Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Henners]

An evidence-based system is just another type of belief system. It will be based, presumably, on the belief that it is important to base conclusions on some kind of evidence.

Nonsense.

An evidence-based system is based on reality.

Reality is the stuff that is there whether you believe in it or not.

Therefore evidence-based is quite different from belief-based.

See my examples, already provided above, for examples. If you pay some attention to what I write it might help you avoid howlers like claiming chalk is cheese.

 

[plumjam]

Nonsense.

An evidence-based system is based on reality.

Reality is the stuff that is there whether you believe in it or not.

Therefore evidence-based is quite different from belief-based.

See my examples, already provided above, for examples. If you pay some attention to what I write it might help you avoid howlers like claiming chalk is cheese.

Yes, reality is there whether you believe it or not. But your particular view of reality is going to be shaped by the knowledge-gathering system you choose to employ on it, which, in turn is based largely on what you believe.
You don't believe in God (I assume), so you don't go looking for God, or only do so in a half-hearted way. Thus beliefs have already decided the outcome.
This happens all the time, in all kinds of areas.

 

[Henners]

Yes, reality is there whether you believe it or not. But your particular view of reality is going to be shaped by the knowledge-gathering system you choose to employ on it, which, in turn is based largely on what you believe.
You don't believe in God (I assume), so you don't go looking for God, or only do so in a half-hearted way. Thus beliefs have already decided the outcome.
This happens all the time, in all kinds of areas.

Do you ever get upset that people have to repeat things over and over to you, PJ?

Do you even notice?

I'll tell you what. I've already explained to you why evidence and faith-based systems are different, and I've given you examples of cases where one or the other is appropriate. Why don't you display some initiative by going back and reading them?

Summary:

Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

 

[plumjam]

Do you ever get upset that people have to repeat things over and over to you, PJ?

Do you even notice?

I'll tell you what. I've already explained to you why evidence and faith-based systems are different, and I've given you examples of cases where one or the other is appropriate. Why don't you display some initiative by going back and reading them?

Summary:

Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

Ok, your Education, Medicine and Aeronautics.
All based on beliefs.
Education on the belief in the value of knowledge.
Medicine on the belief that it is good to alleviate suffering.
Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.

Epistemology is not just about generating reliable outcomes. It is also about discovering new knowledge or principles.. and to do this usually a high degree of faith is necessary.

 

[Henners]

Ok, your Education, Medicine and Aeronautics.
All based on beliefs.
Education on the belief in the value of knowledge.

Ah. A value, not a belief.

Medicine on the belief that it is good to alleviate suffering.

You really should find out the difference between "beliefs" and "values". The medicine that I know about is not primarily about the alleviation of suffering. You are a strange person.

Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.

I'll have to tell those people at Aribus and Boeing that PJ says they are doing it all wrong.

Epistemology is not just about generating reliable outcomes. It is also about discovering new knowledge or principles.. and to do this usually a high degree of faith is necessary.

Look up epistemology and find out what it is, please. Not only is it NOT "just about generating reliable outcomes" it is not EVEN "about generating reliable outcomes".

Faith-based systems, I repeat (again, groan) are only viable in cases where there is no need to generate a reliable outcome.

All of the people who have relied on faith-based medicine and faith-based aeronautics are extinct, or going extinct.

 

[JoeEllison]

It is a sign of a failed argument when you are forced to redefine a term so broadly that it loses any real meaning. In this thread, the word "belief" has been stretched so thin that it is nearly transparent. When you define it so that religion and aeronautics are treated as roughly equivalent, you have exited the realm of discussion, and entered Fantasy Land. It is sure evidence that you have little foundation for your position, and you should probably stop.

 

[plumjam]

Ah. A value, not a belief.

You really should find out the difference between "beliefs" and "values".

Beliefs are more fundamental than values. First you have to believe that what you are valuing, for example, exists, in order for that value to be meaningful and worthwhile.

The medicine that I know about is not primarily about the alleviation of suffering.

That's a new one. Good job you aren't my doctor.

You are a strange person.

Like to be more specific?

I'll have to tell those people at Aribus and Boeing that PJ says they are doing it all wrong. Look up epistemology and find out what it is, please. Not only is it NOT "just about generating reliable outcomes" it is not EVEN "about generating reliable outcomes".

Yes, I mentioned epistemology because you were confounding it with predictive power.

Faith-based systems, I repeat (again, groan) are only viable in cases where there is no need to generate a reliable outcome.

You're missing the point that all systems of conscious thought and action are based ultimately on faith.

All of the people who have relied on faith-based medicine and faith-based aeronautics are extinct, or going extinct.

Modern western medicine is faith based. Faith in a particular world view, in a particular take on methodology, faith in a particular version of mechanistic causality... I could go on..
Eventually you'll see it.

 

[epeos76]

So, some relatively sane adherents are offended by the OP because they apparantly hold only the general philosophy and not the 'facts' of their religion to be important anyway.

To the extent this relates to my post, I'm not at all "offended" by the OP. I just don't think the question is the inescapable logical fork it has been held out to be. Also, its more than the 'general philosophy' its a whole list of things you actually do. They have an effect on humans precisely because we are physical, social beings. Singing in the shower is different than singing to an audience. It's not all data processing down here.

[qoute-Lithreal;3258161] I'm not worried about people who use religion to teach love and charity, I'm worried about people who want it to be a bat for smacking things that don't agree with whatever they have decided their religion means. [/quote]

It's more than teaching ideas. Some things/feelings/communications you need to choreograph with other people. It's a way of organizing some of that.

I despise the bat wielding people too. You don't need to use religion for that though. I have no trouble dividing "good" religion from "bad religion based on whether or not it accepts what the last few centuries have taught us about the limits of its jurisdiction.

I am also worried, though about smart, educated people who dismiss religion as child abuse. The liberal protestant tradition was prominient in the abolition movement, sufferage, and the movement for civil rights. A fair reading of American history has to acknowledge the value contributed by religious ideas, along with the troubles they caused.

I don't think you've given fair shift to the more mundane value that churches can add to lots of lives either. Can you think of many other venues where the average denizen of an american city can get together to sing? Put on plays? The art may be lame, but it's a chance to do-it-yourself, not just consume it. Try to do charity work? Talk and think about taking care of each other?

(shortened for sake of thread space, but the reply is to the entire post)

I don't care as much about the circular reasoning as I do about the fact you didn't talk about god beliefs. Re your statements here about your morality philosophy, you seem to be saying, "these are my values and why".

Do you believe there is a god? Do you dismiss other people's god beliefs such as a belief that Pe'le controls volcanic eruptions on the HI Islands?

In reverse order, Pe'le vs Calvin: I know you think it's that simply. I don't. As I attempted to explain above I think that if there is any religious value in the statement Pe'le controls the volcanos, it has nothing to do with the physical processes geology is exploring. I can dismiss anyone who claims it does because I have a much better method for thinking about those claims.

If there is any religious value it will have something to do with being an actual thinking, eating, pooping, dying human being living on an island with active volcanos. I can't evaluate it without - at a minimum - talking with people who are using the belief to do that. Better still watch and see how it causes them to behave. Clearly, none of this is beyond challenge. For concerns about the fate of virgins when Waianae starts rumbling see above re: evidence of harm.

I do believe in God. It's not an unquestioned belief, it's just one that, when I'm honest with myself, I have not be able to shake. I think you're dissatisfaction with my explaination is based on your insistence that I treat belief in god like a proposition in physics.

I don't think religion or religious belief is just a set of ideas. I think its an interelated set of practices, relationships, and ideas.

I realize this is attributing someone else's words to you, but the Godless Geeks site cited above noted that naturalism was primarily justified by how well its premises work in many cases.

I think it's pretty standard sophmore philosophy to point out some of the limits on our ability to "know" the truth. These limits aren't crippling. People have spent a lot of time identifying how we can compare competing claims. But the results are still not universal.

I think it is fair to argue that different premises may have different uses, provided (1) it is possible also to justify that claim for particular premises, and (2) the believer recognizes the limits of those claims. I therefore don't think it's fair to reply that an argument from function implies that the person making the argument is unconcerned about the truth.

 

[plumjam]

It is a sign of a failed argument when you are forced to redefine a term so broadly that it loses any real meaning. In this thread, the word "belief" has been stretched so thin that it is nearly transparent. When you define it so that religion and aeronautics are treated as roughly equivalent, you have exited the realm of discussion, and entered Fantasy Land. It is sure evidence that you have little foundation for your position, and you should probably stop.

The Buddha would have agreed with the comparison of religion to aeronautics; religion in Buddhism being likened to a vehicle.

 

[epeos76]

It is a sign of a failed argument when you are forced to redefine a term so broadly that it loses any real meaning. In this thread, the word "belief" has been stretched so thin that it is nearly transparent. When you define it so that religion and aeronautics are treated as roughly equivalent, you have exited the realm of discussion, and entered Fantasy Land. It is sure evidence that you have little foundation for your position, and you should probably stop.

I don't know if you specifically intended this to encompass my posts, but I'm going to respond anyway. It would be ridiculous to suggest that rocket science and pentecostalism rest on equivalent foundations. It is not absurd or unreasonable to disagree with whatever definition you attribute to "belief" or "faith". I'm not required to put the word "blind" in front.

It is also not absurd or unreasonable to be concerned about the limits of what I'm going to keep calling naturalism until somebody proposes something better. For instance, Cass Sunstein (who I otherwise admire) has argued that we can rationally calculate the value of the continued existence of the species and weigh it against the cost of minimizing particular risks. I have zero faith that the Prof. has even identified all the factors required to make that calculation.

We don't know that much about what we are yet. It would be nice to be honest about that. Perhaps you could also respond to the statement that the utility of naturalism has limits well short of the field of human experience.

 

[Henners]

You're missing the point that all systems of conscious thought and action are based ultimately on faith.

I am not missing the point that everything going through YOUR consciousness is based upon the faith that you can come up with a stupid idea and use it to explain everything.

Fine.

It doesn't work though, and making up little stories for yourself concerning the way that medicine works doesn't do anything other than make you appear clueless.

If fact, why don't you try substituting "cluelessness" for "faith" in all of your existing pronouncements and see what difference it makes to their content.

None?

Surprise.

 

[plumjam]

I am not missing the point that everything going through YOUR consciousness is based upon the faith that you can come up with a stupid idea and use it to explain everything.

Fine.

It doesn't work though, and making up little stories for yourself concerning the way that medicine works doesn't do anything other than make you appear clueless.

If fact, why don't you try substituting "cluelessness" for "faith" in all of your existing pronouncements and see what difference it makes to their content.

None?

Surprise.

Oops. Looks like I've struck a nerve in you.

 

[epeos76]

Summary: Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

Obviously, evidence based systems should be used where ever possible. The results of long practice are a form of evidence. Ancedotal evidence is marginally better than none.

For many real world decisions, there is no way to generate an outcome that is reliable to the degree properly required by science. Religion, evaluated using the criteria I set out above, is a reasonable tool in such a situation.

In some situations,religion can be a reasonable tool even it it provide "no" information about the outcome, because it makes the method mean something. When we can't confidently relate ends and means, it's not only reasonable to concentrate on the means, it's unreasonable to sacrifice everything in a gamble to achieve a particular, desired end.

 

[Beth]

Summary:

Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

By this criteria, weapons development, such as nuclear bombs, is faith-based while our democratic system of government is not.

I must disagree with your criteria as I feel it does not generate reliable outcomes.

Personally, I do not include weapons development as being faith-based despite the fact that it will kill people in the real world. I also think our democratic system of government is based on faith (in such propositions as "all men are created equal") despite it protecting people in the real world.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Does any of this "belief" stuff remind anyone of The Secret?

 

[Dunstan]

I'm late to this particular party, so I'm going back a few pages to highlight something that I think hasn't been followed up on:

But I take issue with how you phrased your judging of me and my beliefs. I did NOT just grab a few from the bag, as you put it, nor did I just throw the rest out for no reason other than I felt like it that day.

It took me YEARS to come to the spiritual position that I am in today, this was not something that happened overnight. This is something I hold dear to me and bled in the streets for.

Could you describe that process? I think this is what the OP is all about. Did you "try on" various religious beliefs and see what worked for you, or did you start from scratch and put together your own belief system?

If there are beliefs that you haven't tried, do you just try everything that comes along, or is there some basis by which you decide that, say, Scientology just wouldn't work for you?

How do you judge what "works" for you: is it personal comfort, logical coherence, poetic beauty, positive behavioral consequences, something else, or some combination?

Is that process finished now, or does your spiritual position continue to evolve? If the former, how did you know when to "stop"; if the latter, how does that work -- where do the new ideas or concepts come from, and how do you incorporate them, or not, into your spiritual position?

 

[epeos76]

No offense but this thread is simply the reverse of the thread you personally started. So "needless arguments" is a pretty crummy charge. However, water under the bridge, you are here.

While the I'm OK you're OK philosophy is fine, I actually have no issue with the people behind the beliefs, it sidesteps the issue. Think in terms of a 'set of god beliefs'. In the center is the individual's specific god beliefs, whether that god be something which is deeply involved with men or created the Big Bang and the work was done, the center is your individual beliefs. As you go further out from the center, you reach god beliefs less and less credible to the individual. For some fundamentalists that happens as soon as you leave the center. For those who view any monotheistic religion as just a different version of their own, that center might be very large. Regardless, at some point you reach god beliefs the individual does not conclude are credible. Whether that is clear out into Cargo Cults where we have an historical record of how their god beliefs developed, or whether it includes Greek gods who mingle with humans or Pe'le and the Sea gods of the HI culture, if you tell me you think all those gods are credible, then I have to ask what you are even doing here.

So wherever that line is for you, leaving out any discussion about the value of individuals regardless of their beliefs and the philosophy of not judging those individuals (they are not stupid merely for believing in gods, they can still be skeptics, etc) where and why does your god belief become credible when you can see you don't think all god beliefs are credible? And if you apply critical thinking to some god beliefs, why does that not apply to all god beliefs?

And isn't the fact that god beliefs depend almost, if not entirely, on where an individual was born and what culture they were exposed to, evidence that those beliefs do not depend on "faith" or "personal experience" but rather those beliefs depend on exposure at some vulnerable point in one's life?

It seems to me that you're still treating religion as a set of explicitly formulated assertions about the nature of the universe and belief as the acceptance or rejection of each claim.

I think religion includes practices and relationships as well as ideas about the nature of the unknown, and belief is the acceptance or rejection of its efficacy.

It's fine to yell god of the gaps. The gaps are still much bigger than the feild of empirical knowledge, and, as far as I'm concern specifically include an analysis of the function of religion.

Opiate of the masses. Sometimes, maybe. Childish remedy for fear of death, not on my part or the part of anyone I respect. The heaven/hell bribe thing is, and has always been, the least interesting part of religion to me. Anyway, these are liberal arts type assertions, not rigorously investigated.

I could be convinced by someone who could explain what my religion does and provide a verified secular substitute. Not just a sketch receipe though, you have to bake the casserole.

This isn't I'm ok, you're ok. I don't think it's o.k. to ignore the proven harm that comes from disregard the limits imposed by analytical knowledge and equally I don't think it's o.k. to ignore the valuable, often foundational ideas some religions have contributed.

I also don't think you can honestly say you respect people who hold religious beliefs while dismissing experiences many people assert to be subjectively valuable.

Note, I'm not saying you have to be persuaded, or even have to believe that we are correct in identifying the source of this value. But you have to believe the value is real, and make an effort to account for it that includes listening to what we have to say about it.

The sense that certain challenges are offensive is not about cognitive dissonance, or fear that you'll cause me to change my beliefs, they've changed many times, and I would welcome a more complete explanation for why certain things work. It's a response to the fact that many challengers are only willing to address religion's value as empirical knowledge, and dismiss (or in some cases denigrate and demonize) assertions about its value as a human practice.

 

[epeos76]

Does any of this "belief" stuff remind anyone of The Secret?

How about explaining this one? Isn't the principle of the secret that wishing hard enough allows you to overcome the laws of physics?

I don't think many people arguing here would contest the assertion that we should cede the field to naturalism where ever it has something to say.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.

No, the Wright Flyer was very much an experimental product. "Faith" implies certain belief in something sans evidence. The Wrights did not have "faith" that they could fly, They had belief founded on evidence that they should be able to fly based on what they knew.

ETA: Evidence in the form of them and others having already flown in unpowered aircraft and having flown powered models.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How about explaining this one? Isn't the principle of the secret that wishing hard enough allows you to overcome the laws of physics?

I don't think many people arguing here would contest the assertion that we should cede the field to naturalism where ever it has something to say.

I was thinking more about statements like this:

Modern western medicine is faith based. Faith in a particular world view, in a particular take on methodology, faith in a particular version of mechanistic causality... I could go on..
Eventually you'll see it.