I Believe ...

[stvdv]

So your "X" is proof? You, "believe in proof". But couldn't your proof be wrong? Or you be wrong about it? Why not remain cautiously skeptical? Why "believe in" anything?

I said:
"I believe IF I have proof = it is proven"

So:
I write simple english
IF I say "I have proof" THEN
This means 100% proof, no doubt
(e.g. "it rains outside" kind of proof)
(Not because a weather apps says so)
(Personal knowledge, raindrops on skin)

Hence I:
Hardly use the words "I believe"
Feel no need to make claims
Avoid debate about belief
Avoid imposing (imo)

 

[firedragon]

skepticism is our natural state, not belief.

Do you have any research for this assertion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like what? You have made it clear that you reject the correspondence model of truth. Which is what I would use in a response.

Also, you provided no support for your statement. Just the bear statement itself. Without more in the proposition, I don't think I need to provide anything more than a simple negative.

Okay, simple test. Truth matters. Question: How is that true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The thing is that the difference between faith and belief is CRUCIAL in so many ways. It's the difference between religions that destroy lives and religions that save lives. It's the difference between sanity and insanity for a lot of people. It's the difference between honest self awareness and dishonest self-delusion. And because it's SO important, and yet so subtle a difference, there are a lot of people that will fight tooth and nail to maintain the confusion.

I'm just saying what I see about something I think is important. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Yeah, and then I hit limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. And when I try to resort that I get the following result:
Based on you, you are correct in your thinking. Yet I can do it differently. And I have found no way of figure out, which one is the really objectively correct one.

 

[PureX]

It appears that the motivating power of emotion is something you are not familiar with.

I am familiar with the motivating power of emotion. The problem is that emotion rarely motivates me to do things that are good for me, or others. Nor does emotion tell me when it's appropriate to stop 'trying'. I am a Taoist, so I don;t view emotion and desire as a particularly useful motivation. That doesn't mean we should neglect or ignore them. But it does mean that they shouldn't be our only or primary motivation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am familiar with the motivating power of emotion. The problem is that emotion rarely motivates me to do things that are good for me, or others. Nor does emotion tell me when it's appropriate to stop 'trying'. I am a Taoist, so I don;t view emotion and desire as a particularly useful motivation. That doesn't mean we should neglect or ignore them. But it does mean that they shouldn't be our only or primary motivation.

Speak for yourself. If your way works for you, then it doesn't mean there could be other ways.

 

[PureX]

This, to me, is the definition of delusion.

Asserting a belief is a mistake, a fallacy, isn't it?

Yes. that's the difficulty I'm having. It could be restated this way from my point of view.

If you claim "I believe" doesn't mean I believe, to you, but means "I know", then our discussion become a lot more difficult. The difference between "I know" and "I believe" is the inclusion of doubt. Maybe it's a miniscule amount of doubt, but it's enough to compel the speaker to say "I believe" rather than "I know".

But why state "I believe" when in fact I have doubt? Why not just be more honest and clear and say "I am uncertain". Or, "I suspect" ... or, "I'm assuming" ... etc.,. It's illogical and confusing to 'believe' yet not fully believe. And then misleading to claim belief.

Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean it's not useful in certain situations. Maybe another example is helpful. Maxwell's demon. I don't understand the physics behind it, but, basically Maxwell made an observation he couldn't explain. In order to continue with the math, he modeled the phenomenon as occuring with the assistance of a demon. He probably didn't believe in real demons, but, he allowed himself to use the concept as if it was real in order to complete the theory. And that theory was proven correct later and the phenomenon was attributed to quantum mechanics.

So he didn't 'believe', he just suspended his disbelief. We all do that all the time for the sake of art, science, and circumstance. I don't think that's part of the discussion about belief, itself, though.

I agree, but I would go one step further. Faith is belief put into action. You can't have faith without belief.

I disagree 100%. Faith is both hope being acted on in the face of our skepticism. It is not belief being acted on in the ignorance of our skepticism. And that's the key difference, - that deliberate, willful ignorance of ours or anyone else's skepticism.

 

[PureX]

Speak for yourself. If your way works for you, then it doesn't mean there could be other ways.

That's a given.

 

[PureX]

Some people believe in things because they had no choice in the matter.

We always have a choice. Some people are just not yet able to recognize that they have a choice. And so from their perspective, they don't. I never know what to say to those people because nothing I say will enable them to see that they do, in fact, always have a choice. So long as they remain convinced that they don't, they won't.

 

[PureX]

Don't know they are doing things on purpose.

But you do know.

Right

It's the advantage of being the observer, and not the observed. It's difficult to be both.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We always have a choice. Some people are just not yet able to recognize that they have a choice. And so from their perspective, they don't. I never know what to say to those people because nothing I say will enable them to see that they do, in fact, always have a choice. So long as they remain convinced that they don't, they won't.

As long as we agree that a choice is not without limits.

 

[PureX]

Fair question. I suppose it is just semantics, a way of speaking.

Or perhaps a way of confusing ourselves and each other. A lot of our 'semantics' are intended to confuse and obfuscate rather than clarify. I'm not accusing anyone. It's just human nature.

I doubt everything to some level, but that is not to say I have the same level of doubt for everything. There are things in which I have very little doubt, things in which I have some doubt, things in which I have considerable doubt, and things I doubt in the extreme. I might say (respectively) I believe X, I think X, I do think think X or I believe X is not true.

Why all the confusion? Why not just be specific? Especially in relation to yourself? Why do you feel the need to say you "believe" in anything that you are not convinced it true? What is this "believing in" business doing for you?

 

[PureX]

As long as we agree that a choice is not without limits.

When the limit is just awareness, however, willful ignorance becomes a factor.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or perhaps a way of confusing ourselves and each other. A lot of our 'semantics' are intended to confuse and obfuscate rather than clarify. I'm not accusing anyone. It's just human nature.
Why all the confusion? Why not just be specific? Especially in relation to yourself? Why do you feel the need to say you "believe" in anything that you are not convinced it true? What is this "believing in" business doing for you?

Because I have no evidence of one truth. And when I look ever close for individuality something can be true for you and false for me. And so in reverse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When the limit is just awareness, however, willful ignorance becomes a factor.

Well, yes, sort of. But you seem to use your brain as the standard for us all, yet you accept individuality.

 

[PureX]

I said:
"I believe IF I have proof = it is proven"

So:
I write simple english
IF I say "I have proof" THEN
This means 100% proof, no doubt
(e.g. "it rains outside" kind of proof)
(Not because a weather apps says so)
(Personal knowledge, raindrops on skin)

Hence I:
Hardly use the words "I believe"
Feel no need to make claims
Avoid debate about belief
Avoid imposing (imo)

"Proof" is not an objective state of existence. It's a subjective determination. So when you have determined that you have "proof", you are choosing to believe that your determination accurately represents existence. Thus, you "believe in" your "proof". But your proof determination could always be wrong. As anyone's can given the fact that we are not omniscient. So why are you blindly presuming (believing) that your proof is 100% correct? What is the advantage of doing this: of eliminating doubt, to you?

 

[PureX]

Well, yes, sort of. But you seem to use your brain as the standard for us all, yet you accept individuality.

I am just trying to use logic as a standard for reasoning. If my logic is flawed, feel free to point it out. I am as capable of being wrong as anyone else, is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am just trying to use logic as a standard for reasoning. If my logic is flawed, feel free to point it out. I am as capable of being wrong as anyone else, is.

No, your logic is not flawed. It has a limit.

Here is one version.
A is A but all the world is not A. So if you are an A, I can be a B. That is not a contradiction, because it happens at different time/space and are different senses.

 

[Audie]

It's the advantage of being the observer, and not the observed. It's difficult to be both.

Uhhh
That really depends.

 

[PureX]

No, your logic is not flawed. It has a limit.

Absolutely! At which point I tend to resort to intuition. I have a lot of trust in my intuition. But that doesn't really help anyone else.

Here is one version.
A is A but all the world is not A. So if you are an A, I can be a B. That is not a contradiction, because it happens at different time/space and are different senses.

Yes. Truth is contextual because existence is relational. But still, we are a "we". And that "we" matters. So we seek a mutual understanding.