Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Theism - The feel in your head

13468911

Comments

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @LadyRhian said:
    @ThacoBell said:
    » show previous quotes
    Again, what would you see as converging? If my religious history isn't way off, I think a lot of polytheistic religions have fallen by the wayside, while monotheistic ones seem to have endured better in modern times. You even see different religons arising as combinations of others. Based on what I've heard from the local community and pamphlets that have been handed out, Sikh seems to be monotheistic (At least in terms of there being an ultimate god being) , but takes elements from Christianity, Mormons, and a couple other religions.

    Well, with the exception of Aten-worship in Egypt, Mithraism...

    Here's a list of current world religions:
    http://www.humanreligions.info/religions.html

    Thanks. I doubt that's comprehensive, though.

    That would depend on how one defines comprehensive. There are many Neopagans in the world from FamTrads (Family Traditions, passed down through specific families. They you have Gardnerians, Alexandrian, Dianic and many other different flavors of Wicca, and Asatru, mentioned as a separate faith, are also actual neopagans. (Feminist Dianic Wiccans worship *only* a goddess and other Dianic Wiccans barely give a mention or thought to God/Gods, mainly because of Christianity being an all-male forces/gods religion, I think.)

    So yeah, some of the categories are groups loosely grouped together. Probably because enumerating all the groupss would be more than a little mind-numbing.

    FinneousPJThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 7,119
    edited October 2018
    I just go back to the thing I asked our parish priest when I was 10. If our religon is actually real and not a myth, then that means the rest of the world and every other religion is just a myth. But in that case, every other religion believes the same thing about us. So what possible basis do we have for thinking we're correct and everyone else is wrong?? At which point I was pretty sure deep down that EVERYONE was wrong.

    FinneousPJBelgarathMTH
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252
    edited October 2018
    ThacoBell said:

    bob_veng said:

    religions/cults need miracles to get going, and rely on miracles and ritual throughout, not on philosophical "great truths". every new religion/cult is less persuasive than the last one because their claims of miracles can ever more easily be refuted as false and silly, and therefore new religions make the old ones look bad, so they're not getting along that great.

    Only if the religion is miracle based. Any philosophy can be religious, it all depends on how much value you put on it.
    all world religions and other well known religions are miracle-based: christianity, islam, judaism (parting of the red sea), hinduism, buddhism , jainism, zoroastrianism etc.

    no miracle = no religion as such. miracles create a link between the unseen world and the material world and serve to reinforce the attitude that what is believed is real and inevitably true.

    old religions conveniently rely on the fact that their claims of miracles are very old and belong to some other time which was an implicit or explicit era of miracles. they tend to be conservative with contemporary miracles. catholic church tolerates some locally believed contemporary miracles being considered "certified", but they have a byzantine procedure for that, and it seems they try to keep it to a minimum.

    evangelists go all-out making all sorts of extreme miracle claims to attract followers (speaking in tongues, healing, misc d&d stuff...) but they open themselves up to unpleasant critique and ridicule a lot more.

    when new-agists talk about their drug induced hallucinations, and about their insights into the cosmic order of things and y'know... stuff - that's not a religion.

    when scientologists talk about their miracles (abundantly so), we're clearly talking about a religion

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @bob_veng Do you believe miracles have occurred? Are they still occurring?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    So how do "miracles create a link between the unseen world and the material world" if miracles don't exist?

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 9,470
    @FinneousPJ "Convergence would be the dying off of false ideas and prevalence of true ideas. I don't see that as happening. For example, if Jesus is part of a trinity god (or whatever), why do the Jews and Muslims in the same tradition disagree? Why do Hindus disagree about the whole abrahamic tradition? Who is correct? "
    Well, how can you tell if convergeance is happening? How do you decide what would be false, and what would be true? If you can't defninitively tell, then saying you don't see it is kinda pointless, as how would you even know?
    "That's a bad example, because Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. That's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. So what? "

    Except that all matter doesn't behave the way Newton's Laws says they should. That's why the emergence of Quantum MEchanics was so huge, it specifically contradicted the so called "universal laws". So yeah, its an apt comparison.

    "How do we tell who is correct?"

    Well, if you can't tell, how exactly do you expect find convergeance? Or how could you even reliable know that convergeance is not happening?

    "What does that mean?"

    Not all religion answer the same questions. People look for different things to hold to. For Chrisitians, its an all powerful God that seeks to save us, simply because He cares for us, its a "I can't do it alone, but my God makes all things possible." Mentality. For Buddism, it self improvement, finding enlightenment to break the cycle of reincarnation, a "With the right knowledge and discipline, I can do this." There are essentially, limitless variations.


    "Again, how do we tell who is correct?"

    Depends. If the religion makes claims that are easily contradicted by what we can see, or already know of our world, its pretty easy to tell its false. But if said contradiction doesn't exist, or is verifiable, there is no way to know.

    "Truth is objective, is it not?"

    Sure is, but how do you find it? Saying that water sometimes falls from the sky is easy to prove and is therefore true. Saying life exists after death is whole other deal.

    "Wait, how do you define religion?"

    Relgions are so varied that a specific definition will almost certainly never be enough. I like to go with, "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

    Its the most important aspect of a person's life (to them). Something that supercedes all other concerns. It could be subserivence to an all powerful god figure or figures (Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism), or it could be self improvement according to certain guidelines (Buddism, I uh, don't know any others). It could even be to something that doesn't seem religious at first glance, scientific thought and enquiry can even be seen as religious if enough importance is ascribed to it.

    "Do they have good reason to believe that, though?"

    That depends on you. Personally, I find the hope in something more beyond oursleves and what we know is good enough reason to believe. That might not be enough for you, but only each individual can decide for themselves what they think is good reason.

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252

    So how do "miracles create a link between the unseen world and the material world" if miracles don't exist?

    you're not reading it right. the unseen world, sacred things, special beings such as angels etc. all exist as belief constructs. for some people they are real.

    let me ask you a question - do you know well someone who's really religious? (prays often etc.)

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ "Convergence would be the dying off of false ideas and prevalence of true ideas. I don't see that as happening. For example, if Jesus is part of a trinity god (or whatever), why do the Jews and Muslims in the same tradition disagree? Why do Hindus disagree about the whole abrahamic tradition? Who is correct? "
    Well, how can you tell if convergeance is happening? How do you decide what would be false, and what would be true? If you can't defninitively tell, then saying you don't see it is kinda pointless, as how would you even know?

    I can tell there isn't convergence because I see numerous religions whose doctrines are contradictory.
    ThacoBell said:

    "That's a bad example, because Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. That's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. So what? "

    Except that all matter doesn't behave the way Newton's Laws says they should. That's why the emergence of Quantum MEchanics was so huge, it specifically contradicted the so called "universal laws". So yeah, its an apt comparison.

    As I said, Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. I gave an example as well, that's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. It doesn't matter. A relevant is example is that special relativity converges with Newtonian physics, which is exactly what you'd expect if both were accurately describing reality. This is nothing like religion.
    ThacoBell said:

    "How do we tell who is correct?"

    Well, if you can't tell, how exactly do you expect find convergeance? Or how could you even reliable know that convergeance is not happening?

    It's not really my problem, as I don't claim to have a religious truth. If you do, how do you tell if you're right?
    ThacoBell said:

    "Truth is objective, is it not?"

    Sure is, but how do you find it? Saying that water sometimes falls from the sky is easy to prove and is therefore true. Saying life exists after death is whole other deal.

    If you don't have a good reason to think it's true, why believe it? Do you also believe fairies exist until proven otherwise?
    ThacoBell said:

    "Wait, how do you define religion?"

    Relgions are so varied that a specific definition will almost certainly never be enough. I like to go with, "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

    Its the most important aspect of a person's life (to them). Something that supercedes all other concerns. It could be subserivence to an all powerful god figure or figures (Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism), or it could be self improvement according to certain guidelines (Buddism, I uh, don't know any others). It could even be to something that doesn't seem religious at first glance, scientific thought and enquiry can even be seen as religious if enough importance is ascribed to it.

    Your definition sounds more like a hobby or passion. I would ascribe more to the "a particular system of faith and worship" in the context of this thread.
    ThacoBell said:

    "Do they have good reason to believe that, though?"

    That depends on you. Personally, I find the hope in something more beyond oursleves and what we know is good enough reason to believe. That might not be enough for you, but only each individual can decide for themselves what they think is good reason.

    Do you think finding comfort in a belief is a good reason to think the belief is actually true? Or do you even care if it's true?

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited October 2018
    bob_veng said:

    So how do "miracles create a link between the unseen world and the material world" if miracles don't exist?

    you're not reading it right. the unseen world, sacred things, special beings such as angels etc. all exist as belief constructs. for some people they are real.

    let me ask you a question - do you know well someone who's really religious? (prays often etc.)
    @bob_veng Not particularly, but my parents do go to church on christmas and easter, lol

    EDIT: What do you mean for some people they are real? I would say something is real if it's consistent with the reality we can share and mutually explore.

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252
    they experience it as real the same, or similarly to how you experience real things. in fact, they experience these things more intensely.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    bob_veng said:

    they experience it as real the same, or similarly to how you experience real things. in fact, they experience these things more intensely.

    So how would you define reality? You don't think we share a reality?

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252
    edited October 2018
    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    i know some very religious people, particularly, i've had a girlfriend who prayed every night. she thought she was communicating with a supreme being. i could have thought she's psychotic, just crazy... but she was in a lot of respects average and "normal" and that's how i saw her. she told of a special (in fact not "special", but simply intense) experience while praying that what she's doing is meaningful. this is a widely understood and referenced phenomenon in literature. it's a grounds for the whole modern study of religion.
    at some point in our relationship i felt that i can empathize with her. i felt that i can sorta mentally be with her in those moments when she prays.

    Zaghoul
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 9,470
    @FinneousPJ "I can tell there isn't convergence because I see numerous religions whose doctrines are contradictory. "

    Eh, no. One could say the prevalence of Monotheism and the decline of polytheism as convergance. One idea falls away while another endures.

    "As I said, Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. I gave an example as well, that's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. It doesn't matter. A relevant is example is that special relativity converges with Newtonian physics, which is exactly what you'd expect if both were accurately describing reality. This is nothing like religion. "

    Quantum Mechanics didn't exist when Newton created his laws. Your complaint doesn't even make sense. When Quantum Mechanics came along, it directly contradicted Newton's laws and changed the way we THOUGHT physics worked. The example is apt. We thought one way for a very long time, and then new knowledge came along that blew that right out of the water. The understadning of one, changes the understanding of the other. Comparing Phsics with Physics is completely valid and tryingt to say that it doesn't work because its equivalent to comparing Physics and Geology is absurd.

    "It's not really my problem, as I don't claim to have a religious truth."

    You do realize you are dismissing your question right? Why even ask it in the first place?


    "If you don't have a good reason to think it's true, why believe it?"

    I didn't say that.

    "Your definition sounds more like a hobby or passion. I would ascribe more to the "a particular system of faith and worship" in the context of this thread. "

    You asked me for my definition though? FWIW, this is the third definition of "religion" so it legit.

    "Do you think finding comfort in a belief is a good reason to think the belief is actually true?"

    That... is a simplified version of what I just said, yes.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 9,470

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    ThacoBell said:

    i know some very religious people, particularly, i've had a girlfriend who prayed every night. she thought she was communicating with a supreme being. i could have thought she's psychotic, just crazy... but she was in a lot of respects average and "normal" and that's how i saw her. she told of a special (in fact not "special", but simply intense) experience while praying that what she's doing is meaningful. this is a widely understood and referenced phenomenon in literature. it's a grounds for the whole modern study of religion.
    at some point in our relationship i felt that i can empathize with her. i felt that i can sorta mentally be with her in those moments when she prays.

    Thanks for sharing, but is there a point you wanted to communicate?
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ "I can tell there isn't convergence because I see numerous religions whose doctrines are contradictory. "

    Eh, no. One could say the prevalence of Monotheism and the decline of polytheism as convergance. One idea falls away while another endures.

    Polytheism hasn't fallen away. And what about the contradictions within monotheism?
    ThacoBell said:

    "As I said, Newtons laws don't even attempt to explain quantum mechanical facts. I gave an example as well, that's like saying electrical engineering cannot explain tectonic plates. It doesn't matter. A relevant is example is that special relativity converges with Newtonian physics, which is exactly what you'd expect if both were accurately describing reality. This is nothing like religion. "

    Quantum Mechanics didn't exist when Newton created his laws. Your complaint doesn't even make sense. When Quantum Mechanics came along, it directly contradicted Newton's laws and changed the way we THOUGHT physics worked. The example is apt. We thought one way for a very long time, and then new knowledge came along that blew that right out of the water. The understadning of one, changes the understanding of the other. Comparing Phsics with Physics is completely valid and tryingt to say that it doesn't work because its equivalent to comparing Physics and Geology is absurd.

    I'm still not grasping your point. Newtons model hasn't stopped working. It still explains the facts it sets out to explain. It still makes good predictions when you use it properly. Quantum mechanics explains a different set of facts and makes good predictions in another context. What is the problem? Let me change the analogy then, it's like criticising the Bernoulli principle for its inability to explain friction. It's irrelevant.
    ThacoBell said:

    "It's not really my problem, as I don't claim to have a religious truth."

    You do realize you are dismissing your question right? Why even ask it in the first place?

    Because other people claim to have discovered some greater truth. I don't claim it, I'm just curious how other people arrived at that conclusion. Christians claim Jesus is god. Jews and muslims claim he is not. How do I tell who is right? How did you?
    ThacoBell said:

    "If you don't have a good reason to think it's true, why believe it?"

    I didn't say that.

    So what is a good reason?
    ThacoBell said:

    "Your definition sounds more like a hobby or passion. I would ascribe more to the "a particular system of faith and worship" in the context of this thread. "

    You asked me for my definition though? FWIW, this is the third definition of "religion" so it legit.

    Yes, and I'm saying it's not the definition relevant to this thread. That's why I asked, so that we are not talking about different things.
    ThacoBell said:

    "Do you think finding comfort in a belief is a good reason to think the belief is actually true?"

    That... is a simplified version of what I just said, yes.

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    Finding comfort in a belief tells you nothing about whether it accurately reflects reality. Therefore if you use that as a sufficient reason to believe, you are not concerned with that.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 9,470
    @FinneousPJ " ThacoBell said:

    i know some very religious people, particularly, i've had a girlfriend who prayed every night. she thought she was communicating with a supreme being. i could have thought she's psychotic, just crazy... but she was in a lot of respects average and "normal" and that's how i saw her. she told of a special (in fact not "special", but simply intense) experience while praying that what she's doing is meaningful. this is a widely understood and referenced phenomenon in literature. it's a grounds for the whole modern study of religion.
    at some point in our relationship i felt that i can empathize with her. i felt that i can sorta mentally be with her in those moments when she prays.

    Thanks for sharing, but is there a point you wanted to communicate? "

    Why am I quoted as saying that?

    "Polytheism hasn't fallen away. And what about the contradictions within monotheism? "

    Polytheism is MUCH less prevalent than it once was. So yes, it has. You said at the beginning of this discussion that it was a good example, so not sure why you are latching on to this suddenly as unacceptable.

    "Because other people claim to have discovered some greater truth. I don't claim it, I'm just curious how other people arrived at that conclusion. Christians claim Jesus is god. Jews and muslims claim he is not. How do I tell who is right? How did you? "

    You asked about convergeance, and later tried to dismiss your own question. And now you've just asked the same question in reverse order. I have no idea what you are trying to get at, or even why you started this discussion in the first place, if you are going to keep complaining about your own question.

    "I'm still not grasping your point. Newtons model hasn't stopped working. It still explains the facts it sets out to explain. It still makes good predictions when you use it properly. Quantum mechanics explains a different set of facts and makes good predictions in another context. What is the problem? Let me change the analogy then, it's like criticising the Bernoulli principle for its inability to explain friction. It's irrelevant."

    Do you remember the rocky start Quantum Mechanics had? Its model is contradictory to Newton's, and there was a LOT of pushback in the scientific community BECAUSE it shook up what had been the accepted, easy answer for decades. Newton's model falls apart once matter becomes too big or small, and quantum mechanics explains why. One knowledge was replaced for another, its a perfectly apt comparison.


    "Yes, and I'm saying it's not the definition relevant to this thread. That's why I asked, so that we are not talking about different things. "

    Again, YOU asked ME for MY definition. If its not releveant, why did you ask for it?


    "Finding comfort in a belief tells you nothing about whether it accurately reflects reality. Therefore if you use that as a sufficient reason to believe, you are not concerned with that."

    You have made this claim multiple times before with me, and I've explained why its wrong multiple times, yet you keep coming back to it. These statements are not remotely equivalent. The large amount of circular arguing you have been using, (repeating the same points even after they've been addressed, asking a quesiton, dismissing it, then asking the question again), is leading me to believe that you aren't being fully intellectually honest. I'm going to back away from this, because this discussion isn't going anywhere.

    semiticgod
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ " ThacoBell said:

    i know some very religious people, particularly, i've had a girlfriend who prayed every night. she thought she was communicating with a supreme being. i could have thought she's psychotic, just crazy... but she was in a lot of respects average and "normal" and that's how i saw her. she told of a special (in fact not "special", but simply intense) experience while praying that what she's doing is meaningful. this is a widely understood and referenced phenomenon in literature. it's a grounds for the whole modern study of religion.
    at some point in our relationship i felt that i can empathize with her. i felt that i can sorta mentally be with her in those moments when she prays.

    Thanks for sharing, but is there a point you wanted to communicate? "

    Why am I quoted as saying that?

    Copypaste error.
    ThacoBell said:


    "Polytheism hasn't fallen away. And what about the contradictions within monotheism? "

    Polytheism is MUCH less prevalent than it once was. So yes, it has. You said at the beginning of this discussion that it was a good example, so not sure why you are latching on to this suddenly as unacceptable.

    "Because other people claim to have discovered some greater truth. I don't claim it, I'm just curious how other people arrived at that conclusion. Christians claim Jesus is god. Jews and muslims claim he is not. How do I tell who is right? How did you? "

    You asked about convergeance, and later tried to dismiss your own question. And now you've just asked the same question in reverse order. I have no idea what you are trying to get at, or even why you started this discussion in the first place, if you are going to keep complaining about your own question.

    Polytheism may be less prevalent, I don't know, but there are still over 1 billion polytheists on this planet.

    You're dodging the question about disagreement within monotheism.
    ThacoBell said:

    "I'm still not grasping your point. Newtons model hasn't stopped working. It still explains the facts it sets out to explain. It still makes good predictions when you use it properly. Quantum mechanics explains a different set of facts and makes good predictions in another context. What is the problem? Let me change the analogy then, it's like criticising the Bernoulli principle for its inability to explain friction. It's irrelevant."

    Do you remember the rocky start Quantum Mechanics had? Its model is contradictory to Newton's, and there was a LOT of pushback in the scientific community BECAUSE it shook up what had been the accepted, easy answer for decades. Newton's model falls apart once matter becomes too big or small, and quantum mechanics explains why. One knowledge was replaced for another, its a perfectly apt comparison.

    No, I don't remember, because I wasn't born yet... Newton's model wasn't replaced by quantum mechanics, what are you talking about? Are you saying action and reaction or F = ma no longer apply in this world? You're simply wrong.
    ThacoBell said:


    "Yes, and I'm saying it's not the definition relevant to this thread. That's why I asked, so that we are not talking about different things. "

    Again, YOU asked ME for MY definition. If its not releveant, why did you ask for it?

    It's right there in your quote why I asked. Explicitly. Are you even reading my responses?
    ThacoBell said:

    "Finding comfort in a belief tells you nothing about whether it accurately reflects reality. Therefore if you use that as a sufficient reason to believe, you are not concerned with that."

    You have made this claim multiple times before with me, and I've explained why its wrong multiple times, yet you keep coming back to it. These statements are not remotely equivalent. The large amount of circular arguing you have been using, (repeating the same points even after they've been addressed, asking a quesiton, dismissing it, then asking the question again), is leading me to believe that you aren't being fully intellectually honest. I'm going to back away from this, because this discussion isn't going anywhere.

    You haven't explained why it's wrong. If finding comfort in a belief can lead person A to believe X, and person B to believe not X, then it cannot be accurate.

  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,484
    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:
    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible

    FinneousPJ
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited October 2018

    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible
    I mean it cannot accurately reflect reality, because both X and not X cannot be true. Person A or person B has to have a false belief. It doesn't matter whether there is a contradiction or not.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,894

    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible
    I mean it cannot accurately reflect reality, because both X and not X cannot be true. Person A or person B has to have a false belief. It doesn't matter whether there is a contradiction or not.
    Unless they're both wrong...

    FinneousPJ
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    Balrog99 said:

    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible
    I mean it cannot accurately reflect reality, because both X and not X cannot be true. Person A or person B has to have a false belief. It doesn't matter whether there is a contradiction or not.
    Unless they're both wrong...
    Yes, nothing I said excludes that. The point is they both cannot be right

    Balrog99
  • GrammarsaladGrammarsalad Member Posts: 2,484

    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible
    I mean it cannot accurately reflect reality, because both X and not X cannot be true. Person A or person B has to have a false belief. It doesn't matter whether there is a contradiction or not.
    Let me see if I can reconstruct what you are saying here. Let's say that person A ( who believes that x) and person B (who believes that -x) cite y as their respective reasons for belief (I.e. That x and that -x, respectively). This would seem specious because, assuming that y speaks to x in some relevant way, y should either speak to the truth of x or -x, but not both. As such, there would seem to be something senseless about the citation of y As a reason to believe x (or -x for that matter). Is this right?

    There is a lot to say about This. First, even if it turns out that this analysis is correct, that doesn't make it impossible for someone to psychologically hold y as a reason to believe that x, especially if that reason is not intended to be an epistemic justification for x*. Roughly, epistemic justification is any piece of evidence or reasoning that suggests a preposition (e.g. x or -x) is true.

    But, it's not a problem (in principle) even if y is taken as evidence for (or against) x. Cognitive dissonance theory(CDT) is a brilliant theory in social (and cognitive, and now neuroscience) psychology first articulated by Leon Festinger in 1957*. Various models have appeared since each competing to outline the basic casual mechanism behind dissonance phenomenon.

    CDT was initially challenged by a theorist named Bem who postulated a rival theory called self perception theory SPT(which is itself an interesting and fruitful theory). Self perception theory was not a model of CDT as it did not try to explain the casual mechanism of CDT but rather tried to incorporate the experimental results that seemed to support CDT into a behaviorist (i.e. rival) framework.

    An experiment--I forget the details but it should be in the link below, but let's call the results y-- was conducted that strongly supported CDT rather than SPT.

    Now, two competing models of CDT are the self standards model and the ' New look' model by Aronson and Cooper respectively. If we call the self standards model x and the ' New look' model z, where z entails -x (this is a logical entailment, which basically means that if z is true, then x is false (or more to the point, -x is true)-- that it, it is impossible that z and x are both true.

    Now, we can represent this entailment as:
    z-->-x
    If it turns out that z is true:
    Z
    Then -x is true by modus ponens*.


    Anyway, both Aronson and Cooper take y to be evidence for their respective models, x and z. Cooper is well aware that z--> -x as is Aronson, and both understand the inference. And so, Aronson sees y to be a reason to believe that x and Cooper sees y to be a reason to believe that z, where -( z & x). As such, y can only be a reason to believe that -x for Cooper (assuming he is rational)


    * really worth reading:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

    On cognitive dissonance theory (a Google search for a pdf):

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.socialemotiveneuroscience.org/pubs/ehj_amodio_chj_diss_advances.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi32c68_frdAhVtmeAKHXzFBpYQFjADegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3oajhG-rboKOOJ1Eiz4x8v

    In case mp is not intuitive:

    https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~pconrad/cs40/lessons/logic/modusPonensModusTollens.html

    FinneousPJ
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456

    I assume that you mean that it can't be a good reason for believing x (or -x). The original claim was this:

    ThacoBell said:

    I see, so you don't care if your belief accurately reflect reality, as long as they feel good. That sounds like a dangerous disposition to me.

    Do uh, you wanna point out exactly where I said that? Because that's news to me. In the abscense of a contradiction, being comforted by a belief is reason enough to believe it.
    That's reasonable. Reasons for a belief that x do not have to be epistemic justifications for a belief that x. If \insert reason here/ can function as an answer to the question, "why do you believe that x" then it works as a reason. Further, this kind of self awareness is admirable, especially because it is coupled with the understanding that a contradiction would make the belief problematic. As such, it is epistemically responsible
    I mean it cannot accurately reflect reality, because both X and not X cannot be true. Person A or person B has to have a false belief. It doesn't matter whether there is a contradiction or not.
    Let me see if I can reconstruct what you are saying here. Let's say that person A ( who believes that x) and person B (who believes that -x) cite y as their respective reasons for belief (I.e. That x and that -x, respectively). This would seem specious because, assuming that y speaks to x in some relevant way, y should either speak to the truth of x or -x, but not both. As such, there would seem to be something senseless about the citation of y As a reason to believe x (or -x for that matter). Is this right?
    That's a big assumption.

    There is a lot to say about This. First, even if it turns out that this analysis is correct, that doesn't make it impossible for someone to psychologically hold y as a reason to believe that x, especially if that reason is not intended to be an epistemic justification for x*. Roughly, epistemic justification is any piece of evidence or reasoning that suggests a preposition (e.g. x or -x) is true.

    Isn't that what we're talking about? Basically, an afterlife is true because believing it makes me feel good.

    But, it's not a problem (in principle) even if y is taken as evidence for (or against) x. Cognitive dissonance theory(CDT) is a brilliant theory in social (and cognitive, and now neuroscience) psychology first articulated by Leon Festinger in 1957*. Various models have appeared since each competing to outline the basic casual mechanism behind dissonance phenomenon.

    CDT was initially challenged by a theorist named Bem who postulated a rival theory called self perception theory SPT(which is itself an interesting and fruitful theory). Self perception theory was not a model of CDT as it did not try to explain the casual mechanism of CDT but rather tried to incorporate the experimental results that seemed to support CDT into a behaviorist (i.e. rival) framework.

    An experiment--I forget the details but it should be in the link below, but let's call the results y-- was conducted that strongly supported CDT rather than SPT.

    Now, two competing models of CDT are the self standards model and the ' New look' model by Aronson and Cooper respectively. If we call the self standards model x and the ' New look' model z, where z entails -x (this is a logical entailment, which basically means that if z is true, then x is false (or more to the point, -x is true)-- that it, it is impossible that z and x are both true.

    Now, we can represent this entailment as:
    z-->-x
    If it turns out that z is true:
    Z
    Then -x is true by modus ponens*.


    Anyway, both Aronson and Cooper take y to be evidence for their respective models, x and z. Cooper is well aware that z--> -x as is Aronson, and both understand the inference. And so, Aronson sees y to be a reason to believe that x and Cooper sees y to be a reason to believe that z, where -( z & x). As such, y can only be a reason to believe that -x for Cooper (assuming he is rational)


    * really worth reading:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

    On cognitive dissonance theory (a Google search for a pdf):

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.socialemotiveneuroscience.org/pubs/ehj_amodio_chj_diss_advances.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi32c68_frdAhVtmeAKHXzFBpYQFjADegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3oajhG-rboKOOJ1Eiz4x8v

    In case mp is not intuitive:

    https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~pconrad/cs40/lessons/logic/modusPonensModusTollens.html

    And yet, through all that, Anderson or Cooper must have a false belief (inclusive or, like @Balrog99 pointed out), in the sense that their belief does not accurately reflect reality. It is known that x and not x cannot both be true.

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,894
    edited October 2018
    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"
    What if some people are more sensitive to the spiritual realm? Their reality may not even be close to your reality or mine. We're hypothetically talking about alternate planes of existence here so no individual's reality can be defined as 'real'.

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    edited October 2018
    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"
    You don't agree? Why not?
    Balrog99 said:

    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"


    What if some people are more sensitive to the spiritual realm? Their reality may not even be close to your reality or mine. We're hypothetically talking about alternate planes of existence here so no individual's reality can be defined as 'real'.
    I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest there is a spiritual realm.

    BelgarathMTH
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 4,894

    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"
    You don't agree? Why not?
    Balrog99 said:

    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"


    What if some people are more sensitive to the spiritual realm? Their reality may not even be close to your reality or mine. We're hypothetically talking about alternate planes of existence here so no individual's reality can be defined as 'real'.
    I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest there is a spiritual realm.
    The whole point of a spiritual realm is that it's spiritual and can't be comprehended by the normal human senses. Your not believing in it doesn't make it any less 'real', nor does any person's belief in it make it any more 'real'. I take the view that I don't know one way or the other and I'm fine with that. I would never say for certain there is or isn't a spiritual plane because I'm not in any position to know. Also, the older I get, the less I care one way the other, either...

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,252
    edited October 2018

    bob_veng said:

    bob_veng said:

    i think we do, but we can't know each other's total sensation of what it's like to be alive. if we were to feel being someone else briefly, and return to our consciousness, we woul feel someting very familiar, some general grounding element of being in a shared material world, but also something very, VERY unfamiliar and other . i think we don't appreciate enough how other people, everyone, experiences life differently from us, how their experience is qualitatively different, and probably more varied than we can imagine.
    basically i think everyone has a general mood of being themselves even if they don't know it and think that being, for example, happy or sad connects them with other people more substantially then these states are a part of an undivided continuum that is still completely distinct from other continuums. each person is a feeling of being himself - in themselves. if i were to be you for a second, i would feel a totally new sensation, a totally new mood and texture of reality for that second.

    Right, that's why it's important to examine reality in ways that can confirm what is actually part of the shared reality and what is not. The best tool we have so far for that is science. Angels and miracles don't seem to fall into what is there, and therefore they are not real, and they cannot be real for some people and not for others per my definition of real. If you believe in a subjective reality, then sure.
    that's a normative statement. what you think is important, i.e. your "should" may not be someone else's "should"
    You don't agree? Why not?
    i don't agree because it's not a priority for me. every normative proposal calls for some effort, and i don't feel like putting that effort in.

This discussion has been closed.