Is keeping one's beliefs to oneself a viable option?

This applies to atheists as well as the religious and superstitious, I think.

I do feel strongly that a lot of conflict stems from clashes of ideology, rather than any particular ideology itself. If this is the case, then encouraging everyone to keep their beliefs inside and not bring them up all the time would be a good way to proceed.

But I'm now thinking, how feasible is that? Could one make it through a day without having to express a belief? A year? A lifetime?

It seems to me that taking our beliefs less seriously (rather than just keeping quiet about them) is probably the way to go, but then, the more seriously someone takes a belief, the less likely they are to be willing to do so.

I dunno, any thoughts? I guess what I'm really asking is, is it still damaging to believe "the wrong thing" if that belief is never expressed? But then I'm wondering how easy it is to avoid expressing a belief. I express a belief in capitalism every time I go to work, so I dunno, surely that could be offensive to someone?

 

hmm.......i think belief is irrelevant to everyone but the believer if isn't expressed, unless one belief requires expression. when you go to work you are expressing human inclination to survive with the institutions that were presented upon availability, whether you enjoy capitalism or not (i do not believe in capitalism, and i work). just as a poor person might steal in order to survive, it is a natural inclination to do what is needed to continue an institution.

i feel like this is fragmented but it fits surprisingly well with a lot.

 

Have to say (and this refers back to another thread), it's interesting that the example of the poor stealing to feed their kiddywinks is cited so often. I don't know that it's that common really, and certainly not in the Western world where such sympathies are most often express.

It is, I suppose, inevitable that when one lives in an ideology-based society (rather than a purely pragmatic and purposefully amoral one) that one must compromise their ideals. But then I wonder, if we expect this of the religious, should they not expect it of us too?

 

Nice reflection. I think that fervent belief always seeks expression, even unconsciously, if not through speech then certainly through thought and action. A wrongful belief may be damaging to a person, but then again, what is wrong about believing? Repetition and emotion create beliefs, they don't have to be founded on reason or science.

Seeing how media always portray the rich, beautiful and famous as happy dancers, even while spraying febreze on their furniture, a belief in such a ridiculous cause and effect may not be harmful to anyone but the person's own happiness. I know this example is ridiculous too, but I'm just illustrating how beliefs are mass projected onto people, and through interaction these beliefs of material stuff=happiness spread out. Considering the average TV viewer's mood as light depression from seeing all these happier people on screen, I think we should be wise enough to know who's projecting their beliefs, why they're doing it (sell/influence), and learn from them.

It should be possible to develop and express our own beliefs at the same time as we respect and understand other people's beliefs. It just adds to the texture of our lives, doesn't it?

 

i whole heartedly agree with this.....i also believe it should be conveniant to do so.....but it just isnt in this day and age.....

we need a revolution.......of mind

 

What's inconvenient about it?

I should add that I do not believe one has to accept the consequences of a person's beliefs. So if someone believes that America should fall, that is very different from acting on that belief. In a more pragmatic example, racism of deed is punished but racism of thought isn't - and shouldn't be, as most racism and racist groups thrive on the notion that their freedom is being censored.

A belief about oneself, I suppose, could be harmful. Body dysmorphia is a prime example of a belief that harms people. That said, since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it's definitely arguable that anorexics are not necessarily "wrong" about their own ugliness; the primary hazard of self-starvation is that it harms one's health, not that one is "wrong" to do so.

 

One of the problems with keeping our beliefs to ourself is that we lose the benefit of feedback. The main reason I spend so much of my time in these Forums is to get feedback on my beliefs. When I keep them in my head, they seem sensible enough, but sometimes when I share them with others they seem kind of half baked. In fact, sometimes I really don't even need anybody else to tell me that. Just expressing them makes me realize how really stupid they are. Sometimes, I'll be browsing through people's old posts and come across one that seems like such a total load of crap I'll say to myself "What asshole wrote this?" And then I look at the signature: okiefreak. Must be an imposter! Anyhow, I learn from these dialogues, and I appreciate other people sharing their thoughts with me. I'm a Christian on an atheist/agnostic forum--I guess that says it all.

 

I agree that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. The core problem of anorexia is control and the lack thereof. It just manifests itself as an eating disorder, yet most extremist issues are caused by a similar mechanism...

Let me simplify (extremely): If the alphabet is the sum of everything a person has to deal with, it is easier to take out one letter, for example ''a'' and focus only on that one. In life everything moves and changes from one second to the next. So if the alphabet always changes, and we have to adapt to every change which takes energy and sometimes creates fear of the unknown - the change - then solely focusing on the static letter ''a'' simplifies a world that would otherwise be chaotic, fearful and ''un-adaptable.''

Anorexia is an unhealthy coping mechanism, as is alcoholism, drug abuse, religious extremism, and many other extreme beliefs are founded on the same unhealthy simplification of a very complex, always changing world.

This is a great attitude and a healthy way of adapting:

 

the fact that all social institutions have consequences is the underlying problem. just as a racist man [of thought] would not hire a minority on the grounds of work experience instead of color, but hire another of the same descent with less experience, this is four parts ignorance, one part deception.

as the manager is covering his ignorance [racism] to keep the oblivious minority out of work. they are both oblivious to the discrepancies of monetarism.

its not quite circular reasoning....but its damn close

just as generosity is inconvenient for someone paying bills.....

 

Acting on a belief is not the same as holding a belief. This was my whole point really. What you are describing is racism of thought acted upon. What I am saying is, if a racist has these thoughts, but never acts on them, is it a problem? I'll admit, it's a hypothetical, but I'd say it's at least potentially applicable if expression of a belief (in word or action) was ever widely punished.

It comes down to whether, for example, we dislike racism because of what it is, or because of what it leads to. Is it inherently wrong to hold the belief that a race is inferior? Or is it simply the possible consequences of holding that belief that make it wrong?

Racism is an example we all understand, this is why I am citing it. But in other terms, is it so wrong if someone spends their whole life believing (wrongly, for the sake of argument) in an afterlife? Or is it simply the possible consequences of holding that belief that leads us to have a problem with it?

 

the reason behind thinking and acting a certain way coincide. this is why we have law as well as freedom of speech, so discrepancy can be conveyed and evaluated. if a racist had the thoughts, but never acted on them, it would only be a "problem" to them.

i dislike racism because it is based on nothing but (at best) fragmented occurrences, poorly gathered and or insignificant information or tradition, and as you stated it does lead to things. it is not inherently wrong to hold the belief, but it isn't healthy, it is not a healthy state of mind and it is not healthy to have to interact with it.

[i assumed the degree of racism through context, as their isn't much implied by reproductive organ size.....at least not in this thread]

their is hard evidence of the possible consequences of irrationality, their are examples in every field.

but i see no harm in belief itself (belief without intrinsic value)

 

I guess my whole point with this thread is that I don't really understand what the difference between "healthy" and "unhealthy" belief is. If we use the analogy in question - that of biology and medicine - a cyst or tumour may be totally benign. Yes, it's not supposed to be there - it's "wrong", in other words - but it's unlikely that a doctor will attempt surgery on it, especially given the potential danger presented by surgery itself.

Racism is generally based on incomplete or unrepresentative information. For most people that's always going to be the case in anything they do with their lives. None of us are really privy to "the facts". Certainly in the case of something like the existence of God, I don't think anyone can really claim to possess complete or even sufficient information to make a worthwhile assessment.

Well, I cited that as one example where I know for a fact that there are statistical disparities between races - that they're not equal as we might wish them to be. Chances are, even with all things being equal, races will not average out as having equal IQ, equal crime rate, etc. Whether the difference is statistically significant is another matter, but certainly it does seem that "all men are created equal" is a belief that is widely held but possibly not evidenced.

Well, I would argue that we only know about "irrationality" when it is acted upon. So our assessment that it is inherently harmful is perhaps based on incomplete data. It may well be that 90% of irrational thinkers never act on their irrationality to an extent that we even notice. Very often it is the unremarkable data that gets ignored in analyses - hence my desire to hammer home the point in other threads that simply citing a few holy wars does not paint a representative picture of religion if one does not even mention the probably billions of people who've never been involved in one.

 

i don't think i understand.....
reluctance to compromise because of the dangers of change?
slavery in regards to old american economy can be applied to this.

this is exactly the case. but you and i are willing to admit it.

well sure.....when the "evidence" is a proposition on which another proposition depends.

but our society is much more complicated with regards to reproduction to even add penis size to the equation. that is an exceedingly small degree of possible "factual" racism. crime rate isn't a product of condition, its not even coherent to say so, and Steven hawking has rebuked the title of "worlds smartest man" several times with regards to his IQ. you cannot logically measure condition without evaluating institution.

correct. rationality is limited, but the notion that irrationality is acceptable if none knows about it is at best my attempt to appease a hypothetical. irrationality influences everything, as it is a way of thinking, all subsequent thoughts and actions are through this medium.

the notion that it is inherently harmful expresses the underlying flaw in that it is irrational and that the eventuality of irrationality is of itself.

 

Well, no. Think of us as the doctor in that situation. It would be arrogant of a doctor to put a patient through an operation that they did not need.

It can to an extent... but only if we consider slavery to be benign rather than malignant. Again, one might declare any "wrong" we encounter to be in need of rectification. Alternatively, we may judge these "wrongs" on their consequences and act accordingly.

I am not sure I see what that has to do with anything.

Sorry, but I don't agree. A person is not rational or irrational; a belief is rational or irrational. A person can hold one irrational belief and still hold other rational ones, and vice versa. And I really don't think that "irrationality influence everything". I think that's something we can tell ourselves if we want an excuse to have a problem with irrationality but can't justify it in terms of consequences.

 

benign and malignant is a lacking analogy in that it does not express reason. benign has intrinsic value, and tumors DO exist, but this is a manifestation of nature.

let me illustrate with weight.

slavery is an obese man of 1242 pounds, in that it
1.holds no logical reasoning (or required degree) behind the initial action of creating discrepancy.
2.does not consider (or care) about discrepancies from the side of the master as well as the slave.

i only ask that discrepancies be evaluated.

an irrational institution breeds irrational beings. yes, belief in an irrational institution is not intrinsic but their is no reason for deviation from such an institution, if discrepancy is not rationally evaluated in the first place.

one can be any weight he wants. but maintaining 700 pounds and saying it is not unhealthy is advocating obesity

 

I have no idea what you're talking about for most of this. I'm going to concede because I don't think we're getting anywhere.

 

but.....the purpose of reason is to understand.....

their is something to be learned in all this.

 

From whom?

 

from reason....

 

I don't think we can learn anything from reason.