Understanding by Social Osmosis

I have long believed, and stated, that the most of people hold their beliefs unexamined. Certitude is the object of faith, be it faith in a religious sect or system or faith in a political faction or system. If one holds one's beliefs unexamined, one is not willingly subjected to the stress of doubt, which is the object of certitude.

Moreover, i submit that not only do the majority of adults hold their beliefs unexamined, they assume that those about them are either apostate (whether religiously or politically) or hold the same beliefs as they do themselves. Were two adults sitting next to one another in church or in a political caucus to exhaustively examine their respective beliefs, i suspect that sooner or later they would find that they disagree. Reason enough, for the faithful, not to inquire too deeply into what they believe.

Setanta

I agree with your conclusions. Is there anything we (members of this forum) can do to change that situation? Is there anything we should do to change that situation?

Taken as members of this forum, i'd say there is nothing we can do. More broadly, as members of humanity, i doubt there is anything we can do. Whether or not one ought to make the effort is a personal choice. I point this out to others if it comes up in conversation, but in real life, i avoid discussion of politics or religion, for precisely the reason that people embrace faith for its certitude, and posit, a priori, that they "know" the truth. I therefore consider that it is futile to attempt to change their minds. I've read history all my life--my conclusion is that this is an unchanging aspect of human nature.

I have always held my opinions (I loath the word 'belief' in reference to myself) open to scrutiny. How else are they to advance and improve?
Of course I'm not your average bear.

From Joe Average's point of view, where is the incentive to hold all of his/her views open to a more constant scrutiny though? I'd like to think it's that opinions and beliefs are merely stepping stones to a clearer idea of something but I'm not sure whether everyone shares that thought. Generally speaking people only seem to deeply consider those things which directly effect them on a day to day basis. It's all too easy for people to decide something for themselves, to coast through life with this belief and to grow so accustomed to thinking, acting and behaving in such a way that, arguing without thinking in the defence of said opinion becomes second nature.

Maybe we should ask what kinds of beliefs/opinions are available, why we feel such a need to gain a collection of them and which opinions/beliefs are more naturally aggressively/mindlessly defended. Personal identity obviously seems very key to some of this but if more people argued/debated to gain a better understanding of the other side of the coin as opposed to converting the other person we might start to get somewhere.

However, as Winston Churchill pointed out, a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind, and won't change the subject.

I think the belief that one's own beliefs should be examined is one that is learned in childhood and not easily shaken. Those of us who hold that belief can't understand those that don't, and to those that don't ....we just look weak for our lack of faith.

So the best thing you can do to win more "converts" to our side is to teach kids to question everything, like my parents did. I think it's too late for adults.

I agree generally with your comment. But so few families emulate your family that democracy is under assualt. The big question it seems to me is 'Can democracy survive?' when so few citizens are prepared to take their responsibility.

Our schools and colleges are begining to teach CT (Critical Thinking) to our young people. CT teaches how to think rather than just what to think. But can we wait for future generations before we acquire a sphisticated citizenry?

A citizen has more responsibility than just to vote. A good citizen must be able to make judgment not just opinion.

I don't feel this way where I live, but I am in one the least religious parts of the world, while you.....not-so-much!!

Is that enough to explain the difference, or have I got the cart before the horse, do you think?

After 10 years of marriage my wife has changed quite a bit and is now willing to question and challenge her once more black and white precepts, and for that matter others as well. She used to consider that I was simply negative and critical at times.

Vancouver BC Canada has a more open feeling to it then many other cities I have been to. Here, it's a bit less bound by traditions and fears and history, and a bit more a "the future is today" feeling.

I also think the internet helps provide some leverage for this potential questioning.

Are these types of things enough to stem the tide of historical momentum and myopic comfortable viewpoints? Perhaps not singularly, but together with future major technological change they may remedeate some of the possible negative effects of short term closed minded precepts.

Take life extension in isolation as one example and ask: if you lived for 800 years, would you consider the ecological implications of today's actions to have a different import?

Perhaps the Internet brings together such a diverse group of people that there is no way for us to engage in any common endeavor. This medium has its usefulness but perhaps it cannot provide a means for common efforts to solve our differing ailments.

Could be, but at a minimum you can't disagree with the exposure = tolerance precept (well you can disagree, but I'll find it intolerable).

For people who truly are intolerant, exposure to difference only confirms their conviction that they are right, and those who disagree are horribly wrong.

Luckily enough, Setanta, most of those people will eventually filter out in moderate forums like this one, by a process of 'forum osmosis' which lasts for as long as said person can stand the criticism his/her posts illicit.

The entertaining aspect of that is the fun we can have with them before they give up and go away. We do get quite a few, though, who post a single time, and disappear forever after the initial response.

(The word "illicit," an adjective, means illegal or immoral. You wanted the verb "elicit.")

We also have the cast-iron impermeable membranes of some of the outer limit long term posters, which (I know I can't help it but I like some of them) have found a niche in the A2K playground for entertainment value / eyebrow raising exercises.

I have very large bushy eyebrows, it's a good facial muscle workout to raise them the required height to express incredulity.