Belief vs. Reason

[cesara]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Very well said, Thalassa! And yes, 'truth' is, indeed, a very slippery thing....

I found this quote and thought it was quite appropriate for this thread:

You amuse me, you who seem worried that I impose impractical studies upon you. It does not only reside with mediocre minds, but all men have difficulty in persuading themselves that it is through these studies, as if with instruments, that one purifies the eye of the soul, and that one causes a new fire to burn in this organ which was obscured and as though extinguished by the shadows of the other sciences, an organ whose conservation is more important than ten thousand eyes, since it is by it alone that we contemplate the truth.

- Plato, The Republic

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

I'm OK with that, Thalassa, right up until someone says "iffin' you don't believe in Santa the way I want you to, then you are an inferior being," or until they claim that 2+2=13 (i.e.: make real-world claims that are clearly false), and then commences to form political or social policy on the fib.

That's what Dawkins was getting at, 'though admittedly in a heavy-handed way, Cesara.

[cesara]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Indeed, B. de Corbin, indeed. My line of thought was that belief doesn't have to be supported by empirical 'truth' in order for it to be spiritually effective. Now, of course someone can take the empirically non-supported spiritual whim and apply it to the mundane world, and rather ineffectively, I might imagine, but that topic probably deserves a thread all of it's own!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Yup - it is important to make the distinction between subjective and objective "truth." That distinction is what I saw missing in the discussion, so I made it.

I read a lot of poetry - I love poetry. Much of it is dripping with "truth," but it is a different kind of "truth" from that which one finds in an algebra book

[cesara]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Yes, and, there is no such thing as empirical proof of God, or spiritual experience...and, as far as I can tell, that's kind of the point of this thread.

[thalassa]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Yup - it is important to make the distinction between subjective and objective "truth." That distinction is what I saw missing in the discussion, so I made it.

I read a lot of poetry - I love poetry. Much of it is dripping with "truth," but it is a different kind of "truth" from that which one finds in an algebra book

I think a problem is that we collectively use the word "truth" (which is something very broad and multi-faceted) (and also a problem with "real" and "reality") by presuming that is the same as "fact" (a concrete and objectively derived piece of discrete information, capable of being independently confirmed) rather than "perception" of "fact".

It is impossible for us to ever know the actual, objective truth of anything, because it has been/is/will always be filtered (and skewed) by our perception and interpretation of the thing, which is based on everything from our education level, our life experiences, our pre-existing opinions and biases, our state of mind at the time of the event, etc. The best we can get is a sort of "consensus" truth or (more likely) an "average" truth, based on what multiple people can mostly agree upon most of the time, based on their interpretation and experience of "fact". Just look at the problems of eyewitness testimony, and the creation of false memories, and our selective noticing (I just wanted an excuse to bring up the invisible gorilla).

[Amadi]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

^I split truth with 'faith' and 'trust' when it comes to that kind of thing. You trust your algebra book because it's telling you answers (evidence) that you need to know. Faith-y truth is opinionated and more subjected to opinions and focus effect.

My beliefs are more of an amalgamation that a set of beliefs at the moment, I go with my gut through most stuff so I'm gonna say I base them on faith more than evidence if middle ground isn't an option, but my evidence is my gut feeling. For example the other day I was walking down the path to work and a gust of wind struck a chord with me, whereas when I was sat in the middle of forest just listening/chilling I did catch anything at all. Neither is logical concrete evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless for me nonetheless and I don't really consider it as such because I don't need to.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

It is impossible for us to ever know the actual, objective truth of anything, because it has been/is/will always be filtered (and skewed) by our perception and interpretation of the thing, which is based on everything from our education level, our life experiences, our pre-existing opinions and biases, our state of mind at the time of the event, etc. The best we can get is a sort of "consensus" truth or (more likely) an "average" truth, based on what multiple people can mostly agree upon most of the time, based on their interpretation and experience of "fact". Just look at the problems of eyewitness testimony, and the creation of false memories, and our selective noticing (I just wanted an excuse to bring up the invisible gorilla).

That's what I tend to think of as the zeitgeist - and the zeitgeist can change drastically over time...

[Medusa]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Yes, and, there is no such thing as empirical proof of God, or spiritual experience...and, as far as I can tell, that's kind of the point of this thread.

I'm not a theist, as you all know. More importantly it's often quite baffling to me the way some theists think. Not 'I just don't get how stupid you are' baffling. But more like 'I just can't go there' baffling. No judgement really because hell I don't know everything either.

But. I can't think of a single theist I know who doesn't want proof of the most seemingly mundane things. But then wants to give the 'well there's no actual proof of god but here is why I believe because of my feelings,emotions, suspicions, deductions and or reason or rational'.

You tell person A that their cell phone bill will be cut in half and they want proof of that for future reference in case the company screws them over.

You tell person B to pay you rent via cash and 'hell no! I need proof I paid' just in case I have to go on Judge Judy. Because you know she's going to ask for proof.

You tell person C to go ahead and eat this meat. It's like, I dunno, a bit on the old side. But trust me, eat it. And they don't.

You tell person D, look take this blue pill, it will make you feel better...
Person E finds out there's a rumor about Obama being Muslim.....

Person F through ZZZZ...you get the point. You (the general people of the world who are theists I have personally come across in real life and on this very forum) all use proof for all your mundane day to day goings on.

An atheist ask for your proof and we are arrogant.
Go figure.:=L:

[thalassa]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

An atheist ask for your proof and we are arrogant.

Other than the horrible misapplication of the word "proof" (since proof is a mathematical and formal logic concept) that abounds in this universe (and in this thread, and not just from you--Cesara started it, lol) (it makes me want to cry )...

There is no such thing as "proof" that a picture is beautiful, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions.
There is no such thing as "proof" that my husband loves me, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions and experiences with him (which are certainly "evidence", but horrible subjective evidence).
There is no such thing as "proof" that vehicle A is better than vehicle B, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions and experiences, and how much trust I put in the experiences and evaluations of others as determined by a personal set of carachteristics that I deem important (and that the next person might find meaningless).


Its not arrogant to ask for someone's reasoning for their beliefs. Its arrogant to demand "proof" when "proof" isn't the measure for abstract and subjective ideas and the individual involved knows very well that to do so is an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the purpose and usefulness of evidence-based science.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

That was fun... I just went through a whirlwind tour of the proof vs. evidence can o' worms...

Evidence, Knowledge, and Proof

QuickLesson 2: Sources vs. Information vs. Evidence vs. Proof

There’s a Difference Between Evidence and Proof

Is there a difference between "proof" and "evidence" ?

[Medusa]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Other than the horrible misapplication of the word "proof" (since proof is a mathematical and formal logic concept) that abounds in this universe (and in this thread, and not just from you--Cesara started it, lol) (it makes me want to cry )...

There is no such thing as "proof" that a picture is beautiful, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions.
There is no such thing as "proof" that my husband loves me, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions and experiences with him (which are certainly "evidence", but horrible subjective evidence).
There is no such thing as "proof" that vehicle A is better than vehicle B, that is something I determine for myself on the basis of my own sensory perceptions and experiences, and how much trust I put in the experiences and evaluations of others as determined by a personal set of carachteristics that I deem important (and that the next person might find meaningless).


Its not arrogant to ask for someone's reasoning for their beliefs. Its arrogant to demand "proof" when "proof" isn't the measure for abstract and subjective ideas and the individual involved knows very well that to do so is an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of the purpose and usefulness of evidence-based science.

I don't think it's arrogant to ask for someone's proof, when that person uses proof in their every day life. Let's be real real here for a sec. People get upset when a person asks for proof because they end up sitting their with rocks in their mouths. I've seen it. People get pissy when you question (they call it challenging or disrespecting) their religion. On an honest level, I don't actually care about your religion or care to prove you 'wrong' and me 'right'. But I tend to push on those people who spout it all out like it's in a book written with God's left vein or something. If YOU want to spout how it's THE ONLY TRUTH...don't get pissy when someone ask...prove it.

(this goes for the extreme douches of the world. Not the majority of theists and non. We pretty much just want to pay for our coffee and bid each other a good day)

[cesara]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

...and I think this is where the very vocal new atheists fall flat on their patooties....I will quote the article I posted earlier, again: "Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. "

New atheists (at least those who are in the media) speak of lack of 'proof'. Then, there is talk about proof vs. evidence, and 'truth' and all that mumbo jumbo, when, the fact is, most people don't hold to a certain religion/spiritual belief because it's 'true'/they have 'proof' or 'evidence'.....they hold to it because it's meaningful and transforms their lives in a way that is positive for them.

I don't care about proof. I care about what your beliefs do on the inside, and how that is expressed on the outside. THAT is what matters, IMHO. To most atheists I know, it's the proof that matters more. (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

I also love what Thalassa has said. Would you ever ask her to prove that her husband loves her? How would she go about proving that to you? What about proving that a flower is beautiful? What would be required to 'prove' that?

It all boils down to the poetic 'truth' that B. de Corbin was talking about....and people keep trying to squish it into a box requiring empirical evidence....it's a place where it simply doesn't belong. :P

added:
And, for me, as a panentheist, the proof is all around me. I exist. Trees exist. Rocks exist.

Now, go ahead and ask me how I 'know' that trees exist....that I exist....now tell me how objective science is, again.

[Jembru]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Still speaking my language Cesara. You've hit the nail on the head for me. I think I got sidetracked by asking the wrong questions. You'e right though. Proof isn't the important thing. In fact, come to think of it, if we did prove the existance of god, saying as god's 'power' or influence over us is unlikely to change, it would quickly become another interestiing but otherwise trivial fact of life. Those who need to find spiritual meaning in their lives, would probably start looking for something else to believe in.

[Medusa]

Re: Belief vs. Reason

Though I actually agree on your stance of what religion is/should be. This is why atheists get upset. You take YOUR feelings and you make them part of MY rights or lack there of or twist of. Imagine if I decided to push my Satanic feelings on the world, call it the one true religion and put everyone else in their place. Theists do not own the world. They must learn to play nice and not get upset when someone calls them on their bs. And as I am known to being real and not mincing words...some of the stuff certain theists believe in is pretty much b to the big ol s. Which a ok with me, till you make it part of my bs.