RE: Is belief......?

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

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

Message

kdsub -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 12:27:07 PM)
Would it make a difference if life did originate by random happenstance in a different time and universe beyond our comprehension. Perhaps we will find our universe is only one of a long line of creation followed by destruction. And this original life form may be spreading life through this present universe and will in future ones. No less a force of nature than any science has discovered. It would make no difference to me..he would still be the source or God. Butch

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 12:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. No, it isnt. This is merely the watchmaker argument which has been shown to be a logical fallacy on several levels. Surely something as amazingly complex and perfectly crafted could not have occured by chance. the statement is untrue on its face, given enough time anything that doesnt violate the laws of physics can occur by chance. However, the complexity of the world has not occurred by chance, it has occurred in a universe governed by those laws of physics, vastly speeding up what would be implied by a random process. This argument has been thoroughly refuted in discussions of creationism vs evolution, and applies just as well to the "evolution" of the universe.

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 2:42:31 PM)
I had to go look up the dictionary definition of 'belief' after reading the quoted text, below: belief noun 1 an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists : his belief in God \| a belief that solitude nourishes creativity. • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction : c.ontrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language \| we're prepared to fight for our beliefs. See note at opinion . • a religious conviction : Christian beliefs \| I'm afraid to say belief has gone \| local beliefs and customs. 2 ( belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something : a belief in democratic politics \| I've still got belief in myself. Thus it is a valid construct to say "I believe in science", etc, etc . . . . . . quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 2:59:34 PM)
Hi Kia, You are examining the wrong term--look instead at "a matter of belief." For example, fact (as opposed to opinion, just to simplify this, but belief works similarly), is not the same as "a matter of fact." If I claim Abraham Lincoln was President, that's both a fact and a matter of a fact--a matter of fact because the truth or falsity of the claim can be established. That you weigh 600 lbs. is also a matter of fact, again because the truth or falsity of the claim can be established (false in this case, I trust). Whomever we assign to weigh you will get the same result, regardless of opinion. I can't fairly say "Well, in my opinion, you still weigh 600 lbs." Whether Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi tastes better is a matter of opinion. Even if we run a trial and 5 billion people prefer Diet Coke, you may still prefer Diet Pepsi. It's a matter of opinion. You're entitled fairly to prefer the Pepsi with no logical repercussions. And yes, we'd also have established in this extreme study whether a majority of people prefer Diet Coke, and is a matter of fact, which we would have established as fact. Science is not a matter of belief. It's a process. That process exists. People use it. It makes observations, tests them, and can then be reliably used to predict outcomes. At that point, these are matters of fact, not matters of belief, whatever you may believe.

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:18:44 PM)
Thank you, Arpig, glad to have provided you with material for rumination . . . . & after I'd ruminated on your post I thought about sharing this: One of the ways I metaphorize Science is as a 'pair of spectacles' 'humanity' 'wears', tools for expanding & refining our observational instrument (the sum of our capacities to take in & contemplate data) . . . . . For instance, in astronomy we acquire better & better 'lenses' for looking at the great universe out there; so far, there are some basic trends -- the better the 'lens' the further out we see, & the older the universe gets in our theories . . . . Since we've only just begun putting 'lenses' outside of the interference of Earth's atmosphere, weather, et alia, we're still at the beginning of exploring the data collected in that manner, relative to human & scientific history . ... . . I tend to think of those Hubble images as 'snapshots' of 'cells' & 'molecules' & 'atoms' in the 'mind & body of "god"', while contemplating the notion that if there is deity it exists on a scale that may render it imperceptible to ephemerals . . . . . . shrugs . . . . Fun stuff . . . . . [:D] 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.

Arpig -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:31:18 PM)
quote: Thank you, Arpig, glad to have provided you with material for rumination . . . . You are most welcome. By the way, your pic is adorable, I think that every time I see one of your posts and just thought I would let you know [:)]

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:41:02 PM)
Howdy, Musicmystery, As I said in my first post in this thread: "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 . . . . .." Which is my belief about belief, just as your belief about belief is your belief. I was throwing out the dictionary definition to point out the agreed upon basic understandings of the word. & as someone trained in stat I have a particular sensitivity to the 'reality' that much of the interpretation of data is quite a bit more fuzzy than the hard & sharp distinctions you used in illustrating your point. I would point to the competing ideas in physics in the pursuit of a 'unified theory of everything'; for instance, it is accurate to describe physicists & etc pursuing string-theory based ideas as 'believers in string theory' because the evidence is still out, it is an undetermined question at this point in time . . . . . Absolutism itself is a tool, as is simplification, but because a simple problem of absolutes can be constructed does not mean that what we know scientifically is absolute . . . . . . There's another marvelous quote by Asimov that applies here: "The sad thing for us rationalists is that the vast majority of the human race would rather be told that, "Two and two is five and make no mistake about it," than "I think it is possible that two and two may be four."" From "The Stars In Their Courses" by Isaac Asimov, page 12. In my opinion, you're posting can be read as, you believe that your restrictive case use of 'belief' should apply to the arguments of others' use of 'belief'. & in my opinion, that's your belief.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:45:56 PM)
However, it's not a matter of opinion. One could "believe" the Earth is flat, for example, but it won't lie down, because it's spherical condition is not a matter of belief. It's round. Check it out. Well established, and can be duplicated. Not flat. Doesn't help to say "Well, to ME, it's flat." To use belief as liberally as you are here, all reality would be subjective, hence, no real reality. And if that's the case, then discussing it is futile, because whatever anyone believes would be correct. I don't believe that's true, or we wouldn't be here disagreeing over it.

Arpig -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:48:13 PM)
quote: To use belief as liberally as you are here, all reality would be subjective, hence, no real reality. And if that's the case, then discussing it is futile, because whatever anyone believes would be correct. According to at least one long established philosophy, not only is all reality subjective, it is all illusion.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: To use belief as liberally as you are here, all reality would be subjective, hence, no real reality. And if that's the case, then discussing it is futile, because whatever anyone believes would be correct. According to at least one long established philosophy, not only is all reality subjective, it is all illusion. One long HELD philosophy, Arpig, not ESTABLISHED. A belief.

Arpig -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 4:59:28 PM)
Ai! you really are into argueing semantics these days eh? I used the word established in the sense that it was not something new or the teachings of some fringe cult, but rather that it was widely accepted and recognised. And yes it is a belief system, I will not argue that. I merely wanted to point out that the idea of reality being subjective is not necessarily a crackpot view. If it will help this discussion to move forward, then I will readily amend my statement to read "held" rather than "established" in order to avoid both any misunderstanding, and any further nitpicking over the choice of words.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 5:02:10 PM)
Fair enough, Arpig. Thanks. The point wasn't to nitpick though, as the distinction matters in a belief vs. objectively true discussion. A philosophy presents its argument, sure, but is not observable/testable in the scientific sense. That's why, for example, Intelligent Design deserves no place in a science class, but absolutely deserves discussion in philosophy class.

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 5:08:40 PM)
I'm not sure what effect you're looking to produce, but I definitely get the sense, from your postings, above, that for you 'belief' is a 'bad word', & most of my argumentation is around the idea of a more neutral usage as acceptable & appropriate . . . . . . I take issue with the 'linguistic dictatorialism' I hear going on in your argument, the implication that using the word 'belief' automatically invalidates the 'scientificness' of the ideas being exchanged . . . . . . If you'd like to argue with the ideas that I believe in, that's fine, too . . . . . . That is, simply saying "that's a belief" is not sufficient to invalidate an argument, tho' that's what I'm hearing in what you've posted so far. I've gone back & re-read your posts a coupla times now. I'm quite comfortable with using the word 'belief', personally, it doesn't plug my buttons . . . . . . I find I can be both a 'science-based intellect' & use the term 'belief' liberally . . . . . . & since, again returning to my first posting in this thread, science is based on falsifying hypotheses, & that no 'truths' are ever 'proven' in anything approaching an 'absolute' sense, they are simply 'not disproven' over time, the absolutism you seem to be advocating in your postings doesn't seem resonant with my understanding of how science actually operates. It's fine to disagree with my beliefs, but I have as much right to articulate & dissect my beliefs as you do to obfuscate your beliefs about 'belief' as being 'absolutely factual' . . . . . .

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 5:13:33 PM)
I have no trouble with your definition of science. I have no trouble with examination of beliefs. I have no trouble with looking both to science and belief. When science is presented AS belief, however, that's when the apples and oranges start, and when belief is presented as reason enough for conclusions, I can't agree.

kdsub -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 8:27:45 PM)
Just so long as you remember there was a time when the best minds of science believed the earth was flat...perhaps in the future we find we are in a flat lens of a dimensional universe and round is not a true reality? The truths of science are not and have never been the truths of reality… They are only true according to our present knowledge. But I do agree with you…religion should not be in our public schools…and certainly not in or in place of science. Religion should be in your church and your home and our mind and actions. Butch

Crush -> RE: Is belief......? (6/6/2009 9:50:06 PM)
Even science has a "belief" in its methods being valid. Logic, argument, deduction. Sort of like a lot of things...until we find something better, it is the model we'll agree as scientists to use. It is our nature as humans to believe in something, whether faith, science, religion, etc.

DemonKia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/7/2009 2:59:27 AM)
I've read thru these last coupla pages a coupla times & I'm not seeing where belief is being presented as sufficient reason for scientifically-based conclusions . . . . . If you would point me to the specific example you're discussing that would be helpful . . . . Tho' I'm still curious about how you view inconclusive scientific thinking (such as the string theory ideas) which has its adherents & detractors & the notion that before a scientific fact is established, some scientist has to believe the untested hypothesis to be so, or to be not so . . . . . That is, they have trust, faith, or confidence that a hypothesis is correct, or incorrect, before they test it, or before testing of the hypothesis has been widely & robustly replicated . . . . . & I've been thinking about the 'soft sciences' where there's not a lot of hard-&-fast facts to be had, & there are many different schools of thought with their various believers . . . . . . . & I just keep circling back to the idea that 'belief' is feature of the human mind to be used, a tool that is implicitly used in the promulgation of knowing of whatever kind . . .. . I believe in science because I have persuaded myself that it is the best way of knowing those things it can be applied to, I have practiced at some of it sufficient to have faith that the reports of informed others, as to the veracity of the bulk of scientific facts I'm incapable of verifying for myself, are indeed reasonably true . . .. . . . Since I cannot directly verify for myself all of scientific knowledge, to some degree I must accept the validity of whatever I do accept as valid by proxy & thru belief . . . . . . I'm really not sure how else it works for others . . . . . . quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery When science is presented AS belief, however, that's when the apples and oranges start, and when belief is presented as reason enough for conclusions, I can't agree.

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief......? (6/7/2009 3:25:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just so long as you remember there was a time when the best minds of science believed the earth was flat The 'best minds of science' weren't scientists in the modern sense of the term. Their 'science' was driven by religious doctrine and when modern scientists began to question the established wisdom e.g. Galileo Descartes etc they attracted the attention of religious enthusiasts such as the Spanish Inquisition and were forced to recant or face death. Others suppressed their books/ideas as they knew what was coming from the religious fundamentalists - I mean John Locke wrote much of his work in secret code and both him and Thomas Hobbes were hounded and had to flee abroad - these are two men whose ideas have shaped much of how we live our lives today. Of course human behaviour and institutions will continue to evolve but this doesn't negate the fact that Christian fundamentalism held Europe back for 800/900 years. The rising prosperity of Europe coincided with the advent of modern science and new ideas of human co-existence and government - which saw a move away from the divine right of kings and a life of subservience to god - and a move to government based on reasonable agreement and the right of appeal and revolution among common men.

kdsub -> RE: Is belief......? (6/7/2009 5:55:26 AM)
NorthernGent...there was science before and outside of Christianity or do you believe that only minds after Galileo were capable of objective discovery? You are vastly overestimating the control of science by Christianity. There have been many foundation truths and theories of science that have been discredited since the time of Galileo. And I may add a good portion of discoveries since Galileo were by scientists that held a belief in God. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Is belief......? (6/7/2009 6:34:20 AM)
No, he's describing the origins of science as its understood in the Western world. Since the discussion centered around methodology, he's correctly looking to things like Descartes' "Discourse on Method." To use the example given previously, hell, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round (just watch ships sailing away, the mast disappearing last). Not science as we know it--even before Aristotle! It was observation and rational explanation. Here, we might talk of belief. Once we've moved to testing, it's not mere belief that something works. It does. One of the strengths of science is that grows and expands. If later we learn more and have a better explanation, great. But the old way still works within the context of what we know. We don't "believe" it works--it does. But as folks are going to continue to use the word loosely, fine for casual use but inapplicable in a scientific context, this will again simply go in circles, other than now perhaps debating who meant what about which history. So believe it is. shrug Hey, I'm not even sure I really believe apples fall. Could just be illusion. I'm not even sure all of you exist. I'd better examine that belief.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125