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.
Maxcady10001
Posts: 381
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

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

Post by Maxcady10001 » January 7th, 2018, 3:53 am

Greta

So how is god not energy? Just because it's a view people don't take doesn't mean it's wrong. I call fallacy on that one. Choosing the first proposition doesn't make someone an atheist by default. So I still don't see how atheism is a belief.

Tamminen
Posts: 317
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen » January 7th, 2018, 5:22 am

Greta:
Max, do you know of any atheists who believe #2, that consciousness came first, is fundamental?
Now you know the first one. Consciousness is fundamental, ie. it comes ontologically, or should we say logically, first, but not, of course, physically, in the space-time of the universe. This needs no concept of God to support it.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6054
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Greta » January 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm

Maxcady10001 wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 3:53 am
Greta

So how is god not energy? Just because it's a view people don't take doesn't mean it's wrong. I call fallacy on that one. Choosing the first proposition doesn't make someone an atheist by default. So I still don't see how atheism is a belief.
Max, I'm not making ontology claims, just observing the dynamics of believers and non believers.

Who knows? Maybe energy is God? Energy is usually defined as "work", thus God would be defined as work ("idle hands are the devil's workshop"). Or maybe energy just is, and there is no God? As I say, I'm agnostic.

I still maintain that a vanishingly small number of atheists would believe that consciousness preceded energy in the universe. The generalisation is largely solid; very little in life is 100%.

Tamminen
Posts: 317
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen » January 7th, 2018, 4:54 pm

Greta wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm
I still maintain that a vanishingly small number of atheists would believe that consciousness preceded energy in the universe.
As I wrote, being ontologically fundamental is totally different from being first in time. The latter would be absurd, for an atheist at least.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6054
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Greta » January 7th, 2018, 5:03 pm

Tamminen wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 4:54 pm
Greta wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 4:38 pm
I still maintain that a vanishingly small number of atheists would believe that consciousness preceded energy in the universe.
As I wrote, being ontologically fundamental is totally different from being first in time. The latter would be absurd, for an atheist at least.
It must be another thread, Tam, I didn't see it here.

It's a thought provoking idea but I don't agree. Being first is fundamental by my reckoning - the initial state. Having said that, time is very strange and our experience of it as one-directional/dimensional does not tally with general relativity, so if you have any brain-pretzel concepts to provide about this, I'm all ears.

Yes, but consciousness preceding energy is absurd to atheists, aside from the minority exceptions noted by Max.

ProgrammingGodJordan
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: January 6th, 2018, 1:44 am

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

Post by ProgrammingGodJordan » January 8th, 2018, 1:07 am

Image
  1. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
  2. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
  3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.
Conclusion
  1. Model i - belief:
    • Permits belief in science or evidence.
    • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
  2. Model ii - Non-beliefism:
    • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
    • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.

Tamminen
Posts: 317
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen » January 8th, 2018, 5:25 am

Greta wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 5:03 pm
It must be another thread, Tam, I didn't see it here.

It's a thought provoking idea but I don't agree. Being first is fundamental by my reckoning - the initial state. Having said that, time is very strange and our experience of it as one-directional/dimensional does not tally with general relativity, so if you have any brain-pretzel concepts to provide about this, I'm all ears.
I only referred to my previous post. But to illustrate my position, and if you happen to be interested, I suggest you read my other posts on various topics, eg. "What is Being". Unfortunately I cannot give better arguments for my views than what I have already given, and I do not want to repeat myself here. It is a matter of finding the horizon of thinking, rather than finding the solution inside the horizon you are already committed to. So, in this case, being ontologically fundamental has nothing to do with time. We should see the universe as a totality with consciousness or subjectivity being its essential and unremovable element. This view has a long tradition, especially in the history of German idealism. And to avoid misundestanding, this has nothing to do with panpsychism.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6054
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Greta » January 8th, 2018, 6:42 am

If you re interested in German idealists you might enjoy chatting with forum member, Hereandnow. Whatever, in context of the thread, objective idealists would seem unlikely to attract the attention of legislators :)

I am just reading your posting now; it's long with much to digest. At this stage it seems the crux seems to be that there is something rather than nothing and everything and everyone is that something, so the separation we perceive is relative rather than absolute.

Londoner
Posts: 1700
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

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

Post by Londoner » January 8th, 2018, 7:56 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 1:07 am

[*] In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
That seems obvious, but I do not think it is ever the case, except perhaps in some very formal contexts.

One doesn't doesn't discover one's notions (or 'expressions' as you say elsewhere) are simply wrong. Rather one discovers one's own notions are incomplete, ambiguous, contain contradictions or whatever - but discovering the problems with 'an answer' does not tell us the 'right answer'.

To put it another way, you write of 'belief' in the abstract, but every belief is particular. It is a belief about something. But it is also impossible for that belief to only be about that something, such that it has a binary right/wrong value.

You mention science. As far as science is a formal system, we can argue that particular questions have a right/wrong answer. But the more formal (restricted in scope) that question is, the less meaningful the answer. As in logic or geometry, if we formulated a pure question, then it would become a tautology, where the conclusions restate the premises. But the sort of questions that come up in philosophy are not like that.

ProgrammingGodJordan
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: January 6th, 2018, 1:44 am

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

Post by ProgrammingGodJordan » January 8th, 2018, 8:21 am

Londoner wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 7:56 am
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 1:07 am

[*] In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
That seems obvious, but I do not think it is ever the case, except perhaps in some very formal contexts.

One doesn't doesn't discover one's notions (or 'expressions' as you say elsewhere) are simply wrong. Rather one discovers one's own notions are incomplete, ambiguous, contain contradictions or whatever - but discovering the problems with 'an answer' does not tell us the 'right answer'.

To put it another way, you write of 'belief' in the abstract, but every belief is particular. It is a belief about something. But it is also impossible for that belief to only be about that something, such that it has a binary right/wrong value.

You mention science. As far as science is a formal system, we can argue that particular questions have a right/wrong answer. But the more formal (restricted in scope) that question is, the less meaningful the answer. As in logic or geometry, if we formulated a pure question, then it would become a tautology, where the conclusions restate the premises. But the sort of questions that come up in philosophy are not like that.
I don't detect the relavance of your response above, because:
  1. Wrong does not necessarily mean completely invalid; wrong can mean imprecise, or incomplete.

Steve3007
Posts: 4578
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 9:17 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
The wording of the above is odd and confusing. For example, the use of the word "presentations" seems inappropriate. But what you seem to be describing is a "working hypothesis".
ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
It is not necessary to abandon the concept of belief in order to accept the fact that new evidence can change what we believe to be true. "Non-beliefism" appears to me to be an unnecessary and misleading extra word for Empiricism or something similar. I don't think it merits being referred to as a paradigm in its own right unless it says something new and different. I see no evidence of that so far from posts or links.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 881
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Consul » January 8th, 2018, 11:13 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 9:17 am
It is not necessary to abandon the concept of belief in order to accept the fact that new evidence can change what we believe to be true.
Of course, "I (now) believe that p" doesn't mean "I will always believe that p—come what may". There certainly is such a thing as belief change or revision.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 881
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Consul » January 8th, 2018, 11:29 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 1:07 am
Conclusion
  1. Model i - belief:
    • Permits belief in science or evidence.
    • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
  2. Model ii - Non-beliefism:
    • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
    • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.
Whether one has good reasons or (sufficient) evidence for one's beliefs is irrelevant to the concept of belief, because the fact or state of belief is one thing and its epistemic justifiedness or justifiability is another thing. What is important is that "belief" is not synonymous with "unjustified belief", especially as belief can amount to knowledge.

Furthermore, belief doesn't entail (subjective) certainty. I think the state of belief as such is binary, i.e. one either believes or doesn't believe that p; but there are different degrees of (subjective) certainty or conviction. Belief as such is either absent or present, but when present it comes in different strengths.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Steve3007
Posts: 4578
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm

Of course, "I (now) believe that p" doesn't mean "I will always believe that p—come what may". There certainly is such a thing as belief change or revision.
Precisely.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

Londoner
Posts: 1700
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

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

Post by Londoner » January 8th, 2018, 1:45 pm

Consul wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 11:13 am
Of course, "I (now) believe that p" doesn't mean "I will always believe that p—come what may". There certainly is such a thing as belief change or revision.
Quite. To describe something as a 'belief' has the implication that one doesn't have absolute certainty.

If I believed something with absolute certainty, such that I could not conceive that I could ever be wrong, then I don't think I would recognise it as a belief. It would be 'a priori'. For example, I wouldn't say 'I believe 2 + 2 = 4'

Post Reply