Credulity

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Credulity

Post by Sam Vara »

A nice essay about the "epistemic vice" of credulity, or being too ready to believe what we properly should not believe.

http://quillette.com/2018/03/21/the-pro ... /#_ftnref3

It's not about Buddhism, but raises some interesting questions that might be useful in thinking about one's practice. In terms of the ethics of belief, to what extent are we free to believe what we do, and what type of moral responsibility to the truth do we have when acquiring, maintaining, and abandoning beliefs? This raises issues about saddha, which many practitioners equate with faith in what cannot be directly verified. It also prompts me to think about what views I might be adopting or discarding, and the various psychological mechanisms by which I do this, and of which I may or may not be aware. Virtue-signalling is mentioned here, which in the context of an on-line community is quite interesting. Also mentioned are sentimentality and moralism, as possible perversions of wholesome mental states.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:33 pmIn terms of the ethics of belief, to what extent are we free to believe what we do, and what type of moral responsibility to the truth do we have when acquiring, maintaining, and abandoning beliefs?
Can any of this even be a matter of choice?

It's not like one can will oneself to believe a proposition, with a single act of will, in the way one can with a single act of will take a pair of socks out of the sock drawer. Belief is much more complex than that.
This raises issues about saddha, which many practitioners equate with faith in what cannot be directly verified.
But it's not clear that people actually approach religious propositions in a (quasi)scientific, hypothesis-testing, verification-seeking manner.
Surely some do it that way -- ""What you don't know right now, you take on (good) faith".
But it seems to me that the majority of religious people don't approach religious propositions that way. I think they don't believe those propositions because they would have evidence or otherwise know that they are true. I think they believe them because they believe them; because they have learned to beieve that they are true already when they were small children (ie. long before they had the mental capacity to critically reflect on those propositions). Probably the only critical thinking process that they invested was something along the lines of, "My parents, who feed me, clothe me, take care of me in every way, told me those propositions, and because my parents take care of me, I have every reason to believe everything they say." Which is how most people's reasons for believing in Jehovah are exactly the same as most people's reasons for believing in Allah, Krishna, the Theory of Evolution, or that Shakespeare was a great poet.
It also prompts me to think about what views I might be adopting or discarding, and the various psychological mechanisms by which I do this, and of which I may or may not be aware.
Experimenting with different views does not amount to adopting them or discarding them. Committing to a particular view for the purpose of one discussion (which may stretch for a few months or even longer) is not the same as adopting that view; and after that discussion distancing oneself from such a view does not amount to discarding them. One was just experimenting.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:22 pm But it's not clear that people actually approach religious propositions in a (quasi)scientific, hypothesis-testing, verification-seeking manner.
Surely some do it that way -- ""What you don't know right now, you take on (good) faith".
But it seems to me that the majority of religious people don't approach religious propositions that way.
Indeed, this is why even a view that is correct needs to be promoted by using these congnitive biases that people have. Even a view that is correct requires propaganda, for example the DN book of the Nikayas or the sutta-intros of MN suttas. This is also the reason why I am actually happy with the "folk western buddhism" or "meditation center buddhism" development in the west. Buddha himself also tried his best to make Buddhism look familiar with hinduism and adopted some similes and some other stuff from it that were not wrong.

This is because, indeed, almost no person is following the path of finding the truth in an ultra-rigurous manner. Also, no-one is free from cognitive biases, some might be more prone to them others less prone, but all have them to some extent. This is why in order to promote any view, no matter weather it is correct or wrong, the same techniques should be used.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:35 pmThis is because, indeed, almost no person is following the path of finding the truth in an ultra-rigurous manner.
What would that "ultra-rigorous manner" even be? A type of scientific investigation? And if yes, on the grounds of what are we to take for granted that that type of scientific investigation is the right way to discover the truth?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Credulity

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:22 pm
Can any of this even be a matter of choice?

It's not like one can will oneself to believe a proposition, with a single act of will, in the way one can with a single act of will take a pair of socks out of the sock drawer. Belief is much more complex than that.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that one can choose to believe a proposition with a single act of will. Have you read the article? There is quite a lot of philosophical literature on the ethics of belief, and I wouldn't want anyone to form an opinion based on my garbled summary of another summary. The same applies to your later point about "experimenting with different views". I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Credulity

Post by SarathW »

This raises issues about saddha
:goodpost:
You attain Nibbana in this very life.
You can test it this life itself hence it is not blind faith.
However, Kamma and re-birth cannot be verified this life itself.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:37 pmI don't think anyone is suggesting that one can choose to believe a proposition with a single act of will. Have you read the article?
Yes, I have, and I addressed a key concept as I saw fit.
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:37 pmThe same applies to your later point about "experimenting with different views". I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that.
My point was that what looks like "adopting a belief" can actually be merely an act of experimenting with a proposition. People are sometimes too quick to assume belief/adoption of belief, when in fact one was just experimenting.

To illustrate this, quoting from memory, this is what a religious person once said to me upon learning that I was reading the Bhagavad-Gita: "So this week you're a Hindu, while last week you were a Buddhist?!" As if merely reading a religious book would automatically make me an adherent of said religion.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:01 pm
Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:35 pmThis is because, indeed, almost no person is following the path of finding the truth in an ultra-rigurous manner.
What would that "ultra-rigorous manner" even be? A type of scientific investigation? And if yes, on the grounds of what are we to take for granted that that type of scientific investigation is the right way to discover the truth?
On the gronds of logic.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by chownah »

All views are to be abandoned (I think the buddha said this). Abandoning all view is the end of credulity.....anything less and it is not yet ended.
chownah
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:37 pmI don't think anyone is suggesting that one can choose to believe a proposition with a single act of will. Have you read the article?
Yes, I have, and I addressed a key concept as I saw fit.
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:37 pmThe same applies to your later point about "experimenting with different views". I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting that.
My point was that what looks like "adopting a belief" can actually be merely an act of experimenting with a proposition. People are sometimes too quick to assume belief/adoption of belief, when in fact one was just experimenting.

To illustrate this, quoting from memory, this is what a religious person once said to me upon learning that I was reading the Bhagavad-Gita: "So this week you're a Hindu, while last week you were a Buddhist?!" As if merely reading a religious book would automatically make me an adherent of said religion.
Is there anything that you do that is not experimenting?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 pm
binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:01 pm
Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:35 pmThis is because, indeed, almost no person is following the path of finding the truth in an ultra-rigurous manner.
What would that "ultra-rigorous manner" even be? A type of scientific investigation? And if yes, on the grounds of what are we to take for granted that that type of scientific investigation is the right way to discover the truth?
On the gronds of logic.
Pigs can fly.
Socrates is a pig.
Therefore, Socrates can fly.


This is logical. But there's a lot of things that this is not.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by binocular »

Saengnapha wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:38 amIs there anything that you do that is not experimenting?
Of course, it's a matter of intention whether one conceives of some action as experimenting or not. Some people, like my religious acquaintance earlier, don't think it is possible to experiment with religious propositions the way I think it is. For such people, such things are not a matter of experimenting.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

binocular wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:54 am
Saengnapha wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:38 amIs there anything that you do that is not experimenting?
Of course, it's a matter of intention whether one conceives of some action as experimenting or not. Some people, like my religious acquaintance earlier, don't think it is possible to experiment with religious propositions the way I think it is. For such people, such things are not a matter of experimenting.
What is that you want out of all this? And, what means have you discovered that will give it to you?
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

binocular wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:50 am
Circle5 wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:27 pm
binocular wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:01 pm
What would that "ultra-rigorous manner" even be? A type of scientific investigation? And if yes, on the grounds of what are we to take for granted that that type of scientific investigation is the right way to discover the truth?
On the gronds of logic.
Pigs can fly.
Socrates is a pig.
Therefore, Socrates can fly.


This is logical. But there's a lot of things that this is not.
Pigs can not fly, and neither is socrates a pig. Therefore, your argument is illogical.

Logic means the description of how things are in reality. For example the world is round. If an airplane would fly in a straight line, it wold arrive at the same spot. Why ? Because the world actually is round and because if you actually do that, that's what will actually happen. "Logic" is the label people use for this property of things working in a certain way that is correct, as opposed to ideas that are not so in real life, such as the world being flat + different wrong conclusions that can be drawn from this wrong understanding, not in line with reality.

What does "dhamma" mean in buddhism ? It means "how things work in reality, how things actually are". In english language, logic is a similar term for this, though not a perfect translation. It is used in the same way as "dhamma" but it's usually used to describe correct conclusions that can be drawn based on how things actually are in reality. Therefore it is not a perfect translation.

"Logic" is basically a synonim for "a thinking process that is correct". The only cases where a correct thinking process can be wrong is when it is based on wrong information, same as in your example. Proving that a correct thinking process will lead to wrong conclusions if it's based on wrong information does not in any way prove postmodernist ideas about "no such thing as correct exists and everything is relalative". Also, postmodernism is self refuting, since if no such thing as corectness exist, then how could postmodernism ever be correct ? :geek:
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

Actually that syllogism is logically consistent. Obviously there is a problem with the second predicate which leads to a fallacious conclusion - but that is not a problem with the formal reasoning itself.

I think what binocular was trying to point out is that statements can be logically true but empirically or experientially untrue.

And then the key point is really that the relationship between cognition/reasoning and empirical information is not at all simple and has basically kept philosophers occupied for 2000+ years, including those in the Buddhist world. That relationship - inference and empirical 'stuff' is rather a big problem for Buddhist epistemology, because almost all Buddhist philosophers hold that empirical 'stuff' is momentary and impermanent. How can you make logical statements about something that is constantly changing and constantly in process/dependence?
Post Reply