The nature of belief systems

[dfnj]

Everyone has a belief system, whether they acknowledge it or not. The foundation of every belief system is a set of axioms. Axioms are statements accepted as true without proof. Everyone has their own set of axioms. If someone believes in an axiom you don't accept, their statements, based on that axiom, may seem insane or irrational to you.

For example, a deist believes the axiom "God exists." So, when an atheist says, "God doesn't exist," it sounds crazy to the deist. Conversely, many atheists hold the axiom "the laws of physics are universal and eternal," which may sound crazy to deists because it excludes a first cause of existence.

What matters more than religion or philosophy is appreciating other people's belief systems, even if you don't share the same axioms. I understand the argument from my atheist, science-leaning friends that some axioms don't deserve acknowledgment because they seem radical or delusional. However, to progress towards a more harmonious society, we must appreciate other belief systems without feeling that our own is threatened or diminished.

Respect is earned by giving respect. As my grandmother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your goddamn mouth."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everyone has a belief system, whether they acknowledge it or not. The foundation of every belief system is a set of axioms. Axioms are statements accepted as true without proof. Everyone has their own set of axioms. If someone believes in an axiom you don't accept, their statements, based on that axiom, may seem insane or irrational to you.

For example, a deist believes the axiom "God exists." So, when an atheist says, "God doesn't exist," it sounds crazy to the deist. Conversely, many atheists hold the axiom "the laws of physics are universal and eternal," which may sound crazy to deists because it excludes a first cause of existence.

What matters more than religion or philosophy is appreciating other people's belief systems, even if you don't share the same axioms. I understand the argument from my atheist, science-leaning friends that some axioms don't deserve acknowledgment because they seem radical or delusional. However, to progress towards a more harmonious society, we must appreciate other belief systems without feeling that our own is threatened or diminished.

Respect is earned by giving respect. As my grandmother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your goddamn mouth."

Well, I am weird because I have an unusual set of not true axioms for true and I don't consider my version of true in regards to some underrstandings of true.

 

[dfnj]

Well, I am weird because I have an unusual set of not true axioms for true and I don't consider my version of true in regards to some underrstandings of true.

But, have you ever dubbed something someone said as "insane" or "crazy" when you heard it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But, have you ever dubbed something as "insane" or "crazy" when you heard it?

Not anymore. I have learned that there are different ways of understanding reality, but I don't judge other ways as false/wrong or what not. Just that I do it different because my way makes sense to me. And I don't know if that is true. It just makes sense to me.

 

[dfnj]

Not anymore. I have learned that there are different ways of understanding reality, but I don't judge other ways as false/wrong or what not. Just that I do it different because my way makes sense to me. And I don't know if that is true. It just makes sense to me.

So your axioms are:
1. There are no absolute truths about reality.
2. Everything is true and everything is false at the same time depending on your way of understanding
3. All truths about reality are equal

I might not have it identified perfectly but you get the idea. I'm not judging it either. Although, based on the nature of reality, its repetition, and proof by induction, I would tend to lean towards the existence of some truths are close enough to be considered to be absolute facts. None of us experience time in a frame where some facts lose their meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So your axioms are:
1. There are no absolute truths about reality.
2. Everything is true and everything is false at the same time depending on your way of understanding
3. All truths about reality are equal

I might not have it identified perfectly but you get the idea. I'm not judging it either. Although, based on the nature of reality, its repetition, and proof by induction, I would tend to lean towards the existence of some truths are close enough to be considered to be absolute facts. None of us experience time in a frame where some facts lose their meaning.

Close enough. If you want to we can nitpick, but you understand in effect that I am a cogntive relativist.

 

[PureX]

Everyone has a belief system, whether they acknowledge it or not. The foundation of every belief system is a set of axioms. Axioms are statements accepted as true without proof. Everyone has their own set of axioms. If someone believes in an axiom you don't accept, their statements, based on that axiom, may seem insane or irrational to you.

For example, a deist believes the axiom "God exists." So, when an atheist says, "God doesn't exist," it sounds crazy to the deist. Conversely, many atheists hold the axiom "the laws of physics are universal and eternal," which may sound crazy to deists because it excludes a first cause of existence.

What matters more than religion or philosophy is appreciating other people's belief systems, even if you don't share the same axioms. I understand the argument from my atheist, science-leaning friends that some axioms don't deserve acknowledgment because they seem radical or delusional. However, to progress towards a more harmonious society, we must appreciate other belief systems without feeling that our own is threatened or diminished.

Respect is earned by giving respect. As my grandmother used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, shut your goddamn mouth."

The main difficulty here is that very few people have any idea what their belief system, is. And they are even less aware of what axioms they're holding on to that shape that belief system. So that it becomes very difficult to learn about any of this from them, and even more-so to figure it out without them. And then, of course, no one ever wants to be wrong about anything. So it becomes more reasonable to simply throw up our hands than to try and fight our way through the wall of ignorance.

Also, people hold onto a lot of contradictory axioms at the same time. So the belief systems can change as certain axioms come to the forefront according to the circumstances.

 

[Kathryn]

Not anymore. I have learned that there are different ways of understanding reality, but I don't judge other ways as false/wrong or what not. Just that I do it different because my way makes sense to me. And I don't know if that is true. It just makes sense to me.

That's how I feel about things. I chose my religion for instance because it works for ME. I don't try to shove it down the throats of others. Also, I don't believe that anyone wakes up and says one day "Hey, I think I will be a jerk." So everyone justifies their actions by SOMETHING. Just gotta figure out what that is sometimes.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think we must take into account that there is such a thing as a responsibility over one's own beliefs.

Particularly when that responsibility is amplified by the exercise of political choices.

That, I fear, has become a very grave and urgent matter in Western democracies.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd like to point out it isn't necessarily true that axioms lack proof - an axiom is something that is simply granted as true for the sake of argument or in order to provide a foundation in spite of uncertainties. It's more or less a way of avoiding the problem of skepticism and the limits of (and uncertainties regarding) human knowledge.

For those who have taken the time to examine the axiomatic underpinnings of various worldviews - which any student of philosophy and human cultures should have done - you can understand something of the reasoning (or proofs) behind certain axioms and why they are there in that culture or philosophy. But, as @PureX mentions, axioms often go unexamined unless you live in a cultural environmental that encourages that level of critical thinking and introspection. This is relatively uncommon because it doesn't need to be common - axioms are mostly used because they work for creating a foundation for life and living in their beholders. Just like in biological evolution, if it is good enough for the job, the axioms persist; only when they are maladaptive is change needed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Presumably the Humanist movement and the Eugenics movement had different sets of axioms. Not all axioms are created equal.

 

[Spice]

You have my attention. Now I need to understand "axioms" better, separate them from tenets, and try to list my own set of Axioms. It should be a good self-discovery exercise if I can get my head wrapped around the basics.

Any volunteer helpers?

 

[Quintessence]

You have my attention. Now I need to understand "axioms" better, separate them from tenets, and try to list my own set of Axioms. It should be a good self-discovery exercise if I can get my head wrapped around the basics.

Any volunteer helpers?

Eh, axiomatic assumptions are those that are foundationally true and thus entirely taken for granted. So much so that when these axioms are questioned, your reaction will be confusion or to simply think that other person is completely crazy or ignorant.

All humans have axiomatic assumptions related to metaphysics - study of metaphysics (philosophy) is more or less where you will want to start. In particular, with ontology and epistemology. Any good public library should have a book or documentary or two on metaphysics or those two major branches of it.

Just one example of the rabbit holes that metaphysics will get you into:

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

 

[Spice]

Eh, axiomatic assumptions are those that are foundationally true and thus entirely taken for granted. So much so that when these axioms are questioned, your reaction will be confusion or to simply think that other person is completely crazy or ignorant.

All humans have axiomatic assumptions related to metaphysics - study of metaphysics (philosophy) is more or less where you will want to start. In particular, with ontology and epistemology. Any good public library should have a book or documentary or two on metaphysics or those two major branches of it.

Just one example of the rabbit holes that metaphysics will get you into:

Problem of Universals: Nominalism vs. Realism | Highbrow

The Problem of Universals posits two theories about the nature of reality: nominalism and realism, that oppose each other and argue the question of whether “universal” things are in fact “real.”

gohighbrow.com

O-Kay, then! LOL I apparently stepped into some deep poopa. That doesn't mean I totally give up, though. Stay tuned. I will attempt to make brain energy out of this.

 

[Quintessence]

O-Kay, then! LOL I apparently stepped into some deep poopa. That doesn't mean I totally give up, though. Stay tuned. I will attempt to make brain energy out of this.

It's not really that bad. A lot can be gleaned with no formal study of philosophy at all. Critical thinking by itself will do it. Some really simple questions, like:

• Who taught me this idea and where did it come from? Know your cultural upbringing.
• Why do I believe whomever taught me this idea? Know your (in)credulity for information.
• What other ideas or explanations might there be? Do a thought experiment no holds barred.
• What if things worked this way rather than some other way? Play pretend and use your imagination.

It was a stupidly basic question like this that shattered the theological cage I'd been thinking in back when I was an atheist. It's embarrassing how little I had actually bothered to examine and question the axiomatic assumptions about what gods are - assumptions that were fed to me by a culture with a very limited (Protestant Christian) perspective on the matter.

 

[Spice]

It's not really that bad. A lot can be gleaned with no formal study of philosophy at all. Critical thinking by itself will do it. Some really simple questions, like:

• Who taught me this idea and where did it come from? Know your cultural upbringing.
• Why do I believe whomever taught me this idea? Know your (in)credulity for information.
• What other ideas or explanations might there be? Do a thought experiment no holds barred.
• What if things worked this way rather than some other way? Play pretend and use your imagination.

It was a stupidly basic question like this that shattered the theological cage I'd been thinking in back when I was an atheist. It's embarrassing how little I had actually bothered to examine and question the axiomatic assumptions about what gods are - assumptions that were fed to me by a culture with a very limited (Protestant Christian) perspective on the matter.

Now that seems doable, and exciting since some of it has already been in my mind for quite some time.

I'm thinking it's connecting bloodline with societal positioning as beliefs are built and passed down as true, or rejected, over generations. In example, I related to liberal Quakerism as soon as I discovered it and began digging in. And then, only a couple if years ago, my brother running ancestry on the family discovers solid Quaker ancestry that left the movement.

So now I'll see if I can sort and filter such tidbits to reduce down to my axioms.

Thx

 

[Augustus]

Presumably the Humanist movement and the Eugenics movement had different sets of axioms. Not all axioms are created equal.

The eugenics movement actually had significant ideological overlap with the humanist movement (although historically eugenics covers things from family planning to horrific racialism).

For example:

Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist. He was a proponent of natural selection, and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century modern synthesis. He was secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund, the president of the British Eugenics Society (1959–1962), and the first president of the British Humanist Association.

Julian Huxley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[paarsurrey]

The nature of belief systems​

we must appreciate other belief systems without feeling that our own is threatened or diminished

I understand.
The belief systems could be reduced reasonable with the use of Religious Method, one must say, right?

Regards

 

[Link]

Deism is a transition zone to either atheism, polytheism, or theism in my view. It's almost impossible to remain in it forever.