Incomplete Unbelief

[tomspug]

If you disbelieve in something that was flawed, how can you be sure that the flaw wasn't in your own perception of the apparently flawed? In other words, how can you be sure that your unbelief is valid?

On the flip side, if you believe in something that is perfect, how can you be sure that it is perfect unless the lens through which it is observed is also perfect?

In other words, how can you believe or disbelieve anything completely?

 

[Caladan]

If you disbelieve in something that was flawed, how can you be sure that the flaw wasn't in your own perception of the apparently flawed? In other words, how can you be sure that your unbelief is valid?

On the flip side, if you believe in something that is perfect, how can you be sure that it is perfect unless the lens through which it is observed is also perfect?

In other words, how can you believe or disbelieve anything completely?

Its less a matter of belief and more of an acknowledment.
for example, its easier for me to acknowledge the rotation of the earth on its axis creates the effect of day and night, but I perfectly disbelieve that prophets and god-men turned water into wine, or ride flying steeds.

 

[Father Heathen]

Doubt is always good, including doubting your doubt. I think rigid certainty is unhealthy.

 

[Rin]

Its a matter of context. If, when leaving the house, you are asked whether your are sure you have everything you need, how should you answer? Custom dictates you say "Yes, I am unsure". Of course you aren't really certain but nor are you lying. Its just that the context of the utterance changes the weight of what you are saying.

When being asked about beliefs in a normal, every day context, certainty is just shorthand because we realise it is unnecessary to accomodate sceptical doubts here. I'm not being asked whether I have overcome them because the person who is asking me likely hasn't overcome them themselves and so I ignore them. It is just a matter of convenience designed to take advantage of the fact that we often have enough middle ground to work with that there is no point in trying to get a bit more.

 

[Madhuri]

I think it is important that people acknowledge that even if they feel very strongly about their belief, they realise that they don't and that they can't know the actual truth. There is always a posibility that you are wrong, that you don't know.
Our beliefs are formed from determining probability. 'Based on what you do know, the knowledge you have gained, it owuld seem as though this outcome is most likely'. But even if everything seems to point to something being true there is always the posibility that you re wrong, that you are missing some vital fact that disproves everything.

That is why it is so important to keep an open mind and question everything. Never believe something just because somebody told you it is true. That can be very dangerous.

 

[Engyo]

Personally, I believe in results. I did not "believe in" practicing Buddhism until well after I had put it's claims to the test and seen that they were not nonsense - that I really did see measurable results happening. It was also instructive to note that upon stopping practice the reults I had gained held for a while and then began to fade. Belief is much easier to hold and conversely harder to unseat when one continually proves its vaidity to oneself.

 

[cardero]

If you disbelieve in something that was flawed, how can you be sure that the flaw wasn't in your own perception of the apparently flawed? In other words, how can you be sure that your unbelief is valid?

On the flip side, if you believe in something that is perfect, how can you be sure that it is perfect unless the lens through which it is observed is also perfect?

In other words, how can you believe or disbelieve anything completely?

If a belief has never been proven to a Truth or an Untruth, the belief is still in play. Just because people throw beliefs away like Hallmark cards does not mean that they are done with them.

 

[cardero]

Doubt is always good,

Doubt (like faith) is belief abuse.

 

[Dunemeister]

If you disbelieve in something that was flawed, how can you be sure that the flaw wasn't in your own perception of the apparently flawed? In other words, how can you be sure that your unbelief is valid?

On the flip side, if you believe in something that is perfect, how can you be sure that it is perfect unless the lens through which it is observed is also perfect?

In other words, how can you believe or disbelieve anything completely?

I'd question whether your assumption, namely that we can believe something if and only if we can prove that our cognitive faculties are aimed at the truth and always, in every circumstance, obtain true beliefs. As soon as you doubt the ability of your cognitive faculties to get mostly true beliefs, you surrender intellectual activity period. That's a pretty high price.

That said, it's really hard to believe that our cognitive faculties do indeed provide us with true beliefs unless they have been specifically designed to do so, are designed well, and are functioning properly. And it's hard to believe all THAT on naturalist metaphysical assumptions. On supernaturalistic assumptions, there's no problem.

 

[MissAlice]

I've often asked myself this and it is not something I cannot concieve. It is this very issue as to why I don't particularly side with belief and non-belief to the extremes.

The only input I could give is keeping an open mind. I find that even science is beyond my comprehension since the remaining question still lingers.....why does life exist aside from competition and procreation?

 

[BucephalusBB]

The only input I could give is keeping an open mind. I find that even science is beyond my comprehension since the remaining question still lingers.....why does life exist aside from competition and procreation?

A question wich will never be answered in your lifetime.. or any lifetime..

 

[tumbleweed41]

A good dose of healthy skepticism can keep one from falling to deeply into unreasonable belief.

 

[J Bryson]

Yes, it's entirely possible that I simply don't get it. However, barring my getting it someday, my skepticism remains intact.

 

[mimidotcom]

I think it is important that people acknowledge that even if they feel very strongly about their belief, they realise that they don't and that they can't know the actual truth. There is always a posibility that you are wrong, that you don't know.
Our beliefs are formed from determining probability. 'Based on what you do know, the knowledge you have gained, it owuld seem as though this outcome is most likely'. But even if everything seems to point to something being true there is always the posibility that you re wrong, that you are missing some vital fact that disproves everything.

That is why it is so important to keep an open mind and question everything. Never believe something just because somebody told you it is true. That can be very dangerous.

KUDOS!!! i absolutely agree.. there is no one that knows for certain that what he/she believes is the absolute and perfect truth. there is a large margin for error and we have to take into account the imperfection of the men and women that pass their "knowledge and wisdom" onto us. (i mean the christian bible is this instance)

 

[Wandered Off]

In other words, how can you believe or disbelieve anything completely?

IMO, belief is what you have when certainty is lacking, so it seems implicit that it can't be complete.

Well that was an ungainly way to phrase it... :sorry1:

 

[tomspug]

Its less a matter of belief and more of an acknowledment.
for example, its easier for me to acknowledge the rotation of the earth on its axis creates the effect of day and night, but I perfectly disbelieve that prophets and god-men turned water into wine, or ride flying steeds.

Well, you're talking about two totally different things. There are things that exist in the realm of belief and those that exist in the realm of the "known". If you ONLY acknowledge that which exists in the known, then you are refusing to engage the realm of belief.

And, comparatively, there is very little in the realm of the "known". For example, is a certain politician trustworthy. That is almost completely in the realm of belief. Sure, you can KNOW their physical appearance and their past, but the character and value of the person is almost entirely a matter of belief. Religion is one of the few, picked-on realms of belief, so we are fooling ourselves by only focusing on what is very easily acknowledged. I could say "I believe the sky is blue, but I'm not so sure about the meaning of life".

 

[Dunemeister]

The only input I could give is keeping an open mind. I find that even science is beyond my comprehension since the remaining question still lingers.....why does life exist aside from competition and procreation?

What makes this question particularly poignant is that there are two interpretations of "why"? You might be asking about the cause of life: "How did life emerge from nonlife" or about the purpose of life. And you're exactly right that science cannot really deal well with these questions. That doesn't mean answers, even right answers, aren't to be had.

 

[tomspug]

IMO, belief is what you have when certainty is lacking, so it seems implicit that it can't be complete.

Well that was an ungainly way to phrase it... :sorry1:

I don't think that certainty and belief are necessarily incompatible. There is a difference between knowledge and assurance. For example, you can never KNOW that someone loves you in an absolute sense. It is entirely a matter of belief. Why? Because some things in life are fluid. And someone who loves you NOW may not necessarily love you in ten years.

A child can be certain that their father is the strongest man in the world. That does not make it true. It is also not entirely untrue. While the child's perception of the father may be flawed, the belief stems from a place of truth, that the father is the child's greatest source of strength.

Which brings me back to my original point, which is that disbelief is not necessarily valid. Nor is belief necessarily valid. The problem comes with treating belief like a simple equation, rather than a quality of life.

 

[Caladan]

Well, you're talking about two totally different things. There are things that exist in the realm of belief and those that exist in the realm of the "known". If you ONLY acknowledge that which exists in the known, then you are refusing to engage the realm of belief.

You really need to explain to me, what does it mean exist in the realm of belief.

And, comparatively, there is very little in the realm of the "known". For example, is a certain politician trustworthy. That is almost completely in the realm of belief. Sure, you can KNOW their physical appearance and their past, but the character and value of the person is almost entirely a matter of belief.

OK on many levels I strongly disagree with that. politicians as people who work in a public position, they are in the spot light for the public to make assessments and see 'what they are all about'.

Religion is one of the few, picked-on realms of belief, so we are fooling ourselves by only focusing on what is very easily acknowledged. I could say "I believe the sky is blue, but I'm not so sure about the meaning of life".

Not everyone are fooling themselves. some people 'believe the sky is blue', some understand that its the shorter wavelength light which is absorbed in gas molecules of the atmosphere which causes the blue color. as for the meaning of life, people may paint it with many beliefs, but we cannot say (at least I cant) that its as factual as understanding how light and our atmosphere work.

 

[3.14]

well i belief every belief has a flaw so if i can't find a flaw with it i remain sceptical