How Belief Systems Work | Episode 1010 | Closer To Truth

Video Statistics and Information

Video

Captions Word Cloud

Reddit Comments

Captions

>SHOULD I BELIEVE IN GOD? NO MATTER WHAT THINGS I BELIEVE, OTHERS WILL BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND ABOUT GOD, JUST LIKE ABOUT RELIGION AND POLITICS, THINGS DIVERGENT, OPPOSING AND OFTEN ANTAGONIZING. WHY SUCH CONFUSION? WE LIKE TO THINK THAT WE ARE RATIONAL, THAT WHAT WE BELIEVE IS WHAT IS TRUE. BUT BELIEFS CONFLICT. SO WHO IS RATIONAL, AND WHO IS NOT? WE BELIEVE OFTEN BECAUSE OF OUR BELIEF SYSTEMS. HOW WE BELIEVE MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE BELIEVE. WHAT'S A BELIEF SYSTEM, AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BELIEF AND A BELIEF SYSTEM? HOW DO BELIEF SYSTEMS WORK? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE WAYS OF THINKING THAT ENGENDER SPECIFIC BELIEFS. THOUGH THE CONTENT OF SPECIFIC BELIEFS MAY DIFFER, THE PROCESS OF HOW BELIEF SYSTEMS PRODUCE SPECIFIC BELIEFS IS SIMILAR. THAT'S WHY TO EXPLORE BELIEF SYSTEMS, I FOCUS ON PHILOSOPHERS, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT THINKING. I BEGIN IN LONDON, WITH A PHILOSOPHER WHO EXAMINES BELIEFS FROM EGO TO ETHICS, THE EDITOR OF THE PHILOSOPHER'S MAGAZINE, JULIAN BAGGINI. JULIAN, I HAVE MANY FRIENDS WHO HAVE PHDS IN PHYSICS, NEUROSCIENCE. SOME OF THEM ARE MILITANT, MATERIALISTS, AND THEN MANY ON THE OTHER SIDE, DEEPLY BELIEVE IN GOD OR RELIGION OR SOME NON-PHYSICAL REALITY IN SOME SENSE. AND I CANNOT DISTINGUISH THE INTELLIGENCE LEVEL BETWEEN THESE TWO. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO THINK ABOUT BELIEF SYSTEMS. WHY DID THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE SUCH DIFFERENT THINGS? >>IF YOU UNDERSTAND HOW ARGUMENT WORKS, AND HOW BELIEF SYSTEMS WORK, IT'S THAT THEY KIND OF FORM COMPLEXES, NETS, IF YOU LIKE. THERE'S A SORT OF COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH. IT'S NOT THAT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF BELIEF, WHICH WE ALL AGREE WITH, IT'S RATHER THAT THINGS FORM INTERLOCKING HOLES, AND SO THEY BECOME MUTUALLY SUPPORTING. IF YOU CAN FIND WHAT IS THE THING THAT THE PERSON WILL NOT GIVE UP NO MATTER WHAT, WHAT YOU'LL NORMALLY FIND IS THAT THEY CAN FIT THEIR OTHER BELIEFS AROUND THAT. >SO LET'S START A STEP BACK, AND ASSUME THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH. WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT THERE IS A YES OR NO TO THAT. I WANT TO STICK WITH THE OBJECTIVE KINDS OF TRUTHS, WHERE THERE REALLY IS AN ULTIMATE ANSWER. AND EACH SIDE THINKS IT HAS IT, AND ONE OF THEM MAY BE RIGHT, AND THE OTHER MIGHT BE WRONG. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF KIND OF HARMONIZING THESE VIEWS, CAUSE THEY'RE INCOMPATIBLE. >>THE REASON WHY DISAGREEMENT CAN PERSIST, IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN THESE KINDS OF CASES, THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF A KILLER FACT. I THINK THAT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT LIES BEHIND A RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, FOR INSTANCE, IT IS EXPERIENTIAL. I MEAN, PEOPLE REPORT THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HAD A VERY, VERY STRONG FEELING OF A PRESENCE OF GOD OR CHRIST COMING INTO THEIR LIVES. IT CAN BE AS CLEAR AND AS DEFINITE TO YOU AS IT IS TO ME. THERE'S A TABLE IN FRONT OF ME. OBVIOUSLY, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RIGHT. AS AN ATHEIST I'D SAY THAT PERSON IS MISTAKEN IN SOME WAYS, I'D TRY TO GET THEM TO SEE WHY THAT KIND OF FEELING, NO MATTER HOW STRONG IT IS, IS JUST NOT RELIABLE IN A WAY THAT A TABLE IS, BUT THE WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE CONSTRUCT THEIR WORLD VIEWS, IS PARTLY BASED ON THE PERCEPTIONS AND FEELINGS WHICH THEY THINK ARE JUST UNANSWERABLE. >THE ARGUMENTS OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY, I CAN'T PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, I HAVE THIS INTERNAL BELIEF 'CAUSE I'VE HAD AN EXPERIENCE, AND THAT THEY THEN CAN FIND, WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE, GREAT EXPRESSIONS OF GOD'S CREATIVITY OR WHATEVER ELSE. I LIKE THAT ARGUMENT, BECAUSE AT LEAST IT'S CONSISTENT. >>I GUESS THAT THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT WAY OF THINKING IS THAT, SURE, IF YOU HAVE THIS FEELING, THIS VERY STRONG CONVICTION, WHICH SEEMS TO YOU AS REAL AS ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, THAT GOD EXISTS, YOU STILL HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION, YES, BUT IS THAT THE KIND OF FEELING THAT WE HAVE REASON TO TRUST. AND I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, AND YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE PEOPLE HAVE, YOU FIND THAT PEOPLE HAVE VERY, VERY STRONG EXPERIENCES WHICH CONVINCE THEM OF COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE GOD'S DIVINE KINDS OF EXISTENCES, AND SO FORTH. AND SO, I THINK DIFFICULT THOUGH IT MAY BE, ONE SHOULD REALLY TAKE THE VIEW OF SAYING LOOK, I KNOW THIS IS POWERFUL, I KNOW IT SEEMS TO ME SO STRONG THAT I CAN HARDLY DOUBT IT, THAT THIS IS TRUE, I CAN'T TRUST THAT. IN A WAY IN WHICH WE KIND OF HAVE TO TRUST, THROUGH OUR BASIC PERCEPTIONS, THERE ARE TABLES AND SO FORTH. >BELIEF SYSTEMS AS NETS, WITH CORE BELIEFS AS NODES AROUND WHICH OTHER BELIEFS CAN CLUSTER AND COHERE. NICE. BUT HOW DO CORE BELIEFS DEVELOP? ESPECIALLY IN RELIGION WHERE DIVERGENCE IS SO STARK. STILL IN LONDON, I MEET A PHILOSOPHER WHO BEGAN HIS CAREER AS A POSTMAN, AND NOW EDITS THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL 'THINK', STEPHEN LAW. STEVEN'S LATEST BOOK ON BELIEF SYSTEMS, IS CALLED 'BELIEVING BS'. THE ACTUAL TITLE, I SHOULD WARN YOU, DOES NOT USE ABBREVIATIONS. STEPHEN, HOW CAN SO MANY PEOPLE OF GREAT INTELLIGENCE, BELIEVE SUCH DIFFERENT THINGS? >>VERY OFTEN WE THINK WE'VE BEEN LED BY REASON, BY ARGUMENT, BY EVIDENCE, BUT ACTUALLY, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, IS SOMETHING ELSE. THERE MAY BE, FOR EXAMPLE, CAUSAL MECHANISMS OPERATING ON US, MAYBE EVOLUTION, MAYBE NATURAL SELECTION HAS PREDISPOSED US TOWARDS CERTAIN KINDS OF BELIEFS, SUCH THAT WE WOULD HARD, FIND IT VERY HARD TO RESIST THOSE BELIEFS, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO EXPEND A LOT OF ENERGY ON CONSTRUCTING A, YOU KNOW, A VERY COMPLEX SYSTEM OF ARGUMENTS AROUND THAT BELIEF IN ORDER TO DEFEND IT AND CONVINCE OURSELVES THAT IT'S NOT SO UNREASONABLE AFTER ALL. THERE ARE MANY CAUSAL MECHANISMS THAT ARE OPERATING ON US, SOME SOCIAL PRESSURES, DESIRE TO CONFORM AND NOT TO BE OUT OF STEP WITH OUR PEERS AND SO ON. >ONE OF THE GREAT PROBLEMS THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE HAVE, I BELIEVE, IS THE ENORMOUS DISPERSION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. BUT YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO HUMAN BEINGS, BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. S OUR ATTENTION. >>I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SIMPLE ANSWER, ACTUALLY, TO THAT, TO THAT QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY, OH, IT'S ALL EVOLUTION, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OR - >EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, PREDISPOSES - >>YEAH, TAKES CARE OF THAT. I'M SURE THAT THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO THOSE EXPLANATIONS, BUT I'M SURE IT'S ALSO EVEN MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. I BELIEVE AND YOU BELIEVE, THAT WATER BOILS A HUNDRED DEGREES CENTIGRADE, OR ONE ATMOSPHERE FREEZES AT ZERO. IT'S A WIDESPREAD BELIEF. WE BOTH BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, AND WE HAVE ABUNDANT EVIDENCE AND THERE HAVE BEEN TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS AND SO ON, DONE. SO, THAT'S A BELIEF TO WHICH WE ARE POWERFULLY ATTRACTED AND WEDDED, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. BUT OTHER TIMES YOU FIND PEOPLE POWERFULLY WEDDED AND ATTRACTED TO BELIEFS THAT ACTUALLY ARE NOT REASONABLE AT ALL. TAKE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT 9-11 OR JEWISH PEOPLE, OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, YOU TEND TO FIND CERTAIN THINGS CROPPING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN. YOU FIND THAT PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY FIT THE EVIDENCE, CONSISTENCY WITH THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT THEY EMPHASIZE. MY THEORY FITS. NOW THE TRUTH IS THAT ANY THEORY, NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS, CAN BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY IF YOUR THEORY INVOLVES SAY, SUPERNATURAL BEINGS OR MYSTERIOUS BEINGS WITH UNUSUAL POWERS, BECAUSE WHENEVER SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH A BIT OF EVIDENCE AGAINST WHAT YOU BELIEVE, YOU JUST MADE THE CONSPIRACY BIGGER, TO TAKE CARE OF IT. AND THEN WHAT YOU ALSO DO, IS YOU FIRE OFF A LOT OF PROBLEMS AT YOUR OPPONENTS, YOU, QUESTIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH, AND YOU MACHINE GUN THEM WITH THESE PROBLEMS. AND THESE THINGS KIND OF WORK TOGETHER, TO PRODUCE A KIND OF MINDSET SUCH THAT IT SEEMS COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE TO YOU THAT ANYONE WOULDN'T BELIEVE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT SEEMS THAT THEY'RE SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, VICTIMS OF THE CONSPIRACY AND YOU FIND THERE'S ALSO, WITHIN SOME RELIGIOUS SETTINGS, PEOPLE WILL EXPLAIN IT, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED, EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE FROM MY RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW, AND YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AND THIS AND THIS, CAN YOU? IT JUST SEEMS PERFECTLY CLEAR TO ME THAT WHAT I BELIEVE IS TRUE, AND THAT YOU MUST SOMEHOW BE SUFFERING FROM SOME SORT OF PERCEPTUAL DEFECT TOO, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GOT TO BY DEVILS, SORRY, THAT'S THE ONLY REASONABLY EXPLANATION FOR WHY YOU CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH, WHICH IS SO OBVIOUS TO ME. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS LIKE THAT, BUT SOMETIMES IT IS, AND I THINK THAT'S UNHEALTHY. >EVOLUTIONARY PREDISPOSITIONS, THAT SET MENTAL PATTERNS, ENABLING CERTAIN BELIEFS. BUBBLES OF BELIEF THAT WALL OFF THE WORLD, THWARTING CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. IS THAT WHY I BELIEVE THE THINGS I DO? HARD WIRED BRAIN BIOLOGY AND SELF-DELUDING, SELF-CONSISTENT PSYCHOLOGY? I DON'T LIKE THIS. I IMAGINED MYSELF MORE IN CONTROL. BUT WHAT I LIKE MEANS NOTHING, OF COURSE. WHAT COUNTS IS HOW BELIEF SYSTEMS WORK. TO FIND THE MEANS AND MECHANISMS OF BELIEF SYSTEMS, THERE'S ONLY ONE PLACE I GO, THE BRAIN. I GO TO BOSTON UNIVERSITY, TO VISIT A NEUROSCIENTIST WHO SPECIALIZES IN THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF BELIEF AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, PATRICK MCNAMARA. >>THERE ARE LOTS OF CLINICAL SYNDROMES THAT INVOLVE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN BELIEF SYSTEMS. ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THEM ALL IS THAT BELIEFS START WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF SOMETHING THAT'S SALIENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT REQUIRES THE DOPAMINE SYSTEM TO TAG SOME EVENT OR PERSON AS - >DOPAMINE SYSTEM BEING? >>A NEURAL TRANSMITTER THAT'S PROJECTED UP INTO THE HIGHER CORTICAL SYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT VARIOUS NEURAL NETWORKS, AND IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF WHAT'S IMPORTANT. OKAY, SO NOW SOMETHING'S TAGGED AS IMPORTANT, NOW IT GETS FUNNELED INTO THE PROCESSING SYSTEMS. I HAD A CASE OF OTHELLO SYNDROME - >OTHELLO AS IN SHAKESPEARE'S OTHELLO? >>RIGHT, INVOLVING DELUSION AND OBSESSIONAL JEALOUSY, WHERE WE GAVE THE DOPAMINE AGENT TO THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR THERAPEUTIC REASONS, AND HE DEVELOPED A VERY INSULATED, DELUSIONAL BELIEF SYSTEM ABOUT HIS WIFE, THAT SHE WAS CHEATING ON HIM. THE DOPAMINE GETS ACTIVATED, HE TAGS THIS ISSUE, WHAT'S MY WIFE DOING, AS SALIENT TO HIM, HE DEVELOPS A DELUSION ABOUT IT, AND THEN THE DELUSION IS INSULATED FROM EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, SO THERE'S, NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE WE PRESENTED TO HIM THAT HIS WIFE WAS NOT CHEATING ON HIM, HE WOULD NOT BE CONVINCED. SO THE BRAIN PUTS CONSTRAINTS ON OUR BELIEF PROCESSING SYSTEMS. >ARE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES? >>ANOTHER FASCINATING EXAMPLE FOR ME IS CALLED CAPGRAS SYNDROME, AND HERE, THE PATIENT USUALLY HAS LESIONS IN THE FRONTAL LOBE, BUT THE LESION IS SITUATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT FRONT, SOME FRONTAL FUNCTIONS CONTINUE, BUT THEY'RE DISCONNECTED FROM TEMPORAL LOBE FUNCTIONS AND MEMORY FUNCTIONS. SO THE PRIMARY SYMPTOM IS THAT THE PATIENT BELIEVES THAT SOMEBODY VERY FAMILIAR TO HIM, HIS WIFE, USUALLY, IS AN IMPOSTER. IF YOU SAY, BUT HOME COME SHE LOOKS LIKE YOUR WIFE? WELL, SHE LOOKS JUST LIKE HER, I KNOW, SHE HAS THE SAME VOICE, WEARS THE SAME CLOTHES, BUT I KNOW SHE'S NOT MY WIFE. YOU SOMEHOW CREATED AN IMPOSTER. HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? I DON'T KNOW, YOU SCIENTISTS, YOU SOMEHOW DID IT, YOU FOUND SOMEBODY WHO LOOKS LIKE HER, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE DOING IT, BUT SHE'S NOT MY WIFE. AND NO EVIDENCE WILL CONVINCE HIM OTHERWISE. AGAIN, THE INSULATION OF THE DELUSIONAL BELIEF SYSTEM FROM COUNTER EVIDENCE. >ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF THAT THAT'S NOT A WIFE? >>IT'S USUALLY SOMEBODY VERY FAMILIAR, BECAUSE THE MECHANISM DEPENDS ON NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCESS MEMORY STORES ADEQUATELY. SEE, THE DISCONNECTION BETWEEN THE FRONTAL SYSTEM, THE JUDGMENT SYSTEM, AND MEMORIES ABOUT THE WIFE, OR THE FAMILIAR PERSON, THEY'RE NOT BEING INTEGRATED, AND THAT TELLS US, THAT MEMORY STORES ABOUT FAMILIAR FIGURES ARE LIKELY ORGANIZED IN SEPARATE COMPONENTS, THAN OTHER MEMORY STORES. THEY CAN BE ACCESSED SEPARATELY AND THEY CAN BE DISTORTED SEPARATELY AND THEY FEED INTO DELUSIONAL SYSTEMS. I THINK ONE THING THAT THE BRAIN DATA TELLS US IS THAT FOR FITNESS RELATED ISSUES, MATTERS INVOLVING THOSE, ALL THOSE THINGS WE LOVE TO TALK ABOUT, SEX AND FAMILY STUFF AND MONEY STUFF, BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE GOING TO BE LESS OPEN TO EVIDENCE, THAN BELIEF SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT TIED TO FITNESS RELATED INDICATORS. >HOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS, BELIEF SYSTEMS? >>RELIGION I THINK CERTAINLY DOES INVOLVE HIERARCHIES OF VALUE SYSTEMS. EVERY RELIGION WANTS TO REGULATE TALKING ABOUT SEX, OF COURSE, BUT MOST RELIGIONS GO WAY BEYOND THAT AND SAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITIES. ULTIMATE VALUES. SO, YOU WOULD EXPECT RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS TO, TO SOMETIMES BE IMPERVIOUS TO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, BECAUSE SO MUCH IS UP FOR GRABS. >BRAIN PATHOLOGY GENERATES BIZARRE BEHAVIORS, WHICH, WHEN STUDIED CAREFULLY, TEASE APART SUBTLE PROCESSES OF NORMAL BRAIN FUNCTION. BELIEF SYSTEMS, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, ARE COMPLEX CLUSTERS OF SPECIFIC IDEAS AND MOTIVATIONAL DRIVERS, WOVEN TOGETHER INTO THE FABRIC OF MENTAL LIFE. INDIVIDUAL BELIEF STRANDS COMPOSE BELIEF SYSTEMS, TAPESTRIES. BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE BRAIN, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT BELIEFS ARE ENTIRELY MECHANISTIC AND EVEN DETERMINED? MORE RELIANT ON NEURONS THAN RELATED TO REALITY? CAN WE BREAK THE CHAINS OF BRAIN-BOUND BELIEF? CAN BELIEF, ANY BELIEF, BELIEF IN GOD, SAY, EVER GO BEYOND THE BRAIN? I ASK A PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION WHO BELIEVES IN GOD, A LECTURER AT YALE, HE FOCUSES ON GOD'S RELATION TO TIME, GREG GANSSLE. >>MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT OUR WORLD VIEWS ARE THE DEEPEST THING ABOUT US. BUT ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE WHAT UNDERLIES OUR WORLD VIEWS, OFTEN IS A DEEP SENSE OF VALUE, OR AFFECTION OR DESIRES, AND WE CAN SEE THIS BECAUSE WHEN HUMAN BEINGS CHANGE THEIR WORLD VIEWS, IT'S OFTEN BECAUSE OF SOME DEEPLY PERSONAL JOURNEY OR EXPERIENCE, SO THE KIND OF PEOPLE WE WANT TO BE, SEEMS TO LIE DEEPER THAN OUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY, WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT. >YEAH, THAT KIND OF SCARES ME, BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT TRUE REALITY IS VERY SOFT, AND I CAN SORT OF SKID TO WHEREVER I HAPPEN TO BE, CAUSE I, I HAVE THIS DESIRE, THAT SCARES ME, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO THERE. >>WELL IT IS SCARY THAT DESIRES LIE SO DEEP, AND WHAT I THINK I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHEN I TALK ABOUT DESIRES BEING DEEPER THAN WORLD VIEW, IS WHAT ARE THE DYNAMICS OF BELIEF CHANGE, AND BELIEF FORMATION? AND THE DYNAMICS ARE NOT SIMPLY, I EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ADJUST MY BELIEFS ACCORDINGLY. NOW, IT'S NOT THAT EVIDENCE PLAYS NO ROLE, BECAUSE FOR MANY PEOPLE, ONE OF THE DEEP CORE VALUES THEY HAVE, IS TO THINK ABOUT LIFE INTELLIGENTLY, TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE. BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT DRIVE BELIEF CHANGE FOR PEOPLE. SOMETIMES IT'S AN EXPERIENCE, SOMETIMES PEOPLE FROM A RELIGIOUS VANTAGE POINT LOSE THEIR FAITH IN A TRAGEDY. OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS WILL UNDERGO TRAGEDY AND THINK THE ONLY WAY I CAN MAKE SENSE OF MY LIFE, IS THAT GOD IS INVOLVED WITH ME - >AGAIN, AND THAT SCARES ME, BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT MY SUPERFICIAL, EMOTIONAL AFFECTATION, IS WHAT'S DRIVING MY SENSE OF BELIEF IN ALL REALITY. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. WHAT'S REAL IS REAL, WHAT I BELIEVE IS REAL, IS IRRELEVANT, AND WHY I'M MOTIVATED TO BELIEVE THAT WAY, IS IRRELEVANT. IT MAKES ME WANT TO JUST DROP THE WHOLE, AND SAY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, CAUSE I'M RELYING UPON MY OWN FEELINGS, I DON'T TRUST THAT AT ALL. >>I'M SPEAKING OF SOMETHING MUCH DEEPER THAN THE FEELINGS THAT COME AND GO. IT HAS TO DO WITH, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A PERSON, WHAT DO I THINK IT MEANS TO BE A HUMAN BEING, IF I'M RIGHT THAT THESE ARE, ARE DEEPLY INFLUENTIAL ON HOW WE WORK THROUGH WORLD VIEWS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE DEEP, CORE BELIEFS TRACK REALITY NECESSARILY. >RIGHT. >>RIGHT, BECAUSE REALITY IS TRACKED BY TRUTH AND BY EVIDENCE, AND THIS, I THINK, EXPLAINS WHY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE CAN LOOK AT THE SAME EVIDENCE AND COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, BECAUSE THERE ARE, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS GOING ON, THAN JUST CALCULATING EVIDENCE. AND SO IT'S REALLY A STORY ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF BELIEF FORMATION. >DOESN'T THAT ERODE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN EVER REACHING FIRM BELIEFS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT JUST PURELY SCIENTIFIC? >>IT DOESN'T ERODE MY CONFIDENCE ABOUT THESE THINGS. >IT SHOULD. >>BUT IT HELPS ME RECOGNIZE SOMETHING THAT I SHOULD KNOW ON OTHER GROUNDS, IS THAT THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY, IS A QUEST THAT ONLY FITS REALLY LITERALLY IN LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS. EVERY OTHER DISCIPLINE IS EVIDENTIAL, AND EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT COMES IN DEGREES. SO, QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD AND HIS EXISTENCE, QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HUMAN BEINGS ARE FREE, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF TIME, THESE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE CERTAINTY, BUT WE CAN BRING FORTH PHILOSOPHICAL REASONINGS AND IF THOSE REASONINGS ARE PERSUASIVE THEN WE GET AS FAR AS WE CAN. WE GO THROUGH LIFE HAVING TO MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS BEYOND OUR EVIDENCE BASE. IT'S PART OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A HUMAN BEING. >I'D FEAR IF THE KIND OF PERSON I WANT TO BE COULD AFFECT THE KIND OF BELIEFS I HAVE, LIKE ABOUT REALITY OR GOD. I MEAN IT, I'D FEAR. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT TRUE. I AM SAYING, I'M SCARED BY THE PROSPECT. WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF BELIEF SYSTEMS? HOW POTENT ARE THEIR POWERS? HOW RESISTANT TO CHANGE? I NEED FRESH PERSPECTIVE. I SPEAK WITH A PHILOSOPHER WHO IS A NOVELIST, AND THUS CREATES AND EXPERIENCES THE BELIEF SYSTEMS OF HER IMAGINED CHARACTERS. CAN FICTION HELP? I ASK REBECCA NEWBERGER GOLDSTEIN. >>WE ALL HAVE CORE BELIEFS, AND THE KIND OF BELIEF THAT WE REALLY WOULD NOT WANT TO GIVE UP. QUINE, A GREAT PHILOSOPHER OF THE LAST CENTURY TALKED ABOUT THE WEB OF BELIEF, AND THAT THERE ARE SOME BELIEFS THAT, THAT WE HAVE AROUND THE PERIPHERY, BUT WE'LL CHANGE THEM IF THERE IS RECALCITRANT EXPERIENCE, WE'LL GIVE THEM UP. BUT SOME, THE CORE ONES, WE WANT TO HOLD THOSE INTACT. I THINK THAT THAT'S TRUE FOR, FOR ALL OF US AND THAT IT VARIES FROM, FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. WHAT KIND OF WORLD WE FEEL WE LIVE IN, AND THAT THERE ARE THE BIG METAPHYSICAL ISSUES LIKE THE NATURE OF TIME, THE NATURE OF GOD AND REALITY AND DEATH AND SUFFERING AND FREE WILL, CALL FORTH A KIND OF CORE BELIEF, THE KIND OF THING THAT WE, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP, AND OUR OTHER BELIEFS ARE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. >HOW DO BELIEF SYSTEMS WITHIN SOCIAL SETTINGS BEGIN TO WORK? >>THOSE WE THEOLOGIZE, YOU KNOW, THEY GO AROUND, THEY LOOK FOR THE RIGHT RELIGIOUS GROUP. I WAS BORN INTO A RELIGIOUS GROUP, I'M NOT OF THAT SORT. I FOUND MY OWN GROUP, AMONG PHILOSOPHERS. >SO THERE ARE TWO WAYS THIS CAN HAPPEN. IN YOUR CASE, IT SEEMS THAT YOU WERE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SOUGHT A GROUP, BUT I'D SAY IN MOST CASES IT'S THE OPPOSITE, IS THAT THE GROUP ITSELF, CREATES THE BELIEF SYSTEMS FOR INDIVIDUALS. >>THOSE ARE PERNICIOUS GROUPS. PEOPLE OFTEN HAVE TREMENDOUS STRUGGLES BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A GROUP AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SIT RIGHT AND THEY'RE FILLED WITH, WITH CONFLICT. WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN THE SAME GROUP, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF IT IS COERCION, HOW MUCH OF IT IS NATURAL, I SUSPECT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NATURAL CONGREGATING OF LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE ORIENTED TOWARD REALITY IN THE SAME WAY, AND FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THAT GROUP. >SO THE GROUP REINFORCES THEIR SELF-EXISTING BELIEF SYSTEMS. >>YEAH. YOU KNOW THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE TEND TO WANT TO BE WITH PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH US, WHERE WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE ALL DO THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING SO RATIONAL. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE RESISTED, I THINK THAT'S A VERY BAD THING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEEK OUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENT ORIENTATION TOWARD REALITY TO TEST YOUR OWN VIEWS AND SEE HOW MUCH IS ASSUMED AND HOW MUCH IS JUSTIFIED. >THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO MEET YOU. >>ARE WE THAT DIFFERENT? >BELIEFS ARE CONVICTIONS, SUCH AS GOD DOES NOT EXIST. THAT MAY BE TRUE OR FALSE. BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE ALL-EMBRACING WAYS OF THINKING THAT GENERATE THOSE BELIEFS. EFFECTIVE BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE COHERENT AND INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. TRUTH MUST BE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, BUT THAT BY ITSELF, DOES NOT MAKE ANY SPECIFIC BELIEF TRUE. BUBBLES OF BELIEF, ALWAYS WE LIVE IN THEM. RARELY, DO WE SEE THEM. THEY'RE EASY TO SPOT, BUT ONLY IN OTHERS, NOT IN OURSELVES. THAT'S WHAT MAKES BELIEF SYSTEMS SO CONTROLLING AND SO INSIDIOUS. I RECALL WHAT THE SKEPTIC PHILOSOPHER MICHAEL SHERMER TOLD ME. >>HUMANS HAVE WHAT I CALL A BELIEF ENGINE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S MODULES IN THE BRAIN WHOSE FUNCTION IT IS TO FIND CAUSAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THINGS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, IT'S CALLED LEARNING. EVERYBODY DOES IT, YOU HAVE TO DO IT TO SURVIVE, ALL ANIMALS DO IT, WE DO IT SPECTACULARLY WELL. BUT NOT PERFECTLY WELL. WE ARE PATTERN-SEEKING ANIMALS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO SOMETIMES FIND PATTERNS THAT DON'T REALLY EXIST, THAT'S NOT REALLY THERE, THESE FALSE POSITIVES. WELL, GODS ARE LIKE THAT. BELIEVING THAT GODS ARE INTENTIONAL AGENTS IS JUST A SMALL STEP, SO WE INHERITED MAGICAL THINKING AS A PART OF THE SPECIES, BUT I THINK IT STARTS AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL IN OUR BRAINS, IN OUR ACTUAL BRAINS, REINFORCED SOCIALLY BY THE GROUP. >NO ONE ESCAPES THE WEBS OF BELIEF SYSTEMS. SKEPTICS AS WELL AS BELIEVERS ARE CAUGHT, ATHEISTS AND THEISTS ARE ENTANGLED. HOW THEN, CAUGHT AND ENTANGLED, CAN WE EVER GET CLOSER TO TRUTH?

Info

Channel: Closer To Truth

Views: 34,952

Rating: 4.8384695 out of 5

Keywords: closer to truth, robert lawrence kuhn, Julian Baggini, Stephen Law, Patrick McNamara, Gregory Ganssle, Rebecca Goldstein, John Leslie, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Robert Kuhn, Belief Systems, How Belief Systems Work, what is true, how we believe, what we believe, believe, belief, faith, theology, philosophy of religion, world religions, religious studies, philosophy, why does religion exist, closer to truth full episodes, closer to truth religion

Id: juNuGdd_Cc0

Channel Id: undefined

Length: 26min 46sec (1606 seconds)

Published: Fri Jul 31 2020