On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[crossfire]

Yeah. But If one has faith in truth one has faith, IMO. Now the question is about the means.

I don't have aversions to Faith, and neither do I have aversions to Doubt. I love them both. (I'm a bit eccentric in that regard.)

 

[crossfire]

If I follow the OP understanding of truth as intended, the truth becomes what I tend to call the territory. If truth is the territory, then it describes reality as it is, or is "the way things are." Barring ontological scenarios that question the existence of the territory, then, it indeed "stands on its own" as it were, in the sense that it is not interpretation-dependent. It is what it is.

Framing what untruth is with the above understanding becomes problematic. The thing with territory is that given humans are not omniscient or omnipotent, our understanding of the territory is always a map. It is not a "this is what is" or "the way things are" but rather a "this is how things appear to me/us given a limited perspective." As no map is the territory, or the truth, all maps can be "exposed" as "untruths." All maps are "propped up" with territory, but none are the territory (aka, The Truth) and cannot themselves stand on their own without making assumptions.

An issue aside - I don't agree with limiting the notion of truth to the territory, or that which is. It eliminates the relational, perceptual, and sensual natures of our experiences.

Alrighty. Maps may be true, but are not the Truth. I can agree with this.

There was a thread in the Mysticism DIR a while back about something related to this. I recall going against the there popular notion that uncertainty is wiser or "strengthening," because one simply won't walk down certain roads without the necessary roadbeds in place. Imagine if the cells in our bodies would be stuck in a perpetual undetermined state - we would all still be masses of stem cells, incapable of cellular differentiation and thus development into matured biological organisms. There'd be no muscles, no neurons, no skin, no bones, none of it. Yet certainty - determinedness - is weakening?

Where is the determinedness coming from? Is it coming from Truth, or from something else. (Stem cells become tumors, especially in the brain, if they are out of line with the territory in which they reside,--i.e., if they wander from Truth.)

Nay. There are strengths/weaknesses in all things, the assessment of which depends much on values and perspective.

Agreed. Would you equate "assessment of values and perspectives" to be a form of questioning?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It's illogical to extend to assumption of good faith to another party in a business transaction?

Yes.

When we make business transitions we most often do it from a reliable place that has had many customers so we prove that there is a high probability of the business transaction occurring.

So it is not good faith.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Do you believe there in life outside this planet?

Or do you believe there is life only on this planet?

Ciao

- viole

I believe that there more than likely is life outside this planet.

I do not claim it to be a certainty.

 

[crossfire]

Yes.

When we make business transitions we most often do it from a reliable place that has had many customers so we prove that there is a high probability of the business transaction occurring.

So it is not good faith.

Here is the definition of Good Faith from thefreedictionary.com:

good faith
n.
The sincere intention to be honest and law-abiding, as when negotiating a contract: bargained in good faith.
[Translation of Latin bona fīdēs : bona, feminine singular of bonus, good + fīdēs, faith, honesty.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
good′ faith′

n.
accordance with standards of honesty, trust, sincerity, etc.: to act in good faith.
[1890–95]
​

So the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is irrational? Really?

Methinks this might possibly be an example of too much doubt leading to paranoia.

 

[Quintessence]

Alrighty. Maps may be true, but are not the Truth. I can agree with this.

Honestly, I find the entire notion of The Truth to be... not useful? People tell stories, narratives, mythos... tales that hold meaning to them and help them to make sense of things. The value in that meaningfulness - the myth making - strikes me as more important. Trouble is, the art of storytelling has gotten a little lost in contemporary culture, and we do not do it as mindfully as might be wise. We do not pay quite enough attention to the stories we tell ourselves and others - the lessons they speak to and the culture such stories foster - and relegate such things to entertainment or play. Ah well... so it goes.

Where is the determinedness coming from? Is it coming from Truth, or from something else. (Stem cells become tumors, especially in the brain, if they are out of line with the territory in which they reside,--i.e., if they wander from Truth.)

Pardon, when I was using "determined" there I intended a specific meaning pertaining to biological sciences. When a cell becomes "determined" that means its particular role within an organism has been set (e.g., this cell becomes a nerve cell, this cell becomes a muscle cell, and so on). Cellular differentiation is necessary for multicellular organisms, but it all starts with indeterminate stem cells that have no particular role or cell type. Biologically speaking, the determination happens with certain genes switching on and/or off within a cell. Beyond that, developmental biology isn't my specialty, so I don't know much about the details of it. Main point was that it makes a neat metaphor for wrestling with the "uncertainty good, certainty bad" idea by pointing out that a lack of certainty (aka, cellular determinism into cell types from undetermined stem cells) pretty much makes multicellular organisms impossible.

Agreed. Would you equate "assessment of values and perspectives" to be a form of questioning?

I would use the term introspection rather than questioning, as questioning can have the connotation of naysaying criticism for the sake of criticism and nasaying, if you know what I mean. Plus, once you know you have a particular set of values, there's not really much reason to continue to doubt yourself left, right, and center. Overanalysis can be and is a problem for some, and it can have the tendency to destroy the emotional, sensual, experiential aspects of our lives. If you incessantly pester someone about "but why do you like that painting?" they might stop seeing the beauty in it as they attempt to rationalize what was not a rational response in the first place. We're not a culture that seems to appreciate "I just like it" as a reason.

 

[crossfire]

Honestly, I find the entire notion of The Truth to be... not useful? People tell stories, narratives, mythos... tales that hold meaning to them and help them to make sense of things. The value in that meaningfulness - the myth making - strikes me as more important. Trouble is, the art of storytelling has gotten a little lost in contemporary culture, and we do not do it as mindfully as might be wise. We do not pay quite enough attention to the stories we tell ourselves and others - the lessons they speak to and the culture such stories foster - and relegate such things to entertainment or play. Ah well... so it goes.

Fair enough. Truth is of dubious usefulness. Duly noted.

Pardon, when I was using "determined" there I intended a specific meaning pertaining to biological sciences. When a cell becomes "determined" that means its particular role within an organism has been set (e.g., this cell becomes a nerve cell, this cell becomes a muscle cell, and so on). Cellular differentiation is necessary for multicellular organisms, but it all starts with indeterminate stem cells that have no particular role or cell type. Biologically speaking, the determination happens with certain genes switching on and/or off within a cell. Beyond that, developmental biology isn't my specialty, so I don't know much about the details of it. Main point was that it makes a neat metaphor for wrestling with the "uncertainty good, certainty bad" idea by pointing out that a lack of certainty (aka, cellular determinism into cell types from undetermined stem cells) pretty much makes multicellular organisms impossible.

My point was regarding the source of "determination," and where it would lead. {The terms used in the case of stem cells is "differentiation" and "undifferentiated" rather than "determined" and "undetermined." There is a range of potency of types of cells a stem cell may differentiate into, dependent upon the needs of the body. An untrue determinate will lead those stem cells differentiate into tumor growth in the brain.}

I would use the term introspection rather than questioning, as questioning can have the connotation of naysaying criticism for the sake of criticism and nasaying, if you know what I mean. Plus, once you know you have a particular set of values, there's not really much reason to continue to doubt yourself left, right, and center. Overanalysis can be and is a problem for some, and it can have the tendency to destroy the emotional, sensual, experiential aspects of our lives. If you incessantly pester someone about "but why do you like that painting?" they might stop seeing the beauty in it as they attempt to rationalize what was not a rational response in the first place. We're not a culture that seems to appreciate "I just like it" as a reason.

Well, when Truth is only of dubious usefulness, then what is left but Victory? Sad when that happens.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Here is the definition of Good Faith from thefreedictionary.com:

good faith
n.
The sincere intention to be honest and law-abiding, as when negotiating a contract: bargained in good faith.
[Translation of Latin bona fīdēs : bona, feminine singular of bonus, good + fīdēs, faith, honesty.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
good′ faith′

n.
accordance with standards of honesty, trust, sincerity, etc.: to act in good faith.
[1890–95]
​

So the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is irrational? Really?

Methinks this might possibly be an example of too much doubt leading to paranoia.

This definition is different from the one you previously provided.

Was that a mistake or are you making a disingenuous argument?

 

[crossfire]

This definition is different from the one you previously provided.

Was that a mistake or are you making a disingenuous argument?

I didn't initially provide a definition of good faith because I extended good faith to you by trusting that you would know what "in good faith" meant. Unfortunately, you just provided an example of your own assertion that extending good faith is irrational. Go figure.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My point was regarding the source of "determination," and where it would lead. {The terms used in the case of stem cells is "differentiation" and "undifferentiated" rather than "determined" and "undetermined." There is a range of potency of types of cells a stem cell may differentiate into, dependent upon the needs of the body. An untrue determinate will lead those stem cells differentiate into tumor growth in the brain.}

I think you've overextended the analogy with this. The determinant that results in cancer is not true or untrue; it is simply one of the states of being that cells can have--that is, they have a place in the territory, and it is humans who see cancer as not fitting with our map of the territory. Our map says that cells "shouldn't" do that, but it's the nature of cells (when struck by radiation, or chemicals, or even viruses) to sometimes change and become cancerous. It's not good for us, but it isn't "untrue" except by a very weird stretching of the word, at least in my opinion.

 

[Thanda]

Faith is a principle of action - doubt paralyzes.

Take a human as a creation. He is created and placed in the earth with a set of desires (or needs) and is given reasoning faculty as well as autonomy. If he is left to himself he will do absolutely nothing. That is, he will do nothing unless he believes (faith) that some action which he takes will bring him to a better condition than he currently experiences. If he acts then it means he believes. If he does not act that means he doubts. The faith will propel him to act - the doubt will encourage him to stay put.

Let us here observe that doubt and uncertainty are not synonymous. Uncertainty is the realisation that you do not have the whole picture - in itself it is neutral as it places no judgement on any object. Doubt on the other hand is little less innocent. It is in fact a judgement. It judges (without certainty) that the probability of some hypothesis being true is less satisfactory - contrast this with faith where one judges (again without certainty) that the probability of some hypothesis being true is sufficiently satisfactory. Both he who has faith and he who doubts are uncertain. But he who doubts will never achieve certainty while he who exercises faith will obtain a certainty as to whether a hypothesis is true or not. Faith is therefore the seed of knowledge and certainty while doubt is the anchor that keeps one in the sea of uncertainty.

Faith is therefore, all considered, a superior attribute to doubt. To be fair doubt does have it's place (it may keep us from certain dangers) but to achieve progress faith is really the quality you are better of developing.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I didn't initially provide a definition of good faith because I extended good faith to you by trusting that you would know what "in good faith" meant. Unfortunately, you just provided an example of your own assertion that extending good faith is irrational. Go figure.

It's illogical to extend to assumption of good faith to another party in a business transaction?

Anything using an assumption is illogical.

 

[George-ananda]

Belief without proof is still illogical.

Scientists believed other stars had planets before it could finally be proved in recent years. Was their belief prior to the proof illogical?

Point is we have intelligence that judges probability and reasonableness. That's how I came to my spiritual beliefs and other beliefs where 'proof' or 'disproof' does not exist.

 

[idea]

I'm interested in hearing about what people think about the following, including any critiques to the logic employed. Thanks.

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)
If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

Thanks.

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Only the young and foolish are certain of anything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry

 

[crossfire]

I think you've overextended the analogy with this. The determinant that results in cancer is not true or untrue; it is simply one of the states of being that cells can have--that is, they have a place in the territory, and it is humans who see cancer as not fitting with our map of the territory. Our map says that cells "shouldn't" do that, but it's the nature of cells (when struck by radiation, or chemicals, or even viruses) to sometimes change and become cancerous. It's not good for us, but it isn't "untrue" except by a very weird stretching of the word, at least in my opinion.

The primary method of determining whether a line of cultured embryonic stem cells is viable is by injecting them into mice to see if they develop these characteristic brain tumors. The "map" of a mouse is "untrue territory" in regards to the proper and "true" territory of an embryonic stem cell--within a blastocyte. I was following the metaphors provided in the post that assigned truth as the territory.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The primary method of determining whether a line of cultured embryonic stem cells is viable is by injecting them into mice to see if they develop these characteristic brain tumors. The "map" of a mouse is "untrue territory" in regards to the proper and "true" territory of an embryonic stem cell--within a blastocyte. I was following the metaphors provided in the post that assigned truth as the territory.

okay, I see what you're getting at.

 

[crossfire]

okay, I see what you're getting at.

It's been prompting me to think about the importance of context and the problem of universals. hmm.....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Truth is revealed by doubt and questioning. Untruths are exposed by doubt and questioning. (Truth can stand on its own--lies need to be propped up.)

I think most 'Truths' are relative, or represent improved knowledge rather than absolute fact, at least in terms of non-trivial 'truths'. But essentially I would agree with this.

If both Truth and Untruth are revealed by doubt and questioning, then Uncertainty is the way of revealing, and Certainty is the way of not revealing.

In a sense. But, again, I would suggest that 'Uncertainty' is relative. At any point in time, I should be self-aware enough to know that my current 'truths' are not certain. But they are hopefully more certain than previous 'truths' I have discarded and replaced.

Therefore, Faith and Doubt are both necessary to arrive at Truth. Shutting down questioning and Doubt weakens Faith in that it artificially props it up like a lie instead of allowing it to stand on its own and be further revealed.

You lost me with 'Faith'. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but I'm a little unsure on what you are meaning by faith in this context.

​

This leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that Uncertainty is strengthening and Certainty is weakening.

I'd say rather than Uncertainty allows improvement. Certainty leads to stasis. Even a 'good idea' will eventually become problematic, so stasis will become more weakening over time.

Please feel free to punch holes is this--to expose any errors.

I'd see this as opinionative rather than factual, so accept or discard my points as you see fit.
*tips hat*

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Scientists believed other stars had planets before it could finally be proved in recent years. Was their belief prior to the proof illogical?

Point is we have intelligence that judges probability and reasonableness. That's how I came to my spiritual beliefs and other beliefs where 'proof' or 'disproof' does not exist.

They could prove it mathematically before hand.

 

[George-ananda]

They could prove it mathematically before hand.

There is no mathematical 'proof' of the existence of other planets. It was a theory until proved by evidence. People create theories with intelligent judgement (before 'proof' is possible). So it is not illogical (as you described it earlier) to sometimes believe things are highly likely before they are proven.