If you give the best example of the world to the unenlightened, they will resist. Beliefs are like a dam that gets in the way of enlightening attempts. We all are kind of unenlightened because:

Everything other than the pure math is beliefs. Even the science itself is not math. Science is a bunch of principles (beliefs, ideas or whatever) which in most cases are being proved by math but don't consider all aspects and in inexact ways. There is no war in math but other than math is the arena of conflicts.

So we (humans) live always with beliefs. You have your own beliefs and me my own and naturally we must resist or fight forever.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2019

Welcome back my friend! And again we agree on almost all cases!

 

Almost 100% correct, but I dare say that something like the Periodic Table is not a belief and that forms the backbone of Chemistry.
Also Science is only a methodology or a way of doing things.
An hypothesis is proposed, testing of that idea follows, repeatability and observations by others, then if it can consistently predict outcomes, you're on your way to having scientific theory. There is no such thing as "science" as a singular, isolated thing.

 

www.science.com

 

Wait, wait, wait... Is this about roman empire secretly being a middle age russian empire? And jesus perhaps being a russian too? This stuff is somewhat popular on russian language interwebz.

But what's up with the creationism? And the hatred for 'environmentalists'? Do you have some kind of unifying theory? Please.

 

I am guessing you posted that link to prove that there is no such thing as "science" as a singular, isolated thing, since that site encompasses all sciences from medicine to astrophysics. But each is a branch of science. Nothing on science.com would be described as a belief system.

 

*edit; too caustic

Be well guys

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2019

It's not so much that, than 'pearls to the swine'. ie. usually a pointless exercise to try.
It is a personal, internal thing that generally can't effectively be told to another unless there are certain prior understandings.
But leading by example, if observed by another concisely, is often where more is learnt.

Whatever the word enlightenment is supposed to mean, I reckon it's a transient state anyway. (But granted; there are lovely plateaus to be reached.) Particularly because it is always possible to learn. And if one believes one has the monopoly on truth, one reaches the ceiling pretty quickly. As well as divides oneself from others.

I would have said "we are all always learning"...but y'know...

 

I'm going to bore everyone with one of my favourite rants. The 'right words' do matter!
To Radioactive Fallout and notsoloud...
I'm not disagreeing with your ideas, but I politely suggest that you guys really should stop beating up the word 'belief'.
I like the way you are criticising bad ideas but you are picking on the wrong label for those ideas.
You are absolutely right to criticise 'unwarranted belief' e.g., 'blind faith' but the actual word 'belief' is innocent of all crimes.

There are false beliefs - they just happen to be wrong. There are beliefs that have higher probability of being true - those beliefs are closer to being knowledge. We cannot function at all without beliefs and it becomes ironic to try to do so.
For example... Radioactive Fallout said "Everything other than the pure math is beliefs" - well that statement represents your 'belief'. It is an idea that you genuinely 'believe' and you seek to establish it as a true belief.
and notsoloud said "but I dare say that something like the Periodic Table is not a belief..."
Fair enough, the Periodic Table is a model of a bit of reality, but we 'believe' that the model is a good one. The model has been critically examined and found to be a really useful model of reality, and so we continue to 'believe' it. We can rationally defend those useful 'beliefs'.

notsoloud said... "Nothing on science.com would be described as a belief system.":
Science is entirely about beliefs. It is arguably the BEST BELIEF SYSTEM (or at least one of the best) that humanity has ever invented. Science uses evidence to try to figure out which beliefs are worth having and which are not. Science seeks to discredit unwarranted beliefs and replace them with better beliefs. It is not trying to get rid of the concept of 'belief' as though the concept of belief was some shoddy antiquated idea.

Sorry again, all this woffle, woffle, woffle, just to argue about which words to use - but words do matter, and when we use them loosely we risk talking past each other and that is a waste.

 

Last edited: Jun 13, 2019

a great example of how the scientific process can construct a model that will predict the existence of barely observable phenomena based on a theorized, compounded set of imaginings and concepts.

of course this is only a working model, there is no need to believe or not believe. i expect when greater understanding is reached, and a further unification of theoretical frameworks under newer wave mechanics based conceptions of physical substance, the table will likely be superseded -- this does not deny its current utility.

i am sure some contemporary theoreticians look at the periodic table as an archaic relic.

similarly newtonian physics has problems, it breaks down in edge-cases, but is workable within the somewhat limited band of physical phenomena it seeks to describe.

i propose this thread be filed under new-age internet anti-real non-denominational presuppositionalism. surely this can unite and satisfy both rationalist and empiricist.

also a case study in how NOT to formulate an epistemological framework.

i would like to see them damn gearsluxies come up with a thread as good as this one.

 

Indeed.
Which reminds me of an interesting book; Peter Boghossian: A Manual for Creating Atheists.
It concerns 'street epistemology' using the Socratic Method.
Anthony Magnabosco and Cordial Curiosity on YouTube both use this method as a discussion upon the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.
They use Boghossian's book as their method of conversation - No debating, just civilized conversation.
I have found it interesting.

 

I concur. I truly believe that there is a unifying presence that we affect and that affects us all in this world. Science just hasn't been able to identify nor measure it in any tangible way.

Yet.

 

Thanks very much to Smoove Grooves for that tip. When I followed it, I found these two videos from Peter Boghossian
A Manual for Creating Atheists (short < 10mins)
Jesus, The Easter Bunny and Other Delusions: Just Say No! (90 mins) 1st ten minutes (after the 10 min too long intro) was good so I'm looking forward to watching the rest. and believe it or not, my attraction to this was not specifically the religion bashing - it was the more general 'delusional thinking' bashing, and hence 'on topic' for this thread. and I'm not neglecting the positive "method of conversation - No debating, just civilized conversation" themes here; all good

 

Last edited: Jun 14, 2019

Yes, me too. I didn't want to have to explain myself when I posted that, but thankfully you've just said it for me anyway.

 

Thanks Smoove, street epistemology is solid.

 

This is not correct.

This is not relevant.

 

I tell people I'm agnostic if asked about my beliefs...It's the smartest way of saying I don't know what the fuck is going on.#

 

Why would you truly believe that? Not trying to be a diffucult, I really would like to hear what you have to say about it.

 

@EAR TO LEARN Not really. It seems deceitful, and hardly smart either.
Not knowing "what the fuck is going on", as you say, and having a belief that God is unknowable, seem like two totally different things to me.
But if it works for you, great.