Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 6th, 2018, 4:28 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 8:45 am
Saying atheism is supposing reality is a certain way is a knowledge claim. Atheism is not a claim to knowledge but the absence of it. While believing in God is a knowledge claim. The way believe is defined makes any kind of belief a claim to knowledge, so the absence of belief has to be one of ignorance, and atheism is just that. As an atheist I am ignorant of the existence of a God.
As mentioned earlier, there are three options for reality, discounting obvious anthropomorphisms, eg. "Santa God":

1. energy came first
2. consciousness came first
3. they are too intertwined to separate.

If you are atheist then you must believe #1. If you did not believe #1 then you would be agnostic; you would be more unsure as to how reality is configured, less sure that today's science is largely final, with only details to be sorted out.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 5:14 pm

Greta
I see, you're including atheism with beliefs or knowledge about everything. Yet I don't think the first proposition rules out religious belief, so by believing it, I am not by default an atheist. A religious person could also adopt the first proposition.
So by saying "I believe energy came first," how am I also saying "I believe there is no God?" I do not see how the two are the same, if belief in the first does not rule out God. It does not rule out God, because you could not know the nature of God to be consciousness or energy, or anything else.
Also the entire principle of a god makes god unknowable because a god is something unconditioned, something that exists under no conditions. And since something needs to be in a conditional relationship to be known, god can never be known. This also makes any belief in god untenable.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 6th, 2018, 5:57 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 5:14 pm
I see, you're including atheism with beliefs or knowledge about everything. Yet I don't think the first proposition rules out religious belief, so by believing it, I am not by default an atheist. A religious person could also adopt the first proposition.
So by saying "I believe energy came first," how am I also saying "I believe there is no God?" I do not see how the two are the same, if belief in the first does not rule out God. It does not rule out God, because you could not know the nature of God to be consciousness or energy, or anything else.
Also the entire principle of a god makes god unknowable because a god is something unconditioned, something that exists under no conditions. And since something needs to be in a conditional relationship to be known, god can never be known. This also makes any belief in god untenable.
The metaphysics claims:

1. energy came first, or
2. consciousness came first, or
3. they are too intertwined to separate.

Max, do you know of any atheists who believe #2, that consciousness came first, is fundamental?

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 6:03 pm

I think there are atheists who are also into solipsism.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 6:22 pm

In fact, solipsism demands atheism. It would inconsistent to believe there is only the self and god.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Judaka » January 6th, 2018, 6:32 pm

I think the problem with belief isn't belief without evidence, it's belief against the evidence. I think in order to talk about belief, you have to separate it into two categories.
1. Belief of an objective truth
2. Belief in a subjective truth

Which is, does your belief relate to the assertion that something actually, physically exists or does it not. If it doesn't then there is nothing more tangible than belief and so belief is the only option we have.

Another consideration I'd like to make is that evidence is not as black and white as you seem to think, we do need to interpret the meaning of evidence, create standards for what amount of evidences substantiates belief and we also need access to the appropriate evidence. Even on the surface, things like cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are good examples of how evidence can be misused to reach what amounts to, a dishonest presentation of evidence to mask a belief as an evidence based assertion.

I also believe often belief is more practical than no belief, an example of this is when we are talking about forming opinions about other people, we can form opinions based on experiences but we will never have the opportunity to really know what is going on inside their heads. This doesn't mean we have no evidence, it just means our evidence is insufficient. So I would say "I believe Joe is the kind of person who can't handle criticism" whereas you would say "I have no opinion about whether Joe can handle criticism or not, I don't have sufficient evidence". I think that the former approach is more practical but once again, I disagree strongly with believing against the evidence. So if I found out Joe could in fact handle criticism, I would have to change my opinion.

You may argue that you can in fact prove that Joe can/can't handle criticism but once again this comes back to our requirements for evidence which is a subjective distinction.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 6th, 2018, 7:23 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 6:03 pm
I think there are atheists who are also into solipsism.
Interesting angle and one I didn't expect, but solipsism is not what I meant by "believing consciousness is fundamental" to reality, ie. before the big bang. It's a matter of whether energy or consciousness came first.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 8:04 pm

a matter of whether energy or consciousness came first.
I still don't see how the former rules out belief in god, as mentioned before that is claiming to know the unconditioned, which is an impossibility, given the conditional nature of knowledge. A person could not know if god was consciousness or energy, because the principle of a god, makes god unconditional. So how is saying "I believe energy came first," the same as saying "I believe there is no god,?" Which, is what you are saying.

I think if a person were to be into solipsism, they would believe consciousness comes first, because they do not believe in the existence of other minds. Consciousness would have to have arisen with them. For the solipsist (is this how you identify these people?)they were conscious before they knew of the big bang, everything comes after consciousness for the solipsist, and nothing else can be said to exist.
As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 8:06 pm

The last quote is from wiki.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 6th, 2018, 8:29 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 8:04 pm
a matter of whether energy or consciousness came first.
I still don't see how the former rules out belief in god, as mentioned before that is claiming to know the unconditioned, which is an impossibility, given the conditional nature of knowledge. A person could not know if god was consciousness or energy, because the principle of a god, makes god unconditional. So how is saying "I believe energy came first," the same as saying "I believe there is no god,?" Which, is what you are saying.
If you believe that energy preceded consciousness, then you don't believe that God created the universe. Yes?
Maxcady10001 wrote:I think if a person were to be into solipsism, they would believe consciousness comes first, because they do not believe in the existence of other minds. Consciousness would have to have arisen with them. For the solipsist (is this how you identify these people?)they were conscious before they knew of the big bang, everything comes after consciousness for the solipsist, and nothing else can be said to exist.
Solipsist ideas tend to be about as valid as believing that one don't exist until some point in early life when self awareness begins.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 8:36 pm

If you believe that energy preceded consciousness, then you don't believe that God created the universe. Yes?


What's to stop god from being energy?
Also, even if you find the idea stupid, there are solipsists, and it would be logically consistent for them to be an atheist and agree with your second proposition that consciousness comes first.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 6th, 2018, 8:48 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 8:36 pm
If you believe that energy preceded consciousness, then you don't believe that God created the universe. Yes?


What's to stop god from being energy?
Also, even if you find the idea stupid, there are solipsists, and it would be logically consistent for them to be an atheist and agree with your second proposition that consciousness comes first.
God = energy would be proposition #3 - the pan/en-theist model. It's not part of any theology of which I'm aware - that God is energy, and only energy.

Again, academic solipsists (as opposed to narcissists) are also uncommon. I do take your point that the issue is less cut-and-dried than I'd expressed, but the unusualness of the exceptions suggests that the logical statements were actually correct in the vast majority of cases.

Maxcady10001
Posts: 434
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 6th, 2018, 9:00 pm

Greta wrote: God = energy would be proposition #3 - the pan/en-theist model

Why do you say it would be proposition 3? Saying that assumes god would have to be conscious. Is the point I made about not being able to know what is unconditioned somehow invalid or unrelated?

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Spectrum » January 7th, 2018, 1:35 am

Consul wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 10:05 am
In the general sense in which "belief" is used in the philosophy of mind and psychology, there is no connotation regarding whether or not a belief is epistemically justified, whether or not the believer has evidence or good reasons for his belief.
So belief doesn't exclude knowledge! Actually, given its traditional definition, knowledge is a kind of belief: justified true belief. And knowledge doesn't exclude belief either! "What I know, I believe." (L. Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177) It follows that "belief" is not synonymous with "(blind) faith".
I believe Kant gave a good account of the difference between beliefs and knowledge within a continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge, i.e.
  • 1. Opinion = insufficient subjectivity and insufficient objectivity

    2. Belief = sufficient subjectivity and insufficient objectivity

    3. Knowledge = sufficient subjectivity and sufficient objectivity
Subjectivity = personal conviction of one's confidence in truth of a proposition.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a Framework and System, e.g. Science.

Theistic beliefs and dogma are at best 'beliefs' and can never be knowledge because they lack sufficient objectivity like Science.
Even when a theist claim personal experiences of God as real, that is merely a personal conviction, based on personal subjective experiences. Theists may share the same experiences with consensus, thus some degrees of objectivity, but it lacks sufficient objectivity of equivalence to Science, re sound empirical evidence, testability, reproducibility, falsifiability, etc.

I believe theistic beliefs, i.e. God and others ought to be neutralized in the future when effective replacements are available.
But beliefs per se cannot be abolished.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6984
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Greta » January 7th, 2018, 3:30 am

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 9:00 pm
Greta wrote: God = energy would be proposition #3 - the pan/en-theist model
Why do you say it would be proposition 3? Saying that assumes god would have to be conscious. Is the point I made about not being able to know what is unconditioned somehow invalid or unrelated?
To revisit:

1. energy came first, or
2. consciousness came first, or
3. they are too intertwined to separate.

Not knowing what is real or not logically results in agnosticism.

Post Reply