What Do You Believe?

I have been kicking this idea around for a few days now, and it seems fairly relevant today after the 9/11 hub bub going on. I don't participate in those forums, so am blissfully ignorant, literally, about their goings on.

It would seem that many here at ATS are of a philosophical nature, thus I hope this meets some eager eyes. It would seem, also, that many ATSers bandy about the term "believe" quite frequently. In fact, these beliefs seem to be at the core of the majority of ATS strife. In fact, this would be representative of the world at large. In matters of politics, 9/11, and archeology you see these beliefs defending with the utmost vitriol.

Being an armchair philosopher, I am of the "belief" that in order to truly seek understanding, you must first cast off all belief first. To say you "believe" something, without first understanding it, is to frontload your concepts and contexts of that subject.

A good example of this is religion. In religious discussion you often hear (or see, in the case of ATS) the defense of, "That can't be true, because the bible says....". What is not considered is that what the bible says is irrelevant to a large portion of the world. The belief is based on programming provided by society and culture, as well as parental nurturing (be it good or bad). Few actually venture to think outside the box of their religious programming, and even fewer can tolerate the first steps they take out of that box. So the relative comfort of what they know is once again used as an anchor for the delicate psyche.

And this same phenomenon is repeated over and over. People develop their identity on their beliefs, and thus will argue them violently, as if might makes right. Attempts are made to silence the opposition, as if silence actually means consent. Where is the truth in that? This embracing of ignorance is anathema to the philosophical mind.

So, as you go forth, when you catch yourself professing a belief in something, ask yourself why you believe it. Have you considered it logically? Juxtaposed it against other belief systems? Reconciled all loose ends? Because to actually believe in something means to embrace it, make it yourself. That is very grave business, and should not be done so easily.

I put this here as a way to "test" my understanding here. all comments are welcome.

I believe in myself.

this is what I said in another thread; ,

People are blinded by greed and materialism nowadays while the higher goal is spirituality, this world and science is based on matter and antimatter but we have to start thinking in higher and lower dimensions.

To reach that path faith is needed instead of science.



I see it like this.

Alvin Plantinga defines "Fideism" as "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The Fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious," and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason.The Fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith. Plantinga's definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much "reason" per se — it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational — but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence.

Fideism

And this is from me

construction information from logic is a science of its own, science is the proof of logic, but we have to accept that some things can't be explained by logic and or science alone, some things will have to explain themselves.

This is why scientists are baffled about what results they found at the Large Hadron Collider.

The unexpected result of a mundane fission reaction caused jaws to drop in the particle physics laboratory. Amazed scientists recorded what was expected to be a normal fission of mercury-180. When the experiment was complete the scientists discovered that instead of the expected symmetric reaction - two equal fragments of atomic nuclei - an asymmetrical reaction occurred that turns accepted theory on its proverbial head.

The physics of nuclear fission has been known for many decades. It entails the splitting of a heavy nucleus into two nuclei with less weight and mass. Each time a heavy nucleus is split it should produce two equal nuclei...at least that's the theory. And the theory seemed to work fine, until the experiment at CERN revealed there was something terribly flawed about that assumption.

Link

I believe that giving up the material world and all the dark forces like anger, greed, lust, hate, jealousy and such is the path to salvation.

GM

In myself and the satisfaction of truth.

My problem is the number of questions without reasonable answers.

Anyone drawing conclusions from these vauge narrow facts are themselves questionable.

The air of mystery surrounding these events will never be truly understood wihtout flat out admissions from those that did it.

Cave dwelling anti-west terrorists who fail to blow up cars and bombs regularly, hijacking 3 planes the same day and flying them to their targets?

maybe maybe not.

I believe what i see and I apply what i know about the world to it. If what i am sure of about the world does not match what i see, i question it and seek more information.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


good point well made. prying open the slammed-shut door of the mind is important if we are to learn and grow from one day to the next.

i'm not sure if thinking outside the box is always possible. the more a subject, opinion or belief is rooted into one's psyche the quicker they may be to jump to defend that time-honored belief instead of taking a moment to view things from another angle.

there is a small similarity in how some people react in panic or emergency situations. there are some that go right into a mode as they have trained and prepared for such an event. a few may pause to think and assess the situation before moving to action. some will be scared or dismayed and become useless to others who need help. and there are some who will freak out and actually get in the way as they become a distraction of panic themselves.

while i appreciate where you are coming from i'll admit i sometimes find amusement in threads where people do go right to their old comfortable ruts. instead of reaching for higher ground they will staunchly defend that which they hold dear, which they perceive has come under attack. it's like watching someone trying to walk through a wall, stubbornly refusing to quit even though they are getting nowhere.

i'm confident you too have seen threads where OP's are guilty of living with blinders on. such threads sadden me a little after a while, when i see posters present good debate and points of view only to be met by dedication so unwavering it equates to ignorance and inflexibility. it's at those times i'm thankful that person is not someone in my life that i have to put up with on a regular basis!

s & f for you

I don't believe anything.

I have thoughts and ideas. Some make sense, some don't.

Sometimes they contradict each other.

The more good you do, the more good that comes back to you. You attract what you inflict. Seems pretty fair in my eyes.

reply to post by Grey Magic


I think you hit on a key piece here: some things will have to reveal themselves.

However, the greatest tool to aid in this revelation is logic and reason. Until you can have something pass the trial of logic and reason, belief is very premature.

Belief, for the majority of people, has no basis, It is formed from expediency. Given the impact that beliefs can have on the person you are, it is therefore very critical that this folly be avoided. "Faith" is just another word for a wild guess. The word "misplaced" is often found in tandem with the word "faith" for a reason.

They are but "vague ideas in which confidence is placed". The problem is really the different connotative definitions of the word. It get's swapped with faith, understanding, opinion, and it really depends on the how someone wants to express the sentence.

Originally posted by juveous
They are but "vague ideas in which confidence is placed". The problem is really the different connotative definitions of the word. It get's swapped with faith, understanding, opinion, and it really depends on the how someone wants to express the sentence.

The bolded part above, that is good insight.

The problem comes when too much confidence is placed. See, confidence is just another word for "faith".

And faith is a measurement of irrational belief.

A reasonable confidence, however, is the basis from where you can build. But the key is that it is "reasonable", thus employing reason.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by juveous
They are but "vague ideas in which confidence is placed". The problem is really the different connotative definitions of the word. It get's swapped with faith, understanding, opinion, and it really depends on the how someone wants to express the sentence.

The bolded part above, that is good insight.

The problem comes when too much confidence is placed. See, confidence is just another word for "faith".

And faith is a measurement of irrational belief.

A reasonable confidence, however, is the basis from where you can build. But the key is that it is "reasonable", thus employing reason.

and if faith is a measurement of irrational belief, how is faith measured? How do you measure a reasonable confidence?

I mean you could use ratios, percentage of probability, weigh what is then plausible, but you are now taking best guess. There is still room for error, however rational the belief ends up being. Not to mention some rational beliefs are completely erroneous and yet hold true, such as the case with placebos.

reply to post by juveous


My inability to apply numerical value is an artifact of my technological and philosophical limit. It does not imply that the item to be measured, faith, does indeed not have a measure. Because to have a measure, it would only need to have varying degrees of existence.

Regardless, perhaps "measurement" was a poor choice of words. Maybe "artifact" is more proper to convey my meaning.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


We have the idea that we are separate from our beliefs that we go around in this life finding things which either do or do not make sense to us. When we find something which makes sense, we can easily believe it. Of course this process begins way back when we are babies and children with no ability to discern what to believe and what not to believe, or for that matter to believe at all. We suck up beliefs like a dry sponge until we have so many of them that we cannot tell the difference between them and ourselves. This I suppose is because they are ourselves as you imply.

Then once we come of an age where we have developed the ability to discern, we look around to find more ideas and truths. When they don't agree with the accumulation of beliefs/self we cast them off as not true, or lies and even evil. Not because they are not true, but because they are not us.

When we find things that DO agree with the accumulation of beliefs/selves we add them on our existing beliefs/selves and so become this larger accumulation of beliefs/self. I think that this is what so many people call searching for truth. Searching for more things to add to the list of beliefs/selves. This accumulation of beliefs will constantly be at war with other accumulations of beliefs because one of the easiest beliefs, which is common to most accumulations of belief is that these beliefs are true, so am I and therefore, you and yours must not be true. Toss in the world as we see it unfolding around us at this time and it is really a boiling pot of belief systems, all struggling to maintain the sense of rightness of the individuals who hold to them.

If you have found any of my posts, you will find that I almost never use the term I believe. It's not that I don't believe things, this seems to be an awful lot to ask, its that I have found as you point out that beliefs not only confine us and our growth, they also determine us, because they are us. By saying I believe, one must almost automatically defend the belief.



At this point I think that I am more or less just repeating your OP so I will let it go at this.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If you have found any of my posts, you will find that I almost never use the term I believe. It's not that I don't believe things, this seems to be an awful lot to ask, its that I have found as you point out that beliefs not only confine us and our growth, they also determine us, because they are us. By saying I believe, one must almost automatically defend the belief.

Very well stated. To believe is deterministic of who we are.

Like any other association. To be honest, I find myself rooting for Rick Perry as an example of this. I know he sucks, he is my governor. But because he is Texan, I find myself in the human trap of loyalty due to association. Of course, I recognize this and immediately act to make the change. But it is a very similar phenomenon.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanA good example of this is religion. In religious discussion you often hear (or see, in the case of ATS) the defense of, "That can't be true, because the bible says....". What is not considered is that what the bible says is irrelevant to a large portion of the world. The belief is based on programming provided by society and culture, as well as parental nurturing (be it good or bad). Few actually venture to think outside the box of their religious programming, and even fewer can tolerate the first steps they take out of that box. So the relative comfort of what they know is once again used as an anchor for the delicate psyche.

Usually, if I'm going to say "In the Bible" without any backup or very lengthy explanation, I'm doing 1 of 2 things:

1. Explaining where I get the basis of my belief from. This is almost never about WHY I beleive it.

2. It is a response to preconcieved notions about what Christians are about through their founding texts.

I am thoroughly aware that for most people, you've got to prove the Bible to them to make it "reputable". This can be done, but it's usually not worth the effort of trying because people have their paradigms.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel



My only paradigm is truth. It is the basis of nature and the only endeavor that is truly Godly.

Of course, then we have talk about what God is. But that is a whole, 'nuther discussion.

I guess what I am getting at is, the basis of belief should not come from a book, or the writings of other people (especially when their identities is dubious and suspect to begin with).

But I would also like to expand the concept somewhat into the 9/11 debate. There you have some of the most deep seated hatred regarding a discussion that is, in essence, just trying to find truth. Nothing is ever more pure than truth, and its obstruction is a major evil in our world. You could call it The Greatest Evil.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Wow

Nice place you have here BFFT.

I believe both Science and Religion are unwitting partners in a Conspiracy of sorts....

All major Religions original purposes were to teach man of a spiritual realm Not for Religion to take on any real world authority over him. It seems that all major religions now have taken on the role of an intermediary between the physical and the spiritual realms.[Which it completely fails to achieve] simply because once the masses realize that they do not need such outside entity to achieve this connection the major religions themselves would collapse. So they do not really teach how this very real and easily obtained connection is possible. Which results in those who attempt this connection rarely if ever achieve it.

Religions have anchored themselves in our societies to the point that we have lost track of it's original purpose in the first place completely.

Science should be used to better our way of life. Not to create means in which to enslave and profit from others who need. [For example] certain medicines to live or to modify and then Patent certain foods [animal or vegetable] GMO etc. I feel that the world has been ripped off once Tesla's revolutionary ideas were stolen then hidden away from mankind. Universal free energy which was probably used by our long lost ancient forbears who where much smarter than we give them credit and were possibly much more in tune with nature.


So what does all that mean?
It means we have a certain group of elites controlling and manipulating the access we all naturally have to a higher spiritual self by burying it in dogma and spreading the idea that we must adhere to certain man made beliefs to be "saved" etc etc etc. Then on top of that we got sold a bill of goods called "Modern Society" were we are supposed to pay for water, food and electricity so we can run our gadgets that further pollute our planet so a select few Again the Elites have a further control over our lives.

See, Tesla's ideas would have freed us from this use of polluting "explosive" energy that we [Modern Society] are addicted to and couple to that if we dropped the "Religious" angle on "spirituality" we'd be living in a true Golden age.

Which means we would be growing untethered spiritually while simultaneously developing cleaner less destructive technologies that would be running on free naturally occurring energies. The liberation from the present versions of those two forms of controlling manipulations should be our goals. They have been holding back mankind's natural continuing evolution/development/liberation towards a spiritually enlightened being capable of much higher forms of science and understanding of his place in the universe/multiverse etc etc etc.

Why do I believe all of that?

Because I take what I see all around me in the real world. Then I study to the best of my ability real world history and when it doesn't line up like it logically should then I try to find out why.

Greed, Ego and Arrogance of a self absorbed self proclaimed few elites are usually who we find at the center of all this mess.

That's it for now.
I'm still working on this for another thread.

PEACE

For someone of profundity, beliefs crumble often like buildings. We can still find value in knowing that even though the structure is destroyed, it still holds value as building material, and can be used to create better and stronger buildings.

Destroying and challenging your own beliefs is probably one of the best things someone could do for themselves.

Originally posted by Skate
I believe in myself.

this quote right here. I believe in myself....

I have to forget that I am male
I am 31 years old
I am an American
I am mexican
I am middle class.

this list can go on and on, but its necessary to shed any and everything that can lead to pride/prejudice of others. Only then without bias can I being the journey for truth, and that journey is far from over.

So yes I believe in myself, but that starts with having a clean slate.