What do you believe?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There are the religious ones, the materialists, the dualists, the agnostics, the (insert any belief system here)... and I'm curious about what do YOU believe?

I'm highly skeptical, in the real sense, this is, I doubt we can have something called "knowledge" in the first place. That said, there are some labels I can live with (because, in the end, language is a boundaries game).

1) Instrumentalist; the belief about science is about successfully predicting facts, not about describing an objective reality.

2) Weak Social constructivist; scientific theories do not describe the nature of reality, they are just about the social construction of systems of propositions, methodologies and techniques to solve puzzles about the facts we encounter.

3) Model-Dependent Realist; it is meaningless to discuss about what reality "is", the only thing we can do is to contrast our models with facts, without imagining a concrete ontological status of anything behind them. Furthermore, every model can be from a different world view, incompatible with the others (eg, GR and QM), and this is ok simply because there is no a "final model" to achieve.

4) Advaitin; this is someone who believes there is no duality (subjectivity-objectivity) and that the individual experience is basically a "private virtual reality" or delusion. Everything is one and the same, and it is possible to experience it.

If I want to simplify my view to the max, it can be resumed like this:

Things are not. Things are seen.

Now, to understand why something can bee seen without the need for it "to be something in itself", its the key issue behind this ideas. Notice I don't say that their "being" consists in being perceived, a la Berkeley, who used this logic to say that everything was real but in the mind of god, opposing his idealism to materialism.

I'm saying something very different, things are seen, and this action is all that it is, or to put it in another way, contrary to the everyday common sense, things are the action between what we call the perceiver and what we call the perceived. Things are constructions based on observed facts, and facts are reality.

 

[the PC apeman]

There are the religious ones, the materialists, the dualists, the agnostics, the (insert any belief system here)... and I'm curious about what do YOU believe?

I'm highly skeptical, in the real sense, this is, I doubt we can have something called "knowledge" in the first place. That said, there are some labels I can live with (because, in the end, language is a boundaries game).

1) Instrumentalist; the belief about science is about successfully predicting facts, not about describing an objective reality.

2) Weak Social constructivist; scientific theories do not describe the nature of reality, they are just about the social construction of systems of propositions, methodologies and techniques to solve puzzles about the facts we encounter.

3) Model-Dependent Realist; it is meaningless to discuss about what reality "is", the only thing we can do is to contrast our models with facts, without imagining a concrete ontological status of anything behind them. Furthermore, every model can be from a different world view, incompatible with the others (eg, GR and QM), and this is ok simply because there is no a "final model" to achieve.

4) Advaitin; this is someone who believes there is no duality (subjectivity-objectivity) and that the individual experience is basically a "private virtual reality" or delusion. Everything is one and the same, and it is possible to experience it.

If I want to simplify my view to the max, it can be resumed like this:

Things are not. Things are seen.

Now, to understand why something can bee seen without the need for it "to be something in itself", its the key issue behind this ideas. Notice I don't say that their "being" consists in being perceived, a la Berkeley, who used this logic to say that everything was real but in the mind of god, opposing his idealism to materialism.

I'm saying something very different, things are seen, and this action is all that it is, or to put it in another way, contrary to the everyday common sense, things are the action between what we call the perceiver and what we call the perceived. Things are constructions based on observed facts, and facts are reality.

In your definitions, you seem to set up facts as independent from reality. Then in your self-description, you take the more standard position that facts are aspects of reality. It looks like confusion, equivocation, and/or a trap.

 

[RedRatSnake]

I keep it simple and down to just one set of personal rules, If Bill Clinton believes in it, So Do I

 

[IMST]

Belief's a loaded word. I think some things are true, some things are false, some things are likely to be true, some things are likely to be false, and a whole lot of don't knows, interlaced with some don't cares.

 

[epepke]

In your definitions, you seem to set up facts as independent from reality. Then in your self-description, you take the more standard position that facts are aspects of reality. It looks like confusion, equivocation, and/or a trap.

I have to agree here. Since the question was "what do you believe?" I believe elaborate taxonomies about belief using words, which are imprecise, generally lead to trouble.

In general, I try to believe as little as I can practically get away with.

 

[Penemue]

The movie Dogma featured a pretty good speech about how it's better to have ideas rather than beliefs.
I believe that applies to me.

 

[I Ratant]

I dislike ascribing any interest in any -ism to myself.
I've seen too many people decide they're X and have to behave as the textbook X does, whether or not they are fully immersed in X.
Leaves no manuvering room to change the mind.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In your definitions, you seem to set up facts as independent from reality. Then in your self-description, you take the more standard position that facts are aspects of reality. It looks like confusion, equivocation, and/or a trap.

Maybe you have to re-read. First, I asked you what YOU believe, not asked you your opinion on what I believe. That said, Facts are reality. Other things are mistakenly taken as reality, but those are constructions, models or scenarios to talk about facts in a coherent fashion.

 

[the PC apeman]

Maybe you have to re-read. First, I asked you what YOU believe, not asked you your opinion on what I believe. That said, Facts are reality. ...

I believe using the same word with different meanings without noting it leads to poor communications.

I agree that facts are reality. This is, as I noted, the standard usage. I suggest you re-read descriptions of facets 1 through 3 in this light. They become gibberish.

... Other things are mistakenly taken as reality, but those are constructions, models or scenarios to talk about facts in a coherent fashion.

Actually, they are models to talk about observations in a coherent fashion. To assume facts here is to poison the well for this thread.

I gather that my answer to your poll is that I believe physics (here meaning all of science) can be performed without metaphysics (or more specifically, ontology). Is this similar to your numerated facets? Perhaps both 1 and 3 but I cannot be sure given their confused descriptions.

 

[Craig4]

I make it a point to not have beliefs. Seeing is the end of belief. Things are, they are not or we're not sure.

 

[ehcks]

I want to say I'm expanding ignosticism to all of my ideals.

If you can provide a coherent, falsifiable definition for a claimed being, event, or whatever else, and I am unable to falsify it through research, I'll accept it until I can.

If I do falsify it, it's false.

If you can't provide such a definition, I'll ignore the claim as it is meaningless.

My belief is then that my attempts to falsify a claim have meaning.

 

[Manopolus]

I believe in nothing... not what I can't see, nor what I can. I merely float around in this life giving it my "best guess" rather than resorting to belief.

 

[Resume]

I believe I'll have a beer a bit later.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I believe I'll have a beer a bit later.

Gord checks his signature carefully.

I know I will!

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I believe that everyone dies for a reason and that they know what it is after they die.

 

[caniswalensis]

From my personal observations, it is impossible for a person to completely divest themselves of all unsubstantiated or incorrect beliefs.

Something always slips past our detectors, or has been in place so long that we do not even question it.

The more a person strives & succeeds in thinking critically, the smaller and more inconsequential those beliefs will tend to be.

I do think we all have something that we believe without good reason. Likewise, I think many believers in questionable topics also apply critical thought to other areas of thier lives.

I think each of us is part skeptic, part believer. The only difference being in the ratio.

 

[I Ratant]

I believe that everyone dies for a reason and that they know what it is after they die.

.
Cognition ceases at death.

 

[caniswalensis]

.
Cognition ceases at death.

Is that really an objectively proven fact, or is it just the belief that makes the most sense?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The scientific method is successful giving us evidence it is the best means of determining reality in this universe.

And taking a few specific examples noted above and in recent thread discussions:
Cognition does cease at death.
Gods are fictional beings.
I exist.

People often misunderstand the principle in science that new evidence can always potentially be found. It does not mean we cannot operate today, certain of some conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is that really an objectively proven fact, or is it just the belief that makes the most sense?

Yep, we have plenty of objective evidence.

Since we know how cognition occurs, can see it is based on the biological brain, if the brain cells die, cognition ceases.

Now if you want to imagine a magical world, you can imagine any fictional outcome after death that you desire. Just don't confuse that with "objective proven fact".