A Recent Axiomatic Observation ...

[PureX]

I believe it not only exists but defines our species (homo omnisciencis).

Almost all of reality is a blind spot to each individual but we each see what we believe to the virtual exclusion of everything else. The only time to be sure you are seeing reality is when seeing an anomaly. And even here it might be misperception, misunderstanding, or some sort of optical illusion and we're still seeing what we believe.

Reality is infinitely complex and our species can't see any of it so we project our beliefs and color in the world in these terms. Other forms of consciousness on this planet are virtually blind because they see only what they know. An eagle knows what a mouse looks like and what it's good for from a great altitude. It can't really see it at all but it knows how it moves and where it's going. If we had to eat mice we could probably see it from so far away also.

We each live in our own little world where everything makes perfect sense. We don't notice nobody speaks our language because we parse their words to reflect what we believe and don't listen carefully. It never occurs to us that we can't all be right because at their heart so many beliefs are polar opposites of those of other people. Those individuals who believe in the infallibility of Peers and Evidence share many beliefs additionally to these because they model the prevailing paradigms. And never notice they even have models or believe paradigms. They don't notice that each individual has his own unique models because communication is so poor they can't identify the differences. You can these see these differences in how they apply and misapply mathematics and in their variable predictions.

Great thread! Everyone should take it to heart.

Thanks!

Many, many, moons ago, when I was still a youngin' going to art school, I made a sculpture called, "The Big Foot Photo Booth". The idea behind it was that we humans are all basically just hairless apes with hyperactive imaginations; imaging that we are not just hairless apes with hyperactive imaginations, but that we are "humans"; a whole species of "me's". (At the time I was pondering why only humans make art. And I still don't know the answer to that question.) Even then I had some inkling that "reality" is either a lot more than think it is, or a lot less.

 

[cladking]

. And I still don't know the answer to that question.) Even then I had some inkling that "reality" is either a lot more than think it is, or a lot less.

I imagine we make art because we have so much knowledge.

Every animal must start at square one because its parents can't pass down highly complex knowledge due to the natural limitations of simple metaphysical language. Its mind will remain simple and it must express its knowledge and "art" only through its behavior. It has as much consciousness as any other animal but nothing to commit to canvas or clay. Homo Sapiens arose 40,000 years ago when a mutation caused a connection between the speech center and higher brain function created the ability to use much more complex language. As language became more complex over just a few generations each individual stood on the shoulders of the giants who had passed on. Knowledge became more complex and people needed to express it. They created art, cave painting, jewelry, etc, etc, etc. It was imagination expressed in three dimensions.

These people died out because the metaphysical language became overly complex at an event we know only as the "tower of babel". The new people spoke pidgin language like ours and thought as we do. But they could still communicate after a fashion and still acquired knowledge through reflection and observation. It is complex knowledge that leads to the "need" to create art. We can't adapt our behavior to display knowledge of a bird's wing or a beautiful sunrise so we try to capture it in art.

I believe ancient people understood that complex language (both human language types) results in Knowledge which results in Understanding which results ultimately in Creation (The Holy Trinity). We don't understand this at all but we still express ourselves, our knowledge, and our imaginations in various dimensions and media.

As a rule artistic people tend to be "smarter" just like philosophers and good scientists. Even theologians might be included in the group but in my experience this is a diverse lot. Many less artistic people might express their knowledge in more temporal formats like cooking or building a ditch with a shovel. We are a highly complex lot and some individuals can't really make or see art. But I suspect most of us express ourselves in myriad ways even if they aren't apparent to others.

 

[Koldo]

Almost none. In fact, only the 'crazy' ones. Some religions like to push on this idea that doubt is sin, or whatever. But I can honestly tell you that nearly every theist doubts. A lot. Because they are aware that 'God' is a cognitive possibility, not a physical fact. Over time, and with practice, they may get better at ignoring their doubts, and thanks to religion they may learn never to speak of it, but that doesn't alter my point, any. They have doubts. And they are choosing to trust in the possibility that their idea of God is true, regardless.

To have doubts doesn't equal to merely trusting in a possibility. I, for example, trust in the possibility I will win the lottery, which is why I buy the tickets once in a while. This pales in comparison to the degree of belief that a (ordinary) theist has in God.

So they say when directly confronted. But when you engage in discussion with them, you very quickly discover that they do not believe any gods exist, because according to their materialist way of thinking, there is no objective physical evidence of any gods. And, of course, what does and does not exist, by their reckoning, is defined by "objective physical reality". So although they claim they understand that God is possible. Nothing in their philosophy will actually allow for that possibility.

Nor does it have to. But if confronted with compelling evidence of some kind they generally would have a change of mind and thus subscribe to a different world view/philosophy. I, for instance, am a physicalist, not because I reject the possibility that the supernatural exists, but rather because I don't see anything that compels me towards the belief that it exists.

Everyone is skeptical. And everyone is faithful. All that changes are the criteria and the objectives.

Sure, but I am talking about religious skepticism more specifically. Atheists are a lot more skeptical towards religion than theists.

The former is an example of the latter. Awareness is not required.

The former has nothing to do with latter. Nothing whatsover. To the point one can easily hold the latter as false and the former as true, and there is no logical contradiction in doing so.

 

[Koldo]

Where you are correct that each individual has a unique experience this tends to be far less pronounced among the devout and believers in science are the most devout individuals who have ever existed on this planet. They can be almost replicants and they read from the same playbook (a 4th grade science text).

How much individual difference do you see in rabbits or half inch 5" long hex bolts?

I'd wager there's less difference in beliefs of a random group of scientismists than almost any group from any religion. Even real scientists believe in the "laws of nature" which is itself somewhat mystical as most individuals define it.

And therefore...?

 

[cladking]

And therefore...?

Some of the religious people are right about some things but since science is always rewritten everything every scientismist believes that is directly or indirectly related to their belief in science is wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Well, even that is too simple as there in effect are 3 variants of empiricism.

Yes I see there are variants of empiricism or at least different attitudes to empiricism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I see there are variants of empiricism or at least different attitudes to empiricism.

You can do empiricism without doing it as naive and without combining it with philosophical natural and other variants including realism.

 

[PureX]

To have doubts doesn't equal to merely trusting in a possibility. I, for example, trust in the possibility I will win the lottery, which is why I buy the tickets once in a while. This pales in comparison to the degree of belief that a (ordinary) theist has in God.

You are confusing faith with belief. Which is understandable given that a great many theists confuse these as well, and some religions really push on the idea that they are the same things.

But theism is not religion, and religion is not theism. Just as faith is not belief, and belief is not faith. Most theists are theists by faith, not belief. Belief is just the pretense ... the mask that some theists hide their faith behind, mostly because that's what they have been taught to do by some religious group or other. So unless you're willing to differentiate and 'study' these differences, you're not likely to see them at all. Especially if you hold any bias or resentment against religion, and therefor against theism in general. Because it's far easier to maintain that resentment and/or bias by focusing on the empty arrogance of blind belief, and ignoring the real functional value of faith.

But if confronted with compelling evidence of some kind they generally would have a change of mind and thus subscribe to a different world view/philosophy. I, for instance, am a physicalist, not because I reject the possibility that the supernatural exists, but rather because I don't see anything that compels me towards the belief that it exists.

What evidence would you look for to determine that God "exists"? What do you know about the possibilities and limitations of what can and cannot exist? What do you know about the origin of existence that precludes the possibility of a source? And how can a source of existence, exist, before existence itself, exists? Then again, how can it not, when everything that exists has a source? And apparently has the same source.

Seems to me your position is based on the lack of something that you can't even identify or actually consider. And that looks a whole lot like a blind bias, to me. A big appeal to ignorance. The same thing that skeptics so loves to accuse theists of doing.

Sure, but I am talking about religious skepticism more specifically. Atheists are a lot more skeptical towards religion than theists.

And yet atheists are almost never skeptical of their own atheism, or their own skepticism. They believe whole-heartedly in those just as they accuse the theists of doing regarding theism. So it would seem the faith-because-of-doubt folks really are the 'believer tie-breaker'. Which may be why you're trying so hard to negate them.

 

[Koldo]

Some of the religious people are right about some things but since science is always rewritten everything every scientismist believes that is directly or indirectly related to their belief in science is wrong.

I am sorry, but I don't comprehend your post. Can you rephrase it?

 

[Koldo]

You are confusing faith with belief. Which is understandable given that a great many theists confuse these as well, and some religions really push on the idea that they are the same things.

But theism is not religion, and religion is not theism. Just as faith is not belief, and belief is not faith. Most theists are theists by faith, not belief. Belief is just the pretense ... the mask that some theists hide their faith behind, mostly because that's what they have been taught to do by some religious group or other. So unless you're willing to differentiate and 'study' these differences, you're not likely to see them at all. Especially if you are hold any bias or resentment against religion, and therefor against theism in general. Because it's far easier to maintain that resentment and/or bias by focusing on the empty arrogance of blind belief, and ignoring the real functional value of faith.

What is the source for the distinction you are drawing between belief and faith? As in, whose writtings should I read?

What evidence would you look for to determine that God "exists"? What do you know about the possibilities and limitations of what can and cannot exist? What do you know about the origin of existence that precludes the possibility of a source? And how can a source of existence, exist, before existence itself, exists? Then again, how can it not, when everything that exists has a source? And the same source.

Seems to me your position is based on the lack of something that you can't even identify or actually consider. And that looks a whole lot like a blind bias, to me. A big appeal to ignorance. The same thing that everyone so loves to accuse theists of doing.

The evidence I would look for would highly depend on the specific claim being made. Are we talking about the Abrahamic God? Evidence of faith healing, Noah's Ark and the global flood, common descent from two human beings that lived at the same time period, plagues of the egypt...

Or are we talking about God as in deism?
I would be looking for evidence that would show that the universe has been willed into existence by someone. Something like some kind of clear message written somewhere that would serve no other purpose than being a message and at the same time doesn't be written, at least in principle, by anyone on this world, both because of the way it was written and the content of the message.

That is by no means a comprehensive list. Ideally I would be talking to a theist that has the same standards I do, and therefore whatever convinced them would also convince me.

And yet atheists are almost never skeptical of their own atheism, or their own skepticism. They believe whole-heartedly in those. So it would seem the faith-because-of-doubt folks really are the 'tie-breaker'. Which may be why you're trying so hard to negate them.

What does it mean to be skeptical of skepticism exactly?
Who am I trying to negate?

 

[cladking]

I am sorry, but I don't comprehend your post. Can you rephrase it?

If you believe that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light as many do, because they color in reality between experiments, then you may believe that gravity shares characteristics with light. But there are numerous implications if gravity is faster or slower than light. Perhaps the smaller the difference the more profound the implications. Perhaps the difference is so slight that we'll never be able to even detect it.

But every scientific "fact" is eventually overwritten and every coloring of reality proves to be wrong. Every model and belief is torn down and must be rebuilt one birth and one funeral at a time.

However, there are many people including scientists whose beliefs and models will stand up to any outcome of these measurements. They will simply add to existing models or in the case of philosophers and theologians they might simply confirm existing beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What does it mean to be skeptical of skepticism exactly?
Who am I trying to negate?

There are in effect in one sense 2 versions of skepticism.
-That with the correct version of methodological doubt you can get the positive correct answers for the world.
-That with several versions of doubt you can figure out the limits of human behavior for all behaviours.

The 2 are "opposite" to each other as in effect the former claims there is not limit if you have the correct method, where as the latter will claim all methods including skepticism have limit to the positive correct answers.

It is in one sense a variation of foundationalism versus skepticism in epistemology.

 

[Koldo]

If you believe that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light as many do, because they color in reality between experiments, then you may believe that gravity shares characteristics with light. But there are numerous implications if gravity is faster or slower than light. Perhaps the smaller the difference the more profound the implications. Perhaps the difference is so slight that we'll never be able to even detect it.

But every scientific "fact" is eventually overwritten and every coloring of reality proves to be wrong. Every model and belief is torn down and must be rebuilt one birth and one funeral at a time.

However, there are many people including scientists whose beliefs and models will stand up to any outcome of these measurements. They will simply add to existing models or in the case of philosophers and theologians they might simply confirm existing beliefs.

And therefore... ?
I still don't quite get where you are heading with this.

 

[PureX]

What is the source for the distinction you are drawing between belief and faith? As in, whose writings should I read?

You should read mine. Here. And then just seriously contemplate the reasoning behind it.

The evidence I would look for would highly depend on the specific claim being made. Are we talking about the Abrahamic God? Evidence of faith healing, Noah's Ark and the global flood, common descent from two human beings that lived at the same time period, plagues of the egypt...

Why would you allow other people to define God for you? What would even be the point of it?

That is by no means a comprehensive list. Ideally I would be talking to a theist that has the same standards I do, and therefore whatever convinced them would also convince me.

But that was what I was asking, before. What standards? What criteria does one use to determine the existence of God? You mentioned evidence. But you don't have any practical idea what that evidence would even look like. So I don't see how you could recognize it even if it were in front of you.

What does it mean to be skeptical of skepticism exactly?

It means being as attuned to your own intellectual neglect and presumption as you are to others. (Applicable to us all.)

 

[Koldo]

There are in effect in one sense 2 versions of skepticism.
-That with the correct version of methodological doubt you can get the positive correct answers for the world.
-That with several versions of doubt you can figure out the limits of human behavior for all behaviours.

The 2 are "opposite" to each other as in effect the former claims there is not limit if you have the correct method, where as the latter will claim all methods including skepticism have limit to the positive correct answers.

It is in one sense a variation of foundationalism versus skepticism in epistemology.

What are you calling a 'limit to the positive answers'? What do you mean by 'versions of doubt'?

 

[Koldo]

You should read mine. Here. And then just seriously contemplate the reasoning behind it.

You have said and I quote:
"So unless you're willing to differentiate and 'study' these differences, you're not likely to see them at all."

If I am supposed to study those differences in some way I would expect there to be papers, a background to study from. As it is, you are merely positing the way you use those words as if it was either a matter of fact or backed by some influent manner of thinking (philosophy/religion/ideology), when neither are the case, or so it seems. It is just your personal usage, isn't it?

Why would you allow other people to define God for you? What would even be the point of it?

I am not doing that. People mean quite different things by the word 'God', so it is important to understand where they are coming from. As for me, the word 'God' means the biblical God.

But that was what I was asking, before. What standards? What criteria does one use to determine the existence of God? You mentioned evidence. But you don't have any practical idea what that evidence would even look like. So I don't see how you could recognize it even if it were in front of you.

Genetic evidence of common descent, recordings of the plagues by the egyptians back then, the Ark itself, a massive number of blind people regaining sight...

It means being as skeptical of your own neglect and presumptions as you are of others.

What neglect and presumptions exactly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And therefore... ?
I still don't quite get where you are heading with this.

If you start looking for these 2 variants you will find both on this forum.

 

[cladking]

And therefore... ?
I still don't quite get where you are heading with this.

Isn't the purpose of life to have fun, leave the world a better place, and to seek truth?

While I'm expert in being wrong, I still seek truth and knowledge.

 

[Koldo]

Isn't the purpose of life to have fun, leave the world a better place, and to seek truth?

While I'm expert in being wrong, I still seek truth and knowledge.

And therefore...?
What is the connection between this and what I was talking about?

 

[cladking]

1) You are extending your personal experiences into others. The average theist experience is not about recognizing the possibility of the supernatural and trusting in that possibility. That's your theism experience. That's your narrative. A lot of theists are absolutely certain that the supernatural exists, it is NOT a mere possibility they are trusting.

I don't dispute that some theists are certain a deity exists for little specific reason. But theists are all different whereas believers in science are essentially from a cookie cutter and they are not only doing science wrong but their beliefs are necessarily all wrong. There's no certainty that God doesn't exist but there is certainty that science will be overwritten one funeral at a time. even if God doesn't exist theists can still be right about many other things.