Belief, Harmful or not?

Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality, if I am not

a) spending money on it
b) indoctrinating others
c) spending excessive time thinking about it
d) jeopardizing my health (physical and mental) or the health of others

?

But rather, even though others think it is silly and false, it makes me feel good and 'complete'.

Is there harm?

If so, who is it harming and in what way?

[SFB]

Ask a dead Muslim who just blew himself up. Oh you can ask the ten Jews he also blew up!!!

[Akots]

"Feeling good" is just a biological side-effect designed to tell us we're doing something right. To recieve the sensation without actualy performing any activity worthy of it is to decieve one's self.

Lying is wrong.

[Franko]

But rather, even though others think it is silly and false, it makes me feel good and 'complete'.

Is there harm?

If so, who is it harming and in what way?

Whodini, if you (or anyone) held some belief that I considered utterly foolish, but it didn’t harm me or anyone else in any way, and I perceived that it made you happy. I would say that there was nothing harmful about that belief at all.

Some people love Onions. I can’t stand onions! You got to be crazy to eat an onion!

But you aren’t harming me in any way, shape, or form when you eat one …

Now suppose that you had a belief that I considered foolish, but I was actually benefiting from You holding this belief? Think like … when the Spanish came to the new world, and the Aztec’s mistook them for Gods.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality, if I am not

a) spending money on it
b) indoctrinating others
c) spending excessive time thinking about it
d) jeopardizing my health (physical and mental) or the health of others

?

But rather, even though others think it is silly and false, it makes me feel good and 'complete'.

Is there harm?

If so, who is it harming and in what way?

Well, taking into account that that eliminates most religious belief...


...with those limitations, I don't see any harm with you believing whatever it is you believe.

[Akots]

Originally posted by juryjone


Well, taking into account that that eliminates most religious belief...


...with those limitations, I don't see any harm with you believing whatever it is you believe.

I'd have to stick with my assertion that it's wrong to believe something accept something as fact when very obvious proof exists otherwise.

But until it becomes a dangerous or harmful issue, who am I to criticize you? :)

Originally posted by SFB
Ask a dead Muslim who just blew himself up. Oh you can ask the ten Jews he also blew up!!!

You obviously didn't understand what d) was saying.

[juryjone]

I've got to say, I didn't vote because I didn't know how the selections correlated with the question being asked.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Whodini


You obviously didn't understand what d) was saying.

OK, D, and I embellished it, for a clear example, among millions over time, the danger religion poses. I'd call that "harmful."

[Tom Head]

Whodini, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking but I'll put in my two cents worth: Read the Clifford-James debate. W.K. Clifford wrote in The Ethics of Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html) that it is always morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence; William James responded with The Will to Believe (http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm#will) which, as far as I'm concerned, debunks the more extreme form of Clifford's Maxim but does not completely shut out his argument.

But one thing I had to realize as a theist who hangs around non-theists is, to quote the great avowed atheist Billy Joel, that "sooner or later you sleep in your own space." If you really are a theist, the issue is not "Is theism necessary?" or "Is theism harmful?" or "Is it okay to pretend there's a God even if there isn't one?"; it's "Is there a God?" If you sincerely believe the answer is "yes," then not only is it morally acceptable to believe in a God, but it is also intellectually dishonest not to. And if you sincerely believe the answer is "no," then the reverse applies. Either way, what other people have to say about your beliefs doesn't much matter; you're the only person on Earth with the power to change them.


Cheers,

Originally posted by SFB


OK, D, and I embellished it, for a clear example, among millions over time, the danger religion poses. I'd call that "harmful."


Then you still fail to understand d) because I said

----
Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality, if I am not

(a-c snipped)

d) jeopardizing my health (physical and mental) or the health of others

?
----


In other words, IF it is not jeopardizing my mental or physical health or the healths of others (and a-c) is it harmful.

You gave an example of physical violence, which is not admissible due to d).

[SFB]

Originally posted by Whodini



Then you still fail to understand d) because I said

----
Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality, if I am not

(a-c snipped)

d) jeopardizing my health (physical and mental) or the health of others

?
----


In other words, IF it is not jeopardizing my mental or physical health or the healths of others (and a-c) is it harmful.

You gave an example of physical violence, which is not admissible due to d).

Yeah, you're right, sorry. I went straight from the title without examining the question, TWICE.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality, if I am not

a) spending money on it
b) indoctrinating others
c) spending excessive time thinking about it
d) jeopardizing my health (physical and mental) or the health of others

?

But rather, even though others think it is silly and false, it makes me feel good and 'complete'.

Is there harm?

If so, who is it harming and in what way?

Three points:

1) There is nothing at all wrong with believing in something that you have been told in not the agreed upon reality, as long as you have substantial reliable evidence to base the belief on. Reality is not a democracy.

2) You have defined this hypothetical belief in such a way as to be irrelevant to the point of meaningless. I fail to see how anything that doesn't have any significant effect on your behavior could make you feel "good" and "complete". And if it does have a significant effect on your behavior, then it is potentially harmful.

3) Potentially harmful does not necessarily mean harmful, but since you have no way of objectively determining whether the actions you take as a result of your irrational beliefs are going to be harmful or not, it is extremely irresponsible to hold beliefs you know to be irrational.

I should also point out that the harm may not be direct. For example, consider a Catholic who does not force his beliefs on others, and does not try to force other people to conform to his beliefs. Is he causing harm through his beliefs? Yes, by supporting an organization which causes considerable harm, he is partly responsible for that harm.

Likewise, just by supporting the idea that it is OK to hold irrational beliefs, you make yourself partially responsible for the harm that such beliefs cause.

The notion that it is ok to believe anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anybody, simply isn't feasible. Your very notion of what it means to hurt somebody depends on your beliefs. As soon as you allow beliefs which are not based on logical analysis of reliable evidence, you are no longer in a position to objectively determine whether your beliefs are harmful or not. Thus the very act of abandoning rationality is an irresponsible one.

Dr. Stupid

[SFB]

Originally posted by Tom Head
But one thing I had to realize as a theist who hangs around non-theists is, to quote the great avowed atheist Billy Joel, that "sooner or later you sleep in your own space." If you really are a theist, the issue is not "Is theism necessary?" or "Is theism harmful?" or "Is it okay to pretend there's a God even if there isn't one?"; it's "Is there a God?" If you sincerely believe the answer is "yes," then not only is it morally acceptable to believe in a God, but it is also intellectually dishonest not to. And if you sincerely believe the answer is "no," then the reverse applies. Either way, what other people have to say about your beliefs doesn't much matter; you're the only person on Earth with the power to change them.Cheers,

I tend to agree with this, Whodini. Once again sorry for not taking your question seriously.

Stimpson J. Cat,


----
1) There is nothing at all wrong with believing in something that you have been told in not the agreed upon reality, as long as you have substantial reliable evidence to base the belief on. Reality is not a democracy.
----


Why must the part in bold be there?

Why can't I believe in something that there is no reliable evidence, or no evidence, for, as long as a)-d) hold?


----
As soon as you allow beliefs which are not based on logical analysis of reliable evidence, you are no longer in a position to objectively determine whether your beliefs are harmful or not. Thus the very act of abandoning rationality is an irresponsible one.
----


I don't see how that holds. Because I have an irrational belief, that does not mean that I will go around harming people or myself.

Originally posted by SFB


I tend to agree with this, Whodini. Once again sorry for not taking your question seriously.


SFB,

No problem. :)

Originally posted by juryjone
I've got to say, I didn't vote because I didn't know how the selections correlated with the question being asked.


Sorry Juryjone, they don't correlate at all. :)

I was just being silly with the poll part of the post.

I voted for Thaiboxerken beating both me and Diogenes.
:)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Why must the part in bold be there?

Why can't I believe in something that there is no reliable evidence, or no evidence, for, as long as a)-d) hold?

Because as I already said, knowingly being irrational is irresponsible.

As soon as you allow beliefs which are not based on logical analysis of reliable evidence, you are no longer in a position to objectively determine whether your beliefs are harmful or not. Thus the very act of abandoning rationality is an irresponsible one.
----

I don't see how that holds. Because I have an irrational belief, that does not mean that I will go around harming people or myself.

No, what it means is that you have rejected any responsibility for the effects holding such beliefs may have on your behavior. It is all fine and dandy to say "as long as I don't hurt anybody, it is ok to reject rationality", but once you have rejected rationality, you are no longer in a position to rationally determine what constitutes harm.

I look at it similarly to drunk driving. A person could claim that he is not responsible for the actions he takes while inebriated. Why is such a defense not valid?

I would say it is because the person was responsible for not allowing himself to get into a state whereby he would be unable to act responsibly. The immoral act is not driving while drunk, because when drunk you are not capable of acting responsibly. The immoral act is that of allowing yourself to become so inebriated that you lose the ability to act responsibly. Allowing yourself to get in that state is, itself, an extreme act of irresponsibility.

Allowing yourself to hold irrational beliefs is just another way of allowing yourself to lose control. Once you abandon rationality, you compromise your ability to behave responsibly.

Ultimately rationality is the only tool we have for making decisions. When you hold irrational beliefs, you are not just hurting yourself (by impairing your ability to make rational decisions), you are also putting those around you in danger. A human being is a potentially very dangerous animal. It is every person's responsibility to keep that animal under control.

Dr. Stupid

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
Why must the part in bold be there?

Why can't I believe in something that there is no reliable evidence, or no evidence, for, as long as a)-d) hold?Because such a belief is irrational and out of whack with reality. It's fine to believe that you can walk on water, until you try it one day. Or that colloidal silver works, until your skin turns blue.I don't see how that holds. Because I have an irrational belief, that does not mean that I will go around harming people or myself.How can you know any longer what is harmful when you already have irrational beliefs? You don't say specifically what this irrational belief is, but any irrational belief means that you are no longer dealing with the world as it really is, but rather as you'd like it to be. That's not going to help you or anyone else

[fishbob]

Is it harmful to believe in something I've been told is not the agreed upon reality There is no such thing as an agreed upon reality, if you are going to disagree with it. Also, reality is not changed by how people define it. So "agreed upon" must mean that our perceptions of reality are the same. And if you disagree with that, it will make your brain hurt.

Stimpson J. Cat,


----
, but once you have rejected rationality, you are no longer in a position to rationally determine what constitutes harm.
----


If I have one irrational belief, that doesn't mean that I am a completely irrational person though, so I still could have a very good handle on what constitutes harm or not.


----
Ultimately rationality is the only tool we have for making decisions.
----


Is my method of rolling a dice or flipping a coin to decide things rational or not rational?

What if I make a decision based on feelings? Sometimes feelings aren't rational at all.


----
, you are not just hurting yourself (by impairing your ability to make rational decisions), you are also putting those around you in danger.
----


I already ruled that out in d), so you must be saying that I can't rule out d) because it always applies?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
If I have one irrational belief, that doesn't mean that I am a completely irrational person though, so I still could have a very good handle on what constitutes harm or not.But since you're not rational, how do you know whether you have a good handle on what constitutes harm?Is my method of rolling a dice or flipping a coin to decide things rational or not rational?Obviously not rational.What if I make a decision based on feelings? Sometimes feelings aren't rational at all.Then such a decision is not rational either,I already ruled that out in d), so you must be saying that I can't rule out d) because it always applies? But you can't rationally rule this out, because you're not rational.

[Franko]

Stimpson:
The notion that it is ok to believe anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anybody, simply isn't feasible. Your very notion of what it means to hurt somebody depends on your beliefs. As soon as you allow beliefs which are not based on logical analysis of reliable evidence, you are no longer in a position to objectively determine whether your beliefs are harmful or not. Thus the very act of abandoning rationality is an irresponsible one.

Phew! … you are an Absolutest in your own little way Stimpy, but tell me … what is the logical analysis of reliable evidence for what color shirt I should wear tomorrow? How about: Which flavor of ice cream is better – Vanilla or Chocolate?

There may not be room for magic “free will” powers in reality, but I see no such inconsistency regarding Individuality.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
But since you're not rational, how do you know whether you have a good handle on what constitutes harm?Obviously not rational.Then such a decision is not rational either,But you can't rationally rule this out, because you're not rational.



I have one irrational belief. That is not the same thing as saying I am an irrational person.

One irrational belief constitutes, say, and extremely tiny percentage of what makes me me.

For example, if I flip a coin to determine if I have cereal or eggs for breakfast, according to you:


###I said###
Is my method of rolling a dice or flipping a coin to decide things rational or not rational?
##########

Pixy said:

----
Obviously not rational.
----


that is not rational. That decision making process doesn't make me an irrational person as a whole. -it just means that I have one irrational belief/action.

Also, say I was irrational as a whole. I could still understand what harm was. I don't see how they are necessarily related like that.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
I have one irrational belief. That is not the same thing as saying I am an irrational person.Well, yes, it is. If you have an irrational belief, and you know it is irrational, and you still believe in it despite this knowledge, then you are irrational.One irrational belief constitutes, say, and extremely tiny percentage of what makes me me.So? Rationality does not allow you to pick and choose your beliefs. If you decide not to bother with rational thought when it might inconvenience you, then you are irrational.For example, if I flip a coin to determine if I have cereal or eggs for breakfast, according to you:Yes. That is not a rational way to decide what to have for breakfast. But we're not talking about breakfast.###I said###
Is my method of rolling a dice or flipping a coin to decide things rational or not rational?
##########

Pixy said:

----
Obviously not rational.
----


that is not rational. That decision making process doesn't make me an irrational person as a whole. -it just means that I have one irrational belief/action.We're talking about belief here, which is a very different matter from what to have for breakfast. If you have an irrational belief, and know this, then you are deliberately believing in something that you know you have no basis for. You are lying to yourself because you find it convenient.Also, say I was irrational as a whole. I could still understand what harm was. I don't see how they are necessarily related like that. If you are irrational as a whole you cannot make a rational judgement as to what constitutes harm. You can only make an irrational judgement.

You asked the question. This is the answer. You can't choose to be rational sometimes. That's irrational. The choice to be irrational is irrational in itself.

If you can't trust yourself to tell yourself the truth, what do you have left?

----
If you have an irrational belief, and you know it is irrational, and you still believe in it despite this knowledge, then you are irrational.
----


How does 1% of my thoughts make me irrational? What about the 99% rational thoughts I have? Don't they count?


----
If you can't trust yourself to tell yourself the truth, what do you have left?
----


This is flawed because I can be irrational and still tell the truth.

I can also be irrational and not harm anyone.

According to you, I am irrational because I have a single irrational belief. However, I have not harmed anyone, and I do tell the truth.

So..

[Tom Head]

This conversation might be much more productive if each of you could provide your definitions of the word "irrational." I don't think they match.


Cheers,

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tom Head
This conversation might be much more productive if each of you could provide your definitions of the word "irrational." I don't think they match.Well, I don't think this is the case, but:

A rational position is reached by following logical reasoning from an evidenciary basis.

An irrational position is not.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
How does 1% of my thoughts make me irrational? What about the 99% rational thoughts I have? Don't they count?No.

You have chosen to be irrational.This is flawed because I can be irrational and still tell the truth.But still you choose to lie to yourself.I can also be irrational and not harm anyone.This is true - it can turn out that way. But you are still irrational.According to you, I am irrational because I have a single irrational belief. However, I have not harmed anyone, and I do tell the truth.If you have an irrational belief, and know this, you are lying to yourself. I said that already.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

, but once you have rejected rationality, you are no longer in a position to rationally determine what constitutes harm.
----

If I have one irrational belief, that doesn't mean that I am a completely irrational person though, so I still could have a very good handle on what constitutes harm or not.

Of course. The point is that when you make the wilful decision to believe something irrational, you are rejecting rationality. This impairs your ability to act responsibly. It does not destroy it. But the very act of willfully impairing your ability to act responsibly, is irresponsible.

Consider this. Once you accept that it is OK to hold irrational beliefs (as long as you don't cause harm), all an unscrupulous person has to do to use you as a tool for causing harm, is convince you that what he wants you to do is the "right thing", and that it won't really cause harm.

If you were considering what he says rationally, then this wouldn't work, because what he is trying to get you to believe is logically contradictory. But if you are determining whether to believe it or not based on emotion, intuition, or wishful thinking, then he may be able to easily convince you. Rationality is the only tool you have to protect yourself from such manipulation, and in doing so, protect everybody else from the potential harm you could cause when so manipulated.

The only way your scenario could work would be if you applied reason to every belief, and every decision, and only acted based on your rational judgments, even though you hold beliefs that are not rational. I do not think that this is possible. If you really believe something, you are going to act on that belief. Indeed, to not do so would be immoral. What you seem to be describing does not sound like belief to me, but rather like fantasizing about things that you would like to be true, but don't really believe are.

Ultimately rationality is the only tool we have for making decisions.
----

Is my method of rolling a dice or flipping a coin to decide things rational or not rational?

That depends. If you don't have enough information to logically pick one, but you have to pick one, then flipping a coin is just as good a way to do it as any other arbitrary method. Rationality doesn't enter into it. Any method for selecting under those conditions is going to be arbitrary, so it doesn't matter.

What would be irrational would be to convince yourself you had made the correct choice, based on the coin-flip.

What if I make a decision based on feelings? Sometimes feelings aren't rational at all.

That depends on whether those feelings are relevant to the decision. Also remember that the term "feelings" covers a pretty broad range of things, from subjective preferences, to emotions, to intuition.

Anyway, it is not meaningful to say that feelings are, or are not, rational. They are neither. What is irrational is basing a belief about the nature of objective reality on feelings. A decision is irrational if it is based on such irrational beliefs.

, you are not just hurting yourself (by impairing your ability to make rational decisions), you are also putting those around you in danger.
----

I already ruled that out in d), so you must be saying that I can't rule out d) because it always applies?

In effect, yes. See above.

But since you're not rational, how do you know whether you have a good handle on what constitutes harm?Obviously not rational.Then such a decision is not rational either,But you can't rationally rule this out, because you're not rational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have one irrational belief. That is not the same thing as saying I am an irrational person.

We are all irrational, to some degree. The question is whether we all have a moral responsibility to strive to be as rational as humanly possible. I say that we do, for reasons I outlined above.


Franko,

Phew! … you are an Absolutest in your own little way Stimpy, but tell me … what is the logical analysis of reliable evidence for what color shirt I should wear tomorrow?

I always pick the one that is the least stinky, but that is because I don't do my laundry frequently enough.

How about : Which flavor of ice cream is better – Vanilla or Chocolate?

The one that causes the largest release of endorphans in your body, of course. Personally, I prefer a mixture of both.

There may not be room for magic “free will” powers in reality, but I see no such inconsistency regarding Individuality.

Neither do I. Nor do I see how anything I said would suggest otherwise.


Dr. Stupid

----
If you have an irrational belief, and know this, you are lying to yourself. I said that already.
----


Ok, and how is lieing to myself necessarily harmful?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
Ok, and how is lieing to myself necessarily harmful?Uh...

...

...

Whodini, if you can ask that question, I don't think you can comprehend the answer.

How can lying to yourself possibly not be harmful?

[ScottDYelich]

Yes it is harmful... to at least that person.
I do not like it, but it's hard to approach the alternative.

Also, I think that our differences is what makes us stronger!
I'd hate to be the same (see another thread) ... we need
differences.

What neeed to do, as a race, is stop the stupid bickering
over who's god is the one true god, etc.

If someone doesn't believe that your god is the one true god -- do you think your god wants you to KILL them because of their
belief?

and, if you DO think this... hopefully there are many many many more
who disagree with you and who will hunt you down and do to you
what you WANT done to you as it is what you want done to others.

I am not going to kill franko because of his mistaken beliefs.
I hope he doesn't want to kill me for disagreeing with his beliefs!
If franko can convince me that what he believes in is true, by
all means, I'll say that I'm wrong, etc... the sad thing is that
I (alone) probably won't be able to change franko's mind. The
good news is that my reality won't go away if I stop believing
in it and franko's statements help me better understand how
others think.

Scott

I asked:

---
.. how is lieing to myself necessarily harmful?
---


Pixy responded:


---
Whodini, if you can ask that question, I don't think you can comprehend the answer.

How can lying to yourself possibly not be harmful?
----


Pixy,

I don't see how you have answered my question. :confused:

Saying that you don't think I can comprehend the answer isn't an answer, and neither is asking me the question in return.

There is no link that proves that lieing to oneself is necessarily harmful. Can it be? Sure. It is always? Nope.

By peoples' own admittance, I am apparently harming myself by having one small belief in something that is probably not true. Am I harming others? Nope. Am I harming myself? I fail to see how, and no one has showed that lying to onesself is necessarily harmful.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Whodini:
Ok, and how is lieing to myself necessarily harmful?

Isn't lying to yourself the same thing as Denial (as defined by the psychologist types). I think denial is considered mentally unhealthy, harmful in other words. One act of denial is probably not so bad, while chronic denial could turn you into a nut case. Of course there are no guarantees, only probabilities.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
Pixy,

I don't see how you have answered my question. :confused: Well, I did, but you didn't understand.Saying that you don't think I can comprehend the answer isn't an answer, and neither is asking me the question in return.

There is no link that proves that lieing to oneself is necessarily harmful. Can it be? Sure. It is always? Nope.Wrong. Lying to yourself is intrinsically harmful. It doesn't matter what you are lying to yourself about; the act is harmful in itself. You have removed the only being that you can trust entirely - yourself - and replaced it with falsehood.By peoples' own admittance, I am apparently harming myself by having one small belief in something that is probably not true. Am I harming others? Nope. Am I harming myself? I fail to see how, and no one has showed that lying to onesself is necessarily harmful. As I said, if you can ask the question, you cannot understand the answer. You are making a deliberate and premeditated attack on your own mind. You somehow expect this to be a good thing?

[evildave]

There are plenty of harmless people talking to the voices they believe in along the sides of the highways of the world.

They get fed and otherwise supported and/or taken care of, and occasionally locked up "for their own good", so even what would otherwise be horrendously unhealthy behavior has no apparent ill effect. They live to be old bums and nuts, arguably happy with their lot in life, since they don't change their behavior.

So simple lack of ill effect to others (or even self) means being in and out of mental institutions and totally dependent on the charity of others is A-OK. Sounds like a poor metric to me, but other people have different priorities.

Maybe if harmless happiness means being strapped to a bed with tubes shoved in every orifice, being pumped up with happy drugs and with happy fantasy piped into your eyes and ears until you eventually rot is appealing to a segment of the population, who am I to judge?

Like religion, this doesn't really appeal to me. But it would be 'judgmental' of me to look down on people who would choose to squander their real existence on fantasies.

----
Well, I did, but you didn't understand.
----

----
As I said, if you can ask the question, you cannot understand the answer.
----



Saying I don't or cannot understand doesn't explain your position and why it is supposedly correct.

You'd have to prove that one tiny belief (out of many many many more rational ones) is necessarily harmful to myself and/or others.

Just saying 'it is harmful because it is harmful, can't you understand that?' isn't a valid answer.

[justsaygnosis]

So long as the belief isn't an impediment to further growth and learning there's probably no harm in it.
If the belief becomes a bulwark against credible evidence then it is.
I guess it's that yang/yin kind of thing.

[Saturn]

Whodini, perhaps an analogy would be helpful here. Let's say a friend told you that for years, he regularly went pub-crawling on Friday nights, got extremely drunk, and then drove himself home. He argues that this was a fun experience for him, and that since he never got into any car accidents as a result, he did nothing morally wrong. He further said that he has since given up alcohol for health reasons, but sees nothing wrong with what he did. Do you see anything wrong with his actions, and if you do, why?

Analogies don't prove anything.

People in this thread have utterly failed to show that one irrational belief (out of many many rational beliefs a person holds) necessarily leads to harm (to that person, and/or to others).

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

People in this thread have utterly failed to show that one irrational belief (out of many many rational beliefs a person holds) necessarily leads to harm (to that person, and/or to others).

I don't see why that is relevant. The statement "irrational beliefs are harmful" is not equivalent to "Any irrational belief anybody holds will necessarily cause harm to somebody".

Tell me something, do you think that HIV is harmful? Some people who are HIV positive never suffer any symptoms.

By the way, I noticed that you did not respond to my post about why knowingly holding irrational beliefs is irresponsible. I suppose you could argue that being irresponsible is not always harmful either, but I think that is just dodging the point with semantics.

Dr. Stupid

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Whodini
Saying I don't or cannot understand doesn't explain your position and why it is supposedly correct.

You'd have to prove that one tiny belief (out of many many many more rational ones) is necessarily harmful to myself and/or others.

Just saying 'it is harmful because it is harmful, can't you understand that?' isn't a valid answer. Well, that's a problem, because it is a valid answer. In fact, it's the only valid answer.

If you are rational, then an irrational belief is necessarily harmful in and of itself simply because it is irrational and attacks your rationality.

If you do not see this as harmful, then you clearly do not value rationality, which means you are irrational.

----
By the way, I noticed that you did not respond to my post about why knowingly holding irrational beliefs is irresponsible.
----


This is a not a "you have to respond to everything board".

----
Well, that's a problem, because it is a valid answer. In fact, it's the only valid answer.

If you are rational, then an irrational belief is necessarily harmful in and of itself simply because it is irrational and attacks your rationality.
----


Yeah, that is what you keep saying, but have utterly failed to prove in a rational manner.

Keep repeating it though- it just might make your belief true.

:D

[Saturn]

Originally posted by Whodini

People in this thread have utterly failed to show that one irrational belief (out of many many rational beliefs a person holds) necessarily leads to harm (to that person, and/or to others).

And a person driving while drunk doesnt necessarily lead to harm (to that person, and/or to others), either. Do you think that is moral, or immoral?

[PixyMisa]

Whodini, it's very very simple. The fact that you can't understand is evidence of your own irrationaility.

Rationality is intrinsically good. If we do not have rationality, we cannot deal appropriately with other people or with the world around us.

Irrationality - any irrationality - is an attack on rationality. It is intrinsically bad because it impairs our ability to reason.

If you don't care about reasoning, or logic, or rational thought, or being able to deal appropriately with other people and with the world, then an irrational belief can do you no further harm because you are already irrational.

If you were rational, this would be self-evident. Since you are not, it is hard, and may be impossible, to explain it to you.

Pixy,


----
Rationality is intrinsically good.
----


This is what you are endeavoring (sp) to prove. You claimed it, and repeated it, but do you have any proof?


----
If we do not have rationality, we cannot deal appropriately with other people or with the world around us.
----


Well apparently I am irrational, yet I deal appropriately with other people and the world around me, therefore, by contradiction, I am rational.


----
It is intrinsically bad because it impairs our ability to reason.
----


What is this magical "intrinsic" that you talk about? Where are you getting that? Can you prove that something is automatically bad because it impairs our ability to reason?


----
If you don't care about reasoning, or logic, or rational thought, or being able to deal appropriately with other people and with the world, then an irrational belief can do you no further harm because you are already irrational.
----


Repeated again.


----
If you were rational, this would be self-evident. Since you are not, it is hard, and may be impossible, to explain it to you.
----


Repeated again, and repeated again.

We all await proof of Pixy's claims.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

By the way, I noticed that you did not respond to my post about why knowingly holding irrational beliefs is irresponsible.
----

This is a not a "you have to respond to everything board".

Of course, you are under no obligation to respond to anything you don't want to. But when you say something like

People in this thread have utterly failed to show that one irrational belief (out of many many rational beliefs a person holds) necessarily leads to harm (to that person, and/or to others).

you seem to be implying that you think there was some sort of flaw in my argument, even though you didn't state what it is. Perhaps you do not consider the deliberate impairment of your own ability to act responsibly to be "harmful", but if that is the case, then you should at least say so, before making your grand victory announcement.

And your demands for proof are just silly. We are talking about morality here. Morality depends on values. As Pyxy said, if you do not value reasoning, logic, or rational thought, then you are not going to agree that irrationality is bad, because you have a different definition of "bad" than he does. Just as somebody who does not value human life is not going to consider murder to be "bad".

And as I have pointed out, if you do not value personal responsibility, the fact that irrational beliefs impair your ability to act responsibly is not a "bad" thing either.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that irresponsible behavior is not harmful?


One point I would like to reiterate here. I find it very difficult to imagine someone truly believing something that he knows is irrational. For me, finding out that something is irrational results in me not believing it. I don't have any choice in the matter. The only way I could possibly convince myself to believe it, would be to brainwash myself into thinking that it is rational.

To believe something that you know is irrational is not just irrational, it is insane. But I don't think what you are talking about here is really belief. It is fantasy. It is something that you want to be true, and pretend is true, but deep down, you don't really believe that it is.

Note that I am not saying that I think you personally hold such beliefs. I don't know what you believe, nor do I know whether you are trying to defend your own irrational beliefs here, or whether you are simply playing devil's advocate. Likewise, I am not claiming that most "believers" don't really believe. On the contrary, most people I know who hold irrational beliefs do not realize that those beliefs are irrational.

Dr. Stupid

[Akots]

If an irrational and useless belief involves any kind of effort, cost, or sacrifice, then it's detracting from my resources that are better spent elsewhere. Therefore, by reducing my quality of life, it harms me.