Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?

[Angrboda]

In general, people believe or don't due to matters of the heart. They then use their head to justify their desired conclusion.

I quote alpha here not because I wish to attack his position, but rather because I found his candor refreshing and his view to be one that I largely share. It seems to me a psychological truth that we come to beliefs (or inclinations) for reasons that aren't fully rational and then, once we are possessed of a belief, we proceed to develop rational justifications for that belief through a process which is plagued by confirmation bias, the backfire effect, and other errors or infirmities of reason which ultimately do little to shore up our belief so much as to selectively choose the evidence for our belief with an eye toward affirming what we already believe (originally for non-rational reasons). So we come to belief through non-rational reasons, and we develop certainty in our beliefs through a process which is not rationally sound. It would seem that this undermines our certainty about our beliefs and effectively renders them epistemically unreliable.

Typically the charges of bias and irrational confirmation of belief are leveled against the theist by the atheist with the implication being that the atheist has been more rational in their acquisition of their beliefs and in their justification of the things they believe. Perhaps that's true, perhaps it's not. My suspicion is that the atheist is likely every bit as irrational in their acquisition and development of beliefs as the theist, they simply claim they are not, perhaps because it is one of their bedrock beliefs that they aren't (with all the attendant epistemic unreliability of that certainty that I described above).

In a way, this reminds me of a similar topic that I considered starting which asks the question of how we go about choosing the axioms we subscribe to. Axioms typically are assumptions which aren't themselves justified. Typically we choose our axioms either because they seem to us self-evident or because the implications of them, their consequences, accord with what we believe the actual nature of the world to be. One could limit oneself to a priori truths, but that set of axioms won't take you very far, and the demands of actual worldviews seem to necessitate that we go beyond a priori truths. Yet if we choose our axioms based on how they accord with what we believe about the world, and then reason from those axioms towards conclusions about the world, we've simply engaged in a vicious circle in which our beliefs justify our assumptions which then turn around and justify our beliefs. So how do we avoid this circle? How do we choose our axioms so that they aren't little more than self fulfilling prophecies?

Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day. The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable? If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined? I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

[rskovride]

My head follows the evidence.

Certainly my head follows my heart with some beliefs but not when it comes to theism.

Edited to add: I have to go to work but will expound when I get back. Thanks for giving me a question for the day.

[Angrboda]

[GrandizerII]

Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day.  The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?

I guess the answer is that such beliefs would be generally lacking in rational justification, though one could arrive at rational conclusions by sheer luck as opposed to carefully pondering the logic and all that.

Of course, such answer applies only when we form beliefs for non-rational reasons, and I doubt that atheists and theists generally are at the same level when it comes to the priorities of methods and approaches used to attain/form beliefs. From what I've seen, there are a number of atheists who are disturbed by the prospect of there being no ultimate purpose to life and existence, and yet they can't seem to find themselves forming beliefs that would comfort them and relieve them of such worries. I personally hold beliefs that I would love for them to be false (only because the implications of these views disturb the hell out of me), but I just can't see it any other way simply because they come off as logical to me (despite them being discomforting).

If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?

Generally speaking, yes. But again, if the premise is true that the head follows the heart in matters of belief.

I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

In general, yes, I think so. Just because we share the same psychological limits doesn't mean we deal with those limits in the same way. However, short of psychological studies to assess the differences between atheists and theists when it comes to this subject, I can't be too sure. Personally, I value the use of logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence, regardless of the comfort factor of whatever truth they may lead me to. This is not to say I can't ever be biased, but that when I am made aware of any such biases that may be misguiding me, I like to think that I make an effort to acknowledge them and do my best to keep them "at bay". And correct any misconceptions I may have had due to such biases.

[rskovride]

I think that I may have just confirmed your position on this with my previous comment. Anyway, ill try and defend if later. Lol

[Angrboda]

I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

In general, yes, I think so. Just because we share the same psychological limits doesn't mean we deal with those limits in the same way. However, short of psychological studies to assess the differences between atheists and theists when it comes to this subject, I can't be too sure. Personally, I value the use of logic, reasoning, and empirical evidence, regardless of the comfort factor of whatever truth they may lead me to. This is not to say I can't ever be biased, but that when I am made aware of any such biases that may be misguiding me, I like to think that I make an effort to acknowledge them and do my best to keep them "at bay". And correct any misconceptions I may have had due to such biases.

The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgment of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one's own judgment. The term was created by Emily Pronin, a social psychologist from Princeton University's Department of Psychology, with colleagues Daniel Lin and Lee Ross. The bias blind spot is named after the visual blind spot. Most people appear to exhibit the bias blind spot. In a sample of more than 600 residents of the United States, more than 85% believed they were less biased than the average American. Only one participant believed that he or she was more biased than the average American. People do vary with regard to the extent to which they exhibit the bias blind spot. It appears to be a stable individual difference that is measurable (for a scale, see Scopelliti et al. 2015).

The bias blind spot appears to be a true blind spot in that it is unrelated to actual decision making ability. Performance on indices of decision making competence are not related to individual differences in bias blind spot. In other words, everyone seems to think they are less biased than other people, regardless of their actual decision making ability.

. . . . . ..

Bias blind spots may be caused by a variety of other biases and self-deceptions....People also tend to believe they are aware of "how" and "why" they make their decisions, and therefore conclude that bias did not play a role. Many of our decisions are formed from biases and cognitive shortcuts, which are unconscious processes. By definition, people are unaware of unconscious processes, and therefore cannot see their influence in the decision making process.

Wikipedia || Bias blind spot

The introspection illusion is also relevant, but I will only quote in part. The full article deserves a read.

The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental states, while treating others' introspections as unreliable. In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called "causal theories") or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.

The illusion has been examined in psychological experiments, and suggested as a basis for biases in how people compare themselves to others. These experiments have been interpreted as suggesting that, rather than offering direct access to the processes underlying mental states, introspection is a process of construction and inference, much as people indirectly infer others' mental states from their behavior.

When people mistake unreliable introspection for genuine self-knowledge, the result can be an illusion of superiority over other people, for example when each person thinks they are less biased and less conformist than the rest of the group. Even when experimental subjects are provided with reports of other subjects' introspections, in as detailed a form as possible, they still rate those other introspections as unreliable while treating their own as reliable. Although the hypothesis of an introspection illusion informs some psychological research, the existing evidence is arguably inadequate to decide how reliable introspection is in normal circumstances. Correction for the bias may be possible through education about the bias and its unconscious nature.

Wikipedia || Introspection illusion

[GrandizerII]

And from the second Wikipedia link, a paragraph which serves as a good response:

A study that investigated the effect of educating people about unconscious biases on their subsequent self-ratings of susceptibility to bias showed that those who were educated did not exhibit the bias blind spot, in contrast with the control group. This finding provides hope that being informed about unconscious biases such as the introspection illusion may help people to avoid making biased judgments, or at least make them aware that they are biased. Findings from other studies on correction of the bias yielded mixed results. In a later review of the introspection illusion, Pronin suggests that the distinction is that studies that merely provide a warning of unconscious biases will not see a correction effect, whereas those that inform about the bias and emphasize its unconscious nature do yield corrections. Thus, knowledge that bias can operate during conscious awareness, is the defining factor in leading people to correct for it.[4]

Of course, I have biases, and of course, I will never be able to control for all of them satisfactorily. But it does make a difference to acknowledge that one has biases and make an effort to address them. Besides, the question was about whether or not it is the "heart" that leads to the formation of beliefs, rather than the "head". One could be utterly biased, and yet still have their "head" do all the "talking".

[CapnAwesome]

Most people, I think it works that way. They start with beliefs, and then justify them afterwards. I wonder what the world would look like if it went the other way around.

[Angrboda]

And from the second Wikipedia link, a paragraph which serves as a good response:

A study that investigated the effect of educating people about unconscious biases on their subsequent self-ratings of susceptibility to bias showed that those who were educated did not exhibit the bias blind spot, in contrast with the control group. This finding provides hope that being informed about unconscious biases such as the introspection illusion may help people to avoid making biased judgments, or at least make them aware that they are biased. Findings from other studies on correction of the bias yielded mixed results. In a later review of the introspection illusion, Pronin suggests that the distinction is that studies that merely provide a warning of unconscious biases will not see a correction effect, whereas those that inform about the bias and emphasize its unconscious nature do yield corrections. Thus, knowledge that bias can operate during conscious awareness, is the defining factor in leading people to correct for it.[4]

Of course, I have biases, and of course, I will never be able to control for all of them satisfactorily. But it does make a difference to acknowledge that one has biases and make an effort to address them. Besides, the question was about whether or not it is the "heart" that leads to the formation of beliefs, rather than the "head". One could be utterly biased, and yet still have their "head" do all the "talking".

Yeah, I read that. I have to wonder how persistent the effect of that education is, and whether or not the corrective effect does not wane with time. Regardless, the bulk of people lack such education and are thus not benefiting from any correction effect.

In case I wasn't clear, the heart/head dichotomy was just a metaphor for the dichotomy between non-rational and rational processes of belief formation and development. In that sense, no, one could not be biased and still have the head do all the talking as it is a part of the definition of bias that it is not a rational process/influence.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It has been shown using brain scans that people do have an emotional preference first that they consciously rationalise afterwards. But we all know that when people refer to matters of the heart it does not mean that emotions really are situated in the central part of your cardiovascular system. There are many neural functions that we are not aware of except for what they tell us and emotions are the same. For example, if you show me an apple I am not aware of the edge detection going on in my brain, the feature classification, pattern matching or how I can still recognise it as an apple even if you move it from left to right, away from me, rotate it or partially obscure it. I still see an apple.

In the same way people are emotionally drawn to certain decisions or ideas and they won't necessarily know why. This is why christians find it so effective conditioning children from birth. Often when I am debating with theists I can see that they 'just know' that they are correct even though they can't actually formulate why. Actually they just feel that way because of their conditioning. But it means that they feel comfortable making lots of presuppositions and are astounded when I ask what seems to them really stupid questions. For example, what a god could possibly be. They just can't get their head round why anyone would question their presuppositions or definitions and get frustrated when they can't defend them. It must seem like we're playing word games  or hiding behind semantics to avoid acknowledging what to them is an obvious truth and many of them do accuse us of that. But that's because they have been so strongly conditioned for such a long time and so much of their belief system relies upon these presuppositions. Kick away the foundations and the rest crumbles. This makes it even harder emotionally to acknowledge that they have made certain assumptions.

Being aware of what assumptions you have made yourself and deliberately asking if they are in fact correct is a vital part of developing critical thinking skills. This is why faith is the antithesis of critical thinking.