Belief... or lack thereof

[ThinkingSapien]

So why not presume that it’s true, in the absence of evidence that it’s not?

At most I can temporarily treat it as provisionally true for having a discussion. I do this with the narratives of some other religions too.

However, I think we would be agreed that a society that lives a life consonant with truth is better than a society that lives a life that is divorced from truth.

The last time you and I had an exchange with the word “truth” being used in a similar context your intended usage seemed to be more than “a factual proposition.” You never said what your intended usage was. I’m hesitant to agree with the above since I don’t know the additional meanings packed into the statement.

But in the interest of answering your question while not unknowingly agreeing with something else I’d say that factual knowledge is usually valued, may have utility, and may contribute to improvements within a society. I say usually because I may be able to think of examples of knowledge that are not valued, might have no utility, or might not contribute to improvement. There may also be knowledge that if made public could have a damaging results to some group within a society.

So, if God exists, then it is better for society to believe he exists than not to believe in his existence, right?

Maybe. Depends on some other factors. Consider the deistic non-intervening God. If that God exists and if people either believed this God existed or didn’t exists (excluding all other god-concepts for now) if we don’t survive our deaths, if that God’s maximum level of interaction is observation then I don’t see how belief or disbelief of that God is better for that society. There are number of condition sets under which I would agree that belief of some god-concept is to the advantage of a society. Some of these condition sets don’t necessarily rely on that god existing.

Well, then, I think that’s an affectation you’ve assumed for some reason.
But we all know that anyone who comes to this forum, talks about stuff like this, over and over and over again, really doesn’t believe that “it’s not my field”.

If you don’t think I’m being genuine I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I think it’s a rather common response for questions that are outside ones knowledge domain. What response would you usually expect for the scenario I mentioned before of asking someone that specialized in one area of science a question from an unrelated area? Would you prefer unfounded speculation?

Also have you ever worked with a complex system for which knowledge of the system is fragmented and distributed among different people?

But, again, it’s dumbfounding to me to see the nonchalance of “I don’t really know”.

I don’t understand why you might feel that way.

I think perhaps I should use “telling”.

Because it does indeed speak of a desire to pursue truth, except if it means one has to embrace a religious answer.

And this has me thinking back to one of the threads on supernatural epistemology.

I’m off to see some builds of some of L. da Vinci’s machines. Enjoy your day!

 

[PRmerger]

At most I can temporarily treat it as provisionally true for having a discussion. I do this with the narratives of some other religions too.

No, we are way past that now.

Either the Christian story is true or it is false.

If you are a thinking man, you need to pick a paradigm.

The last time you and I had an exchange with the word “truth” being used in a similar context your intended usage seemed to be more than “a factual proposition.” You never said what your intended usage was. I’m hesitant to agree with the above since I don’t know the additional meanings packed into the statement.

Truth, as Aquinas said, paraphrasing is: asserting that which actually is, is and that which actually is not, is not.

IOW: truth is that which conforms to reality.

But in the interest of answering your question while not unknowingly agreeing with something else I’d say that factual knowledge is usually valued, may have utility, and may contribute to improvements within a society. I say usually because I may be able to think of examples of knowledge that are not valued, might have no utility, or might not contribute to improvement. There may also be knowledge that if made public could have a damaging results to some group within a society.

So a society that professes something like, “Women are intellectually inferior to men” would be a society that is on the skids, yeah?

Are we agreed on that?

We’d want a society to profess something like, “Intelligence is based on a whole lot of factors, but the presence of a Y chromosome is not one of them”.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe. Depends on some other factors. Consider the deistic non-intervening God. If that God exists and if people either believed this God existed or didn’t exists (excluding all other god-concepts for now) if we don’t survive our deaths, if that God’s maximum level of interaction is observation then I don’t see how belief or disbelief of that God is better for that society.

Well, if it’s true that God is a non-intervening God, then we would be agreed that a society that professes that God incarnated, lived, breathed, worked and physically touched people, worked miracles, was tortured and put to death and then overcame this to rise again…would be a wrong-thinking society, yeah?

Wouldn’t you want to correct that if you live in a society where this occurs?

If you don’t think I’m being genuine I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I think it’s a rather common response for questions that are outside ones knowledge domain.

Then you ought not be posting in a forum on Philosophy/Apologetics.

And it makes one wonder about the multitude of posts you’ve made on this subject that’s “outside one’s knowledge domain”.

“I don’t know” as a beginning of the journey–
“I don’t know” as the nonchalant end–well, it’s not something I’ve seen a scientist* ever say.

What response would you usually expect for the scenario I mentioned before of asking someone that specialized in one area of science a question from an unrelated area? Would you prefer unfounded speculation?

I would prefer thoughtful, reasoned considerations.

Also have you ever worked with a complex system for which knowledge of the system is fragmented and distributed among different people?

Er…yes?

*scientist is a meme for: someone interested in acquiring knowledge of how the world works. It ought not be interpreted to mean a limited: “person who works in a laboratory and has earned a particular degree”.

 

[pocaracas]

Truth, as Aquinas said, paraphrasing is: asserting that which actually is, is and that which actually is not, is not.

IOW: truth is that which conforms to reality.

Nice and easy definition…
Then why do so many religions claim to speak the truth?
Science is mankind’s honest attempt to provide the best description of that which is real… no gods have showed up in science’s radar, yet…
However, people have these claims from olden times… and tons of people believe in those old claims… what can we do?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No, we are way past that now.
Either the Christian story is true or it is false.
If you are a thinking man, you need to pick a paradigm.

I engage people in discussion as though the narrative is true or the narrative is false.
As for how I live…well, I’m not a Christian.

Truth, as Aquinas said, paraphrasing is: asserting that which actually is, is and that which actually is not, is not.
IOW: truth is that which conforms to reality.

Which brings us back to a familiar question of an epistemology for knowing whether something conforms to reality.

Wouldn’t you want to correct that if you live in a society where this occurs?

If a majority of people in society believed in god-concept X, if god-concept X is not true, and if I do not know whether or not god-concept X is true or false you might find that I won’t make any effort to convince the people in that society one way or another. I would need to have some method for knowing what God exist and for knowing if propositions about that God’s attributes are true or false.

And it makes one wonder about the multitude of posts you’ve made on this subject that’s “outside one’s knowledge domain”.

On creatio ex nihilo?

“I don’t know” as a beginning of the journey–
“I don’t know” as the nonchalant end–well, it’s not something I’ve seen a scientist* ever say.

I don’t know. It’s the beginning of a journey. I think the ship in the other dock has set its sails for that destination. This ship has a different itinerary. If we happen upon that destination I’ll let you know. But it’s not part of our plan.

I would prefer thoughtful, reasoned considerations.

The end result of which may still be speculation.

 

[Bradski]

I was looking for a quote from Richard Feynman and came across this. It seemed relevant:

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.”
― Richard Feynman

And:

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard Feynman

And:

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school… It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see my physics students don’t understand it… That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”
― Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

And:

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard Feynman

And:

“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
― Richard Feynman

I’ll stop there, but the guy just keeps on bringing up these sort ot quotes. Don’t you just love the guy…

 

[Aloysium]

I was looking for a quote from Richard Feynman and came across this. It seemed relevant:

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. . . “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” . . . “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. . . I’ll stop there, but the guy just keeps on bringing up these sort ot quotes. Don’t you just love the guy…

Hmm. . . Yet, you are an atheist.

He is definitely a pleasure to read, but with all due respect to the learned professor, I would point out that science is based on faith. Among the assumed tenets are that this is a rational universe that can be known and that simply because we can manipulate things, we know what they are. He does exhibit the humility to know the limits of empiricism.

Regarding doubt, as a tool it goes only so far; at a certain point one will be throwing out a greater truth with the lesser and/or what is illusory. There is no point doubting that the earth revolves around the sun. Science does have hard cold facts, although not all of them are true.

There are realities that do not fit the empirical mode. You can probably know more about a person trying to find meaning to their dreams, than you ever could using the scientific method. The Divine is another matter altogether, involving the formation and growth of a loving relationship with the Ground of one’s being.

 

[PRmerger]

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard Feynman

“…Anyone who espouses a Science Alone culture is, amusingly, embracing culture of faith”–PRmerger

 

[pocaracas]

You guys are so ridiculously off the mark when you try to paint science as a faith based proposition as an attempt to pull a “tu quoque”.

The “faith” required to come up with science is nothing compared to the one required to come up with any religious belief system.

Scientific faith: the world’s materials act in the way our senses and instruments measure them. The world is measurable. The measurements are temporally consistent.

Religious faith: there is a world of immeasurable quantities. Our senses cannot grasp it, only our minds and our love. And we know bout it for certain, because it has been revealed to a few select individuals in the far past. (and, since we’re on this forum) One such individual was the incarnation of the ruler of that other world (yes, that other world is also subjected to a hierarchy, much like our own!)

 

[Aloysium]

You guys are so ridiculously off the mark when you try to paint science as a faith based proposition as an attempt to pull a “tu quoque”.

The “faith” required to come up with science is nothing compared to the one required to come up with any religious belief system.

Scientific faith: the world’s materials act in the way our senses and instruments measure them. The world is measurable. The measurements are temporally consistent.

Religious faith: there is a world of immeasurable quantities. Our senses cannot grasp it, only our minds and our love. And we know bout it for certain, because it has been revealed to a few select individuals in the far past. (and, since we’re on this forum) One such individual was the incarnation of the ruler of that other world (yes, that other world is also subjected to a hierarchy, much like our own!)

“Ridiculously off the mark”? LoL
Science cannot explain you as you are in yourself nor say anything about the Source of your existence. The description of the ontological truth of our temporal being in the context of eternity, of beauty, life and of goodness is provided by numerous philosophies and religions. The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. A relationship with God is open to everyone. Open your heart and mind. The Truth can be known. You are focussing on the words, stories, symbolism and concepts rather than seeking that to which they point.

 

[pocaracas]

“Ridiculously off the mark”? LoL
Science cannot explain you as you are in yourself nor say anything about the Source of your existence. The description of the ontological truth of our temporal being in the context of eternity, of beauty, life and of goodness is provided by numerous philosophies and religions. The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. A relationship with God is open to everyone. Open your heart and mind. The Truth can be known. You are focussing on the words, stories, symbolism and concepts rather than seeking that to which they point.

They point to a reality which doesn’t seem to be there.
A reality which has apparently been built up by successive generations of people who couldn’t cope with not knowing, so they made it up.

I must say, those people have done an awesome job at convincing everyone of that thing they made up… I’d wager that they themselves were convinced of the reality of their musings.
You, nowadays, can’t even understand how your view, your mind, is twisted by this made up reality.

Science has provided tentative explanations for how our consciousness has become what we see today. Tentative, given our awareness of how difficult it is to study a mind, without destroying it.
People with made up minds about how things work have immediately dismissed such tentative explanations, just like you reveal to have done with your second sentence there. It’s as if they don’t even exist, or are not worth considering… just because they don’t feature your favorite made up entity at the root of it all.
I find it astonishing how you can claim to know any truth, when you are in such a dismissive state of mind… and one that’s dismissive towards what is tangible, at that… but remarkably accepting of some intangible “reality”.

 

[benhur]

“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” …".I don’t feel frightened not knowing things,"
― Richard Feynman

Hi Brad,

Partly agree for as was mentioned the status quot has tendencies to pc or herd mentality also (Earth is flat, or Earth is center etc). I would agree that religion certainly "corrals " also and is very ‘narrow’ but so is the status quot. Just try and teach anything but naturalism at a university, see how the door really is not ajar to anything theistic. Indeed the closing of any door limits alternatives, and we are two of the same cloth.

I will agree that straight and narrow is the gate to Truth, and broad is the way to Error. I think the science community goes by this ‘truth’ also.

It is interesting that Rf does not fear not knowing, yet some say," The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." I mean I do not fear not knowing something that is way beyond me either, but I certainly should have a healthy respect (fear) for not knowing something I am called to know or despise wrongfully. It may be that secluded indigenous peoples may have more truthful knowledge about our spiritual nature than say a highly educated Western atheist. That is what a closed door can do, or what a healthy respect (fear) for knowing what we should know can also do.

Of course it is all in the eyes of the beholder. And it is only 'natural ’ to take sides, even to not leave the door ‘ajar’. Of course we are all comfortable to say we are ‘open minded’ but only from the comforts of staying within one’s own paradigm.

Blessings

 

[Aloysium]

They point to a reality which doesn’t seem to be there.
A reality which has apparently been built up by successive generations of people who couldn’t cope with not knowing, so they made it up. . . . I find it astonishing how you can claim to know any truth, when you are in such a dismissive state of mind… and one that’s dismissive towards what is tangible, at that… but remarkably accepting of some intangible “reality”.

You’ve got to look harder, or at least try.
I think this is projection on your part.
You don’t know me.
I’ve made really good money doing science.
It doesn’t get more tangible than that.

 

[Bradski]

Hi Brad,
teach anything but naturalism at a university, see how the door really is not ajar to anything theistic. Indeed the closing of any door limits alternatives, and we are two of the same cloth.

All the doors are open, Ben. The science door to the scientists, the philosophy door to the philosophers and the theistic door to the theologians. No-one is barred from any of them. It’s an open house.

But just as you wouldn’t discuss geology in an arts class, you don’t discuss theology in the science class and vica versa. But there’s nothing to stop you joining both.

 

[benhur]

All the doors are open, Ben. The science door to the scientists, the philosophy door to the philosophers and the theistic door to the theologians. No-one is barred from any of them. It’s an open house.

But just as you wouldn’t discuss geology in an arts class, you don’t discuss theology in the science class and vica versa. But there’s nothing to stop you joining both.

PC by any name. I see a lot of “art” in geological features , as I see religious musings in philosophy and science. So ,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’’ has no connection to how we got here ? Again, PC door closing, or rather making three houses where we once had one each working together. The one house was not perfect nor free from ‘family’ disputes but the three separate houses claiming openness is like saying divorce is better because it stops the fighting. Divorce is a door closer.

Blessings

 

[Bradski]

PC by any name. I see a lot of “art” in geological features , as I see religious musings in philosophy and science. So ,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’’ has no connection to how we got here ?

In a theological sense? Quite a lot. In a scientific sense? About the same as Aboriginal Dreamtime or Hindu beliefs or a myriad of other creation stories. None.

 

[pocaracas]

You’ve got to look harder, or at least try.
I think this is projection on your part.

How am I going to look harder?
I’ve looked at many aspects of the thing… and it does seem to stem from people.

That alternate reality comes from people… people like it, people propagate it, people believe in it, people mold it, people interpret it, people write books about it, people talk about it, people teach their kids about it, people find ways to make it fit with their own view of other people’s mentality, people try to have other people behave in particular ways, people compose the hierarchies of that “reality”'s representatives on this planet, people claimed to have insight into that “reality”… people, people, people.

It is well known that people can make up stuff, people can like made up stuff (think movies and books), people can propagate made up stuff, people can believe in made up stuff, people can mold that made up stuff to adapt it, people can interpret the made up stuff in differing ways (think poetry), people write books about that made up stuff, people talk about the made up stuff, people teach their kids made up stuff (santa claus), people find ways to make the made up stuff fit with other’s mentalities…

How am I going to ignore all this in favor of the unevidenced alternate reality this forum represents?
(please, tales of people doing stuff like believing something and dying for that is not evidence of that alternate reality - just evidence that people get convinced of unevidenced propositions)

You don’t know me.
I’ve made really good money doing science.
It doesn’t get more tangible than that.

And yet, you say “The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

PC by any name. I see a lot of “art” in geological features , as I see religious musings in philosophy and science. So ,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’’ has no connection to how we got here ?

When I read this I think about the University that I attended. Many of the higher sciences were taught by teachers not from the west and many of my classmates also came from eastern continents (I remember one class where there was a Power Point presentation in Chinese because all but 2 people in the class could read it). I wonder what it would be like to incorporate one of the eastern creation stories into our science class.

"In the beginning there was a boundless, shapeless, chaotic mass. From this mass the three gods of creation were formed. Over eon’s the earth eventually formed from this mass and two more gods were formed from the reeds that shot up on the earth. Now let’s turn to chapter three and read on how Big Bang Nucleosynthesis might explain how the first 3 gods were born from this chaotic mass. "

 

[You]

…

"In the beginning there was a boundless, shapeless, chaotic mass. From this mass the three gods of creation were formed. Over eon’s the earth eventually formed from this mass and two more gods were formed from the reeds that shot up on the earth. Now let’s turn to chapter three and read on how Big Bang Nucleosynthesis might explain how the first 3 gods were born from this chaotic mass. "

well… You don’t know that they weren’t.
You don’t know what the first three gods represent, gluons, imagination, creativity?
You don’t know that the other two gods were not day and night, light and dark or anything else.
But you believe in quarks, a name invented by a man with a sick and twisted sense of humour who wanted to hear scientific types quacking like ducks.
quark means nothing like two gods for the reeds means nothing, they are just different sounds representing things not understood.

 

[benhur]

In a theological sense? Quite a lot. In a scientific sense? About the same as Aboriginal Dreamtime or Hindu beliefs or a myriad of other creation stories. None.

OK.Understand.The door is closed. No admitted knowledge gap behind the answer. Even in theology many “seek a sign” before any ‘commitment’. But your paradigm seeks anything but a sign from the theological house. That is the only signs to seek are from within your house. Your house tries to answer theological, philosophical questions also (sounds like what we do in our house also).

Blessings