Fact vs Belief?

[Z]

Question - could it be that one of the problems with those who have such powerful faith in things like religion be that they regard fact as another form of belief, rather than as fact?

I know, for example, that I don't have to believe in a fact for the fact to be true; and therefore, if I'm shown wrong about a fact, I concede myself to be wrong.

Yet it often feels to me like those who argue for their beliefs tend to ignore or downplay fact as if it were merely a conflicting belief.

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - the thought only just occured to me, and is still sitting in a hypothetical pool of essential amniotic fluid...

 

[daenku32]

I think they consider their belief to be a fact; any questioning of their 'facts' causes them to doubt all facts. Because they can't accept that non-religious fact would be more certain than their own religion.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It has been demonstrated many times, here and elswhere, that a condition of faith, is a lack of knowledge.

Believers have to reject knowledge ( facts ) in order to preserve their faith; their faith being the basis of their beliefs, rather than facts..

However, they might consider certain facts, i.e.... " Millions of people believe just as I do.." Just as valid as genuine evidence, as a basis for their faith..

 

[Iacchus]

I've always found that it's much easier to cultivate the obvious. However, the problem with that is we that tend to lose sight of any genuine meaning there might be.

 

[Gulliamo]

could it be that one of the problems with those who have such powerful faith in things like religion be that they regard fact as another form of belief, rather than as fact?

Again- this seems to be one of two basic problems.

The first -

The same faith = trust problem that I (we) have encountered a hundred times here.

Faith = belief without evidence
Trust= belief with evidence

We I say belief I am referring to the latter, with evidence, version.

The second-

Many people are simply unwilling to change their beliefs despite mountains of evidence presented against them. Most of these people feel it is somehow a personal slight or somehow makes them less of a person if their beliefs are "proved" to be wrong. And by "proved" I mean that a reasonably amount of verifiable evidence has been provided.

Even a supposedly rational top scientist will fight to the death to defend a theory if he or she "believes" in it too hard.

Thus my signature...

 

[Z]

You know, I'm rather amazed that none of our resident theologians has invoked the old 'proof denies faith' clause...

 

[Gulliamo]

You know, I'm rather amazed that none of our resident theologians has invoked the old 'proof denies faith' clause...

I am not familiar... please elaborate.

 

[Iacchus]

So how do you know what you know? Where does the ulitmate recognition come in? Does it come in your mind or, in some Scientific journal? If it comes from a Scientific journal I would say you're out of luck. If however it comes in the mind, why can't the mind be used for other useful things, such as speculating on the nature of God? If, in fact the mind is capable of recognizing truth, why not? Truth is truth isn't it?

 

[daenku32]

So how do you know what you know? Where does the ulitmate recognition come in? Does it come in your mind or, in some Scientific journal? If it comes from a Scientific journal I would say you're out of luck. If however it comes in the mind, why can't the mind be used for other useful things, such as speculating on the nature of God? If the mind is capable of recognizing truth, why not? Truth is truth isn't it?

If you have a million different minds thinking about it for their lifetime you'll probably end up with close to million different 'truths'.

Why are you afraid to question your beliefs?

 

[Iacchus]

If you have a million different minds thinking about it for their lifetime you'll probably end up with close to million different 'truths'.

So?

Why are you afraid to question your beliefs?

What do you mean?

 

[Z]

I'd much rather trust validated knowledge presented in a scientific journal than my own mind - I know I am ignorant, and in so knowing, know that I must rely on research and science, on the learning of others, to know the truth, and that I must deny the knowledge of my mind to know the truth.

This only goes to show the fundamental error in your thinking, Iacchus - you trust your 'mind' over what has been objectively proven. This indicates idiocy.

As for the 'proof denies faith' thing - a Christian society relies on faith. Proof denies faith but is required for truth. Therefore to a religious society truth is irrelevant. The actual quote, I think I may have taken from Hitchhiker's Guide (Douglas Adams), but is supposedly based on info from the Bible (currently seeking this one).

It's a dogma I've heard quite often elsewhere, though - anywhere where the truth starts eroding at their tenants of faith.

 

[Maledict]

So?

Here's a hint: They all can't be the "Truth(tm)", now can they?

What do you mean?

He means your reluctance to engage in discussion and answer questions.

 

[Iacchus]

I'd much rather trust validated knowledge presented in a scientific journal than my own mind - I know I am ignorant, and in so knowing, know that I must rely on research and science, on the learning of others, to know the truth, and that I must deny the knowledge of my mind to know the truth.

Perhaps this is why you can't recognize anything original?

 

[Maledict]

Perhaps this is why you can't recognize anything original?

Recognizing originality has nothing to do with relying on scientific research, fool. Congratulations are in order for using nonsense to answer one part of his post while ignoring the other 2/3s.

 

[Z]

I can recognize anything original... assuming there is such a thing.

However, after about the age of 2, you quicky realize that all things are similar to all other things, in some form. The moment you see something new, you start classifying it to compare it to things you know. Sometimes you need to make a new classification, but in most cases, you rely on pre-existing classifications.

At any rate, upon coming across something unclassified, the most logical thought would be to ask around and learn what this new thing is; if no one can answer you, and further research proves fruitless, you start analyzing its properties. Eventually, you will either gather enough properties to compare it to a pre-existing thing, or you will have added to the knowledge pool by determining the properties of a new thing.

In either case, you are working with the knowledge of an external reality as perceived by the internal self. You are not relying on what your mind 'knows', but on what you can learn through your senses or through contact with other people. Otherwise, you just lable a new thing blindly and move on, ignorant of the truth.

I somehow suspect the latter is your pattern, btw...

As for Swedenborg, some lengthy internet research (not overly reliable, but suitable for the most part) reveals that there are no confirmations of his beliefs; that is, absolutely no independant persons reporting other significant aspects of the Second Coming. So, what's the deal? Was Swede the 'new Prophet'? The Chosen One?? Is he perhaps Jesus reborn?

I'd be tempted to say that Swede's unique perspective is indicative of it being either a) a scam, b) a fantasy, or c) an isolated case of religious fanaticism.

Even the Bible had multiple authors.

 

[Z]

Duplicate post deleted - something weird's going on here...

 

[Z]

Make that a triple - sorry guys

 

[Iacchus]

I can recognize anything original... assuming there is such a thing.

In other words there's nothing original about your post here and why should I bother, right?

 

[Iacchus]

Recognizing originality has nothing to do with relying on scientific research, fool.

Wow! Then there must be a lot of other fools on this board too if, they strictly rely on Science for an answer. Of course I realize I can't speak for everybody here but, I'm sure there are more than I can shake a stick at!

By the way, I'm just an unoriginal old fool for showing up here too now aren't I?

Congratulations are in order for using nonsense to answer one part of his post while ignoring the other 2/3s.

His posts are too long and they typically don't say anything. So why bother?

 

[Maledict]

In other words there's nothing original about your post here and why should I bother, right?

I don't know - why do you bother? You're a complete fool who doesn't bother to read anyone elses' post, and spouts complete nonsense.

Wow! Then there must be a lot of other fools on this board too if, they strictly rely on Science for an answer. Of course I realize I can't speak for everybody here but, I'm sure there are more than I can shake a stick at!

We rely on science for an answer, yes, whereas you?

You rely on circular logic, knowing absolutely true that you are right, so that, therefore, you are right

I think I'll stick to verifiable science rather than whacked logic.

By the way, I'm just an unoriginal old fool for showing up here too now aren't I?

Not to mention insane.

His posts are too long and they typically don't say anything. So why bother?

Right

Since you cannot argue back with someone's points, you say that their posts don't contain anything - Not to mention even comparing me to a rapist when you were cornered.