Open Mike: Your Belief System (OT)

(for K.M.)

Everybody has a belief system. It's just sometimes difficult to make out what it is.

The simplest and plainest choice is religion. I don't say that in a denigrating way; it's just that religion offers itself up specifically as a belief system, so it's not surprising when many people use it that way.

Of course "religion" is a sprawling category. We've recently been having a bit of a flareup in the fracas between Christianity and its younger sibling Islam that has been going on more or less since the end of the 11th century. I had a friend recently who was a member of a cult. "Cult" can be defined loosely as "a religion that is new or not yet established." Part of the appeal of her cult seemed to me equal parts unreasonableness and difficulty. Of course it used to be difficult to be a Christian, too. I need to investigate books about the morality of Jesus...the problem is that the subject is so hoary and the literature so vast that it's tough to find clear, well-written primers. Even single religions are sprawling categories, turns out. 

Anti-religion can also be a belief system, which is amusing in a way. A few years back there was a fad for atheism—you remember Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, the late Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (subtitled, in case the title was too subtle for anyone, "How Religion Poisons Everything"), and Sam Harris's acidic The End of Faith? (Speaking of faith, don't put too much of it in Amazon's new "bestseller" tags—The End of Faith might be a #1 Bestseller, but only in the hoppin' "Rationalist Philosophy" category.) The fad faded a bit when people realized some of the so-called New Atheists were advocating  anti-religion with religious fervor.

It's not uncommon for people to build their belief systems around political principles. Or (speaking of selling) even economic ones. A surprising number of older people still "deify" capitalism, for example (recently, the number of younger American adults who approve of capitalism has fallen into a minority). The defining characteristic of human beings is our tendency to split into two sides, so—just as Superman (b. in Action Comics #1, 1938) required Lex Luthor (b. Action Comics #23, 1940), capitalism had to have communism. That fight has gotten faded and shopworn (Marxism's standard got tattered before capitalism's did). As has Superman's popularity—he's struggled to maintain an audience in recent decades.

I have a good friend who for a long time seemed to claim that everything, even art, rested on the centrality of political ideas. He seemed to relax that years ago, but when I asked him about it, he admitted that his beliefs had gotten so radical that he had to stop talking about them because of other peoples' reactions. I have a few convictions like that too—ideas so far out of the mainstream that they strike people right off the bat as startling, bordering on crazy. A recent essay by a writer I like, Alain de Botton, said that we should all ask potential partners when we first start dating, "and how are you crazy?"

You don't have to look very far to realize that hedonism has a pretty strong sway as a belief system right now—personal pleasure and self-interest as the guiding principle of life. It usually pals around with its friends relativism and narcissism. This is in contrast to past eras when virtue, discipline, and honor had the upper hand in popularity. That sounds like it had to be good, but not necessarily. In the sixteenth century, the French aristocracy literally decimated itself (i.e., one in ten died) by dueling, and in the antebellum South thousands of men died essentially voluntarily, protecting their honor. "Death is not sufficient to deter men who make it their glory to despise it," wrote Joseph Addison, in Vol. II of his Spectator. We, like the Greeks and Romans, have no enthusiasm for dueling whatsoever, and it is absent in modern Western society at any class level. (Virtue and discipline are shaky with us too, though.) George Washington, a thoroughly uninteresting fellow apart from his central role in founding a fledgling nation, evidently spent his life cultivating his virtue and rectitude with great humorlessness.

George Washington was also the Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg of Colonial America—his net worth was approximately equivalent to $100 million today, and he was the richest American of his era. Today, money alone is the belief system of many. Be rich and then be richer, and never mind anything else. Wealth disparity, which has greatly accelerated since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, makes that almost prudent—it's getting better and better to be rich and harder (and more dangerous) to be poor, almost with every passing month.

I have another friend who seems very much to have taken the hippie ethos of the 1960s as his permanent value system—Flower Power, peace, and free love. Even in the '80s I was wondering where that went...that is, when exactly did peace and love get replaced by sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, and hippies with punks? That was a change that not a lot of people seemed to notice much. I once tried to write a spoof song to the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" (Peter, Paul, and Mary, 1962) called "Where Have All the Hippies Gone?" But unfortunately lyrics aren't my métier.

It's really fascinating to me how various beliefs tend to cluster together. It sometimes seems to defy consistency.

Two great minds who thought alike: ethologists (and Nobel laureates) Nikolaas Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz. Most people do not approve of animal behaviorism being applied to themselves, however.

Science and the scientific method is the core of some peoples' beliefs. This might include people who have specific scientific or academic disciplines as the locus of their belief systems. When I was young I developed in my own head, just for myself, something which I later learned was akin to sociobiology—a discipline so widely reviled that it has had to change its name (it's now more often called evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology. People might no longer think Earth is the center of the Universe and human beings were magically created whole and entire from the Will of God, but we still dislike to think that primatology says anything about us.) Evolution is part of my core beliefs, though, thanks to Mrs. Sieckman's 8th grade paleontology class! Although science isn't my interest, she was one of the best and most inspiring teachers I ever had. I credit her with teaching me to write—a science teacher, and I was a student who idolized my English teachers. I wrote what amounted to a thesis for her on the topic of evolution vs. religion, for which I interviewed no fewer than 15 priests, pastors, ministers, and rabbis, collectively one of the great educational experiences of my youth, and probably when my interest in what's really goin' on here first took serious traction.

I believe I've known people for whom logic is one of the lights, the light of all lights*.

Space travel and aliens, monsters or superheroes, fantasy worlds, movies and celebrity culture—and probably a whole lot of other things I prefer to not think about—flirt with centrality in the demotic belief systems of the multitude.

A distinguished analyst I know admits that her belief system is psychoanalysis. Sure enough, she has a bank of books by and about Freud in tidy rows in her office, and a diminutive Freud Action Figure stands on an end-table. She thinks Civilization and its Discontents is Freud's best book. The one book by Freud everybody should read.

A belief system is what you filter everything else through first. I think my own core outlook is essentially psychological. I've noticed that politics, economics, world affairs, science, history, even religion all tend to filter through psychology first in my thinking about the world. I could be wrong about that...but then, the reason I say that is because of the essentially psychological perception that it's harder to see ourselves than it is to see others.

The point is that something has to structure your core beliefs, and it's best to try to be aware of what it is. It can't be nothing. An old joke had it that even nihilists passionately believe in one thing—nihilism!

Mike

*Sorry, I'm playin' again—the quote is from Bram Stoker's Dracula. If excessive logicalness isn't vampirish, ya gotta admit it's at least Spockish.

"Open Mike" is the open-topic, anything-goes Editorial Page of TOP. It evolves every Sunday if I can think of a topic.

[UPDATE: I've changed the sentence "The fad faded a bit when people realized some of the so-called New Atheists were advocating anti-religion with religious fervor" about eight times now, based on various comments and criticisms. I just want you to you that I'm moving on with my life now, and leaving that poor put-upon sentence to fend for its forlorn self in the cruel world. —Mike the Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

tex andrews: "If I had to distill my belief system into a single word, it would be 'Beauty,' capital B. I also believe in lowercase beauty. I am no longer of one of the Abrahamic faiths, although was once a Christian and still study the Old and New Testaments and their discourses. Lately, I find I'm more animist in my beliefs, and veer towards Shinto, a fairly opaque, highly aestheticized religion with a mysterious dark center somewhere.

"Nevertheless, it's Beauty that captivates me, drives me as a person and artist, and has both enriched my life spiritually and intellectually while at the same time impoverishing me monetarily. And it is in Beauty that I encounter mystery and wonder, and beauty that inspires me to continued life while I simultaneously despair and wonder at the stupidity of much that we all endure." 

Michael Gatton: "Great, another argument for lumping science in with aliens, religion, quackery, climate change denial, ant-vaccination, astrology—it's all just belief systems, pick one. I disagree with you on this and I think it's a harmful position to advocate."

Mike replies: This is a fascinating comment, and it really points out that I didn't adequately define here what a belief system is. I don't think you've quite got it. I said it's "the thing you filter everything else through first." Think of it as the way of looking at things that everything else boils down to for an individual or group.

In a short white paper on the subject, J.L. Usó-Doménech and J. Nescolarde-Selva of the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Alicante, Spain (I found the quote on the Internet, of course), said, "Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of Reality." A belief system is a set of mutually supportive core beliefs by which you organize your understanding of everything else. But just because something is believed by someone (or some group), that says nothing about its truth value. We can identify and understand a large variety of belief systems, and some of them might have a great deal of truth to them and some very little.

Wikipedia says "belief's purpose is to guide action and not to indicate truth." You can fully "believe in" science without it being your "belief system" at all.

Is that any more clear? Somehow I fear it isn't....

Michael Gatton responds: "Thanks for trying, Mike. I remain, however, confused. I think of a belief system as more of a moral compass or something that gives your life meaning in a 'spiritual' sense, for those who believe in spiritual matters (I'm entirely uncomfortable with the term, personally, but whatever). I suppose there are individuals for whom science provides these anchors. Carl Sagan for one routinely and poignantly talked of science in spiritual terms. In that case, I can't argue with you—and I may have just talked myself out of confusion if this is what you are getting at...."

Steve Jacob: "I don't have a belief system other than my own experience.

"My experience tells me that if I believe something of a non-trivial nature to be true, a bit of digging around usually proves that it's always 'a bit more complicated than that.'

"That means my belief system is that I don't trust myself to believe anything absolutely, and I don't trust people who do.

"But I will give my qualified trust to those that know a lot more about something than I do and have a good handle on the evidence. A good example would be my doctor.

"It took a lot of self discipline to STFU and listen carefully when confronted with such people, but I found it useful, interesting and even life saving.

"But, I don't expect them to be right all the time. I just expect them to be right much more often than me, or people who know even less than me and thus, on the balance of probabilities, a better course to follow.

"Hunches (and subconscious experience) come in to play when a question arises which has no definite answer, as happens often in politics. We have one such crisis in the UK now, regarding whether we should leave the EU or not.

"My hunch is that walking away from the biggest free-trade area in the world is a dumb idea, economically.

"It would also impact my personal sovereignty as I would no longer be free to live, study or work anywhere in 27 countries, and neither would my hypothetical children for whom it would be a formative experience I would hypothetically treasure.

"Given that I place a higher value on my personal sovereignty than that of my exalted and two faced leaders, whose record is distinctly patchy on that subject, I believe this takes ideological preference.

"Could I be wrong? Certainly! Like all political and economic questions, the answer is 'it depends.' But it depends on factors over which we actually have little or no control which makes me feel decidedly queasy.

"Which leaves politicians as the one group of people who I trust even less than myself."

Ronnie A Nilsen: "Science is not a 'belief system' but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Science is a method of investigation, and not a belief system. Science searches for mechanisms and the answer to 'how' the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence or non existence of such purpose. If you want to fly an airplane, would you rather it be designed by science, or would you be willing to risk your life in a plane designe by an arbitrary 'belief system'?

Mike replies: No, no, you're not getting the distinction between "something that's believable (has truth value)" and "a belief system." A belief system is your set of core values through which you evaluate everything else. That could be science, but it also might not be even if you are a scientist and fully accept the scientific method.

John Camp responds: "Mike, I think you're misinterpreting what Ronny A Nilsen said. He doesn't believe in Science with a capital S. The belief in Science is Scientism. He believes that a particular technique is a valuable way to approach the world. I agree. I suppose Ctein does too. It is perfectly possible to believe in the technique and be a fervent, active Christian or Muslim.

Unless I'm misinterpreting him, his belief in the technique is like believing in a screwdriver, and even the very deepest belief in the effectiveness of a screwdriver might not have much to say about how you view the world as a whole, about your moral views.

Jesus, I feel like I'm back in the dorm room. (I'm referring here to Hay-Zeus, a Latino friend, and not the Christ.)

Mike replies: Maybe this will help: when you say "Fred's belief system is science," you're not saying anything at all about science. Nothing at all. Everything you're saying is about Fred. See what I'm saying?

I guess I could be wrong, but I think a "belief system" is just "the way you tend to look at the world." What color is the filter? What's your fallback when push comes to shove? What way of looking at things do you think gives you the best leg up on making the best decisions?

If your belief system is science, you might be...just speculating here...uncomfortable with reading Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. You might not trust "soft" sciences such as sociology. You might pooh-pooh historians when they speculate based on very slim evidence and educated guesses, some of which are indistinguishable from mere hunches, as Mary Beard does frequently in SPQR, her new book about Roman history. You might often find yourself interested in how experiments were designed, rather than just being content to read the conclusions. You might find yourself outraged when you learn that corporations fudged experiments to retain patents on profitable medicines (and hence transgressed good science). You might feel "at sea" when faced with disciplines that are largely based on opinion or intuition, or contemptuous of pursuits that are pointless fun or that depend on popular fads, like fashion design.

Do you see the difference? It's not a question of "believing" in science or not believing in it. It's what you value most. It's what you think is important. It's the way you yourself turn the prism to look at things. The vantage point from which you prefer to look at the world. It's a question of how you tend to reduce questions to their essence. What's the essence? That's the question.

Scotto: "I am one who holds markets as a belief system. The simple laws of supply and demand rule everything in nature and by nature. It's the mechanism for explaining evolution and the ever present force that keeps the Universe in its otherwise precarious balance. But don't confuse this with capitalism, communism, feudalism or any other -ism. Markets persist without regard for the political systems that societies (human or animal) organize themselves around. What sort of belief system would it be otherwise?"

Fred: "Hey! Leave me out of this."

Michael McKee: "As someone who switched careers from hard science, geochemistry, to a soft one, psychology, I've pondered this question often. I enjoy the discussion and am in substantial agreement with Mike.

"There's one distinction that hasn't been brought up, namely fundamentalism. There are flexible belief systems that allow the possibility that a different viewpoint may have something to inform one's own beliefs. There are inflexible belief systems that deny that possibility. I would categorize anybody who categorically rules out an opposing belief system a fundamentalist, whether that belief relates to religious beliefs or that the scientific method can answer all questions.

"As a recovering therapist, I hold the opinion that many emotional problems arise from unexamined belief systems that don't serve the person holding them—belief systems that have elements of unconscious fundamentalism."

[A different] Mike: "Hi Mike. I've been through this one before, and it's sometimes hard for scientifically-minded people to accept that they have a belief system.
Maybe it's because we usually take 'belief' to mean 'belief in xxx,' and science doesn't like to believe, it likes to observe and prove.

"However, a moment's look at the history of science will, I think, perhaps explain this better.

"The fact is that over the centuries, including recent times, great scientific discoveries have been ignored, held up, and generally attacked by establishment science because they did not fit into the then current theories that the establishment believed was settled science. Even out-and-out experimental fact gets questioned. The experiment was done wrong, the machinery is not accurate. etc.

"Exactly as I think you are trying to point out, belief is what happens in each of us first, front, and center. It's a filter through which 'facts' become known to our consciousness. And, if the facts don't conform to the filter, it's very hard sometimes to see it as being potentially correct.

"It's hard to see a filter, and it's even harder to recognize that a filter is indeed a filter, and then it's even harder again to be willing to adjust one's filter.

"The greats of the world, in all works of life, science, arts, philosophy, business, and just plain living, are the ones who can change their belief system so radically that all our older belief systems can get swept away and replaced."

Geoff Wittig: "One fascinating thing about this issue appears blindingly obvious to me, but most people I talk to are completely unaware of this aspect. Specifically, there is frequently a blatant disconnect between an individual's professed belief system (often but not always religion-based) and their objectively observable behavior. For example, the nominal Christian who has contempt for poor beggars; the nominal atheist who prays as the plane is going down.

"As a family physician for more than 30 years my psychology and philosophy credentials are limited, but I've been an avid student of human behavior 'in the wild' as it were. And it's plain to me that the belief system many (or most) people claim to embrace, and (not the same thing) the one they believe they embrace, is not, at the end of the day, what truly drives their decisions.

"We harbor a compelling and understandable illusion that our conscious thoughts are, well, us. But it's far more complicated than that. Our consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg, and is powerfully influenced (and often driven) by deeper, more protean, reflexive, emotional and primitive mechanisms. We construct elaborate rationalizations for our behavior based on a belief system, and such a system can definitely influence our behavior. But it's not the only actor in our heads."

Animesh Ray: "'Belief' in logic systems is often considered the only safe-heaven left, but it is not the last word either. There is no self-consistent logic system whose fundamental assumptions (a.k.a. 'beliefs') are provable from within the system—a result 'proved' long ago by Gödel. So where do we stand with respect to 'belief'? Nowhere. We need to keep an open mind for the possible falsification all beliefs given evidence. The latter itself is falsifiable, because the strength of evidence is not absolute, and requires logic, physical error limits of the measuring instruments, and human interpretation to evaluate the evidence. My belief therefore is in the absence of a foundation in belief. (There is no contradiction here: Since a null set is also a set, this view is a belief after all!)"

Comments

[Eolake]

Well said, thank you.

Jeff Bezos gained a lot of respect with me after a recent interview where he said that not only is it a good thing to be able to change your mind (unlike what politicians are allowed), but one should also periodically examine and question even one's deepest beliefs.

It's not an easy thing to do though, our subconscious or lizard brain uses all its deep-seated fear to hold on to ideas like mad.

[Bri]

I used to wear a t-shirt that simply read 'anti'. It summed my belief system; lazy :)

[Gabe]

“We learn from failure, not from success!”

“There is a reason why all things are as they are.”

“Remember my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker”

― Bram Stoker, DRACULA

[Herman]

A photographer's look at churches in America-
"Churches ad hoc: a divine comedy".

[Sal Santamaura]

Everybody has a belief system.

I believe in evidence and facts. Nothing else. Certainly not allegations, until they're proven using evidence and facts.

...religion offers itself up specifically as a belief system..."Cult" can be defined loosely as "a religion that is new or not yet established."

All religions are mere collections of allegations, for which no evidence or proof exists. "Cult" is better defined as including all religions.

A few years back there was a fad for atheism...The fad faded a bit when people realized the so-called New Atheists were treating rationalism, or even anti-religion, as a sort of religion itself.

Fads and trends in popular culture aside, it's important to realize that atheism is NOT a religion itself nor does it argue against anyone believing in / worshiping whatever imaginary friend or friends desired, i.e. it's not "anti-religion." Rather, atheism is simply a conclusion that there exist no facts or evidence to support allegations of a deity. Full stop. With the passing of time, more people reject religion, irrespective of what the 'trendy' read or engage in.

In the US, there are organizations that actively work to ensure religion is purged from government. They have no interest in impeding the practice of religion by others who accept religious allegations without facts or evidence. Instead, they strive to end tyranny of the majority, an injustice manifest in local, state and federal rules/statutes and unconstitutionally promoted in numerous corners of the courts, schools, agencies and departments that should be treating ALL citizens equally.

[Full stop for you, you mean. Other people feel there is plentiful evidence of a deity, starting with the existence of the world itself. They cite many things which you might not accept as evidence, but they accept it as such. Your belief system is defensible, but it's still a belief system. Just sayin'. --Mike]

[wts]

I grant religious feelings and thought one and only one benefit for humanity: the ability to stimulate a small number of people to produce transcendental music and art (art in the broadest sense, e.g. architecture) that becomes a joy for the rest of us who are willing to stop, look, and listen. Most everything else is (sometimes dangerous) nonsense at its heart.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

Very nicely drawn. "Belief system" is the appropriate and non-judgemental term all around. As someone who does hold beliefs that would be construed as religious (note to readers: personal details are none of your damn [sic] business, so don't ask) (further note: religious beliefs do NOT necessarily require a God... or Gods), it really gets my goat when folks on one side diss the folks on the other. Invariably by circular reasoning and elementary school-level logic.

Particular gripes: the folks who claim atheism (in any flavor) or so-called "secular humanism" are religions. No, they are really not. Either you have no real understanding of what the word religion means, or you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters. Either way, you will not receive kind response from me. Belief systems, yes. Sometimes even philosophies. But NOT religion. Putting it simply: the absence of X is NOT the equivalent, in any fashion, X.

On the other side, militant anti-religious folks of any stripe who act like data is on their side. Guess what? It ain't. If we had anything like broadly accepted, clearcut data, the matter would be settled. You're starting with different default assumptions and axioms, that's all. Fine. Try telling me how "rational" you are (and by implication, I am not) and it will not go kindly for you, either.

When people start genuinely coming back from the dead and giving us data, great ("hey, nothing there, fergeddit!"). Meanwhile, we get to argue in a distinct absence of consensus-agreed-upon information.

Folks, just live with it. That's the way with belief systems.

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[jlesalvignol]

As I am not K.M. ... or maybe I am, who knows?

[Tim McGowan]

Mike, the problem with asking someone "and how are you crazy ?" is that crazy people do not know they are crazy. You have to let the craziness revel itself over time.
As to dueling, I think that has morphed into road rage. The caveat being, there is always someone crazier then you out there.

[Yoram Nevo]

From the book Lost Horizon

But Miss Brinklow was in no mood to temporize. ...
"Of course," she said with a gesture of magnanimity, "I believe in the true religion, but I'm broad-minded enough
to admit that other people, foreigners, I mean, are quite often sincere in their views. And naturally in a monastery
I wouldn't expect to be agreed with."

Her concession evoked a formal bow from Chang. "But why not, madam?" he replied in his precise and flavored English.
"Must we hold that because one religion is true, all others are bound to be false?"

"Well, of course, that's rather obvious, isn't it?"

Conway again interposed. "Really, I think we had better not argue. But Miss Brinklow shares my own curiosity about
the motive of this unique establishment."

Chang answered rather slowly and in scarcely more than a whisper:
"If I were to put it into a very few words, my dear sir, I should say that our prevalent belief is in moderation.
We inculcate the virtue of avoiding excess of all kinds—even including, if you will pardon the paradox,
excess of virtue itself. ... "

[Michael Korak]

Mike,

I cordially invite you and your TOP and voracious and thinking readers to look into two books by David Dark.

"The Sacredness of Questioning Everything"
and
"Life's Too Short to Pretend You're Not Religious"

Read the liner noted and a few of the reviews. I feel they will add to the perspective of today's (OT).

A regular reader of TOP...keep up the great work!

Michael

[Kevin Purcell]

Nikolaas Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz are better described as ethologists (literally "habit-study", the comparative study of behavior - the field they created) than behaviorists (whose belief was more like a religion with little evidence). They elucidated lots of little understood behaviors especially in young animals, particularly birds and insects.

As the citation says: "One of Nikolaas Tinbergen's most important contributions is that he has found ways to test his own and other's hypothesis by means of comprehensive, careful and quite often ingenious experiments."

That's a belief system I adhere to.

They got the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 1973 along with Karl von Frisch, who explained the waggle dance of bees in 1927 to much derision, as there is no Nobel prize for biology.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1973/press.html

[dan]

F8 and be there. (With sunny16 as a drunken fallback.

[Ned Bunnell]

Our parents instill in us a set of beliefs and values as we're growing up. Then it's up to us. Some parents are better than others.

[Murray Davidson]

Mike, I believe (sic) that you do Dawkins a disservice. (No, I don't *believe* - I could produce evidence to support rational argument to support that conclusion.) The explorations he began in "The Selfish Gene", and upon which he expanded in later writings, of the possible reasons behind the widespread propensity amongst humans of all cultures to develop and maintain religious beliefs and organised religion, themselves constitute a strong example of reasoning about religion without appeal to belief systems.
I would agree with Ctein - while some self-proclaimed atheists act in a dogmatic way reminiscent of vocal adherents of organised religions, that does not make atheism a religion. And, in a view shared by many (scientists, physicists), religious feelings can be experienced and valued without making one in any way religious (speaking as an atheist who is in wonder at the universe).
Many years ago, when I was a struggling physics research student, a colleague of mine, who was also a Bach enthusiast (read fanatic), described Bach's music as solutions to the Schroedinger of the Universe.
Bach solo cello suites... I think he was onto something (although I was never able to determine the potential function). Not to mention the first few bars of Beethoven's 4th piano concerto, or...
Murray

[Sal Santamaura]

Full stop for you, you mean.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. Upon seeing your response, I was going to attempt a better construction that clarified, but Ctein already submitted one. Atheism is not a religion. Full stop.

Your belief system is defensible, but it's still a belief system. Just sayin'.

Yup. As stated at the outset, my belief system is reliance on evidence and facts. :-)

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

A belief system is what you filter everything else through first.

You mean like when some people believe that any picture not shot on "Full Frame" cannot be of satisfactory technical quality ??

[Arg]

Can you believe this?

[Jim Bullard]

Good post Mike. I enjoyed it. My own belief system defies labels, at least any that I can think of or that others have tried to attach to it. I think that is as it should be. Labels are the first step on the path to conflict.

[Bruce McL]

Way back when, The Bellamy Brothers put out a song about a 35 year old "Old Hippie." Every decade they add some new verses. It's not quite "Where Have All the Hippies Gone?," but it does try to answer the question.

[marcin wuu]

Freud action figure, that had me crackin'
I have to get one of these, put it right next to Wolverine. Geeking out.

[BruceK]

I believe I'll have another beer...

[Mark]

Karl Marx, Kenneth Moore, Keith Moon, Karl Malone, Kilo Meter, and King Midas all thank you.

[Michael Martin-Morgan]

Thank God I'm an atheist. No, really ...

[ctein]

Dear Sal,

Before you invoke me as an ally, note that your belief system also requires (at a minimum) the axiom, "Absence of evidence that is acceptable to me constitutes evidence of absence." That is an entirely reasonable starting point for a belief system but, like all axioms, it is both unprovable and not always true.

If you accept that, we're allies.

If you imagine you have a firmer rock to stand on we're likely not.

I do agree with you that Mike's phrasing was crude, but I think you would not have argued had he said that there are (too many!) atheists who embrace their beliefs with religious fervor. Which, I strongly suspect was what he meant to convey (I love putting words in a editor's mouth [G]). In that vein, my remarks were not at all directed at Mike; I hadn't even given weight to his phrasing until you pointed it out.

This is not a debating society, so no further exchange is solicited, and probably will not be welcomed by Mike. Just making sure that my position was/is clear.

And now, highly coincidentally, I am off to listen to a panel (comprised of atheists) whose titled could be paraphrased as "How to be an atheist without being an asshole." I expect Dawkins to be thoroughly skewered.

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[Miserere]

As Bertrand Russell said: I would not die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong. But then he was a more enlightened human being than most.

[Julian]

I like to think that I don't believe anything not supported by facts and see the world as it really is, but I am probably deceiving myself.

[Sal Santamaura]

Dear Ctein,

Before you invoke me as an ally, note that your belief system also requires (at a minimum) the axiom, "Absence of evidence that is acceptable to me constitutes evidence of absence." That is an entirely reasonable starting point for a belief system but, like all axioms, it is both unprovable and not always true.

If you accept that, we're allies.

Not really. Absence of evidence that is acceptable to me constitutes failure to prove existence to me. I hope we can still be allies. :-)

...I think you would not have argued had he said that there are (too many!) atheists who embrace their beliefs with religious fervor. Which, I strongly suspect was what he meant to convey...

You are correct. I would not have submitted a comment had Mike worded his post that way.

This is not a debating society, so no further exchange is solicited, and probably will not be welcomed by Mike. Just making sure that my position was/is clear.

We'll know whether he welcomes the further exchange if and when he publishes this comment. :-)

Your position was clear, and I'd no intention of putting any words in your mouth. This must be the most civil discourse on religion to ever grace the Internet. :-)

[Bob Blakley]

I agree with Michael Gatton; science is the opposite of a belief system. I mean something specific by that.

Religion divides the world into two kinds of propositions: true propositions and and false propositions. Many religions stipulate that true propositions are those set down by God, and that questioning true propositions is forbidden.

Science also divides the world into two kinds of propositions, but the categories are different: definitively false propositions and propositions which have not yet been proven false. And science stipulates that questioning propositions which have not yet been proven false is required.

Scientists who are not disguising some religion as science really don't care if you question the theory of evolution; evolution is a proposition which has not yet been proven false, and therefore questioning it is required. What scientists do object to is taking a scriptural narrative and putting it into a the nonexistent category of "propositions which are true" - in other words "propositions which must not be questioned".

[David Evans]

"The fad faded a bit when people realized the so-called New Atheists were advocating anti-religion with religious fervor."

No. "Religious" is not a synonym for "intense" or "committed". My feeling that some religions are very bad for humanity (ISIS as one example) is intense, but that does not make it "religious".

[A. Dias]

I won't comment on the religion side. But when I hear people saying that they believe in Science I cringe. Science is based on proven experimentation, nothing to believe in. Of course, what Science thinks true by current experimentation may (and has in the past) be proven wrong tomorrow. A lot of what people today call settled Science is anything but, even if many believe it as gospel.

[Bob Rosinsky]

Paradigms shift, so be it.

[JG]

As is usually the case for me whenever this topic of discussion comes around, I believe I'll have another drink, thank you.

[emptyspaces]

I have identified myself as an atheist for years. But I get no satisfaction from any discussion stemming from it. I simply feel that there are no gods, and that the burden of proof lies with the side that is claiming something unseen exists.

It doesn't bother me when someone else I know does follow the rules of this religion or that. I do not feel any urge to convince anyone else that they should start being an atheist.

I don't like the atheists who preach atheism any more than you do.

I don't care if the 10 Commandments are outside the courthouse, or whether "under god" appears in the Pledge of Allegiance. My atheism is pure: I do not care about the appearance and/or practice of other religions. I never think about it at all, unless reminded somehow.

I can sum it up thusly: (1) There is no god; (2) You are free to believe that there is, in fact, a god or some group of gods; (3) who cares

I always just thought those thoughts made me an atheist. But is there another name for it?

[bertram eiche]

"An old joke had it that even nihilists passionately believe in one thing—nihilism!"-
...but they don't care ;)

[John Krumm]

I had to think a bit after reading this. Technically I'm an atheist agnostic smart ass. When I talk to my teenage daughter about what I actually believe I tell her I believe people absolutely have to learn to cooperate and build a society that serves our common needs instead of mostly catering to our selfish interests. I tell her we need to work together to make sure we all develop our individual abilities fully while keeping also keeping strong family and social bonds. I tell her that even though it looks like the generations before hers might come close to destroying the world, her generation gives me hope, not despair. So yes, hippy stuff, a belief that humans can change and fix this mess.

[David Wagner]

What a great question Mike! I don't have a "belief system" as to me, belief means complete faith in something. At the epistemological level, I don't think we can know anything for sure. Unfortunately, this is no way to run a railroad, so I've settled on accepting the things our senses perceive, and which are repeatable, as fact, and true knowledge. Everything else is an open question, and I am comfortable with just not knowing the answers to some questions.

[David Zivic]

What, Me Worry !

[sneye]

I believe in enthropy, the drifting apart of molecules, organisms, societies, cultures, species, planets. The implication to 21st century humans is, if you don't put the energy you're alone.
I also believe empathy goes a long way to counter enthropy. It allows you to appreciate the belief systems of others and thus to decode (and sometines predict or even encourage/prevent) their decisions and actions. There are many examples to the importance of empathy in the interpersonal, societal and even geopolitical levels (World War I comes to mind).

[Kefyn Moss]

Funny how some of the science supporters seem to be the most vehement in defending their faith ;-)

As Nobel Prize winning physicist and philosopher Niels Bohr said:

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

Self examination is essential to broadening our belief systems as eliminating them is highly improbable.

[Jim]

Daniel Dennett, the Tufts University philosopher would enjoy this conversation. He has written several books that touch on religion, which he concludes is all based on believing in beliefs - but don't. take my word for it , read the section on religion here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett
or read
his 2006 book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Dennett attempts to account for religious belief naturalistically, explaining possible evolutionary reasons for the phenomenon of religious adherence

[Tim]

Well, you've given me 3 thoughts, for which thanks ;)

First: it occurs to me that the problem with atheism is that the central tenet of non-faith doesn't have many consequences and, for all that folks ahering to the proposition would not like to be called a religion - even a non-religion - there is still a social/tribal grouping happening around it. I do idly wonder what it would take to promote it really to a religion - got a doctrinal statement, got a social grouping, ... rituals perhaps? Anything else?

Second: from a skewed viewpoint here in right-Pondia, I don't hear many Americans talking in favour of capitalism but I *always* hear "soshulist" in one perjorative syllable - and wonder how come so many people are opposed to a simple ideology that works in their favour.

Third: maybe your psychology is my Quality (sense: Pirsig). That does seem to be a filter through which I observe the world at the moment, at least.

[Len Kowitz]

I'm pretty sure my ' belief system' comes out of the 40 years I spent working as a stockbroker with the retail public.
A Roman said it first ' Money alone sets all the World in motion.'
I've learned a little since then and would change the quote to Self Interest sets all the World in motion.
That's the primary filter for me. Add to that Curiosity and you've got start on how I see things.

[Robert Roaldi]

Belief systems don't fall on us out of the sky, we choose to adopt them. Of course parents, educations, friends can influence our choice, but how do we choose? Self-interest, perceived or otherwise? Identity? Safety?

If/when a belief system becomes toxic, how do you turn that ship around?

[Thom Hogan]

We spent half a semester in an MBA ethics class dealing with "first premise," which is similar to what you're trying to get across. Best class of my life, as it resolved a number of things that I hadn't quite understood.

First premise is the thing you rely on when the answer is unknowable in true sense. "Why am I here on earth? God put me here" is one of those first premise things, as it's not probable or disprovable: you MUST have a belief to answer the question.

You are correct that politics, economics, and a host of other things have first premise components.

But here's the thing: far too many people hide behind first premise when the answer IS known or knowable. And people will distort their first premise to not accept a fact that's inconvenient. Science is the business of learning and knowing things. It has absolute knowns, and at its leading edge it has some hypothesized knowns that are being tested. Knowns can be challenged, but they're still knowns unless you can, via scientific method, disprove them. Not first premise method. Scientific method.

[Darlene]

My belief system is slowly guiding me into the silent forest.

[Steve Jacob]

The only belief systems we should ever be wary of are those we are told to follow.

Especially if the instructions are second-hand and therefore open to interpretation...

[Dave Millier]

Another one who thinks you are being unfair to Dawkins...

Dawkins has put himself in an interesting position, almost becoming a politician in his efforts to influence policy, and one which is inevitably going to create angst and occasionally he is going to look bad.

But he is most definitely NOT turning atheism into religion. Anyone who reads is books and essays properly will understand that.

Dawkins places reason above un-reason, evidence above prejudice. Dawkins treats religion like a flower or a rock - something to be explored and explained via reason and intellect rather than just believed because you were brought up to adhere to a tradition.

He is particularly concerned about the place of religion in public policy; especially in America, where religion has a hold on policy-making that is dramatically different from Western Europe. And to be honest, everyone should be concerned as well. Public policy should not be slave to religious beliefs, unless you want to live in a theocracy. His recent years have seen him embroiled in a secular pursuit, pressing for policy making to made on the basis of reason, not religion and to end the practice of granting religious institutions special privileges. Of course he is going to meet resistance, he is attempting to assault bastions of power!

I feel what he is trying to do is much mis-understood, his motivations mis-represented and he gets unfair criticism as a result - often from people who have no detailed understanding of his position and end up attacking sound-bites, not the real man.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

"The point is that something has to structure your core beliefs, and it's best to try to be aware of what it is. It can't be nothing. "

You must realize that that is your belief system.

Personally I've seen too much nonlinear behavior to share it with you.

[rob]

Nice essay.

"that has been going on more or less since the end of the 11th century" - Somewhat longer than that!

[s.wolters]

There are days that I believe that the whole world or even the whole universe is virtual reality. Only my brain exist and it makes everything up. Or sometimes I think that the whole system is fooling me. When I walk the streets they are quickly building things up just before I arrive and they are breaking things down as soon as I disappear around the corner. I never talk about this with anyone because I know some people might find I that I am strange and in the worst case they will lock me up.

I envy my neighbors wife. She has a daily contact with the creator of the universe. You know the one that made our milky way with about 50 billion stars and so on. He successfully helped her finding back lost car keys yesterday.

Thank God most people are quite normal and they know that this life is only a game show. Only those who give the right answers will get through to the final.

[Animesh Ray]

Mike raised a second point in answer to one of the featured responses: (paraphrasing) belief as a system of mental states, which acts as a driver for action. In this connection we must consider whether evolution has selected for certain human brain states that have been successful in the past to perpetuate the human race. In this light, the core beliefs are arbitrary rules, which might be purely "accidental" but just happened to have survived in evolution. They had provided fitness to the human race, but there is no guarantee that they will in the future when the circumstances (environments) change.

[Richard]

Whatever beliefs you have, or whatever belief system you adhere to will evaporate when you pass away.

What will persist is the mutual love that you have discovered with another individual.

That is something worth finding - although difficult

[Michael Barker]

Mike, the yellow filter is one of the filters I have used on a camera. Yellow also happens to be one of my favourite colours.

I think that "the science-based belief system is one of many belief systems" would be a less provocative statement than "science is one of many belief systems", and just as interesting from an intellectual standpoint.

[Jim]

Having been trained as a scientist (physics and astronomy, causing my friends to refer to me as a "half-astrophysicist"), I can see the argument that says science and religion are opposing practices. However both have their "belief systems."
Religion focuses on creating beliefs that can't be explained, like "is there a supreme being that created everything" while science theorizes on some topics that they believe in but can't explain like "the big bang that created the universe" but for which they continue searching for answers.
Both have their conundrums- who created the supreme being or what came before the big bang. The primary difference between religion and science to me is whether you accept a belief as stated (dogma) or you endeavor to explore the questions it raises.
Interestingly enough, some current research into how the brain works indicates that many are hard-wired to one or the other.

[David Bennett]

As you say, "The point is that something has to structure your core beliefs, and it's best to try to be aware of what it is."

I'd add to that, take a stand for what you believe to be the better cause and do not hang back while you spend a lifetime figuring it all out.

[Peter]

I totally get what you wrote about Dawkins and Harris, as my father has become a disciple of theirs and has transformed from a nice mild-mannered atheist to a rigid-minded evangelical Atheist, for whom all the complexity in the world is reduced to the evils of religion. I thought you might be interested in this

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/

[Jim Natale]

What a pleasure to find such an enlightened post and subsequent discussion on the net. Once again, your readership demonstrates that, as a group, it is among the most intelligent to be found anywhere.

However, the amount of certainty contained in some assertions I'm reading is, to my mind, disturbing. Philosophic and scientific insights beginning at least as far back as the 18th century--if not earlier--should have influenced more of us to speak with tentative caution by now. Objectively, human beings realize they lack the perspective--literally and figuratively--to speak with final authority. Nevertheless, many then proceed to attempt to do just that.

Perhaps most unsurprising is the way that language flies apart when religion enters the discussion. While most (although not all, even in this small space) can agree what "a religion" is, it is obvious that people speak of myriad and vastly different notions when using the terms "religion" and "religious." The inability to differentiate between the imperfect implementation (a religion) and an innate inclination toward an ideal (religion), is the source of much confusion. When humankind becomes better able to understand that distinction, we will have a world that is far more kind, tolerant, and civilized, one less governed by emotional, verbal, and physical conflict.

Meanwhile, photography is a fine walk, and these little excursions along other OT paths are also good exercise.

[wts]

Bob Blakley above (Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 05:19 PM) defined science succinctly as:

Science also divides the world into two kinds of propositions, but the categories are different: definitively false propositions and propositions which have not yet been proven false. And science stipulates that questioning propositions which have not yet been proven false is required.

For example, the world is flat is a definitively false proposition proven false in many different ways over the centuries. (Photograph a large ship as it sails over the horizon. How would the shape morph if the earth were flat vs roundish?)

The statement that a planet or moon is a perfect sphere with all of its mass concentrated at the center is also a definitively false proposition.

However, both of these propositions are useful models if they are understood as limited models. Flat earth is sufficient for a general-purpose map of your city. Perfect sphere is sufficient for calculating tides for most practical purposes.

Questioning propositions which have not yet been proven false is required can be stated in another way: if there is no way to test the falsity of a proposition, then we're not talking science but beliefs.

I'll finish this off with some greatly abbreviated history. At the turn of the 20th century, most physicists believed that at its core they understood how nature worked and all that was left to do was to refine existing knowledge to more decimal places of experimental accuracy. If this knowledge were set in stone (not allowed to be tested as false), we would be living today in a Steampunk world!

But by reexamining the results of certain experiments, devising new ones based on these results, etc., certain scientists soon unhappily realized that the results of 19th century physics were indeed not false in a world (relatively) slow and large, BUT did not hold up when examining the very fast and the very small.

This ability to uncomfortably question the very foundations of physics - to be willing to TEST if this knowledge is possibly false - was (and is) what makes our modern world technology possible.

A sad irony is that the most dogmatic absolutists use this same technology to further their terrible destructive ends. The exact opposite of dogmatism and absolutism is science.

I'd like to quote from Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man": "Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known ... Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you ... think it possible you may be mistaken'. ... We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power."

[Sven W]

Mike, you've raised an important topic here but I'm not sure that you have "kicked the can" any further down the "road of usefulness" (so to speak).

My belief system is that beliefs are dangerous i.e if we believe X is true then we act accordingly, which could be bad news if in fact X is not true.

The best antidote is to minimize our beliefs and try to assess the natural World based on evidence. The amount of "belief" we have in X is proportional to the amount of evidence for X; if there is no evidence then we have no belief in it. Simple as that.

But what constitutes "evidence"? The best description humans have devised for the natural World is provided by science, so we should use scientific grade evidence (and the Scientific Method) as our benchmark for evidence.

I also recommend people read "Don't believe everything you think" by Thomas Kida.

[MJFerron]

Ah the deepest of subjects. Look at the OT God?
You like him? Really? What is missing is the feminine divine. In a nutshell somewhere along the paths of that beyond we lost this feminine aspect of the spiritual realm. No one really knows what is real and what is not yet the brutal male god is a tough love. Isis, Sophia, Mary is a wonderful subject to investigate.

[Chris Dematté]

Maybe it is not such a good idea to include Konrad Lorenz in o a "Belief System". He joined the nazi party in 1938, was saying about his work: "I'm able to say that my whole scientific work is devoted to the ideas of the National Socialists." and was supporting the Nazi ideas of "racial hygiene"...

[NikoJorj]

To try to go further on the "science as belief system" conundrum and help refine the line between experience as a logical tool and a belief (opposed to questioning and probing) that science will better solve our problems, there us just a bit of phrase that has shocked me : once you've seen a few fossils, you just don't believe in evolution. You've seen it cast in stone (if not in the literal flesh).

[mike plews]

Two books made their way onto my nightstand last year, both dealing with aspects of spirituality.
I did not go looking for either book. They arrived by coincidence.
One was written by someone I know through work the other by a relative.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well they dovetail. I suspect many TOP readers consider at least some of their photography to be a small act of devotion. I also suspect many are also skeptics and doubters.
Those folks will find these two small paperbacks to be a real treat.
Here they are.
http://www.amazon.com/Reluctant-Pilgrim-Skeptic%C2%92s-Journey-Mysteries/dp/0803254342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464701375&sr=8-1&keywords=the+reluctant+pilgrim

http://www.amazon.com/Tillich-Brief-Overview-Writings-Theology/dp/1932688862/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464701919&sr=1-17&keywords=tillich

Why these two books arrived at just the right time for me seems odd but there is a Lakota saying "the white mans word for religion is coincidence". Go figure.

[Bob Gary]

My belief system at the moment is whatever's being filtered through my Planar 50mm 1.7...

[Earl Dunbar]

If you encounter the Buddha along the way, kill him.

[Marco Sabatini]

If one does not take into account how beliefs evolve, it is difficult to separate religious ideas from non-religious ones. The difference is how they change (or not) as time goes by.

[JOHN GILLOOLY]

Last year I had dinner at a friend's house - this friend is a medical doctor and a very strong, practicing Catholic. At dinner he was vehemently mocking a man we met that day who "referred to himself as a Doctor, but he was really just a Chiropractor." He went on to emphatically declare that "not one single piece of chiropractic care is backed up by even a shred of evidence of its efficacy." He then lead the table in Grace and I was blown away by the irony.