You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do beliefs distort perception?
- Thread starter baguazan
- Start date
I think "distort" is unnecessarily pejorative.
Beliefs provide a framework for interpreting what we perceive. That's why faith debates can be so frustrating. People are often unable to consider their opponents arguments from their opponents perspective.
A Christian will never be able to understand an atheist argument until they are able to consider the naturalistic paradigm of atheism. Likewise, an atheist will never be able to comprehend a Christian argument until they are able to consider it from the paradigm of the existence of a supernatural God.
That's why silly questions are asked like, "How could Jonah survive three days inside a fish?". The implied request is for a naturalistic explanation, which ignores the premised involvement of a supernatural God.
Requests for proof are always folly. But even requests for evidence can be irrelevant when the question is from someone who is unable to be objective; that is, when they are unable to consider an opponents arguments in the context of their own axioms.
Beliefs provide a framework for interpreting what we perceive. That's why faith debates can be so frustrating. People are often unable to consider their opponents arguments from their opponents perspective.
A Christian will never be able to understand an atheist argument until they are able to consider the naturalistic paradigm of atheism. Likewise, an atheist will never be able to comprehend a Christian argument until they are able to consider it from the paradigm of the existence of a supernatural God.
That's why silly questions are asked like, "How could Jonah survive three days inside a fish?". The implied request is for a naturalistic explanation, which ignores the premised involvement of a supernatural God.
Requests for proof are always folly. But even requests for evidence can be irrelevant when the question is from someone who is unable to be objective; that is, when they are unable to consider an opponents arguments in the context of their own axioms.
The Bible advises one to take in an accurate knowledge of the truth and use your power of reasoning.
This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, *whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2*And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1-2)
This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, *whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2*And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1-2)
Jay Zisapus
New member
Of course they do. You cultivate scepticism and uncertainty. Everything else is folly. Choose something undeniable to believe in, to give meaning to your life - you're biologically programmed to. Love maybe, or energy, or the interconnectedness of all things. You know - something that everyone agrees with. Then just try to hear the stuff below all the noise. You need a sense of humour, or an uncanny ability to get away with murder - because some people will test your patience. When you see how silly most human activity is - you're getting there.
They sure do.
People tend to pay much more attention to that evidence which fits with what they already believe. Evidence that does not fit with it is almost completely ignored. This accounts for a whole lot of human disagreement; religious folks often won't look at evidence against their religion, for example, while non-religious folks often ignore any evidence that religion might be a good thing.
To make matters worse, this seems to be one of the toughest problems for humans to address within themselves. Everybody wants to believe that they have an objective perspective, or that their beliefs are correct; it's almost impossible for someone who truly believes in something to evaluate the evidence against it.
I have experienced this a lot recently. I was raised in a religion that taught, among other things, to be ardent in seeking truth. I am also a student of the scientific method, which teaches the same. But, as you might guess, the religious and scientific truth-seeking methods often give results that contradict each other. As a result I've gained a few things: a profound skepticism for anybody who thinks they know the truth about anything, and a sampling of various worldviews that I've looked at while attempting to find one in which I'm actually comfortable.
I have basically become a relentless agnostic. Almost never do I fully commit to a belief or value, simply because I have seen so many contradictory interpretations of all of them. Most people find this to be extremely frustrating; some even find it to be weak. So it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. But it has, at least, given me flexibility.
Feel free to email or IM me if you would like to talk.
People tend to pay much more attention to that evidence which fits with what they already believe. Evidence that does not fit with it is almost completely ignored. This accounts for a whole lot of human disagreement; religious folks often won't look at evidence against their religion, for example, while non-religious folks often ignore any evidence that religion might be a good thing.
To make matters worse, this seems to be one of the toughest problems for humans to address within themselves. Everybody wants to believe that they have an objective perspective, or that their beliefs are correct; it's almost impossible for someone who truly believes in something to evaluate the evidence against it.
I have experienced this a lot recently. I was raised in a religion that taught, among other things, to be ardent in seeking truth. I am also a student of the scientific method, which teaches the same. But, as you might guess, the religious and scientific truth-seeking methods often give results that contradict each other. As a result I've gained a few things: a profound skepticism for anybody who thinks they know the truth about anything, and a sampling of various worldviews that I've looked at while attempting to find one in which I'm actually comfortable.
I have basically become a relentless agnostic. Almost never do I fully commit to a belief or value, simply because I have seen so many contradictory interpretations of all of them. Most people find this to be extremely frustrating; some even find it to be weak. So it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. But it has, at least, given me flexibility.
Feel free to email or IM me if you would like to talk.