How can your belief be falsified?

[Sheldon]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

Belief from the heart without evidence seems to be what paves the way for people to consider and to use evidence based belief.

We start by choosing to believe in things without evidence. Belief and caring are closely related and probably symbiotic. If everything we believe were based upon evidence alone then it would be a cold and violent world, people knowing more than they care about. Thus we'd have an ignorant world like something out of a dystopian sci fi epic such as the dark period in Foundation -- or like modern southern China. This is because humans don't care about much unless we are encouraged to. You cannot fight ignorance with knowledge alone. Therefore evidence based belief is of limited use without belief that is merely a choice.

You must begin with the superstitious creature called a human, and you must do this every time another one is born. These silly creatures barely care about rationality at all, so long as they get their treats. But they can be encouraged to believe in evidence, to believe in social benefit, to believe in trusting and in forgiving. You must believe in fighting against ignorance, but you cannot teach people to fight against ignorance merely by educating. They have to want to believe in truth and knowledge and fellowship and competition and in allowing disagreement. They have to believe in personally applying moral principles, but these are not things you can prove using evidence -- not with finality. So there is a choice to believe in things like good and evil, first. Belief from the heart paves the way for evidence based belief.

 

[George-ananda]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

Religious and spiritual beliefs come down to best reasoning.

I believe in life after death as being highly likely from my best assessment of the afterlife evidence.

I do not believe in young earth creationism from my best assessment of the facts.

Both are unfalsifiable beliefs.

I justify both by best reason. All unfalsifiable beliefs are not equally likely to me and my reasoning forms my opinion on the likelihood of each.

 

[paarsurrey]

How can your belief be falsified?

How can "none"ianity be falsified, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Alien826]

How can your belief be falsified?

How can "none"ianity be falsified, please? Right?

Regards

Easy. Show that there is a god of some sort.

 

[Sheldon]

If everything we believe were based upon evidence alone then it would be a cold and violent world

How so? I am neither cold or violent, and this is how I base my beliefs. It also seems self evidence that beliefs without any evidence whatsoever have resulted in "a cold violent world".

You cannot fight ignorance with knowledge alone.

Well I'm not an educated man of course, but it seems to me you can do just that, by definition.

Ignorance
noun

1. lack of knowledge or information.

These silly creatures barely care about rationality at all, so long as they get their treats.

Lets not resort to generic condemnation just yet, I rather I was asking people how their beliefs can be falsified, not commenting on why they think it is ok to hold unfalsifiable beliefs, one step at a time if that makes sense.

They have to want to believe in truth and knowledge and fellowship and competition and in allowing disagreement.

Well yes, hence my question, if one holds one belief that is unfalsifiable, then there is no criteria to disbelieve other unfalsifiable beliefs, not objectively anyway.

They have to believe in personally applying moral principles, but these are not things you can prove using evidence -- not with finality.

Morality is subjective wouldn't you agree?

So there is a choice to believe in things like good and evil, first.

Well I think good and evil are subjective of course, so the choice must inevitably be subjective.

Belief from the heart paves the way for evidence based belief.

No offence but I don't know what you mean here? I use my brain to decide what I accept is true, I understand here that heart is a metaphor for emotion, I try not to base belief on emotion, why on earth would I?

 

[Alien826]

Religious and spiritual beliefs come down to best reasoning.

I believe in life after death as being highly likely from my best assessment of the afterlife evidence.

I do not believe in young earth creationism from my best assessment of the facts.

Both are unfalsifiable beliefs.

I justify both by best reason. All unfalsifiable beliefs are not equally likely to me and my reasoning forms my opinion on the likelihood of each.

That there is no life after death is perfectly falsifiable. Just produce some evidence of survival. I find some of your quoted evidence interesting, particularly near death experiences. The problem with that one is that the experiences have been described by people who didn't die. Some of the other stuff is certainly open to investigation.

YEC is falsifiable and has been, imo.

 

[Suave]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

I believe in string theory.

Benjamin Wandelt, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Illinois says that ancient light from the beginnings of our universe was absorbed by neutral hydrogen atoms. By studying these atoms, certain predictions of string theory could be tested. Making the measurements, however, would require a gigantic array of radio telescopes to be built on Earth, in space or on the moon. And it would be really gigantic: Wandelt proposes an array of radio telescopes with a collective area of more than 1,000 square kilometers. Such an array could be built using current technology, Wandelt said, but would be prohibitively expensive.

Benjamin D Wandelt | Physics | UIUC (illinois.edu)

 

[George-ananda]

That there is no life after death is perfectly falsifiable.

How? It's not.

 

[Sheldon]

Religious and spiritual beliefs come down to best reasoning.

Ii seems to me that if that were true, then I'd see that reasoning, and not this kind of bare unevidenced claim.

I believe in life after death as being highly likely from my best assessment of the afterlife evidence.

And how is this falsifiable?

I do not believe in young earth creationism from my best assessment of the facts.

Well great, but a young earth is falsifiable, for one obvious example we can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away.

Both are unfalsifiable beliefs.

No, a young earth is not just falsifiable, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that does falsify it. Though this rather misses the point.

I justify both by best reason. All unfalsifiable beliefs are not equally likely to me and my reasoning forms my opinion on the likelihood of each.

Why would one unfalsifiable belief have anymore credence than another?

 

[Sheldon]

How can your belief be falsified?

How can "none"ianity be falsified, please? Right?

Regards

 

[Sheldon]

Easy. Show that there is a god of some sort.

Wow, you understood that? Kudos, I have no idea what his post meant.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe in string theory.

Benjamin Wandelt, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Illinois says that ancient light from the beginnings of our universe was absorbed by neutral hydrogen atoms. By studying these atoms, certain predictions of string theory could be tested. Making the measurements, however, would require a gigantic array of radio telescopes to be built on Earth, in space or on the moon. And it would be really gigantic: Wandelt proposes an array of radio telescopes with a collective area of more than 1,000 square kilometers. Such an array could be built using current technology, Wandelt said, but would be prohibitively expensive.

Benjamin D Wandelt | Physics | UIUC (illinois.edu)

A little out side of my pay grade, but since it is a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can your belief be falsified?

How can "none"ianity be falsified, please? Right?

Regards

Easy peasy, have a god make himself, herself, itself apparent. People that lack a belief in gods lack that belief because there is not sufficient evidence for a god.

 

[Alien826]

How? It's not.

What it would take is some kind of verifiable communication with a dead person. Mediums claim this all the time. It's the verification that poses the difficulty. Remember, a theory does not have to be falsifiable by current available means, just possible to falsify.

 

[Alien826]

Wow, you understood that? Kudos, I have no idea what his post meant.

I assumed he meant "atheism" or something similar. I could be wrong of course.

 

[icehorse]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

It seems to me that almost all philosophical systems rely on at least one foundational axiom that is not falsifiable. The exception I can think of *might* be relativism, and that one makes my brain hurt.

For example, I'm more or less a secular humanist, and so a core belief of mine is that humans can solve their own problems without divine intervention. I can't defend that believe, but it's axiomatic to my philosophy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A little out side of my pay grade, but since it is a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable right?

I am not sure if it is. When I read about it it is said to be a "theoretical framework" and other phases but their does not seem to be a way to test it yet. That does not mean that it will not be testable in the future. By today's standards it does not appear to be a proper scientific theory or hypothesis. It is an idea that is still in the development stage. The idea has contributed to understanding some other concepts but it is far from "proven".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assumed he meant "atheism" or something similar. I could be wrong of course.

That was the implication that I got as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Easy peasy, have a god make himself, herself, itself apparent. People that lack a belief in gods lack that belief because there is not sufficient evidence for a god.

Exactly lack of belief is quite obviously not a belief, thus it does not need to be falsifiable. How many people have falsified the existence of invisible mermaids?