[Serious] Questions about Belief and Personal Identity

[Neo-Scholastic]

In another thread, there was some discussion about theists disliking atheists and vice versa. My last comment on that thread was that disliking someone just because of their opinions is rather juvenile. But maybe not always. Many people seem consider certain core beliefs central to their understanding of who they are. I don't know how I feel about that. Beliefs seem more like accidental than essential features of a person. When I think about my own personal identity it certainly seems like a very hap-hazard mix consisting of biological facts (like age), family history, formative experiences, and accumulated opinions about myself, others and the world. When assessing my relationships with others I try not to give too much weight to things I consider accidental, like political affiliations or ethnicity. At the same time these kinds of non-essential aspects of others do sometimes affect their behaviors and my responses to them. For example, keeping my mouth shut in a room full of political partisans or curiosity from hearing someone's thick accent.

So where do beliefs fall into that mix?

How important are various kinds of belief to personal identity?

To what extent do the expressed beliefs of others alter our opinions of them and why should that be the case?

Is it possible for a change of belief to produce an essential change in one's identity?

To what extent do the various beliefs of a person tell you something about the nature of someone? Are they open-minded or stubbourn, gullible or reflective, etc.?

Are beliefs a consequence of personal values or are values a consequence of beliefs?

[Abaddon_ire]

How important are various kinds of belief to personal identity?

A spectrum from not at all to absolutely critical.

To what extent do the expressed beliefs of others alter our opinions of them and why should that be the case?

A spectrum from not at all to absolutely critical.

Is it possible for a change of belief to produce an essential change in one's identity?

It depends on the nature of the belief and the reasons why it is held.

To what extent do the various beliefs of a person tell you something about the nature of someone? Are they open-minded or stubbourn, gullible or reflective, etc.?

They don't. It is insufficient to simply enumerate the beliefs a person holds. One must also take account of the reasons those beliefs are held

Are beliefs a consequence of personal values or are values a consequence of beliefs?

Neither, both and anything in between.

Ask generalised questions, get generalised answers. There is no simple "one size fits nobody" style answer to any of those questions.

Just to take the just one.

Is it possible for a change of belief to produce an essential change in one's identity?

I lost my religion over 40 years ago. TBH, it was a bit of a "meh" experience to me. However, I have seen others struggle with losing their religion and still others who disintegrated for the same reason. There is no one answer.

[Angrboda]

I think beliefs engender a lot of territoriality. In digging up stats about how atheists are disliked as a group, there were a lot of answers given, few of which agreed with one another. But one of the reasons was that religious people see having religious beliefs as an essential foundation for the type of behaviors we want to promote -- morality, civic virtues, respect. So, along those lines, people lacking religious beliefs were perceived as a threat to a well-ordered, prosperous, and moral society. I think the same works in reverse in that many atheists see religion and belief as encouraging irrational thinking, poorly justified behaviors, and anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes. The need for healthy respect and embrace of reason and science seems essential to furthering a well-ordered and prosperous society for them. So I think there is a sense in which people with different beliefs can be perceived as a threat to what one considers to be "the good."

That being said, it's not an all-or-nothing issue either. When it comes to actions, we accept a range of gradations and levels of things, with each entailing different responses. Some things are illegal, but not immoral. Some immoral, but not illegal. And some socially inappropriate, but not immoral or illegal. I think beliefs are somewhat the same way, that we view believing that our baseball team is the best, or that it's not appropriate to eat the wrong thing with your salad fork differently than religious beliefs. But then it depends on the context, too. Believing your team is the best could get your head beaten at a heated soccer match. So some beliefs fall into the category that they do pose a threat, and others do not.

As to me, personally, I've always held that humans are fundamentally irrational, so while I might consider my atheism to be rational, or at least 'largely' rational, it's simply one piece that is mixed in a soup the bulk of which is irrational. I don't see believing in gods as any less legitimate than my love of scotch, or my enjoyment of baseball. I don't put reason first in my life, and so I don't demand it of others. Other atheists feel differently and consider reason and science as good hills to die on. I'm just not one of them.

[Mister Agenda]

I have a problem with someone believing that their race makes them better than anyone; even if they're not vocal about it, vocal enough that I know about it is too vocal.

I don't have a problem with someone following pro-social religious teachings like lovingness and kindness, even if they're vocal about it. I have trouble living up to that standard, I tend to reflexively reflect what's thrown at me, but I admire people who can pull it off, even if I think their claimed source is suspect.

I don't have a problem with someone following somewhat stricter religious practices as long as they don't try to drag me into it and they're loving towards their children, even if I don't agree with what they're teaching their children. I don't see any ethical way to make sure they teach their children only things I agree with, and kids tend to turn out okay as long at they're loved and know it.

I do have a problem with American religious people who try to insert their religion into the laws of the land. If you can't articulate a good nonreligious reason for a law, preferably supported by evidence, it shouldn't be a law.

---

I have an acquaintance, whom I used to consider a friend, back when I was a libertarian. He seemed to be a libertarian-leaning Republican. He made a charitable effort to teach entrepreneurial skills to youths in Allendale country, then the poorest county in SC with a predominately black population, one of the few counties in SC to vote democratic. I admired him for that, he seemed to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

I'm not sure how much of this is change over the years or I'm just discovering more about who he really is. We had arguments over immigration, he was really worried that Syrian refugees were harboring terrorists and no amount of evidence could convince him otherwise. He was a big Trump supporter. He thinks the election was stolen. He was at the capital on Jan 6, though not involved in the insurrection, which he blamed on Antifa. I've recently learned he's a flat-earther, and I don't know if he was back when I used to see him in person or whether he fell down that rabbit hole since.

I can still credit him with good intentions, he's at least kind to law-abiding Americans even if he doesn't agree with him; but I am no longer able to respect him, because frankly, his beliefs make him a loon.

[Abaddon_ire]

I have a problem with someone believing that their race makes them better than anyone; even if they're not vocal about it, vocal enough that I know about it is too vocal.

I don't have a problem with someone following pro-social religious teachings like lovingness and kindness, even if they're vocal about it. I have trouble living up to that standard, I tend to reflexively reflect what's thrown at me, but I admire people who can pull it off, even if I think their claimed source is suspect.

I don't have a problem with someone following somewhat stricter religious practices as long as they don't try to drag me into it and they're loving towards their children, even if I don't agree with what they're teaching their children. I don't see any ethical way to make sure they teach their children only things I agree with, and kids tend to turn out okay as long at they're loved and know it.

I do have a problem with American religious people who try to insert their religion into the laws of the land. If you can't articulate a good nonreligious reason for a law, preferably supported by evidence, it shouldn't be a law.

---

I have an acquaintance, whom I used to consider a friend, back when I was a libertarian. He seemed to be a libertarian-leaning Republican. He made a charitable effort to teach entrepreneurial skills to youths in Allendale country, then the poorest county in SC with a predominately black population, one of the few counties in SC to vote  democratic. I admired him for that, he seemed to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

I'm not sure how much of this is change over the years or I'm just discovering more about who he really is. We had arguments over immigration, he was really worried that Syrian refugees were harboring terrorists and no amount of evidence could convince him otherwise. He was a big Trump supporter. He thinks the election was stolen. He was at the capital on Jan 6, though not involved in the insurrection, which he blamed on Antifa. I've recently learned he's a flat-earther, and I don't know if he was back when I used to see him in person or whether he fell down that rabbit hole since.

I can still credit him with good intentions, he's at least kind to law-abiding Americans even if he doesn't agree with him; but I am no longer able to respect him, because frankly, his beliefs make him a loon.

Agreed.

Imagine meeting anyone for the first time. It will predictably proceed from name, occupation, hobbies, family, cars, sport, TV, etc, through a whole lot of apparent small talk. But it isn't unimportant, it is the necessary lubricant that allows one to develop an outline of the individual one has just met.

If, however, they start with "Hi, I'm Joe Bloggs and I am a member of <insert denomination here>" They have drawn the outline in one sentence. They are defined by their faith. It is the first and most important thing on their mind.

Worse, if they start with "Hi, I'm Joe Bloggs and I am a member of <insert denomination here> would you like to visit my church?" Not only have they drawn the outline, they have coloured it in. And they haven't stayed inside the lines either.

Does that seem judgmental? Of course it does, because it is. Do I feel bad about that? Not even slightly. Normal life consists of making judgments like that every day. Have I seen all three in real life? Yup. And again, anything in between, too. I find it most disturbing when it happens in a business meeting. That is plain weird.

It also cuts both ways. Years ago, I had a company in SoCal as partner, client and customer. No equity involved, it was simply a mutually beneficial arrangement. Business trips in both directions were a blast, usually involving hard work in the day and hard alcohol in the evening. Good times. Anyhoo, the two principles decided that they wanted to depart and do other things. They didn't terminate their company, they just moved out to pursue other things. You can imagine the surprise when one of them became a pastor. Nobody had a clue that was coming. Not even his business partner.

Once again, there is no single answer.

Edit: Sry, I accidentally swore. Not good in a serious thread.

[Angrboda]

A related question which came up recently is what do we want to achieve or say in how we speak about our own identity. It's more an affectation than anything, but I've taken to describing myself as religiously unaffiliated rather than atheist. Others want their atheism to be front and center. And the reasons pro and con, as well as whether and when, get rather complex. I suffered mental illness for many years, and back when I considered working, one of the hot questions was what do I disclose about my illness to a potential employer? It's not irrelevant, but at the same time, it could prejudice the interviewer. Labels and identity are tricky.

[Jackalope]

I may dislike someone's beliefs, but I generally will only dislike them because of how those beliefs translate into behavior, or because of a substantial conflict in values. I have a friend who is a retired Episcopalian priest, and another who is a retired non-denominational pastor. We all share similar values, despite our differences in beliefs.

I care a lot more about the kind of person one is vs what one believes.

[Abaddon_ire]

A related question which came up recently is what do we want to achieve or say in how we speak about our own identity.  It's more an affectation than anything, but I've taken to describing myself as religiously unaffiliated rather than atheist.  Others want their atheism to be front and center.  And the reasons pro and con, as well as whether and when, get rather complex.  I suffered mental illness for many years, and back when I considered working, one of the hot questions was what do I disclose about my illness to a potential employer?  It's not irrelevant, but at the same time, it could prejudice the interviewer.  Labels and identity are tricky.

Oh really? That is always a tricky thing to answer. I have no idea what form of illness you had or still have. You need only disclose that with which you feel comfortable.

In general terms, some employers absolutely will file you under B for Bin. OTOH some will not really care much about it. 

As far as I am concerned, you need only need disclose those facts that will materially affect the job or the business to which you are applying. If it doesn't affect them, then they have no need to know, do they? All they need to know is whether this applicant is qualified and capable of performing the task at hand.

This gets strange at times. To give a strange example, I was once at a round table for selecting a candidate for a role. A particular woman came up on the agenda, and one bloke says we cannot hire her, she is right at the age for getting pregnant and we don't want that cost. As one, the entire set of heads slowly turned and stared at him without saying a word. He left the room. There is apparently always an ignorant person in any given group.

So, my advice to you would to only disclose anything that may affect the role or the business. Otherwise, it is none of their beeswax.

[vulcanlogician]

To what extent do the expressed beliefs of others alter our opinions of them and why should that be the case?

I think this is a good question. Like, is it prejudiced to assume a creationist is narrow-minded?

In theory, it is possible for someone to give all theories an unbiased examination and end up thinking the world is 6,000 years old. But (really) how likely is that?

I mean, let's be real: it's plausible to assume that heavy biases are almost always responsible for creationist beliefs. And if there is indeed a provable, direct correlation between heavy biases and creationism, is it really prejudiced to form opinions about narrow-mindedness when someone professes to believe in creationism? Perhaps it is...

Whether or not we ought to form such opinions, the simple fact is: we do. And (even if we're 100% right about creationists being biased) we'd do well to keep our assumptions in check. Because that can lead to confirmation bias.

[John 6IX Breezy]

To what extent do the expressed beliefs of others alter our opinions of them and why should that be the case?

We create ingroups and outgroups surprisingly quick and easy. This has been observed under a series of studies investigating what is now called the minimal group paradigm. (So called because ingroups and outgroups are created from the most minimal conditions.) For example, if you put people in a room and ask them to estimate a series of dots that they see on a screen, and then classify them as an "underestimator" or "overestimator," they will begin to show biased judgments towards members of "their group" that differ from those for members of the "other group." (These experiments are done in such a way that a person has absolutely no information about the other members beyond how they estimated the dots—they don't even see their faces).

To answer your question, I would say that to the extent that the expressed beliefs of others allow us to categorize them as belonging to a group different from ours, it will automatically and insidiously alter our opinions of them. And there are a number of ways in which these biases begin to emerge: Ingroup favoritism, ingroup overexclusion, outgroup homogeneity effects, the list goes on.