in _1984._  There are really two
issues here: psychological effects of prolonged torture, 
and what Sartre called "bad faith."  The weakness of the Star Trek show
was that it confused the two. The script writers (perhaps
because of the limitations of the medium) did not distinguish between
these two processes. Orwell, on the other hand, makes it clear that
prolonged torture can be used politically as a powerful motivator
for the act of "bad faith."  
 
This is a fascinating area for discussion. I'm glad you brought this up.
It's quite relevant to the subject at hand. "Bad faith" is the essence
of much of Xian belief, but at the same time, for someone who is sophisticated
enough, there is no such thing as "bad" faith. I wonder if this latter
point is what you were getting at in your first remark above?
 
>>step 3. Therefore, belief is not an act of will! One cannot accept Jesus
>>in the way you mean as an act of will.  Your doctrine _precludes_ free will.
> 
> Well, since I disagree with both of your previous statements, I'm gonna
> have to disagree on this one too.  I have found belief to be very much
> an act of will.  It is that realization that first drew me away from
> traditional Christianity.  I can believe anything I _want_ to believe.

It's going to take us a little while to sort this out, but I suspect
we really don't disagree. For now, though, let me ask: can you believe
that 2+2=5?

> Realistically, I want to believe something that's going to fulfill me
> more often than not.  Christianity didn't.  Satanism did.

What do you mean "fulfill?"  And what do you mean by "Satanism?"
 
> I see where you're headed here, though, except I disagree with the
> underlying premises.  The very fact that my will can detemine the
> believability/unbelievability of something seems to cancel out the
> claim of ANY of them to be objectively true.

Heh heh...this is it exactly. This is at a subtler level than Steve and
I have been at, but I think I know what you're saying. Once you
realize that belief is an act that one can _do_ or not do, it becomes
clear exactly what beliefs are -- acts of imagination. And what
is imagination? Reflections, images. Of what? Of the experiential world,
for lack of a better term. 

The natural result of this realization is that one becomes unconcerned
with beliefs, at least in one's better moments. 
 
>>>>We have already established there is ultimately no grounds at all for
>>>>any belief. Obviously, then, people do not believe for rational reasons.
>>>>We believe because we are scared little creatures who are afraid to
>>>>die. 
> 
> Yet you also believe that you're going to die.  Do you have any more
> proof of this than you have of anything else?

Actually, no. To a certain degree, I am speculating based on certain
unprovable premises. I only do this for the sake of conversation,
really. One of my many vices. Strictly speaking, the fear of death
is an imaginative phenomenon also. 

I suspect that many of the quibbles you have with my comments arise because
I assume certain things in order to have conversations with people
who _live_ by those assumptions. Time will tell, though.

> -- 
> Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
> Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
>                        DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

I say to myself that the earth is extinguished, though I never saw it lit.
(S. Beckett, _Endgame_)
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc