Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Captain Cardio · Apr 28, 2008, 05:15 pm

What if we were to pose this question about non-religious people's beliefs?

----- Example A

Say you can believe or not believe free will exists.

Person 1 might have had more successes than failures in his life, so he likes to think he is fully responsible for those successes. He would be more likely to believe free will exists, because it suits his ego.

Person 2 might have had more failures than successes in his life, so he doesn't like to think he is responsible for his life. He is more likely to believe free will doesn't exist, because it suits his ego.

In either of these cases, it is not any actual evidence that persuades individuals to believe one way or another, it is whatever makes them feel better.

----- Example B

Another example could be whether you believe pro-life or pro-choice is more appropriate for society.

Person 1 might hate the idea of ever having a child, and is uncomfortable with the idea of not having an abortion available if he gets someone pregnant.

Person 2 thinks that even though children can be a lot of work, they are little miracles and always worth the effort. Because he sees children differently, he is disturbed by the idea of abortion.

In either of these cases, it is the individual's feelings about how they would react in their own life about the issue, that makes them decide which side of the fence they are on.

-----

Both free will and abortion (among other issues) are issues where many people seem to have irreconcilable differences of opinion. Despite the depth that debate goes into on many occasions, many people don't change their mind on issues.

In strikes me that maybe in order to get past these differences, people require a greater commitment to truth, than to their own happiness.

Given we are only mammals though, and our brains are wired to try to achieve states of happiness (or satisfaction), how do we ever really know if our opinions, and the opinions of those who agree with us, are ever truly reflective of reality, and not just on aspects of an individual's personality?

And to add another question, how does society make individuals that would be more committed to truth than their own happiness?

I acknowledge the phrasing in this post may have been sloppy, but I'm outa time. I'd appreciate it if people would try to sympathetically try to discuss what I'm getting at, rather than nit-picking corrections about mistakes I'm sure I've made in places in this post

.

Also let's try not to get sidetracked onto free will or abortion debates please.

Apr 28, 2008, 05:15 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Captain Cardio Uncomfortable Mind Posts: 401	OP Redo? What if we were to pose this question about non-religious people's beliefs? ----- Example A Say you can believe or not believe free will exists. Person 1 might have had more successes than failures in his life, so he likes to think he is fully responsible for those successes. He would be more likely to believe free will exists, because it suits his ego. Person 2 might have had more failures than successes in his life, so he doesn't like to think he is responsible for his life. He is more likely to believe free will doesn't exist, because it suits his ego. In either of these cases, it is not any actual evidence that persuades individuals to believe one way or another, it is whatever makes them feel better. ----- Example B Another example could be whether you believe pro-life or pro-choice is more appropriate for society. Person 1 might hate the idea of ever having a child, and is uncomfortable with the idea of not having an abortion available if he gets someone pregnant. Person 2 thinks that even though children can be a lot of work, they are little miracles and always worth the effort. Because he sees children differently, he is disturbed by the idea of abortion. In either of these cases, it is the individual's feelings about how they would react in their own life about the issue, that makes them decide which side of the fence they are on. ----- Both free will and abortion (among other issues) are issues where many people seem to have irreconcilable differences of opinion. Despite the depth that debate goes into on many occasions, many people don't change their mind on issues. In strikes me that maybe in order to get past these differences, people require a greater commitment to truth, than to their own happiness. Given we are only mammals though, and our brains are wired to try to achieve states of happiness (or satisfaction), how do we ever really know if our opinions, and the opinions of those who agree with us, are ever truly reflective of reality, and not just on aspects of an individual's personality? And to add another question, how does society make individuals that would be more committed to truth than their own happiness? I acknowledge the phrasing in this post may have been sloppy, but I'm outa time. I'd appreciate it if people would try to sympathetically try to discuss what I'm getting at, rather than nit-picking corrections about mistakes I'm sure I've made in places in this post . Also let's try not to get sidetracked onto free will or abortion debates please.