Is provability required for belief?

[Skwim]

Misunderstanding, in Greek "faith" means:
" 4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith."

So what? I never mentioned faith. The only mention of it was in the quote by Richard Dawkins in post #12 by dmap.

.


.

 

[Bird123]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

I think you have all this backwards.

Beliefs are very important. Without belief, we would all lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known.

On the other hand, beliefs are not above everything as religion often teaches. Beliefs merely point the direction by which one might go to Discover the Real Truth.
Example: One might believe a certain person could be a lifelong friend, however one will never know until they Discover that fact for themselves. Discovery does take work.

Even science starts with a Belief, what science does after that is what is making life better for us all. I see the effort it takes to Discover our beliefs are true, is the only real path forward. So Believe all you want, just don't stop with that.

 

[Left Coast]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

"Might" and "definitely will" or even "probably will" are different things. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that someone you just met might become a lifelong friend, if for no other reason than you know that lifelong friends at some point meet for the first time.

To determine whether it's probable or guaranteed that a person will be your lifelong friend, you need lots more information.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

Again, there's very different criteria involved in determining that something is possible and determining that something is factually true. I'm no expert on multiple universes, so I'd ask the people who engage in research on it for a living.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

May not/is not issue again.

Let me ask this: is it justifiable to believe that anything that could be true, actually is true? If not, why not?

Second question: how do we investigate anything at all about something beyond the physical universe? We only have access to the information provided by our five physical senses.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

I'm not really a materialist, so I'm the wrong person to ask. But I'm close I guess.

And I don't think that's true. I believe in all sorts of things for lots of weird reasons/biases.

Proof is for alcohol.

 

[Thief]

There is relative truth, and Truth that is an absolute that can only be Known by Intuition. Peace

got that.....

and as we get to know each other....
you will be surprised the level of intuition I have

note my signature

 

[Thief]

Probability is a mathematical tool. It is only useful to the extent that the accuracy of one's model allows it to be.

Science is, by design, even more limited. It can't really state very much at all without a lot of evidence and testing for alternatives.

As for the merits of belief as a form of reaching conclusions, I think that those are real enough. We certainly know and perceive a lot more than we can fully demonstrate and explain.

The problem here is not at all whether they are "scientific" or "materialistic" or "physicalist" enough to be taken seriously, but rather on how reliable and how clear they are to be trusted on their own terms, and on how responsible we are while relying on them. Those forms of perception are quite unreliable, as has been demonstrated time and again.




True, but misleading. Scientists are entitled to speculation just like anyone else. They just should not mislabel that speculation as scientific findings until and unless actual evidence and falseability are attained.


I don't think we have enough information yet to tell with much certainty one way or the other.

For the time being, it is just a matter of aesthetical perception.

saw documentary about probability....the math

everything from an roll of the dice, the shuffle of cards and forecasting the weather

toss the topic of politics into it......they did

toss Wall Street into it......omg

 

[Thief]

I'm not really a materialist, so I'm the wrong person to ask. But I'm close I guess.

And I don't think that's true. I believe in all sorts of things for lots of weird reasons/biases.

Proof is for alcohol.

so …..you believe whatever
and alcohol is the solution?

hehehehe

sorry ….it was there

 

[lewisnotmiller]

so …..you believe whatever
and alcohol is the solution?

hehehehe

sorry ….it was there

Heh. I actually thought something like that when I posted. I guess we have similar senses of humour!! Sorry...

 

[Mock Turtle]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Apart from science, where many having the necessary credentials will likely form an opinion, I think for the rest of us we have to balance the information we can process (accepting the many limitations and not always knowing the credibility of various sources) with our abilities and all that we have learnt. Hence for many things we will just have to accept a degree of doubt concerning many things - leaving things up in the air rather than us coming down completely on one side. Or that is how a sensible person would approach such things in my view.

Hence I try not to have fixed views on many things, and it usually means I will not accept certain beliefs before the evidence rises above a certain threshold. This might be lower for some than others. For me, consciousness doesn't have the appearance of being that special so as to put it outside of material reality and I think we will likely crack the problem not too far into the future. This is partly based on some evidence of a continuum of consciousness existing in humans and other animal species - for example:

Consciousness in Other Animals

What we know, and are always learning, about animal behaviour tends to show, for me at least, that such a continuum exists, and hence if it does then consciousness must have arisen at some point - possibly to do with memory enhancement and language acquisition. Consciousness being a 'gift' from God seems the least likely explanation. As does anything that goes beyond what we currently know about consciousness - that it has any influence outside of the body - apart from the usual aspects of communication.

Provability is usually beyond most of us so we have to in essence exist without it, although because of this, as mentioned above, it should then restrict what we actually believe - and it would seem to me to be wiser to do so.

 

[Fool]

So before scientific fact came to be everything everyone was doing was fantasy. Everything the cavemen did was just fantasy. Language is fantasy,(you can't prove Red is Red and it is Rojo, Rouge in other countries). Monetary value is fantasy (nothing supports it besides your belief).

experience of something isn't fantasy. when you speak of science, or 1st person knowledge is as much subjective as it is objective. science doesn't have to be organized anymore than a belief system has to be organized.



doing something actively isn't fantasy. having belief without testing and experiencing it is a waste of mental and physical experience. children intuitively have belief and test it in the real world without calling it faith, or belief. even without our language animals learn by doing and not just by believing and thinking.


faith without works is dead. faith without work just gives your faith. it doesn't produce anything of value except itself.

belief without investment isn't going to get you anything but belief.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

No one is under any law/requirement to have to prove anything to anyone. Even though many are.

faith without works is dead.

Taking this to a further meaning after any genuine and sincere effort/energy is put in, one can say that faith that doesn’t lead to knowing is dead. Faith without it working.

 

[Fool]

No one is under any law/requirement to have to prove anything to anyone. Even though many are.



Taking this to a further meaning after any genuine and sincere effort/energy is put in, one can say that faith that doesn’t lead to knowing is dead. Faith without it working.

people are always proving things to themselves. now having to prove it to someone else might be a problem of choice and sharing

 

[exchemist]

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

No this is completely wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I and others have had to set people straight about the nature of science. Science does not deal in proof at all. No theory in science is ever proved.

"Provable science" is a non-existent entity, of your own creation.

 

[Audie]

I think you have all this backwards.

Beliefs are very important. Without belief, we would all lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known.

On the other hand, beliefs are not above everything as religion often teaches. Beliefs merely point the direction by which one might go to Discover the Real Truth.
Example: One might believe a certain person could be a lifelong friend, however one will never know until they Discover that fact for themselves. Discovery does take work.

Even science starts with a Belief, what science does after that is what is making life better for us all. I see the effort it takes to Discover our beliefs are true, is the only real path forward. So Believe all you want, just don't stop with that.

In science one has to be very eyes-open about
"belief".

Note how you speak of "discover our beliefs are true".

Science works to prove beliefs are false, and can never
show they are true.
Actually nobody else can either.*
Yours is the route of willful self deception.

*I know, I know. Dont bother to go there.

 

[Audie]

No this is completely wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I and others have had to set people straight about the nature of science. Science does not deal in proof at all. No theory in science is ever proved.

"Provable science" is a non-existent entity, of your own creation.

When oh when will this ever be understood?

 

[exchemist]

When oh when will this ever be understood?

Never. Apparently.

Or at least, not by people who have built themselves an Aunt Sally to knock down, that relies on this falsehood.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

people are always proving things to themselves. now having to prove it to someone else might be a problem of choice and sharing

The shackles and chains in which many are under by always having to constantly prove themselves or explain themselves to others that have set standards and/or cannot be satiated can be pretty wild. Futility at work. All to try to please/appease others and their authorities of standards.

 

[Audie]

Never. Apparently.

Or at least, not by people who have built themselves an Aunt Sally to knock down, that relies on this falsehood.

The ridiculous thing about it is that it actually works
to their apparent advantage.

The ToE cannot be proved! It could still be wrong!!

And whether or not a theory could be proved is
really not a big deal to creo v evo. ToE could
still be wrong (it has not, after all, been proved)
and, creoism could be right.

"Proof" is a side issue. But still, they just
will not give it up.

 

[Fool]

The shackles and chains in which many are under by always having to constantly prove themselves or explain themselves to others that have set standards and/or cannot be satiated can be pretty wild. Futility at work. All to try to please/appease others and their authorities of standards.

life sucks when you're interdependent? no man is an island unto himself?

 

[Road Less Traveled]

life sucks when you interdependent? no man is an island unto himself?

That kind of dependency doesn’t have much to do with what I was referring to.