Personal Beliefs @ MindSay

For those who haven't noticed, I'm not afraid to step on peoples' "precious beliefs." That includes devout religionists and other deluded people. Many will accuse me of alienating the people around me. I reply with a hardy "so what?"

If one is not able to defend their beliefs whole heartedly, then they, mostly likely, haven't any reasonable reason to hold the beliefs that they do.

This morning began gloriously, it was raining after all.  I love early morning rains, unlike most others.  The only annoyance being my soaked feet, I have got to get me some boots!  Anyhoos, the morn was made even better as it was accompanied by (Jalauddin) Rumi the 13 century Sufi poet's lovely words.  I made the wise decision in buying one of those littol pocket books, with wonderful Mughal illustrations.  Anyone in to Sufianas here? 

 

This following piece (and of course the subway rockies) stirred my still half awake, drowsy cells:

 

Never Tell

 

Never tell when you leave,

Never tell of your wealth,

Never tell of your beliefs,

There are those waiting

to know of these things,

That they might take advantage of you.

 

Lately, or what seems to me as off late, I notice  people just dying to probe in to other people's affairs and or beliefs.  This would not have been such a ghastly thing if it wasn't done so with the evil intention of finding faults with those convictions. 

 

I am tired of discussions about religion and other personal beliefs.  Personally, I think religions were established to make better  humans of us all, by trying to follow a way of life which teaches us to to live harmoniously among each other, and practice tolerance in regards to one another among many other wonderful exemplars set before us.  Religion supposedly brings people together, but we can all see how that intent went awry.  History vouches for that as most of the major disputes in the world was due to religious strifes, which then led to violent dissentions.  Sometimes these embittered conflicts have lasted so long that we have forgotten exactly when it began and why. 

 

This makes me contemplate on human nature, and its inability to live harmoniously with other species, yes any species really for we do not leave any one out in our haughty discriminations.

 

This is the reason it will always be more important for me to become a better human being, than a pious soul.  I think sometimes, religious doctrines instills loyalty to its own theology so much, that we are by default sundered from others with different beliefs.

 

It makes us feel as if there is only a single method to percieve truth, an approach that is a dangerous concoctation.  Truth must be relative, because that is what is!  What you percieve as truth is not always truth for me, and vice versa.  That is the way it is.  It might be wrong to some and right to others, but it is as is. 

 

Well then, in conclusion, it seems like a very intelligent plan to stick to Rumi's wisdom.  Never tell, shhh.....

So my sister calls the other day and tells me that in church on sunday she is going to be baptized...again.  Apparently she got 'saved' a couple of weeks ago...again.  She tells me it's for real this time and if that's what she wants and if that's what she believes then that's great.  I'm really happy for her, seriously.  Then she asked me if I would attend the service.

What irritates the hell out of me is that I've 'come out of the closet' so to speak about my own religious views and told my family that I have no desire to go to church services or events.  I'm not Christian and I refuse to be a hypocrite and attend services of a faith I don't believe in.  I wont lie and say I do believe in Christianity.

So why do certain memebers of my family keep asking me if I want to go to Church?  I would not ask them to attend a Pagan ritual when I know full well they would not want to attend.  I would not ask them to compromise their beliefs, lie about their beliefs, or attend an event or service that would make them uncomfortable.

I don't know how to get through to them.  I don't wear my Paganism on my sleeve.  I don't shove it down other people's throats.  If someone asks me a question, I answer it and try to not make them feel uncomfortable while doing so.

I don't belong to a coven (I'm not Wiccan in any case), I don't belong to a Pagan group of any kind.  My faith and beliefs are to me a private and personal thing.

But now I'm thinking that maybe to make them stop asking me to attend services I should be more vocal.

Ugg...I don't know. 

Foreword:

If you are too busy to read the article’s full length, then I highly recommend reading at least the position and concepts sections. The article is not intended to be considered as the absolute truth, but a series of thoughts which have lead up to a position which may be true. Any and all constructive comments are welcome, but include reasoning and thought with a response if at all possible. If all the response consists of is an opinion, meaning a position without any support, then I’ll just have to respond in an equally boring manner amounting to no intellectual gain. So please give support.

Position on Ethics and Principles of Beliefs

My Position:

Beliefs based upon facts of the mind are to be accepted when sufficient evidence is available or when the belief is useful and no currently better known alternative is available. Beliefs based upon facts of the mind can be accepted unless the beliefs contradict one or more facts of the mind. Both types of beliefs should be restraint by moral objections when in application.

Concepts Used:

Facts of the Mind - Facts based upon evidence and reasoning

Facts of the Heart - Facts based upon personal inclincations

Wrong – A concept occurring at the existence of two or more distinct and separate beings that hold desires. An act which breaks the customs or rules set by the majority of these beings. Justified by the common good.

THE GOOD – The highest universal and unchanging form of goodness

Moral – An act which is in accord with THE GOOD

Immoral – An act which opposes THE GOOD

Belief – Personal conviction in a statement or thought

Argument – A series of statements leading to a position

Dispute – Two opposing arguments

Support:

Beliefs are everywhere and held by everyone. They range from small to large, good to bad, evil to righteous, sound to unsound, and so forth. Beliefs are also the fundamental level at which an argument begins and where disputes arise. So it is important to have some guiding principles by which one acquires and changes one’s beliefs.

First let’s consider a position held by William Clifford, a philosopher from the middle to late 1800’s, from his work, “The Ethics of Belief.” Clifford starts off with a situation where a ship-owner must make a decision. The decision is to either allow his ship to sail across the sea with many immigrant passengers or prevent this from happening based on the condition of his ship. The ship-owner realizes that the evidence available shows that the ship is not sea-worthy, however the ship-owner convinces himself that the ship is sea-worthy by simply reasoning that the ship has made many a journey beforehand and can make another now. Sound in mind with his choice of belief, the ship-owner collected his insurance money after the ship went down at sea, killing all the passengers.

This man was certainly responsible for the deaths of all the passengers. For although the ship-owner held the belief that his ship was sea-worthy, he “Had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him,” as Clifford states it. In other words, the ship-owner based his decision on insufficient evidence. Clifford even goes on to affirm the ship-owner would have still been in the wrong even if the ship had made its journey safely, only the ship-owner’s wrong-doing would not be found out. If this doesn’t make sense, then consider the following more clear-cut case. If someone steals from a local store and is caught, then surely this act is wrong. Well, it would still be wrong even if the thief was not captured. The same principle applies here, except with regard to the method by which one acquires and changes one’s beliefs. In fact Clifford is unsatisfied by simply labeling beliefs based on insufficient evidence as wrong. Clifford feels such beliefs are immoral. Therefore, such an act would be considered a violation of the highest unchanging good, which Plato called THE GOOD.

So is Clifford right? Are all beliefs based on insufficient evidence truly immoral? Well, I certainly feel Clifford is on the right track; however his position needs some adjustments. First of all, even the sciences which society generally holds as the factual truth regarding the state and function of the universe is not based on sufficient evidence. Yet, science has allowed humanity to produce many useful gadgets. Shall humanity now abandon the sciences simply on the grounds that we do not have the sufficient evidence to rightfully conclude for certain that the truth has been discovered? I think not. Even though we may not have the entire truth, humanity is most certainly in the right direction of the truth or else our gadgets would not function at all or extremely poorly. So it would seem a step of wrongfulness to simply throw away all the progress in science. Therefore, in order to allow the belief and application of science as moral, Clifford’s view must allow beliefs which are based upon insufficient evidence when they are useful and when such beliefs have no better currently known alternative. There is of course one other adjustment to be made even to this adjustment, which is the next idea to be discussed.

It is important to know beliefs find their origins in two separate kinds of facts. The first being facts of the mind and the other being facts of the heart, which is sometimes called faith. Facts of the mind are facts which are based upon evidence, whereas facts of the heart are based upon one’s internal inclinations. Yet, that doesn’t mean facts of the heart may contradict facts of the mind. In fact, any fact of the heart which contradicts one or more facts of mind is in fact an immoral belief, because facts of the heart are based on insufficient evidence in the first place; so if one was to go as far as to reject the available evidence this would violate Clifford’s basic principle.

Knowing the two kinds of facts, we can now prescription two different treatments to the two origins of beliefs. If a belief originates from facts of the mind, then they must be based on sufficient evidence, this is unless of course the belief based on insufficient evidence is useful to humanity and has no currently known better alternative. When it comes to beliefs which originate from facts of the heart another approach must be prescribed. Since such an origin in its very essence has no evidence, then only a conflicting fact of the mind could make such a belief immoral. Otherwise any beliefs based on facts of the heart are perfectly fine.

This of course doesn’t warrant acting upon such beliefs based upon insufficient evidence. Any belief based upon sufficient evidence to the highest extent can always be acted upon. However, no such useful beliefs exist. To my current knowledge, all such beliefs are individual oriented. For example, if someone said, “I believe I am hungry,” then they have the absolute right to act upon this belief, since they have the sufficient evidence to conclude it. This idea can be extended to many other sorts of sensory input.

So what about beliefs based on facts of the mind which have insufficient evidence? Shall they be acted upon? Certainly they should, but not without bounds. Science in its essence is the very practice of doing so. So long as no moral objection contends otherwise, beliefs based on facts of the mind which have insufficient evidence are permissible to be acted upon. Yet, such beliefs should be always be held as temporary, and the belief holder should invest effort, if reasonably possible, towards discovering a belief closer to the truth of the situation or towards gaining sufficient evidence.

Finally when it comes to beliefs based upon facts of the heart which have insufficient evidence, one is again allowed to act, but again with the restraint of moral objections.

I have just been lectured and seemingly condemned for my own personal
beliefs. I am damaged, and hurt badly because of it. I just hope that
those of you who disagree with my beliefs can learn to love me despite
my beliefs, and not try to change them. Just be my friend, that's all I
ask of you.


I may be in tears now, but only because I have more love than is being returned to me.


I love you, my readers -- nay, my friends, all too much to let
something like a simple difference in beliefs come between you all and
myself.



Love me for me, not my beliefs, and I promise to do the same.