100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On belief... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Another point is that we (all humans) hold certain beliefs on faith alone and it doesn't have to be religious is nature (as you know). We believe many things even IF skepticism is part of our evaluative process. We begin with a theory (belief)and evey day we proceed on that belief. >> I'm hungary, I'm going to eat << versus >> I'm not going to eat, there's no point, I'm dying anyway <<. We do have faith and thus a certain level of belief, even if we hold that skepticism is first rule of order. not so, red. at least in my case. soul doesn't lend credibility to my saying this but i've no faith in anything or anybody. i may conclude that something told to me or that i read is highly feasable based how i judge the credibility of the person and a likely explanation, but i never believe it to be fact. you say 'we begin with a theory [belief]'. a belief is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination. we begin with a postulate and from their form a hypothesis. the theory follows later when a test or tests can be conducted and shown to produce predictable and repeatable results in support of the new theory. i've posted this before: 'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.' stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. so even the best scientific theories should not be believed to be fact, proved or even provable according to hawking. sure it's passed every test of the decades or centuries but nobody knows if it will pass the next test. scientists never take anything on faith alone. they love to one up the other guy. always trying to challenge a theory using scientific methodology to see if the theory will hold up to the latest test. in science we investigate to disprove a theory knowing that any attempt to prove it would be wasted time. So sorry I made you write all that for nothing. I wrote that very quickly before leaving for work and did not proof read it. I used an inappropriate word - my bad. But thanks for trying to correct my thinking - though it was language that was wrong. I have no choice but to accept that you do not proceed in your day-to-day existence with any, faith, trust, or belief, in anything becasue I don't know you. I will say however, that I cannot imagine what kind of person, friend, or relative, you would be if others could have no 'faith', 'trust', or 'belief' that your actions/behaviors were predictable. I say that because it seems impossible for someone to place such values in person who holds none of those values himself preferring to skeptical of everything and everyone around him. To me that would be one scary dude. i didn't say i don't make judicious use of the benefit of the doubt, red. big difference in thinking that something said to me is highly plausible because of the credibility that i afford that particular person and concluding that because he/she said it it must be absolutely true. to think it absolutely true i would simply be taking everything someone tells me on faith alone. we're talking a very fine line here for the purpose of discussion. i can reach a conclusion that what someone close to me tells me is resonable without having faith that it is absolutely true. i see nothing scary about that. i simply think that truth is within each of us and only within each of us as individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 10/04/11 07:34 AM
|
|
Long story short JR equates belief with faith, and knowledge with true belief.
Ok, no problem we can work with that, just have to try to remember in future encounters hehe. Love your stories Redy! Cheers. JR would be nice if you met us half way and understood that we just break it down into smaller bits and thus use words a little differently. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long story short JR equates belief with faith, and knowledge with true belief. not so. i equate knowledge with what we experience. we can know only what we experience ourselves. true belief only exists in the believer's mind and does not 'EQUAL' faith. belief REQUIRES faith. JR would be nice if you met us half way and understood that we just break it down into smaller bits and thus use words a little differently. sure we use words differently. many say they BELIEVE that god exists based on what they've read in scripture or have been taught. this is their TRUTH. i've read those same scriptures and was taught to BELIEVE the same dogma yet it is not my truth. with hindsight i can now say that it never was my belief. it was my missplaced faith in what i read and was taught to be true. had i been told the facts, instead of this BELIEVED TRUTH, i would have been told that everything written or taught about god has been done so by ordinary men no different than me and that there is much evidence to suggest alternative explanations for such things as the beginnings of the universe and the ascension of humans and other species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that my cup is on the table. Where's the faith?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a conflation between belief and truth. I think that that is the underlying error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 10/04/11 10:29 AM
|
|
To call another's belief "their truth" begins the conflation. To believe X is to believe that X is true, however belief alone does not make it so. To speak in terms of his truth, her truth, your truth, and my truth is to confuse belief and truth by treating them equally.
Belief can be false, and truth cannot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 10/04/11 11:51 AM
|
|
I believe my chair will be able to continue to withstand my weight. This belief is based on faith, I do not come in each morning and test the chair to make sure it can continue to bear my weight. I know that it is possible for it to fail, and yet I continue to trust that it will. I have absolutely no data to back up my belief, and just becuase it has stood up previously does not mean it will continue to withstand it, which makes this belief a faith based belief. Even if I never considered this, the act of sitting confirms my belief. I would never sit on something I did not believe would hold my weight . .. bad back and all its contra to my survival.
Why do I believe this, why do I place my trust in this, why is it faith? Because it is practical to do so and that is why most of the things we believe are held to be true and many times on nothing than faith. Each morning my faith in my chair is reinforced as I sit down and do not fall to the ground under a chair that has failed to carry my weight. Is it reasonable, yes, is it rational, yes, is it faith, yes. Faith does not have to be irrational, it can be reasonable. If someone was to tell me that this model of chair has been known to fail after a certain time, or under certain weight conditions which I exceed, and has documentation to show me this, and then this data removes my faith in the chair that would be rational as well. THAT is where I feel the distinction with religion comes in, that when tested against reality and shown to lack substance, or to even be against the laws of physics, or for rules to be contradictory ect, the religious step over the rational/reasonable threshold into an area of unreasonable faith, irrational faith. So like I said, I feel like myself and creative are just breaking down these concepts into smaller pieces, and I know we both feel that we gain a clearer picture because of this reduction, becuase of this granular approach. This is not about being right or wrong, its about seeing more clearly, being able to make sense of the components of a moving system. A black and white static approach can never capture the details of a moving system with so many parts. It makes me think of the project I am helping test right now, we are working on cardiology software . . . a single picture does no good neither does a thousand still pictures, you need to see the heart beating and interacting with the rest of the chest cavity to get a clear picture of function. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well put Bushido.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I'm just curious on how your minds works Pan. Why is it that you think that every response I offer, regardless of the content, equates to 'digging deeper' or being 'lower' or some other negative connotation? I mean you speak as if this is all fait accompli. Could you clearly explain to me and any other readers how you arrive at such a conclusion? Pan: Above, you make the false assertion that my use of the term equates to putting you "lower". The negative connotation remark however, is correct when you understand the metaphor. Making a situation worse is hardly ever considered positive. I see. You think/believe that all of my responses make the situation worse, regardless of the content. Noooo, I see... Here you are again asserting what someone else thinks/believes. Just because I choose to respond to a small handfull of your posts does not at all mean that I think ALL of your posts make the situation worse. Fact of the matter is, I "think/believe" most of your posts are rather mundane and self-serving. (I'm sure you'll cry "ad-hom!", but you were the one who brought up my beliefs, I'm just pointing out the fallacies as usual) Deeper.... How do I arrive at such conclusions? Logic. Let's see... I made a claim which you asked for justification of (ridicule). The problem is that you had already justified my statements for me in your earlier post, yet you refused to "accept" the evidence or when it was accepted, denied responsibility for your actions. You're making no sense whatsoever. I cannot justify your statements for you. My admittance of past ridicule does not equate to justification nor proof for the allegation of current ridicule. I can't help it if simple things do not make sense to you. Your answers certainly justified my claims... jus·ti·fy verb, -fied, -fy·ing. verb (used with object) 1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: Besides, you are arguing form a general to a specific. I said you do ridicule, NOT you are ridiculing. Deeper... You say that your logic has no faults? You say that ridicule is NOT a logical fallacy? I've said no such thing. Really? Denial? creative said Wed 09/28/11 10:23 PM Where's the flaw in logic?  AND affirmed it Wed 09/28/11 10:50 PM You made the claim. The burden is yours. I suspect that it cannot be shouldered, because the flaw was not extant, as I've already shown. And creative totally forgot saying this Wed 09/28/11 11:53 PM Ridiculing another is not improper logic Pan. And deeper... You posted more than once that I was using ad-hominems and also hypocritical. I have not addressed anything other than what you posted, so you are holding a false belief in that case. You do address things I've not said. SEE ABOVE. I saw above and responded accordingly, so you should "see above". Are you denying talking about me personally Pan? Yes I do. Do you wanna call me a liar now? I know how you feel, it's like you said. A person takes it personally when the flaws in their logic/judgement are pointed out to them. So you say that your use of those words that could be used to ridicule does not equate to your intention of ridiculing others? Then why would you claim that my use of the same words, which were clearly labeled as examples, constitutes my attempting to ridicule you? I find that highly ironic and hypocritical. Are you not talking about me personally? Are you not attempting to ridicule me personally, Pan? See above... -- So in closing this post... It has already been established that it is possible that I am ridiculing another. NEXT. Next on the agenda should be the issues of assumptive and assertive fallacies. We can also examine the circular aspects and common practices of self-confirming bias if that sounds like fun? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe my chair will be able to continue to withstand my weight. This belief is based on faith, I do not come in each morning and test the chair to make sure it can continue to bear my weight. I know that it is possible for it to fail, and yet I continue to trust that it will. I have absolutely no data to back up my belief, and just becuase it has stood up previously does not mean it will continue to withstand it, which makes this belief a faith based belief. Even if I never considered this, the act of sitting confirms my belief. I would never sit on something I did not believe would hold my weight . .. bad back and all its contra to my survival. Why do I believe this, why do I place my trust in this, why is it faith? Because it is practical to do so and that is why most of the things we believe are held to be true and many times on nothing than faith. Each morning my faith in my chair is reinforced as I sit down and do not fall to the ground under a chair that has failed to carry my weight. Is it reasonable, yes, is it rational, yes, is it faith, yes. Faith does not have to be irrational, it can be reasonable. If someone was to tell me that this model of chair has been known to fail after a certain time, or under certain weight conditions which I exceed, and has documentation to show me this, and then this data removes my faith in the chair that would be rational as well. THAT is where I feel the distinction with religion comes in, that when tested against reality and shown to lack substance, or to even be against the laws of physics, or for rules to be contradictory ect, the religious step over the rational/reasonable threshold into an area of unreasonable faith, irrational faith. So like I said, I feel like myself and creative are just breaking down these concepts into smaller pieces, and I know we both feel that we gain a clearer picture because of this reduction, becuase of this granular approach. This is not about being right or wrong, its about seeing more clearly, being able to make sense of the components of a moving system. A black and white static approach can never capture the details of a moving system with so many parts. It makes me think of the project I am helping test right now, we are working on cardiology software . . . a single picture does no good neither does a thousand still pictures, you need to see the heart beating and interacting with the rest of the chest cavity to get a clear picture of function. WOW - Great post! Good luck with the latest project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plenty of allegation severely lacking substantive ground.
Boring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand beside every claim I've made. If those need further looked at, I'd be more than glad to. However, I'm not interested in sifting through all of that chaff looking for the wheat.
Clear concise points would be nice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, Pan, it would be perfectly acceptable to me if you were to show how my claims here constitute being fallacious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words... where's the alleged flaw(s) in logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Here... creative: Are you denying talking about me personally Pan? Yes I do. Do you wanna call me a liar now? "I find no need here, and I'm not at all disappointed to have to admit it." creative said with a bit of frankness that eerily reminded him of the beginnings of being scolded by grandpa Sully. -- Pan: I know how you feel. That is a knowledge claim regarding another's emotional affections. Pan: I "think/believe" most of your posts are rather mundane and self-serving. I'll take that as a compliment. To serve is a beautiful thing. Let us not get ridiculous with blind righteous indignation that accompanies an illusion of omniscience. To self-preserve is self-serving. Pan: I can't help it if simple things do not make sense to you. This a specious claim about the way things regarding the past, the present, and/or the future. It necessarily presupposes access regarding the inner-workings of another's mind. In other words, the believe-ability of that quote rests it's entire weight upon the laurels of faulty reasoning. I must say here that we are all prone to mistakes regarding simplicity. In other words, the claim is applicable to us all, for none are immune. Some us of are more snugly tucked into such a thing and others not so much; if I were to take a guess. Pan: And creative totally forgot saying this... This is yet another knowledge claim of another. This time total knowledge of the contents of another's memory. Pan: You won't trust anything except for your own "logic/reasoning"... Another complete knowledge claim of another??? This time another's trust. Pan: You make assertions about what people think and believe with total disregard for the other poster's thoughts and explanations. Another complete knowledge claim. This time of another's level of regard and/or respect. It is impossible for this total claim to be true. The fact in evidence clearly show that due thought has been given to refute the accusation of total disregard. Pan: It's not my fault you lack "accurate understanding"... One either lacks understanding or not. Such a claim requires access to the inner workings of another's mind, because epistemic luck doesn't count as knowledge. Pan: I assumed you speak the same language and have a rudimentary grasp of logic. < *an example for those with lack of understanding... *An example of what? Pan: Read back a page or two, of course only after you climb outta that hole you're so fond of... Pan: *me* ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ ├┤ *you* Pan: OMG I thought you had some sort of certainty of what a ladder looks like. Pan: ...and deeper.... How low can you go? Pan: I brought a shovel, to help you dig that pit... OK, let's start with "digging deeper". It's a common metaphor that is widely used. http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-of/digging-a-hole "dig a hole" verb •to continue to make a situation go from bad to worse. ex. Boy, you should just shut your mouth; you're diggin' a hole! Thanks for the help. I'm hardly tired at all. It seems like this digging thing doesn't require much effort when the digging is done by another. Pan: Then why would you claim... (fill in the blank because it matters not) ...I find that highly ironic and hypocritical. "Hypocritical" is always about another... The reader ought take note that ridiculing another does not constitute being an appeal to ridicule. The former is a personality trait and/or behavioral habit, where the latter is an argument that rests it's believe-ability upon the content of the ridicule. -- Pan: Do you care to justify your claims of me being hypocritical, using ad-homs and attempting to ridicule you? No need. The facts speak for themselves. -- Is there anything left here? Oh yeah, creative has ridiculed is not the same thing as creative is ridiculing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And deeper...
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that my cup is on the table. Where's the faith? you KNOW your cup is on the table because you EXPERIENCE seeing your cup on the table. but were you to tell me your cup is on the table i'd need faith in what you say to BELIEVE that what you say is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe my chair will be able to continue to withstand my weight. This belief is based on faith, I do not come in each morning and test the chair to make sure it can continue to bear my weight. I know that it is possible for it to fail, and yet I continue to trust that it will. I have absolutely no data to back up my belief, and just becuase it has stood up previously does not mean it will continue to withstand it, which makes this belief a faith based belief. Even if I never considered this, the act of sitting confirms my belief. I would never sit on something I did not believe would hold my weight . .. bad back and all its contra to my survival. Why do I believe this, why do I place my trust in this, why is it faith? Because it is practical to do so and that is why most of the things we believe are held to be true and many times on nothing than faith. Each morning my faith in my chair is reinforced as I sit down and do not fall to the ground under a chair that has failed to carry my weight. Is it reasonable, yes, is it rational, yes, is it faith, yes. Faith does not have to be irrational, it can be reasonable. If someone was to tell me that this model of chair has been known to fail after a certain time, or under certain weight conditions which I exceed, and has documentation to show me this, and then this data removes my faith in the chair that would be rational as well. THAT is where I feel the distinction with religion comes in, that when tested against reality and shown to lack substance, or to even be against the laws of physics, or for rules to be contradictory ect, the religious step over the rational/reasonable threshold into an area of unreasonable faith, irrational faith. So like I said, I feel like myself and creative are just breaking down these concepts into smaller pieces, and I know we both feel that we gain a clearer picture because of this reduction, becuase of this granular approach. This is not about being right or wrong, its about seeing more clearly, being able to make sense of the components of a moving system. A black and white static approach can never capture the details of a moving system with so many parts. It makes me think of the project I am helping test right now, we are working on cardiology software . . . a single picture does no good neither does a thousand still pictures, you need to see the heart beating and interacting with the rest of the chest cavity to get a clear picture of function. exactly. but you need not BELIEVE that your chair will hold your weight you can instead reach a logical CONCLUSION that it's safe to sit on the chair based on your previous experience sitting on the chair or your understanding of chair construction. nobody need BELIEVE in anything. nobody need have faith in anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of chairs, the one I am using for my computer right now could break at any time. The last chair I used was nice and seemed to work well until the back broke off. This one leans back too, and could do the same thing. Its old.
I hope it will withstand my leaning back on it. I must believe that to a certain percent because I continue to use it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or you could logically conclude, right or wrong, that you can lean back safely.
|
|
|
|
|
