What does it take to convince you otherwise?

[Reformed_Rob]

This seemed to be the most appropriate sub-forum here for this question.

Which is… If you are faced with something that is contrary to what you previously believed, and it is convincing and you can’t in good faith deny what has challenged you…

What more does it take for you to change what you believe?

Obviously, some things are whimsical compared to more important matters of life.

So without limiting this to any particular topic, let me just set it in motion like this…

There is something (political, religious, social, etc) foundational to what you believe, and important to who you are, and you are rationally convinced that it is false and you now need to believe something different.

It could be that your original belief was actually true, but you are unable to hold to it in the face of insurmountable evidence of this new belief (which may itself be false, but you are rationally convinced it is true).

 

[Newbie2]

This seemed to be the most appropriate sub-forum here for this question.

Which is… If you are faced with something that is contrary to what you previously believed, and it is convincing and you can’t in good faith deny what has challenged you…

What more does it take for you to change what you believe?

Obviously, some things are whimsical compared to more important matters of life.

So without limiting this to any particular topic, let me just set it in motion like this…

There is something (political, religious, social, etc) foundational to what you believe, and important to who you are, and you are rationally convinced that it is false and you now need to believe something different.

It could be that your original belief was actually true, but you are unable to hold to it in the face of insurmountable evidence of this new belief (which may itself be false, but you are rationally convinced it is true).

Example?

 

[manualman]

It really depends on the issue.

For example, I’m a skeptic about CO2 driven global warming. There are constant doom messages being generated by computer model projections of future global temperatures. What they never say is that these models have a TERRIBLE record of actually predicting global temperature trends even 5 years i advance. When the ACTUAL average temperatures match their model predictions for a 10 year stretch I might be more convinceable. But right now those models are IMO GIGO. And there are reputable scientists on both sides, so scholarship is so far inconclusive.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which is… If you are faced with something that is contrary to what you previously believed, and it is convincing and you can’t in good faith deny what has challenged you…

What more does it take for you to change what you believe?

I would think it should not take any more than that if I can’t in good faith deny it. This is a bizarre question.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Example?

For example. You became convinced the Christianity was false.

And that Islam was true.

There, I went for the ultimate.

 

[dulcissima]

I guess it depends upon what you are using as your central reference point for what is true. I think you know once you have found truth, because everything else makes sense in comparison to that being the truth. So, once you have established that truth as a given, you weigh everything else in reference to that being the truth. Since my Catholic faith is the truth that I measure everything else against, Islam is never going going to make me doubt my faith. Read through the pope’s remarks that caused an uproar if you need to be reminded that our faith does not require us to give up logic and reason; whereas, that would not be the case if we were to embrace Islam as the truth.

 

[antimon]

faith is about decision. If you decide to believe and love God, stick to that decision regardless of whatever ‘evidence’ tells you otherwise.

 

[Newbie2]

OK, I get the question now.

Hmmm…yep, this may be a Philosophical crossover matter.

Anyway, like has been said there is some measure of faith in everything we believe to be true. If you see a picture of a man doing something, and you believe on the basis of that picture that he is really doing it, you have to have some measure of faith that the evidence, namely the picture, hasn’t been altered.

In the specific case of Christianity, if it were to be “proven” that the resurrection never happened, all the rest of it would be moot. That, methinks, would be impossible to “prove” to the faithful.

And just what would constitute “prove”? I guess for some with marginal faith, it would take less rigorous “proof”, no?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m the ultimate “rational” person when it comes to faith. Whenever I learn something new, and am convinced that its correct, it has to fit within my theology. I mean it has to. I don’t mean that I have to lie and cheat to get it into agreement, obviously I would know i was cheating it in. But it has to fall naturally into place. If it does not, then I continue to figure out where the lack of fit is, what can be altered in previous thinking, what cannot without trashing it entirely. I will admit to having had to make a few fairly major adjustments, but I’m quite satisfied at the moment. Everything hangs for me. I can answer the “big questions” in a satisfying (to me at least) way.

Ironically, its what drew me to Catholicism. I thought its theology was rational and neatly connected. I think it causes untold problems at times because when you draw some beliefs out to their logical extremity, you face some nasty places, but it remains logical.

Thanks for a great question. I rather suspect many of us process differently. It will be interesting to see how others do it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

OK, I get the question now.

Hmmm…yep, this may be a Philosophical crossover matter.

Anyway, like has been said there is some measure of faith in everything we believe to be true. If you see a picture of a man doing something, and you believe on the basis of that picture that he is really doing it, you have to have some measure of faith that the evidence, namely the picture, hasn’t been altered.

In the specific case of Christianity, if it were to be “proven” that the resurrection never happened, all the rest of it would be moot. That, methinks, would be impossible to “prove” to the faithful.

**Wow, thats fascinating…Now see I certainly believe in the resurrection. I believe more in that than in a lot of other things. but I don’t think it would affect my basic faith at all if it were not true. But I tend to think you are right that it would moot it for a good many. **

 

[MarcoPolo]

Bob are you under the impression that people here know in good faith what is the truth yet still deny it??

 

[Pug]

There is something (political, religious, social, etc) foundational to what you believe, and important to who you are, and you are rationally convinced that it is false and you now need to believe something different.

I have had the experience of being certain of a logical argument that I have made, and then later I find out I was wrong. I have done it many, many times. Therefore, just because I have found an argument that I think is ironclad does not automatically mean that I accept the argument. A simple step would be to take it to several colleagues and have them evaluate the argument. If needed, take the argument to someone with special expertise. Also, spend a long time thinking about it. Give yourself time to find the flaw, if it is there. Give yourself some time away from the argument, so you can break any mindset you might have, and then approach it again at a later date.

Pay attention to other things you believe are true. If this new item contradicts those things, you must resolve this. This can entail revisiting whatever arguments made you believe those other things. Perhaps you will find yourself with two ironclad arguments with conclusions that are contradictory or incompatible. Before making any move, I’d resolve this. If I can’t resolve it, then I would simply stay in my current position until I can resolve it.

Being aware of my limited range of knowledge, I might be unwilling to accept that I was in possession of all pertinent facts that may be influencing the argument or its premises. So if I had an authority telling me otherwise, I might not implement my argument. It probably depends on the authority of the authority , and the details of the argument.

Most of my actions are based on moral certainty, not complete absolute metaphysical certitude anyway.

 

[Magicsilence]

Normally, it takes a mental recognition of ‘it’ operating within a defined environment that relates to reality.

I.e NOT simply in the abstract.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

faith is about decision. If you decide to believe and love God, stick to that decision regardless of whatever ‘evidence’ tells you otherwise.

But what if you are a Muslim and you become convinced that Islam is wrong?

Or you are a Southern Baptist and you are convinced that Catholicism is correct Christianity?

See, I think your answer makes sense and is all good and well, but only to an extent. Is commitment more important than truth? Or is commitment truth? Or is God cool with us being wrong, as long as we are honestly committed?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Bob are you under the impression that people here know in good faith what is the truth yet still deny it??

Perhaps that is the case with some people here, or maybe everyone here on these forums has absolute consistency between what the believe and what they profess.

I don’t know, and I’m not under any impression that anyone is being dishonest.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Pay attention to other things you believe are true. If this new item contradicts those things, you must resolve this. This can entail revisiting whatever arguments made you believe those other things. …

Most of my actions are based on moral certainty, not complete absolute metaphysical certitude anyway.

Thanks Pug, those are some good points and good advice.

I’m actually asking this not because it has to do with any one thing in specific, but it is something that everyone that ever changes their beliefs after the age of reason deals with.

And that’s includes me!

 

[homewardbound]

Or you are a Southern Baptist and you are convinced that Catholicism is correct Christianity?

This example was me a year ago.

What did it take to take that next step of convincing? Well, more studying and much prayer. I stopped relying on emotions and what was easy to stick with and believe and delved more and more into studying and finding more and more information from both sides, and then in the end had to choose which one made most sense to my mind. Its not about which one am I 100% certain to be truth, but which one makes the most sense to be the truth?

 

[AndyF]

Rob:

It could be that your original belief was actually true, but you are unable to hold to it in the face of insurmountable evidence of this new belief (which may itself be false, but you are rationally convinced it is true).

Lets establish some realities about this existance first so we can determine what we are dealing with, then we investigate the senstivity and caring of all concerned.

a/Justice is claimed to be God’s, but it should be ours because it applies to us, and he can still claim to be a victim in it and still achieve his end. This in keeping with the Church’s sanction that democratic judicial systems are adequate. We are to believe in this particular area where simple belief of it’s adequate function too needs to be … yes, believed.

We are to believe for our sakes and all this perceived injustice will be presented to us later in it’s pure reasoning, if we warrant it. Then later when shown, we are to feel sheepish and silly on how we have doubted it all along. The concern is a valid one. It is supposedly part and parcel of the Deposit of the Faith. I say that itself is injust, justice should be seen working by all men regardless of state. The Church exists here in peace in part by the democratic system we know.

b/Christ died aware he was a King, but he suffered like any common man. We are to believe then, if his case is indeed a reasonable cross section of common men, then anxiety of his true state of acceptance would be a concern to him. He would have been “hopeful” that he obtain heaven.

Practically, a common man would have achieved some milestone on his way to maturing Faith, but not it’s full measure.(Cor). Then we are assured Jesus was a man who had acheived some milestone in his Faith but not it’s full measure.

c/As a person subject to justice, then the subject is of keen interest to me as it is my obligation to monitor it. Doing our job, I/we therefore can test it to ensure it works as it should. Reaching for our checkoff list, we start with enities that it applies to and the form they have taken to offend. Man’s form is individual and material. Society’s form is collective and material. Angelic form is spiritual and individual.

We go on to cases.

1/Unrepentant man commits mortal sin as an individual form, therefore gets judged and sentenced to damnation in this form.
2/Unrepentant angels receive the same.
…we should then see…
3/Unrepentant Society(the norm for society even) receiving justice **in the form it has chosen to sin, **and damned colletivelybut alas there is a problem. We can’t be witnessing special handling can we.? This can only occur in our fallible world, with corrupt judges, we say. The cases are dispersed to the individual components of society to judge the participation of each.

So you are asking me to believe everything, when the risk is all mine and failure brings a billion times the scale of any collective sin that any society could commit.? Your loved one goes to hell and a society who agrees to genocide in the thousands of a segment of their society gets the privledge of having it’s form dispersed to individuals for convenience judging.? Are we being faulted because of our physical nature as it applies to candidates for dispersal?

You ask that I believe when not one person in the eons of civilization has attained perfection that hasn’t deliberately made so? (“Be perfect…”)

You ask I believe when demonic beings are simply allowed parole in the galaxy at their leisure for sins of the claimed same measure a human is locked into for infinite restrictive selective torture.? The final rub when we discover they saw God and were at the top echelons of the executive ladder? Favoritism?

And we are to believe we are loved more than them.?

We are to believe of this deal when we are all created and come into existance stigmatised, worst still, some marked for non-acceptance (reprobated).?

Which am I before I even try? Besides, what’s all this about fraternal caring that other’s surrendered their belief about that this wouldn’t apply.? Wouldn’t you want a person to know, and wouldn’t he have the right to know that you’ve got it in for them?

So explain for me these problems, in the sensual and experiencial method that I am capable of comprehending, and I will believe that which goes beyond the Credo.

Simple task isn’t it.?

AndyF

 

[tigers08]

We’re always biased to the beliefs we are accustomed to. This is a fallacy of man. Up until recently I thought that no matter what, I would never consider the religion I had been raised with was wrong. I thought that this faith was what God wanted. But if we are judged based on our beliefs (and works), then I’d have to think around 95% of people go to heaven or hell based on what family their born into. Believe me, I know how extremely hard it is to leave one’s beliefs, but I think people need to try to be as objective as possible, and if the evidence leans against what you believe, then you should change your beliefs.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

So you are asking me to believe everything, when the risk is all mine and failure brings a billion times the scale of any collective sin that any society could commit.?
…
We are to believe of this deal when we are all created and come into existance stigmatised, worst still, some marked for non-acceptance (reprobated).?
…
So explain for me these problems, in the sensual and experiencial method that I am capable of comprehending, and I will believe that which goes beyond the Credo.

Simple task isn’t it.?

AndyF

Hi Andy,

You pretty much laid out the difficulties in this subject, and while I first thought you were struggling with some things about your own faith, I think I see you are attempting to lay out just how many factors are working against man’s quest for the truth.

And while 95% of the population is not on any serious quest for truth, that only leaves 5% that would have a chance if it were completely up to them.

To answer one of your questions, I would say that when a person’s will and reason is enlightened to believe a truth, God will not accept a “No” from that person as anything except rejection of His merciful offer of growth. For instance, God calls a person to enter into the Covenant of Christ, and that man rejects God, there are no excuses that will work.

“I wasn’t smart enough, You didn’t make me pretty enough, I was so confused by all the hub-bub.” Those won’t hold up in the Divine Court.

We can’t hardly help to go to Christian examples. All of life boils down to Politics and Religion, since nothing else is of much importance. Love God and love your neighbor.

Let’s say I am a die hard Capitalist. I reject Marxism, but I haven’t found a good Communist system to really warm up to.

Well then I realize that Capitalism has a lot of faults, and I had basically been sold on neo-Capitalism. Not the real thing. And then a gentle Communist system comes along and offers a better long-term plan for cultural development and human achievement than neo-Capitalism (which is not hard to imagine). I switch sides, and fight for this system I believe is better for humanity.

I made that up, but it touches on something relevant to my real life. Would my individual purity of intention justify any error in the general system I had committed to?