Cant understand Conviction ...

[Edvard Munch]

Two men, one being Desmond Tutu,

is a Christian and loves Jesus. Fucking loves him. Desmond worships his almighty God as he believes, and without a doubt, he is the real God.




God works a bit differently in Mike Tysons world,

as he believes Islam is the correct God, blesseth beith Mohammed and his prophets. Ihis-ale-mahamaka-meida. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWeD5KXx5WI




I know this is an elementary question and simple in tone, but I can't get over it. How on Earth can I ever reconcile two views that are absolutely convinced what they believe is true? How is it the world can create truth's that contradict each-other blatantly and yet the human being can still be 100% absolutely convinced? In their shoes it's not "This is what I believe." It is what it is, unchangeable and undeniable it's certainty.


What am I missing? How is it possible that these two people are correct in believing their God in-spite of them being smart enough that people feel the same way about another God they do not worship?

Staggering. Just staggering.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

You're basically asking why people believe different things. More so why people can hold very different beliefs as sacred, complete truths.

What have you been taking/why are creating problems for yourself?

For starters people from all monotheistic religions will state that they're essentially talking about the same god.

Now to get to the point: people believe things based completely on their experience. Not anyone has the same experience, sometimes people have pretty different experiences, and sometimes people have such different experiences as to make them just about opposites.

I could give you an example.

I have a friend who grew up in comfortable, conservative Jewish household as his grandfather and his grandfather's grandfather had before him where that religion colored many of the fulfilling times of his happy family; they would light candles at Hanukkah, pray together at temple, and talk about the travails of their people. Life was comfortable; they had money to spare, no one was addicted to drugs, people were mentally healthy, and everyone did their part; Judaism held this family together. My friend recalls many good times singing in Hebrew with his kinsmen at Bar-Mitzvahs; he recalls first feeling truly grown up while at temple, first really being himself in the guise of religion. As a result, my friend now believes in the benevolence of the Jewish religion; he will pass it on to his kids with utter conviction.

I have another friend whose grandmother grew up in a very Christian family. This woman was raped, and due to the beliefs of her family, was made to keep this child. This child was brought up by the grandmother in an evangelical manner as her mother had been. She went to a Christian high school, and had many bad run-ins there with abusive nuns who would slap her with a ruler if she didn't move fast enough. This woman decided not to go to college, so she ended up poor. Her son, my friend, was told of the horrors of Christianity by his mother who had heard from her mother of the pains she went to to bring up her child as well as still remembered vividly the way in which the nuns mistreated children at her high school. Additionally, my friend grew up with a hate for despotic power structures after hearing from his mom about how no one cares if they are poor. He quickly put two and two together, coming out with an extreme hate for religion overall. He hated it! It did this to his family! It was all about power and taking advantage of people. He will hate religion for the rest of his life with utter conviction.

 

[P A]

You're basically asking why people believe different things.

Munch's use of the word 'conviction' leads to believe that his is a quest to comprehend the philosophical/psychological underpinning of fervent, unyielding devotion to an idea (or set of ideas) as such. I think that this topic may go further than your response implies. If I'm interpreting his post and title correctly, what the OP wants isn't an explanation of what motivates people to believe mutually contradictory things per se (which, I agree, isn't much of a topic), but rather the sheer degree of certainty that animates their passion, as well as what relation said passion has to the ideas - and their respective supporters - themselves.

To offer a tidbit in the way of example: I, PA, do not hold convictions. I do not possess strong, unyielding beliefs simply because I am able to comprehend what such intellectual rigidity entails, in a few words and a nutshell: stubbornness, stupidity, and pitiful narrow-mindedness. The question isn't, "How do people come to believe certain things that others do not?" Rather, I think the more pertinent topic is, to put it precisely, "What factor or set of factors ultimately determine who believes with the dangerous passion of religious zealotry, and what factors or set of factors diminish the likelihood of such a lamentable state of affairs transpiring, all other things being equal?"

 

[L2R]

Sometimes, people get so invested in an idea or a purpose, they their lives would be essentially written off if found to be in the wrong. In that situation, it would be feasable to go all in, full ball, gamble the entire remainder of their poker chips on this one hand, because after that point the loss is the same. If you feel that you've invested so much that if you lose, you don't have enough left to recover, you can get all kamikaze about it.

Either that or simple decisive stubborness.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

You're confusing yourself when the answer is much more simple.

People believe things based on experience. It doesn't matter how strong of a conviction it is.

Don't expect to understand where the emotions of others are coming from until you've walked in their shoes.

There is no way to truly walk in another's shoes.

 

[P A]

People believe things based on experience. It doesn't matter how strong of a conviction it is.

See, I think this attitude is reductive in the extreme. Among the (sparingly few) integral beliefs that comprise my intellectual identity, I cannot, upon honest reflection, think of a single one that boils down solely to 'experience.' Many, if not all, of my beliefs stem predominately from earnest truth-seeking and quiet reflection in private, not from some miserably traumatic, spiritually breathtaking, or otherwise histrionically life-/belief-altering event(s). At any rate, your novelistic conception of individual dispositions and perspectives is incompatible with my particular style of thought and, yes, my 'experience,' for whatever that's actually worth.

Don't expect to understand where the emotions of others are coming from until you've walked in their shoes.

There is no way to truly walk in another's shoes.

Oh, well, okay then, that clears the topic right up - I suppose I should just close the thread now. You're not serious, are you? When someone attempts to gain insight into the psychological underpinnings of other people's behavior (a fairly common activity, if I'm not mistaken), I'm not sure whether it's wise to simply write it all off as a futile enterprise. One could easily say the same thing about the inclinations of murderers, drug addicts, and fad dieters, but that certainly doesn't imply that we cannot or should not attempt to obtain some kind of insight into their motivations, dispositions, and behavior. The same goes for true believers.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Your truth thinking and reflection was spurred on by the experiences of your life.

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm not serious?

It is futile because its impossible to truly walk in other's shoes because one is created through the circumstances life puts them in and no two lives are lived completely together (have undergone the same set of circumstances). I would say the same thing about all those people. I already said that.

You think I implied that then. Perhaps. But maybe it does. Is it moral? Is it fruitful?

I'm laying out a truth or foundation of thought which answers the OP's question. Through this process one can understand how people come to their beliefs, but cannot live it. The OP strikes me as someone who wants to live it.

You will not escape what's around you.

 

[P A]

Your truth thinking and reflection was spurred on by the experiences of your life.

And many of my experiences have been spurred on by my conscious thought processes and, yes, personal reflections. This is becoming yet another tedious iteration of the (quite dated, as in, Hume/Kant-era) empiricist/rationalist debate, so I'll just drop it here, as this topic has already been covered in sufficient detail, ad nauseum, like, hundreds of years ago. If you want to read up on it, follow the link in my signature and locate the apposite topics, which I believe are listed under Rationalism and Empiricism.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Thanks. Determinism at its best.

 

[P A]

Thanks. Determinism at its best.

Okay...?

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Let's see. Where should I go with this? Of the current state of affairs everywhere, determinism is. Our conversation--courtesy of determinism. I was referring to, though, determinism creating each person's respective life experiences, which, as we hopefully had agreed upon, determines conviction.

 

[L2R]

i still think that there is a spark of life with its hand on the steering wheel, even if it is a blind drunk spark which holds its dimembered hand to the wheel through the use of clenched teeth.

in other words, the universe is predominantly determined. we oblige and pretend like we are in control until we are really motivated to make a choice, in which case we create something which is not predetermined.

 

[webbykevin]

How is it possible that these two people are correct in believing their God in-spite of them being smart enough that people feel the same way about another God they do not worship?

I wouldn't call tyson smart, he always came across as a retarded park fairy.

And they both believe in fairy tales that are not original ideas to them, just some one elses deluded rap that they bought without any proof. sounds dumb to me.

 

[Portillo]

Its up to you to determine which belief is telling the truth.

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of love must be loving
The First Cause of life must be living

Thus the First Cause of the universe must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, volitional, holy, loving and living being. So the question is which God, Elohim or Allah, best fits this description.

 

[webbykevin]

Its up to you to determine which belief is telling the truth.

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of love must be loving
The First Cause of life must be living

Thus the First Cause of the universe must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, volitional, holy, loving and living being. So the question is which God, Elohim or Allah, best fits this description.

Neither.

 

[Portillo]

Yes, you can choose neither aswell.

 

[i against i]

man, this reads like a first year philosophy student conversation.

why do people get hysterical and believe incompatible ideas? because they are people, they are scared, they want to feel like they understand the world, they want to feel like they are loved, that something cares, it doesn't matter if they rationally know they can't. feelings win over reason most of the time.

 

[P A]

The First Cause of life must be living

No it mustn't.

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite

Why?

The First Cause of endless time must be eternal

What does that even mean?

The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent

No, it mustn't. And what the hell is 'boundless energy,' anyway?

The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient

Also probably meaningless.

The First Cause of love must be loving

Why?

 

[P A]

man, this reads like a first year philosophy student conversation.

Well, thank you for condescending to chime in. We are humbly honored by such a prestigious visitation by a mind as uniquely gifted as yours.

why do people get hysterical and believe incompatible ideas? because they are people, they are scared, they want to feel like they understand the world, they want to feel like they are loved, that something cares, it doesn't matter if they rationally know they can't. feelings win over reason most of the time.

And how does your little theory account for the fact that there exist in this world a pretty large proportion of scared, unloved humans that do not hold supernatural convictions?

Where should I go with this? Of the current state of affairs everywhere, determinism is.

Care to rephrase that?

I was referring to, though, determinism creating each person's respective life experiences, which, as we hopefully had agreed upon, determines conviction.

The concept of determinism has nothing to do with the question of whether people's varied and discrepant beliefs are acquired solely or predominately by way of sensory experience, or by other factors, such as rational and private thought processes. This isn't a question a question of free will. I can't tell if you're intentionally shifting the goalposts here, or what.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Well as you can see the conversation came to a standstill so decided to liven it up. I know its technically off-topic. Rational/private thought processes are stimulated from the outside too.