"If you know that the belief isn't true yet you hold it, you're being self-deluded."
What if you don't know that it's wrong and you hold it? Can anyone really believe something and KNOW that it's wrong?
It seems that this is bordering on being a circular argument or at least a tautology of some kind. Believing something while knowing that it's not true would require a tolerance of cognitive dissonance that suggests a mental illness. I just don't see what the point is here.
Regarding Esposito stating, "If you know that the belief isn't true yet you hold it, you're being self-deluded", this was in the context of a conversation he had with a Jehovah's Witness. Esposito asked the man that if he could be shown from Scripture that Jesus is God would he change his belief. The man started talking about the meaning the Jehovah's Witnesses had provided for his life yet he had just agreed that the meaning a belief provides is a bad reason to hold a belief. The man was confused in that he thought that if a belief provides meaning it follows that it is true. This is not the case. Could Esposito have used a better word than "self-deluded"? Maybe. Confused perhaps?
If a person does not know a belief that they are holding is not true then I think they are either uninformed or apathetic.
I think the point is that we should be holding our beliefs because we have good reasons for thinking they are true not because they work for us or because they are tradition (which in the relativistic culture we live in many think are grounds for truth).
Comments
What if you don't know that it's wrong and you hold it? Can anyone really believe something and KNOW that it's wrong?
It seems that this is bordering on being a circular argument or at least a tautology of some kind. Believing something while knowing that it's not true would require a tolerance of cognitive dissonance that suggests a mental illness. I just don't see what the point is here.
Regarding Esposito stating, "If you know that the belief isn't true yet you hold it, you're being self-deluded", this was in the context of a conversation he had with a Jehovah's Witness. Esposito asked the man that if he could be shown from Scripture that Jesus is God would he change his belief. The man started talking about the meaning the Jehovah's Witnesses had provided for his life yet he had just agreed that the meaning a belief provides is a bad reason to hold a belief. The man was confused in that he thought that if a belief provides meaning it follows that it is true. This is not the case. Could Esposito have used a better word than "self-deluded"? Maybe. Confused perhaps?
If a person does not know a belief that they are holding is not true then I think they are either uninformed or apathetic.
I think the point is that we should be holding our beliefs because we have good reasons for thinking they are true not because they work for us or because they are tradition (which in the relativistic culture we live in many think are grounds for truth).
Respectfully.