Why beliefs matter, quite simply.

I can't believe this didn't come to me sooner. I suppose, in my shock in the naivete of those who would promote the idea that it's not a big deal what people believe, my mind engaged in education mode. But I know many of these people I encounter don't really need an education. I know they're not actually as naive as they appear.

So, why do beliefs matter? Well, if one were to want to build a better airplane, beliefs about physics matter. The more accurately one understands physics, the more likely they will be able to build that better airplane. The same goes for other subject matters as well. In short, the better one understands reality, the more likely they will be able to build that better airplane.

What if instead we're trying to build is a better world? (Or a better society? Or however you wish to phrase this?) Why wouldn't the same rules apply? I see no reason why they would not. So, once again, the better understanding one has of reality, the more likely they will succeed at building that better world.

So if you still think that it's fine for people to believe what they want to believe, then I am left to assume one of two things:
a) You disagree with my assessment above that a better understanding of reality improves the odds of one being successful at engineering. If that's the case, I'd love to hear why.
b) You're not interested in building a better world. Well, that's your prerogative, not mine. That is probably all that needs to be said about this.

Protecting Religious Beliefs - The Potential Double Standard

Alright, I thought I was maybe done with posts on beliefs, but I find I have one more in me...

One of the posts I was drafting on this topic back in 2012 was going to be on "Engineering With Bad Beliefs." The gist of it was going to be that if an engineer does not understand how the world works, they are likely to make a shitty product. I really should not need to say more.

It was thinking about this same idea lately that I realized there is a double standard, which is perhaps what bothers me most about such discussions. And it's not limited to just engineering; this can go for many jobs out there, particularly jobs that wouldn't just hire anyone off the street. I.e, jobs that require a certain level of education. That education is required to help an employer determine if one has the understanding to do the job. Most people would not suggest to an employer that they hire just anyone, no matter what that person understands about the job.

In regards to religion and other beliefs (like Phil Robertson's homophobia or George Zimmerman's racism), I'm trying to apply a similar concept. If a person is going to make decisions around some topic, they should have a good understanding of the way things are. And I have no problem releasing criticism against those who don't seem to have a good understanding.

So what I want to know from those who think I should not criticize is for you to tell me why I should handle such beliefs differently? Because all I've ever heard is people simply telling me that I should, but they don't tell me why I should. If someone tells me I should do something without a reason and I disagree, I'm going to keep disagreeing until I'm given a reason to change my mind. I won't change my mind because someone tells me I should. That would be silly. So, please, tell me why.

---

Now, someone might point out that Robertson's homophobia or Zimmerman's racism isn't necessarily critical to their jobs (though I would say racism is not a good characteristic in a neighborhood watchman). OK, but at best this says that my reasoning above in regards to jobs doesn't apply. I already know this. It does not say that my position is wrong. It does not say that a position of letting them believe what they want is right. So such an objection does not address my question.

The way that I am looking at it is that I am going to be consistent unless given a reason otherwise. Yes, the reasons for requiring certain knowledge and beliefs don't apply in general quite the same way as they do for a job. But I have to apply some sort of rule. So why not continue to apply the same rule?

Consequences In Action

Updated below to make the point more generic, as was my original intent.

I mainly want to go over an example of consequences for beliefs that I totally meant to go over before...but forgot. I was reminded today after encountering a commenter on a YouTube video spouting this idea about leaving people alone if they are not "forcing" their beliefs on you.

George Zimmerman, for all we can tell, believed that Trayvon Martin was black kids in hoodies are a threat to his neighborhood. How'd that turn out for Trayvon Martin?

That, in a nutshell, is why I can't just let people believe what they want to believe. Was George Zimmerman forcing his beliefs on me? I would think the answer here is clearly "No." How about on Martin? Does killing a kid count as "forcing" beliefs on to someone? Just asking.

So, yeah, beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. Need I really say this again?

Putting it in terms of race...

Because I think, although there is still a lot of racism in our society, people can still more easily understand the problems of their social propositions when placed in such a context.

This goes back again to my last post on beliefs and consequences, particularly this idea of "forcing" beliefs on another person and how some suggest we should not oppose people's beliefs if they are not forcing them on us. There is still the big question of what that means, so I've come up with a scenario to pry at that.

In the context of the last post, the topic was gay rights. Well, I'm not gay, so if someone is opposed to gay rights, does their opposition have much of an effect on me? Should I care? My answers are "Yes" and "Yes, duh!" respectively. But now let's change the context to the civil rights era of the 1960's. Anyone can see from my profile picture on the right that I am white. So if the problem had instead been with people who promote segregation, I'm still in the majority group. I have my rights. Should I be opposing people who are for segregation even though I am not black???

I think the answer should be obvious. Damn right I should oppose it! And the same goes for those who oppose gay rights today. I'm going to fight against that. It doesn't matter that I'm straight. I'm not selfish. I want to see the world be a better place.

Religion does not make the world a better place, and often it works against my goals. So I'm going to fight against it. I don't care if people aren't forcing their beliefs on me. It's not about me. It's about everyone else.

A friendly reminder that beliefs have consequences.

I know I've written about this before, the two posts (of what was meant to be a four-part series) that I've actually published can be found here and here. I would recommend reading these, yet I am going to be repeating a lot of the same points here. Because it would seem that these ideas need repeating.

I get a bit annoyed about these ideas that beliefs should be given automatic respect or the rather strange idea that my mother seems to have (yes, this post is a bit personal) that beliefs should not be given automatic respect but, for some unclear reason, still shouldn't be challenged ("confronted" was the word she used). The impression I got from my mother was that her reasoning is that they should only be challenged if the people holding beliefs try to force their beliefs on me.

That really begs the question of what, exactly, it means for someone to "force" their beliefs on me. I imagine what she means is people who try to convince me to believe the same as they do. This is horribly short-sighted.

In that first post, I had presented a slightly absurd belief of "I believe I am a better driver while intoxicated." We could change this to be a bit more realistic to say "I believe I am a capable driver while intoxicated." Certainly there are people out in the world who convince themselves of that. (Or, at the very least, "I believe I am not so intoxicated at the moment that I will be capable of driving" when this is not true.) Shouldn't we still just leave these people believe what they want to believe? No, and we don't. At the time I began drafting this post, a local radio station had what seems to be becoming an annual event where the DJ's get drunk on the air with a police officer in the studio to routinely measure their BAL (blood-alcohol level). The idea is to demonstrate, as best they can, how quickly and how little it takes to become inebriated. And the message, of course, is that, if you choose to drink, then you should not drive.

The next question, to get more on point, is are the people who drive drunk forcing their beliefs on other people? This gets back to that main question of what, exactly, do we mean by "force"? If a drunk driver hits me, I would say he/she has quite literally forced his/her belief on me!!! The other question, to go with this, is it OK for them to believe what they do as long as they don't hit anyone??? That, to me, sounds like a risky endeavor. Going back to the previous paragraph, the reality is that we as a society say this is not OK. People get arrested for drunk driving regardless of whether or not they hit someone.

This then brings me to the topic that started this latest conversation — the homophobia of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame. Is he forcing his beliefs on me? Well, no. I'm not homosexual. But is he then forcing his beliefs on homosexuals? I would say he most certainly is, to some extent! If, say, a vote to legalize (or perhaps a vote to ban) gay marriage would come up on the Louisiana ballot, how do we suppose he would vote (assuming that he does)? I'd put money on it that he'd vote against gay marriage. And, seeing how gay marriage really isn't all that crucial of an issue to the LGBT community, he'd probably likewise vote against other gay rights — or vote for the type of politicians who oppose gay rights.

The point of all of this is that beliefs don't exist in a vacuum. People tend to act out on their beliefs and, if they have horrible beliefs, they are going to be more likely to act in horrible ways. It's more complex than this, of course, but I do find that, if we wish to reduce bad actions, we need to reduce bad beliefs.

The challenge, then, gets to be determining what is and what is not a bad belief. This can be a long, complex process. However, it's hard to start such a process with people either telling you that you must automatically respect a belief or that you're not allowed to even challenge beliefs — even when the other person agrees that a belief is bad!

---

Extra reading: I found this excellent post in regards to religion and violence in my search for a link to the phrase "exist in a vacuum."

Case in point...

Here is what I find to be a good example of exactly what I meant in my post from earlier today. There has been this court case in Colorado involving a cake shop refusing to service a homosexual couple over religious reasons. This then begs the question of what other types of couples can be refused service over religious reasons? Interracial couples (considering that once was an issue)? Well...guess what? It would appear Dennis Prager doesn't think so because opposition to interracial marriage supposedly isn't a proper religious belief!

What if, for example, someone’s religious principles prohibited interracial marriages? Should that individual be allowed to deny services to an interracial wedding?

Of course not.

Here’s why that objection is irrelevant:

1. No religion practiced in America – indeed, no world religion – has ever banned interracial marriage. That some American Christians opposed interracial marriage is of no consequence. No one assumes that every position held by any member of a religion means that the religion holds that position.

But, as Ed Brayton points out:

Interracial marriage was banned in every state in this country at one point and always on religious grounds. Whether Prager thinks those religious grounds were legitimate or not or whether the Bible really supported that position is irrelevant; it was the overwhelming view of Christians in this country for at least a century and a half that interracial marriage was forbidden and that the law should enforce that religious view. Christian ideology has shifted, as it often does, but that does not make the reality of those past positions magically disappear.

This is largely what I was talking about when I spoke of culture and religion being intertwined. Once opposition to interracial marriage became culturally unpopular, religion changed! And 50 years from now, we'll likely see very little religious opposition to same-sex marriage. And there will likely be religious people claiming that no world religion ever banned same-sex marriage. In some ways, they would be correct! The bible does not oppose same-sex marriage. It just opposes guys having sex with each other. (Though, it would be strange to say, "Yeah, you can get married. That's cool. You're just not allowed to have sex.")

On that, I do have to address his somewhat correct, but yet incorrect, second point.

2. If opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimately held religious conviction, there is no such thing as a legitimately held religious position. Unlike opposition to interracial marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage has been the position of every religion in recorded history – as well as of every country and every American state until the 21st century.

I pretty much agree with that first sentence. That is another reason why I say one should just accept it if someone claims their belief is a religious belief. Otherwise, then we have to go about determining which religious belief is "legitimately held" and which is not. And how do we do that? This is where Prager's argument goes way wrong, and in a direction I don't think he intended. He appears to be implying that a religious conviction is legitimately held if it has been held by "every religion in recorded history." Well, I've got some bad news for Prager — the convictions that Jesus was/is the "Son of God" and/or the "Lord and Savior" are convictions that have not been held by "every religion in recorded history." Oops.

I would think this has to be his argument. If it isn't, then his first point is going to be very weak and opens up some other problems. For his first point to still stand, it would appear that his standard for a "legitimately held" belief would have to be based on popularity within the religion. Well, what do you do, then, about beliefs that are minority beliefs that grow to become more popular over time. One example of this would be anytime a new denomination, or even a branch, of Christianity develops. Protestantism would have been a new denomination at one point and would not have had many proponents. Today, it is no longer a denomination and is now a large branch of Christianity that includes many branches of its own and numerous denominations. So are general Protestant views now "legit" now that they are popular?

Or, in regards to the topic of same-sex marriage, are the beliefs of Christians who think this is acceptable not legitimate beliefs? And, once again, in 50 years when this likely becomes the majority belief, would such beliefs only then become legitimate?

That Prager shoots himself in the foot with his own argument just goes to show why trying to create rules for determining what is and what is not a "legitimately held" belief is a bad idea.

How do you determine if someone's beliefs are religious beliefs?

Updated on Jan 14 to remove some redundancy and lack of clarity.

Simple! If they say their beliefs are religious, then they are!

Oh, alright, the full answer is a bit more complicated...

This post comes from a conversation I was having with my mother about Phil Robertson (of Duck Dynasty) who has been suspended from the show due to homophobic remarks. In the conversation, I had (somehow — I don't remember the exact phrasing) referred to his beliefs as religious beliefs. She questioned if that was stretching it a bit far. In my mother's defense, perhaps she was unaware at the time that Robertson himself had said that they were. From the GQ article (page 2):

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

But never mind my mother. Whatever her view, it did get me thinking about some of the silly defenses of religion that are out there. The main defense is to claim that beliefs like Robertson's aren't really religious, but rather that these people are using religion to justify their horrible beliefs. I can agree with this to a point. The point where I disagree is that this is the way religion often works. Even if there is a god or gods, it should be pretty obvious no religions were inspired (well, maybe bits and pieces, but certainly not the parts that are relevant to this discussion) fully by it or them and are largely, if not fully, made up by humans. So what do you think they are going to write into their religions??? If you answered "Their own beliefs," give yourself a prize! It's no surprise, then, to see modern day humans doing the same thing! (This often means interpreting what someone else wrote long ago to fit the modern age.)

And then the other part to that that may be worth mentioning is that these defenses often try to claim that religion is something good and positive. I almost saw this on Good Morning America's report Thursday, where the guest, Howard Bradman, said, "He used religion as a weapon rather than the tool it is meant to be." I can only assume he thinks it is meant to be a tool for good. Bullshit! Because religion is bullshit. And, therefore, it isn't "meant" to be anything. That's not to say it can't be used for good. The larger point in all of what I am saying is that religion is largely subjective! And when people defend religion, they are quite often defending those subjective parts, but the fact that they are defending them basically forces them to take a position of thinking them to be objective.

One last thing. I should point out that some of these defenders of religion may not be trying to defend religion but are doing it more by accident. There are some who may use similar arguments that have come to the conclusion that many of people's beliefs are cultural. They would then say Robertson's homophobia is cultural, but that he's using religion to defend his culture. So this is slightly different from the above, but it has the same flaw of failing to recognize that this is what religion tends to do. Culture influences religion and then religion turns right back around and influences culture! The two are too intertwined to be able to make a clear distinction. It is mainly for this that I say you should just take someone's word if they say their beliefs are religious. It is not to say that those beliefs are only religious, but to recognize that religion is playing a roll.

---

As an example of what is objective and what isn't, it is objective that the New Testament speaks a lot about a man named Jesus. But, as an example of what is more so subjective, was Jesus really a man??? There are some who think he was. Many think he was not just a man, but that he was God! Then, I think, there are even some out there (but this would be a very small minority group) that think he was really a space alien who disguised himself as a human. And, I can't forget, there are those who think Jesus was no more than a fictional character, a figment of the imagination. Now, realize that there is an objective truth as to what Jesus actually was. But we just don't have enough evidence to really determine what that truth is. Also, there are people who do try to reach their conclusions on what evidence there is — such people are trying to think more objectively about this. It is primarily the people who just read from the New Testament and come to their conclusions from that and that alone who I am talking about. Or, worse, the people who just accept what ever their church tells them. They're not thinking about this very objectively, therefore, I think it correct to label their beliefs as subjective.

Similarly, there is objective truth to what the authors of the various parts of the Bible actually meant. (For example, did they mean what they wrote literally or metaphorically?) But only those authors could ever fully know (we can certainly try to guess, but that's about it). And they are all dead. So we'll never know. So then anyone who says, "This is what this verse really means!" is full of themselves. (But don't let apologetics fool you! I would agree that someone could go and say, "This is what I think this verse means because..." and then they proceed to give their reasoning. These people are trying to objectively think about this. Apologetics can often look like it's doing the same thing. The problem I often have is the degree of certainty to which they claim they are correct in comparison to the reasoning they offer. It has always seemed to be that they are more certain of themselves than they should be.)

A new response to "Let people believe what they want to believe!"

   I've written a bit in the past about how this idea of letting people believe what they want to believe annoys me. It does so because it is a bad idea as well as the fact that people don't actually apply this outside of a few specific topics, particularly religion. My latest thought on this involves getting arrested for a crime for which you did not commit (the hypothetical works better if it is a fairly serious crime that involves jail time). If you were arrested for a crime, would you (A) find a lawyer and defend your innocence or (B) let the police believe what they want to believe, which is that you are guilty of the crime (which means you get locked up in jail)? If you chose A B, would you mind explaining why? If you are a person who has used this "Let people believe what they want to believe!" line before and you chose B A, would you mind explaining this inconsistency?

UPDATE: Whoa! What was I smoking when I posted this? I got A and B mixed up in my questioning. I struck out the original to somewhat preserve the mistake.

The two types of "questioning"

   In the few years I have been paying attention to religion, I have noticed the occasional Christian act like they have seriously questioned their religion. If that were true, they would no longer be Christian. I have also, as I have noted in another post, heard Christians use arguments that are seriously flawed. As I said in the one post that I have thus far written on that topic, "the goal is to find an argument that successfully defends the faith, not one that is logically sound." I do believe that these people who say they questioned their religion really did so, but my suspicion is that they were not out in search of the truth; they were out to resolve contradictions they had with their religion. (In a recent case, for example, I suspect the conflict was between how the Bible says homosexuals should be treated versus how this person personally thinks homosexuals should be treated.) The question(s), then, would deal with how they can resolve this conflict(s). (For the example I provided, the "answer" may very well be what I said in that other post was a dumb argument — that the "law no longer applies.") The first type of questioning, then, is a type of questioning that is in search of answers that appeal to the questioner's emotions...answers that, on the surface, make "sense." (As another example, if one were to question how they can be Christian when it is just another rel

   The second type of questioning is a robust form of questioning in which the questioner searches for the answer that is most likely to be true. This type of questioning should use methodological skepticism to evaluate answers.

   Allow me to provide a brief example of how these different types of questioning could play out in real life. It would seem that there are Christians out there who struggle with Christianity being a religion. My hunch is that they see a bunch of other religions out there that they reject as false and perhaps they realize that there really isn't a good reason for them to not reject Christianity as well. The solution? Christianity is not a religion! It's a personal relationship with Jesus!* If you engage in the first type of questioning, you will likely accept this as an answer. If you engage in the second type of questioning, however, you will come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a personal relationship with Jesus. Even if you did not go so far as to come to the conclusion that Jesus, if there even was such a person, is long dead and gone, you should at least be able to recognize that there are lots of people who make such a claim, yet many (strangely enough!) of them cannot agree on the character of Jesus. You should realize that questions like, "What would Jesus do?" make little sense in the way we frame such a question. It's asked in a way as though we can't just go ask Jesus himself. Well, if there are these millions of people who have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, why can't we? I wonder what type of answer the first type of questioner would except...

* Alternatively, I have seen a similar idea that one is not a Christian, but is rather a follower of Christ. If you use the first type of questioning, such a suggestion would likely be embraced. If you use the second type of questioning, you will come to the conclusion that there isn't an actual difference between the two — it is just a crafty way to reframe one's religious beliefs without actually changing the beliefs themselves.

The Consequence of Incorrect Worldviews

   This is part two of a four part series on beliefs. This post continues to cover why letting people believe what they want is a bad idea.

   A couple years ago I was essentially (ironically) accused by a Christian that I want to impose my worldview on everyone! At that time, I didn't know how to respond. If I had a chance to do it all over, here is what I would say:

   Yes and no. What I essentially want is for people to have worldviews that align as much as possible with how the world actually is! Some call this "reality." (I would also describe a worldview that aligns with reality as being "accurate.") So, yes, for any part of my worldview that aligns with reality, I would like others to also hold it as part of their worldview. Likewise, for any part of my worldview that does not align with reality, I would not want others to hold as part of their worldview. Additionally, I would like to know if any parts of my worldview are unrealistic so that I can update it.

   On that, I do have to note how we go about figuring out what is real. Unfortunately, this may require a larger discussion on epistemology. In short, people should not include things in their worldview that they do not have quality evidence for. There may actually be a Sasquatch creature. There may be a Loch Ness Monster. There may be unicorns in Ecuador. (See more in my post about things that are possible.) The problem is there is no quality evidence for any of these things.

   Now I have to add an exception (or maybe it is more of a qualifier) to what I said about wanting worldviews to align with reality. Let's assume that the things mentioned do exist. Someone who includes these in their worldview would have one that is aligned with reality, which is what I said I want in the first paragraph. But I only want this when there is sufficient, quality evidence! (It may be worth mentioning that not including Sasquatch, etc. in one's world view is not the same as holding a worldview that secludes Sasquatch, etc. Rather, it is possible to hold a worldview that is undecided on the matter.)

   Finally, I shouldn't have to, but I want to go over what could be the consequences of holding incorrect worldviews. (Credit goes to the Godless Bitches, specifically Tracie Harris, for these examples.)

• You are the promoter of a new passenger vessel, called the Titanic. You promote your ship as "virtually unsinkable." What might be the consequences if people actually believe this? How about the possibility that the ship only carries 1/3 of the needed lifeboats?
• You are a sexual education teacher. Your worldview is that teaching teenagers to abstain from sex is all the education that they need. How could this go wrong? What might happen if the students fail to abstain? Well, because they haven't learned safe-sex practices, maybe someone ends up pregnant and/or catches an STD.

   It is mostly because there are consequences for holding inaccurate worldviews that I want people to have accurate worldviews. So I must ask do you not want people to have accurate worldviews?

Why it's good to challenge beliefs

   This is part one of a four part series on beliefs. This post covers why I find letting people believe what they want is a bad idea.

   This is a topic I have tried to write about multiple times, but every time I get long winded. It's hard not to because this should be fucking simple!!! Yet, for whatever reason (we'll get to that in part three), it is not.

   Too many times I hear crap from people (whether it be people I personally know or comments I see on the internet) along the lines of "let people believe what they want to believe" in regards to religion. All that should be required to see the problem with this is a small thought experiment. If I were to believe the following things, would you really let me do so?

• I believe I am a better driver while intoxicated.
• I believe second hand smoke is beneficial to a person's health.
• I believe texting while driving is safe.
• I believe gay people are an abomination and should be put to death.
• I believe we don't need to conserve the earth's resources. God put them there for us to use and Jesus will return to rapture us before or when we run out.
• ...And so on.

   You should see the issue with many, if not all, of the beliefs I listed. I would hope most of my readers recognize that the first three are completely false; and by "completely" I mean that the exact opposite is true.

   Now some people I have interacted with have been wise enough to at least add the qualifier, "if [those beliefs] don't do any harm," to their suggestions that we allow people to believe what they want. This seems to be a pretty good qualifier, and would pretty much go against all the beliefs I listed as examples. The problem? Now we're in a position of predicting all of the effects/consequences of a belief. I don't think that's a position we want to be in. Take that first example I listed. That belief is completely false; people are worse drivers while intoxicated. And worse driving should increase the probability of an accident. But what if the person who believes they are a better driver while intoxicated never actually drives intoxicated? Well, then they'll never get in an accident while driving intoxicated. So then that belief doesn't harm anyone. Is it then OK to let that person believe that?

   An example that I feel better exposes this problem deals with prayer. I have been personally told that I shouldn't have criticized a Christian for asking people to pray (or maybe the Christian was just stating that they themselves were praying...either way, this detail isn't critical to my point) because praying doesn't hurt anyone. The truth is that prayer can and does hurt people. People have died because they believed prayer — and prayer alone — would cure their or their children's health issues...health issues that are curable or treatable with modern medicine. I'm not talking about people who were on their death beds with no other hope here. And that is the problem with prayer — people may pray instead of taking other action that is proven to be effective.

   But is prayer harmless most of the time? Yeah, probably. Whereas believing one's driving improves with intoxication is probably going to be more problematic. But then this adds on another qualifier. Do we really want to say it's OK to let people believe what they want to believe if those beliefs are harmless most of the time? This still does not resolved the issue of having to forecast the effects of beliefs.

   Again, on the issue of prayer, maybe it is more harmful than even I, a critic of prayer, am aware. As I have demonstrated, a problem with prayer is people not taking action that is known to be effective. In the anecdote where I was told that prayer doesn't do any harm, the prayers were directed toward victims of a natural disaster. Instead of praying, this Christian could have instead donated money to an organization like the Red Cross that deals in recovery efforts. So was hirs praying actually causing harm? I suppose much of it depends on if ze were truly concerned about the well-being of the victims or if hirs prayers were a way to show false concern. If it's the former, then, yeah, believing pray works could very well be preventing ze from taking effective action and is thus harmful in the sense that it could be preventing people from getting help that they need.

   Yet, having to read the mind of the believer to determine hirs sincerity means that I cannot accurately forecast the harm of hirs belief in prayer because, it should go without saying, I cannot read minds! I have an alternative solution — how about if we encourage people to believe what is real instead of believing what they want?

   Yes, there are some challenges and issues even then. First, of course, is the challenge to figure out what is real. An example that is relevant to today is a question of whether or not cellular phones can cause cancer. If they do, and if I believed that, then I perhaps should no longer use a cellular phone. (There would be some risk assessment involved in that decision, but that drifts away from the topic at hand.) As of now, we don't really know. So I could be harming myself from using a cellular phone if it is indeed dangerous to my health. Second, beliefs could be harmful if reality dictates so. Take that fourth example from the list above. What if gays were an abomination and needed to be killed? Then, yeah, beliefs aligned with reality would be harmful to gay people. (Luckily, there is no good reason to believe this is true!) But would it not be at least better if people believed that because it were real as opposed to just believing whatever they want? There is a reason I included that as an example, and that reason is because there are many people out there that actually believe that gays are an abomination! I'm really supposed to just let them believe that?

   Overall, I find that having beliefs that align with reality is for the best. I'll cover more on why this is in part two and three.