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
Just note that believing something because it has nice consequences is just logically wrong.

Formally:

1) A => B

2) I would really like B to be true, because it has some benefits.

3) Therefore A must be true.

If we are in search of truth and want to build a consistent model of the world then we just can't accept this kind of reasoning.

Also, even if A really turns out to be false, it doesn't mean that B can't be true and our world will forever be sad i.e. Even if it turns out that all people are not created equal, we can still live in just and enlightened society which treats everyone fairly.

And of course the implication between A => B may not even exist. Is it really true that if all people were created equal the society would benefit?

>>Scea91+N5
I would disagree with the generalization. Consider the following set of propositions:

1) The placebo effect predicts that believing I'll get over a bout of the flu quickly increases my chances of getting over the flu quickly

2) I believe in the placebo effect and would like to get over the flu quickly

3) Therefore, I choose to believe I will get over the flu quickly.

There is no reason besides practicality to believe proposition 3), but if propositions 1) and 2) are accepted, proposition 3) follows naturally. To my own way of thinking, some beliefs are self-justifying, but I'd be interested to hear how your worldview deals with this example.

edit: spacing