Is 'belief' a process of ignoring?

[Mulder]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

what process is going on?

It seems to me that they deliberately choose to ignore (a) and/or (b). Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.

What do people think?

Incidentally, if you're wondering how I came up with this odd suggestion, it's because I've seen it happen. I have presented a huge amount of evidence that completely demolishes the cherished beliefs of a group of people (I'm told I have a cruel streak). Rather than argue, they simply politely ignored it or nitpicked at tiny, completely irrelevant details and then carried on believing. I was left dumbstruck by their reaction. They weren't even upset - they simply ignored the evidence as if they'd never seen it!

[Janot]

I don't see why a belief should necessarily involve ignoring. It is for example impossible to imagine a nothingness of the kind which might happen after death. A belief that afterwards you experience another life is, in my opinion, just as plausible as the alternative. There is not the remotest evidence to suggest this is the case, but what it is you are ignoring if you believe this?

[Mulder]

Sorry Janot I added some more material to my original post before yours. I don't know if it would change anything. My point was, it wasn't just a blind speculation on my part, I've seen it happen concerning paranormal beliefs.

Sorry - editing again. In the example I quoted, they had no arguments against the main points I made. They simply ignored their consequences. It's weird!

[Mulder]

My theory of how this may work is this. Imagine a modestly religious person (ie. one who goes to church but, frankly, doesn't know much about the origins of their religion) watches a Richard Dawkins TV programme. They may see that Dawkins has some valid points but are they going to stop going to church? One or two might, perhaps, but most will not. I suspect they use the logic of 'millions of people have believed this stuff for centuries so there must be something in it'. Just my theory.

[Mongrel]

My theory of how this may work is this. Imagine a modestly religious person (ie. one who goes to church but, frankly, doesn't know much about the origins of their religion) watches a Richard Dawkins TV programme. They may see that Dawkins has some valid points but are they going to stop going to church? One or two might, perhaps, but most will not. I suspect they use the logic of 'millions of people have believed this stuff for centuries so there must be something in it'. Just my theory.

There's also;
Habit - they've always gone to church on Sundays
Contrariness - "Well he's quite rude"
Poor understanding of logic - "Aha - You can't disprove it!!" *Headdesk*
Poor understanding of the scientific method - Not so much for straight religion, but other sorts of pseudo-science
Pedantry - The nitpicking minor points you mentioned
Hating to be wrong.....

Off the top of my head

[Janot]

Sorry Janot I added some more material to my original post before yours. I don't know if it would change anything. My point was, it wasn't just a blind speculation on my part, I've seen it happen concerning paranormal beliefs.

My general experience of people is that they will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of logic or reason. Thus astrology and any other -olgy which comforts them. Depressing.

[Mulder]

I'm sure there's a technical term, like 'cognitive dissonance', for what's going on but I find it very disconcerting. You can present an argument with logic and evidence and people will apparently understand and absorb it. They may say it is 'stimulating', 'food for thought', and all the usual cliches. And then, a few hours, weeks or days later you will come across them talking about stuff that you disproved decisively in your presentation earlier as if it were fact.

As I say, it's as though they simply 'ignore' what you said because it doesn't fit with their world view. It's as though there is a mental gate there that only admits information supporting their beliefs. Opposing evidence just bounces of the wall and leaves no trace. Frankly, I find it a bit scary!

It might be a group psychology thing. Provided there is always a group of 'believers' around, individuals feel free to ignore any contrary evidence. The very existence of the group makes them 'immune' to contrary evidence or beliefs.

[Fiona]

I do not think there is one answer to this question. I think belief comes in many forms and for many reasons

Most of us have some beliefs which are rationally held and which will modify when new information comes along. Such beliefs are often relatively simple (by which I mean their provenance is not wide ranging, and they are amenable to test or to falsifiability). This type of knowledge is especially well tackled using scientific method and we have made amazing strides because of the development of that method and the whole process of experimentation and peer review etc. That is wonderful

There are other types of knowledge which just don't fall into that category, and in fact I think it is arguable that most of the things which are important to us do not. I would include art and literature and politics and economics and social sciences in that group. Economics and social sciences have tried to ape the methods of hard science, certainly, and I do not argue this can never be done. But I am sceptical and I believe they need to find a new methodology and approach.

In addition to different kinds of knowledge, I think it is futile to deny that some things have a different significance for different people. Some beliefs touch on the core identity and they relate to what people perceive as the sense of themselves as individuals. Such beliefs can be helpfully construed as core constructs as described by GR Kelly in Personal Construct Theory (which, incidentally, suggests a new approach for social science which for me looks fruitful). We all have such beliefs and I think we all know how hard it is to have them challenged. If we are going to attack such "identity" issues then we need to recognise that the person challenged has a lot more investment and will be much more threatened: it is not about one issue it is about their whole understanding of the world. That they don't give it up easily is not even slightly surprising.

I don't know if that is helpful but it is how I see this issue and ignoring is only one strategy for defending the identity issues

[ZERO]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

what process is going on?

It seems to me that they deliberately choose to ignore (a) and/or (b). Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.

What do people think?

When I was a religious believer, I just assumed my beliefs were true. That is what I was raised to think. I didn't passively or actively ignore evidence, I just was not exposed to it in everyday life.

However, when I did stumble upon evidence contradicting the bible, I couldn't ignore it and I'm as amazed as you that people can deny irrefutable facts.

[Mulder]

... I'm as amazed as you that people can deny irrefutable facts.

I've seen people do it, repeatedly. I don't have any explanation for it. I agree that 'ignore' is probably not the right way of putting it but that's the way it looks. It is as if only information supporting a belief gets through but the rest doesn't. Often people don't even get upset, as you might expect, but instead simply 'switch off' or stop listening.

Fiona talks about identity issues and may well be right. So, for instance a person may characterise themselves with statements like 'I like carrots, I don't like jazz, I believe in ghosts'. The beliefs are integrated into that person's personality. You could no more persuade them that ghosts don't exist as make them like jazz. Well, maybe ...

[ZERO]

I've seen people do it, repeatedly. I don't have any explanation for it. I agree that 'ignore' is probably not the right way of putting it but that's the way it looks. It is as if only information supporting a belief gets through but the rest doesn't.

Speaking from my own experience, when I first came across things that were against what I was taught, I molded my religious beliefs to fit around the evidence. I couldn't deny well reasoned evidence based ideas but I couldn't imagine my religion could be completely wrong either.
It was when something proved the bible wrong that I reevaluated everything I believed.

Fiona talks about identity issues and may well be right. So, for instance a person may characterize themselves with statements like 'I like carrots, I don't like jazz, I believe in ghosts'. The beliefs are integrated into that person's personality. You could no more persuade them that ghosts don't exist as make them like jazz. Well, maybe ...

I didn't ever feel that my religion was "who I am". Maybe those that do feel that way are the ones that can't/won't let go?

[Fiona]

The fact that you changed relatively easily suggests it was perhaps not core for you even though it was a big part of your life. I realise that sounds like a post hoc argument but it is not if you look at kelly's ideas. It is possible to determine what is core for any given individual in his scheme of things

If, for example, a core belief is that intelligence matters a lot, then a lot of what you think about other people and ideas will be judged according to that dimension as you conceive it. You might listen more to people you see as intelligent and you might be more easily persuaded by them. If you build a lot of your views on that basis then evidence that the concept of intelligence is not very strongly founded will make you uncomfortable. You might revise your conception into a more sophisticated idea - maybe discard "g" and adopt a more sophisticated characterisation, say. But if the whole notion that people do not differ on that dimension and in fact it does not exist is presented to you, then you will be much more likely to dismiss that evidence no matter how strong it is. Too many other things depend on it.

Of course you have more than one core concept so if another happens to be logic and evidence as a high value that might override and you might discard intelligence and do all the big adjustments required in the face of the new evidence. But equally the idea of intelligence might be so important that you discard the other to a small extent.

This is probably not a very good example - I can never think of good illustrations when I need them - but I hope that makes some sense. Our very core constructs seem to us to be self evidently true and so it takes an awful lot to give them up and the process is painful. And in addition to the intellectual difficulty there can be other strong elements such as a necessity to give up at least one form of intimacy with those we love and who share our previous concept. That is a scary thing too, but it is real and reinforces the wish to resist the change perhaps

[ZERO]

The fact that you changed relatively easily suggests it was perhaps not core for you even though it was a big part of your life. I realize that sounds like a post hoc argument but it is not if you look at kelly's ideas. It is possible to determine what is core for any given individual in his scheme of things

If, for example, a core belief is that intelligence matters a lot, then a lot of what you think about other people and ideas will be judged according to that dimension as you conceive it. You might listen more to people you see as intelligent and you might be more easily persuaded by them. If you build a lot of your views on that basis then evidence that the concept of intelligence is not very strongly founded will make you uncomfortable. You might revise your conception into a more sophisticated idea - maybe discard "g" and adopt a more sophisticated characterisation, say. But if the whole notion that people do not differ on that dimension and in fact it does not exist is presented to you, then you will be much more likely to dismiss that evidence no matter how strong it is. Too many other things depend on it.

Of course you have more than one core concept so if another happens to be logic and evidence as a high value that might override and you might discard intelligence and do all the big adjustments required in the face of the new evidence. But equally the idea of intelligence might be so important that you discard the other to a small extent.

This is probably not a very good example - I can never think of good illustrations when I need them - but I hope that makes some sense. Our very core constructs seem to us to be self evidently true and so it takes an awful lot to give them up and the process is painful. And in addition to the intellectual difficulty there can be other strong elements such as a necessity to give up at least one form of intimacy with those we love and who share our previous concept. That is a scary thing too, but it is real and reinforces the wish to resist the change perhaps

You are probably very close regarding core belief.
I did not like being in the religion.
I only believed as long as I did because of duty, guilt and fear. However I did believe 100%. I knew god existed.

Perhaps those who enjoy the religious life also get a sense of identity from it.

[SorryImPsychic]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.

Beliefs make up a large proportion of our mental landscape. We can define "belief" as sustaining an idea that is not based on proof. The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

[ZERO]

Beliefs make up a large proportion of our mental landscape. We can define "belief" as sustaining an idea that is not based on proof. The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

So which one seems the rational belief to hold?
No evidence = nothing to believe in.


Also, I think, there is a case to be made that refusing to believe in god for lack of evidence, is not a belief.
Perhaps opinion would be a better word.