Apparently there are "beliefs" and then there are "beliefs"

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

A theist using 'special pleading' in their argument? I doubt THAT'S ever happened before.

 

[nPeace]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

I got the impression that the one that was more privileged was the science beliefs. So I can't help you with this one.
Perhaps the person(s) that said it can.

 

[Nakosis]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

Religious beliefs are afforded some legal protection.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

Perhaps it is best if you think something is being tacitly suggested, you come right out and ask the person if this is what they are, indeed, suggesting instead of making assumptions and creating drama based on those assumptions. *shrugs*

 

[Sunstone]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

Assuming you correctly guessed their views, it would be fascinating to hear what their reasoning is.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

I feel like this suggestion does have a point. Science is a self-correcting field. There are many instances in history where what were once considered to be established scientific truths and were believed as true beliefs sometime ago, has been completely discarded now. Newtonian physics has now been replaced with special relativity. We hold this belief that special relativity is really true. But what if we discover something new that would prove special relativity wrong?

Science doesn't reveal 'truth', rather reveals us it's personal approximations of what things are and how they behave. There are so many scientific theories that were once believed to be true but are now discarded as false. And one of the basic principle of science is that scientific theories are not immune to be proven false. Tomorrow, some new facts might arise that'll completely prove all the scientific beliefs we hold to be true as false.

Science, maths, logic, all are also based on faith. We are making a leap of faith if we believe in it and we are holding unverifiable beliefs regarding all of them. Maths have axioms, which can't be proven, and it also have it's paradoxes and other short-comings. Same with logic, it have it's own axioms that can't be proven and there are logical paradoxes that shows logic have inherent weaknesses. We have to have faith in this unverifiable belief that logic, maths, science isn't taking us on false route, and all the beliefs these systems hold are truly justified and true.

It's pretty much same as religion. However, those who compare religion with science are irrational. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It's like scientifically assessing poems. And just because something isn't in line with scientific beliefs we hold as true [for now], doesn't necessarily mean that it's invalid. Newtonian physics is still valid and give us accurate answers in legitimate context. Why can't the same be the case with religions? The Holy Qur'an explicitly states it is a book of signs, metaphors, indicators, allegories that will provide us with inspiration and directions to figure out the spiritual truths within our souls [self-evident spiritual axioms]. Even if some scientific theories is not in line with religious beliefs, doesn't necessary mean that religious teachings and beliefs are wrong as they might be providing us with accurate answers in their own legitimate context and in it's own unique way.

 

[74x12]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

I don't see the difference. Belief is just the point or moment when you accept something is true. It could be based on good or bad evidence. It's up to you. Only you can believe and have valid or invalid reasons for believing. So to talk about all belief as if it's always the same makes no sense to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see the difference. Belief is just the point or moment when you accept something is true. It could be based on good or bad evidence. It's up to you. Only you can believe and have valid or invalid reasons for believing. So to talk about all belief as if it's always the same makes no sense to me.

But you just made it perfectly clear that it does make sense to you. As you yourself put it, belief is the act of accepting "something is true." Presence or absence of evidence makes no nevermind.

But one you have adopted a belief, it is a certainty that your actions will be informed by that belief. The perpetrators of 9/11 were informed by their beliefs -- most likely that what they did would see them rewarded with lots and lots of virgins for all eternity in paradise. The suffocating of supposed "witches" in Salem, Massachussets was the result of belief -- belief for which no evidence has ever been produced.

So you see, beliefs can have a very potent effect in the world. Sometimes that effect can be good -- for which we're all grateful. (I include the Salvation Army in that, for example -- their beliefs enjoin them to try to do good, and I cannot fault that.) But sometimes, beliefs can have effects that are not so good. The burnings of the Inquisition, for example, cannot really be considered among human-kinds greatest moments.

 

[Salty Booger]

I am pretty certain you can believe anything you want. It doesn't require a permission slip from your parents.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am pretty certain you can believe anything you want. It doesn't require a permission slip from your parents.

Really? You should have tried that when you were 6 years old, in 1954. Trust me, permission is often the only requirement.

 

[Salty Booger]

Really? You should have tried that when you were 6 years old, in 1954. Trust me, permission is often the only requirement.

Are you a child still?

 

[74x12]

But you just made it perfectly clear that it does make sense to you. As you yourself put it, belief is the act of accepting "something is true." Presence or absence of evidence makes no nevermind.

But one you have adopted a belief, it is a certainty that your actions will be informed by that belief. The perpetrators of 9/11 were informed by their beliefs -- most likely that what they did would see them rewarded with lots and lots of virgins for all eternity in paradise. The suffocating of supposed "witches" in Salem, Massachussets was the result of belief -- belief for which no evidence has ever been produced.

So you see, beliefs can have a very potent effect in the world. Sometimes that effect can be good -- for which we're all grateful. (I include the Salvation Army in that, for example -- their beliefs enjoin them to try to do good, and I cannot fault that.) But sometimes, beliefs can have effects that are not so good. The burnings of the Inquisition, for example, cannot really be considered among human-kinds greatest moments.

My point is we all believe anything that we accept as true. Evidence or lack of it brought us to our own conclusions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you a child still?

Yes, quite a bit of me is, I suspect.

I like that part of me.

 

[Workman]

To find the Truth, you must first find the Lies.

You want to know about beliefs?

My Father once told me there’s only one ‘Day’,
And that day is to be named....’ToDay’.
Here’s the thing...there is no such thing as tomorrow...the SUN does not switch off and switch back on for a tomorrow.
The Sun has always been ON since the days of Adam and Eve. What does this mean?
There’s no such thing as tomorrow...
If tomorrow decides to come...you will not be alive to see it. Everyday is the same day...repeating itself!...in the name of ‘ToDay’.


And here’s the other belief...

Someone(science) has taken this truth with ‘ToDay’ and created name(s) on top of it(eg, MonDay, TuesDay, WednesDay...so on)...all fitted into ToDay. Now we all here building(lies) in all these days.
and if one did not see it this way..then it’s because one has been too busy building.

One holds a truth and the other...a lie.
Which one of these do you believe?

Godbless.

 

[MonkeyFire]

A non-religious faith is ignorant.

 

[Left Coast]

A non-religious faith is ignorant.

What does that sentence even mean?

 

[stvdv]

And just because something isn't in line with scientific beliefs we hold as true [for now], doesn't necessarily mean that it's invalid. Newtonian physics is still valid and give us accurate answers in legitimate context. Why can't the same be the case with religions? The Holy Qur'an explicitly states it is a book of signs, metaphors, indicators, allegories that will provide us with inspiration and directions to figure out the spiritual truths within our souls [self-evident spiritual axioms]. Even if some scientific theories is not in line with religious beliefs, doesn't necessary mean that religious teachings and beliefs are wrong as they might be providing us with accurate answers in their own legitimate context and in it's own unique way.

Spirituality deals with the spiritual world
Science deals with the material world
Use them properly then no problem
Mixing them up messes things up
It shows lack of discrimination

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has just been tacitly suggested to me that unverifiable beliefs come in two flavours: religious ones and non-religious ones. This tacit suggestion came with the notion that it is not valid to compare the two -- that one (the religious) is somehow privileged in a way that the other is not.

If anyone can help clarify this for me, I'd be very interested.

There are no privileged beliefs, when it comes to what the world really is:

"
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Those 2, (1) and (2) answers the question of privileged beliefs. Nobody conditionally on humans remaining the same has access to the Truth or any privileged standpoint of what the world is.
That includes both non-religious and religious beliefs. Neither are privileged.

 

[MonkeyFire]

What does that sentence even mean?

If you believe in the truth, the truth is that you do believe.