zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
This is a "culture war" topic, let's prepare for the shitshow in the comments.

I'd like to offer some advice to make things go a bit more smoothly. There's a widespread view that all beliefs are political, you can't be apolitical, and anyone arguing for a belief opposing yours must be an enemy. To me, that view is pretty much a type error. Beliefs are value-neutral. Only arguments for or against beliefs can be political or not.

More specifically, some arguments are rational (based on evidence) while other arguments are political (based on who benefits and who loses). You can be a very civil person, but still reach for political arguments when defending your beliefs, and thus cause net harm. Or you can be a rude person, but drawn to arguing based on evidence, and thus cause net benefit. It's up to you.

Now go forth and make a flamewar :-)

>>cousin+R2
As a counter-point: People can hold beliefs because they have certain consequences. Simple example: "all people are created equal". This is a belief that is (probably) frequently held because it has assumed beneficial consequences for society.

So if people choose to believe in something because that has certain consequences - then a belief can be political.

EDIT: To expand on this a little... It seems to me that you divorce a belief itself from its consequences. As there are a lot of beliefs that have immediate and direct political and social consequences, i think that this separation is questionable.

If you have a belief, you probably will act on that belief. Having a belief and _not_ acting on it _at all_ seems rather useless and abstract to me. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, but in general, if some person has a belief, he (or she) will act on that belief.

So, to be blunt: for some beliefs, having them is a political act.

>>jabot+I3
> People can hold beliefs because they have certain consequences.

Nearly all beliefs are of this type. I believe the Earth orbits the Sun because it's helps me predict the seasons.

>>akvadr+U3
In a narrow sense you are probably right.

In a more general sense, consider the "laws of physics". People believe in them not because of their consequences, but because they explain reality (and quite well). So people believe in gravity because it has worked for them in the past, and because it has been verified.

Also... _not_ believing in gravity will not make much of a difference for your life (as long as you don't start jumping off cliffs of course).

EDIT: I forgot about religion. AFAIK, most people believe in religion because they have been taught/indoctrinated/raised to believe in it, and _not_ because they have (deeply) thought about the social consequences of their particular religion.

>>jabot+r4
The laws of Physics don't explain reality, they model it to our best approximation.

>and because it has been verified. //

That may be true for you but is essentially an appeal to authority. Most scientists claim to be falsificationists and the current agreed Scientific Method is one of Popperian falsification.

Your comment on cliffs belies an ignorance of epistemology - people didn't used to have a gravitational theory, as far as we know no animals have one, that doesn't mean you then jump off cliffs. One's beliefs about reality don't fundamentally change reality.

>>pbhjpb+aa
That was not the point I was trying to make, sorry.

GP said:

>> People can hold beliefs because they have certain consequences.

> Nearly all beliefs are of this type. I believe the Earth orbits the Sun because it's helps me predict the seasons.

I think there are a lot of beliefs that are held not because they have beneficial consequences, but for other reasons.

Religion as a belief is held by most people because they have been brought up with it. (converts nonwithstanding)

Scientific theories are believed (i.e. held true, used for explanations of reality) because they predict stuff that actually happens and can not be falsified.

Both of these are not believed primarily because their belief has actual consequences IMHO.