Applying scrutiny to your beliefs

[rational experiences]

Belief of knowledge wisdom in a human experience is a subject of indoctrination versus basic human understanding.

Basic for a large human population ego driven by social standards is ignored by inferred statements of not acceptable by consensus standards.

So we peruse human history where civilization destroys itself constantly returning basic human living standards.

That life lesson as yet has not been accepted as the actual lesson in our life.

 

[Native]

What method or methods do you use in testing if your beliefs are true or not? Do you apply different methods for testing different things in life, or do you test all things in life using only one method?

I´m using Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology in order to find common imperial knowledge. At the same time, I´m taking historic and modern astrophysical and cosmological terms and observations in order to compare the ancient and modern perceptions of the "the Universe".

To me it is beyond any doubts that the ancient numerous cultural telling of the creation is very similar indeed. This is very logical as the ancient knowledge derives from the same/similar observations of the daily and annual rhythms of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the Starry Sky.

By interpreting ancient gods and goddesses into modern terms of different forces, it is IMO possible to find common religious and scientific knowledge of the past and present.

From all this, I´ve concluded very similar ancient and modern descriptions of the creation - but I´ve also discovered some very significant different world perceptions between the ancient and modern knowledge.

The biggest difference is that ancient cultures perceived everything to be cyclical in nature compared to the modern speculative linear idea of a "Big Bang".

 

[Martin]

Scrutiny is always useful, IMO, since it's a journey. I usually work with assumptions rather than beliefs, because that allows for a more flexible approach. I've found that attachment to beliefs can be an obstacle to new discoveries.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What method or methods do you use in testing if your beliefs are true or not? Do you apply different methods for testing different things in life, or do you test all things in life using only one method?

How confident are you that these tests work, and would you be willing to change the method(s) if a more reliable method came along?

Why do you feel the method(s) you utilize now work the best, and can you present tangible results that you could show others using these methods?

These questions are extremely vague, so feel free to explain things in more depth to fill in the gaps if you so desire. If you have questions begging more specific examples for clarification, feel free to ask. I hope others will answer with their perspectives as well.

Please be respectful in interacting with others, but I do encourage tough questions if any cross your minds.

Mostly any beliefs I have will have formed from experience, of myself and the rest of life, and no doubt coming from any information I have gathered and any abilities I have to process such over my life. Being rational (for the most part) and also being sceptical and suitably critical whilst gathering knowledge seems fundamental to me. Choosing which information to absorb no doubt accounts for a lot too, since I do believe in having a wide spread of knowledge rather than concentrating on one or a few specific areas.

Questioning as to the truth of any belief no doubt might come from asking a few questions, like - am I satisfied with myself as a person (do I need to change anything?); how do I regard others (and all life), and do I have any beliefs that might harm any others?; is my view of existence, and especially with regards to life, as accurate as I am capable of obtaining?; does my world view make any sense, that is, is it consistent without too many holes or contradictions? (given that I don't believe we can have knowledge of everything, at least not yet, for a long time, or even ever); lastly, are the approaches of others better than mine in their results?

Given all this, I don't have too many issues with my beliefs, but then I do recognise my own limitations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you would like to unpack your thoughts more, I would welcome it. No rush, though.

Okay, unpacking it is. I will start with this one: One of classical laws of logic as per Aristotle in the ontological and psychological sense.
"It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect."
"No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be."

Now here it is in the absurd sense for time, space and respect. A is A, right? Well, yes, no and in some sense only. If we reduce away time and space, these As are the same. If we keep different time and space, they are not the same. They are only similar in the respect of being As.
Now for the psychology of it. While that which is objective can't be changed by thinking differently about it, if it is subjective, someone could be thinking differently. Hence for X is Y or not Y, if in both cases further behavior follows based on both of them and both cases are with behavior, which can actually happen, you can get the following happening:
Some as e.g.: The world is natural.
Me: No, not just in one respect.
Someone: But it is a contradiction.

Well, not really, because it is that someone thinks that the world is natural and not and that contradiction in thinking doesn't make sense. But it is not a contradiction because natural is not in the same respect for all cases in time and space.
So I as a skeptic always try to do the words not just as thinking them but doing them as other behavior. The problem is the same for God and natural. They are both subjective concepts and abstracts, which are only real if you believe in one of them. I don't believe in any of them, because I don't have to.
So which is better?
I believe both in natural and God.
I believe in one and not the other.
I believe in neither.
Well, here is the test. Can you observe that there are humans, who individually fit of of the 4? Yes! Can they do it? Yes. Can they act further? Yes, e.g. I am doing it right now.

So what is the joke? What is going on? Well, the world is the set of all cases of in the respect of time and place and further cases of in other respects, but nobody have been able to reduce away the subjective, because if they claim that they can do it, they are doing the following:
They subjectively think that they are doing it objectively, but if I can do it differently, I do it. Hence - No, I can think subjectively different than them and further act differently. Indeed I am doing it now..

And now back to better! How do you experience better? Can you see it, feel by touch or by any other external sensory experience it? No, you experience it in your mind. Can you calibrate a scientific instrument to measure better? No, there is no scientific measurement standard for better.
So here it is with fancy philosophy terms. While apparently the world is physical, the mental/mind/subjective is caused by the physical and supervenes on it, but it can't be done physically. It can only be done by thinking/feeling in brains and if I can use my brain differently than you, then it is not a contradiction, because it is not at the same time and place.
So if I can do what matters, what makes sense and what is real to me differently than you, to you then that is not unique to us. That is so for all humans with a sufficiently function brain.
In philosophy that is an old one: Protagoras - "Man is the measurement of what is, as it is and what is not, as it is not."
Measurement is including better as what matters, what makes sense and what is real subjectively.

So if your epistemologies are better to you and you claim they are so for all humans, I as a skeptic just test if I can get away with thinking/feeling differently and further act on it. Just as I am doing now.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[SigurdReginson]

What do you mean by tangible results?

Hmmm... Maybe "tangible results" aren't the best words to use in describing testing methods for truth, as not all things can be put under a microscope.

I guess a words I might use instead would be "perceivable results," meaning, can others look at your line of logic in testing their own truth in a way similar to you and achieve the same results, or does your personal litmus test only work within the context of your personal path and views?

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm... Maybe "tangible results" aren't the best words to use in describing testing methods for truth, as not all things can be put under a microscope.

I guess a word I might use instead would be "perceivable results," meaning, can others look at your line of logic in testing their own truth in a way similar to you and achieve the same results, or does your personal litmus test only work within the context of your personal path and views?

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to the Kalam cosmological argument?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to the Kalam cosmological argument?

Hmmm... I'm wholely ignorant to the term. I just did a quick Google search, and the gist I seem to get is that it's a method of belief derived from argument? What is it?

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm... I'm wholely ignorant to the term. I just did a quick Google search, and the gist I seem to get is that it's a method of belief derived from argument? What is it?

The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for a necessary being. Everything is contingent, and following the principle of necessary reason, the regression will lead to a necessary being. That necessary being is then negotiated separately as God.

 

[SigurdReginson]

This is very logical as the ancient knowledge derives from the same/similar observations of the daily and annual rhythms of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the Starry Sky.

True. There is also the fact that many myths are connected via deeper roots, such as the common themes seen between the Twin Founders of PIE descended people's where one is murdered.

By interpreting ancient gods and goddesses into modern terms of different forces, it is IMO possible to find common religious and scientific knowledge of the past and present.

Hmmm... It's an interesting concept, at least. To what ends, though?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Scrutiny is always useful, IMO, since it's a journey. I usually work with assumptions rather than beliefs, because that allows for a more flexible approach. I've found that attachment to beliefs can be an obstacle to new discoveries.

Hmmm... What does "working with assumptions" mean? What makes beliefs inherently less flexible vs. assumption?

 

[stvdv]

What method or methods do you use in testing if your beliefs are true or not?

IMO:
Spiritual Path is a personal journey or Quest. So, I need to figure out my own methods to check if my beliefs are true or not. And others need to figure this out for themselves too. Would be very easy and convenient to have others figuring it out for me, but that will never work on the Spiritual Path

I had a great Teacher/Professor (a very Wise man) when I studied Engineering for 5 years. He taught me "it's not important what you learn here, the most important thing is that you learn how to learn, so that you can tackle any problems in life yourself, after you finish your study"

This is what I always do if I encounter a problem, I just apply what this Teacher/Professor taught me

My Master, claims to be an Incarnation of Shiva Shakti (the Divine Energy), a Poorna Avatar. An extraordinary claim, because such an Incarnation only happens once in many thousands of years

So, my first reaction was: "Wow, that is quite a claim. My engineer study took 5 years to complete, so for sure I will need 10 years"

I discovered what I wanted to know, and others will have to figure this out for themselves too. Design your own methods is the most rewarding

 

[SigurdReginson]

The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for a necessary being. Everything is contingent, and following the principle of necessary reason, the regression will lead to a necessary being. That necessary being is then negotiated separately as God.

Is one able to test the value of this method's results outside the confines of philosophical argument?

 

[firedragon]

Is one able to test the value of this method's results outside the confines of philosophical argument?

There is no way to "test" a philosophical argument and its actually illogical to even consider it since the argument is for a necessary being prior to the beginning of the universe which is leading to metaphysics.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Mostly any beliefs I have will have formed from experience, of myself and the rest of life, and no doubt coming from any information I have gathered and any abilities I have to process such over my life. Being rational (for the most part) and also being sceptical and suitably critical whilst gathering knowledge seems fundamental to me. Choosing which information to absorb no doubt accounts for a lot too, since I do believe in having a wide spread of knowledge rather than concentrating on one particular area.

Questioning as to the truth of any belief no doubt might come from asking a few questions, like - am I satisfied with myself as a person (do I need to change anything?); how do I regard others (and all life), and do I have any beliefs that might harm any others?; is my view of existence, and especially with regards to life, as accurate as I am capable of obtaining?; does my world view make any sense, that is, is it consistent without too many holes or contradictions? (given that I don't believe we can have knowledge of everything, at least not yet, for a long time, or even ever); lastly, are the approaches of others better than mine in their results?

Given all this, I don't have too many issues with my beliefs, but then I do recognise my own limitations.

I think this is a good, simple, and we'll rounded approach. I like!

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm... What does "working with assumptions" mean? What makes beliefs inherently less flexible vs. assumption?

They are two words, but are involuntarily the same. Just that people have certain stigmas against certain words. People sometimes refuse to use certain words or even accept them.

recently I told one Atheist in this very forum that based on a research, an assumption was given. Oh the reaction was stupendous. "How could research come up with assumptions"? Refused to accept it, and will never accept it, of course unless later some googling will help with it never to return to the same conversation.

Theists like to use the word belief. They hate this word assumption to be used in anything related to their theology.

Its strange, but it's true. Semantics.

 

[SigurdReginson]

There is no way to "test" a philosophical argument and its actually illogical to even consider it since the argument is for a necessary being prior to the beginning of the universe which is leading to metaphysics.

Hmmm... But the philosophical argument is in relation to a non-philosophical (and very literal) being. It's one thing the philosophize the nature of the inner workings of the mind, but it's another to philosophize the nature of something actually existing, it seems to me. How does one test that?

 

[firedragon]

Hmmm... But the philosophical argument is in relation to a non-philosophical (and very literal) being. It's one thing the philosophize the nature of the inner workings of the mind, but it's another to philosophize the nature of something actually existing, it seems to me. How does one test that?

Philosophically.

Anyway, you said something that spurred up a bit of curiosity in me. You said something about Philosophical arguments for non-philosophical things and the nature of mind etc etc. It seems like you have not understood the argument.

Or have you understood it?

 

[Martin]

Hmmm... What does "working with assumptions" mean? What makes beliefs inherently less flexible vs. assumption?

Assumptions are more provisional than beliefs, and easier to adjust, so there is less chance of getting attached to them. It allows for a more open approach to exploration and discovery.

 

[firedragon]

It's one thing the philosophize the nature of the inner workings of the mind

In your idea, how does a mind exist?