Understanding False Beliefs

A significant reason to revisit the genuine principles of the European Enlightenment, as opposed to various political reinterpretations, is that it was fundamentally focused on understanding why humans easily accept demonstrably false and biased beliefs. Instead of engaging in more nuanced, thoughtful discussions, we often gravitate toward simpler narratives. This kind of philosophical inquiry is essential in our current era dominated by social media. If we are to counteract the pervasive polarization that reduces complex issues to simplistic “us vs. them” narratives, we must take action (though it's unlikely we’ll be enjoying music while the world struggles; more likely, we’ll be embroiled in heated online arguments about whom to blame).

In a previous blog entry, I began discussing Pierre Bayle's groundbreaking work, Various Thoughts on the Occasion of a Comet. That piece concentrated on his refutation of the belief that comets are divine signs meant to convert non-believers and renew faith. However, Bayle's inquiry extends beyond this singular claim.

He attempts to uncover why such beliefs gained traction, not just within Christian circles, but also—albeit in altered forms—among followers of other faiths. His analysis aligns with earlier works, such as Francis Bacon's identification of the four "idols of the human mind" in Novum Organum, and John Locke's Conduct of the Human Understanding. These texts aimed to pinpoint how our cognitive processes often favor beliefs that we wish to be true or find comforting rather than those that are actually true.

Bayle presents several reasons why people attribute superstitious meanings to comets and other cosmic phenomena:

1. The Influence of Poets and Historians: While these figures document such events, poets, in particular, often embellish the extraordinary and fearsome elements to captivate their audience (sections 4–5). The long-standing belief in comets can be traced back to historical accounts and narratives that have shaped public perception over centuries.
2. The Limitations of Historians: Historians are generally not experts in astronomy and can sometimes misrepresent scientific facts (section 6).
3. Conformity: Our inclination to conform plays a significant role. When we observe large groups endorsing a belief, we are naturally inclined to accept it ourselves (section 7). This tendency highlights the saying, vox populi, vox dei—the voice of the people is the voice of God. Machiavellians have exploited this phenomenon for centuries, while Bayle and his contemporaries aimed to understand it to foster a society grounded in more rational principles rather than in sensational narratives filled with heroes, villains, and unfounded supernatural claims.

Is it elitist to argue that the majority's voice on scientific matters may not represent the wisest perspective? It seems more elitist to allow individuals to cling to their misconceptions, treating them as if they were incapable of critical thought, potentially leading to disastrous outcomes.

How are mass beliefs truly formed? Bayle suggests that the apparent consensus often boils down to the authority of a select few who can sway public opinion based on their perceived expertise, which others accept without scrutiny due to their own intellectual laziness.

4. The Weight of Antiquity: The longer a belief has existed within a community, the more default authority it tends to hold. People often respect ancestral beliefs without questioning them, leading to the persistence of outdated and potentially harmful ideologies.
5. The Risk of Relativism: If we accept vox populi, vox dei as universally valid, we risk endorsing all superstitions as truths simply because they were widely accepted in their time.

Bayle's insights remain relevant in our current post-truth era, where many, including influential leaders, assert their beliefs in defiance of independent verification.

To truly understand how collective beliefs form, we must recognize our tendency toward "epistemic conformism"—the urge to align our views with the prevailing beliefs of our communities, whether they be academic, religious, or broader social groups.

Bayle and others like Bacon and Locke provide a sobering view of human nature. Their goal is not to lead us to despair but to illuminate our cognitive pitfalls, enabling us to combat error, self-deception, and tribalism in our thinking.