Why is faith considered a virtue rather than the curse it really is?

[footprints]

Okay, I'm not understanding too good I guess. How do you accept facts without deciding which ones to accept? From what I can understand of this, you only accept facts that are concrete? eg. I drop a rock from the top of a building and it falls down not up? What about other findings that are the best explanation we have come up with thus far? Are they not the "base" or starting point to further our study of things? Are they not valid for that purpose? I recognize the value of an open mind, but I also recognize we need base values to continue with. Otherwise we have to start from scratch all the time which does not make sense. Like you say, most things are trial and error and that is how we learn many things. I guess what I don't understand the most from your posts is why you argue with people about things that are currently just our "base", or where we have reached in our knowledge. I don't think anyone thinks our knowledge is "done" and I think we all realize things can change when new data is introduced. All most of us are stating is where we are at the present time in our learning and you seem to think that is just using our imagination.

Other findings which are the best explanations we have come up with so far? Will always be other findings which are the best explanations we have come up with so far. Nothing more and nothing less. Albeit, there may be dispute in some things pertaining to which is the best explanation, this then will come down to a position of belief.

As I always argue from the position that our knowledge is not absolute with those who would argue against me, I am not sure what your take on this is. I can only assume you are interpreting things through your belief patterns, seeing as how I may disagree with, or, not appear to hold as strong as a belief in some of the things you believe in.

To accept a power of suggestion as evidence, to accept the best explanation available as absolute, is using the imagination. In some cases it is using the imagination of another person, because the person holding the belief of absolute, doesn't even have to be a scientist or have conducted any said tests themselves.

 

[challupa]

Other findings which are the best explanations we have come up with so far? Will always be other findings which are the best explanations we have come up with so far. Nothing more and nothing less. Albeit, there may be dispute in some things pertaining to which is the best explanation, this then will come down to a position of belief.

As I always argue from the position that our knowledge is not absolute with those who would argue against me, I am not sure what your take on this is. I can only assume you are interpreting things through your belief patterns, seeing as how I may disagree with, or, not appear to hold as strong as a belief in some of the things you believe in.

To accept a power of suggestion as evidence, to accept the best explanation available as absolute, is using the imagination. In some cases it is using the imagination of another person, because the person holding the belief of absolute, doesn't even have to be a scientist or have conducted any said tests themselves.

Well I have to agree that everyone does not agree on what the "best" explanation is. I know that knowledge is an evolving thing, but are there not some things which we can say are the way we see things "now"? I am sure I have certain beliefs that will color what I see, but I think we all have that. I don't know how any human can truthfully say that they don't see the world through the eyes of their beliefs. However, many of us do try to keep these to a minimum. Many of the people in this forum are knowledgeable people who do their best to see the world in the most open and unbiased ways possible.

I don't see imagination as a bad thing if it is used to further examine how our world works. Many things have arisen from the creative and imaginative minds of inventors etc. Since we cannot be all things or know all things, there are times we have to look at what others have discovered to be informed. I have my areas of expertise because I have my studies for example, but I am not a biologist. Therefore, I need to read the different articles written by biologists who have done the leg work in order for me to have a rudimentary understanding of biology. I think that is true of everyone. Working in unison, sharing our findings is how we can make forward strides in understanding. No one discipline can do it all on their own.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, your willingness to try and reason with people who don’t want to be reasoned with, not just on this thread but many others, is remarkable...

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not really expecting to convince anyone of my positions in the course of a debate, though. It is sometimes interesting to see the responses that people come back with. For example, I have learned a lot of interesting things about footprints, although I suspect that I have made a mortal enemy for life in the process. If my arguments have any impact on those I disagree with (and theirs on me), that is more likely to happen when egos are not involved and we have had time to mull over the way the discussion went.

 

[challupa]

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not really expecting to convince anyone of my positions in the course of a debate, though. It is sometimes interesting to see the responses that people come back with. For example, I have learned a lot of interesting things about footprints, although I suspect that I have made a mortal enemy for life in the process. If my arguments have any impact on those I disagree with (and theirs on me), that is more likely to happen when egos are not involved and we have had time to mull over the way the discussion went.

On the other hand, anything that requires people to think is going to influence them in some way. Even if the thinking for a rebuttal makes them more clearly understand their own ideas.

 

[Copernicus]

A person of belief does not have the capacity for critical reasoning. Their belief patten will not let them, it means going against their own intelligence.

I disagree. You are too prone to stereotyping people.

All humans are not tied to a belief. Those not tied to a belief are capable of critical reasoning.

You need to define how you are using the word "belief" here. I think that you are loading it up with a lot of unnecessary semantic baggage. Everyone has beliefs. Those beliefs are grounded in experiences and elaborate interpretations of experiences.

Yes I understand what peer reviewed is all about. So does Tim Flannery now, now that most of his peers have begun to see reason.

Were we talking about Tim Flannery? That one came out of left field. Anyway, this doesn't refute my point about the nature of peer review.

Pertaining to Censorship is factual? You really do have some strange assocation patterns. What I said pertaining to Censorship, it doesn't fair much better.

My association patterns might be improved if you would give me more coherent responses to associate to.

In reality truth is decided by a concensus of belief. We call it majority rule. How do I decide anything, unlike others I wait for the facts, not my imagination.

Do you know why argumentum ad populum is considered a logical fallacy? I suspect that you will deny that you meant to endorse it as a form of argument, but there are your words for everyone to see. If your "facts" include a nose count of how many believe a conclusion, then your reasoning is invalid.

Defence of Bin Ladin, on this point you are delusional, I consider him and his cronies just as bad as the idiots fighting against him.

Yet the language you used earlier made it sound just the opposite. You need to write (and perhaps think) more clearly.

You really do have some strange association patterns.

Perhaps, but I think that the problem may lie more with your style of writing. You seem to think that I will understand all of the premises you are working from, so you don't always find it necessary to state them explicitly.

 

[footprints]

Well I have to agree that everyone does not agree on what the "best" explanation is. I know that knowledge is an evolving thing, but are there not some things which we can say are the way we see things "now"? I am sure I have certain beliefs that will color what I see, but I think we all have that. I don't know how any human can truthfully say that they don't see the world through the eyes of their beliefs. However, many of us do try to keep these to a minimum. Many of the people in this forum are knowledgeable people who do their best to see the world in the most open and unbiased ways possible.

The unfortunate side effect of modern day education is that it teaches people to be subjective. Subjectiveness is the enemy of critical reasoning.

There are ways of ridding the brain of belief patterns and opening it up to critical reasoning. The unfortunate thing pertaining to this, many people will not see it or recognise it, their own belief patterns will stop it from happening. Simply because it comes from religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, even Christianty have one, albeit they don't know it). I speak of course about paths of enlightenment.

I don't see imagination as a bad thing if it is used to further examine how our world works. Many things have arisen from the creative and imaginative minds of inventors etc. Since we cannot be all things or know all things, there are times we have to look at what others have discovered to be informed. I have my areas of expertise because I have my studies for example, but I am not a biologist. Therefore, I need to read the different articles written by biologists who have done the leg work in order for me to have a rudimentary understanding of biology. I think that is true of everyone. Working in unison, sharing our findings is how we can make forward strides in understanding. No one discipline can do it all on their own.

Imagination is a beautiful thing. Sometimes it can lead people astray (believers and non-believers alike) but without it we would still be hunters and gatherers. So I can only agree with you.

 

[footprints]

I disagree. You are too prone to stereotyping people.

Is that like sterotyping me?

However, disagree all you like, all I can do is try and tell you. Your own intelligence will accept it or reject it.

You need to define how you are using the word "belief" here. I think that you are loading it up with a lot of unnecessary semantic baggage. Everyone has beliefs. Those beliefs are grounded in experiences and elaborate interpretations of experiences.

A belief is a belief. Just because you may want to differentiate between beliefs to somehow try and make yourself look better, don't expect others to seperate them.

All beliefs are worked out the same way. Yours are not any different.

Were we talking about Tim Flannery? That one came out of left field. Anyway, this doesn't refute my point about the nature of peer review.

LOL of course Flannery would like coming out of left field to you. Flannery was peer reviewed by his peers for years, they told him he was an idiot. As it turns out his peers were the idiots. So much for your peer reviewed, flushed down the toilet.

It was belief patterns which made Flannery's peers deny his correct and valid evidence. They couldn't base themselves in a position of reason at the time if their pants were on fire. Then it became an intelligence power play.

My association patterns might be improved if you would give me more coherent responses to associate to.

What I said the first time, didn't change from the second time. No it is your association patterns, you read to much of your own mind into what I say.

Do you know why argumentum ad populum is considered a logical fallacy? I suspect that you will deny that you meant to endorse it as a form of argument, but there are your words for everyone to see. If your "facts" include a nose count of how many believe a conclusion, then your reasoning is invalid.

Are you offering argumentum ad populum to discredit, peer reviews? That it is a logical fallacy if the majority in a field of science support it?

Yet the language you used earlier made it sound just the opposite. You need to write (and perhaps think) more clearly.

Hmmm your comprehension, my writing. Your comprehension, my writing. Hard decision there Copernicus, especially when you have already made so many errors in judgement.

What I wrote was very clear and very precise. I didn't even mention Bin Laden this came from your own imagination. A warped association, but an association never the less.

Perhaps, but I think that the problem may lie more with your style of writing. You seem to think that I will understand all of the premises you are working from, so you don't always find it necessary to state them explicitly.

My writing is fine, just stop adding thoughts from your own mind to it, and things from my perspective will become a lot clearer.

It is hard to have a converstation when you keep bringing your imagination into it.

 

[ahab_4481]

From the Baha'i Writings: "Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."

 

[challupa]

The unfortunate side effect of modern day education is that it teaches people to be subjective. Subjectiveness is the enemy of critical reasoning.

There are ways of ridding the brain of belief patterns and opening it up to critical reasoning. The unfortunate thing pertaining to this, many people will not see it or recognise it, their own belief patterns will stop it from happening. Simply because it comes from religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, even Christianty have one, albeit they don't know it). I speak of course about paths of enlightenment.



Imagination is a beautiful thing. Sometimes it can lead people astray (believers and non-believers alike) but without it we would still be hunters and gatherers. So I can only agree with you.

Well I have to say, it is very hard for any human to "not" analyse the world around them without some prior "individual" beliefs in place. I am sure I am very guilty of this. I just don't know how anyone can avoid bringing prior experience and therefore beliefs about these prior experiences into things. How does one avoid such a thing? I understand the need for thinking as objectively as possible, but I also think it is not entirely possible given the structure of our minds and our dependence upon past learning and experiences.

 

[footprints]

Well I have to say, it is very hard for any human to "not" analyse the world around them without some prior "individual" beliefs in place. I am sure I am very guilty of this. I just don't know how anyone can avoid bringing prior experience and therefore beliefs about these prior experiences into things. How does one avoid such a thing? I understand the need for thinking as objectively as possible, but I also think it is not entirely possible given the structure of our minds and our dependence upon past learning and experiences.

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain. What enlightenment does is re-hardwires the brain so that all knowledge it contains can be associated to in many ways. From a single perception of a specific subject or event, a person will have many views from many directions of the same event or situation.

In essence it takes normal human intelligence and turns it into Wisdom.

In psychology or behavioural sciences, I do something very similiar to the person or group of people I am dealing with, providing of course it is just an environmental issue I am dealing with. I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and asssociate to it, and give them another association to take its place. In time, providing they maintain what I have taught them, they will build a new perception of reality which they can relate to. How they view the world has changed, yet it doesn't take the old view away, it just gives the new view a higher authority in their brain which they relate to first.

This differs in a path of enlightenment in the fact that instead of receiving one extra association to a specific situation or event, multiple associations are gained from every view possible, and each view is given the same priority (no prejudice or bias).

At the end of the day, people will choose what is right for them. Only respectful to let them do so.

 

[emiliano]

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain. What enlightenment does is re-hardwires the brain so that all knowledge it contains can be associated to in many ways. From a single perception of a specific subject or event, a person will have many views from many directions of the same event or situation.

In essence it takes normal human intelligence and turns it into Wisdom.

In psychology or behavioural sciences, I do something very similiar to the person or group of people I am dealing with, providing of course it is just an environmental issue I am dealing with. I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and asssociate to it, and give them another association to take its place. In time, providing they maintain what I have taught them, they will build a new perception of reality which they can relate to. How they view the world has changed, yet it doesn't take the old view away, it just gives the new view a higher authority in their brain which they relate to first.

This differs in a path of enlightenment in the fact that instead of receiving one extra association to a specific situation or event, multiple associations are gained from every view possible, and each view is given the same priority (no prejudice or bias).

At the end of the day, people will choose what is right for them. Only respectful to let them do so.

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain:yes:. Then In psychology or behavioural sciences, I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and associate to it:sarcastic, If a person has a personal spiritual encounter it becomes his/her knowdledge and you said that it can never taken away from the brain. What is it, can it or can’t? Spiritual Knowledge requires Faith and we believe that is given to those that God have Mercy upon. IT is a virtue, a gift to who God has mercy, there some that think that they have it and don’t, they soon backslide, they didn’t have Faith.

 

[zflash7]

No its still a thoery.. just a hunch.. it changes as you higher intellegences work out more data.. BRILLIANT.. I'm impressed..ONLY 100 years and they know it all.
Leaves us gods in a bind, after a zillion years .. we sure are learning something from u mortals.... HUMMMMM

 

[johnhanks]

No its still a thoery.. just a hunch.. it changes as you higher intellegences work out more data.. BRILLIANT.. I'm impressed..ONLY 100 years and they know it all.
Leaves us gods in a bind, after a zillion years .. we sure are learning something from u mortals.... HUMMMMM

Here we go again. Anyone want the thankless task of explaining to this guy the difference between a theory (or even a thoery) and a hunch? Or that changes to the detail of theories as new data emerge are the very essence and power of science? If so, good luck.

 

[challupa]

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain. What enlightenment does is re-hardwires the brain so that all knowledge it contains can be associated to in many ways. From a single perception of a specific subject or event, a person will have many views from many directions of the same event or situation.

In essence it takes normal human intelligence and turns it into Wisdom.

In psychology or behavioural sciences, I do something very similiar to the person or group of people I am dealing with, providing of course it is just an environmental issue I am dealing with. I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and asssociate to it, and give them another association to take its place. In time, providing they maintain what I have taught them, they will build a new perception of reality which they can relate to. How they view the world has changed, yet it doesn't take the old view away, it just gives the new view a higher authority in their brain which they relate to first.

This differs in a path of enlightenment in the fact that instead of receiving one extra association to a specific situation or event, multiple associations are gained from every view possible, and each view is given the same priority (no prejudice or bias).

At the end of the day, people will choose what is right for them. Only respectful to let them do so.

Yes in the end it will be exactly that, what people think is right for them. It is respectful to allow that, but I might add, only if it does no harm. And yes, I know, harm is a subjective thing.

 

[Copernicus]

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain...

It is hard to understand what you mean by such a claim. We humans extract past knowledge and experience from our brains all the time. We communicate it to others via language and other forms of communication. Past learning and past knowledge are communicated across generations by written forms of language and other media.

What enlightenment does is re-hardwires the brain so that all knowledge it contains can be associated to in many ways. From a single perception of a specific subject or event, a person will have many views from many directions of the same event or situation...

In other words, humans have associative memory. Logic and reason are used to render beliefs consistent with each other. That is why we apply it to faith-based beliefs. Sometimes, it turns out that those beliefs are inconsistent with more salient facts that we know about the world. So we use our powers of reason to break the chains of association that lead to cognitive dissonance. At times, you give the impression that you think any chain of associations is valid, but validity is a matter to truth consistency, i.e. belief maintenance.

 

[footprints]

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain:yes:. Then In psychology or behavioural sciences, I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and associate to it:sarcastic, If a person has a personal spiritual encounter it becomes his/her knowdledge and you said that it can never taken away from the brain. What is it, can it or can’t? Spiritual Knowledge requires Faith and we believe that is given to those that God have Mercy upon. IT is a virtue, a gift to who God has mercy, there some that think that they have it and don’t, they soon backslide, they didn’t have Faith.

Hi emiliano, I apologise I should have made myself a bit more clear, I did think about it at the time, but decided against it, thinking people would know I was talking about a normal, healthy brain, and that things like alzheimer's or other forms of senility didn't count.

An atheist who converts to theism doesn't forget they were an atheist or what they once believed. A theist who converts to atheism doesn't forget they were once a theist and what they held and believed. They just look at the knowledge differently, from another world view as they gain a different perspective.

 

[footprints]

It is hard to understand what you mean by such a claim. We humans extract past knowledge and experience from our brains all the time. We communicate it to others via language and other forms of communication. Past learning and past knowledge are communicated across generations by written forms of language and other media.

That is definately one association, can you make any others?

In other words, humans have associative memory. Logic and reason are used to render beliefs consistent with each other. That is why we apply it to faith-based beliefs. Sometimes, it turns out that those beliefs are inconsistent with more salient facts that we know about the world. So we use our powers of reason to break the chains of association that lead to cognitive dissonance. At times, you give the impression that you think any chain of associations is valid, but validity is a matter to truth consistency, i.e. belief maintenance.

Truth is only valid to the person who holds that truth as truth.

A person through reason doesn't always change their belief pattern. For most part reason only ever confirms a persons belief pattern and makes it stronger. Whether the person is a theist, atheist or otherwise.

 

[footprints]

Yes in the end it will be exactly that, what people think is right for them. It is respectful to allow that, but I might add, only if it does no harm. And yes, I know, harm is a subjective thing.

What can I say challupa, this world has both respectful and disrespectful people in it.

It is still a beautiful world.

 

[emiliano]

Hi emiliano, I apologise I should have made myself a bit more clear, I did think about it at the time, but decided against it, thinking people would know I was talking about a normal, healthy brain, and that things like alzheimer's or other forms of senility didn't count.

An atheist who converts to theism doesn't forget they were an atheist or what they once believed. A theist who converts to atheism doesn't forget they were once a theist and what they held and believed. They just look at the knowledge differently, from another world view as they gain a different perspective.

What are you imply with “thinking people would know I was talking about a normal, healthy brain”? Have you given any thought to the fact that there are billion of people that share our views and a small number of atheist and their theories are considered odd (not normal, as shared by other) all this is in spite that they don’t know how life began and the promises that believing there is no God make you smarter. There must be something, does it? If it was an explosion; what happen to Maxwell’s implosion theory?

 

[Copernicus]

That is definately one association, can you make any others?

Associations are cheap and plentiful. Why would I need to make more of them at this point?

Truth is only valid to the person who holds that truth as truth.

If that were true, then people could never be mistaken about things that they held to be true. Yet people people hold mistaken beliefs about the world all the time. I think that you are trying to make a point about subjectivity here, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.

A person through reason doesn't always change their belief pattern. For most part reason only ever confirms a persons belief pattern and makes it stronger. Whether the person is a theist, atheist or otherwise.

We aren't in disagreement over this point and never have been. You are trying to tell me something obvious as if it made a substantive point in the discussion. It is true that people hold beliefs that are supported by lots of other associations. The point I have been trying to make about logic and reason is that they are part of a process of belief maintenance. It happens to be the case that people do change their minds, but they more often than not seek to confirm the opinions that they already hold. So changes in fundamental belief patterns--those that have a great many associations with other cherished beliefs--are naturally going to be slow to change. That does not mean that argument is pointless. The debate between atheists and theists is an important one, and there is no reason why we should walk away from it simply because belief patterns are resistant to change.