WHY do we WANT to believe?

[Balerion]

Her tactic is one that is sometimes used by a person whom is trying to protect *something* from scrutiny. The question then becomes, what idea was the conversation approaching that Jan wants to protect?

No idea. Hopefully jan is more forthcoming in his (I seem to recall being corrected by someone once when referring to jan as "her," not that it's relevant) subsequent posts.

 

[river]

We want to believe because we have been brainwashed into not believing in ourselves , Humanity , by religion

 

[Jan Ardena]

Given your history, I'm expecting you to argue that the "actual definition of the word" is something absurd, sort of like how your definition of the word "theism" was essentially a riff on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.




This is a false dichotomy. Fear is a perfectly normal reason to delude oneself. An abuse victim might fear the abuser's wrath if they were to leave or call the authorities, so they tell themselves that the person will change, even though there's nothing to suggest they will, and plenty to suggest they won't. Or they might fear being on their own, and delude themselves that they're better off in this situation. Of course, I don't buy for a second your claim that an abuse victim "has no other option." That's ridiculous. There are always options.

And of course that's just one example. What about the other one I provided? The parents who refuse to accept their child for who he or she really is? How many parents believe their kid is the best kid in the world, in spite of mounds of evidence to the contrary? Why do you think that is, jan?

Let me guess: you're going to assert that no parent "really" believes that. Somewhere, I hear bagpipes playing...

Given your history I expect you dodge the question with false accusation and ad-hominem..
I don't doubt that people delude themselves in any kind of situation. You specifically stated that a wife saying an abusive spouse will change is delusion, and parents who say their kids are perfect, or the best kids in the world, also are deluded. IOW, words those statements to oneself are in and of themselves, literally, delusion. Do you think there is anyway that such people may say that, even believe that, but are not deluded?

What are the evidences that every parent who thinks their kid is the best in the world, are deluded?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Crunchy Cat,

What is (independent of anyone's thoughts and feelings).

So truth equals reality, reality IS, and you're 100% clear on exactly what truth is.
Somebody recommend this guy for a noble prize, he is absolutely clear on what is truth. Reality IS.

There are some problems with your expectation. The first is that you think I should meet your expectation. Say this with me three times... "my expectations are my problem and nobody elses.". The second is that you believe there is a more detailed technical definition of truth and that you are able to comprehend it. While there might be a more technical definition of truth, I have no confidence that you have the cognitive ability to comprehend it.

There is no problem with my expectation. You made a remarkable claim, and your explanation fell short of one from someone who is absolutely clear on what truth/reality actually is. I'm beginning to suspect you made this statement but didn't think you'd be questioned on it, and now you're faced with questions you try and dodge them. I'm beginning to think you don't know what you're talking about, or that it's entirely local to you, and not the universal appeal you first gave it.

What do you mean by ''...but I make no claims that the knowledge I hold is all truth''?
It seems a little vague to me, not to mention contradictory.

I'll dumb it down. Let's say that throughout my life I have attained 3 pieces of knowledge. My statement means that I have not necessarily reviewed each of those 3 pieces of knowledge to see if they match reality.

Firstly, enough with the ad-hominems, they're unecessary, unless you're using it to avoid answering hard question, by deflecting the attention back on me. While I do sympathise with your predicament, it is nothing short of rude.

So what you mean is, you are absolutely clear on what truth is for you, in your world?
That's all I wanted to know.

Her tactic is one that is sometimes used by a person whom is trying to protect *something* from scrutiny. The question then becomes, what idea was the conversation approaching that Jan wants to protect?

I don't have a tactic, and I'm not protecting anything, I'm discussing something with you, a claim you made that I find extraordinary, and as this is a discussion board, I simply wanted to know more. Is that really to ask for given where we are?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Given your history I expect you dodge the question with false accusation and ad-hominem..

I've dodged nothing, and I've made no accusations.

I don't doubt that people delude themselves in any kind of situation. You specifically stated that a wife saying an abusive spouse will change is delusion, and parents who say their kids are perfect, or the best kids in the world, also are deluded. IOW, words those statements to oneself are in and of themselves, literally, delusion.

Incorrect. What I cited were examples of people who wrongly believe these things. This is why I mentioned the preponderance of evidence against such beliefs. The point was not to show that such beliefs are always delusional, but to give examples of false beliefs based on a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths.

What are the evidences that every parent who thinks their kid is the best in the world, are deluded?

Straw man. I never suggested such a thing was the case.

 

[wynn]

The point being made by CC is that people often choose to believe what makes them feel better without reference to the truth. What constitutes truth is irrelevant to the discussion, as we can all agree that truth isn't simply whatever one wants it to be.

No, this is just your particular interpretation of other people's intentions (as you assume them to be) and of their actions (the relatively few that you get to see).

Her tactic is one that is sometimes used by a person whom is trying to protect *something* from scrutiny. The question then becomes, what idea was the conversation approaching that Jan wants to protect?

Nonsense.

You are assuming yourself to have God's perspective, while claiming to be human.

Of course, you don't see any problem with that.

 

[wynn]

Incorrect. What I cited were examples of people who wrongly believe these things. This is why I mentioned the preponderance of evidence against such beliefs. The point was not to show that such beliefs are always delusional, but to give examples of false beliefs based on a desire to avoid uncomfortable truths.

You're working out of selective observation.

Let's take for example, a man lies in a job interview. Is this indicative that he prefers feelings over truth?

You'd probably say that it is.
Why?


Is it wrong, is it somehow a lie, a deception, to desire to get a job?
Is having a job and earning money merely an act of satisfying one's feelings?


Would a person, acting in line with the truth, be perfectly happy without a job, dying of hunger in a gutter?

 

[Balerion]

No, this is just your particular interpretation of other people's intentions (as you assume them to be) and of their actions (the relatively few that you get to see).

No, this is what it is. You want there to be no right answer, for their motives to be inscrutable, but in reality we're not all snowflakes.

You're working out of selective observation.

Of course I am. I'm only talking about people who believe things in spite of evidence to the contrary. In other words, I'm only talking about delusional people.

Let's take for example, a man lies in a job interview. Is this indicative that he prefers feelings over truth?

You'd probably say that it is.
Why?

It would depend. Is he lying because he really believes in the lies? Or does he know he's lying and is simply trying to get a job he's not qualified for? Obviously, if he believes his own nonsense, he's delusional.

Is it wrong, is it somehow a lie, a deception, to desire to get a job?
Is having a job and earning money merely an act of satisfying one's feelings?


Would a person, acting in line with the truth, be perfectly happy without a job, dying of hunger in a gutter?

I have no idea what you're on about here.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,
So truth equals reality, reality IS, and you're 100% clear on exactly what truth is.
Somebody recommend this guy for a noble prize, he is absolutely clear on what is truth. Reality IS.

No that is incorrect, and I knew that you would get it wrong even with the simplest definition of truth possible. Truth is when an idea in your mind MATCHES reality. It's a state of equality where the left side of the argument is some idea in your mind and the right side of the argument is some cross-section of reality that you are comparing against.

There is no problem with my expectation.

Except for the glaring ones I pointed out?

You made a remarkable claim,

Not really. It's based on correspondence theory and that has been around for quite some time. You're just not familiar with it and your education is not my responsibility.

...and your explanation fell short of one from someone who is absolutely clear on what truth/reality actually is.

It's ironic because you did not understand the explanation based on your incorrectly paraphrased statement "So truth equals reality". I don't think it fell short at all, your comprehension simply did. Also you interjected a subtle lie into that statement above. You asserted that I am absolutely clear on what truth/reality actually is. I stated I am 100% clear on what truth is. I made no claims to 100% clarity as to what reality is, that is the lie you issued.

I'm beginning to suspect you made this statement but didn't think you'd be questioned on it, and now you're faced with questions you try and dodge them. I'm beginning to think you don't know what you're talking about, or that it's entirely local to you, and not the universal appeal you first gave it.

I've made it very clear several times that it was actually irrelevant to the point I was trying to make that people can and do value how they feel over truth. Balerion picked up on that just fine, but for some reason you did not or did not want to. You chose to discuss truth, but as I suspected and as you demonstrated with your incorrectly paraphrased statement "So truth equals reality", it's beyond your comprehension. Until you go back, study the definition I provided, think it through, demonstrate to yourself that there are no exceptions, etc. there is nothing I can do to make you understand. You're going to have to think.

Firstly, enough with the ad-hominems, they're unecessary, unless you're using it to avoid answering hard question, by deflecting the attention back on me. While I do sympathise with your predicament, it is nothing short of rude.

When one person in a two-person discussion simply cannot understand and / or does not want to understand, then there actually is a problem with that person.

So what you mean is, you are absolutely clear on what truth is for you, in your world?
That's all I wanted to know.

No, but you are free to believe whatever you like. The quote you are replying to was a dumbed down explanation of what I meant by "...I make no claims that the knowledge I hold is all truth". It's not even related to your response.

I don't have a tactic, and I'm not protecting anything, I'm discussing something with you, a claim you made that I find extraordinary, and as this is a discussion board, I simply wanted to know more. Is that really to ask for given where we are?

jan.

If you are really not intentionally employing a tactic, then you may subconsciously be doing so. The definition of truth I provided also isn't extraordinary, it's been around for quite some time (read about correspondence theory... it will still require thinking on your part).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nonsense.

You are assuming yourself to have God's perspective, while claiming to be human.

Of course, you don't see any problem with that.

Really? You are invoking fictitous life forms now to try and make assertions?

 

[jayleew]

I've dodged nothing, and I've made no accusations.

This is Jan's fallacy at work. His object is to obfuscate the issue and then claim you are dodging the question. Then, your arguments will be dissected to the point where the meanings are lost and you are left with single arguments that do not make sense out of context. It is a good strategy that anyone can employ, but it is dishonest and unproductive. Either ignore or speak succinctly or you will be faced with a mountain of questions that have little to do with the point of the statement you made. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

[jayleew]

I don't doubt that people delude themselves in any kind of situation.

jan.

How does one avoid this self-delusion? If what you say is true, then even you might be deluded just like I was as a theist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jayleew,

This is Jan's fallacy at work. His object is to obfuscate the issue and then claim you are dodging the question.

Come on Jaylew! Why are you taking sides?
Balerion does dodge a lot of my questions simply because they are very difficult to answer if one tries to maintain a particular self-image.

Then, your arguments will be dissected to the point where the meanings are lost and you are left with single arguments that do not make sense out of context. It is a good strategy that anyone can employ, but it is dishonest and unproductive. Either ignore or speak succinctly or you will be faced with a mountain of questions that have little to do with the point of the statement you made. It's smoke and mirrors.

Is that how you saw our last discussion?

My reasoning for the method used, was to show that you have amassed typical cliches which have now become embedded into you perception, IOW, you see these cliches as fact (without actually checking to see if they are), and cannot understand why anyone would argue against them.
It's rather like saying Islam is synonymous with suicide bombers because of 911, and getting angry because Islamic people say this isn't so.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

jayleew,

Come on Jaylew! Why are you taking sides?

Because your tactics are cheap and dishonest. Did you really expect everyone to sit on the sidelines while you do the same lousy crap in every thread?

Balerion does dodge a lot of my questions simply because they are very difficult to answer if one tries to maintain a particular self-image.

Which questions have I dodged, Jan? Please, show me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Because your tactics are cheap and dishonest.

I don't use, nor need to use, tactics on this subject matter.
You throw these accusations in a bid to protect yourself from having to answer questions that obviously contradict
your position.

You and others like to imply that religious people prefer feeling good and satisfied over truth, but that's exactly how you conduct yourself on here.

Did you really expect everyone to sit on the sidelines while you do the same lousy crap in every thread?

That's just it, it's not the same, and it certainly isn't crap.

Which questions have I dodged, Jan? Please, show me.

Explain how you know these people ''value'' these states of mind of over what you seem to think the truth of the matter is.

1. I suppose this is going to become a semantics argument now,

2. where you interject some asinine personal definition of "value?",

3. I was going to ask why Wynn hadn't replied, but now I can see: she's waiting to see which dishonest tack you take before jumping on your coattails.

4. How about you just make your point.

5. Mine was self-explanatory,

6. so your question serves no other purpose than to set up your own introduction of a new and foolish (read: incorrect) definition of a term.

7. By all means, introduce it so we can move on.

You managed to make 7 points, 3 of which were insults to myself and wynn.

1+2 were pre-emptive deflections where you managed to throw an insult in, most probably to reinforce a stereotype that you and others are pursuing.

Already talked about 3.

4. Another deflection by implying the question was just a front for a pre-set point.

5. You made a claim, whether or not it was self-explanatory (which it wasn't) isn't the issue. You were asked to give an explanation to said claim which you didn't, choosing instead dodge the question, and hurl insults simultaneously.

6. And here we see justice by your mindset. No need to question, your eliteness is good enough to make the necessary judgement. I'll just wait for my sentence to come through some kind of tech shall I?

7. And now you think you've got away with not having to answer my question, while making it seem that you have actually answered my question, and I am merely bugging you. Next you'll be calling for me to be banned from the forum.

You're so transparent it isn't funny (anymore).

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,



I don't use, nor need to use, tactics on this subject matter.
You throw these accusations in a bid to protect yourself from having to answer questions that obviously contradict
your position.

You and others like to imply that religious people prefer feeling good and satisfied over truth, but that's exactly how you conduct yourself on here.



That's just it, it's not the same, and it certainly isn't crap.










You managed to make 7 points, 3 of which were insults to myself and wynn.

1+2 were pre-emptive deflections where you managed to throw an insult in, most probably to reinforce a stereotype that you and others are pursuing.

Already talked about 3.

4. Another deflection by implying the question was just a front for a pre-set point.

5. You made a claim, whether or not it was self-explanatory (which it wasn't) isn't the issue. You were asked to give an explanation to said claim which you didn't, choosing instead dodge the question, and hurl insults simultaneously.

6. And here we see justice by your mindset. No need to question, your eliteness is good enough to make the necessary judgement. I'll just wait for my sentence to come through some kind of tech shall I?

7. And now you think you've got away with not having to answer my question, while making it seem that you have actually answered my question, and I am merely bugging you. Next you'll be calling for me to be banned from the forum.

You're so transparent it isn't funny (anymore).

jan.

You're just mad because I called your bluff. You weren't really interested in my answer, you just wanted to obfuscate the argument so you could disagree with me without making an actual point of your own. That's why after I said this, you changed the question. To wit:

Why is a wife or girlfriend who believes her abusive beau will change, delusional? There may be other factors involved, like fear, for example. Maybe belief that he will change is the only option she may have. So why is that delusional?

To which my answer was as follows:

This is a false dichotomy. Fear is a perfectly normal reason to delude oneself. An abuse victim might fear the abuser's wrath if they were to leave or call the authorities, so they tell themselves that the person will change, even though there's nothing to suggest they will, and plenty to suggest they won't. Or they might fear being on their own, and delude themselves that they're better off in this situation. Of course, I don't buy for a second your claim that an abuse victim "has no other option." That's ridiculous. There are always options.

Not only did I answer your question, I even went on to ask you questions of my own, which you completely ignored. It's no surprise that you're now accusing me of dodging questions when it's actually you who's on the run.

And of course that's just one example. What about the other one I provided? The parents who refuse to accept their child for who he or she really is? How many parents believe their kid is the best kid in the world, in spite of mounds of evidence to the contrary? Why do you think that is, jan?

I want an answer to the questions I posed and an apology for your lies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

You're just mad because I called your bluff. You weren't really interested in my answer, you just wanted to obfuscate the argument so you could disagree with me without making an actual point of your own. That's why after I said this, you changed the question. To wit:....

Why is a wife or girlfriend who believes her abusive beau will change, delusional? There may be other factors involved, like fear, for example. Maybe belief that he will change is the only option she may have. So why is that delusional?

To which my answer was as follows:

This is a false dichotomy. Fear is a perfectly normal reason to delude oneself. An abuse victim might fear the abuser's wrath if they were to leave or call the authorities, so they tell themselves that the person will change, even though there's nothing to suggest they will, and plenty to suggest they won't. Or they might fear being on their own, and delude themselves that they're better off in this situation. Of course, I don't buy for a second your claim that an abuse victim "has no other option." That's ridiculous. There are always options.

If the victim acts in a way which may appear as though they are delusional, there's no way of telling if the victim IS actually delusional (a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary), or simply surviving the abuser's wrath the best way they know.
They may find themselves hoping for change in their spouses behaviour so they don't have to keep up a pretence.

If they fear being lonely, and pretend their spouse will change, then how is that delusional. How is hoping for something to happen, especially if there is a possibility that it might happen, delusional? In short, it's far too complex to make sweeping generalisations about such situations.

Not only did I answer your question,

You answered that particular question because I threw you a bone by introducing the aspect of 'fear', and you didn't handle that well.

I even went on to ask you questions of my own, which you completely ignored. It's no surprise that you're now accusing me of dodging questions when it's actually you who's on the run.

You really think you got me with this one, don't you?

And of course that's just one example. What about the other one I provided?

1. The parents who refuse to accept their child for who he or she really is?
2. How many parents believe their kid is the best kid in the world, in spite of mounds of evidence to the contrary? Why do you think that is, jan?

You've made two points here, so I'll deal with them individually.

1. You have to define what you mean by ''refuse to accept their child for who he or she really is?''
It delusional if the parent thinks the child is a girl when in fact it's a boy, or the child is an 'A' student, when in fact they're a 'D-' student which has been proven over the years by the constant 'D-' results. IOW, when the facts say one thing over good period of time, but the parents persists that they do not exist, then that is delusion. To think, that, despite the constant, low grades, their child can improve, and acts positively to themselves, and others, does not mean the parents are deluded.

2. How do you define ''the best kid in the world'', and what evidence is their to show that their kid isn't the best kid in the world??
Answer these simple questions which you obviously overlooked, then we can progress further on this.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.....

Explaining the causes of delusions continues to be challenging and several theories have been developed.....

Another theory is the dysfunctional cognitive processing, which states that delusions may arise from distorted ways people have of explaining life to themselves....

This condition is more common among people who have poor hearing or sight. Also, ongoing stressors have been associated with a higher possibility of developing delusions. Examples of such stressors are immigration or low socio-economic status.....

Researcher, Orrin Devinsky, MD, from the NYU Langone Medical Center, performed a study that revealed a consistent pattern of injury to the frontal lobe and right hemisphere of the human brain in patients with certain delusions and brain disorders. Devinsky explains that the cognitive deficits caused by those injuries to the right hemisphere, results in the over compensation by the left hemisphere of the brain for the injury, which causes delusions.....

The background facts demonstrated that hallucinations and delusions are common in childhood as well as in adulthood and that children who experience such symptoms are more prone to develop psychosis later in life. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that the risk of psychotic symptoms, including delusions, was multiplied by two for children who suffered bullying at age eight or ten. The authors remark that bullying can cause chronic stress that may have an effect on a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia and result in setting off the symptoms.....

jan.

 

[Balerion]

If the victim acts in a way which may appear as though they are delusional, there's no way of telling if the victim IS actually delusional (a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary), or simply surviving the abuser's wrath the best way they know.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. And of course there is a way to know. You might be an outsider who is aware of the situation, or you're a doctor dealing with the fallout, or a family member. It's not some great mystery, we know that people delude themselves in precisely this instance all the time. We have testimony of victims themselves, once removed from the abuser, explaining what they thought and why. Sure, sometimes they don't know any better, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. That much was obvious from what I wrote.

They may find themselves hoping for change in their spouses behaviour so they don't have to keep up a pretence.

That's still a delusion. And it's irrelevant, since I'm not talking about those situations.

If they fear being lonely, and pretend their spouse will change, then how is that delusional.

You answered your own question. They're pretending.

How is hoping for something to happen, especially if there is a possibility that it might happen, delusional? In short, it's far too complex to make sweeping generalisations about such situations.

I was speaking specifically about situations in which the person was delusional. I never said all abuse victims are delusional, I simply referenced a common situation in which the abuse victim believes their partner will change because it's more comfortable than facing the reality that they are being victimized. We know that this kind of thing happens. It's documented. Victims have admitted after the fact that they were delusional.

You answered that particular question

Exactly. Thank you.

You really think you got me with this one, don't you?

Presumably, because you didn't address it.

You've made two points here, so I'll deal with them individually.

1. You have to define what you mean by ''refuse to accept their child for who he or she really is?''
It delusional if the parent thinks the child is a girl when in fact it's a boy, or the child is an 'A' student, when in fact they're a 'D-' student which has been proven over the years by the constant 'D-' results. IOW, when the facts say one thing over good period of time, but the parents persists that they do not exist, then that is delusion. To think, that, despite the constant, low grades, their child can improve, and acts positively to themselves, and others, does not mean the parents are deluded.

And those are exactly the kinds of parents I'm referring to. So we agree.

2. How do you define ''the best kid in the world'', and what evidence is their to show that their kid isn't the best kid in the world??
Answer these simple questions which you obviously overlooked, then we can progress further on this.

You're being ridiculous. I was obviously referring to parents who believe their kids do no wrong in spite of evidence to the contrary. Parents who, for example, refuse to believe their child is a bully even though they get into a lot of trouble for exactly that kind of behavior. It's always the other kid's fault, in their eyes.


It appears that we actually agree, but you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. Instead, you'd rather attempt to nitpick my examples. Sadly, you're not up to the task, and you've been embarrassed yet again.

 

[jayleew]

My wife claims that she needs church. She has a stressful job and she is relatively high strung personality. Everything bothers her and going to church once a week, they have lessons about how to handle stress, stupid people, or just plain evil people. Going there is a sanctuary for her where she can let it go and learn how to manage it. It is therapeutic. Some Sunday's she doesn't go, she doesn't have such a good week because she loses focus on what is important. I think it is more a need to believe in God. I wonder if she found another avenue for the same thing, like a support group, would she still need God? Or, what if she found the inner strength in the duty to live a good and full life like I did?

The want is the other stuff associated with religion. The connection, the spirituality, the oneness, the friendship, and the community are good things in life.

 

[Balerion]

My wife claims that she needs church. She has a stressful job and she is relatively high strung personality. Everything bothers her and going to church once a week, they have lessons about how to handle stress, stupid people, or just plain evil people. Going there is a sanctuary for her where she can let it go and learn how to manage it. It is therapeutic. Some Sunday's she doesn't go, she doesn't have such a good week because she loses focus on what is important. I think it is more a need to believe in God. I wonder if she found another avenue for the same thing, like a support group, would she still need God? Or, what if she found the inner strength in the duty to live a good and full life like I did?

The want is the other stuff associated with religion. The connection, the spirituality, the oneness, the friendship, and the community are good things in life.

I doubt very much they're teaching her anything, because if they were, then missing a week wouldn't cause her to suddenly forget all of the lessons she previously learned. It's morel likely that she's getting something out of the community aspect of it. Maybe genuine therapy would help her, especially if she's high-strung. There, she'd actually learn ways to cope with stress that wouldn't require her to attend a meeting every week. It could bring about progress, rather than act as maintenance.

Have you talked to her about therapy?