Another thread has inspired some vigorous debate regarding the origins of life on Earth. I chimed in, not to express my particular beliefs on the subject, nor to criticize or refute the beliefs of others, but rather to point out the fact that our beliefs don’t just materialize out of thin air. There are reasons we believe what we believe. We choose our beliefs.

So the question I posed was “Why do we choose to believe what we believe?”

As of the posting of this thread no one has attempted to answer this question. Maybe that’s because it’s a hard question to answer. It’s a question that requires introspection, self-awareness, and a painful degree of honesty.

It’s certainly easier to state our beliefs than it is to understand them.

Beliefs can be dead ends.
Ideas, theories, continue to bloom.
If something resonates, it is harmonic.

:]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Beliefs can be dead ends."
Is that why you choose to believe what you believe?
I don't get it.

To believe something is the END of an idea.
To have an idea, or theory, is to think something and keep an open connection so it can grow into an understanding.
I don't believe anything for this reason.
I only follow what feels right, which resonates with previous neural structures and fortifies a little something called truth.


Do you get that? ;]

I choose my beliefs because they resonate with empirical evidence. And not just my own experience, because I recognize that to be relatively subjective. When tempered with a wider range of empirical evidence, it's more likely to reflect consensus reality. Basing beliefs on empirical evidence makes them most likely to be functionally useful because they reflect consensus reality to the greatest possible extent.

I avoid beliefs on subjects where belief cannot be tested, simply because if the belief cannot be tested, it by definition has no practical relevance to the real world... anything that influences the real world would lead to certain expectation results which could be observed to confirm or deny its influence.

I can appreciate the aesthetic value of beliefs outside this sphere, but they do not seem to be capable of effectively informing interaction with the reality in which we live.

I question my beliefs frequently, because an invalid or insufficiently supported belief obviously lacks the valid predictive capabilities to make it functional.

From my favorite teacher in the art of thinking:

LILLY: In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended.

OF

You don’t believe anything? Is that even possible?

What is a belief, anyway? A neural structure of various frequencies compiled to form different "things" in space/time?

I leave it open and subject to change. You may find this contradictory, but it's how I've chosen to operate.

House: In that way, I think I'm similar to you. I leave all of my opinions subject to change.... but many of them haven't changed for some time, simply because of the weight of evidence behind them. There may occasionally be tidbits that increase the degree of uncertainty on the belief, but it would take evidence diametrically opposed to all my previous experience to actually change the belief.

Others of my beliefs are completely open, having no fixed value at all, and a very high degree of uncertainty on those blank values. Living with ambiguity is healthy.

My thoughts on the question: one chooses to believe whatever one believes because one thinks it is fitting. To determine whether or not something is fitting requires a judgment or assessment of some type. This judgment is a combination of observation and normative ethics. Sometimes it works, but in that formula there's lots of places to insert things can go wrong. Beliefs are often professed in order to communicate judgments and thereby encourage behavior that is in accordance with a particular normative ethic, which can be an efficient process but also has tons of places to insert things that can go wrong. Lots of ambiguity among all this certainty, despite itself!

I would like to think that people who are more aware of the process would tend to be better at the process, but on the other hand, there's lot of thoughtful people who reject the attachment. maybe beliefs cannot be derived so easily from certain observations, or perhaps normative ethics has its limits. Clearly beliefs and belief in general is a gray area. but on the other hand, at the very least we could agree that there is a large margin for error.