Are Women More Likely To Be Believers?

[Grover]

You are only entitled to your opinion if the argument which formed that opinion in your head is deductively sound or inductively sound. All other types of opinion are bad, wrong, annoying and in many cases downright dangerous (Nazis, Fascists, Anti-gay, Anti-muslim, etc etc).

You have to really think about what it would mean to entitle everyone to their opinion. You would have to start listening and giving time/respect to all sorts of nonsense.

Im sure someone will reply saying "Well, Oxfordwill, you're entitled to your opinion!". Ha ha.

Well, I am sure that others would come up with some other criteria by which to deprive people of their opinions. What a shocking idea, giving time and listening to people you don't agree with. Imagine what disasters could happen to the world if we all did that?

brainwashing ?

[OxfordWill]

I note how none of my actual points were addressed, though I did address all yours, sbk

As for clap-trap.. well, whatever

Are you saying that a right can exist without a duty on the other party to uphold that right somehow?

What exactly do you think rights are, and how do you think they work? Have you really ever thought about this?

If you have the right not to be punched in the face when someone dislikes you, how is that right upheld?

Is a racist really "entitled" to his opinion? Even if he is wrong? So being incorrect can entail entitlement just as being correct can?

Anyway some more reading since I am bowing out here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...ticle467194.ece

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html

Edited September 11, 2007 by OxfordWill

[sbk]

Funny how I was defending people's right to have an opinion on something faith based and you brought in violence and fascism.

I am of the opinion that people do have the right to hold their own beliefs and opinions without being told what is or isn't right. I already stated that free speech does not cover the act of violence. Not sure what your point is any way here. Speech and action aren't really the same thing and I am not really sure why you feel the need to correlate people's beliefs with violence. Nor do I really understand why your defense of abrogating people's right to their own opinions has to bring in violence, again. Not really sure why you are taking this course in a topic that was discussing spirituality and beliefs in things that are not in the mainstream of religious thought. Don't particularly see any relevance, to tell the truth. Enlighten me as to how it relates to the discussion that had been going on, I'm interested in what connection you see.

[OxfordWill]

The point is it is all to do with truth. If it helps, you can forget my points about violence, it was just an example to try and get you to see how some opinions are not worth listening to, yet you think you have a duty to listen to all of them. As soon as you say "You're entitled to your opinion" you are saying "I don't really care if what we are discussing is true or not". You are also saying "I have a duty to listen to your opinion and give it the same respect as I do anyone else's opinion".

I would say this is the absolutely most relevant thing to the question of belief in phenomena and perhaps why women, moreso than men, are likely to belief in such things. I don't think women care about truth all that much, as a general sex. Though there are plenty of men and women who are opposite, of course.

And the explanation for this, is put far better in the first link I provided than I have been able to write so far.

This of course begs the question why do such people, if they do not care for the truth, debate at all? I guess, it is for other things they can do such as bond with others / express themselves / explore their own feelings / etc. I guess "unearth truth' is way down the list, but I honestly have no idea.

Edited September 11, 2007 by OxfordWill

[sbk]

The point is it is all to do with truth. If it helps, you can forget my points about violence, it was just an example to try and get you to see how some opinions are not worth listening to, yet you think you have a duty to listen to all of them. As soon as you say "You're entitled to your opinion" you are saying "I don't really care if what we are discussing is true or not". You are also saying "I have a duty to listen to your opinion and give it the same respect as I do anyone else's opinion".

I would say this is the absolutely most relevant thing to the question of belief in phenomena and perhaps why women, moreso than men, are likely to belief in such things. I don't think women care about truth all that much, as a general sex. Though there are plenty of men and women who are opposite, of course.

And the explanation for this, is put far better in the first link I provided than I have been able to write so far.

Hmmm. I don't think that is what I was saying. I believe I am saying you have the right to believe what you want. I don't have to listen to it if I don't like it but I certainly don't have any right to tell you what you can and cannot think or can and cannot say. That is the point I was trying to make and obviously failed to do.

[OxfordWill]

Does that apply if you know that someone is about to start a car engine that is wired to a bomb, and believes it is safe to start the car engine? If not, what has changed? Do you now have the right to tell them what to think? Or must you preserve their right to their opinion that it is safe?

[sbk]

I guess we aren't communicating here Oxfordwill. Cause you are doing it again. Please re-read my posts regarding violence. I have said more than once I am talking about beliefs, not theoretical situations that don't really have anything to do with someone's belief systems. But, I am off to bed, so enjoy your theoretical situations with someone else

[OxfordWill]

Riiiight. Sleep well

[kat]

The point is it is all to do with truth. If it helps, you can forget my points about violence, it was just an example to try and get you to see how some opinions are not worth listening to, yet you think you have a duty to listen to all of them. As soon as you say "You're entitled to your opinion" you are saying "I don't really care if what we are discussing is true or not". You are also saying "I have a duty to listen to your opinion and give it the same respect as I do anyone else's opinion".

I would say this is the absolutely most relevant thing to the question of belief in phenomena and perhaps why women, moreso than men, are likely to belief in such things. I don't think women care about truth all that much, as a general sex. Though there are plenty of men and women who are opposite, of course.

And the explanation for this, is put far better in the first link I provided than I have been able to write so far.

This of course begs the question why do such people, if they do not care for the truth, debate at all? I guess, it is for other things they can do such as bond with others / express themselves / explore their own feelings / etc. I guess "unearth truth' is way down the list, but I honestly have no idea.

What??!! I find that to be an outrageous statement. I was nodding my head with you up until that point (in bold). Duty to listen to an opinion has nothing to do with core beliefs, and core beliefs are not necessarily reflected experience.

Secondly, you are assuming that your experience or lack of it is superior to someone else's when nothing has been proven or disproven (back to our earlier discussions, please; I'm too tired to explain all over again).

I cannot believe that you said women don't care about the truth! I just erased about six different lines trying to respond to such an outlandish statement. I think it is just there to provoke, anyway.

[canuckamuck]

I'm back; I am amazed to see this thread has remained civilized and not far off topic. However, I think discussing rights to an opinion is largely a separate issue to the main debate. On that issue I would say, opinions are fluid and frequently changed. Whether or not people have a right to change people's opinions is moot, because it happens all day long whether we intend it or not. Wonderful arguments by Oxford Will however, maybe a separate thread would be entertaining.

I like the point made about wisdom and knowledge. Wisdom is of course higher than knowledge because it gives knowledge a foundation. Wisdom illuminates right action; knowledge is only facts. Right action is right action because it is laced with truth.

I believe wisdom embraces spirituality. Those on their deathbed often expose a spiritual belief that might otherwise have been hidden. It arrives in the form of fear or peace.

[OxfordWill]

Hi Kat, I knew you would hate that one. Yes it is provocative, but I am of the opinion that if you got 500 men in a room and 500 women, and then used some sort of test to determine their concern for truth over say their concern for not offending others, or empathising etc, more men would turn up in the results than women.

For example, many men are often of the opinion that so long as what they are saying is "true" it is OK to go ahead and say it or make that fact public knowledge. This belies a lack of emotional intelligence, since I do not feel that truth is reason enough to say something. Women are far better at knowing/telling when, despite the truth, it is appropriate or an ethical move to say something/do something. For example "You are fat" might be true, but in how many situations is it a good thing to actually say? Thats obviously a very simple example, and this can be applied to much more important things such as international diplomacy and conflict resolution. I think we need more women in world governments in general, for example. Because something IS the case, does not mean we OUGHT to do/say it. This is actually known as a classic logical fallacy - the is/ought fallacy. Women are more naturally sensitive to it I feel.

One possible consequence of this position is that, because women are more adept at walking this "line of truth", their overall concern for it diminishes. But that is pure theorising on my part.

If we take this thread as an example, I have argued how people are not entitled to their opinions, yet SBK disagrees to the extent that she does not even wish to engage with the topic or the reasoning behind it (although she may argue this is for other reasons, I submit that rather than being stupid, she is just finding my arguments compelling and therefore uncomfortable (I await the accusations of arrogance!)). We could infer from this that she is less concerned for the truth of the matter, and more concerned for maintaining the status quo which to her mind, equals a fairer world. She would find it difficult, I submit, to lose this opinion since the idea of entitlement to opinions goes hand in hand with the idea of "being fair". Or somesuch. I am not picking on SBK, she is 100% average in her views on this topic. She is also wrong.

But to put it into perspective, one of my alltime favourite philosophers is a female, who had a wickedly rational mind (she also did not think everyone has a right to their opinion- since this is the only rational position on the topic.)

In a way I am being unkind since, among the circles where these things are discussed by experts, this is a closed question and I am making it seem like maybe it is open to debate. The problem is, people who disagree, have just not thought about it hard enough, or have some weird idea about logic (which in itself would be entirely refutable based on simple analysis of day to day living "If I put jam on my sandwhich, I will not enjoy it because i do not like jam sandwhiches" etc). Only the insane can claim not to obey logic.

Getting back on topic then:

Wisdom is of course higher than knowledge because it gives knowledge a foundation. Wisdom illuminates right action; knowledge is only facts. Right action is right action because it is laced with truth.

We need to define wisdom to make any sense of this. It sure sounds nice, but what is wisdom is knowledge is a "justified true belief"?

I believe wisdom embraces spirituality. Those on their deathbed often expose a spiritual belief that might otherwise have been hidden. It arrives in the form of fear or peace.

Working backwards on this thought, which is a nice thought, we can say if the delivery of the expression of spirituality is a vehicle named "fear", and that wisdom embraces this expression that the vehicle delivers to the dying person, then wisdom is the parent of fear and to me would not seem to be very wise after all since fear is usually the child of ignorance.

Edited September 12, 2007 by OxfordWill

[delph]

I am easy to believed, and most of the time, is self-cheated.

[suegha]

Yeah, more philosopy from Oxford will! Let's just examine one point here and ask some simple questions. If you say we are not entitled to our opinions, have you really thought this through? What's the alternative? Who controls my opinions? You? Some institution?

No, I am entitled to my opinions just as you are. However, where it goes wrong for some people, is they cite opinions that they disagree with (racism, sexism, whatever) and say, we can't allow people those opinions! For the control of negative influences we have legislation. A racist is still a racist even when legislated against. And you know what, he is still entitled to his opinion

[OxfordWill]

The force of logic controls my opinions. Yes I have really thought it through, I even have silly little pieces of paper to "prove" how long I have thought it through for (which is about all they are good for).

Did you read the two links I posted a few posts up the page? What did you think about them?

You are entitled to your opinions so long as they are logical and have true premises.

Edited September 12, 2007 by OxfordWill

[canuckamuck]

Wisdom is of course higher than knowledge because it gives knowledge a foundation. Wisdom illuminates right action; knowledge is only facts. Right action is right action because it is laced with truth.

We need to define wisdom to make any sense of this. It sure sounds nice, but what is wisdom is knowledge is a "justified true belief"?

Please help me out here, I can't quite get what you are saying.

[OxfordWill]

What is a definition of the word "wisdom" we can agree on?

The most widely accepted definition of the word "knowledge" is "a justified true belief". (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

You say wisdom is higher than knowledge, and I wonder what you mean by that.

This definition of knowledge is also key to Kat's + SBKs point about "core beliefs" being somehow different to the duties/rights conundrum.

"to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition, "The sky is blue," is true"

Edited September 12, 2007 by OxfordWill

[canuckamuck]

I believe wisdom embraces spirituality. Those on their deathbed often expose a spiritual belief that might otherwise have been hidden. It arrives in the form of fear or peace.

Working backwards on this thought, which is a nice thought, we can say if the delivery of the expression of spirituality is a vehicle named "fear", and that wisdom embraces this expression that the vehicle delivers to the dying person, then wisdom is the parent of fear and to me would not seem to be very wise after all since fear is usually the child of ignorance.

Your generalization that, fear is the child of ignorance, is flippant. Fear can result from great wisdom, as in knowing when a terrible mistake has been made. Ignorance is often described as bliss.

Fear may however be a delivery vehicle of spirituality. On the deathbed spirituality rises to the forefront of awareness, simply because it cannot be set aside or dismissed any more. Fear or peace result from the calculations of life's accumulated knowledge and experience and results in the net wisdom of the individual as to what lies beyond the mortal coil. Fear is an emotional response, peace is more holistic.

I will respond to your question of the definition of wisdom shortly

[canuckamuck]

What is a definition of the word "wisdom" we can agree on?

The most widely accepted definition of the word "knowledge" is "a justified true belief". (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

You say wisdom is higher than knowledge, and I wonder what you mean by that.

This definition of knowledge is also key to Kat's + SBKs point about "core beliefs" being somehow different to the duties/rights conundrum.

"to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition, "The sky is blue," is true"

I certainly don't hold wiki to be the cornerstone of man's collective intelligence. But sometimes it comes close. That definition of knowledge is good. Wisdom is harder to pin down.

Wisdom is a level of reason and instinct that helps to clear the smoke and distraction this world creates. Wisdom is understanding, not just knowing. Wisdom is efficient. Knowledge and wisdom are not bundled together; a man with great knowledge may remain unwise; many geniuses have ended up regarded as fools. Wisdom is the big picture and must be seen by stepping back.

Someone here had a signature that said "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is understanding that it doesn't go well in a fruit salad." I might have paraphrased a bit.

[sbk]

The force of logic controls my opinions. Yes I have really thought it through, I even have silly little pieces of paper to "prove" how long I have thought it through for (which is about all they are good for).

Did you read the two links I posted a few posts up the page? What did you think about them?

You are entitled to your opinions so long as they are logical and have true premises.

Actually, I think you completely misread me oxfordwill. I just don't agree with you, think you have a very concrete mind incapable of seeing outside what is inside your own comfort zone and feel the need to tell people that they should agree with what you think otherwise they are wrong. But I was trying to be nice and not say that

Just finished reading an interesting article on string theory and how physicists are beginning to think it might provide a unified theory. Something along the lines of picturing our universe being in a valley, surrounded by alot of other hills and valleys, each with their own universe. Ours just happens to have the conditions right for life. Interesting, stretched my brain at a time I wasn't really able to comprehend much of what I was reading but just kind of pointed out that there are all sorts of brains out there doing thinking that most of us can't even begin to comprehend. So who am I to tell them they aren't entitled to this kind of thinking merely because I don't understand or approve of what they are saying?

My point here, will, is that the world (and the universe for that matter) doesn't necessarily jibe with your idea of what is "true" . Every human thinks they are right. As do you. Someone from a totally different culture with a completely different lifestyle will have very different ideas of logic and what is true.

My point being, by saying that everyone does not have the right to their own opinion, you are saying that it is your right to dictate to those people what their opinions should be.

[suegha]

The force of logic controls my opinions. Yes I have really thought it through, I even have silly little pieces of paper to "prove" how long I have thought it through for (which is about all they are good for).

Did you read the two links I posted a few posts up the page? What did you think about them?

You are entitled to your opinions so long as they are logical and have true premises.

No, no, no, no, no!!! What you are saying is that I am entitled to my opinion as long as it chimes with your definition of what is logical or true!

Don't you get it Will, not everything or everybody will fit into your view of the world.

For example - It is my belief that there is a God and he wants me to serve him. Now, if you don't even believe in a God, how could this ring true for you? So you just discount my beliefs because they don't fit in with yours? Of course not! If you don't believe in a God and don't see any necessity to serve him, I will respect your opinion and carry on with my view!

Back to the op, women are more likely to be believers, they are more more spiritual. If you're not, that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, don't denigrate woman for an ability that you don't have.

ps And yes, I have read all of your posts with interest.

[kat]

OW: "One possible consequence of this position is that, because women are more adept at walking this "line of truth", their overall concern for it diminishes. But that is pure theorising on my part."

Yes, it is pure theorizing, because you've assumed that emapthy, diplomacy, or compassion (possible motivations for sometimes publicly diluting the truth) necessarily eclipses or substitutes for the truth, when really it can deepen it or merely disguise it.

For me, knowing the truth is enough. I'll fight for it, die for it, and then sometimes not even mention it, but it's still the truth. You can't measure its importance to me by how I represent it to you.

Truth an honesty are not necessarily the same things, as we all know.

[suegha]

Good post kat!

[kat]

Thanks Suegha! The friendly tiger

[suegha]

Thanks Suegha! The friendly tiger

A title I will accept, thank you!

[khall64au]

I will answer the OP with little reference to other posts - way too many for me to read, am sorry - "Are Women More Likely To Be Believers'... ?

Who knows!

Having said, I am a woman. And I do "believe" in said topic. I totally refrained before as I was too tired to answer. Tired of life and the cynicism it attracts. But I believe that women are more powerful in intuitive answers to life's equations.

I visited a 'fortune teller' this week - the first time dabbling in someone else's interpretations of my life in over a decade. I've had a really bad year. SHE impressed me. So I listened.

Am off to the temple on Saturday - my UNlucky day - to soften the demons. Anyone out there who can help me with instructions of 'seven yellow buckets for the monk ceremony' - please PM me pronto!

[OxfordWill]

SBK-

Logic is not some sort of optional alternative world view. Everyone uses logic every day, from doing simple things like deciding what to wear in the morning and feeding yourself, to trying to convince someone not to kill themselves or deciding which drug to administer. It is logic which leads us to our decision in these situations.

You care a great deal about logic if your life is on the line, but when it comes to your beliefs, you clearly don't mind all that much. The fact you think this is some sort of "comfort zone" for me that I have adopted, is proof that you really don't know much about logic. I am not trying to infer anything here but if you are interested to do so, if you PM your email I will glady email you a free copy of the book "logic for dummies" (Im not suggesting you are a dummy, simply that this is a very good introduction to logic with easy to understand approaches, Im sure you are aware of the series of books). If you read this, you would come back and blush at your comments here, particularly:

"As do you. Someone from a totally different culture with a completely different lifestyle will have very different ideas of logic and what is true"

(It's about as wrong as wrong can be, and is borne out of ignorance, not some sort of freedom of thought or lack of "narrowness" which you seem to accuse me of).

&

"you are saying that it is your right to dictate to those people what their opinions should be."

(No, it is logic's right. I have shown you how people CANNOT be entitled to their opinions. What have you shown me to counter this? Nothing. I am not close minded, I love it when people prove me wrong!! Seriously! But you're not even close! See the key word there is "prove". How do you prove things to me? You make a logical argument! such as: If Will is a human, then will is mortal since all humans are mortal! Will is a human, so therefore will is definitely mortal! <-- I cannot disagree since this is not only 100% logical but also 100% sound!! Woohoo! If I was trying to tell you I am immortal, I would be thus PROVED WRONG and would kiss your feet for enlightening me.)

Suegha-

All of the above applies to you also. I am also offering you a copy of that book for free, just PM me your email. I challenge you to learn something new today.

"long as it chimes with *your* definition of what is logical" - yes, there is only one version of what is logical, and if my logical proof is valid then that is it, and anyone disagreeing will be being illogical and therefore any premises they have will not lead to true conclusions necessarily.

As I have been trying to communicate, logic and truth are not the same thing. Logic is merely a machine, whereby truth can be turned into more truth. This is why, during discussions about beliefs, it is so important to properly identify the underlying assumptions and definitions that might otherwise be accepted. More importantly, without your logic machinery being right, you might have true or false premises which could lead to true or false conclusions- no guarantee either way. But more often they will be false. Just think about telling your kids why they need to eat their vegetables- you create a logical argument. If you just say "Because your mum says so" you are still making a logical argument, with the unspoken premise that NOT doing as mum says leads to some sort of undesirable outcome for the child (being referred to your father, or being grounded, or whatever!).

Kat-

Yes I was making it clear it was "just" my opinion and I was only theorising. However, I would be more than glad, if you felt I was not entitled to the opinion.

I do not share your love of the truth, but I can't disagree with your objection that I am mixing up several concepts in a bundle. I do need to think about the women/truth thing more. As I said one of my favourite thinkers is female. And obviously, you have a concern for the truth and I expect you mean this in a philosophical sense (hopefully). But, in my experience (and experiences can be deceiving!) you are untypical. It's a real shame so few females enroll in philosophy classes at universities, but the numbers are increasing.

Edited September 17, 2007 by OxfordWill

[OxfordWill]

correction: "(No, it is logic's right. I have shown you how people CANNOT be entitled to their opinions. " should be:

"(No, it is logic's right. I have shown you how it cannot be the case that everyone is entitled to their opinions"

Edited September 17, 2007 by OxfordWill

[Jet Gorgon]

Will, I think you got your grounding in logic from "Logic for Dummies" or wikipedia summaries.

Logic is not some sort of optional alternative world view. Everyone uses logic every day

Really? Sounds like the opening line from that TV show Numb3rs, except it says "people use numbers everyday..." People make "choices" everyday based on what they think will be the best outcome for them; these are not necessarily logical moves.

How do you prove things to me? You make a logical argument! such as: If Will is a human, then will is mortal since all humans are mortal! Will is a human, so therefore will is definitely mortal!

Pity you got your clauses mixed up there, but yes, another Logic 101 class opener.

As I have been trying to communicate, logic and truth are not the same thing. Logic is merely a machine, whereby truth can be turned into more truth.

Nope. Where did you glean that little nugget from? False premise; logic can be used to twist the truth to fit.

As I said one of my favourite thinkers is female.

Well, who is your fav woman thinker? Cannot be de Beauvoir coz you don't have much existentialist thought and said nothing of ethics; and Germaine Greer don't seem your type.

A little phenomenology may help you, Will. Hurry, run to wiki and gather your ammo. I expect your next post to contain reference to a man, a fox, a chicken, a bag of chicken feed, and a boat that only carries one passenger/freight at a time. If you're studying for your LSAT, I suggest you go back to the drawing boer.

[OxfordWill]

Well, this is going to go downhill quickly by the looks of it. I'll do my best not to stoop to your level Ms. Jet.

They're all logic. Your choices are based on logic (good or bad logic, but logic nonetheless)

Huh? Clauses? I'm thinking the only exposure you have had to logic is English literature. Which is tatamount to having zero exposure to logic. There are no "clauses" in argument logic.

Logic has no bearing on the truth. If you have a logically valid argument, but false premises, you will get false conclusions. Logic cannot twist or modify the truth. It's not that powerful. You just don't understand logic. But I am genuinely breathtaken by how confident you seem to be about your grasp of it, given how incorrect you are.

Anscombe. Greer and de Beauvoir are not, typically, seen as Philosophers.

I would guess you have some sort of background in Eng. Lit. Why this gives you the right to drip sarcasm and hatred all over me I do not know, but take it from me I know more about logic than you do, evident alone from your thinking that logic has the potential to twist truth, which nobody with the slightest grounding it the subject would ever come out with. Im sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but we do not live in a world where everyone has equal knowledge. Sometimes you will know more than someone else about a certain subject, and sometimes someone else will know more than you. In the latter case, it is normally better not to argue with them on that subject for fear of looking quite, quite silly.

Edited September 17, 2007 by OxfordWill

[OxfordWill]

Well, who is your fav woman thinker? Cannot be de Beauvoir coz you don't have much existentialist thought and said nothing of ethics; and Germaine Greer don't seem your type.

Why would I mention existentialism or ethics in this thread anyway? But I'm really glad you have me all summed up. And if de beauvoir for existentialism and Greer for ethics is the best you can come up with, female wise, then you really are giving yourself away as a fraud.