Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?
Science is a study that we opt in to, if we opt out of science, are we in a world of delusion?
The nature around us feeds us information, enough so that we're not deluded even when blindly following it in the face of a universe of questions.
Is part of studying science delusion?
If realms of pure belief(that in what is and not what isn't; no science included- sensing and thinking about what is sensed only) and impure belief(abstract concepts and personal theories, etc) exist, is it wise to assert that pure belief is not a weak kind of delusion but rather a type of menial strength?
What is belief?
Belief is the process of being(to be) sentient(roaming mentally), and if we progress in a way that isn't accessable using congenial means then we must stop and believe sometimes.
It is only when something makes great sense have we taken a leap forward, and can not believe but know data attributed to the things we originally didn't.
To conclude, delusion isn't all that bad but can be misplaced.
God believers per se, aren't believing half of the time, they're literally awake and claim to know that God exists.
Delusion through belief is a menial subordinate, utilized for learning more about the universe.
The nature around us feeds us information, enough so that we're not deluded even when blindly following it in the face of a universe of questions.
Is part of studying science delusion?
If realms of pure belief(that in what is and not what isn't; no science included- sensing and thinking about what is sensed only) and impure belief(abstract concepts and personal theories, etc) exist, is it wise to assert that pure belief is not a weak kind of delusion but rather a type of menial strength?
What is belief?
Belief is the process of being(to be) sentient(roaming mentally), and if we progress in a way that isn't accessable using congenial means then we must stop and believe sometimes.
It is only when something makes great sense have we taken a leap forward, and can not believe but know data attributed to the things we originally didn't.
To conclude, delusion isn't all that bad but can be misplaced.
God believers per se, aren't believing half of the time, they're literally awake and claim to know that God exists.
Delusion through belief is a menial subordinate, utilized for learning more about the universe.
Comments (60)
The choices aren't that great, but before we grumble, let's not forget it could've been worse (no choice at all).
The term ‘belief’ can be used in different ways so it is probably worth understanding the different ways in which this word can be used:
- I belief I live on Earth (maybe used in sarcasm or as a pedantic statement to outline the possible limits of sceptical thought).
- I believe intelligent alien beings with thee heads live on The Moon because someone posted a story about this online.
- I believe in god.
These are three very different different uses of the very same word. Conflating the uses of the term is a mistake.
I have heard the silly argument that ‘believing in science’ like believing in a deity. Absolutely not, because when people state they ‘believe in science’ (if they do so with sense) they just mean they understand the practice of science and how and when it can be reasonably applied to help understand and question the world we live in.
There may be a good reason to belief in a god for some people, but it is reason itself that underpins the practice of science as an ever changing and ever developing system that builds upon refuting itself at each turn. This is not to say that scientists cannot be ‘dogmatic’. It makes sense that science has a kind of ‘dogmatic’ feel to it in some ways because when a new idea comes along (ie. General/Special Relativity) the mainstream will brutally attack it putting the onus on the theory to provide a means of supplying evidence to back it up.
We deny our current model and re-imagine the way of the world almost every day unless some of us have reached a settling down point.
I believe in what I know.
If I say I don't believe in what I know, and I say I know what I know- it still leaves a gap about my knowing.
Belief, as said before, is menial strength.
If it's constantly springing around us the most I can do is deny, but it'll only reshape what I believe when I rest.
The JTB theory of knowledge mentions justification as a separate condition i.e., in other words, false that belief [math]\leftrightarrow[/math] proof. Clear as crystal, oui?
Plus, the whole rights issue (freedom of thought, freedom of religion) implies that one is at liberty to believe anything you want, the caveat being you don't impose or foist your whacky beliefs on others; to do that, one needs strong justification (philosophy) or one needs to have a silver tongue (sophism), preferrably both (philosopher-orator). :snicker:
Belief has an incline towards 'convinced.'
I know many theists who are not convinced god exists but have taken Pascal's wager or are too scared of the consequences of not believing due to indoctrination when they were young via a particular set of religious proposals. I am personally 'more convinced' by the Penrose bounce theory for the origin of our Universe than I am for the multiverse theory. I still think that the fundamental quantum of the universe may be vibrating strings, at least, I am more convinced.
I am completely convinced I am alive and solipsism is nonsense and our Universe is not a simulation but these are just MY beliefs.
I agree with:
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Varde
Delusion can be absolutely lethal to yourself and to others. You must have peer reviewed, rational reasoning behind your 'beliefs' and even then seek regular clarification of them, otherwise you risk becoming a mere reflection of the misguided beliefs of others who you follow for reasons such as biological loyalty or loyalty due to love or celebrity or blind respect or towards status, authority, wealth or title. All are dubious reasons to nurture or embody the same belief as another.
Quoting Varde
No, I think what you call 'pure belief,' I would call 'unsubstantiated belief,' and it is unwise and not a strength at all to move such personally held beliefs any significant distance up the incline towards 'convinced.' You MUST have the empirical evidence first before you move a 'belief' up the incline towards 'convinced' status.
Are those really the only options you consider?
Is there no way to live as a sane person?
Is there no way to live as a sane person?[/quote]
The bitter truth is described as such because it's debilitating (depression), even lethal (suicide). Psychiatrists make a big deal of what they refer to as losing touch with reality.
Here's a story I read in a book on psychiatry. There was this woman, living next to an airport. She was "suffering" from delusions of grandeur (thought she was a Duchess or something like that).
She was taken to a shrink, who promptly, in good faith, treated her. She was declared cured (of her delusion). Within a fortnight or so she took her own life!
[quote=Dr. Robert Hutchison][...]And from making the cure of the disease more grievous than the endurance of the same, Good Lord, deliver us.[/quote]
Perhaps this is the context I point to...
Otherwise I'll agree, delusion IS bad.
A sad story but are there not stories such as 'tried to kill myself, that was my turning point, now regret that I let myself reach that low point in my life. Had a lot of help since. My life now is so much better than it was and my future looks good and stable.' I think there are many such stories to counter the one you cited.
So based on the title of this thread, 'Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?' For you, has it been proven wrong that 'the vast majority of humans have the potential to live a happy fulfilling life?' Do you think the majority of humans are doomed to a life of suffering and misery no matter what efforts they make to counter such?
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?
It's hard and rude to think for others. My point was to simply give you a real life example of someone who was happy because they were a little mad, "out of touch with reality" as some shrinks like to say.
Happiness, it looks like, is more important that reality/truth; out goes the window the so-called transcendentalia (verum, bonum, pulchrum). Epicurus, it seems, hit the nail on the head (everyone would, under the right circumstances, like to be plugged into the experience machine).
Yes. Isn’t it so? Don’t people live their lives goaded by beliefs that have been proven wrong? How else will you explain our lives/our way of living wherein we make preparations for future security, when we clearly know our existence can be cut short at any moment? More importantly, how can we even believe in the existence of security, when human experience going back to the beginning of time has clearly proven, there is no security! How else will you explain our belief in one thing or another, be it social, political, economic, etc. that have for millennia been proven wrong? The study of oneself and our species will point to millions of such discrepancies where we believe in things that have been proven wrong. And we do it every day, unfailingly.
Absolutely, I understood your approach, you were suggesting that the woman 'coped' with her delusions of grandeur, in fact, it may have been the most stabilising 'escapism' she had. So she's delusional but she is surviving. The 'shrinks' get involved, tell her how things 'really are' and a short time later, she is dead. I understand. So would it have been better to let the woman continue with her delusion?
I would agree the answer is yes, IF the result of professionals trying to help, was her death but as usual, hindsight is a great leveler.
There is always risk, if you choose to try to help any delusional, addicted or heavily conflicted person. Your intention is to do good but you can cause more harm, I agree.
But it's very hard to just surrender and accept that an individual cannot be helped towards a better life.
I was just citing back to you, some counter scenario, where 'interference,' has actually had very positive outcomes. We hear of examples on both sides, don't we? So as I typed,
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?
So, it seems, a shallow inquiry/attribution of meanings to words/thoughts is a continuity of our beliefs, which resists, and becomes reactive when exposed to truth/facts (challenged). A deeper inquiry into these beliefs will show that your (humanity) entire existence is founded on beliefs, irrespective of your belief in the primacy of reason, or your zealous propagation of the same.
I think many/most individuals base their entire existence around their personal wants/needs/desires rather than what they perceive as their beliefs. Do you think personal wants/needs/desires create personal beliefs? or do you think the more compelling direction is that beliefs drive personal wants/needs/desires? Certainly, young human children are driven mainly by personal, perhaps even purely instinctual, wants/needs/desires.
Good questions, which will flow into several threads if we really get into it. I am guessing we don't want that.
Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid excuse for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Absence of such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness.
Furthermore there is no purely "personal" beliefs, because the human is a conditioned continuity of the collective. Failing to see the influences of the collective in the personal is a serious error and indicative of the strength in beliefs. The OP, it seems, isn't talking about "personal beliefs" but perhaps wants to look into the nature of belief per se, as one should, since it affects all. And if anyone hasn't thought it through, it seems that's where our focus should be anyways. For reasons i have already stated.
One can see Belief is a movement of human thought-feeling, common to all, without exceptions.
For now we will leave "children" out of it. That's a special case.....and we are not children.
Hope, yeah, we can hope! It's a recommended course of action.
I don't know what point you are making here. The sound of woosh! As it went over my head.
Quoting skyblack
I disagree, we are strongly influenced by 'the collective,' there is no doubt about that, but do you think that an individual human is capable of thinking a thought that no one has ever thought before?
I agree that new science builds on old science but there is also original thinking. So new original belief seems quite plausible to me.
Quoting skyblack
Maybe, or maybe human belief is just synonymous with a human need to justify human actions and yes, in that sense such a need to give reasons for what a person does by themselves or as part of a group is a common need but what about the concept that any generalised 'rule' has exceptions, why do you insist on rejecting the possibility of exceptions?
Quoting skyblack
You should never ignore your foundations but sure, we can leave childhood influences to one side.
:cool: Remember this old song of hope:
Then that is a problem which will prevent any further inquiry.
In any case a further deliberation doesn't seem needed, as the original points have already been addressed. Not interested in going into tangents. However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this topic, either on your own or with others. GL.
:rofl: Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require.
Yes, my sentiment about that person as well.
Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did. Better luck next time.
Perhaps you will choose to explain yourself more clearly in the future.
Imparting ideas to others takes time, effort and good communication skills.
Well, seems like I second your opinion, but maybe in time he/she will improve their communication skills. Perhaps that's why he/she reads posts on TPF.
Perhaps.
A shame you feel so defensive. I was not attacking you until you started to throw your toys at me.
Children can't entrap adults. This will increasingly get clearer in future, if it isn't presently. The reason is simple. Adults have already passed through that stage, so they can identify the masks. Rather easily.
One will leave you to continue with similar juveniles (as yourself)....looks like you have already found one. Bye bye.
It's a shame you still see yourself as a child. I didn't realise you were trying to 'entrap' adults.
Paranoia is treatable, you don't have to suffer in silence. You are correct that the masks you wear are obvious but if you keep reading posts on TPF and contribute now and again when you feel you have grown up a little more then I am sure there will be many here who will show some pity for you and interact with you, even with your obvious social inadequacy issues.
I disagree people can believe in a thing if it is made 'crystal clear' that it is wrong, lest they specifically follow the belief in wrongness(not the same belief).
I would like to highlight how I said belief is a spring occuring around the sin (ethereal within) of man.
I may be wrong by a margin in my original post but what was not in margin of error...
If we stop pursuing knowledge, we succumb to believing in what we know, at least. This means belief isn't always bad, it is a natural mechanism that has use other than to delude each other.
Quoting universeness
You are quite right. As i suspected, your post, even after my "bye bye", is certainly a testament to your adequacy.
Not only to your adequacy but also to your originality, and your intelligence, to be able to come up with what you have said. It is quite astonishing.
Particularly enlightening was the part where you talk about me seeking "interaction". This is definitely a revelation. Had no idea, with my history in TPF, is that of one seeking “interaction”. This tells me my social inadequacy issues aren't up to the mark. Which means i might have to take it up a notch (which will be of course under my discretion). Hopefully that way i will never need your (or your kind) pity.
But thank you for the offerings of your "shame" and your "pity". It is not often one comes across a person of your immense adequacy. Bye for now. *cough"
It bodes well for you that you are so easily astonished. Perhaps this will aid you in your search for enlightenment.
Quoting skyblack
If I have provided you with enlightenment, astonishment and revelation in my few responses to you so far then that's great. If you had no idea that interaction with other members on TPF is foundational then I am glad I was able to increase your awareness and grasp of the concept.
Quoting skyblack
Well, I hope that you can maintain your own personal confidence that one day you will 'overcome' these shortfalls that you recognise in yourself.
Quoting skyblack
You're welcome! That cough sounds bad, perhaps you should get yourself tested! :death: :flower:
Right. I am agreeing with you when you say “that interaction with other members on TPF is foundational”. I was/am aware of it. Even though you haven’t included the ‘socks’ (both old and new) I will also go ahead and include them in the group you call “members”. So yes, we are in agreement.
Which is why one was astonished when you said what you said. Like I said earlier, if anything, evidence consistently points to me refusing interactions (But I suppose facts or evidence wouldn’t mean much to you, since you claim to be so “adequate”) ,- not seeking it. Here I am trying to perfect my social inadequacy skills (as you call it), and you’re telling me it is having the opposite effect. Well, what do you know!
However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this topic, either on your own or with others. GL.
Quoting skyblack
and what reads like conflated nonsense such as:
Quoting skyblack
Which you then arrogantly refuse to explain further.
Quoting skyblack
So which is it? You refuse interactions because you are an arrogant ***** who only interacts with those YOU delusionally decide are worthy of you or you refuse interaction because you are scared to throw stones whilst inside your glasshouse?
Quoting skyblack
I suggest you try to defeat your social inadequacy not 'try to perfect it.'
What I know is that you need to learn how to interact with others like a grown-up, instead of as a petulant child.
Well, not sure why you would have to refer me back to anything since the progression is quite obvious and in print. Anyone having minimal understanding of English, and 2 brain cells in working condition can read and see what is going on. But naturally, it will take more than 2 brain cells to read between the lines, which I may take it upon myself to explain if they ask, i.e. if I feel so inclined.
Likewise, my take on the requisites for any reasonable interactions or discussions is also documented (several times) and anyone can verify that on my page, if they wish. There is never going to be a “discussion” unless you (or whoever) learn how to come to a discussion. With the right attitude and approach. As to “scared”, what can I say, let my posts and conduct speak for itself.
Regarding your suggestion, you know what they say about suggestions, don’t you? You can put them back into the same place you are pulling them out. I suspect it is the same place you are pulling out everything you have been spewing in the past few exchanges. But hey, I think I get it. You are having a hissy fit, what some may call a sissy fit). You (or your socks) aren’t the first and you won’t be the last. Don’t worry. I suspect you are going to be ok after this period. I am guessing it’s a regular period for you.
So, instead of reveling in your inadequacies, which is making you a fool right now (but perhaps y’all are used to it and want it, for a myriad of reasons that seem quite obvious), what would rather seem rational, is to understand what is going on with you. You wouldn’t be doing what you are doing if you had “grown up”, or not being disturbed by your inadequacies, and therefore be completely comfortable with your silly twists on the obvious, Instead of projecting your own inadequacies and your tantrums outside (or unto me), isn’t it a better idea to take a break, go out and smell the roses? Don’t worry, the forum will be here when you get back. Now stop this nonsense with the highlighted paragraphs/posts and the rest of your juvenile attempts. Your posts reek of desperation, among other character defects. See if you can defeat all this.
E.g. when conceiving the truth will cause you harm. 'Walk towards me very carefully and don't look down'
There's talk here as if beliefs are things in our heads. In a way that's ok, as far as it goes. But it can also be useful to see beliefs as instances of acting as if something is the case. I believe the shop is open although at no time internally or externally do I utter the sentence 'The shop is open' or 'I think the shop's open.' My going to the shop is often enough to evince my belief that it's open. Not always, but often.
I see you need to run to mommy for a reassuring hug. Run little boy, run to your mommy.
Your sky is quite dark isn't it!
You know what?......mommies all over the world are worth respecting, so, i am going to leave your mommy out of this. In fact, i don;t even need to go there. You are an easy one.
I believe “someone can believe something that has been proven false”. (Call this I believe S)
If “I believe S” is true, S is true
Or
If “I believe S” is false, S is true because I just demonstrated I can believe something that has been proven false.
Unfortunately for your mommy, you are not!
See how easy you are? Hopefully your next response will have one or two of those 'rofl tear' emoticons you are known to use frequently while talking to others (but somehow they have disappeared in our exchanges), lest "members" (other than socks) might start doubting your "adequacy". *cough*
Bar the usual TPF soap opera occurrence, this thread has been a victory- I am wiser than I was.
Ok, you don't have to keep demonstrating how delusional you are, you have provided me with adequate evidence. Keep trying to find a light to help you with your dark sky. :sparkle:
bye bye twinkle!
I will react to characters like @skydark when I think it is required.
I understand that you might be annoyed by such exchanges but it is part of being human imo and it's a necessary part as far as I am concerned.
I'm glad you agree, your annoyance and my reaction to @skydark......unsurprisingly human.
It then broadens to what's beneficent(on terms of what is belief X consisting of, what is true knowledge?).
I'm not sure why you can't believe something that's not true. There are enough atheist who do so.
Quoting Frankly
That's what i had said in my initial post. However, i wasn't talking about atheists or theists. I was pointing to the fact that everyone believes at a very real fundamental and deep level in things that aren't true . The beliefs are very real with real life consequences. And to support that i had used examples all can relate to. Furthermore, as i was explaining to that dimwit-sissy (To be clear, I take the liberty once in while) the mechanisms of belief is beyond your conscious control (either cerebral or emotional), but rather universal, and an aspect of one's inherited conditioned consciousness.
I believe X is true, because it is proven to be true. I know X is true at the moment I discover proof.
What's the point in knowing X is true again afterward?
After knowing something, it's then a belief in it's validity, because...
Not a matter of knowing deeply. Know is a verb/time lapse, believe is a verb/passivity. Know/Believe are are two ends and work together.
I've known this in the past, it's why I share the belief.
I know this now... It's validity is all around us.
I don't accidentally know in the passive sense anything.
There is no stock of knowledge, just parts/fragments of memories that stick in the belief spring.
There is stocking belief...
The dimwit-sissy? An unconscious belief we all share?
No belief is required in observing the obvious. Especially if it comes with corroborating evidence.. Naturally it applies to all, including you. Bye Bye.
WTF...? You call me a dimwit-sissy? :rage:
No i didn't. I was pointing to
Quoting Frankly
the use of the pronoun "we" in your previous post.Essentially i was agreeing with the pronoun..
After all it isn't rocket science that out of all posters you decide to engage with me under a rather silly pretext, essentially reiterating what i had said, but with a slight twist. Attempting to make it about atheism and theism (perhaps fishing for my affiliation) when clearly the posts have nothing to do with that.
In regards to your question, hey, if the shoe fits don't let me stop you from wearing it...sock.
You know where to take your drama, don't you? Take it somewhere else. Again, Bye bye
Ah, I see. I thought you called everybody a dimwit-sissy, whatever that might be. My fault. You think we all share the same believes?