Is provability required for belief?

dmap said:

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Click to expand...

I think there are two aspects to a human being - our intellect and our heart or spirit. I believe that spiritually we can know God exists and that until we spiritually see God we cannot intellectually accept His existence.

I came to know God through a spiritual experience then after that it all made sense intellectually to the point that I’m flabbergasted why everyone can’t see God as it’s as clear as the midday sun but it’s because their spiritual eyes have not seen and the intellect alone cannot embrace God’s existence by itself without spiritual confirmation.

That explains why the to and fro of intellectualising is so slow. It is a step towards finding God but in the end only when the person is spiritually awakened will they know He indeed exists.

But in the process of intellectualising a person may come across something which affects them spiritually and they become enlightened or born spiritually.

So even though people intellectually can’t see God it’s important to keep exploring perchance one day they will be awakened spiritually.

dmap said:

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Evidence, not proof, is needed.

dmap said:

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

.

Click to expand...

No proof needed, but generally, most people one is friends with show evidence of being friendly.

dmap said:

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.
.

Click to expand...

Again, proof is not necessary. However, multiverse is often mistakenly called a "theory" even though there is little evidence for it.

Audie said:

In science one has to be very eyes-open about
"belief".

Note how you speak of "discover our beliefs are true".

Science works to prove beliefs are false, and can never
show they are true.
Actually nobody else can either.*
Yours is the route of willful self deception.

*I know, I know. Dont bother to go there.

Click to expand...

Does science really work on finding beliefs false? Keep your eye on the prize. They want their belief or theory to be true. That is what they work at. They discard false beliefs simply because they lead one away from truth. When their theory proves correct, that often leads to new theories or beliefs from that new view of having acquired knowledge. The journey continues.

There are many things science has shown to be true. We would not have the technology we have today if that were not true. On the other hand, there is much to learn and discover. The truth one is capable of discovering is almost limitless from our point of view. This may not be so within the realm of our existence. For now, I'll take one bite at a time, striving to discover real truth over mere beliefs.

One thing I do know. Given enough time, one can get there even taking baby steps. Since we are Spiritual beings, eternal in nature, there will never be a time limit on learning. On the other hand, I have found the hungry student tends to progress faster.

Like I said. Keep your eyes on the prize.

That's what I am seeing.

dmap said:

It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

Click to expand...

"might"? as in maybe you will maybe you won't? I'd say that's a fairly easy belief to hold... sure.

Also, won't the rest of your life become either an confirmation or denial of your lifelong friendship? So isn't this provable as opposed to lacking provability?

loverofhumanity said:

I think there are two aspects to a human being - our intellect and our heart or spirit. I believe that spiritually we can know God exists and that until we spiritually see God we cannot intellectually accept His existence.

I came to know God through a spiritual experience then after that it all made sense intellectually to the point that I’m flabbergasted why everyone can’t see God as it’s as clear as the midday sun but it’s because their spiritual eyes have not seen and the intellect alone cannot embrace God’s existence by itself without spiritual confirmation.

That explains why the to and fro of intellectualising is so slow. It is a step towards finding God but in the end only when the person is spiritually awakened will they know He indeed exists.

But in the process of intellectualising a person may come across something which affects them spiritually and they become enlightened or born spiritually.

So even though people intellectually can’t see God it’s important to keep exploring perchance one day they will be awakened spiritually.

Click to expand...

Yeah, how can you argue with a subjective experience?

Wandering Monk said:

Yeah, how can you argue with a subjective experience?

Click to expand...

True. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Those who haven’t tasted of course will argue that it is false. It is like me trying to describe to someone the taste of chocolate. No matter which words I use it will never suffice in conveying to the person it’s taste. So too the knowledge of God cannot be imparted verbally but must be spiritually experienced for oneself to know He exists. Until the person spiritually experiences God then to them He does not exist and all the words in the world will never convince him.

Wandering Monk said:

Yeah, how can you argue with a subjective experience?

Click to expand...

Indeed, you can't. Though you can compare experiences, to see if there is any common ground. This is what you do when discussing the effect of art on the viewer or listener, for instance.

I think this is a basic issue when considering religion. Religion is not, at root, about a set of objective propositions about the world, in the way science is. It is a lot of things but mainly I would say a guide for living your life, or at least providing a helpful perspective on it, inspired by the teaching and example of certain figures, Christ in the case of Christianity.

Sapiens said:

Please demonstrate that "consciousness" exists as anything but a way for you (and others like you) to claim that you are somehow better than all other animals on earth. That is such egotistical horse pucky.

Click to expand...

I have to question this ~ since in many scientific branches, animal/species cruelty and unethical experiments and tests occur.

Are you saying that the scientists can do whatever they please to them as long they believe or think they are no better than them?

Would you be willing to take an animals place in these experiments, and have your neck broken when you are no longer of use since you are not better than the animal whose place you would have taken?

So let us do science:
... Science relies on testing ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world. ...
Understanding Science: An overview

Everything can be done in a positive way by testing ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world?!!
Answer: No!

Most people are positivists due to the psychology inherent in negative results, so some people don't get that when you test for the limit of science, you get a negative result. They explain the negative away.
The rest is in effect psychology and how a given human deals with this negative result.
The same happens when you test the limit of God:
Everything is from God and is as I say.
Answer: No!
Some people don't understand the limit of everything is from God, so they explain the limit(the negative result) away.

It has nothing to do with with ontology or what not. It has so do with how you deal with the negative as a limit to what you believe you can explain.
I am a global skeptic, so I can do "I don't know" and it doesn't bother me. For many people it bothers them to be told that there is a limit to knowledge, they don't acknowledge whether it be in science or religion.

Not that everything is psychology, but with humans you can't avoid psychology. And some humans haven't learned to spot that in their own thinking.

Uncommon Sense said:

I have to question this ~ since in many scientific branches, animal/species cruelty and unethical experiments and tests occur.

Are you saying that the scientists can do whatever they please to them as long they believe or think they are no better than them?

Would you be willing to take an animals place in these experiments, and have your neck broken when you are no longer of use since you are not better than the animal whose place you would have taken?

Click to expand...

We can move on to your False Dichotomy later, for now, answer the issue that I put on the table.

Sapiens said:

We can move on to your False Dichotomy later, for now, answer the issue that I put on the table.

Click to expand...

That issue on the table was not for me, it was for someone else.

However ~ these questions were for you from me.

Uncommon Sense said:

That issue on the table was not for me, it was for someone else.

However ~ these questions were for you from me.

Click to expand...

You quoted my post: "Please demonstrate that "consciousness" exists as anything but a way for you (and others like you) to claim that you are somehow better than all other animals on earth. That is such egotistical horse pucky." Please respond to that, then we can deal with your logical fallacies.

Sapiens said:

You quoted my post: "Please demonstrate that "consciousness" exists as anything but a way for you (and others like you) to claim that you are somehow better than all other animals on earth. That is such egotistical horse pucky." Please respond to that, then we can deal with your logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

I don’t consider myself better than species that are more geared toward noetic consciousness, so I cannot answer your question. Nor would I ever participate in unethical experiments regarding other animals or other species.

However ~ you can answer my questions if you’d like. I’ll rephrase them here ~

Can human beings do whatever they want to animals or other species regarding how unethical in the name of science as long as the human beings involved do not think or believe they are better than animals or other species?

Do you support these types of particular experiments? Are they ethical?

Since you don’t consider yourself egotistical or better than any other animal or species ~ would you be willing if could to take the place of another animal in unethical scientific experiments in order to spare the life of another animal and have your neck broken after you are no longer of use? If not ~ why?

Uncommon Sense said:

I don’t consider myself better than species that are more geared toward noetic consciousness, so I cannot answer your question. Nor would I ever participate in unethical experiments regarding other animals or other species.

However ~ you can answer my questions if you’d like. I’ll rephrase them here ~

Can human beings do whatever they want to animals or other species regarding how unethical in the name of science as long as the human beings involved do not think or believe they are better than animals or other species?

Do you support these types of particular experiments? Are they ethical?

Since you don’t consider yourself egotistical or better than any other animal or species ~ would you be willing if could to take the place of another animal in unethical scientific experiments in order to spare the life of another animal and have your neck broken after you are no longer of use? If not ~ why?

Click to expand...

You are ducking the issue. Please demonstrate that consciousness exists. Please demonstrate that it is more highly developed in humans.

Sapiens said:

You are ducking the issue. Please demonstrate that consciousness exists. Please demonstrate that it is more highly developed in humans.

Click to expand...

I don’t care whether consciousness exists or doesn’t exist ~ or whether there is evidence or no evidence.

Fair enough ~ duck and don’t answer the questions to you. They are pretty easy questions ~ and consciousness is irrelevant for you to answer.

dmap said:

Is provability required for belief?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, utter absurdity will sometimes do quite well in place of provability.

dmap said:

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Click to expand...

You can believe what you want, proof or no proof. What you can't do, is go around demanding other people accept your beliefs as "true" without at least compelling evidence.

Fool said:

friendship is proven by action. it isn't belief based. no one should be in any kind of relationship where the relationship isn't mutually loving, caring. the verb, the action, is necessary to establish friendship.

Click to expand...

Yes, very wise words.

Terry Sampson said:

there are a goodly number of scientists who are not on RF who propound some wild stuff with nothing more than a "maybe" to surf on.

Click to expand...

I think "scientific" inquiry into such pre-hypothesis speculations such as the multiverse should be called philosophy rather than science. Seems that only when performing experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis; only then should it be called science.

dmap said:

Yes, very wise words.

Click to expand...

befriend | Origin and meaning of befriend by Online Etymology Dictionary