Applying scrutiny to your beliefs

[F1fan]

Introspection is one of the most valuable tools "of the self". My first case example in my life was when I was 13 and we watched the movie Helter Skelter about the Charlie Manson murders. Well, that wasn't a good night's sleep. I was so paranoid that someone was outside my window and was gonna come in and kill me. Being naturally introspective I began to assess my thoughts. Charlie Manson, Jr. surely wasn't in my small town looking for me, so why was I so damn nervous about it? I had no answers, but I was asking questions instead of living with the irrational fear.

As I grew up this experience gave me something to ponder as I had other irrational, fear-based feelings. I learned to reflect, assess, question, don't be too readily eager to believe something is the case. And of course this approach led me to not be convinced theism is factually credible. I acknowledge that many folks find meaning in theism, but I find meaning in other things.

Learning logic, practicing reason, working on being self-aware and reflective, all help me able to discern what is true versus untrue. Or what is likely versus unlikely.

 

[Deidre]

From my experiences, if I were to base my beliefs and faith of said belief on if it lives up to my scrutiny, then my faith is in me and not God. My faith tells me that I don’t need to hold God to my standards (which can sometimes change), I need to rise to His.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you.

Some problems I have with this that I can identify so far...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This relies on incomplete information, as we cannot know "everything." This is an objective premise, and we are subjective beings. It seems like 2D creatures explaining the nature of 3D, IMO.

As for your point about experiences, this is where the illusion of the ego comes in. It seems as though we experience things according to the impulses our brain creates. I could be sitting in a padded cell and doing this all within the confines of my own mind right now via some kind of insane asylum Matrix, but so what?

Ultimately, reality isn't right or wrong, hot or cold, black or white. It just is. My understanding of it is a whole coalition of what my senses gather and what my brain stores for my mind to interpret. What my mind interprets can be wrong, as preposition B posits, but knowing that, I can account for that by testing things according to how they respond within the confines of observable reality - even if that reality is a Matrix. That's all I will ever have to work with. It's flawed, but it is the only experience I can have.

In this respect, I am a 2D creature. I can assume what 3D might be like according to the information I have now, but to what ends? You see, time is the ultimate factor that assigns these pursuits intrinsic value. I can only ever experience a circle, and never a sphere, so why spend time to try to assume what a sphere even is? I'll just make due with my circle unless something of greater value than the time I spend in it's pursuit comes along. Without that return in investment, why invest much into it?

Correct. In a sense you are doing what reality is to you. And you don't worry about what objective really is as independent of you, but rather what it is to you.
That is not new in philosophy. You can "see" it here, if you look closely:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ...
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

You are doing the one after the "or". A lot of people go for a whole.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Outer world.. observation, experience, reasoning and analysis
Inner world... meditation, reflection, reasoning and experience.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

I think I must have been born with the KISS gene.

 

[idea]

I've changed beliefs several times. Change is evidence of being humble and teachable I think, though many see change as apostasy and evil.

 

[rational experiences]

Human commonsense knows survival is first.

Common sense human as the human.

Our shared experience.

If you asked a human thinker what part of creation did they actually create gives a moment of clarity to self destructive human choice.

Yet still ego says it knows. Yet it never created presence. Yet presence self a human conscious states it's egotism. I am present hence acts the way it does in presence. Yet you never created your one self. Sex creates other selves...human.

Sex however never created presence of creation.
Claiming to know. I must understand. I search. I want to know it all.

Then you understand. Wanting was to know why. One answer only why it all happened.

Destruction of the higher form thought upon as conditional to having had to have existed. Burning cooling converting evolution.

Spiritually we have been given an answer. Because unnatural choice and research caused change.

Change was not wanted.

So theists today say I will change but not change as I don't want destruction.
Innate human aware basic advice.

Hence consciousness says I know already.

Then theory about earths earthquake cause...release of bound energy...collapse fused status afterwards. Consuming of the body of God earths flesh to be released.

A cause effect. Owned by the God body itself naturally. Advised.

Birth and rebirth the space womb opened and form gets released out of held mass and disappears the radiation effect.

Yet because science caused gods flesh body to change space the law said no you won't.

And holds it and sent it back.

So we know.

I was told no human theories on behalf of what natural owns and causes itself.

Pretty basic advice.

Hence the eternal origin advice is virtually the same. Don't think change by research when you don't actually want to be changed.

Our owned spiritual advice. Consciousness in its inherited karma spiritual perusing causes of change.

We inherited creation spiritually in other words for being in the spirit body that changed itself.

 

[firedragon]

But if I don't know what it's contingent upon, I have no frame of reference to work with.

You have missed the whole point. Maybe another day.

Thanks SR. Have a great day.

 

[SigurdReginson]

You have missed the whole point. Maybe another day.

Thanks SR. Have a great day.

You too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

I ask my wife, and she tells me when I'm being ridiculous. Which appears to be a surprisingly large percentage of the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

In a nutshell, "true" means "those things that match actual reality".
So whatever it is that is being claimed, one would have to test it against actual reality.
That would be empiricism.

First, there's a division in things that can be directly tested and things that can only be indirectly tested through circumstantial evidence - like if certain events in the past actually occurred or not.

Then there might also be things, especially in daily life, where you pretty much have to make a decision while not being able to test / investigate it first (lack of funds, lack of time, lack of opportunity, ...)

At that point, I look at the "common"-ness factor.
Like if you tell me you binged a season of Friends on netflix while eating pizza... I'ld probably believe you. Nothing extraordinary there. And netflex has idd the show Friends in its catalogue.
I could, in principle, test it to see if it's on your playing list and could even further check at your ISP how many gigabytes you downloaded that day while streaming.
But that's a whole lot of trouble for a rather common claim of nothing special with a bazillion precedents. Without you having any motive for lying (for example; you are a suspect of a crime the same night), I have no real reason to doubt it.

If you go on to tell me that Jennifer Aniston at some point crawled out of the TV to give you a lap dance and to then return into the TV to finish the episode... That's when the left eyebrow goes up and insta-rejection of the wild a$$ claim occurs.

We have left the world of testability and precedents and have entered lala-land where magical unicorns can fly across the sky eating rainbows.

Do you apply different methods for testing different things in life, or do you test all things in life using only one method?

Yes, not everything can be tested in the same way.
However, it mostly all falls under the umbrella of empirical inquiry.

How confident are you that these tests work

As confident that when I flip the switch, the lights will go on.

, and would you be willing to change the method(s) if a more reliable method came along?

[/quote]

Instantly.

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?

The very fact that we are having this conversation at lightspeed using wireless devices build from micro-chips.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Before the train comes, stand in front of the train. After the train comes....personally ask God.