What do you believe?

[Kopji]

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?

We are a tiny part of the vast universe that through billions of years of change and evolution has become self aware. We are one thing. I can live my life being oriented by purpose of my choosing.

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).

I understand knowledge as being like confidence in the probability of one thing over another. We may not absolutely know within the fog if we reached the mountain peak - but we can test many things that lead us to 'prove' that we have, or question that we have not. Things that can do that are 'facts'. Facts themselves are held provisionally, but we can accept them as facts even knowing that they might be questioned by new evidence. For me, that is what being skeptical is.

Skepticism is a way of choosing.

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

Science is more like the method we use to establish facts, and then again to question those facts with better questions. Have we really reached that shrouded peak? Again, these things we call 'facts' always have a provisional nature. What would make this fact untrue?

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.

Maybe science can do both. But this seems like a description of what we might do with our beliefs. If our beliefs help solve puzzles or increase knowledge - to lead us to ask new and better questions, ok, those beliefs are superior to beliefs that are useless, or worse - enslave us.

I tend to believe that beliefs have an aesthetic sense - some are prettier than others. The beauty of an idea has some relation to the usefulness of it. I sometimes argue against the cold of "No" (TM) just because I think that better beliefs are more elegant. So call me an artist.

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.

Science is about discovery and asking more interesting questions.

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.

How do we avoid the conclusion that for some things, their probability makes us call them "subjective", and for others, we accept as "objective"?

Everything has a tentative nature to it, so this sounds more like semantics.

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

Things are not. Things are seen.

I would say that living is not about the things or their labels, but learning to hold them at the proper time, and letting go of reliance on them at the proper time.

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.

I don't see why this needs to be so hard.

Facts are an idea based on evidence that we agree to tentatively accept until something better replaces it. Evidence is something that establishes something as a fact. Both facts and evidence ultimately have a provisional sense - they might be wrong.

 

[Brainache]

I try not to believe. I prefer to doubt.

 

[Trent Wray]

I try not to believe. I prefer to doubt.

I believe something about that doesn't seem correct.

 

[Brainache]

I believe something about that doesn't seem correct.

Not enough words?

 

[slingblade]

Let me know when you reach Nirvana.

Why? I don't believe in that, either.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Brainache, I think (I may be wrong) he is saying that you TRY not to believe.

This gives credence to theists belief that atheists, such as myself, TRY to disbelieve.

Speaking for myself, I cannot believe in anything for which has no credible evidence.

I don't TRY to believe in anything.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNczeP33Yk0

Now here, I don't actually care what Fogarty meant. I see that everybody sees what they want to see- you either recognize that fact, or not. I think the view out of "everyone's back door" is different.

I only have have a problem when someone else thinks that their backdoor view should have control over my life.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

and before anyone else brings it up, yes, my use of the word "credence" made me think of Creedence.

 

[Darat]

If it (seems to) work use it, if it doesn't (seem to) work don't use it.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache, I think (I may be wrong) he is saying that you TRY not to believe.

This gives credence to theists belief that atheists, such as myself, TRY to disbelieve.

Speaking for myself, I cannot believe in anything for which has no credible evidence.

I don't TRY to believe in anything.

I just assume that as a human, I am prone to believing stuff without checking facts. When I catch myself, I am being skeptical.

I try to cultivate doubt as a habit of mind. Sometimes this leads to kneejerk rejections of new ideas, but so what?: If they are good ideas they can take it, if not, then I was right.

 

[tsig]

If it (seems to) work use it, if it doesn't (seem to) work don't use it.

The problem there is confirmation bias.

How many times have you heard some version of this story:

There I was with my foot caught in a bear trap while I was going over the falls in a barrel with the bear in the barrel with me and I rapped out a prayer and only spent three months in a coma and a year in traction but god saved my life.
Praise the Lawd

 

[Darat]

The problem there is confirmation bias.
How many times have you heard some version of this story:

There I was with my foot caught in a bear trap while I was going over the falls in a barrel with the bear in the barrel with me and I rapped out a prayer and only spent three months in a coma and a year in traction but god saved my life.
Praise the Lawd

Yep totally agree that a problem with that approach can be confirmation bias, it's a problem that is inherent in human behaviour.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The problem I have with confirmation bias is that it seems like it doesn't work.

 

[caniswalensis]

I thought this was a good post, so then- I thought this can't go well for you!

Sure enough.

A reasonable thought and question... to forward a discussion in part... if reciprocated.. or not... whatever... no big deal.



Whoa! Easy there, killer... Sheez...

Canis ends up trying to be a gracious gentleman in diffusing the situation by giving a deference and credit in again acknowledging the earlier point agreed.. again.

But no. Your tyrannical theocracy must be opposed!


See, the problem is.. Canis, your problem was that your response was merely tolerant enough to appear to allow for anything even vaguely somehow misinterpreted as pro somehow, maybe possible, not anti-God enough... therefore apparently you were or might have been allowing for God too much... in reality and/or by misinterpretation... and therefore, for all practical purposes, were immediately deemed worthy of derision and attack as one of the other side.

Imagine if you believed and even dared to say so!

Hey Jude, (I've been wanting to say that)

Thanks for the support. You are right. I am a hard atheist, a critical thinker, and a believer in nothing mystical, metaphisical, and as few things as possible.

Yet the culture of this forum is such that is a post is phrased in such a way that does not explicitly stomp down those types of beliefs, members feel obliged to go on the attack personally. I have seen it happen many times, and I know you have experienced it often enough.

Some members here are not willing to discuss such things, they simply want to have everyone post the same opinions and insult and denigrate those that do not agree with them. It is getting extremely tiresome to me.

Regards, Canis

 

[kmortis]

I believe that you lot need to keep it on topic and keep it civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[The True Scotsman]

Other have probably summed up my beliefs better than I will be able to, but I'll give it a shot myself. I try not to belief in unsupported claims. I attempt to form opinions based on evidence. It doesn't always happen, but its a work in progress. I believe that the scientific method is the best we have for determining what is true (although it's mostly inference which means it is almost always off the mark somewhat). Generally all my other belief follow from this with the exception of anything which requires the additional factor of an opinion (such as morals).

 

[caniswalensis]

Other have probably summed up my beliefs better than I will be able to, but I'll give it a shot myself. I try not to belief in unsupported claims. I attempt to form opinions based on evidence. It doesn't always happen, but its a work in progress. I believe that the scientific method is the best we have for determining what is true (although it's mostly inference which means it is almost always off the mark somewhat). Generally all my other belief follow from this with the exception of anything which requires the additional factor of an opinion (such as morals).

Hey there, TS,

I think you did a great job summing up your beliefs, and mine.

I like the part about 'work in progress' particularly. I think we are all 'WIPs'.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I believe that there are no gods, or after-life, or anything at all on those lines. I believe it is important to keep learning about such beliefs.
Otherwise, almost everything Skeptic Ginger says.

 

[Trent Wray]

The problem there is confirmation bias.

How many times have you heard some version of this story:

There I was with my foot caught in a bear trap while I was going over the falls in a barrel with the bear in the barrel with me and I rapped out a prayer and only spent three months in a coma and a year in traction but god saved my life.
Praise the Lawd

It's a combination of "ignorance is bliss" mixed with "if it aint broke don't fix it". Which I don't personally have a problem with.

My problem would come up if someone told me, "here .... have you ever wanted to go over a water fall with a bear in a barrel ? If you do, the only thing that will happen to you will be you spend 3 months in a coma because it's all that God will let happen to you. So I'm gonna put your foot in this trap against your will so you can see what I mean ... you'll love it ... "

 

[dlorde]

I am not the topic here, there is no reason to address a comment at me like this:

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".

I consider it snarky. If I can't ask a simple question without getting this sort of remark tossed at me, there's no point and no fun in discussing this.

doesn't look at all snarky to me - unless you read the 'you' as specifically personal rather than general, and the final imperative as an admonition - even then it seems a little over-sensitive. These forums commonly have far more robust exchanges that are intentionally 'snarky'.