I Believe ...

[PureX]

These believers are being exploited by religious leadership. This is the danger of religious indoctrination.

No, they are being exploited by their own willful ignorance of the logic of doubt. And the media and the republican party have jumped on that exploitation band wagon, to the point where it's threatening to destroy the nation.

This isn't about religion. It's about the problem of belief. Specifically, of belief as being the rejection of doubt. And it's something we are ALL vulnerable to: theists, atheists, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, ... because these are all axiomatic ideologies that people can choose to "believe in". And once they become believers, and reject the logic of doubt, their egos become the defenders-by-any-means of those axiomatic ideologies. And the people become blinded to the destructive possibilities of their own behavior.

 

[PureX]

How did I come to this belief? I did not look at all the facts and made a choice. To believe in God had never been a choice for me. It just happened.

This tells me that you have no idea why you made this choice. Not that you didn't make it. Ignorance doesn't equal 'God-did-it' any more than evidence equals 'I-had-to-believe'. To reject our doubts and ignore our skepticism is a decision we make, consciously or unconsciously.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

After having read through this thread, a few observations.

@PureX - you're using the word "belief" in ways that are a bit strange to me, and to others. I suspect your method of circumscribing belief is causing challenges for seeing the utility of beliefs. Perhaps somewhat ironically, this itself is a demonstration of the utility of beliefs. To add another example beyond the others already presented, we can consider the issue from the perspective of philosophy and then the perspective of psychology.

One of the things we study in philosophy is something we can call "foundational assumptions" or "premises." If I'm understanding how you parse the word "belief" correctly, what you call "beliefs" are very much like these premises. A foundational assumption or premise is something that is taken to be true and cannot be proven or disproven. From there, conclusions are drawn from the premises (e.g., assuming X, then Y logically follows). All ideologies involve foundational assumptions that are taken for granted or simply given. So when you ask something like "what is the point of belief?" one can say "because you can't create an ideology or workable worldview without granting certain assumptions upon which you draw other conclusions." We can't not believe in things, in the manner you seem to be talking about.

By extension, psychology (and likely other social sciences, but I'm personally most familiar with psychology) also has some lessons we can draw from here. It is striking to consider that when it comes to human behavior, it does not matter what is objectively the case. Humans do not behave based on what is objectively the case, they behave based on what they believe to be the case. @mikkel_the_dane mentioned this tangentially in bringing up cognitive therapy. Assuming choice of beliefs is a thing, there is tremendous utility in choosing to believe particular things (or not) because it has very real behavioral consequences. Failing to appreciate the implications belief has on human behavior is dangerous, as can be seen in American politics these days.

Yeah. I used the tricking in believing on myself. In the beginning of my time with now wife, I didn't love her. Or rather I didn't trust myself to love her. So I started "programming" myself in that I believed I loved my wife. I faked it, until I made it. And today I actually loved my wife.

 

[Five Solas]

"I believe"

Blind faith/belief is not required in religion, Yeshua said:
Matthew 15:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
a blind man cannot guide a blind man
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 15:13-14 - King James Version

The Hellenist Pauline Christianity is not planted by G-d (whom Yeshua described as Heavenly Father), one gets to know, it is clear now that Hellenist Paul faked a vision (in which he got blinded also) to convert the followers of Yeshua to Hellenism, of dying rising deity, so the tree of Pauline Christianity is being pulled out and rooted up, Is there any need to the true lovers of Yeshua to remain fallen in the ditch with Hellenist Paul, rather they come out of it and follow Yeshua's true and reasonable teachings, please? Right?

Regards

I think your critique of Paul is misplaced. Paul knew the Hellenistic world which is clear from his command of the language and his understanding of their culture but he was no Hellenizer in theology. He was not at all inclined to adopt Greek (Hellenist) habits or opinions into the Christian dogmas. The manner in which Paul speaks of himself, his father, and his ancestors, implies the most uncontaminated hereditary Judaism. "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I" (2Corinthians 11:22, see also Acts 23:6, Philippians 3:5).

 

[Five Solas]

This tells me that you have no idea why you made this choice.

Did you not notice what I clearly said - I never made a choice. The biblical teaching confirms that.

Ignorance doesn't equal 'God-did-it' any more than evidence equals 'I-had-to-believe'.

I am far removed from ignorant. Try some other critique.

To reject our doubts and ignore our skepticism is a decision we make, consciously or unconsciously.

Not if there are no doubts. I found nothing so far that could cause doubts. It all adds up.

 

[PureX]

Did you not notice what I clearly said - I never made a choice. The biblical teaching confirms that.

I am far removed from ignorant. Try some other critique.

Not if there are no doubts. I found nothing so far that could cause doubts. It all adds up.

So, you can't be wrong?

 

[Five Solas]

So, you can't be wrong?

Oh, I can be wrong. Very much so.

If I am, I wasted a lot of time. If I'm not, I stand to gain eternal life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the opposite approach and it is as legitimate as any other. I am simply working with a given (God and the Scriptures) that is on the table. I can always be as inquisitive as I want and try to show it is all rubbish. So far, I failed. It all adds up.

 

[PureX]

Oh, I can be wrong. Very much so.

If I am, I wasted a lot of time. If I'm not, I stand to gain eternal life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the opposite approach and it is as legitimate as any other. I am simply working with a given (God and the Scriptures) that is on the table. I can always be as inquisitive as I want and try to show it is all rubbish. So far, I failed. It all adds up.

But aren't you seeing and treating your position as if it is absolutely correct even though you are saying that you could possibly be wrong? I meet lots of people who when asked will always say they could be wrong but in their hearts and minds and actions they don't really believe that, at all. They believe they are right 100%, and they are living according to that belief. You sound, here, like one of those people.

 

[Quintessence]

I have noticed some theists will use a word in sentences that use multple definitions and applications, and this seems deliberate to blur meanings of what is being said. the more confusion a theist can cause, the less they have to answer for in a debate. I call it tricky language. They will also use these multiple defintions to smuggle in a disputed meaning. Like if a theist continually refers to their God and their God's word and authority, and this useage isn't challeneged every time, they can assume the skeptic has accepted that the God exists and has some authority.

It takes a lot of work to keep theists corraled in logic and fact.

I'm not sure what the polysemic nature of language has to do with theists, specifically; polysemy impacts all peoples communicating in any human language. It's almost as if you're assuming theists (whatever that group means to you) are being purposefully disingenuous instead of simply recognizing polysemy in language and the complexities that arise in communication and language because of cultural diversity. Am I misunderstanding something here? I'm not sure what to make of what you say here. I mean, the word "belief" is polysemic, whether a theist or non-theist is using it. Recognizing that isn't "tricking" or "smuggling" anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why Mikkel, I'm hurt. I created a thread on this very topic. One in which you heavily participated. Thread: Let's Define Religion



After all our conversations you still haven't figured me out?

Yeah, science is better than religion. The problem is that the better is without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what the polysemic nature of language has to do with theists, specifically; polysemy impacts all peoples communicating in any human language. It's almost as if you're assuming theists (whatever that group means to you) are being purposefully disingenuous instead of simply recognizing polysemy in language and the complexities that arise in communication and language because of cultural diversity. Am I misunderstanding something here? I'm not sure what to make of what you say here. I mean, the word "belief" is polysemic, whether a theist or non-theist is using it. Recognizing that isn't "tricking" or "smuggling" anything.

You are right.
I recall a debate with one non-religious atheist, who claimed that for I see a cat and I see the meaning, see is the same. You see in the same manner. That has nothing to do with religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You construct your own asrguments. You supply your own evidence. I will never carry your burdens, @mikkel_the_dane .

Well, this is much better than I can do it:
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Quintessence]

But we can. We do not HAVE to treat these foundational assumptions as undoubtable. We do not have to "believe in" them to establish and use them because we can do so as an act of faith, instead.

It's my understanding that "faith" as a type of belief, which is a fairly common understanding of the term upon consultation with just about any standard dictionary. I'm hardly one to constrain discussions to such things, but it is making it difficult to parse what you're trying to say. I don't see any difference between "believing in" versus "act of faith" in your example here. Both beliefs and faiths can be treated as (un)doubtable, and I've seen both usages across different discussions and cultures.

What you seem to be focusing on here is an independent concept: skepticism, or perhaps dogmatism? That can be practiced in the context of any ideology, whether called a "belief" or "creed" or "faith" or whatever. So if you mean to ask why abandoning skepticism for dogmatism can be useful, well... again it is kind of "granting X, Y follows" sort of thing. It lets you move forward and actually draw meaningful conclusions. It lets you act, build traditions, a way of life. If nothing is granted, inaction and paralysis follows. Besides, it's not as if skepticism or dogmatism are a black-and-white, on-and-off switch. It's a gradient. To live life, one must dial down skepticism and lay a foundation of some sorts that is more (or less) rigid to avoid inaction, paralysis, and meaninglessness.

 

[MikeF]

...
Circumstances and emotions can majorly affect one's ability to use logic and reason. ...
Logic doesn't guarantee correctness. Reason is not without flaws. One person's garbage is another person's treasure. There is no official way of being 100% correct in every situation.

This would be my point. Saying that someone is confident in their belief because they used logic and reason, be it about religion or something else, in no way certifies that logic and reason was used, nor if used, that other factors did not influence the persons ability to exercise logic or apply reason.

We, every human being, is flawed and fallible in varying ways, each of us a unique blend of strengths and weaknesses. We can never rely solely on our own conclusion, our own reasoning. We must have a mechanism by which to evaluate our conclusions outside of ourselves.

Consensus doesn't mean correctness either.

This is absolutely true. Bias can be shared among individuals.

You could study groups of people when it's probably more accurate to take people as individuals.

No, that would be the opposite of what should be done. We must compare the observations and experiences of many individuals and across time. The greater the consistency of observations and experience among more and more observers and remaining so over time, the more confidence we have in those observations and experiences. Where there are discrepancies or conflicts, then we reconcile and find explanations for those differences.

Religious questions are not science questions. Religion falls under philosophy. There are ways of knowing in philosophy.

Why would religious questions or philosophical questions not be science questions? What is scientific investigation but an acknowledgement that the human investigator is inherently imperfect and susceptible to error, and consequently active steps must be taken to mitigate that potential error in the investigative process.

Any investigation conducted by human beings requires this mitigation process, be it in medicine, physics, history, or philosophy. There are no ways of knowing in philosophy that can be any different from any other discipline, for in every case we are talking about the efforts of human beings.

 

[F1fan]

No, they are being exploited by their own willful ignorance of the logic of doubt.

Absurd. The self's ignorance doesn't exploit the self. Exploitation is an act by others on a naive self. The naive don't know any better. This is why raising kids to be thinkers and be self-aware of bias is crucial.

And the media and the republican party have jumped on that exploitation band wagon, to the point where it's threatening to destroy the nation.

Now this is correct because you recognize actors in exploitation. But do take time to separate reputable media sources from biased sources.

This isn't about religion. It's about the problem of belief. Specifically, of belief as being the rejection of doubt. And it's something we are ALL vulnerable to: theists, atheists, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, ... because these are all axiomatic ideologies that people can choose to "believe in". And once they become believers, and reject the logic of doubt, their egos become the defenders-by-any-means of those axiomatic ideologies. And the people become blinded to the destructive possibilities of their own behavior.

This isn't a black and white issue. Look at one RF member that is an atheist and can explain rationally what is not rational about belief in religious concepts, but is a far right winger and often posts media links that are biased and non-reputable. And then there's you who is a theist and will defend non-rational religious concepts but can argue very well for the benefits and reasonableness of liberal policies. So being rational is not necessarily a skill a person has and they can apply is uniformely, but is often a skill applied selectively.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure what the polysemic nature of language has to do with theists, specifically; polysemy impacts all peoples communicating in any human language. It's almost as if you're assuming theists (whatever that group means to you) are being purposefully disingenuous instead of simply recognizing polysemy in language and the complexities that arise in communication and language because of cultural diversity. Am I misunderstanding something here? I'm not sure what to make of what you say here. I mean, the word "belief" is polysemic, whether a theist or non-theist is using it. Recognizing that isn't "tricking" or "smuggling" anything.

Back in the 90's when I got into studying philosophy and started writing essays (because i thought I was so freaking clever) that were very wordy and abstract. I had peers read them and some had good feedback. I write some things that were incomprehensible. In hindsight I'm embarrassed. At the time I had a lot of ideas and also a lot of ignorance, so being a bit arrogant I ignored what I didn't know and wrote from that perspective. One essay was about how humans percieve reality as individuals and have different conclusions. Well i thought everyone should come to a similar conclusions about what we can know about the universe and life. What I didn't know was about how people have different life experiences, live in poverty, are over emotional, are ignorant of basic knowledge, have mental illnesses, are just not very intelligent, etc. Irony.

So I wrote, and eventually I realized how little I knew. And this ignorance is what framed by basis for writing, because I wrote stuff that wasn't built of a solid knowledge base. So when I read what some theists say is debates their comments are often rampant with errors. They lack knowledge, lack reasonaing skill, they make poor assumptions, etc. But some are pretty smart and they wrote in ways that tries to conceal their ignorance, as i did. I can recognize this pattern of word salad. It looks smart superficially, but there is no coherent meaning being made. I'm not sure if theists are deliberate, or are doing it subconsciously. I suspect it is subcosnscious because otherwise it would be deliberate fraud. The conscious mind manages the ego, it holds certain assumptions and beliefs, and the subconscious is the driving force behind it all.

 

[F1fan]

This would be my point. Saying that someone is confident in their belief because they used logic and reason, be it about religion or something else, in no way certifies that logic and reason was used, nor if used, that other factors did not influence the persons ability to exercise logic or apply reason.

We, every human being, is flawed and fallible in varying ways, each of us a unique blend of strengths and weaknesses. We can never rely solely on our own conclusion, our own reasoning. We must have a mechanism by which to evaluate our conclusions outside of ourselves.



This is absolutely true. Bias can be shared among individuals.



No, that would be the opposite of what should be done. We must compare the observations and experiences of many individuals and across time. The greater the consistency of observations and experience among more and more observers and remaining so over time, the more confidence we have in those observations and experiences. Where there are discrepancies or conflicts, then we reconcile and find explanations for those differences.



Why would religious questions or philosophical questions not be science questions? What is scientific investigation but an acknowledgement that the human investigator is inherently imperfect and susceptible to error, and consequently active steps must be taken to mitigate that potential error in the investigative process.

Any investigation conducted by human beings requires this mitigation process, be it in medicine, physics, history, or philosophy. There are no ways of knowing in philosophy that can be any different from any other discipline, for in every case we are talking about the efforts of human beings.

One thing that science and logic offers us, despite we humans being flawed, is that these allow us to recognize failures and mistakes. In theology and philosophy there is no such mechanism, the self can be correct if it wants to be.

 

[Quintessence]

Back in the 90's when I got into studying philosophy and started writing essays (because i thought I was so freaking clever) that were very wordy and abstract. I had peers read them and some had good feedback. I write some things that were incomprehensible. In hindsight I'm embarrassed. At the time I had a lot of ideas and also a lot of ignorance, so being a bit arrogant I ignored what I didn't know and wrote from that perspective. One essay was about how humans percieve reality as individuals and have different conclusions. Well i thought everyone should come to a similar conclusions about what we can know about the universe and life. What I didn't know was about how people have different life experiences, live in poverty, are over emotional, are ignorant of basic knowledge, have mental illnesses, are just not very intelligent, etc. Irony.

So I wrote, and eventually I realized how little I knew. And this ignorance is what framed by basis for writing, because I wrote stuff that wasn't built of a solid knowledge base. So when I read what some theists say is debates their comments are often rampant with errors. They lack knowledge, lack reasonaing skill, they make poor assumptions, etc. But some are pretty smart and they wrote in ways that tries to conceal their ignorance, as i did. I can recognize this pattern of word salad. It looks smart superficially, but there is no coherent meaning being made. I'm not sure if theists are deliberate, or are doing it subconsciously. I suspect it is subcosnscious because otherwise it would be deliberate fraud. The conscious mind manages the ego, it holds certain assumptions and beliefs, and the subconscious is the driving force behind it all.

I understand better what you are taking about, thanks! I've run into similar things on occasion myself and in some ways have had similar experiences. Perceived errors in argumentation is something I notice across the board, and I'm aware that some of my perception of these things as "errors" is partially due to differences in word use within subcultures. It's pretty fascinating how in-depth fields of study have their own language conventions and way of speaking about things; its esoteric to those who don't know the lingo but not to those who are immersed in that subculture. Plus, a lot of folks are just not that articulate, so one way or another I feel I need to be careful making assumptions, try to approach things from their point of view, and ask questions.

One thing what you wrote didn't quite answer is - why theists? Considering I also notice this from non-theists, why the fixation on theists like myself?

 

[osgart]

This would be my point. Saying that someone is confident in their belief because they used logic and reason, be it about religion or something else, in no way certifies that logic and reason was used, nor if used, that other factors did not influence the persons ability to exercise logic or apply reason.

We, every human being, is flawed and fallible in varying ways, each of us a unique blend of strengths and weaknesses. We can never rely solely on our own conclusion, our own reasoning. We must have a mechanism by which to evaluate our conclusions outside of ourselves.



This is absolutely true. Bias can be shared among individuals.



No, that would be the opposite of what should be done. We must compare the observations and experiences of many individuals and across time. The greater the consistency of observations and experience among more and more observers and remaining so over time, the more confidence we have in those observations and experiences. Where there are discrepancies or conflicts, then we reconcile and find explanations for those differences.



Why would religious questions or philosophical questions not be science questions? What is scientific investigation but an acknowledgement that the human investigator is inherently imperfect and susceptible to error, and consequently active steps must be taken to mitigate that potential error in the investigative process.

Any investigation conducted by human beings requires this mitigation process, be it in medicine, physics, history, or philosophy. There are no ways of knowing in philosophy that can be any different from any other discipline, for in every case we are talking about the efforts of human beings.

Science asks about physical patterns and behaviours in nature. Science asks how things behave. If someone asks why things are the way they are they are doing philosophy and drawing inferences from evidence. If there is intentionality in nature that wouldn't fall under the category of science. There's no method for testing if nature is exhibiting intelligence. Biology seems to use a lot of terms that I would consider to be terms that apply to intelligence; repurposing, transcription, code, functionality etc.. Physicalism, materialism, and naturalism are metaphysical positions.

 

[MikeF]

What you seem to be focusing on here is an independent concept: skepticism, or perhaps dogmatism? That can be practiced in the context of any ideology, whether called a "belief" or "creed" or "faith" or whatever. So if you mean to ask why abandoning skepticism for dogmatism can be useful, well... again it is kind of "granting X, Y follows" sort of thing. It lets you move forward and actually draw meaningful conclusions. It lets you act, build traditions, a way of life. If nothing is granted, inaction and paralysis follows. Besides, it's not as if skepticism or dogmatism are a black-and-white, on-and-off switch. It's a gradient. To live life, one must dial down skepticism and lay a foundation of some sorts that is more (or less) rigid to avoid inaction, paralysis, and meaninglessness.

The problem we have is that this process began when our earliest ancestors became verbal and were able to form and communicate ideas more complex than go, come, catch, eat. It is these earliest ancestors that developed the first foundational premises from which to get on with life and avoid inaction, paralysis, and meaninglessness. With language, instead of each subsequent generation reinventing or rediscovering a starting point, premise X is preserved, passed down, and instilled in each subsequent generation. With little to no change in humanity's collective understanding of the world for millennia, it is easy to see how these initial premises could become tightly intertwined in the developing culture and cultural identity of the more mature societies they will become. Premise X becomes dogma, tradition, inviolate.

Can we change this pattern? Can we become a society in which premise X is a dynamic concept that evolves and refines as each new generation adds its observation and experiences to our growing understanding of our world and ourselves?