Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

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

Post by Karpel Tunnel » February 26th, 2018, 7:52 am

Namelesss wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 3:01 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
February 21st, 2018, 8:08 am

In philosophy, generally, any assertion one holds to be the case, to be true, is a belief.
How might you classify the experience/Knowledge of one tentatively accepting all assertions as Truth! (and true, and false), all at the same moment?
Do you mean classify a person who did that? the philosophical position of asserting that? and how is this relevant?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

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

Post by Karpel Tunnel » February 26th, 2018, 7:59 am

Namelesss wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 2:55 am
In philosophy, generally, any assertion one holds to be the case, to be true, is a belief. What we believe in.

I am interested in who, exactly, is this "philosophy, generally" with whom you identify with your "we".
I have found/experienced/Know otherwise.
Personal experience seems to supersede the thoughts of others, no matter how many.
No 'philosopher' would assert that a 'consensus' defines Reality[/quote]I didn't suggest that. Consensus however does generally define word usage, especially in fields of knowledge. There are good reasons to do this, such as for the sake of clarity, to avoid confusion, etc.
Which is why one of the most common meta-models of knowledge is that it is justified true beliefs.
Ugh, this again.
Unsupportable logically/philosophically or scientifically.
The flatness of the planet was a meta-model, once.
It was a model, sure. And that has nothing to do with what I said.
Such nonsense can be easily demolished, logically, experientially, psychologically, scientifically, metaphysically...
I will reinsert (here) my definition of a 'belief' as a pathologically symptomatic infection of 'thought/ego', spread and caught like any virus/parasite/malware.
The strain makes no difference at all in the symptomology.
If you would like to learn more, something a bit more 'up-to-date' than Aristotle, just ask.
If you think yourself capable of refuting anything that I offer, after understanding it, I would welcome your attempt. *__-
I don't need some rehashed thoughts of someone millennia ago vs anyone whose philosophy is tempered with cutting edge (and beyond) science.
I offer the findings of my own original studies and experiments; here's the hammer!
Please make the honest attempt to understand before swinging, though.
You are confused about how the word belief is used in philosophy. I explained, you did not read what I wrote. You are bringing irrelevant issues up. The flat earth is not a jtb because its justification is terribly weak, whereas science has shown other beliefs to be vastly better justified. IOW via scientific methodology and observation.

You treated me with a lack of respect, did not read or understand what I wrote, responded with strawmen, were insulting and showed a general ignorance of philosophy. I will not read your posts or respond to you again.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

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

Post by Atreyu » February 26th, 2018, 8:16 pm

"Believing", in the sense of acting as if one knows something to be true which one cannot possibly know, is definitely a bad thing. One should always admit what one knows and what one cannot know. For example, take the issue of "God". It's not possible to know if a God exists, therefore one should never "believe" that there is, or is not, a God. In this sense agnosticism proves to be superior to both theism and atheism.

However, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, as long as one remembers that it is only an opinion. In this case, if one defines "believing" to merely be 'having an opinion', there is nothing wrong with it in the least.

So you can have an opinion as long as you know its value, and do not act as if you know it.

So, to continue the "God" example, it's ok to have the opinion that there is or isn't a "God", as long as one admits that it's only an opinion, i.e. that one does not actually know. But once one begins to "believe" in their opinion, i.e. once one begins acting as if he knows whether or not there is a "God", one commits a basic error.

We must be honest about what we know and what we don't know, and about what we can and cannot know. Then we can justify our opinions using logic and reason. If we are not honest about this then we make ourselves out to be fools, and in fact are merely ranting...

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

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

Post by Namelesss » February 26th, 2018, 10:53 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 7:52 am
Namelesss wrote:
February 25th, 2018, 3:01 am

How might you classify the experience/Knowledge of one tentatively accepting all assertions as Truth! (and true, and false), all at the same moment?
Do you mean classify a person who did that? the philosophical position of asserting that? and how is this relevant?
Perhaps the relevance is that you offer your definition of a 'belief' as holding something as true. One usually does that at the expense of the opposite Perspective of which one is usually ignorant. My question related to if you accept everything as True, and do not exclude anything, is that, in your opinion, still a 'belief'?
(The relevance, also, is giving you the respect of an honest attempt to understand what you are saying.)

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

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

Post by Namelesss » February 26th, 2018, 11:09 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 7:59 am
Consensus however does generally define word usage...

The problem with that, is;

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

And when new frontiers of Reality are found, language will eventually change to accommodate our new views of Reality.
The 'explorer/pioneer' uses common words, but their understanding transcends the 'common usage'. So these people offer new definitions, new Perspectives.
At which time, the 'common monkey' will throw turds and laugh.
But teaching the young monkeys the new Reality, eventually they will see it and know that they knew it all along.
Slow. but 'words' are a very plastic medium.
Anyone offering a rational, logical, consistent redefinition of a commonly used word, I'd think that it was worth a serious examination, before I succumbed to the emotional/egoic reaction/feeling of flinging my poo at the 'crackpot' (so easy to dismiss...)!
Which is why one of the most common meta-models of knowledge is that it is justified true beliefs.

As I said. All models fail, logically, fail in consistence, fail in Universality except one;
Knowledge = experience! (All that possibly can be experienced is Reality!)
Truth is ALL inclusive!

You treated me with a lack of respect,
d
So sorry that I did not fulfil your personal need for 'respect'.
Please show example of what you are saying, that I might learn.
Is that 'respectful' enough?
id not read or understand what I wrote, responded with strawmen,

Examples or stand down!
were insulting and showed a general ignorance of philosophy.

Grow some skin. Philosophers, real philosophers (not you philosophologists) are mind sharks.
While you might have a lovely general education in the philosophical thoughts of others, I actually do the stuff.
I will not read your posts or respond to you again.
Perhaps when your wounded pride heals a bit, and you 'man up' a bit. *__-

User avatar
TeckelDackel
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: February 28th, 2018, 7:33 pm

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

Post by TeckelDackel » March 2nd, 2018, 12:29 am

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 1:49 am
  1. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
  2. 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:
    • 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.
  3. 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!
    • As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
    • Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief.

Hi PGD,

Here why I think you need to revise you decision to invalidate the concept of belief. ( You aren't actually at liberty to do this in any case, BTW, and you only really manage to stay alive from day to day by virtue of the fact that you are a person who believes, but I'll explain this all in due course below).

The first point is that human being are not made to live alone. Agreed? They are born into a family, and grow up in that family, eventually entering society through their activity. From the time they are born, they are immersed in traditions which give them not only a language and a cultural formation but also a range of truths in which they believe almost instinctively. Even though personal growth and maturity imply that these truths can be cast into doubt and evaluated through a process of critical enquiry. It might be that, after this time of transition, these same truths are "recovered" as a result of experience or by dint of further reasoning. Nonetheless, there are in the life of a human being many more truths which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of personal verification. Who, for example, could assess critically the countless scientific findings on which our hectic modern life is based? Who could personally examine the flow of information which comes day after day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted by us as true? Who, in the end could forge new paths of experience and thought which have yeilded us the treasures of human wisdom and religion? This means that the human being - the one who seeks the truth - is also the one who lives by faith.

When we believe, we are entrusting ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem like an imperfect form of knowledge, one to be gradually perfected through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person's capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.

It has to be stressed that the truths learned in this interpersonal relationship are not primarily empirical or philosophical. Rather, what is sought is the truth of the person - what the person is and what the person reveals from deep within. Human perfection, then, does not simply consist in acquiring abstract knowledge of the truth, but in a dynamic relationship of faithful self - giving with others. It is in this faithful self-giving that a person finds a fullness of certainty and security. At the same time, however, knowledge through belief, grounded on trust between persons, is linked to truth. In the act of believing men and women entrust themselves to the truth which the other declares to them.


TeckelDackel

User avatar
QuarterMaster69
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: March 3rd, 2018, 6:57 pm

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

Post by QuarterMaster69 » March 7th, 2018, 9:33 am

Science is belief too!

At one time science believed that time was absolute. For hundreds of years great men of learning believed that to be true. It took Einstein to show that time is relative.

Belief is the reality we project and walk into. Everything is belief whether you want to call it truth or not--it doesn't matter in the end. What does matter is that you are content with your beliefs and that they don't hinder others' beliefs.

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 » March 11th, 2018, 12:41 am

QuarterMaster69 wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 9:33 am
Science is belief too!

At one time science believed that time was absolute. For hundreds of years great men of learning believed that to be true. It took Einstein to show that time is relative.

Belief is the reality we project and walk into. Everything is belief whether you want to call it truth or not--it doesn't matter in the end. What does matter is that you are content with your beliefs and that they don't hinder others' beliefs.
1.) A model that largely permits ignorance of evidence (i.e. belief) is not a model that generally facilitates keenness of evidence (i.e. scientific thinking).

2.) You ought not to confuse science in antiquity (archaic science, including mythology) with modern science.

3.) Science obtains regardless of anybody's belief. (Science is true whether or not people choose to believe in science)

(i.e. Flat earthers' belief in flat earth doesn't suddenly alter gravitational theory, and that scientists may believe in equations they may create, won't suddenly guarantee that said equations work empirically.)

User avatar
Pano
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 3:25 pm

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

Post by Pano » March 11th, 2018, 3:40 pm

ProgrammingGodJordan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 1:49 am
  1. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
  2. 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:
    • 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.
  3. 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!
    • As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
    • Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief.
Non beliefism is the belief that you have no concept of belief,which is by default,a belief.Should you try to get rid of your beliefs,you will get rid of your attachment to your beliefs,but not of your beliefs,since you have no control over them whatsoever,unless you are well aware that you have no control over them.

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 » March 12th, 2018, 11:49 am

Pano wrote:
March 11th, 2018, 3:40 pm


Non beliefism is the belief that you have no concept of belief,which is by default,a belief.Should you try to get rid of your beliefs,you will get rid of your attachment to your beliefs,but not of your beliefs,since you have no control over them whatsoever,unless you are well aware that you have no control over them.
1.) Contrarily, we can avoid the concept of belief by adopting a separate way to model things; i.e. scientific thinking.

2.) While the concept of belief generally facilitates evidence ignorance, scientific thinking generally facilitates evidence prioritization.

User avatar
Cosmogenes
New Trial Member
Posts: 13
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 1:23 pm

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

Post by Cosmogenes » April 8th, 2018, 3:16 pm

If "atheism" is defined as "no gods exist", then it is contradicted by the billions of believing "theists", in each of whose minds one or more "god" does exist as a mental construct. That implies there are billions of gods, but not in some imaginary mythical realm but in the cortical circuits of those believers. And there are many other such things that only exist in that sense.
Some better terms are "non-theist" and "non-theism", describing those whose minds are absent from such a being.

Post Reply