Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
-
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: January 6th, 2018, 1:44 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
- Crucially, non-beliefism does not underline that we have to access all the evidence possible, to avoid belief.
- Both non-beliefism and belief are ways of modelling the world.
- However, non-beliefism does not generally permit evidence ignorance, but evidence prioritization instead, while belief generally permits ignorance of evidence (See cognitive research for how belief occurs in society, relative to standard definition).
- Easily, we can see that there is a successful model that enables humans to prioritize evidence, without looking at all possible evidence. (Science is that model, Science is something that permits this everyday)
- So, non-beliefism is simply a way to underline what is already possible, scientific thinking. (By clearly identifying a popular and not typically scrutinized paradigm, i.e. belief, and showing why belief contrasts scientific thinking)
- Considering that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence, but may also occur on evidence, why would you discard your beliefs that occur on evidence?
- The answer is simple; those that fall on evidence are redundant/not required, because as Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly identifies, scientific-evidence persists, regardless of anybody's belief!
Conclusively, one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be probable, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence.
- The answer is simple; those that fall on evidence are redundant/not required, because as Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly identifies, scientific-evidence persists, regardless of anybody's belief!
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
But besides facts there are also subjective opinions like, that is a beautiful woman. And surely subjective opinion is very relevant to a situation. A subjective opinion is formed by making a choice about what it is that makes a choice. So all subjective opinion is about agency of choices, about creators, and all facts are about creations.
Belief in God is a proper subjective opinion, just as properly valid as saying a painting is beautiful. It is because the name God is defined in terms of being agency of choices. If God were defined in terms of being a creation, then the existence of God would be a factual issue.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
Ways of modeling the world? Not the way I think of belief. Explain.
I don't think belief permits ignorance of evidence. You may have belief and this may be ill founded, but if it is genuine belief, sincere that is, it is the objective justification that is lacking; in the mind of the believer justification abides, which means evidence abides. It may be some mysterious intuition, or something that does not constitute a standard source of justification at all, like dogmatic repetition and indoctrination, but this thoughtless business is not belief at all. It is the absence of a doxastic dynamics altogether, better classified as habit or mimicry.
No: belief is coerced by justification; this is authentic belief. The reason I say this is the recognition of the belief-in-play: Do I have ten coins in my pocket? and the like puts, by its nature, the call for justification. They have to be coins and they have to be ten and in my pocket. If any of these conditions fails to hold up, belief is cancelled emphatically, rigorously. It is this kind of condition that demonstrates a working mechanism that must be respected when determining whether something qualifies as belief.
Further, SAYING you believes X is very common in cases where there is no belief at all: there is no doxastic value in the saying as such; unless, of course, if you are trying to reduce belief to usage of the word. But this kind of thing really dismisses the rigor of belief as manifestly operates in reasoning itself. To bring this further along, discussions would have to be about demonstrating how belief is an integral part of reason.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
Statements can be true, but I don't think it makes sense to say 'science is true'. One could argue that it is a good methodology or that it's epistemology is sound, as a couple of examples, but to say it is true, well, it's not even scientific, since science, that batch of reseach, conclusions, data, models, scientists...may or may not be correct and in fact one of the touted strengths of science is that it is revisable.ProgrammingGodJordan wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 1:49 am science is true whether or not one believes in it[/url]!
[*]
This is true, of course, since scientific consensus has been wrong about things.Pertinently, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a concept that permits that one may typically ignore evidence, as observed in the analysis below:
Scientific thinking has used models, and with great effectiveness - also causing problems - as a systematic component. It is very hard to contrast models and evidence in science, certainly in practice.
- Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.
- However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
- A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
- Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
Since it is a philosophy forum you might want to use another word than belief, which in philosophy generally means something one considers to be true. Hence justified true belief, which is a model which can be used for scientific epistemology.[*]Unfortunately, I had been a theist up until my 21'st birthday. Fortunately, at age 22 (I am now 27), I finally identified as an atheist. After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
I think it is often good to have some beliefs certain. (though perhaps you meant in the definitions of belief, rather than 'it would be better if we were not certain of our beliefs') In sports as an example, to believe that following through (in tennis, when throwing a football) makes for a better play has a very low problem if one is wrong and full committment as a positive. Now sports don't matter very much in the scheme of things, but I think for similar reasons it is effective to hold a lot of beliefs as certain. One can reflect at other times, perhaps. It is good to note anomolies. But to walk around somewhat believing things or being uncertain would cause a lot of problems if universalized.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
Of course, we take most beliefs as certain, and this is simply a convenience.The principal of the local high school is not a serial killer is a safe bet, and is treated as obvious and without competing evidence, taken AS certain, but really, not.Karpel Tunnel
I think it is often good to have some beliefs certain. (though perhaps you meant in the definitions of belief, rather than 'it would be better if we were not certain of our beliefs') In sports as an example, to believe that following through (in tennis, when throwing a football) makes for a better play has a very low problem if one is wrong and full commitment as a positive. Now sports don't matter very much in the scheme of things, but I think for similar reasons it is effective to hold a lot of beliefs as certain. One can reflect at other times, perhaps. It is good to note anomolies. But to walk around somewhat believing things or being uncertain would cause a lot of problems if universalized.
My thoughts go to the OP that champions scientific knowledge claims over others. These others are usually simple claims of common sense that are assailable, but generally verified regularly. The OP seems to hold that this careless believing undermines belief itself, which it does not. It is just the pragmatic recapitulation of established theory that is assumed because it is so regular. Paradigms work like this, like Kuhn's "normal science" prior to a scientific revolution. These are omnipresent in daily living; they are infinite in number, my belief that the Swiss Alps is not a denizen for ice age mammoths plotting to kill the president is one of them, my belief that my next step will be successfully executed is another.
It is not a crisis in belief. It is simply a regular application of the scientific method: I know about walking since I have taken countless steps, and further, I have talked to others about it and witnessed others walking countless times; therefore, the "theory" the the next step will not falter is constantly confirmed in every step, just as a chemist might predict a reaction in a test tube.
But since science is empirical, its conclusions are not absolute, as with apriori disciplines like logic and math, and the element of certainty is absent. But what can you do?: this is the way science works, and always has. Our knowledge about the world has never been certain, but can be measured on a scale of greater or lesser predictability: very likely I won't be consumed by an earthquake, not so certain the plumber will come tomorrow as planned.
No reason to panic. All is well.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
That is as useful as saying that HIV or cancer or common colds "ought to be abolished".ProgrammingGodJordan wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 1:49 am Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
Useless, and ignorant of the nature of 'beliefs'.
After extensive study, tentative findings support the following;
A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of 'thought/ego'.
Like a virus/parasite/malware.
'Beliefs are not rationally, logically, chosen, they are spread (deliberately) and 'caught' (not deliberately).
Symptoms are consistent no matter what strain of 'belief' you host.
The ability to think critically makes the soil toxic to 'belief' infections.
Three common symptoms are that believers/hosts constantly 'defend' their beliefs, 'feed'/justify and propagate, spread them to anyone not infected with that strain, and 'reinforces/reinfects' those who are already infected (see; church on Sun and 'tent meetings').
No one has ever deliberately harmed another person who didn't host some 'belief' or other.
Thus the notion of abolition is a fool's errand, people IDENTIFY with their beliefs (infection of EGO, who and what we THINK that we are! We defend as if defending our very life! Thus the insanity!
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
The most thoughtful scientists do not take this view, of course. Science is a method, not a body of "truths". The "scientific view" from any given moment :
a) contains debates and disagreements
b) is "provisional", meaning that parts of it may be shown incorrect or not universal at some later time.
Also:
* The "reality of the world" is a belief - at any rate it cannot be settled via the scientific method.
* "Other minds" are a belief - ditto.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
That was not NdGT's point. No scientist, including him, would for even a moment claim that science is absolutely true, being acutely aware that all scientific knowledge is provisional. He is trying to get across to the superstitious and uneducated with this, not philosophers.Chili wrote: ↑February 18th, 2018, 2:43 pm
The most thoughtful scientists do not take this view, of course. Science is a method, not a body of "truths".
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
I love the example, but (lol, perhaps at myself) I think there is almost always an asterisk for me about the true nature of other humans. IOW I have a regular caution and it takes a lot of time before I really write off even horrible potential secrets in others. A principle is likely not to be in my company enough to ever lose his asterisk. But this is a tangent. I get your point.Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 9:55 pm Of course, we take most beliefs as certain, and this is simply a convenience.The principal of the local high school is not a serial killer is a safe bet, and is treated as obvious and without competing evidence, taken AS certain, but really, not.
I would say that it is often the vastly better heuristic and no doubt part of the reason we do it and further why even natural selection would reinforce it.My thoughts go to the OP that champions scientific knowledge claims over others. These others are usually simple claims of common sense that are assailable, but generally verified regularly. The OP seems to hold that this careless believing undermines belief itself, which it does not. It is just the pragmatic recapitulation of established theory that is assumed because it is so regular
The latter being close to my sports heuristic point.Paradigms work like this, like Kuhn's "normal science" prior to a scientific revolution. These are omnipresent in daily living; they are infinite in number, my belief that the Swiss Alps is not a denizen for ice age mammoths plotting to kill the president is one of them, my belief that my next step will be successfully executed is another.
For me it is more complicated than this. Some beliefs in common sense have been considered irrational by consensus science, yet I think it would have been irrational to go along with consensus science. Like the whole animals are just stimulus response mechanisms/or simply mechanisms model that was held up until the 70s. And if you went against this as a scientist, it could cause you serious professional problems. Yes, science had not demonstrated that animals were experiencers and complex cognitive organisms, but the pet owners, animal trainers, indigenous groups, who considered that animals were emotional, had experiences, planned, and more often quite complex cognitive aspects, were perfectly rational or at least many were to have their belief that animals in fact were like this. So it is not just a pragmatic issue for me. Render unto science that which is science and render unto everyday actions common sense. But that the models of science can be rationally questioned, doubted or even ignored - even as they affect my everyday life, the choices I make AND sometimes what I am told goes against science or is mere speculation is really rather obvious. Another example that can be a model for this is Rogue Waves, which were dismissed as the emotionally affected misperceptions of people at sea - because it supposedly went against current science - until technology changed and there the damn things were in bridge videos and then later in satellite images.It is not a crisis in belief. It is simply a regular application of the scientific method: I know about walking since I have taken countless steps, and further, I have talked to others about it and witnessed others walking countless times; therefore, the "theory" the the next step will not falter is constantly confirmed in every step, just as a chemist might predict a reaction in a test tube.
But since science is empirical, its conclusions are not absolute, as with apriori disciplines like logic and math, and the element of certainty is absent. But what can you do?: this is the way science works, and always has. Our knowledge about the world has never been certain, but can be measured on a scale of greater or lesser predictability: very likely I won't be consumed by an earthquake, not so certain the plumber will come tomorrow as planned.
It's not a panic issue for me. But it is complicated.No reason to panic. All is well.
By the way don't read the above and assume I am planning to leap off buildings or don't believe in evolution. I certainly think that scientific epistemology produces a lot of wonderful knowledge. I just will not limit myself to it, nor will I necessary trust models or even, in some cases, data, let alone interpretations, and certainly not the often overconfidence that we can determine what is not possible given what we are pretty damn sure is happening.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
I can't really see there being a good reason to word it that way. It will only give the superstitious and uneducated a false impression of science and scientific epistemology. I am also not sure from reading the OP that he or she knows this about induction.Greta wrote: ↑February 18th, 2018, 6:16 pmThat was not NdGT's point. No scientist, including him, would for even a moment claim that science is absolutely true, being acutely aware that all scientific knowledge is provisional. He is trying to get across to the superstitious and uneducated with this, not philosophers.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
I would prefer to hear it in his own words.Greta wrote: ↑February 18th, 2018, 6:16 pmThat was not NdGT's point. No scientist, including him, would for even a moment claim that science is absolutely true, being acutely aware that all scientific knowledge is provisional. He is trying to get across to the superstitious and uneducated with this, not philosophers.
- Chosen-one
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: October 29th, 2016, 8:18 am
Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023