Poll: When I say that I believe something, I mean that…
… I’ve got enough evidence suggesting a notion but I am unsure of its certainty.
… I am sure about the certainty of a notion regardless of what evidence may suggest.
[Show Results]
 
Believing versus believing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(28-04-2014 03:32 AM)living thing Wrote:  If I consider it true that there is an intelligent designer out there, and I view everything around me as proof of that intelligent designer's work, I'd be more correct in saying that "intelligent design is a fact" than "I believe in intelligent design"?

Well, I don't see it that way. In my view, facts are facts when they reflect the structure and/or behaviour of reality
How does your second statement here differ from your first statement?
It seems to me in your first statement that the person thinks that intelligent design reflects the structure and/or behaviour of reality.
If they didn't think that any other theory or idea also fit that mold then in their own mind they would be correct to say intelligent design is fact.


(28-04-2014 03:32 AM)living thing Wrote:  Does it always? If a fundamentalist christian smiles as he or she declares the belief that I will burn in an everlasting hell, are they disclosing their recognition that there might be other alternatives?
One problem with some Christians is that they want their cake and they want to eat is as well.

Christian doctrine is strong on teaching people that Faith and Belief are desirable traits.
But there are many Christians whom can't resist the urge to have proof for their beliefs.
Thus they claim they have proof and they also claim to have belief.
But you can't have both. You can only have one or the other.
You do not believe in the moon, you instead know that the moon's existence is fact.

So these people either believe in their god/s or their god/s existence is fact (in their mind's eye) It cannot be both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So these people either believe in their god/s or their god/s existence is fact (in their mind's eye) It cannot be both.

It is their personal reality?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How does your second statement here ("intelligent design is a fact", "I believe in intelligent design") differ from your first statement?
The first claim is stated in third person, whereas the second claim is stated in first person. The first claim gives the impression of being an objective notion whereas the second claim clearly conveys a personal conviction. The first one is a lie whereas the second is not; it is a true declaration of personal and probably mistaken belief.

Intelligent design does not reflect the structure and/or behaviour of reality, regardless of how many people believe it to.

(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems to me in your first statement that the person thinks that intelligent design reflects the structure and/or behaviour of reality.
But that does not make it a fact.

(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If they didn't think that any other theory or idea also fit that mold then in their own mind they would be correct to say intelligent design is fact.
No, they would not, just like traditional creationists calling their myth a fact would be wrong. Facts are not facts when someone considers them facts, they are facts when they reflect the structure and/or behaviour of reality. Or maybe I should say of information in general, because facts can also be gathered from studying the behaviour of abstract notions, such as numbers.

(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  One problem with some Christians is that they want their cake and they want to eat is as well.

Christian doctrine is strong on teaching people that Faith and Belief are desirable traits.
But there are many Christians whom can't resist the urge to have proof for their beliefs.
Thus they claim they have proof and they also claim to have belief.
But you can't have both. You can only have one or the other.
You do not believe in the moon, you instead know that the moon's existence is fact.
If you're suggesting that believing is different from knowing, I agree.

(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So these people either believe in their god/s or their god/s existence is fact (in their mind's eye) It cannot be both.
I don't really understand that distinction. The way I see it, those people are believing in their gods when their god's existence becomes a "fact" in their mind's eye; the verb "believe" as suggested in the second option can be expanded into the notion "view some notion as a fact in someone's mind's eye".

Do you never encounter anyone who seems to use "believe" as a synonym for "know"?

Cheers!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(28-04-2014 01:51 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So these people either believe in their god/s or their god/s existence is fact (in their mind's eye) It cannot be both.
It is their personal reality?
I'd say it is their personal mental model of reality. Reality is most likely common to all of us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes living thing's post
28-04-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(28-04-2014 01:51 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 01:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So these people either believe in their god/s or their god/s existence is fact (in their mind's eye) It cannot be both.

It is their personal reality?
It's their perception of reality. Somewhat based on their subjective choice of epistemology.
Nothing can be known with 100% certainty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
I have to admit that I didn't read all the posts in this thread. However, I thought I would mention that I have a hard time believing many people really operate on the second definition, even when they appear to. I don't see many people convinced they can fly if they just jump off a tall building and believe... at least, not enough to try it.

I suspect what most often happens is that people accumulate evidence and values and interpretations and meanings over the course of their lives, and at some point pure logic and reason places these in conflict. Some people react by tearing into their concept of reality and reordering it in search of better conclusions. But some people either consciously or subconsciously realize that the direct resolution of those conflicts could be so traumatic as to be unbearable or incapacitating. When I encounter the "belief despite evidence phenomena" I take it as someone who incorporated prior "evidence" to the point where it became "too big to fail", they are too invested now, and they CAN'T let it go. "Belief on faith" becomes the escape hatch and coping mechanism that allows them to carry on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
Stupid damn poll needs a more reasonable option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
Hello djhall, welcome to this thread.

(04-05-2014 03:39 PM)djhall Wrote:  I have a hard time believing many people really operate on the second definition, even when they appear to. I don't see many people convinced they can fly if they just jump off a tall building and believe... at least, not enough to try it.
The principles of controlled flight are fairly well understood in our time and it is quite obvious that we need a device capable of producing a lift greater than the combined weight of the device and ourselves, in order to fly. I would find it surprising if I found anyone jumping off a building convinced that they can fly without the aid of such device.

Was it slightly more common for people to plunge to their deaths in their attempt to master flight before the Wright brothers? I don't know, but seeing how some people in my lifetime manage to kill themselves out of their own stupidity, it is an idea that I cannot fully discard.

Nevertheless, the belief in unaided flight is very uncommon, as you point out. What about the belief in an eternal life after our death? Have you never encountered anyone who seemed convinced that life somehow continues once our bodies are unable to sustain it? I have, and many of them behaved as if they actually knew that notion to be true, describing a set of rules that I must obey if I want that afterlife to be pleasurable. But eternal pain awaits for me if I dare disobey them, especially the first one. When I ask those people for the source of their knowledge, they always point to someone's words, and if I try to point to evidence suggesting the impossibility of their ideas, they don't care. In my view, they behave as if the second definition applied to them.

But that may have just been my perception. If you have a hard time believing anything, I find that great, I really do. What I find problematic is the ease with which some other people are prone to believing stuff.

I thank you for taking the time to clarify your view. Have a good time!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
Hello Foxen, how are you?

(04-05-2014 03:45 PM)Foxen Wrote:  Stupid damn poll needs a more reasonable option.
Funnily enough, "stupid damn poll needs a more reasonable option" wasn't a poll option, and yet you have managed to squeeze that opinion in. You could have used your chance to express your possibly unique view about the subject, but instead, you've chosen to complain about how the poll does not reflect your possibly unique view. But how would I know your possibly unique view if it is possibly unique?

Unfortunately, I cannot change the poll options now, but I'll tell you what. Next time I think about creating a poll, I'll send you a private message asking you for your view about it. That way, I can ensure I include it in the options and then you can "voice" your opinion comfortably, by simply clicking a check box. After all, why should you have to type in your views if I can do it for you?

If there is any other way I can help, please let me know. Until then, have the best of times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: Believing versus believing
(04-05-2014 04:40 PM)living thing Wrote:  The principles of controlled flight are fairly well understood in our time and it is quite obvious that we need a device capable of producing a lift greater than the combined weight of the device and ourselves, in order to fly. I would find it surprising if I found anyone jumping off a building convinced that they can fly without the aid of such device.

Precisely. Yet, that shouldn't stop people who are sure about the certainty of the notion regardless of what evidence may suggest. "So what that all evidence indicates I'm certainly going to plunge to my death? You're only saying I won't fly because no one ever has!" Splat! In my experience, people generally don't operate that way. At least, not the ones who survive long.

(04-05-2014 04:40 PM)living thing Wrote:  What about the belief in an eternal life after our death? Have you never encountered anyone who seemed convinced that life somehow continues once our bodies are unable to sustain it? I have, and many of them behaved as if they actually knew that notion to be true, describing a set of rules that I must obey if I want that afterlife to be pleasurable. But eternal pain awaits for me if I dare disobey them, especially the first one. When I ask those people for the source of their knowledge, they always point to someone's words, and if I try to point to evidence suggesting the impossibility of their ideas, they don't care. In my view, they behave as if the second definition applied to them.
I know those people too. I theorize that those people got those ideas following course number one. At some point they acquired those beliefs because they thought they saw evidence to support the notion. Maybe that evidence was faulty. Maybe it was just an appeal to authority from a parent or priest when they were a child. But they believed it to be evidence. They incorporated it into how they saw themselves, the world, and their existence. They made decisions with consequences and invested heavily on the basis of those beliefs.

Now those people have more knowledge and more evidence. But they are too invested in their prior #1 position to revise it and change to a new #1 position. Their old conclusion based on old "evidence" became too big to fail, and now it must be defended at all costs. But how? Sticking to #1 logic forces them to change their conclusion. They are too far in to change. Something has to give. So they double down on the bet and go to position #2. It is the only way out of accepting the change. But they aren't really #2 people, or they would make all their decisions based on #2 logic and most of them don't outside a few areas. So I see them as #1 people forced to use #2 in special cases to avoid acknowledging the truth of an untolerable conclusion.

But its just a personal theory. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: