RE: Is belief...?

RE: Is belief...? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Apocalypso -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 12:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Religious types will no doubt cozy up to that mantra, but I'm afraid religion does more to confuse reality than explain it. Surely that's a criticism that could equally apply to any philosophical discussion? (And I'd definitely see theology as a specific strand of philosophy as opposed to a separate discipline).

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 1:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian On that basis, even the evidence we see that suggests it is all an illusion is illusory itself! Is the idea that there is a world beyond our perceptions a truth? It's probable but.... More to the point of the OP - 'belief' is certainly not an objective truth. Is science an objective truth?

kdsub -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 3:08:29 PM)
I don't think it is sciences job to necessarily determine truth… It is to observe, measure, and test. If science ceased observation of what the current science holds as truth we would not find many new discoveries. Even the most basic “so-called” truths of science today WILL be refuted in the future as our knowledge progresses. We are still primitive in understanding our existence and the universe around us. Why hold back science with truths and why fight over the validity of religion when we really have no idea if a source is possible or not. Why not just be tolerant and let our minds and hearts discover life as we live it. Butch

beargonewild -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 3:13:50 PM)
It's probably safer to state that one job of science is to determine a truth which may not be the truth. Science discovers new truths and along the way it'll either prove or disprove a truth when a more better truth is found.

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 5:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent More to the point of the OP - 'belief' is certainly not an objective truth. The idea presented reminds me of this quote; "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase It is an idea, that in the manner I understand it, does not make sense to me. My whole perspective of my beliefs came from evidence I encountered in my experiences, much like a hunter can assess an animal has been present by sign. I came to my conclusion, of what type of animal I was looking for, by the type of signs I have come across; consistency of signs, keeps me searching. I do not understand, or know how, to believe without proof. Kim

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief...? (6/3/2009 7:37:43 PM)
The concept of "proof" must be coupled with a moderately keen understanding of human psychology and interpretative tendencies. We are creatures of 'meaning'. We look at a bunch of trees late at night an imagine the face of a boogeyman. We look up at clouds and remarks how similar one seems to a vacuum cleaner. We see faces on mars and on grilled cheese sanwiches...because that's how our neurobiology works. The reason science continually assaults itself with indefinite critique and double-blind tests is to divorce the human predisposition to find exactly what it is that we are looking for. I remember seeing tens of times more hawks in the sky during my neo-pagan years when I was relating the totem-animal properties of hawks to my own persona. These sorts of experiences are proof only to the degree that personal emotive experience will almost always trump statistical reality in humans, particularly those who are unaware of their tendency to do so. Once we adopt a definition of the events that happen to us in our lives, special pleading will make it so every event bolsters that belief. The most infamous of these types of self-convincing is the "god works in mysterious ways"...an argument that plays on the human mind's tendency to find happiness most in what one is left with, rather than what one has lost. Inevitably, every result in our lives is either a karmic reward for our integrity to our beliefs or a hard-love, character-strengthening event meant to shape us into the people we are (as if we had much of a choice to be anything other than what we are). Science determines and explains reality. "Truth" is a trick word because, anymore, it doesn't have to mean anything relevant to reality...because us self-reflective humans have the ability to turn the word into whatever we wish. Our imaginations let us fabricate "truths" to the point that we can delude ourselves beyond the scope of hard-fact materialism. It is simultaneously the pride and the ultimate vice of humanity to have the unique trait to dream for ourselves something more than we can and/or will ever have.

Apocalypso -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 2:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I remember seeing tens of times more hawks in the sky during my neo-pagan years when I was relating the totem-animal properties of hawks to my own persona. These sorts of experiences are proof only to the degree that personal emotive experience will almost always trump statistical reality in humans, particularly those who are unaware of their tendency to do so. Heh. Are you familiar with the Discordian Law of Fives? "Everything can be related to the number five if you try hard enough" If, however, belief is that powerful (and I think it is), surely the best thing to do is to harness belief to work towards our goals? Use belief as a means, rather than an end. quote: Once we adopt a definition of the events that happen to us in our lives, special pleading will make it so every event bolsters that belief. The most infamous of these types of self-convincing is the "god works in mysterious ways" I'd agree that the "mysterious ways" argument is a particuarly flimsy one. It's not the only approach used to argue for the existence of a deity however. Plantinga's modal ontological argument is a really good example of an intellectually rigorous approach to this subject.

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 6:58:04 AM)
Are you a politician? I think it is just as easy to brush everything pertaining to the subject, which is not something you have experienced, off to the side, as it is for some people to believe there is some particular meaning to a single random image. I know what I saw and see now, are not even in the same ballpark as what you are referring to. If you don't want to believe that, it is fine. It is however, becoming rather annoying, having people try to explain thier lack of experience away, by simply implying I am dilusional. The logic being used here just makes me wonder if I should believe you exist; after all, I have never touched you, and no one of authority has told me you do. Edited to add; 'simply' Kim

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 11:03:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso If, however, belief is that powerful (and I think it is), surely the best thing to do is to harness belief to work towards our goals? Use belief as a means, rather than an end. It is already used as such. They reinforce ideas we choose to espouse which are internally supportive. quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso I'd agree that the "mysterious ways" argument is a particuarly flimsy one. It's not the only approach used to argue for the existence of a deity however. Plantinga's modal ontological argument is a really good example of an intellectually rigorous approach to this subject. Platinga's argument fails upon its premises. The idea of "wholly good" is incoherent because "good" is a ethically subjective entity. It's impossible to support contradictory intents. And before we even get to the question of the sensibility of concepts like "omniscience" and "omnipotence" , by rendering the "wholly good" prerequisite of maximal greatness, we turn the supposed being into a maximal tyrant (which destroys most any theistic concept).

NihilusZero -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 11:08:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I know what I saw and see now, are not even in the same ballpark as what you are referring to. If you don't want to believe that, it is fine. It is however, becoming rather annoying, having people try to explain thier lack of experience away, by simply implying I am dilusional. You can use that logic to reinforce "belief" in any incoherent notion. Alien abduction. Astral projection. Befriending leprechauns. Sagan's dragons. There is a distinct difference between the experiences someone has and, consequently, their interpretations of those events. The fact that humans are capable of fooling themselves into interpreting a certain result from an experience doesn't necessarily makes them delusional. quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso The logic being used here just makes me wonder if I should believe you exist; after all, I have never touched you, and no one of authority has told me you do. Which is precisely why I have no use for the word "belief". My existence (or lack thereof) happens independently of your belief (or that of anyone else).

Arpig -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 12:40:06 PM)
Edited to clarify: in response to cpK69, not Nihilus (darn Quick Repy function....) quote: It is however, becoming rather annoying, having people try to explain thier lack of experience away, by simply implying I am dilusional. It might be helpful to us if you did more than make vague confused references to unnamed experiences that have led you to your position. I can play that game as well...The things I have experienced in this life have shown me without doubt that the flying spaghetti monster is in fact the truest depiction of deity possible....see its easy, you cannot refute, or even reasonably discuss, what I said in any way because I have provided no details upon which to hang a discussion. Anything you say to counter or discuss my assertion is automatically invalidated, because I have provided nothing for you to counter or discuss in any rational manner, you can only claim that your experiences somehow trump mine, and without any details as to what sort of experiences I am referring, your claim is automatically wrong, since you cannot know if your expoeriences are even vaguely the equal of mine, because I have not stated what mine are, therefore it may be possible that they may be the fact that I have watched cheerios get soggy, or that I have regular videotaped discussions with God, either may be the experience I am referring to, I have not specified. Neither have you, therefore your assertions can not be treated as reasonable points of discussion, because they cannot be discussed reasonably. Nihilus' mention of Sagan's dragons is apt here. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is belief......? (6/4/2009 12:45:25 PM)
I don't personally believe in a supernatural being of any shape or form in relation to existence, however, I do -not- necessarily think that having the belief in a supernatural being necessarily means that one can't believe in science. Perhaps because of my background, it seems to me that, if one -were- to believe in a supernatural being, then science would be another development/creation in that pattern, so what's not to believe in? If you believe in God, isn't science just another way for God to give you information about your world? Dame Calla

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 12:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 The idea presented reminds me of this quote; "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Stuart Chase And Blaise Pascal's Wager that went something like......the person who believes in god has nothing to lose where he does not exist but the person who does not believe in god has much to lose where he exists. So simple yet so telling. In terms of your comment - 'for those who don't believe no proof is possible' - not at all. Were god to knock on my front door tomorrow then I'd believe - I'd probably tell him to fuck off as I'm quite happy going along my merry way without his help but I'd believe. It really isn't good enough to say that because you can't disprove the existence of a god then it follows that the idea of a god is an equally logical argument. quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I do not understand, or know how, to believe without proof. I'm quite happy to go along with the probable.

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 2:46:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero There is a distinct difference between the experiences someone has and, consequently, their interpretations of those events. The fact that humans are capable of fooling themselves into interpreting a certain result from an experience doesn't necessarily makes them delusional. I am not expecting people to come to the same conclusion I have, especially without the experience, but when it is continually suggested that I’m just imagining it, even after considering the possibility of mind trickery, and I keep saying it isn’t the same thing; I’m pretty sure that equals divisional. Kim

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 2:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig It might be helpful to us if you did more than make vague confused references to unnamed experiences that have led you to your position. Yes. Admittedly, my biggest frustration is with myself; for not being able to devise a feasible way to share those experiences, at least that of the images I can see on the map. Though I am seriously considering using tracing paper to copy them from my monitor; at least that way, people will have some idea as to what I am saying, when the try to see it themselves. It could work…. I have shared the story of the other ‘major’ experience here, before, but because it is one of those ‘you had to be there moments’, all I have to share of that experience is the story of the event, and the drawing I made up in “Microsoft Paint”. I’m not against sharing that ‘drawing’, but it would still be my word against other’s lack of experience. The upside to that would be, at least then I am being accused of being a liar, opposed to the alternative. The problem with sharing it here, on the boards, is that I only have the knowledge to share it through e-mail, to one person at a time. Kim

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/4/2009 3:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I'm quite happy to go along with the probable. This is a perspective I can relate to. Side note; If you were to find, after having 'him' knock on your door that the "one true God" was life itself, would you still tell him to fuck off? I am inclinde to believe, the real implication, when using any form of the word fuck; is some variation of 'to forget'. I could be wrong. Kim

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 3:38:12 AM)
This is a great thread, lots of sharp thinking. Out there, in the world, there's a lot of odd ideas about science, what it is, what its domains are, how its done & what those findings 'mean' . . . . . . The posters in this thread have done a good job of bringing up many pertinent & fascinating bits .. . .. Here's my contribution: The domain of science is the observable, the measurable, the quantifiable. If it (whatever it might be) cannot be measured & quantified, the tools of science are of little use . . . . . . & science is the competition of ideas, with 'best' being defined as that which is consistently replicatable & robustly predictive . . . . . It's not possible to prove nonexistence, of whatever kind. In fact, it's not technically possible to prove anything. Science is falsifiable: this is the short-hand expression for the fact that theories are 'proven' thru not being disproven, or falsified. Example: the theory of gravity has never been proven, it's just the best ongoing explanation which has not been disproven over hundreds of years of testing by thousands of persons using many different methods of testing. If someone comes up with a better explanation, science will incorporate the new theory, as that better explanation's power & accuracy are demonstrated in the data generated thru testing it's hypotheses . .. . . . & because the basic method of science is to falsify, or disprove, a hypothesis, science can be properly viewed as a history of failures, that scientist practice at 'proving things wrong' . . . . . & thus pointing out the errors of science is easily perceivable as disingenuous, naive, ignorant of scientific methodology & history, etc etc . . . . . I love science, I trained as a scientist (a few classes short of a bachelors in statistics), & I consider myself to be a deeply spiritual atheist, as bizarre & contradictory as that might sound. I believe in atoms & quarks & quasars & supernovas & galaxies & black holes, & I'm extremely skeptical that there exists anything other than that which is ultimately perceivable. I'm also skeptical that we humans are anywhere close to knowing very much about the universe or the 'true nature of reality', whatever that might be . . . . . . Where other people use the concept of a 'god' I use 'the universe'; my 'bible' is a book of Hubble images of the universe. (I particularly love & am inspired by what are called 'deep field' images . . . . ) & there is plenty of room for 'belief' in the practice of science, competing ideas that are unresolved have their respective believers . . . . . . Belief, to me, seems to be a structure of human perception, part of how the mind works . .. . . . . One of the tools we come equipped with, so to speak . . . . .. I believe that either/or dichotomization is an innate tendency of our bicameral brains, & is an artifact of the observational instrument of our consciousness, far more than dichotomy being some particular quality of the 'true nature of reality', whatever that might be .. . .. & thus I don't believe in distinctions such as spirit vs matter -- no way to know what 'is', that we can 'see' yet. We may still be relative 'cave people' ignorant of the 'radio & microwaves' around us . . . . . . . Make that, probably are . . . . . I refer back to Saint Clarke, the Arthur C.: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If there is more than meets our eyes, it is 'God-the-Great-Magician-&-Ultimate-Technician', the 'unity' which transcends & unifies it all; clearly existing on a scale way way beyond the physical & temporal distance between a person & a mayfly, or a person & a microbe . . . .. lol . . . . . . To some degree, in my eyes, it's like some fundamentalists (of whatever religion) have a god-the-moron in their minds, one who has to manifest universe without using any of the basic principles that are ostensibly built into the structure of this deific creation . ... . In reaction, I tend to picture an anthropomorphic 'God' standing there going, yeah, I built it. & I used 'evolution' to do it, just like I use physics & mathematics & gravity & the periodic table & all the other tools in my kit. Duh. Okay. One last thought about 'believing in science' . . . . . A daily demonstration of the 'faith' that persons place in science can be seen in the widespread reliance upon the effectiveness of the brake assemblies in the hundreds or thousands of cars one coexists with . . . . . All those brake pedals reliably performing dozens or hundreds of times every day, 24/365, year after year, with failure rates so low most people never give it much thought at all . . . . . & that extremely low failure rate is the product of the scientific process. Quality control managers in factories design the sampling systems that decide how many parts to pull off the assembly line, how often, to test for product quality . . . . . Um, statisticians are preferred for those jobs -- it's one of the careers I was being groomed for in my academic life, lol. So, when people say stuff about not believing in science & then climb into a car & drive off, I tend to be unimpressed . . .. . . Must . . . finish . . . with . . . fabulous . . . Asimov . . . quote: There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere. - Isaac Asimov

Arpig -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 8:33:34 AM)
You know, while out having a smoke, thinking about Kia's post (yeah, I do a lot of deep thinking while out there puffing away) I came up with the following: It seems to me that science is likely the best argument for the existance of a divine creator there is. The deeper the scientists delve into the secrets of existence, the more wonderful and complex designs they uncover. The sheer beauty and amazing complexity of the systems they have revealed is reason to assume a vast and overwhelming intelligence behind the design. Surely something as amazingly complex and perfectly crafted could not have occured by chance. So in response to the OP, I would say that no, science is not incompatible with belief, rather I would say that science confirms belief in general. It does however tend to poke holes in any given particular belief system at any given time. Just as each new discovery or advance in the field of science causes, or should cause, all other scientists to rexamine their present theories and assumptions in order to see if the new information/idea requires, or allows, any changes in their hypotheses, so it should be with belief systems. As science reveals more and more about nature, a be;liever should examine their beliefs and add or subtract accordingly.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 8:55:38 AM)
quote: Surely something as amazingly complex and perfectly crafted could not have occured by chance. So in response to the OP, I would say that no, science is not incompatible with belief, rather I would say that science confirms belief in general. Belief, by its nature, is ascribing truth to something not demonstrable. People then tend to "find" "evidence" that confirms that belief. However, it remains a matter of belief, something not demonstrable, something remaining unproven, a speculation.

kdsub -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 12:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig You know, while out having a smoke, thinking about Kia's post (yeah, I do a lot of deep thinking while out there puffing away) I came up with the following: It seems to me that science is likely the best argument for the existance of a divine creator there is. The deeper the scientists delve into the secrets of existence, the more wonderful and complex designs they uncover. The sheer beauty and amazing complexity of the systems they have revealed is reason to assume a vast and overwhelming intelligence behind the design. Surely something as amazingly complex and perfectly crafted could not have occured by chance. So in response to the OP, I would say that no, science is not incompatible with belief, rather I would say that science confirms belief in general. It does however tend to poke holes in any given particular belief system at any given time. Just as each new discovery or advance in the field of science causes, or should cause, all other scientists to rexamine their present theories and assumptions in order to see if the new information/idea requires, or allows, any changes in their hypotheses, so it should be with belief systems. As science reveals more and more about nature, a be;liever should examine their beliefs and add or subtract accordingly. I agree ...that is why I often refer to God as the source. My big debate with myself is not the existence of a source or God…but whether that God is a personal God that hears my prayers or an impersonal creator. Is he the original creator or one in a long line of creators? If he were a personal God, which I hope, then how would he describe his existence to people 2,000 years ago or even today? Would he be beyond their comprehension? Or would he use words and examples of the day to guide their actions. Would he want to interfere with life or let it evolve as is natural? Only giving necessary direction to prevent self-destruction. An impersonal God may have been a creator and seeding the universe with life in his image. If this is the case it may explain why he does not directly interfere in our lives. There are many possibilities for a Source and they make sense to me...at least they make more sense than a sterile something from nothing happenstance of random creation. Butch

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875