Quote from Carl Sagan - Discuss?

[Owlswing]

Quote - You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Unquote

Quote above by Carl Sagan

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

[Jack Knave]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

I wouldn't say it was a need to believe per se but more of a psychological need either of a personal nature or a social one (which boils down to a personal one). But yes, evidence isn't going to change their minds on an emotional issue; not at least in the short term. What would change their minds would be another personal experience that would override their previous one.

If a belief that is associated with a religion has to be based on a personal experience (and they all do) then the believers of that religion have no common ground as they can not make any connections between their personal experiences to form a consistent and joined dialogue for a particular religion, and as such makes the religion null and void. What brings them together is more of a social one and/or a culture context. Therefore, anyone's belief is as valid as any religious group's because all religions just consist of a group of individuals who's beliefs are just a collection of disparate entities that have been indiscriminately lumped together.

[Hope]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

Is any of that the quote from Carl Sagan that you refer to in the thread title, or is your opinion, Matt?

[jeremyp]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

Is any of that the quote from Carl Sagan that you refer to in the thread title, or is your opinion, Matt?

It took me 10 seconds with Google to answer that question.

Clue: try entering the first sentence into a Google search.

[Owlswing]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

Is any of that the quote from Carl Sagan that you refer to in the thread title, or is your opinion, Matt?

Please see modified OP

[Owlswing]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

Is any of that the quote from Carl Sagan that you refer to in the thread title, or is your opinion, Matt?

It took me 10 seconds with Google to answer that question.

Clue: try entering the first sentence into a Google search.

Am I correct in presuming that your comment and clue are addressed to Hope and not to me?

I must admit that I thought that it would be obvious considering the OP title, but hey, considering the mental processes of some of the audience . . .

[jeremyp]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

Is any of that the quote from Carl Sagan that you refer to in the thread title, or is your opinion, Matt?

It took me 10 seconds with Google to answer that question.

Clue: try entering the first sentence into a Google search.

Am I correct in presuming that your comment and clue are addressed to Hope and not to me?

Of course you are. I hope you don't consider yourself to be collateral damage from the snarkiness.

[torridon]

Quote - You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Unquote

Quote above by Carl Sagan

I think that's broadly right. Our beliefs serve inner psychological purpose and are as likely to reflect our deeper personal nature as anything that truly reflects external reality.

[trippymonkey]

I believe is NOT the same as I KNOW !?!!?!?

[Rhiannon]

I think the 'need' can have different drivers, can't it? A need to conform, a need to feel safe, a need to make sense of the world, a need for self-expression...

[ekim]

Quote - You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Unquote

Quote above by Carl Sagan

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

That quote, in itself, seems to be a belief.  Like all universal assertions, all you need is one instance where a believer has relinquished his/her belief e.g. a belief in Santa Claus (or a quote from Floo).

[Enki]

I'm with Rhiannon on this. It seems to me that generally people believe for many reasons(e.g. comfort, security, nurture, psychological make-up). From my experience, once a person has developed their beliefs they are more likely to stick with them, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, I would generally go along with the Sagan quote.

Not completely though, as Ekim remarks. I have an acquaintance who was a Methodist lay preacher, but is now a total non believer. And, of course, there are plenty of instances of people changing their beliefs from one religion to another.

[Rhiannon]

I'm with Rhiannon on this. It seems to me that generally people believe for many reasons(e.g. comfort, security, nurture, psychological make-up). From my experience, once a person has developed their beliefs they are more likely to stick with them, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, I would generally go along with the Sagan quote.

Not completely though, as Ekim remarks. I have an acquaintance who was a Methodist lay preacher, but is now a total non believer. And, of course, there are plenty of instances of people changing their beliefs from one religion to another.

Which is what happened to me. At the time I was devastated but I recently I've come to think that a part of my mind switched off my Christian beliefs because they made me unhappy, even though I didn't realise it at the time.

[wigginhall]

Quote - You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Unquote

Quote above by Carl Sagan

I think that's broadly right. Our beliefs serve inner psychological purpose and are as likely to reflect our deeper personal nature as anything that truly reflects external reality.

This is fine, but it leaves out the importance of symbols.  Most religions have a rich array of symbols and stories, and I think these serve this 'inner psychological purpose'.   What is really interesting is that while Christian symbols seemed to work in this way for a long time, today they have become faded and irrelevant, to most people, in the UK anyway. 

I'm not going to try to explain that, but it makes me wonder if people need new symbols?  Dunno.  Maybe we have become symbol-free, but I really doubt it.   One possibility is that we no longer need such collective symbols, since we can find our own in an individual way. 

[Samuel]

Oh no, I think we definitely need collective symbols, its just the traditional set we have are no longer fit for purpose in an increasingly integrated global community. I know things feel politically and culturally fractured but underlying that is a interconnectedness through trade and communication that is now fundamental to how we relate to one another. In that way nationalities, religions, flags etc. no longer seem relevant and even cultural icons are harder to 'own' and identify with in a universal way.

Individualism has corrupted so much of what could be good about society. I think in this country one of the last collective symbols is the NHS. Its not so much the practical function of the NHS but the idea of it that people unite around. Those kinds of unifying subjects are so valuable for social cohesion.

[Nearly Sane]

Cohesion has its own drawbacks. It can be used for tribalism and suppression of views.

[Hope]

It took me 10 seconds with Google to answer that question.

Clue: try entering the first sentence into a Google search.

The problem is, jeremy, that the rules of the board state that we ought to reference any quote - not leave it up to the raders to hunt it out.

[Hope]

Please see modified OP

Thanks for that, Matt.  As I've pointed out to jeremy, the board rules requires posters to make quotes clear.  By the way, the system does provide a way of automatically showing quotes - press the 'Insert quote' button in the function list or enclose the quote with quote ... /quote [both in square brackets]

[wigginhall]

Oh no, I think we definitely need collective symbols, its just the traditional set we have are no longer fit for purpose in an increasingly integrated global community. I know things feel politically and culturally fractured but underlying that is a interconnectedness through trade and communication that is now fundamental to how we relate to one another. In that way nationalities, religions, flags etc. no longer seem relevant and even cultural icons are harder to 'own' and identify with in a universal way.

Individualism has corrupted so much of what could be good about society. I think in this country one of the last collective symbols is the NHS. Its not so much the practical function of the NHS but the idea of it that people unite around. Those kinds of unifying subjects are so valuable for social cohesion.

Well, collective symbols have a great danger built-in, that they become compulsory.   Monarchs and states start to use them to exert power - this obviously happened with Christianity, on a large scale (church-going used to be obligatory), and a small scale (at my school, Christianity was like a heavy suffocating blanket).

So I think individualism has also been liberating, and has led to pluralism.   Let a 100 flowers bloom, and so on.  OK, there are dangers here, that we get a kind of atomism, or Thatcher's 'there is no such thing as society'. 

But I remember the 50s and the choking atmosphere of fake virtue, no thanks.

[Outrider]

Quote - You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Unquote

Quote above by Carl Sagan

If this is so, it would, it appears, make all calls for "proof" and "evidence" redundant.

It would also, it seems, mean that my beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of a follower of any religion.

I'd agree that there believers - I don't know what the proportion is - that have not come to their belief position through rational discourse, and so ideas like reason and logic will not undermine their faith. That's not to say they can't necessarily be convinced, but they haven't 'falsely reasoned' their way to belief.

I wouldn't necessarily say, though, that they have adopted belief out of a 'need' in all cases - some people no doubt do need to feel that sort of supernatural support, but I doubt all of the faithful do.

As to the idea that all beliefs are equally valid - I'd say that those which can be demonstrably supported are not 'beliefs' they are conclusions. All faith positions are equally valid or invalid, which is why 'moderate' religion is such a threat: tolerance of it validates the idea that we must accept extremist nuttery, for we can't demonstrate in any way that one is 'truer' or 'more accurate' than the other, we can only suggest which one has consequences we prefer.

O.

[Samuel]

Oh no, I think we definitely need collective symbols, its just the traditional set we have are no longer fit for purpose in an increasingly integrated global community. I know things feel politically and culturally fractured but underlying that is a interconnectedness through trade and communication that is now fundamental to how we relate to one another. In that way nationalities, religions, flags etc. no longer seem relevant and even cultural icons are harder to 'own' and identify with in a universal way.

Individualism has corrupted so much of what could be good about society. I think in this country one of the last collective symbols is the NHS. Its not so much the practical function of the NHS but the idea of it that people unite around. Those kinds of unifying subjects are so valuable for social cohesion.

Well, collective symbols have a great danger built-in, that they become compulsory.   Monarchs and states start to use them to exert power - this obviously happened with Christianity, on a large scale (church-going used to be obligatory), and a small scale (at my school, Christianity was like a heavy suffocating blanket).

So I think individualism has also been liberating, and has led to pluralism.   Let a 100 flowers bloom, and so on.  OK, there are dangers here, that we get a kind of atomism, or Thatcher's 'there is no such thing as society'. 

But I remember the 50s and the choking atmosphere of fake virtue, no thanks.

Agreed, although I don't remember the 50s (I came along 22 years too late). Every time conversations on these subjects come up I feel like there is some impossible middle ground, some utopia that seems like it could plausibly exist where the issues are perfectly balanced. Personally I think its a mirage but that doesn't make it feel any less like such a place should exist. Frustrating innit?

[wigginhall]

Yes, I was thinking of the middle way.  When I worked as a therapist, and people would often yearn for a better place to start from, I would tend to say, well, we've just arrived there.   A bit glib, but it's true.   

I feel that we used to live under a choking blanket of repression and hypocrisy, partly comprised of religion, but also other stuff.   Thankfully, it has been lifted, and of course, has presented us with a fresh set of problems!

On we go.

Going back to symbols, the great thing about them is that you can't predict which ones will take off, and which will wither on the vine.   They come from the unconscious (I assume), and aren't controllable.   The king is dead, long live the frog.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm quite distrustful of the concept of the 'middle way' - it seems a cop out and one that isn't really based on rational thinking. It's also a bit utopian as Samuel hints at. It aims at a solution as if all other things were equal, but they never are.

[wigginhall]

I'm quite distrustful of the concept of the 'middle way' - it seems a cop out and one that isn't really based on rational thinking. It's also a bit utopian as Samuel hints at. It aims at a solution as if all other things were equal, but they never are.

Good point.  I tend to use it semi-ironically, in the sense that the middle way is always where we are.   But it's an interesting Buddhist phrase as well, which I suppose did mean a compromise between different positions, for example, that nothing exists, and that things do exist.   But as far as I could see, listening to various Zen teachers, the middle way wasn't a half-way point, between the two, but an acceptance of both, thus, nothing exists and everything exists, but then Zen is often ironic.   But I think the Buddha did talk about it as mid-way between asceticism and indulgence - I don't know how you calculate that!

[Nearly Sane]

I am reminded of the Laffer curve which simplifies things to the extent that it ignores most inputs  so thatt even were it to exist you could never know where you were on it.