Open thread, Feb. 23 - Mar. 1, 2015

MrMind

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

Zero, I think. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

What stands out to me about "epic changes of mind" is that the very scale of the event casts doubt on both sides of the change. By definition, you think whatever you currently believe is true, and the more wrenching the change, the more it will feel as if you have escaped from dreadful error into the pure light of truth. But a belief is not evidence of its own correctness, and the intensity of the feelings casts doubt wherever they are directed.

There is an excellent example in the case of John C. Wright, the science fiction writer, who was a staunch materialist atheist, and employed all his reason in arguing that philosophy. Then he had a heart attack, surgery, and a religious vision, following which he employs his reason in arguing with equal verve for Catholicism. Rationalists will say that something broke in his brain and led him to a state of inescapable error and delusion. He and his co-religionists say that God performed a miracle in saving him from error and delusion, that he might be a soldier of reason for the Christian faith.

If reason can be so readily practised in diametrically opposite directions by the same person, should we accept a conclusion merely because of a formidable argument? Should we believe our beliefs? If not, what should we do about them anyway?

0 could be a bad thing if either one of the following is true...

It reflects the fact that you haven't considered a lot of evidence.
You ignored/rationalized substantial evidence that contradicted your fundamental beliefs.

If somebody has had one or more true linvoids, then I can't accuse them of always ignoring evidence that contradicts their fundamental beliefs.

Very generally speaking... I'm guessing that people with higher linvoids consider a lot of evidence and have a tendency to adjust their beliefs to fit the evidence and not the other way arou... (read more)

2ChristianKl11y

I don't something in the brain needs to break to have a religious vision. The problem seems rather that the person completely overrates a single experience. It's very worthwhile to rest your beliefs on many distinct strings of evidence.

2Jiro11y

I would observe that, in general, the circumstances which lead people to change their mind from believing in God to not, are not similar circumstances that lead them to change from not believing to believing. So even if the size of the change is the same, they may not happen for similar reasons.