Basis of Belief

[SalixIncendium]

What is the primary basis of your beliefs?*

Do you feel one primary basis or foundation is more correct than another? Why or why not?


*I understand many of you may use a combination of these to form a belief, but I used "primary" in the question above to learn what your go-to or default foundation is, which is why only one poll choice is permitted in this poll.

____________________________________________

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm disappointed I can't nitpick over your poll. Well done.

 

[ChristineM]

I have no religious beliefs, that does not mean i have no beliefs. Those beliefs are earned from both evidenced, experiment and learning Probably evidence is primary

 

[PureX]

I find belief unnecessary. Basically, belief is just pretending to know things that we don't really know, so I try not to do that.

 

[F1fan]

Let's note that people can believe through various types of influence. Reasoning can inform judgment/belief but it also requires self-awareness to reflect whether the self is being convinced by an emotional appeal. Con men use tricks that compels emotional judgments, and these victims have flaws in how they reason. A person who has been conned can believe they arrived at their decision factually and with reason when in fact they were manipulated through emotions.

Cultural and religious can be conditioned by a person's life experience and they end up believing as a consequence of this experience, not from a deliberate and sober thinking process. These kinds of beliefs are often the hardest to change since they become a sort of operating software for meaning and identity over many decades.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For any doubt, I go to science.

 

[Lain]

What is the primary basis of your beliefs?*

Do you feel one primary basis or foundation is more correct than another? Why or why not?

Experiential is my primary basis, even for taking in a massive amount of teaching based on it "working" for me. I've seen many come around through these different bases so I don't really think one is necessarily better than the other, but I often recommend experience to people for it seems to solve the most problems the fastest. If God is omnipresent and the other traits, along with being a person, you should be able to ask Him to show Himself to you and experience God in my view, so I just say "pray, fast, do some vigils." Moreover those who have these experiences seem to be completely unbothered by various problems others have like the problem of evil, for they've seen/experienced God and so they know things are just fine anyway. But some people are fine even without it. All of these things you listed interact and flow into one another in my view also.

 

[sun rise]

I picked 'other' because it's both experiential and evidential with neither having precedence as a primary consideration. In fact I have a hard time separating the two.

Meher Baba's colophon has all 6 major revealed religions - tying them all together. There's a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared By All Religions" which has the same basic ethical/moral principles about love, service and the like although 'dressed' in vastly different religious garments. The Dalai Lama, certain Islamic sufis and some sages in Jewish Kabbalah say the same thing. Sri Ramakrishna had an experience of Jesus. And it goes on.

Using that, the evidence is that there's a root similarity among religions and my experience of them tells me the same thing.

Experience and evidence "shook hands" and agreed.

 

[PureX]

Experiential is my primary basis, even for taking in a massive amount of teaching based on it "working" for me. I've seen many come around through these different bases so I don't really think one is necessarily better than the other, but I often recommend experience to people for it seems to solve the most problems the fastest. If God is omnipresent and the other traits, along with being a person, you should be able to ask Him to show Himself to you and experience God in my view, so I just say "pray, fast, do some vigils." Moreover those who have these experiences seem to be completely unbothered by various problems others have like the problem of evil, for they've seen/experienced God and so they know things are just fine anyway. But some people are fine even without it. All of these things you listed interact and flow into one another in my view also.

I like the way your brain works ... holistically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a rational believe I am going to rely on evidence. Though one could still have what I would call a reasonable religious belief. One huge problem with religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, I am not going to say that this applies to all religions, is that they are far too dogmatic in their morals. Proper morals are often situational. One could even argue for slavery in certain conditions, of course that would have to rely on a god that is not omnipotent or any of the other 'omnis'. There was a time in this world when the only options were slavery or death. That of course was in the time of immature societies competing with other immature societies. But I could see choosing a religion based upon a moral structure that exists now and works. That would not be proof or even very strong evidence that that belief is the right one. It could be just the "right one" now.

 

[John D. Brey]

I find belief unnecessary. Basically, belief is just pretending to know things that we don't really know, so I try not to do that.

You say you "find" belief unnecessary. But since millions of others "find" it necessary, you must "believe" that what you personally find to be the case is more accurate than what others find to be the case.

You then proceed to say that belief is just pretending to know things. But since millions of others don't believe they're pretending to know those things they believe, you've got to believe your belief that they're pretenders is stronger than their belief that they aren't pretending when they believe. You probably don't have a monopoly on belief? Surely you don't have the market cornered? Surely your stated beliefs aren't necessarily better that other's beliefs simply because they're yours?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I have no religious beliefs, that does not mean i have no beliefs. Those beliefs are earned from both evidenced, experiment and learning Probably evidence is primary

I frequently quote the philosopher Karl Popper because of his brilliance in deconstructing the fallacy of empirical observations as a foundation for the growth of knowledge.

Popper showed that the primary role empirical observations play in the growth of scientific knowledge is actually counter-intuitive. The great thinkers who moved man's knowledge forward weren't those who took empirical perceptions as a given, or as a source of truth, but those who had the sense and honesty to realize that not only could empirical observations not be trusted, but that they were actually, and easily, provably false.

It's the observation that all empirical observation are, every single one of them, false, undeniably fabricated, undeniably untrue, that led to the growth of what today we call scientific knowledge. The first law of scientific knowledge is the fact that empirical knowledge is every bit of it every bit as false as 2+2=5.

Starting from this factual, scientific, predicate, we can build a strong case that religious faith is not what the agnostic or the atheist think it is since the religious believer is most often, and most likely, not willing to believe his lyin eyes, while the agnostic and or atheist is often mesmerized, in lust with, and willing to marry his epistemological development to, literally to lionize, the flickering falsehoods presented to him by his lyin eyes.

We walk by faith not by sight.

St. Paul.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . While I purchased Diary of a Madman whilst the vinyl was still warm, I still don't consider it canonical.




John

 

[Laika]

I'm going to buck the trend and vote "Scriptural". As an Atheist, I'd normally claim to be based on evidence and experience. But when it comes to arguing out complex philosophical problems, I am heavily reliant on specific texts to articulate and clarify a position. It would be nearly impossible to hold my current beliefs without continuous reading.

Edit: Another reason to vote "scripture" is how often any and all forms of evidence are open to interpretation, so you have to argue out why you choose one interpretation over another. There are major philosophical biases at work and that's often inherited from your reading and the collective wealth of ideas available in society as a whole as much as your own personal experience.

 

[ChristineM]

I frequently quote the philosopher Karl Popper because of his brilliance in deconstructing the fallacy of empirical observations as a foundation for the growth of knowledge.

Popper showed that the primary role empirical observations play in the growth of scientific knowledge is actually counter-intuitive. The great thinkers who moved man's knowledge forward weren't those who took empirical perceptions as a given, or as a source of truth, but those who had the sense and honesty to realize that not only could empirical observations not be trusted, but that they were actually, and easily, provably false.

It's the observation that all empirical observation are, every single one of them, false, undeniably fabricated, undeniably untrue, that led to the growth of what today we call scientific knowledge. The first law of scientific knowledge is the fact that empirical knowledge is every bit of it every bit as false as 2+2=5.

Starting from this factual, scientific, predicate, we can build a strong case that religious faith is not what the agnostic or the atheist think it is since the religious believer is most often, and most likely, not willing to believe his lyin eyes, while the agnostic and or atheist is often mesmerized, in lust with, and willing to marry his epistemological development to, literally to lionize, the flickering falsehoods presented to him by his lyin eyes.


John

Actually finding the evidence and analysing it gives better, hard results than thinking about why people want those results. Its called education

 

[PureX]

You say you "find" belief unnecessary. But since millions of others "find" it necessary, you must "believe" that what you personally find to be the case is more accurate than what others find to be the case.

Clever, but pointless. Our profound ignorance is self-evident. Or it is the moment we are willing to acknowledge it. So I need no special knowledge to recognize it or defend it. And neither does anyone else. Once this fact of the human condition is acknowledged, "belief" becomes a disingenuous delusion, and we can simply trust in a circumstantial hypothesis, or not, and move on.

You then proceed to say that belief is just pretending to know things. But since millions of others don't believe they're pretending to know those things they believe, ...

What they or I "believe in" is irrelevant. What matters is what is and what isn't. What is and what isn't is the human condition. The condition of our unknowing. We can pretend we know all kinds of things by "believing in" that pretense, but the fact remains that we know almost nothing. We understand almost nothing. We live in a "reality" that our minds have imagined and memorized in our brains. We think that imaginary world is THE world, because THE world exists apart from us except through a few very limited sensory mechanisms.

If we humans ever reach a point in the arc of our existence where we actually do want to pursue 'the truth' of things, instead of delusions of truth based on functionality that make us feel invincible, we're going to have to begin at the beginning. And that beginning comes with accepting our profound ignorance, and unknowing. And that begins when we finally choose to stop 'believing in' our own BS.

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm going to buck the trend and vote "Scriptural". As an Atheist, I'd normally claim to be based on evidence and experience. But when it comes to arguing out complex philosophical problems, I am heavily reliant on specific texts to articulate and clarify a position. It would be nearly impossible to hold my current beliefs without continuous reading.

Most philosophers of science (at least the ones I've read) agree with you. Karl Popper says that the ability to archive observations by means of the written word is the start of the scientific endeavor. Without a means to archive thoughts, experiments, observations, the growth of knowledge would be difficult.

Imagine not being able to read the Bible, or Schopenhauer, or Einstein.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Actually finding the evidence and analysing it gives better, hard results than thinking about why people want those results.

Right. And in that process, the deepest analyzers began to think about the empirical evidence itself. For instance, empirically speaking, the sun and moon are the same size. Just ask any aborigine and he will tell you they are. To tell him the sun is hundreds of times larger than the moon would burst his bubble so that he might spear you as a heretic or heathen. He'd look west at the sun (measuring it betwixt his thumb and forefinger), east at the moon (measuring it the same), turn and gut you then and there as a trouble-making witch-doctor trying to curse his thoughts.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but empirical evidence has been found to be wanting. It's wrong. It's a lie. Please spare me a spearing for bursting your bubble. I assure you I'm no witch-doctor.




John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's a really difficult question, actually. There are things about the workings of which are past my ability to understand. MRIs, for example, are beyond me. Yet I've had them, and they gave the surgeon all the information he needed to do a bang up job. So I "know" (which means believe) that they work. That part is experiential -- I haven't got the physics and math to a sufficient level to get there by reason.

For moral situations, I really have to say that I am guided by my life-long attempt to understand what morality is (and isn't) based pretty much entirely on observation (of human situations) and reason (or analysis). People can tell me that masturbation is immoral, and I simply know that it is not because there is no reason that it should be.

I've been hungry (when the Children's Aid abandoned me on the streets of Toronto at 17) and watched other people eat, so now I know how that feels, and that informs my behaviour if I see someone else in as much need. Frankly, I can do without my lunch now -- I've stores enough of calories (let's be honest and call it fat) to keep me going for a while. Therefore, I know that it is right that I do what I can to help -- hand over my lunch, or lunch money, whichever I was planning on.

(I'm not rich enough to help everybody, so I also apply a life-time of experience to make decisions -- and these really are based on "belief" because I can't truly see inside another person's mind -- about who is really in need, and who is just scamming for more drug money. By the way, I don't judge people for drugs, either, but I'm much less likely to contribute to the habit.)

As @Subduction Zone mentioned, and you can see that I agree, most of human morality is situational. And that requires that we observe and relate to our experience as faithfully as we can.

 

[ChristineM]

Right. And in that process, the deepest analyzers began to think about the empirical evidence itself. For instance, empirically speaking, the sun and moon are the same size. Just ask any aborigine and he will tell you they are. To tell him the sun is hundreds of times larger than the moon would burst his bubble so that he might spear you as a heretic or heathen. He'd look west at the sun, east at the moon, turn and gut you then and there for clearly messing with him.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but empirical evidence has been found to be wanting. It's wrong. It's a lie. Please spare me a spearing for bursting your bubble.



John

Yet in reality the sun and moon only appear the same size. An optical illusion caused by different distances.

So what bubble have you burst? And if all you can do is offer threats then i think we are done