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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Maxcady10001
Posts: 460
Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm

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

Post by Maxcady10001 »

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: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen »

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
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

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: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen »

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
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

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: 17
Joined: January 6th, 2018, 1:44 am

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

Post by ProgrammingGodJordan »

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: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

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

Post by Tamminen »

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
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

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: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

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

Post by Londoner »

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: 17
Joined: January 6th, 2018, 1:44 am

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

Post by ProgrammingGodJordan »

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: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Consul »

Steve3007 wrote: January 8th, 2018, 9:17 amIt 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: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Consul »

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: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

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

Post by Londoner »

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

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021