Reminds me if Carl Jung's archetypes theory...

"We all hold some assumptions to be true and they lie too deep to be proved..." Not necessarily "proved" but evidence that the particular belief is true. For instance, I believe the the U.S. A. will cease to exist as a world power. That belief cannot be "proved" but when one looks at all the other former world powers ( Egyptions, Romans, Carthaginians, ,Macedonians, etc., etc., and that they have all ceased to exist, that is convincing evidence enough for me.

I’m going to suggest, from stuff I’ve read, that the right hemisphere of the brain is conditioned by genetic and epigenetic factors. This side of the brain decides what it will turn its attention to out of many choices. The left brain hemisphere focusses on what it needs to evaluate from what the right side presents. So we are, in a sense, twice limited in out thinking – once because of what the right brain is disposed to pay attention to and again by the focus of the left brain which emphasises features of the situation presented to it. Nonetheless, while many people don't change their views over the years, I think the brain is plastic enough to change its views and for people to then pass them on to their offspring.

Living in Germany taught me that over 50 years ago. That experience taught me that, if we are to communicate with clarity with a person from another culture, we must start by laying bare some of most basic assumptions so that we each know where the other is starting from and why. This is something that all skilled international leaders an foreign service officers from all nations know.

Probably the most sensible post of the week for me! Nice one, Matias..

I tried to reply to @WilliamFlemming but for some reason my 'reply' button isn't working. What I want to say is that 'assumptions' arent good enough to believe in. By all means pose an hypothesis and then experiment to see if your hypothesis holds weight. If we as atheists, aren't practicing critical thinking skills then we have no right to call ourselves atheists. As @Allamda said: now more than ever do we need critical thinking skills.

As for 'framing beliefs', again, what basis is there for truth? None as far as I can see. Just because you're automatically a 'glass half empty' person does not mean that you can't decide to change and have a more positive outlook at things.

I was brought up in a very right wing family that discussed politics daily. To my parents it was all about economics. As I got older, did some personal critical thinking, I realised that no amount of economising was going to address climate change; right wingers were not concerned with social justice or distribution of wealth.

If I am completely off track here Matias, can you please give me an example. I might have 'framing beliefs' definition wrong.

I really dislike the word Belief. That's because Belief is one of the primary evils in our world. I try to avoid Belief wherever possible. If I catch myself using that word (or the verb form), I will yell at myself. It's not really necessary to actually "believe" anything. Rather, I observe things. And I can accept things. About the only time I allow myself to use the word is in the cool evening when I say, "I believe I'll have a cold beer."

Assuming that what you say is true, it would seem useless to engage in arguments. Each person’s assumptions, being unprovable as they are, are unassailable. For example, I might frame my world view on the assumption that there is a higher intelligent power in the universe aka God or Ultimate Reality beyond the sensory world of our perceptions. If your assumption is that the objective world of our perceptions is all that exists, and that intelligence arises only from electrochemical processes in the brain, then we will never agree unless we are willing to modify those basic assumptions. I can simply say that my belief in God is an assumption, requiring no proof, and that my assumption is just as valid as your assumption.

This point is courageously driven home by Donald Hoffman in his theory of Conscious Realism, where he frankly assumes the existence of an hierarchy of conscious agents. No apologies are needed for our basic assumptions, even though they are only guesses. From assumptions there might be derived a brilliant philosophy or scientific theory wherein phenomena fall together perfectly and in which predictions are borne out.

I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that mankind has some sort of profound knowledge and understanding of reality, all based on rational proof. The truth is that we are in a sea of bewilderment, with only a bit of tenuous and superficial understanding based on assumptions.

Another term for framing beliefs is paradigm. No point, just sharing.

This is true and it's why we should be willing to listen to opposite views. And if opposing views have supporting evidence, we really must be prepared to reconsider our own view. It is difficult to change our minds about something. It is not just christians who are ignorant. We ALL have biases, our brain is just wired that way, so we can make quick decisions.