Can All People Learn To Form Beliefs Rationally?

I was wondering today about the question of whether or not rational thinking can be learnt once past adolescence.

There seem to me many models for forming beliefs in our society. The "I choose my beliefs to fit in", "I choose my beliefs to stand out" "I choose my beliefs because they comfort me" and "I choose my beliefs because thats what the experts think"
are just a few examples of a multitude of strategies or systems humans use to determine what they believe.

Rationally thinking about issues is both time consuming and intellectually demanding. In some situations it may not even be the most useful/advantageous strategy available to the individual concerned.

Thoughts?

My two pennies:

I was wondering today about the question of whether or not rational thinking can be learnt once past adolescence.

The question what can and cannot be learned once past adolescence is of course a very interesting one, but one that I can sneak around addressing here, since I am unsure about the very concept of rational thinking. Leaving aside squabbling about semantics and whether there is such a thing as rationality in the first place, I cannot see how rational thinking is some sort of “strategy” that is mutually exclusive with other behavioral patterns.
I would agree with your (implied) definition, that a “belief” is a separate contingent category to rationality. But that is, because the two exist in different modules of internal communication. Rational thinking is a tool (among many others, some of which you have listed below) to arrive at a belief. But it need not constitute that belief fully or even in great part. (Although some rather large measure of rationality seems to prevail in most human beliefs)
Also, rational thinking is not alternative to holding a belief. Two people can think rationally and harbor different beliefs. Two people can even form their believes by what they perceive to be rational thinking and still arrive at the same conclusions.

There seem to me many models for forming beliefs in our society. The "I choose my beliefs to fit in", "I choose my beliefs to stand out" "I choose my beliefs because they comfort me" and "I choose my beliefs because that's what the experts think"  are just a few examples of a multitude of strategies or systems humans use to determine what they believe.

Actually, I my view hidden in that enumeration is the only basis why a belief is held: “I choose my beliefs because they comfort me” What comforts you? That which proves successful to you. Most success is inextricably linked to some sort of rational assessment: The irrational belief that you are capable of autoteleportation does not provide you with much comfort, as the belief can be easily tested and disproved. The irrational (? Let us just assume) belief that there is an afterlife in the form of heaven and hell suits you well most of the time and cannot be disproved. Therefore, there is great merit in harbouring the latter.
This brings us to:

Rationally thinking about issues is both time consuming and intellectually demanding. In some situations it may not even be the most useful/advantageous strategy available to the individual concerned.

In many situations, rational thinking will provide some measure of success and therefore be a worthwhile activity. In some situations as you point out there will be no time for such deliberations, (that’s where you rely on reflexes, intuition or instinct) or the energy expenditure will be to great to compensate for the expected success (that’s when you rely on chance).

Furthermore, we have to bear in mind, that no perceived “problem” has a solution. Chaos theory. There is no being that can assess all the implications of any given energy expenditure. (It might be a rational course of action to stop at McDonalds when you are hungry. But it might be more rational to stop at the coop to by some fresh vegetables because they are more healthy. But as the veggies in the coop are farmed ecologically, there might be some cowshit on them that gives you BSE so it might be more rational to eat unhealthy food at McDonalds but there might be some antikapitalist brawl going on there where you could get shot and so ever on)

If you are out for “utility” rational thinking is one of the best tools around. But always and not for every purpose. Indeed rational thinking creates a lot of problems that it cannot solve. We have adopted the tool so well, that sometimes some of us find it hard to let go. Its not always good to be rational about love, life and the prospects of the local football team.
Thus blessed be those whose aptitude of irrationality is great enough to keep them going!

I for one would sell my soul to be able to believe in God and Heaven.
Now, if only that were not a contradiction sui generis... )

Caliban -
"I for one would sell my soul to be able to believe in God and Heaven."

[lol] !
I'll take it.

Your soul for the ability to believe in God and Heaven.

I hear your skepticism. I would expect nothing less!
I rarely see such a succulent and tidy morsel!

However.

I must, in all conscience, point out that there are currently 5 billion souls just like yours in the world. It's a buyer's market...

Oh well, what the...erm...heck.

From this day forth, you will believe so basically in God and Heaven that every action you make will consciously or subconsciously result in the confirmation of the percieved truth of your beliefs.
*waves arms lacadasially*
Whamo. Abracadabra. Tactus sanctus mamba pamba.. whatever.

"Easy 'nuff.", He says.

Silly humans. You would analyze your way into a cow patty, if left alone.

I'll take it.

Your soul for the ability to believe in God and Heaven.

I hear your skepticism. I would expect nothing less!
I rarely see such a succulent and tidy morsel!

However.

I must, in all conscience, point out that there are currently 5 billion souls just like yours in the world. It's a buyer's market...

What happens to religion, if "dust to dust" ain't? Most religions are defined by how they view the period after our deaths. So what happens to the quest for spirituality, when we don't have to worry anymore about meeting our maker?

And what will happen to religion or more specifically the religions of Judaism,Islam, and Christianity? These are powerful religions nonetheless with millions of followers for each. However, physical human immortality will completely turn these religions upside-down. The most integral part of all their beliefs centers on life after death. But one day this will be completely nonsensical and are mostly myth and superstition. And when that day comes, what purpose will there be for Christianity or for other religions to continue? "Life after death" is a foundation in which all religions stand on. Without this foundation, Christianity along with the other "powerful" organized religions, will totally fall into shambles. To survive, leaders of the religions would have to rewrite everything (The Bible, Koran, religious commandments and doctrines, etc.) or interpret everything to fit the parameters of human immortality. Doing any of this would be futile since since if they didn't get it right the first time, why would anyone continue to believe any of them? Thus, physical human immortality will logically destroy all of religions' validity and integrity.

Our hope of immortality does not come from any religion, but clearly all religions come from that hope. I say it's a Sellers Market.

Rev. William Constitution O'Rights

I would have to agree wholeheartedly.
However, history abhors a paradox, insofar as we refer to any attempt to alter history using some so-called time traveling scheme.

Imagine for a moment that religions of the world function similarly to the pre-supposed continuity of time.

We have our time travelers, individuals who seek to alter history for their own fashon. Now clearly, time flows in one direction with no current means of alteration from that course. If one were to cross time and travel backward to alter some event, history itself would begin reshuffling to accomodate any changes made. The future would flow around any petty actions made by this irritant, and if events couldnt be reshuffled to accomodate any such changes, then it is the irritant (the time traveler) who is expelled. Such is the nature of a paradox.

Now lets look at religion with a similar context to time, and Immortality in direct relation to the time traveler. Obviously nature never intended for things to last forever, and if they did, this universe would be non-existent. Everything that is discovered about reality continually favors entropy, that foul disgusting force that renderes everything to nill, creating chaos and disorder at every level and against every pattern. Still, life emerges from this chaos under ideal circumstances, only to be subject to entropy yet again. Nature decrees that all things end.

However, the "irritant/Immortal" declares that they shall not be subject to this seemingly fundamental cycle, and that instead they will conquer its destructive nature, embracing change rather than obliteration. The irritant breaks the rules, in the same way that the time traveler re-writes history.
What happens? Religion will re-shuffle itself to accomodate the change, just as history does the same. Will religion cease? Not likely, as it is fundamentally ingrained (at least for now) within a large portion of the human race. But there are clearly only 2 choices...or are there?
Call it a 2 sided coin. If the coin lands one way, religion and nature win out and immortals will never exist. If the coin lands on the reverse, Religon alters itself to exist in some other fashon, co-existing with the immortalists.
But suppose you throw a coin enough times...suppose one day, it lands on its edge...
The third option being, Religion dissapears within the wake of the Immortals.
Now while granted, the 3rd option is unlikely, so too it is that religion would successfully alter itself to accomodate its un-natural violaters.

In the purest sense, humanity will not be human for very much longer. It is clear from the majority of humans obvious interest in self-gratification, self-edification, and self-deification that we are headed for a world of hedonism and automation.

Hopefully that will not last long...provided that great thinkers and philosophers, as well as the true pioneers of discovery do not fade completely from human civilization.

A quote from a science fiction movie(The X-Men), addressing such similar concerns:

"Are you a 'God Fearing' man senator? Such a strange phrase. Ive always thought of God as a teacher. As a bringer of light, wisdom, and understanding."

-Magneto

By what standard is it reasonable to assert that most people in fact choose their beliefs? This assumption needs to be addressed even before we can argue the concern as to whether the process can be made rational.

Most belief is a result imprinted attitudes that resemble more indoctrination than true thought and learning. There is a question of choice and whether or not people are in fact thinking at all about what they a priori believe. I always find myself going back to Hegel, who said: "Belief is that which you cannot know".

The act of questioning belief is the beginning of true thought and the first step of Self Realization.

Lazarus I entirely agree with you about the basis on which most beliefs are formed. I believe that the passive internalisation of locally prevailing assumptions on any subject is probably the dominant strategy for forming views in our world. (I do believe it is an implicit strategy albeit not a consciously expressed one)

But as you yourself acknowledge there are alternative ways at arriving at beliefs. My central question remains: can rational thought be learnt once past adolescence?

Utnapishtim says:

But as you yourself acknowledge there are alternative ways at arriving at beliefs. My central question remains: can rational thought be learnt once past adolescence?

Yes, but I would argue that this is not an inescapable prison and I counter with the question, If experience is the ultimate teacher can these lessons be learned before adulthood?

Of even greater importance to this struggle within: Can we survive the learning process?

This is not meant to be so cynical and pessimistic as it at first appears. It is however meant to imply that the challenges are real and the threat of failure a significant risk with very serious penalties.

Both pragmatically and idealistically I would personally answer your inquiry with a simple afirmative answer, yes.

I think that learning is its own reward and begins at any age like the openning of door within our minds and this door only closes when the individual chooses fear of truth and denial over the experience of truth both sublime and intensly disturbing.

We don't get to choose all we learn and what is of the greatest importance is that we learn to be the objective observer first, refraining from judgement as we absorb more accurate perceptions of the surrounding universe into our conscience.

I think the greatest challenge to our learning ability is the duality of social sympathies. It is fraught with multiple images that run the gamut of the greatest extremes of paradox, love/hate, loyalty/betrayal, association/rejection, dominance/submission, individual/society, and literally dozens of other sociopsychological aspects that bring most people into a catharctic conflict at least once during their maturation process or they have simply failed to experience the life they possess.

This duality of pleasure/pain directly associated with social assimilation and self awareness causes most who survive this process to develop a form of mental filter that is pragmatically useful but extemely limiting. This denial and self limitation is at the heart of William Blake's famous quote:

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would
     appear to man as it is, infinite.            —William Blake

The data stream that experience represents causes most people's learning abilities to lock up faster than an old 386 pc on the wrong voltage. So they develop barriers to learning that you are referring to in the original question, but these barriers are by no means insurmountable because if they were we would already be extinct as a species. These barriers are analogous to the processing filters that we write into software for limiting the rate and integration methods for new programs. But those that fail to learn and adapt have the natural limitations of luck and/or extinction. They emoptionally collapse, and mentally (lock-up) breakdown.

Some of us do not accept the limitations others would place upon us and have learned to remain invisible so as to avoid the torture rack and heretic's pyre, or we determine to rule our environment so as to control the events that would threaten our existence. But at the heart of this is a passion to learn, a will to learn, and a willingness to endure the lessons, like an act of all consumming love or a crucifiction.

This is at the heart of the Buddhist philosophy (to respond to a previous comment) that "Life is sufferring".

Not all we learn will cause us to suffer but desiring to learn all we can will inevitably bring us face to face with our greatest personal challenges.

THERE ARE TWO MAIN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.


First, there are the Compatibilists, who say that we have free will if we feel ourselves to be free; that is, if we are unaware of any outside compulsion constraining our actions. Second, there are the Libertarians, who say that we have free will only if our actions are determined by us and by us only: that is, we are free only if our actual decisions are not determined by the rest of the universe, past, present, or future, but instead we ourselves are the ultimate and irreducible source of our decisions. The debate has been going on between these schools for thousands of years, with no resolution. For the past few centuries, supporters of the two schools have been talking past one another. There seems to be a consensus among philosophers that no new argument has appeared in this time to break the impasse.

Synthesis is in the blink of eyes during a Mexican Standoff.

The act of questioning belief is the beginning of true thought and the first step of Self Realization.

Lazarus Long,

Those that are indoctrinated have been taught not to question. They eventually develop paradigms that shut out other points of view. If their indoctrination has been successful, they become apologists for their position even if their position is self defeating.

The spirit of self-discovery will not be found in them for they believe they know it all.

bob

True Bob and completely consistent with the position I am staking out.

Most belief is a result imprinted attitudes that resemble more indoctrination then true thought and learning. There is a question of choice and whether or not people are in fact thinking at all about what they a priori believe.

Lazarus Long,

Your studies in ancient history have given you much wisdom.

Also fear can play a role in shaping attitudes so that the masses learn not to think or question.

bob

http://www.richard.c...uk/burning.html



"Burning at the stake in public was used in Britain to punish witchcraft and heresy committed by either sex and for women convicted of high treason or petty treason."

Thank you for the kind words Bob.

I agree about Fear, and Habit (not mentioned as much here), and a variety of other belief related behaviors that are cyclical in the relationship between Attitudes and Motivations but Fear is often a product of some king of indoctrination and/or socialization (peer pressure), so I put the indoctrination first.

Much of what we fear is either learned, or instinctive and humans are little bound by instinct. Though we are more influenced by instinct, the more non-rational we are. In fact in some ways instinct and reason form dialectic opposites reconciled through intuition.

It should be noted however as evidenced by the domination of Fire, Humans can overcome their fears.

Reason is like fire, once we possess its power we have less to fear from the dark.

It is the fear however that promotes the desire to jump to a conclusion with too little fact and substitute myth for truth. We fear the void even more than the pyre, for the void is the cold shadow of death's looming presence in our minds.

Part of what it takes to learn to be rational is to learn the complex balance it takes to suspend judgement long enough to learn. This is true of many things interestingly enough, it is also at the heart of learning such things as tolerance and foreign languages. The balance is complex because survival often requires decisive action, but sometimes the decision is not to move rather than over-react.

Oh yeah, I want to say that you Bob are pretty wise yourself. And I sense you have something I value even more, a compassionate heart to go with your inquisitive and astute mind.

Utnapishtim
My central question remains: can rational thought be learnt once past adolescence?

If that really is your central question, then you would need to define what you mean by "rational thought". Generally it seems to me a problem of Neurolinguistics rather than banging on about free will. Wolf-Childern and such. Grab a book on basic developmental Neuropsychology.

------

Ganshauk
From this day forth, (...) that every action you make will consciously or subconsciously result in the confirmation of the percieved truth of your beliefs.

Much obliged! Seems to work extremely well!
However I tend to agree with Mr. O Rights about the sellers market. But maybe we can come to some sort of agreement? - if you had read my post a bit more carefully, you might have found that I really have no interest in cow patty.

I'm not sure I see the contradiction.

Just because beliefs are ultimately provisional/subject to change does not make all methods of arriving at them equally valid

Some strategies of thought are more effective than others.

Reason: The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

This is a marvelous example of linguistic tautological causality. Your self limits for understanding have to do with not being able to personally reconcile the verb/noun distinction for the use of the word reason.

One describes a quality, (person, place or thing) the "meaning" of an act, phenomenon, principle of Natural Law, idea, or even one's life. The other is the verb that describes the attribution of merit, measure, modality, and motive, or when in doubt "pretext" (the negative context of rationalization) for any given proposition OR behavior.

You didn't fall into the black hole of language for no reason <{sic}> you fell in because of the causality of cognition. Grammars evolve as a memetic evolutionary process by being practical modalities for common usage but also the function as cognitive paradigms. You are switching back and forth between definitions and it is from this mixed metaphor you are creating your irreconcilability.

A rational belief is not a true oxymoron and is better viewed as a false dichotomy desirable as such because it serves the larger purpose of reinforcing dogma an indoctrination, but ask any great thinker from St. Anselm to Bertrand Russell, from Plato to Stephan Hawkins and you will find a continuity of quest for precisely this awareness, that rational belief is a higher understanding of the Natural Universe.

Obviously one "believes" in what is derived through disciplined, diligent effort and study. "Reason" results from the filtering of all {known} data and fact, by first and foremost attempting to be true to themselves, limiting their dependence upon dogma. The process of reasoning derives reasons: verb derives noun, action derives result. The belief in knowledge creating the motivation for activity, an endless cycle of reductionism, evaluation and application yielding the need for further analysis, a continuous cycle of behavioral choice.

It is tautological because it is cyclic and interdependent for meaning but it is two distinct ideas; one a "thing" "the motive force or motivation(noun)," and the other a "process," "the activity of thought (verb)" derived of the motive force being applied. Reason is more than belief, and more than logic but it is both those as well.

It is linguistic and causal because it is no accident of language, it is determined by the definition of the words, but also the deterministic aspect motivation and the pragmatic applications of the conceptual logic.

They will still be aware that all their "facts" are suspect, relativistic to a continuous analysis of a subjective awareness that is the skeptic’s crucible from which to meld and alloy belief and reason into a much finer and firmer fabric which determines the substance of perceptible reality. That said what is also "obvious" is still suspect but while it is harder to do this objectively, it is however not impossible.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 23 October 2003 - 06:44 PM.

wow I wish I could understand you sometimes! But I got most of it...I think. back to the original question I believe the institutions of society take away or block our ability to think rationaly because of the way Capitilism works. The basic ideas behind Capitalism is not necessarily conducive to rationality. We are forced to partake in a fast paced machine we call the world or USA. I think rational thought is not desired in many situations for instance as you said "the desire to fit in," or compete can all block rational thought. And furthermore I don't think age has necessarily anything to do with rational thought assuming your past a certain age limit.

I just think rational thought takes different forms given where a person is in his/her life. My father works as an engineer so he usually has to think rationally for what he's doing. At college getting drunk all the time hinders good reason and rationality along with the desire to fit in. I'm sure the examples I gave are abit simplistic and Lasarus I'm sure you could categorize this into a much bigger set of ideas. Interestingly enough I suffer from OCD a cognitive disability...which hinders my ability to think rationaly at times. So the very fact that I sometimes overthink or dwell on the irrational may get in the way with my ability to reason as well as I'd like. So on basic nerobiological levels one has to assume a normal fucntioning brain as well! Dogs sometimes have limited forms of rational thinking which is more akin to basic instinct but it could be argued as a form of rational reasoning. "eat, sleep, eat, pee, sleep, bark!"

As for putting up mental blocks to learning I know many people who do this. They conform to a certain paradigm and stick with that school of thinking even if it's at a frat boy level! That is certainly dumbing down of rational thought. many people are afraid of thinking too much for fear of depression or "seeing too much" that seems to also be the antithesis of rational reasoning. So I think there are numerous problems that get in the way of being able to be a good thinker. [huh]

Edited by dfowler, 23 October 2003 - 06:57 PM.

Please re-read my corrected text above. OCD wouldn't necesarilly effect your "process" of reasoning but it decidedly affects your "reasons" to process.

very true I sometimes will have bad ideas with which I attempt to reason, instead of processing smarter ideas with smarter reasoning behind it.

YES!


All you have to do is rejunvate them and explain them how this is possible !!!
Medical science saves thier lives and alters their perspecrtive