Page 3 of 7 [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Trigger11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,137
Location: Hidden Leaf Village

28 Nov 2007, 2:29 pm

...believing something without any credible reason or proof that it is true/exists.


_________________
I won?t tell anyone else how to be
You can be yourself, but just let me be me


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 2:48 pm

dorkynorky wrote:
- I had not hoped to belittle those who find a rational world view as being free of faith

Even though nobody can ever truly accept pure rationalism because the brain is not and was not designed to be purely rational.
Quote:
- I had hoped to actually construct a sort of 'logic' that would help individuals better understand others who believe differently, no matter what that belief was

Everyone has premises, some are fulfilled differently than others. What logic is necessary more so than methodological individualism in the analysis of human action combined with subjective assessments of value?

Trigger11 wrote:
...believing something without any credible reason or proof that it is true/exists.

Actually that really gets me thinking on the philosophies represented here. I think my opponents are at their core logical positivists and I am arguing that the verifiability criterion of truth is itself not verifiable and that this reveals a logical inconsistency. I mean, how can we establish credibility or proof without infinite regress? What makes the credible reasons or proofs credible? The regression *must* end up being infinite if one takes a consistently logical position from my view at least.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Nov 2007, 3:04 pm

i totally get the diet faith experience. I have it, that faith. But it is still connected to reality.
I like the way you say, Monty, that believing in , having faith in, god/religious principles is stepping into a very diffferent abstract world. Perhaps that is the charm, of not having to be responsible about what believe in. Of not having any way to measure the "rightness" of ones faith. But as you say the problem is when the concepts involve quite clearly oppressive ideas. Then there's a problem, cos having faith in the rightness of something which justifies oppressing others in what is now considered natural human behaviour is deeply dodgy. Then there has to be an overhaul. Like in 35 AD. Like in 600 AD the Muslims might therefore argue, and do, saying their version is more recent and therefore more correct. And so on with Mormons etc. And the hundreds of prophets who have been and gone in the last 100 years to supposedly start new church.
Till fall into crumbs of updates, like a work manual , which has to be thrown out and redone completely.

In meantime faith like you say can't afford to be blind cos might end up supporting truly unacceptable attitudes and actions.
Faith is maybe just what you stick bits of knowledge together with when the knowledge is missing. And that's all, nothing more.
But maybe humans aren't "happy" when SEEM to have almost all "the knowledge", like travellers who say there is nowhere new to go anymore. No more great open spaces of unknown. Even space has been colonised by scientists.
WHAT is the main realm in which use lots of faith to stick together knowledge now? I'm curious.

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 28 Nov 2007, 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Postperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2004
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,023
Location: Uz

28 Nov 2007, 3:34 pm

"WHAT is the main realm in which use lots of faith to stick together knowledge now? I'm curious."

This doesn't scan very well, I'm not sure what you mean, do you want to re-phrase it?



dorkynorky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 450

28 Nov 2007, 3:59 pm

Awesomelyglorius (wow what a username, sometime I'd like to hear the story of that)

You've got a great way with words

Quote:
Actually that really gets me thinking on the philosophies represented here. I think my opponents are at their core logical positivists and I am arguing that the verifiability criterion of truth is itself not verifiable and that this reveals a logical inconsistency. I mean, how can we establish credibility or proof without infinite regress? What makes the credible reasons or proofs credible? The regression *must* end up being infinite if one takes a consistently logical position from my view at least.


You've obviously got the philosophy degree that my Ph.D didn't include. I just feel like writing down Schroedinger's equation for everything thats been said in the thread and solving it. Unfortunately, like most of life's real problems, coming up with the proper Hamiltonian is the real bummer.

Basically, as I'm reading it, you're saying something akin to what I started out this thread with that every one has to have faith (if it is properly defined) and that faith takes over from one's initial premise whether that be natural law (determinism, science), individual conception (free wil, experience), society (politics, ethics,?) or theism (God). Pehaps you're also saying that faith is involved in the initial premise. Its only natural for individuals to feel that certain paths are more supportable based on the premise they have choosen and the consequences of faith in that premise.

Amen to these things from a philosophical sense. I guess on a practical level, I want to support the idea that there are some things that can be 'proven' and other things that involve 'faith' and that most of the arguements that occur at the practical level actually arise from people defending their base premises (or faiths) which by their very nature feel like they are the defined core of our beings.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Nov 2007, 4:38 pm

Postperson wrote:
"WHAT is the main realm in which use lots of faith to stick together knowledge now? I'm curious."
This doesn't scan very well, I'm not sure what you mean, do you want to re-phrase it?

Sorry, you're right. I mean " in what area/realm of life/understanding/experience is faith currently being used in abundance to connect up/fill in for seriously incomplete knowledge ?" What important area of life is most unexplained but being handled through faith right now? :?: I'm still curious! :lol:

Is that clearer?
8)



Last edited by ouinon on 28 Nov 2007, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 4:52 pm

ouinon wrote:
Perhaps that is the charm, of not having to be responsible about what believe in. Of not having any way to measure the "rightness" of ones faith.

But, where can this responsibility come from? What measure of rightness is even possible? You assert that I am wrong, not because my logic is inconsistent but rather because you don't like the conclusions because they derive themselves from different premises and are explicit in doing so. I mean, my argument is that nobody is responsible and no rightness can be measured.
Quote:
But as you say the problem is when the concepts involve quite clearly oppressive ideas. Then there's a problem, cos having faith in the rightness of something which justifies oppressing others in what is now considered natural human behaviour is deeply dodgy.

Where do I say there is a problem with clearly oppressive ideas? How can we objective define oppressive? I merely argue against logical consistency.

Quote:
In meantime faith like you say can't afford to be blind cos might end up supporting truly unacceptable attitudes and actions.

I argue that all faith is blind but arrogant enough to call it sighted.

Quote:
But maybe humans aren't "happy" when SEEM to have almost all "the knowledge", like travellers who say there is nowhere new to go anymore. No more great open spaces of unknown. Even space has been colonised by scientists.

But knowledge clearly makes us happier. If it did not satisfy our ends then why would we seek it and cling to it even if we recognize its unverifiability?
Quote:
WHAT is the main realm in which use lots of faith to stick together knowledge now? I'm curious.

Life. How do we distinguish? I mean, I argue a pervasive faith and inability to truly know.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 4:53 pm

dorkynorky wrote:
Awesomelyglorius (wow what a username, sometime I'd like to hear the story of that)

Yeah, I figured that I might as well just have a name like that.
Quote:
You've obviously got the philosophy degree that my Ph.D didn't include.

Actually, I study economics more so than philosophy. My interest in politics, particularly libertarian and anarchist political thought, and Christian thought is where some of the philosophicalness can come in. Some heterodox economics will include some philosophy to it, and I do enjoy some Austrian school economics reading so that probably is also part of it.
Quote:
Basically, as I'm reading it, you're saying something akin to what I started out this thread with that every one has to have faith

Pehaps you're also saying that faith is involved in the initial premise. Its only natural for individuals to feel that certain paths are more supportable based on the premise they have choosen and the consequences of faith in that premise.

Well, I focus more on the initial premises than in the following through the initial premise. I mean, I look a little at how consistent we are with the premise that we explicitly choose I suppose in my statement that man is not designed to be rational. We say we are truth seekers but have confirmation biases. We say we seek good but our actions confirm our evil. Really though, I look at how the initial premise is necessary but cannot see anything.

Quote:
Amen to these things from a philosophical sense. I guess on a practical level, I want to support the idea that there are some things that can be 'proven' and other things that involve 'faith' and that most of the arguements that occur at the practical level actually arise from people defending their base premises (or faiths) which by their very nature feel like they are the defined core of our beings.

Well, everyone wants certainty and assurance. The fact is that our experiences can make this blend more difficult. We can experience things that nobody would accept except those who have done the same. The arguments at the practical level are what you claim them to be, at least from my perspective.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

28 Nov 2007, 5:06 pm

Awesomely glorious, i didn't assert anything about you or what you said. I don't know why you think i did.
:?
ah, because my post appeared just after yours! Actually i was still responding to Montys post, sorry :oops: ! ! The fact that none of my remarks make sense in reference to YOUR post might have suggested that ! !
I have added Montys name to my reply to clear that up ! !
You can edit your post to take that into account if like! :)

8)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 5:13 pm

ouinon wrote:
Awesomely glorious, i didn't assert anything about you or what you said. I don't know why you think i did.
:?
ah, because my post appeared just after yours! Actually i was still responding to Montys post, sorry :oops: ! ! The fact that none of my remarks make sense in reference to YOUR post might have suggested that ! !
I have added Montys name to my reply to clear that up ! !
You can edit your post to take that into account if like! :)

8)

Meh, I am too lazy to attempt to edit.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

28 Nov 2007, 5:28 pm

For the purposes of discussion I like to distinguish between belief and faith. People here seem to be using the two interchangeably but I think belief is the more general term. Also people don’t really have a good understanding of what proof is. Proof isn’t the assertion that something exists (metaphysically speaking). Proof is only the assertion that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. It doesn’t make any claims about whether the premises are true.

As for the difference between scientific belief and religious belief, I don’t think it makes any sense to argue that one can be “proven” wile the other cannot since they don’t even share the same premises. I think this is the point AG has been arguing and I can agree here. However, I don’t think this makes them equal. The crux of the matter is that one is based primarily on evidence while the other is based primarily on a psychological need to cover uncertainties that are uncomfortable to us. With religion there are major psychological consequences for doubt, so religious beliefs resist change even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is not true, at least not nearly to the same degree, with science.

I guess it is human nature to believe things because we want them to be true and religion is the manifestation of this. It baffles me how some people decide to change religions on a whim. To me changing my beliefs is equivalent to changing reality. It seems absurd to me to think that I can change reality by changing my beliefs. This is why, outside divine intervention, I’m positive that I will never become a Christian or join any other religion again. The whole idea of “choosing” beliefs is just alien to me. The only reason I was ever Christian was that I was told that it was true by adults from a very young age.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 5:42 pm

marshall wrote:
For the purposes of discussion I like to distinguish between belief and faith. People here seem to be using the two interchangeably but I think belief is the more general term. Also people don’t really have a good understanding of what proof is. Proof isn’t the assertion that something exists (metaphysically speaking). Proof is only the assertion that a conclusion follows from a set of premises. It doesn’t make any claims about whether the premises are true.

The 2 are being used interchangeably because beliefs are taken on faith, perhaps a more mild variant of faith but still the same. Proof is the evidence that something is true.
proof (proof)n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Your definition can work given that we are dealing with the most basic premises this means that we cannot prove these premises as there is no longer a premise backing them up and ultimately that their truth value is unknown.


Quote:
As for the difference between scientific belief and religious belief, I don’t think it makes any sense to argue that one can be “proven” wile the other cannot since they don’t even share the same premises. I think this is the point AG has been arguing and I can agree here.

Correct.
Quote:
However, I don’t think this makes them equal. The crux of the matter is that one is based primarily on evidence while the other is based primarily on a psychological need to cover uncertainties that are uncomfortable to us. With religion there are major psychological consequences for doubt, so religious beliefs resist change even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is not true, at least not nearly to the same degree, with science.

The issue still ends up being what constitutes evidence though. If one is a fideist religionist, then there is no concept of evidence that can disprove the religious premise. Ultimately though, I argue that both are equal because there is no meta-epistemology, thus meaning that anything can be accepted as true with equal validity because the number of premises that can be used to prove something *must* stop somewhere.
Quote:
I guess it is human nature to believe things because we want them to be true and religion is the manifestation of this. It baffles me how some people decide to change religions on a whim. To me changing my beliefs is equivalent to changing reality. It seems absurd to me to think that I can change reality by changing my beliefs. This is why, outside divine intervention, I’m positive that I will never become a Christian or join any other religion again. The whole idea of “choosing” beliefs is just alien to me. The only reason I was ever Christian was that I was told that it was true by adults from a very young age.

Everything is a manifestation of our nature to believe things and want them to be true. I don't know where I stop seeing this bias in our processing. Certainly in politics, philosophy and religion though... I can understand your position though, you are confident enough in your beliefs that in your mind, your beliefs are reality, which is an easy thing to believe. I'd say that most people believe that on some level but less explicitly.



dorkynorky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 450

28 Nov 2007, 6:24 pm

Marshall

Thanks for your post. I've got a question to make sure that I follow it properly. You say (concerning scientific belief and religious belief) that

Quote:
The crux of the matter is that one is based primarily on evidence while the other is based primarily on a psychological need to cover uncertainties that are uncomfortable to us.


So based on your previous discussion I am assuming that you are saying that the premises for scientific belief are evidence while those for religious belief are a psychological need ... . I guess I've not got this straight because this doesn't seem to be a premise but instead perhaps a possible explanation for the existence of religious beliefs.

This seems to be a fairly cynical view of the premise or reason for belief in God (which at this point I would hold as being seperate from 'religious beliefs' only because so many people have a negative connotation for the word 'religious'). In your estimation, is there no more positive way to understand religious belief?

You also said

Quote:
With religion there are major psychological consequences for doubt


I agree that many religions and religious institutions present this idea, particularly those with a more static view of God (whoever they think that is). However, there are religions (including individuals within major faiths) who view God in a more dynamic fashion. I think that perhaps with this view one doesn't find oneself in a position to experience "major psychological consequences for doubt."

What do you think? Do my statements contain any validity?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

28 Nov 2007, 6:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Your definition can work given that we are dealing with the most basic premises this means that we cannot prove these premises as there is no longer a premise backing them up and ultimately that their truth value is unknown.


We can’t prove premises because by definition they are assumed. Though they can be assumed based on experience and evidence or they can be assumed because there is a psychological desire to assume them.

Quote:
The issue still ends up being what constitutes evidence though. If one is a fideist religionist, then there is no concept of evidence that can disprove the religious premise. Ultimately though, I argue that both are equal because there is no meta-epistemology, thus meaning that anything can be accepted as true with equal validity because the number of premises that can be used to prove something *must* stop somewhere.


Well that has nothing to do with my argument. I already said there is no way to prove one over the other. What I am arguing is that the motivation is different. Religion is less adaptive than science. This is because there is a psychological consequence for doubting a religion. In my mind this makes religion more biased than science. I’m not saying science is totally unbiased so don’t try to argue that. I just say religion is more biased because it has a stronger psychological motivation for belief.

Quote:
I can understand your position though, you are confident enough in your beliefs that in your mind, your beliefs are reality, which is an easy thing to believe. I'd say that most people believe that on some level but less explicitly.


You completely misunderstood me. What makes you think I have confidence? All I have is doubt and uncertainty. I don’t get how Christians think they can put the burden on nonbelievers to justify their non-belief. Do you realize how arbitrary the Christian belief looks from the perspective of unbelief? Why shouldn’t I choose a different religion, or better yet just make up my own?

So you are saying non-belief is a bias? Can you tell me what reasons I would have to prefer atheism/agnosticism over Christianity. I have to live with the fact that I have no guarantee what happens after I die. I also have no guarantee that life is fair or just. I have no god to tell me “it will all work out in the end” or “there is a reason for everything”. I have no guarantee that there is a reason for anything. These are not pleasant thoughts for me. It would be so much easier if I could just snap my fingers and become Christian again. But I can’t because that is absurd to me. Sorry you can’t understand that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Nov 2007, 7:14 pm

marshall wrote:
We can’t prove premises because by definition they are assumed. Though they can be assumed based on experience and evidence or they can be assumed because there is a psychological desire to assume them.

Right, which means that we cannot find truth because all logic demands premises and we can't know the true premise for understanding things.... unless you would like to argue that there is no truth, period?

Quote:
Well that has nothing to do with my argument. I already said there is no way to prove one over the other. What I am arguing is that the motivation is different. Religion is less adaptive than science. This is because there is a psychological consequence for doubting a religion. In my mind this makes religion more biased than science. I’m not saying science is totally unbiased so don’t try to argue that. I just say religion is more biased because it has a stronger psychological motivation for belief.

So? What does motivation have to do with anything? How can we even posit bias when the measure is the method? I just don't follow your point having anything to do with anything.

Quote:
You completely misunderstood me. What makes you think I have confidence? All I have is doubt and uncertainty. I don’t get how Christians think they can put the burden on nonbelievers to justify their non-belief. Do you realize how arbitrary the Christian belief looks from the perspective of unbelief? Why shouldn’t I choose a different religion, or better yet just make up my own?

Apparently I did. I took your meaning as pretty literal as how I interpreted it, in fact, I am still confused as to how you are claiming a lack of confidence but absolute assurance of constancy. I don't know what you are trying to argue here either. I did not say anything about burden either. This just seems like a weird tangent from something I don't know how to interpret differently because you did not state anything about complete agnosticism but also stated a belief in a constancy of belief, which can easily be interpreted as thinking one has the right belief. I am confused.
Quote:
So you are saying non-belief is a bias? Can you tell me what reasons I would have to prefer atheism/agnosticism over Christianity. I have to live with the fact that I have no guarantee what happens after I die. I also have no guarantee that life is fair or just. I have no god to tell me “it will all work out in the end” or “there is a reason for everything”. I have no guarantee that there is a reason for anything. These are not pleasant thoughts for me. It would be so much easier if I could just snap my fingers and become Christian again. But I can’t because that is absurd to me. Sorry you can’t understand that.

Hunh? I did not say anything about bias. Bias only exists within premised systems if one catches semi-explicit deviation from those premises. Well, your reason would be your premises, which can be varied. Ok. I don't know what efforts you have taken to establish different basic premises so I can't say anything. I really don't have enough information to understand or not understand.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

28 Nov 2007, 7:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

snake321 wrote:
What is faith? Faith is evil by design, for in order to have faith means that you follow someone or something blindly, with no evidence and often times even no common since to back it up, and then become emotionally attached to this concept. It is for this reason faith is the bane of all ignorance.
Faith is not JUST in religion, it can come in other forms as well. Faith in corrupt leaders, faith in flawed ideologies, faith in "social norms" (ie blind conformity, which all faith leads to anyways).
To have faith means to accept something as a fact with no evidence and sometimes no common since to validate it. It is a word that enslaves minds.

I still side with Einstein that common sense is merely a collection of biases. Do we really have evidence otherwise? Not only that, but what constitutes evidence? Do we have evidence that our criterion for evidence qualifies as proper evidence or are we going to justify logic with empiricism and empiricism with logic thus creating a wonderful circular argument that we do not examine logically? Faith does enslave minds, but can we escape faith or are we its terminal slaves? Nothing can truly be known, but we arrogantly always act as if we have knowledge and that is the human condition.


Well if you go by it that way then nothing ever counts as evidence, therefore humans are f****d because we can't gain knowledge. I think there is a such thing as over-analyzing (mind you this is coming from me, a highly almost computerized analytical thinker). People over-analyze in order to defend their position in an argument in order to side-step the obvious, while under-analyzing anything too "out there" from what they consider "normal". Normal to most people is what they are indoctrinated to see as normal.
I'm a huge fan of Einstein, but I do not remember him ever saying common since was a collection of biases, what I do remember him saying was that the individual personality is a collection of biases and prejudices developed by the age of 18. I think he primarily had westerners in mind when he made this statement, as Einstein was always critical of the "we are shaved apes" crutch of western society.
Point blank evidence is evidence when you have to go the long way from the elbow to the as*hole to develope a theory to disprove it. The apple was red, visually you can see it is red, but if you unnecessarily over-analyze it I'm sure you could make a case to say it is blue. I do not care that red and blue are "human inventions", it does not change the fact that whatever language you wanna use to name the color, we still see it as a red apple, or the apple being the color we have designated as "red", or "rojo" or red in any other language.



Last edited by snake321 on 28 Nov 2007, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.