What Refutes Your Beliefs?

It may be a bit naive to consider "evidence" as sufficient to change or uphold one's beliefs. That may be true for pragmatically centered "knowleldge" (know-how), but "belief" to me is what serves psychological functions such that "evidence" is only what illustrates it. The evolution of personal beliefs pertains to how they are selected for during the evolution of one's need system.

This may also apply to my "mystical" intuitions, but it does seem to me that such intuitions come from within and beliefs from without. I spontaneously create intuitions but intentionally take on beliefs. Regarding subjective change, If I lose beliefs and intuitions it is likely that I intentionally give up the former while the latter simply fade away.

...but those intuitions transcend "I". Transcendence might be abandoned, but not the intuitions therefrom.

Yes, Fresco, intuitions are "transcendental" in the sense that they just come and go without the efforts of an "I".

A good point, JLN. We may have been using the word "belief" a little too loosely in this thread.

Conviction can have two edges: it can give us confidence in our course of action and it can close our minds to other, perhaps better, possibilities. Bush is a man of conviction to the detriment of the nation.

I always hear people saying that Bush is a man of conviction. I strongly disagree. Bush is simply a stubborn man, a man afraid to admit that he has made a mistake and because of his pride he would sacrifice the lives of thousands of soldiers to salvage his perceived legacy.

You are obviously right, Gus. But I did mean the phrase, man of conviction, to denote a dogmatic and stubborn individual, one unable or unwilling to consider alternatives.

Thinking on the original Q......

Yes, LK, the original question. Frankly, I think that my beliefs are "refuted" (or replaced) only by beliefs that serve my needs better--ideas that are more attractive. I don't recall ever going through the ideal scenario of throwing away a cherished belief because of some critical disconfirming evidence.

I was going to say scientific findings might change my views, but one can find science to back up any point of view, it seems. So, I can peer into the sources and the process of the research, consider the scientists. But, I still would just believe the the scientists who support my view. I would however consider those scientists to be true and unbiased, therefore better scientists than those supporting contra-views....... hmmm.

Really, the only way to prove that is to prove whether the god of the Bible exists or not. If he does, then it's immoral and should not be done. If he doesn't, then all moral codes are subjective and open to personal interpretation/choice, so there is no answer.

Oh and my answer to the question:

Evidence, or if someone shows me a flaw in my reasoning. If my reasoning is sound, and the evidence I based it on goes unchallenged, then I'm not changing my belief.

How about the times when proof is impossible, just like the one you mentioned. One can not prove/disprove the existence of God. Not only because it's a difficult task, but also because theist and atheists cannot agree on the terms of the debate.

That's correct. Theists and antheists will never agree on what constitutes proof.

I agree. We all love to think we make our decisions based solely (or at least mostly) on the basis of logic. But there is always a subjective component. We see the world through our own perceptual lens, and this lens is influenced very significantly by our emotions.

We have an emotional investment in the things we believe. We make the objects of our belief a part of our identity. We are therefore unwilling to change our beliefs unless we feel secure, and able to affect positive change within ourselves. We are creatures of relationship. Adopting a belief which is contrary to that held by our peers/friends/family may feel very intimidating to some people.

In short, I think the way to persuade people is to listen to what they are saying below the surface--just why is a particular belief so important to them; what is the emotional pay-back for continuing to hold this belief in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary?

Excellent, Eclectic. Welcome to the Forum.