Why is it necessary to believe in something that hasn't been proved yet?

[jochoa]

I wrote the following essay on the mentioned question, “Why is it necessary to believe in something that hasn’t been proved yet?” The question was asked on Yahoo!Answers. I would like to hear your thoughts, considerations, and critiques.

I would term “believing in something that hasn’t been proven yet” as optimism because optimism can be defined by dictionaries as “hopefulness and confidence about the successful outcome of something.” In this definition, the outcome is not yet known.

Necessity depends on purpose. In this case, optimism is the necessary action to purpose the greatest peace, happiness, and/or longevity.

Example of Application on a Small Scale - Which yields greater peace during debate: Optimism or Pessimism?
In a debate between two perspectives, each perspective has some validity, which has yet to be proven to the other participant. In order to achieve the greatest peace or prevent the least amount of strife, optimism is required. Look at the three possibilities:

1. If both perspectives were pessimistic, both would be constantly searching for and stating any fallacy in the other perspective. Focusing and continually stating the fallacies will end in great amounts of strife and nothing really accomplished because neither perspective was heard or understood.
2. If one perspective is optimistic and the other pessimistic, the debate would end sooner because the optimistic perspective would find validity in the opposing perspective sooner. Though strife will be lessened, chances are distress will be heightened in the optimist because of the sadness that typically follows listening, but not being heard.
3. If both perspectives are optimistic, the debate will end far sooner and both would walk away with greater insight. There will be no strife, nor loss of peace, because both perspectives would have listened, heard, and understood each other. The added benefit is that the knowledge gained will lead to greater development of livelihood.

Example of Application on one of the Grandest Scales - Is God’s Word the Truth, that Jesus Christ is the Savior?
In this example, I will quickly and somewhat poorly analyze the Pessimistic and Optimistic thinking and consequences of such thought.
The pessimist will justify fallacies based on interpretation, laws of physics, contrasting behaviors, lack of tangibility,etc. In doing so, the pessimist will have lessened their potential of peace for the mere act of thinking negative during the time of the debate.
The optimist will seek to understand God’s perspective. In doing so, the optimist will learn how unconditionally loving God as Jesus did is the greatest method to achieving the culmination of peace, happiness, and longevity.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration!

 

[Mark_David]

That was excellent. I’m going to keep this in mind.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with your argument in favour of optimism - having foolishly tended to be pessimistic about minor matters for the first half of my life - but it has to be balanced by realism. Optimism amounts to being positive, especially with regard to the immense value of life outweighing its drawbacks. Schopenhauer was inconsistent because he claimed it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet yet he wrote extensively about beauty - in spite of this being (for him) the worst of all possible worlds!
One wonders what a world without beauty would be…

 

[Mark_David]

I agree with your argument in favour of optimism - having foolishly tended to be pessimistic about minor matters for the first half of my life - but it has to be balanced by realism. Optimism amounts to being positive, especially with regard to the immense value of life outweighing its drawbacks. Schopenhauer was inconsistent because he claimed it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet yet he wrote extensively about beauty - in spite of this being (for him) the worst of all possible worlds!
One wonders what a world without beauty would be…

Well, for Schopenhauer, Beauty and Art tended to be tantamount to spiritual experiences. He hated the world and natural order of things, so he believed in escapism. Still pretty pessimistic to me!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, for Schopenhauer, Beauty and Art tended to be tantamount to spiritual experiences. He hated the world and natural order of things, so he believed in escapism. Still pretty pessimistic to me!

Yet it has at least one redeeming feature if we are to go by his statement about love:

“The ultimate aim of all love affairs … is more important than all other aims in man’s life; and therefore it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it.”

What would the world be without love? Worse than the worst?

 

[Mark_David]

Yet it has at least one redeeming feature if we are to go by his statement about love: “The ultimate aim of all love affairs … is more important than all other aims in man’s life; and therefore it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it.”

We can take “love affairs” quite literally in this case, though - Schopenhauer had many “lovers” during his life. That is a very empty kind of love. But yes, in general, it’s what the Gospel calls us to do - to love one another with all sincerity.

 

[tonyrey]

We can take “love affairs” quite literally in this case, though - Schopenhauer had many “lovers” during his life. That is a very empty kind of love. But yes, in general, it’s what the Gospel calls us to do - to love one another with all sincerity.

I suppose his love affairs can be regarded as a form of escapism but if this really is the worst of all possible worlds it would have been more logical for him to do what many others have done - leave it as quickly as possible (painlessly of course)!

 

[Mark_David]

I suppose his love affairs can be regarded as a form of escapism but if this really is the worst of all possible worlds it would have been more logical for him to do what many others have done - leave it as quickly as possible (painlessly of course)!

That’s how I thought before I (re)discovered Christ - which brings this thread full circle to reaffirming that optimism is often more useful and productive than pessimism. I can’t deny that I’m pessimistic about the world outside the Church. However, unlike pure aesthetics, God is an entirely meaningful and substantial thing to embrace and immerse oneself in. What’s the point of embracing anything in a nihilistic world? Momentary pleasure is only that - momentary.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s how I thought before I (re)discovered Christ - which brings this thread full circle to reaffirming that optimism is often more useful and productive than pessimism. I can’t deny that I’m pessimistic about the world outside the Church. However, unlike pure aesthetics, God is an entirely meaningful and substantial thing to embrace and immerse oneself in. What’s the point of embracing anything in a nihilistic world? Momentary pleasure is only that - momentary.

A spark in the dark! But light shines in the darkness… The growth of Christianity in Africa, China and elsewhere is a cause for optimism. I leave you with that happy thought.

 

[Jonesboy]

I wrote the following essay on the mentioned question, “Why is it necessary to believe in something that hasn’t been proved yet?” The question was asked on Yahoo!Answers. I would like to hear your thoughts, considerations, and critiques.

I would term “believing in something that hasn’t been proven yet” as optimism because optimism can be defined by dictionaries as “hopefulness and confidence about the successful outcome of something.” In this definition, the outcome is not yet known.

Necessity depends on purpose. In this case, optimism is the necessary action to purpose the greatest peace, happiness, and/or longevity.

Example of Application on a Small Scale - Which yields greater peace during debate: Optimism or Pessimism?
In a debate between two perspectives, each perspective has some validity, which has yet to be proven to the other participant. In order to achieve the greatest peace or prevent the least amount of strife, optimism is required. Look at the three possibilities:

1. If both perspectives were pessimistic, both would be constantly searching for and stating any fallacy in the other perspective. Focusing and continually stating the fallacies will end in great amounts of strife and nothing really accomplished because neither perspective was heard or understood.
2. If one perspective is optimistic and the other pessimistic, the debate would end sooner because the optimistic perspective would find validity in the opposing perspective sooner. Though strife will be lessened, chances are distress will be heightened in the optimist because of the sadness that typically follows listening, but not being heard.
3. If both perspectives are optimistic, the debate will end far sooner and both would walk away with greater insight. There will be no strife, nor loss of peace, because both perspectives would have listened, heard, and understood each other. The added benefit is that the knowledge gained will lead to greater development of livelihood.

Example of Application on one of the Grandest Scales - Is God’s Word the Truth, that Jesus Christ is the Savior?
In this example, I will quickly and somewhat poorly analyze the Pessimistic and Optimistic thinking and consequences of such thought.
The pessimist will justify fallacies based on interpretation, laws of physics, contrasting behaviors, lack of tangibility,etc. In doing so, the pessimist will have lessened their potential of peace for the mere act of thinking negative during the time of the debate.
The optimist will seek to understand God’s perspective. In doing so, the optimist will learn how unconditionally loving God as Jesus did is the greatest method to achieving the culmination of peace, happiness, and longevity.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration!

Proof pertains only to elements in a system, such as “is the ball behind this car or not”?

It doesn’t pertain to foundations, such as God’s Word, colour, or sound etc.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

I agree that it is very beneficial to examine other points of view, even if you may disagree with them. This leads to greater understanding of other ideas and other people. So many arguments I see stem from people not really understanding what the other really means, and attacking “straw-men” versions of one another.

However, it also seems like you are making a case for gullibility. You said that seeking other explanations and critiquing the other position would be “pessimistic” and lead to strife. I disagree with this. I think that critically examining ALL sides of an argument, including your own, is a crucial aspect of finding out what is really true. If your only goal is to be as peaceful as possible and not ruffle any feathers, then fine; smile politely and nod as others say things that you disagree with. But if you want to find truth, ideas need to be examined and this does include critique.

Let’s say you were talking to someone who believed the Earth to be flat. You could take what you called the “optimistic” approach and listen to his view and the reasons he has for believing the Earth is flat. You would likely hear some things that you thought were way off and patently wrong, but being “optimistic,” you would not say anything and be hopeful that his position may be right. True, you would gain a great deal of understanding of the Flat-Earther’s position, as silly as you think it may be, but wouldn’t it be a good thing to try to convince the other person of their mistakes? Shouldn’t we strive to increase the knowledge of the people around us? Also, on the off-chance that the Earth really is flat, by pointing out where you think the Flat-Earther made logical mistakes, he has the opportunity to explain in more detail why you were wrong in your thinking.

In your example of being optimistic about Christianity, you seem to be very quick to say that the non-Christian should be optimistic about your position, but not so much the other way around. If you were talking with a Muslim, would you be “optimistic” and open about Islam? Would you nod along with every bit of evidence given that Muhammad is the true prophet? It is easy to say that others should be open and optimistic about your beliefs - you think they are true so of course everyone should agree with you! But be careful of becoming close-minded and arrogant in your certainty: always be open to seeing where you may be wrong.

To me, and perhaps I misunderstood your essay, it seems that you are advocating that people not think critically about ideas that are presented to them. This opens people up to being very gullible. I have, in the past, had a bit of interest in some wild conspiracy theories. They seem very solid and airtight from a believers point-of-view when you simply go along with it; if you just remain hopeful in its positive outcome. But most of these conspiracy theories fall apart with just the smallest bit of critical analysis.

Optimism is certainty useful in getting to understand another’s point of view and beliefs. I am not saying to not be optimistic. But looking for fallacies and mistakes in another person’s reasoning (and in your own) is crucial for finding what is really true.

Sorry if this post wasn’t optimistic enough for you.

 

[jochoa]

First, Thank you to all of you for such consideration. I definitely appreciate the kind words sharing how I can be incomplete in my thoughts. I look forward to further thoughts and considerations.

…but it has to be balanced by realism.

I definitely agree with balance by “realism,” if realism refers to the natural lack of understanding. When we critically discuss, differing knowledge-bases are a given. When I listen to a disagreement, my knowledge will naturally perceive the misunderstandings.
After further consideration of the “Optimism amounts…” statement, I realize I am missing clarity and will study harder to find it.

“The ultimate aim of all love affairs … is more important than all other aims in man’s life; and therefore it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it.”

I can easily agree with this, however I am not familiar with Schopenhauer’s works. What is the ultimate aim of life according to Schopenhauer?
For me personally, I know the greatest aim of life is the culmination of the greatest amount of peace, happiness, and longevity, and the best/only way to achieve it is through “loving” God as Jesus did. However, unfortunately I have yet to completely understand how to always practice love towards God.

We can take “love affairs” quite literally…

I definitely agree with your understandings. I think the emptiness comes from an incomplete love: To love others first leads to stress for lack of consideration of the self. On the other hand, to love the self first leads to strife for lack of consideration of others. This predicament can only be resolved by loving God first because God considers all aspects.

I can’t deny that I’m pessimistic about the world outside the Church.

I also frequently fail to willful pessimism, especially in communication with my wife and children. And every time I do, I find the build up of some quality of pride/defensiveness, bitterness/stereotyping, judgment/assumption, anxiety/worry, and/or anger/hatred, which ultimately leads to strife in the relationship, or distress and fatigue in myself.

Proof pertains only to elements in a system, such as “is the ball behind this car or not”?
It doesn’t pertain to foundations, such as God’s Word, colour, or sound etc.

I have a few questions because I have difficulty knowing if I understand you correctly. First, I agree that God’s Word, colour, sound, etc. exist, no matter the perception. However, the mind’s perception does not fully understand the system, therefore the mind must seek to validate the system.
What term or phrase would you use for “seek to validate?”

However, it also seems like you are making a case for gullibility.

I apologize for my lack of explanation. I do not mean to promote gullibility. I will try harder to include the natural occurrence of negativity when considering two opposing perspectives.

…but wouldn’t it be a good thing to try to convince the other person of their mistakes?

Very interesting and thought-provoking questions! Here are my thoughts:
There are many factors to be taken into account: What defines “good”? What method will be used to convince? What state of mind is the “mistaken” mind? I would definitely enjoy an analysis of this particular question, however it is too complex (timely) for me to consider now.

Shouldn’t we strive to increase the knowledge of the people around us?

Another great topic and analysis! I think the answer lies in the following questions: Is the knowledge shared definitively correct? Is the knowledge being shared to open minds?

In your example of being optimistic about Christianity, you seem to be very quick to say that the non-Christian should be optimistic about your position, but not so much the other way around.

I am in complete agreement with your understanding. I apologize for coming across as closed-minded and arrogant. I particularly chose the phrase, “one of the grandest scales,” to accommodate for other beliefs. Please consider the following statements of mine, and let me know if they are evident of an open-mind:
I have actually considered, somewhat practiced, and found some validity in other beliefs: various Christian-based denominations(including a lack thereof), Buddhism, Atheism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Agnosticism. Each one definitely yields greatness if practiced according to the core. I still struggle with denying Egoism. However, learning the greatest command, Love God as Jesus loved Him through the Holy Spirit as taught by Catholic Principles, has exceeded the others.
I hope that through my analysis of the responses, you will see that I am open to seeing where I am wrong, however I cannot seek to deny God’s Word.

Optimism is certainty useful in getting to understand another’s point of view and beliefs. I am not saying to not be optimistic. But looking for fallacies and mistakes in another person’s reasoning (and in your own) is crucial for finding what is really true.

There have been multiple responses that indicate a preaching of gullibility. I will strive to indicate that pessimism naturally occurs due to the misalignment of knowledge-base and argument, therefore it becomes necessary to willfully be optimistic to counteract the pessimism.

Sorry if this post wasn’t optimistic enough for you.

No need for light-heart apologies! I wanted to hear how I was mistaken!

I am very thankful to you all for genuinely considering my post. Through you all sharing your knowledge, I have learned some of my incompleteness and will attempt to become more complete.

May peace be with you and have a good day!

 

[spockrates]

I wrote the following essay on the mentioned question, “Why is it necessary to believe in something that hasn’t been proved yet?” The question was asked on Yahoo!Answers. I would like to hear your thoughts, considerations, and critiques.

I would term “believing in something that hasn’t been proven yet” as optimism because optimism can be defined by dictionaries as “hopefulness and confidence about the successful outcome of something.” In this definition, the outcome is not yet known.

Necessity depends on purpose. In this case, optimism is the necessary action to purpose the greatest peace, happiness, and/or longevity.

Example of Application on a Small Scale - Which yields greater peace during debate: Optimism or Pessimism?
In a debate between two perspectives, each perspective has some validity, which has yet be proven to the other participant. In order to achieve the greatest peace or prevent the least amount of strife, optimism is required. Look at the three possibilities:

1. If both perspectives were pessimistic, both would be constantly searching for and stating any fallacy in the other perspective. Focusing and continually stating the fallacies will end in great amounts of strife and nothing really accomplished because neither perspective was heard or understood. …

Just a suggestion: The word *fallacy *is used by students of logic to describe a flaw in reasoning that is never a valid way to prove anything. One might agree completely that the conclusion a person draws is true, yet still point out that is reasoning supporting the conclusion is fallacious, and should be changed. Some examples of informal fallacies:

atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/Logical_Fallacies_Arguments_Reasoning_and_the_Fallacy.htm
atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_index_alpha.htm
editthis.info/logic/Informal_Fallacies

Regarding believing in something that has not been proven yet, I think the Catholic faith does not fall into this category. The proof might not be by way of deductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning provides substantial evidence–though not deductive certainty. This is not unusual, as there is a great deal that we believe by way of inference, rather than by way of deduction. Here’s an explanation of deduction and induction:

atheism.about.com/od/criticalthinking/a/deductivearg.htm

 

[tonyrey]

I can easily agree with this, however I am not familiar with Schopenhauer’s works. What is the ultimate aim of life according to Schopenhauer?

He believed life is full of unavoidable frustration and we should reduce suffering by minimizing our desires - like the Buddhists. A negative attitude but not surprising from an arch-pessimist!

For me personally, I know the greatest aim of life is the culmination of the greatest amount of peace, happiness, and longevity, and the best/only way to achieve it is through “loving” God as Jesus did. However, unfortunately I have yet to completely understand how to always practice love towards God.

Who does? Your humility takes you a long way towards achieving it. Robert Browning wrote:

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for?”!

 

[Mark_David]

Let’s say you were talking to someone who believed the Earth to be flat. You could take what you called the “optimistic” approach and listen to his view and the reasons he has for believing the Earth is flat. You would likely hear some things that you thought were way off and patently wrong, but being “optimistic,” you would not say anything and be hopeful that his position may be right.

But why would one be hopeful about this? A flat-earth wouldn’t significantly affect most peoples’ lives either way. Atheism, on the other hand, has many objectively pessimistic implications (no soul or afterlife, no supreme justice, no objective right or wrong) - at least from a Christian point of view. Sure, a person could be “optimistic” that the earth is flat, but there’s no innate pessimism in countering these claims either (which would be fairly easy to do in this case.) If anything: instead of only nodding away politely, one would be optimistic that they could change this person’s incorrect view of the earth’s shape (while still considering any good arguments that they had).

True, you would gain a great deal of understanding of the Flat-Earther’s position, as silly as you think it may be, but wouldn’t it be a good thing to try to convince the other person of their mistakes?

Optimism in the case for Christianity wouldn’t necessarily make us refrain from critiquing what we believe to be false; in fact, our optimism would make us more confident and certain in how we should proceed to criticize opposing views. Being optimistic can help us to be more patient and careful in our choice of words, is all - which allows for better communication. A pessimistic worldview usually comes with pessimistic expectations and attitudes, which isn’t good for hearing out or considering opposing worldviews. Maybe I’m generalizing.

Also, on the off-chance that the Earth really is flat, by pointing out where you think the Flat-Earther made logical mistakes, he has the opportunity to explain in more detail why you were wrong in your thinking.

Well, I’ve been on a plane several times… the world is curved

If you were talking with a Muslim, would you be “optimistic” and open about Islam?

More so than with an atheist, because a Muslim is likely to share more views in common with a Catholic. At least they’re theists - so there’s some common ground from the get-go.

Would you nod along with every bit of evidence given that Muhammad is the true prophet?

That would be pessimism in regards to your own worldview, though. It would mean that you’re wrong about Jesus Christ being the Son of God - which would be optimism for Islam and pessimism for Christianity, one’s own faith. A person like that would continuously keep changing their mind when presented with different ideas and claims - a Christian one day, a Scientologist, Hindu, or agnostic the next.

I think the bottom line here is separating optimism from gullibility, and not assuming that optimism allows another’s views (whatever they may be) to automatically overshadow or replace one’s own. Consideration doesn’t necessarily equate to acceptance.