Skip to content

The Religion and Philosophy Thread

12021232526

Comments

  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    @gorgonzola
    you assume that there can not be a proof, an evidence about the existence, or by the way the not existence of god, proving each one would prove the other false.
    It is not as much as mine assumption, as the way theists describe their God. If he is not-physical, then by definition he cannot be proven via physical means. If he isn't bound by logic, then any kind of theorem will also be inefficent. And to be fair, it is rather uncommon to refer to any kind of physical being as a "god". It seems to me that it's accepted linguistic fact, that thing we refer to as a "god" is beyond realms of physical facts.
    i adopted that position, to assume as little as possible
    But you said that I make mistake by assuming that:
    if there would have been an evidence the human race should have been able to find it.
    I would argue that meaning of the word "evidence" suggest or even entails that it should be possible to be found by humanity. If not, then in what way it serves as evidence? Regardless of that, why would you assume existance of evidence that cannot be found? It seems for me to violate the directive.
    in my opinion hard atheists assume too much (i don't ever assume that there is a real body in a real world behind conscience and perception). there are hypothesis that explain the perceptions without implying a real world behind them, like the whole humanity and universe being a super computer simulation, matrix like, or being lila, the dream/game of god, and even some of the last developments of physics seem to hypothesize that the image of the world we have trough the perception is not true to the real form of it.
    Even if the real world is simulation (an amusing notion, even if not particularly useful), then it would be still more rational for simulated agents of this world to believe in no God. Even if Tiax is as unreal as Jaheira, we can safely say that he is still less rational than she is, despite the fact that both of them are fictional.
    my research, use only what i am sure of, conscience and perceptions superimposing on it. so i regard as faith, as assuming more then the minimum possible, not only religions but also hard atheism.

    But that only means that you misuse the world "religion". Religion doesn't mean "assuming more than the minimum possible", unless we agree to switch from english to some other language.
    the results of my quest, that still is not concluded, make me believe that 1 single hour of meditation/yoga/japa/whatever spiritual practice is much more useful then years of logic or years of faith.

    I don't think that is relevant, but I gotta ask - why would you assume existance of something like "use" or "usefulness"? Isn't such concept beyond possible minimum? Doesn't that make you - using your own terms - religious person?
    gorgonzola
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    edited April 2019
    about the evidence my point is that the fact that something has still not be proved is not a prove that an evidence can not be found in the future.

    about me using the word useful so assuming something beyond possible minimum i agree with you, it make me a religious person, on that aspect, and i used on purpose the word "believe" instead of "am sure" or "i can prove".

    about the meaning of religion i am not a native english speaker so i can be completely wrong but according to the online merriam-webster one of the meaning of the word is
    "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
    so i find some hard atheists i know religious people as they exclude the possibility of the existence of an higher power, a god, with ardor and faith, as they can not prove in any way their position. what they can prove is that who is convinced in god's existence has no evidence about it.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    edited April 2019
    Arvia wrote: »
    Warning, long post.

    @gorgonzola It's very kind of you to try to protect me, but I don't think it's necessary. Thank you anyway.

    @FinneousPJ See, this is what I meant when I said I didn't understand your question. Of course I understood the words, but the purpose wasn't clear to me. I could have answered and completely misunderstood your intention.

    So, if you really want to know, I'm very well aware of the contradiction. I can't explain it to you because I don't fully understand it myself.

    Well, would you be interested in finding it out? Perhaps we can pick your mind and find something.
    Arvia wrote: »
    There are no double-blinded studies to research the effect of faith. I don't read religious magazines with the latest peer reviewed theological publications. That's what I do for medicine. And physicists will say that medicine is no real science anyway. Take my specialisation for example. Anesthesiology and emergency medicine. Some things are scientifically sound, evidence based, some are not. I don't want to bore you with details, but you can imagine that in emergency treatment you can only compare things retrospectively. Much is based on experience. You can't do research the same way you do in a laboratory. All the same, the medical education is science-y, as you said.

    The thing is, is there a method better than science for finding out what is true? Or do you simply not care if the religious beliefs you hold are true?
    Arvia wrote: »
    But I'm not a walking brain. I also have a heart, and I think faith is a matter of the heart, not the brain. You can't prove it right or wrong. I'm trying to live it, guided by hope, that's all. And if it helps me be better at what I do and how I want to be, I see nothing wrong with this. Of course I hope I'm not just fooling myself because I can't bear reality. But I won't go into detail, this post is long enough as it is.

    I know several people who are much more intelligent and educated than me and still keep their faith (EDIT:And in a much more traditional and conservative way). I think I'm going to ask them too if they think it's a contradiction, and how they explain it. Because you are right, it IS interesting. Lots of people (especially some atheists) seem to think that education cures you of religion, but that does not seem to be the case.

    But wouldn't it be boring if there were no contradictions, if we could understand everything easily?

    I'm sorry that I can't give you a better explanation. No logic, no truth. Just intuition, gut feeling, hope. And always trying to be a better person than yesterday, usually failing, rinse, repeat...

    FWIW religiosity does have a negative correlation with education, but of course each person is an individual case.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    about the evidence my point is that the fact that something has still not be proved is not a prove that an evidence can not be found in the future.

    about me using the word useful so assuming something beyond possible minimum i agree with you, it make me a religious person, on that aspect, and i used on purpose the word "believe" instead of "am sure" or "i can prove".

    about the meaning of religion i am not a native english speaker so i can be completely wrong but according to the online merriam-webster one of the meaning of the word is
    "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
    so i find some hard atheists i know religious people as they exclude the possibility of the existence of an higher power, a god, with ardor and faith, as they can not prove in any way their position. what they can prove is that who is convinced in god's existence has no evidence about it.

    Excluding the possibility of a single claim is not a "system of beliefs".
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    if a single claim is not a "system of beliefs" then both believing that there is not a superior being, creator of the universe or believing that there is that superior being are not included into the "religion" definition and only those that believe in a structured religion that involves a system of beliefs are religious people.
    i find odd to say that someone that tells: "i believe in god, but i have no way to exactly define what god is" is not a religious person. but the english language is not my own one and i trust the source i quoted.
    anyway i told in a post of a couple of pages ago what i intended with my claim that hard atheists are religious people and that the debate on that claim can only be a debate about semantic. i had made clear what i mean telling that believing in the non existence of god is a religious position, based on something that can not be proved. if someone want to debate my claim please let's do it on a logic base and not to a base related to semantic.
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    @gorgonzola
    about the evidence my point is that the fact that something has still not be proved is not a prove that an evidence can not be found in the future.

    Okay, but if there is no evidence about something, or any other good argument to suppose existence of it, then it is simply more tidy to assume that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, we'll litter our ontology with countless beings, that may or may not exist. For example, there is no point to expand Mendeleev's table with blank spaces for chemical elements that we may find out.
    so i find some hard atheists i know religious people as they exclude the possibility of the existence of an higher power, a god, with ardor and faith, as they can not prove in any way their position. what they can prove is that who is convinced in god's existence has no evidence about it.

    First of all, as @FinneousPJ nicely said "Excluding the possibility of a single claim is not a "system of beliefs"." Also, according to Cambridge Dictionary, "ardor" means "strong emotion, or great enthusiasm or excitement", and I fail to see how personal temper decides if a person is religous or not. I'm very strongly convinced that there is no God, but I am not going to express it with emotion, it's not my kind of vibe. And I believe I already covered that believing in something you can't prove can be more or less rational. I would hardly call belief that outside world exist "religious view". You can simply say that hard atheists believe in thing they cannot offer compelling proof, and I do not thing there would be any argument.
    anyway i told in a post of a couple of pages ago what i intended with my claim that hard atheists are religious people and that the debate on that claim can only be a debate about semantic. i had made clear what i mean telling that believing in the non existence of god is a religious position, based on something that can not be proved. if someone want to debate my claim please let's do it on a logic base and not to a base related to semantic.

    I do not believe there can be argument based on logic, if one keeps using terms in arbitrary way. So I am going to leave it here. Thanks for discussion, anyway. :)
    gorgonzola
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    if a single claim is not a "system of beliefs" then both believing that there is not a superior being, creator of the universe or believing that there is that superior being are not included into the "religion" definition and only those that believe in a structured religion that involves a system of beliefs are religious people.

    Yup, basically agree. Not all theists are religious and religious people are theists.
    gorgonzolaArtona
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    edited April 2019
    i agree and the example of the dragon is beautiful.
    but i never told that god exist because it can not be proved that he don't exist. i find it as silly and not logic as you do.
    i told that the lack of evidence of his existence is not an evidence of his not existence, like the lack of evidence of the bacteria's existence (before the invention of the microscope) was not a prove that bacteria does not exist. and is a completely different thing. my argument is not for god's existence, is simply "as no one can prove that god exist and no one can prove that god don't exist we don't know if god exist". the bacteria was as elusive as the dragon of your story before the microscope was invented. the day that a godscope will be eventually invented we will know if god exist or not, now we lack of tools able to investigate about god's existence.

    Post edited by gorgonzola on
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 650
    The difference between faith and belief is significant. Faith, as far as I understand, doesn't necessarily have to be in a god or a particular outcome, just a trust in existence. A person of faith has no need or desire to prove anything to anyone, imo. A person of belief needs to have their world view validated by most everyone around them or doubt creeps in and that creates problems for their identity. One is interested in protecting their identity and the other is not.

    The damage belief has done is impossible to overestimate. In large ways and small, everyday ways, it's enough to break your heart. And if they weren't so afraid of freedom, they could have it. I am being dramatic here, but it's as if they have chained themselves to their fear. I am sorry @BelgarathMTH for your experience, but maybe it led you to who you are and, as far as I have seen over these years on this forum, that is a very good outcome.
    ArviagorgonzolaBelgarathMTH
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    JLee wrote: »
    The difference between faith and belief is significant. Faith, as far as I understand, doesn't necessarily have to be in a god or a particular outcome, just a trust in existence. A person of faith has no need or desire to prove anything to anyone, imo. A person of belief needs to have their world view validated by most everyone around them or doubt creeps in and that creates problems for their identity. One is interested in protecting their identity and the other is not.

    The damage belief has done is impossible to overestimate. In large ways and small, everyday ways, it's enough to break your heart. And if they weren't so afraid of freedom, they could have it. I am being dramatic here, but it's as if they have chained themselves to their fear. I am sorry @BelgarathMTH for your experience, but maybe it led you to who you are and, as far as I have seen over these years on this forum, that is a very good outcome.

    Can you please define the usage of faith and belief in that? Seems like an odd distinction.
    JLee
  • ArviaArvia Member Posts: 2,101
    @JLee I think it is worth thinking about the supposed difference between faith and belief or religion.
    I think faith is more the general feeling of trust, love, hope that there is something positive and good connecting the world and human beings. (I, for lack of a better word, still call that "God", sort of. More like an awareness that there is something connecting us all and keeping the world together)
    Belief and religion, on the other hand, can be very dangerous things.
    Without them, many wars would never have happened. Many children would have grown up without fear.
    The Romans just integrated all gods of different cultures into their own pantheon. No real harm done. Monotheism was when the real trouble started. The huge and stable and exemplary empire of ancient Egypt got almost destroyed when Pharaoh Echnaton wanted them to worship only Aton (I hope I got the names right). Jews and later Christians and Muslims could never get along with anyone else, because if you have one God, THE truth, how can you ever accept another alternative?
    Religious institutions and their members have done much harm. And the worst thing is when they start to find explanations for everything bad that happens, to justify everything. Just one of many examples, when I lost a pregnancy, a priest who had heard from someone told me that probably God took the child because he might have done something bad later in life, and that he would pray for forgiveness in case the child died because of some sins committed by the parents. I felt like strangling him. And I never understood why that king who got himself and his family killed instead of converting to Islam was declared a martyr and a saint. If God loves us, shouldn't he accept that a father converted to another religion to save his children's lives?
    The discrepancy between my anger at many church teachings and my heart clinging to the hope at some higher concept in life tears me up inside. So, seems like, in your eyes, I'm one of those chained to their fear.
    But that does not necessarily mean all people who identify with some sort of faith are uneducated idiots.
    When you meditate, don't you feel that there is "something"? Even if you can't describe it?
    The atheists here: If you don't think there is anything beyond the material between us humans, why do some of you still feel the need to be good, to help others, to make the world a better place? Shouldn't you all be capitalistic egotists and hedonists? (I know this is exaggerated and not my opinion of you, of course, but shouldn't that be the logical consequence?).

    @BelgarathMTH I'm very sorry for what you have experienced. Acceptance and love, most of all a parent's love, should never be conditional. People who are not able to accept someone with a different worldview should be widely avoided, if only to protect your own sanity and emotional wellbeing. And I can absolutely understand that, after your damaging experience with Christian religion and its members, you might tend to extend that aversion to all who associate with it. Please don't do that.

    I know I don't know you, but those few exchanges of posts over the last 2 weeks were enough to see that you are a person that I respect very much and whose opinions I really appreciate. I would like to be part of many more exchanges in the future, even after publicly declaring myself a (torn and doubtful, but all the same) Christian.

    Now, as to proving the existence of God? The dragon story is a good example. But in my experience, Christians don't run around convincing other people of the existence of God. It's usually atheists approaching us and asking for proof.
    Then again, it might be a huge difference depending on where you live. I'm German, and I think those of us who still identify with Christianity are considered relatively moderate (or weak, depending from where you look). The governing party, calling itself the Christian Democratic Union, with the Chancellor Merkel being a pastor's daughter, were the ones who legalized homosexual marriages here, just one small example, while in some European countries they must still be afraid to hold hands in public. I won't even start about countries where the church meddles into vaccinations and contraception, I'll only get rage rash.
    But is it really so wrong to hope there is something, continue life and see if we find out along the journey or when we die? As long as we don't drag others along by force? (by the way that includes own children, in my opinion, once they are old enough to say "no" when you want to take them to church or something)


    gorgonzolaBelgarathMTHJLee
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    @arvia, what you told in the last post is really similar to what i think, i disagree only on a thing.
    and probably my being italian and not german, so more exposed to the catholic side of christianity, matters.
    i think that among the semitic religions only the judaism did and do not try to convince other people. the christians was very active in doing that with missionary activity when the brute force was not used. and when the brute force was used millions of people has been slayed, witches, heretics, other christian religions like chatars and waldensians. the muslims was even worst, happily starting a conquer war in the name of religion, right now if you have to ask some indication on a road in mecca you can not draw a cross on a piece of paper to indicate a crossroad and if you are wearing a necklace with a crucifix there you risk that someone take it away from you and throw it on the ground. i had the chance to talk to a man from sri lanka, a buddhist, that worked there for a long time and he was clear about how there other religions or beliefs are not tolerated.
    atheists approach and ask for proof, and also this is not true in every situation, in the marxist and communist urss and china the freedom to be religious has been or still is hardly limited by the atheist system, but also the religious institutions and some bigot religious individuals or societies actively try to force people into adopt what they think is the Truth. what @BelgarathMTH tells can not be ignored, for so many religious people "you are with us or you are outcast".
    BelgarathMTH
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Arvia wrote: »
    @JLee I think it is worth thinking about the supposed difference between faith and belief or religion.
    I think faith is more the general feeling of trust, love, hope that there is something positive and good connecting the world and human beings. (I, for lack of a better word, still call that "God", sort of. More like an awareness that there is something connecting us all and keeping the world together)
    Belief and religion, on the other hand, can be very dangerous things.

    Why call that god, though?

    I hate the word faith, because people use it in (at least) two different contexts: trust and "evidence for things unseen", then conflate them. For example, I believe god exists on faith (as in, there is no evidence but still do). I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow (trust). These are not the same kind of faith.
    Arvia wrote: »
    The atheists here: If you don't think there is anything beyond the material between us humans, why do some of you still feel the need to be good, to help others, to make the world a better place? Shouldn't you all be capitalistic egotists and hedonists? (I know this is exaggerated and not my opinion of you, of course, but shouldn't that be the logical consequence?).
    Why should we be? Is the only reason you're good a belief in the supernatural, like an afterlife?

    Arvia wrote: »
    Now, as to proving the existence of God? The dragon story is a good example. But in my experience, Christians don't run around convincing other people of the existence of God. It's usually atheists approaching us and asking for proof.
    Maybe not in your experience, but you are *supposed* to...

    Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

    Mark 16:15-16 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

    1 Peter 3:15-16 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    gorgonzolaBelgarathMTH
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 1,077
    @Arvia
    The atheists here: If you don't think there is anything beyond the material between us humans, why do some of you still feel the need to be good, to help others, to make the world a better place? Shouldn't you all be capitalistic egotists and hedonists? (I know this is exaggerated and not my opinion of you, of course, but shouldn't that be the logical consequence?).
    I see at least two misconceptions here: first of all, atheism doesn't have much to do with materialism. One can be atheist and dualist, or theist and monist (that would require some Berkeley kind of spiritualism, but still, it's possible). And second thing - there is no logical connection between atheism and hedonism whatsoever. Or, to put it even more broadly, between hedonism and materialism. You'd first need to assume that a lot of things to make that happen (like that hedonism is immoral, and religion exclude hedonism, and that atheism means denying any moral norm of religious root credibility, and so on).
    FinneousPJgorgonzola
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    actually the whole advaita vedanta school inside the sanatana dharma aka induism is theist and monist.
    Artona
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 650
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    JLee wrote: »
    The difference between faith and belief is significant. Faith, as far as I understand, doesn't necessarily have to be in a god or a particular outcome, just a trust in existence. A person of faith has no need or desire to prove anything to anyone, imo. A person of belief needs to have their world view validated by most everyone around them or doubt creeps in and that creates problems for their identity. One is interested in protecting their identity and the other is not.

    The damage belief has done is impossible to overestimate. In large ways and small, everyday ways, it's enough to break your heart. And if they weren't so afraid of freedom, they could have it. I am being dramatic here, but it's as if they have chained themselves to their fear. I am sorry @BelgarathMTH for your experience, but maybe it led you to who you are and, as far as I have seen over these years on this forum, that is a very good outcome.

    Can you please define the usage of faith and belief in that? Seems like an odd distinction.
    I apologize again as I have apologized in the past, these concepts are somewhat relative and communicating subtle distinctions can be difficult for me. As far as logic or reason is concerned there probably is not a huge difference, but it is a pretty large experiential difference. So, I don't know if this will resonate with you at all, but this quality is worth exploring, imo.

    I think I can describe the distinction, as I see it, through their respective attitudes towards doubt. Faith is trust, absence of doubt. Belief is an attempt to generate faith where it is absent. Where doubt is hidden under a veneer.

    Longer version spoilered
    When I consider the word faith, it has a quality of trust to it that belief lacks. It results in a confidence that is not dependent upon the other for validation. It becomes one's nature, requiring no justification. I do have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. That doesn't need any effort or thought. I implicitly accept it. I am not at all upset by someone claiming it won't. Whereas I personally do not regard God as a subject of this kind of faith, I do know someone who does. My step mother is Catholic. She is one of the first people I have met that has a love running through everything she does. From my perspective, I would say she has incorporated love and faith into her being so thoroughly that it is her nature. This may not resolve the logical problem of having such a faith in the first place, but the quality is so admirable that I find her example deeply meaningful and I am very grateful.

    I have mentioned my attitude towards belief before in this thread, but basically I view it as a nonacceptance of doubt. It is, again according to the understanding I have, much more concerned with what others are doing. It lacks the confidence and trust of faith. More so, it is an attempt to cover a lack of faith. Someone in this situation is much more concerned with making others think like they do. Again, this is because it has no foundation. Belief belongs to someone uncomfortable with doubt, but needing some ground to stand on. Belief hides a doubt. Unlike faith, It is an insecure position that breeds conflict within and possibly without.
    gorgonzolaFinneousPJ
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    edited April 2019
    JLee wrote: »
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    JLee wrote: »
    The difference between faith and belief is significant. Faith, as far as I understand, doesn't necessarily have to be in a god or a particular outcome, just a trust in existence. A person of faith has no need or desire to prove anything to anyone, imo. A person of belief needs to have their world view validated by most everyone around them or doubt creeps in and that creates problems for their identity. One is interested in protecting their identity and the other is not.

    The damage belief has done is impossible to overestimate. In large ways and small, everyday ways, it's enough to break your heart. And if they weren't so afraid of freedom, they could have it. I am being dramatic here, but it's as if they have chained themselves to their fear. I am sorry @BelgarathMTH for your experience, but maybe it led you to who you are and, as far as I have seen over these years on this forum, that is a very good outcome.

    Can you please define the usage of faith and belief in that? Seems like an odd distinction.
    I apologize again as I have apologized in the past, these concepts are somewhat relative and communicating subtle distinctions can be difficult for me. As far as logic or reason is concerned there probably is not a huge difference, but it is a pretty large experiential difference. So, I don't know if this will resonate with you at all, but this quality is worth exploring, imo.

    I think I can describe the distinction, as I see it, through their respective attitudes towards doubt. Faith is trust, absence of doubt. Belief is an attempt to generate faith where it is absent. Where doubt is hidden under a veneer.

    Longer version spoilered
    When I consider the word faith, it has a quality of trust to it that belief lacks. It results in a confidence that is not dependent upon the other for validation. It becomes one's nature, requiring no justification. I do have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. That doesn't need any effort or thought. I implicitly accept it. I am not at all upset by someone claiming it won't. Whereas I personally do not regard God as a subject of this kind of faith, I do know someone who does. My step mother is Catholic. She is one of the first people I have met that has a love running through everything she does. From my perspective, I would say she has incorporated love and faith into her being so thoroughly that it is her nature. This may not resolve the logical problem of having such a faith in the first place, but the quality is so admirable that I find her example deeply meaningful and I am very grateful.

    I have mentioned my attitude towards belief before in this thread, but basically I view it as a nonacceptance of doubt. It is, again according to the understanding I have, much more concerned with what others are doing. It lacks the confidence and trust of faith. More so, it is an attempt to cover a lack of faith. Someone in this situation is much more concerned with making others think like they do. Again, this is because it has no foundation. Belief belongs to someone uncomfortable with doubt, but needing some ground to stand on. Belief hides a doubt. Unlike faith, It is an insecure position that breeds conflict within and possibly without.

    Yes, I see. That is a very uncommon usage of belief. In general, belief means accepting something is true. For example, I believe I am at work right now. That is a short hand for "I accept the claim 'I am at work right now' as being true." That's why I was confused about your criticism of belief. I would recommend using a different word to avoid confusion, or clearly defining it beforehand.

    Similarly if you mean faith as in trust, why not use the word trust? It's way less confusing.

    EDIT; Sorry, I almost forgot to address the issue. I think doubt is a good thing. Absolute trust, or the complete lack of doubt, seems quite unhealthy to me. As does hiding your doubt in a false confidence. Why not accept that the world is inherently uncertain and humans are very flawed trying to evaluate it? Let's embrace doubt and doubt everything!
    gorgonzolaJLee
  • JLeeJLee Member Posts: 650
    edited April 2019
    @FinneousPJ I agree with your point about usage. I was trying to "step into the dictionary" and of course, now I find myself in a linguistic free fall :blush:

    If belief is an acceptance that something is true, then what is its relationship with truth? If truth is known, then belief is superfluous. If truth is not known, but supposed, then that is belief, right? What I was trying to illustrate is that that supposition has to do something with the doubt that is implicit in not knowing. In most matters it is of no consequence, but in matters closer to one's identity, this does have ramifications.

    I have absolutely no problem using trust instead of faith, if that would make it clearer. But again, I was using contrast to highlight the experiential differences between faith and belief, as I see them.

    I also think doubt is a good thing. In my view it is much more fertile than belief. I'd rather accept my ignorance than replace it with a belief. Now, if understanding happens, that is different (I think so anyway!).

    "Why not accept that the world is inherently uncertain and humans are very flawed trying to evaluate it? Let's embrace doubt and doubt everything!" Cheers to that!


    Edit: this quote from Pema Chödrön occurred to me, "To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest." If you can embrace doubt and impermanence, then it makes for a unsteady, but exhilarating journey.
    Post edited by JLee on
    gorgonzola
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    JLee wrote: »
    @FinneousPJ I agree with your point about usage. I was trying to "step into the dictionary" and of course, now I find myself in a linguistic free fall :blush:

    If belief is an acceptance that something is true, then what is its relationship with truth? If truth is known, then belief is superfluous. If truth is not known, but supposed, then that is belief, right? What I was trying to illustrate is that that supposition has to do something with the doubt that is implicit in not knowing. In most matters it is of no consequence, but in matters closer to one's identity, this does have ramifications.

    I have absolutely no problem using trust instead of faith, if that would make it clearer. But again, I was using contrast to highlight the experiential differences between faith and belief, as I see them.

    I also think doubt is a good thing. In my view it is much more fertile than belief. I'd rather accept my ignorance than replace it with a belief. Now, if understanding happens, that is different (I think so anyway!).

    "Why not accept that the world is inherently uncertain and humans are very flawed trying to evaluate it? Let's embrace doubt and doubt everything!" Cheers to that!


    Edit: this quote from Pema Chödrön occurred to me, "To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest." If you can embrace doubt and impermanence, then it makes for a unsteady, but exhilarating journey.

    If you know something, then you also believe it. Knowledge is a subset of belief, often defined as "justified true belief".

    Belief itself is independent of truth. However, that is why I am so interested in why people believe what they believe, because you can believe stuff for good reasons or bad reasons. If you have good reasons, it's more likely your belief corresponds with the actual truth of the matter.
    gorgonzolaArtonamlnevese
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    i am not sure that the good or bad reasons are good or bad only in relation to how is likely that your belief correspond with he actual truth.
    some people may chose to believe in religion for other reasons, that can be as good, they can do it cause the loss of close relatives or other people they love would be more bearable with the perspective to find them again in some live after this one, or for others it can make the idea that our body will perish less terrifying. for others the idea of a god that "look at them from above and protect them" or that giver them a moral code can be other good reasons. the fact that probably the ceremonial burial happened before the institutionalized religions in the history of humanity can be read both in the way that the religions are only a try to exorcise the inevitable, a fairy tail that humanity tell to itself, something like the ostrich hiding the head into the ground to avoid to see the truth, or a way to give more sense to the life.
    and actually if is true that religions have been and are the cause of fanaticism and war, and on a smaller scale cause of bigotry it is also true that believe in a religion can make the persons and peoples better persons and better people, as every religion i can think about include very positive values, each one is exploring a side of what make life worth to be lived. ie the christian religions explore the love side, and if is true that in name of christian religions so many atrocities have been done is also true that also a positive impact on the way humanity think is due to the christian religions, to the message of jesus.
    so the reasons to believe in something can be good or bad, but is sometimes possible that it has nothing to do with how is likely that the belief approximates the real truth, if there is something like a real truth at all.
    mlnevese
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Of course. However when it comes to claims about existence, how it makes you feel is a horrible reason. A thing doesn't exist because it not existing would make you feel bad. That's irrelevant.
    Artona
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    edited April 2019
    that is not irrelevant. i am talking of possible reasons why a large part of humanity trough all its history and even before as we know from archaeological finds believe/believed in some god/religion/supernatural.
    how can it be not relevant?
    i am talking of a different approach then your modern logic approach to the issue of believing or not believing. you can not judge as relevant or not an other approach using your own approach as judgment parameter.

    "horrible reason" is only a personal evaluation of you, is really subjective and by the way possibly judgmental on a large part of the present and past human race.

    Balrog99
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    that is not irrelevant. i am talking of possible reasons why a large part of humanity trough all its history and even before as we know from archaeological finds believe/believed in some god/religion/supernatural.
    how can it be not relevant?
    i am talking of a different approach then your modern logic approach to the issue of believing or not believing. you can not judge as relevant or not an other approach using your own approach as judgment parameter.

    "horrible reason" is only a personal evaluation of you, is really subjective and by the way possibly judgmental on a large part of the present and past human race.

    @gorgonzola So do you or do you not agree that feelings of humans do not manifest as existence? If you don't agree, I wonder why. It does not matter how much I want dragons to be real, they are not. That's why it's irrelevant.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    that is not irrelevant. i am talking of possible reasons why a large part of humanity trough all its history and even before as we know from archaeological finds believe/believed in some god/religion/supernatural.
    how can it be not relevant?
    i am talking of a different approach then your modern logic approach to the issue of believing or not believing. you can not judge as relevant or not an other approach using your own approach as judgment parameter.

    "horrible reason" is only a personal evaluation of you, is really subjective and by the way possibly judgmental on a large part of the present and past human race.

    @gorgonzola So do you or do you not agree that feelings of humans do not manifest as existence? If you don't agree, I wonder why. It does not matter how much I want dragons to be real, they are not. That's why it's irrelevant.

    It's not irrelevant if other people believe in dragons and act accordingly. It may be irrelevant to you, but it will still affect you regardless of you being 'right'.
    gorgonzolaBelgarathMTH
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,864
    edited April 2019
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    @gorgonzola So do you or do you not agree that feelings of humans do not manifest as existence? If you don't agree, I wonder why. It does not matter how much I want dragons to be real, they are not. That's why it's irrelevant.
    to be sure that something exist, to have a proof that can be shared with any other person, is not the only possible reason to believe in god/religion/supernatural, the fact that so many people believe in those things in spite that there is no sure proof of god existence is a proof that what i say is correct.
    i am not talking about dragons, dragons are not relevant with what i am talking about. even the fact that god exist or don't exist is not relevant to what i am talking about, cause i am talking about many people's belief and the reasons behind that belief, not about god's existence.

    If the feelings of the humans manifest or not as existence is a completely different matter of things, we can debate about it, and probably have very different opinions about, but is completely irrelevant with what i told.
    what i told is that the feelings of humans can determine what humans believe.
    Balrog99
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    gorgonzola wrote: »
    that is not irrelevant. i am talking of possible reasons why a large part of humanity trough all its history and even before as we know from archaeological finds believe/believed in some god/religion/supernatural.
    how can it be not relevant?
    i am talking of a different approach then your modern logic approach to the issue of believing or not believing. you can not judge as relevant or not an other approach using your own approach as judgment parameter.

    "horrible reason" is only a personal evaluation of you, is really subjective and by the way possibly judgmental on a large part of the present and past human race.

    @gorgonzola So do you or do you not agree that feelings of humans do not manifest as existence? If you don't agree, I wonder why. It does not matter how much I want dragons to be real, they are not. That's why it's irrelevant.

    Another thing that contradicts the 'feelings don't matter' argument is the placebo effect. It can't be explained, but it is scientifically verified...
    gorgonzolaZaghoul
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Then we're talking about different things. I specifically said when it comes to claims about existence feelings are irrelevant. Do you disagree or not?
Sign In or Register to comment.