Address Underlying Belief Systems

[bbyrd009]

The Key to Debunking False Beliefs Is by Addressing Underlying Belief Systems - Neuroscience News

A new study suggests that to debunk false beliefs, it may be more effective to target a person's system of beliefs rather than trying to change the false belief itself. The study found that people have a system of interrelated beliefs that depend on each other and may anchor their system, making...

neurosciencenews.com

i gotta admit ive read this a couple times and still cant quite get the gist lol

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The Key to Debunking False Beliefs Is by Addressing Underlying Belief Systems - Neuroscience News

A new study suggests that to debunk false beliefs, it may be more effective to target a person's system of beliefs rather than trying to change the false belief itself. The study found that people have a system of interrelated beliefs that depend on each other and may anchor their system, making...

neurosciencenews.com

i gotta admit ive read this a couple times and still cant quite get the gist lol

That article covered a lot of good topics. Here's the summary from it:

Summary: A new study suggests that to debunk false beliefs, it may be more effective to target a person’s system of beliefs rather than trying to change the false belief itself. The study found that people have a system of interrelated beliefs that depend on each other and may anchor their system, making it difficult to change beliefs even with evidence against them.

I think the authors might be conflating debunking vs. convincing. To debunk a false belief requires evidence. To convince someone might sometimes require more than just evidence but a deeper dive into their thinking. I know Christians and Atheists tend to think differently because they have different principles that they base their beliefs on, one is open to faith and personal stories while the other is not.

Is that the part you weren't getting?

 

[bbyrd009]

That article covered a lot of good topics. Here's the summary from it:


I think the authors might be conflating debunking vs. convincing. To debunk a false belief requires evidence. To convince someone might sometimes require more than just evidence but a deeper dive into their thinking. I know Christians and Atheists tend to think differently because they have different principles that they base their beliefs on, one is open to faith and personal stories while the other is not.

Is that the part you weren't getting?

i guess, kind of? The article’s premise seems to be “it may be more effective to target a person’s system of beliefs,” but imo it does a poor job of saying how to do that exactly. It gives an election example, and finishes with “When election fraud is considered plausible, this short circuits the link between the belief in the true election winner and the evidence,” says Wager. “So, to change the false belief, you have to focus on the auxiliary beliefs that are supporting that short circuit,” which i guess is just not the best example, to me.

Imo atheists and believers are both believers (despite any semantics), just in different things; i say this bc i find no difference in “doesnt believe there is a God” and “believes there is no God,” although another might disagree there. But even you say

they have different principles that they base their beliefs on

Whereas a true agnostic, imo, has no beliefs either way (although this is a different subject), although i would be interested in seeing a treatment of this premise with maybe a different example than the election thing (maybe bc im easily confused?)

 

[bbyrd009]

I know Christians and Atheists tend to think differently because they have different principles that they base their beliefs on, one is open to faith and personal stories while the other is not.

the thing here is, imo one can test if there is a “God” or not, should they so desire, and i certainly understand not wanting to rely on personal stories for that.

Also, belief and faith are being conflated there when imo they are subtly different things, sometimes completely different things

 

[AgnosticBoy]

i guess, kind of? The article’s premise seems to be “it may be more effective to target a person’s system of beliefs,” but imo it does a poor job of saying how to do that exactly. It gives an election example, and finishes with “When election fraud is considered plausible, this short circuits the link between the belief in the true election winner and the evidence,” says Wager. “So, to change the false belief, you have to focus on the auxiliary beliefs that are supporting that short circuit,” which i guess is just not the best example, to me.

AGreed. It was not a good example but I still agreed with their overall point. I'll offer two examples that I have experienced with Christians and atheists.
Here are two examples...

Example 1:
A Christian refuses to go to the hospital for treatment and insists that God will heal her.

To get this type of Christian to change their view will likely take more than showing evidence of doctors being able to successfully treat various illnesses. Instead, or in addition to medical evidence, it may also take diving into the Christians theological views, like showing that there's no conflict or anything sinful about getting treatment from doctors.

Example 2:
Another example would be dealing with an atheist that doesn't believe in the resurrection. From experience, I find that going over a lot of different scenarios or showing how they are unreasonable, like the stolen-body hypothesis, myth, and more doesn't work. And even more to that, some atheists have gone as far as saying that the explanation has to be natural. So perhaps metaphysical naturalism is the real reason or a core reason behind their disbelief in the resurrection. So to effectively deal with such an atheist may take chipping away at materialism.

 

[bbyrd009]

AGreed. It was not a good example but I still agreed with their overall point. I'll offer two examples that I have experienced with Christians and atheists.
Here are two examples...

Example 1:
A Christian refuses to go to the hospital for treatment and insists that God will heal her.

To get this type of Christian to change their view will likely take more than showing evidence of doctors being able to successfully treat various illnesses. Instead, or in addition to medical evidence, it may also take diving into the Christians theological views, like showing that there's no conflict or anything sinful about getting treatment from doctors.

Example 2:
Another example would be dealing with an atheist that doesn't believe in the resurrection. From experience, I find that going over a lot of different scenarios or showing how they are unreasonable, like the stolen-body hypothesis, myth, and more doesn't work. And even more to that, some atheists have gone as far as saying that the explanation has to be natural. So perhaps metaphysical naturalism is the real reason or a core reason behind their disbelief in the resurrection. So to effectively deal with such an atheist may take chipping away at materialism.

well ab, not sure how much were ever gonna agree on lol, but i dont have a prob w/diff opinions
imo Rockefeller Dr.s are straight from hell, and i would consider it a personal failure if i ever needed one, even if i might stop short of refusing to go or insisting that Yah would heal me; Yah likely being the one that ensured my bad habits would lead me to one in the first place

and as for the resurrection, i think “Buried with Him in death, raised to new life in Him” prolly covers that, even if Xtians ignore it (what is said in Prot congregations during baptisms, or used to be anyway), which to me anyway (them ignorin it) kinda reinforces how…secular the phrase should be took, or maybe in your words ”metaphysical naturalism?”
long way a sayin idt the resurrection was literal

 

[bbyrd009]

while we’re at it you decline to id with either party, and i think they are both actively engaged in deliberate world demise lol
not an opinion i came by easy

 

[AgnosticBoy]

while we’re at it you decline to id with either party, and i think they are both actively engaged in deliberate world demise lol
not an opinion i came by easy

I tend to look at it like this..
Politics has become the new religion. And the republicans and democrats are going at it just as atheists and Christians do.