The Function Of Belief

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that there has to be some medium for all the parts and particles to clink around in. I'd call that belief. Fish need water to swim around in so they can do their fishy thing. Facts need something to swim around in so they can be rearranged into ever more concrete hypotheses.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that there has to be some medium for all the parts and particles to clink around in. I'd call that belief. Fish need water to swim around in so they can do their fishy thing. Facts need something to swim around in so they can be rearranged into ever more concrete hypotheses.

Chris

But, (here he goes again), too often religion is like pouring concrete into the pooliverse. Dogma is the enemy of fact and reason. Since i have become evangelical i believe i have to say this

In regard to the Z/Palladin posts;
True no 2 individuals share a reality on a personal level. But we do share a collective reality that we must have a duty to be aware of.

Tao

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But, (here he goes again), too often religion is like pouring concrete into the pooliverse. Dogma is the enemy of fact and reason. Since i have become evangelical i believe i have to say this

Maybe we should separate religious belief from the belief process in general even though it's the same mechanism essentially. I fail to see how "belief", of itself, possesses any innate veracity. It's completely silly to think that one should or must respect another's "beliefs." Belief is a means, a mechanism, a temporary tool to get to an answer. Belief itself is never an answer.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Maybe we should separate religious belief from the belief process in general even though it's the same mechanism essentially. I fail to see how "belief", of itself, possesses any innate veracity. It's completely silly to think that one should or must respect another's "beliefs." Belief is a means, a mechanism, a temporary tool to get to an answer. Belief itself is never an answer.

Chris

I believe you could well be right there!!

[China Cat Sunflower]

To invent an analogy: Belief is like scaffolding. It's very useful, but in the end the building has to stand on its own. If the construction materials and methods are solid the building will stand the test of time. But you can't just leave the scaffolding up forever all the while insisting that the building is sound. It either stands on its own or it doesn't, that's the proof.

"Is the building finished?"

"Yes."

"Are you satisfied with the quality of materials and construction methods?"

"Yes."

"What's this stick doing propping up the balcony?"

"Don't touch that!"

"Why not?"

"Because I said so."

"But why, I thought you said you were confident in the construction."

"Don't you disrespect my beliefs."

Chris

[_Z_]

tao, hi

True no 2 individuals share a reality on a personal level. But we do share a collective reality that we must have a duty to be aware of.

i actually believe we do share both a personal and collective reality, i don’t believe in subjectivism. we are all points on a piece of paper, there is no individuality in spiritual terms, it is only in the physical realm where we are apparently separated. this is due to our human forms receiving information from singular sources like i.e. our extended senses/the physical side of the senses.

the mind itself usually relates only to these as they are important to our survival, yet the mind is not directly fixed to the senses, if this were so ~ and if we were only physical entities it would be as if we were glued to them, then we would not have the nature of mind that is free flowing.

CCS

Belief itself is never an answer.

perhaps in essence it is all we can do, knowledge is a function of language which is metaphoric to the actual. here i contradict myself with the above where i said i don’t believe in subjectivity, but that is when it in the singular, not the universal context. at the least belief in anything extraneous to the physical is the only thing we can do with it as it cannot be known by the senses. things like infinity, the eternal even being and mind all then belong to the realm of belief, however that doesn’t mean they cannot be true or have a basis ~ this is where philosophy comes into play. belief in and of itself is the dodgy one.
so yes it is like the scaffolding or philosophy is its scaffolding.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by _Z_

perhaps in essence it is all we can do, knowledge is a function of language which is metaphoric to the actual. here i contradict myself with the above where i said i don’t believe in subjectivity, but that is when it in the singular, not the universal context. at the least belief in anything extraneous to the physical is the only thing we can do with it as it cannot be known by the senses. things like infinity, the eternal even being and mind all then belong to the realm of belief, however that doesn’t mean they cannot be true or have a basis ~ this is where philosophy comes into play. belief in and of itself is the dodgy one.
so yes it is like the scaffolding or philosophy is its scaffolding.

That makes a lot of sense, Z. I think that one has to embrace an open ended commitment to humility and patience, understanding that there is no final plateau to be reached. In other words, you have to remain philosophical throughout. I do think that it's responsible and reasonable to say that, in the absence of absolute proof, certain processes or things seem to be trending a certain way with enough stability to make solid assumptions. And the beauty of belief systems, when they work properly, is that the scaffolding can be easily broken down and reused on a variety of projects. There is a danger there of constructing a web of assumptions based on false conclusions, but the advantage is that one doesn't have to start all over at the beginning every time.

Chris

[_Z_]

CCS

I think that one has to embrace an open ended commitment to humility and patience, understanding that there is no final plateau to be reached. In other words, you have to remain philosophical throughout.

absolutely.

There is a danger there of constructing a web of assumptions based on false conclusions, but the advantage is that one doesn’t have to start all over at the beginning every time.

yes i see what you mean. in a sense religion has done this over and over again, form the earliest times we have found new forms of scaffolding to prop up the apparent reality [the world] and our place in it. perhaps it has gone from wood to iron to aluminium, then maybe it will become some composite.
if beliefs can make our foundations stronger then there is no problem with them.

i think people like dawkins just looks at belief for its own sake and attacks that without looking at its reasons and purpose. i don’t know anyone who just believes for the sake of it, in fact many have found it after much heart ache, perhaps their ideas are wrong but there is something to what they believe not just nothing, - so what if everyone is not a great philosopher who can say what they believe!

[China Cat Sunflower]

I applaud Dawkins for volunteering to be the goat. Someone needs to do it, I'm glad he's willing. But he's just preaching to the choir. There is no way to reach folks who live in a faith based reality. They're entirely insulated from any sort of logical compulsion. So Dawkins' derisive talking points, which unfortunately take the form of an extended and rambling rant for the edification a perceived audience of like minded atheists, only function as an ego prop. It might be fun to imagine smacking down one's ideological opponents with a few well crafted intellectual put downs, but it won't accomplish anything. The net result is merely an ego stroking, and one should ask one's self how intellectually mature it is to engage in that kind of mental masturbation.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I applaud Dawkins for volunteering to be the goat. Someone needs to do it, I'm glad he's willing. But he's just preaching to the choir. There is no way to reach folks who live in a faith based reality. They're entirely insulated from any sort of logical compulsion. So Dawkins' derisive talking points, which unfortunately take the form of an extended and rambling rant for the edification a perceived audience of like minded atheists, only function as an ego prop. It might be fun to imagine smacking down one's ideological opponents with a few well crafted intellectual put downs, but it won't accomplish anything. The net result is merely an ego stroking, and one should ask one's self how intellectually mature it is to engage in that kind of mental masturbation.

Chris

I am glad that you applaud something about Dawkins. He is evangelical, and he does rather ni$ley out of it. But apart from that I think you undervalue the actual work he does. It is true that he is not going to turn the heartland of the Christian Right into atheists but that does not mean his voice goes unheard. Here on this forum his work has been discussed or referred to on dozens of threads and this is because he has, (and this was so very badly needed), set a benchmark of rationality that was previously missing.
Everybody tends to dislike this guy. I tend toward thinking that it is because as well as shooting from the hip with cold hard logic, he has a rather smug air about him. His arguments are thoroughly thought through and no theologian can counter the science he uses to validate his opinions. I think that combination makes him a little dislikeable to anyone with even a trace of hope that there is a God, and utterly despicable to those that openly hold beliefs. But he is just the messenger. The truth is there for anyone who cares to look.

YouTube - dawkins v haggard

I wonder if haggard was finding it difficult to concentrate on evolution because he was thinking how good it would be to get on his knees and pray to the great god felatio!!

Tao

[Bruno's logic]

The function of belief is to humanity what the function of evolution is to existence;
a force of change...

The function of belief is humanities reaction to the unanswerable questions like what happens after the inevitable change that comes at the end of life…
This reaction is a natural progression that like evolution that can lead to extinction or continued survival…

If humanity is to survive the inevitable death of our home galaxy in this infinite existence, we will have to evolve beyond belief, beyond even the stage of ascended masters. We must eventually come to realize that we are the universe and dare I say it... God

If this is how we are evolving then the only way to achieve this is to stop being afraid of death, to stop reacting to the unknown as if it were supernatural,.. It’s all natural… We're nature aware that we are nature...

Believe that there is only one infinite source, that you are as much a part of this existence as anything else, and that there is no death, only change.

It is my belief that this way of thinking will, in the future, transform the function of belief. It cannot be stopped, it is evolution, it is our destiny, to become God.
And when that happens the function of belief will be to create seas of universes…
And when we evolve beyond that, well, your guess Is as good as mine…
~Bruno

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am glad that you applaud something about Dawkins. He is evangelical, and he does rather ni$ley out of it. But apart from that I think you undervalue the actual work he does. It is true that he is not going to turn the heartland of the Christian Right into atheists but that does not mean his voice goes unheard. Here on this forum his work has been discussed or referred to on dozens of threads and this is because he has, (and this was so very badly needed), set a benchmark of rationality that was previously missing.
Everybody tends to dislike this guy. I tend toward thinking that it is because as well as shooting from the hip with cold hard logic, he has a rather smug air about him. His arguments are thoroughly thought through and no theologian can counter the science he uses to validate his opinions. I think that combination makes him a little dislikeable to anyone with even a trace of hope that there is a God, and utterly despicable to those that openly hold beliefs. But he is just the messenger. The truth is there for anyone who cares to look.

YouTube - dawkins v haggard

I wonder if haggard was finding it difficult to concentrate on evolution because he was thinking how good it would be to get on his knees and pray to the great god felatio!!

Tao

I can't stand to watch Haggard. His face makes me want to yerg.

Oh, I don't dislike Dawkins. I couldn't finish his book because it put me in such a glaze. He should team up with Bill Maher and learn how to use profanity. I just can't stand to watch the guy debate another intellectual chimp. It's pornographic, like watching an ant obliviously follow a honey trail into hot lava. I hate to watch a mismatched fight, whether it's a debate, or a race, boxing match, or a football game.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, everybody!

Sorry I missed out last night, but I'm glad to see a lively discussion!

Originally Posted by dauer

... each person trying to tell me I can know has different criteria for knowing be it logic, reductionism, a sacred text or peak experiences.

Exactly Dauer!

I've been trying to think of an example to set up to help demonstrate this. So far the best I can do is this:

The sun rises in the morning.

We all know this, our grandparents know this, our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago knew this.

How many of our ancestors knew why the sun always rose in the east, and set in the west? Few? I would posit that all of them believed they knew why, but those beliefs could be segregated into major subsets, like Dauer said, depending on the cultural emphasis on type of reasoning.

How many believed the sun was a flaming orb pulled across the sky by a god's chariot? Enough of them that this belief became merged or absorbed into the cultural psyche and outlook, and these people's view of reality was framed in a manner that included this "truth." It is not that their belief was a "lie," it certainly was sufficient and effective for them. It is that they did not have access to knowledge we hold as truth today.

There are probably a hundred other "beliefs" regarding the sun rising and setting across cultures and across history. And every one of these beliefs was an unchallengable truth at some point.

We want to believe (there's that word again) that our logical approach in combination with observational study and controlled recreation that we can answer all questions. But that too is a belief that can be challenged, intellectually. We now know the earth is "round" (pear shaped actually, if that doesn't threaten your beliefs), and that the rotation is why the sun rises and sets the way it does. That's fine, it is our current belief merged into our cultural psyche and outlook, and our view of reality includes this outlook. We want to believe it is an unchallengable truth.

But it is still a limited outlook on a limited truth.

The scientific, rational, logical purview still evades or otherwise cannot effectively deal with some issues that lie just outside of its reach.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You Spat-a-cus!!

You always know the right thing to say to a guy to make him feel wanted! <blush>

OK, enough of that!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have to hold my hands up and say that I do not quite know how to tackle individual spirituality other than to maintain the position that it too is illusory, yet not necessarily detrimental.

That's fine, it is your belief.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

...I was ascribing to some notion of a bigger purpose/ plan / intelligence. I know in myself this is what I wanted to find and so I sought it. I could never have found it in any of the established institutions... So I sought it where my deepest most profound feelings reside, my love of life, life forms and this beautiful universe. I sauntered down the Lovelock way and found Gaia theory so obviously truth, based on my own hands on interaction with the natural world, that I began to elevate it beyond that which it is. I still believe the super-organism referred to as Gaia is a fact. And I still believe that we, as a constituent part of it, get our sense of something "bigger" from our immersion in it. But the 'intelligence' of Gaia shows no sign of being anything godlike in nature.

"I sought it where my deepest most profound feelings reside, my love of life, life forms and this beautiful universe." -how is this any different than a person in a prehistoric tribal community looking to the stars and wondering "why?"

"But the 'intelligence' of Gaia shows no sign of being anything godlike in nature." Not to split hairs, and I do understand why you make this comment, but going by my definition I am obligated to disagree, except that I would replace godlike with G-d.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Artistic or aesthetic predispositions are a side effect of bigger brains that evolved because our species needed them to enable our omnivorous and nomadic way of life. But aesthetic appreciation of beauty is not confined to humans. ... my point is that nature produced such abilities, not a divine and unique gift to mankind.

I had a feeling I would get called on this. I would argue about bird plumage, that is simply a fortunate accident of evolution in combination with intraspecies breeding preferences. The point I was trying to make has to do with symapthetic magic. So many of the cave paintings and venus figures and many, many other *art*ifactual finds are overwhelmingly considered to be used to invoke the Divine. I haven't looked into your Bower bird, but I doubt the purpose of its sculpture is to invoke a mystical providence.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

It is naive to think that life back at the dawn was all for one and one for all. Competition for often scarce resources would inevitably lead to power games. They would certainly manifest themselves in the oral tradition of the people.

I don't disagree, *outside* of the "clan." (since you invoked that term, it will suit) We are moral to those within our clan, not necessarily to those outside our clan, even among our own species. Nature and history demonstrate this time and again. Morality is something convenience, and we are not all predisposed to it by any means. So, that "competition" was on a clan scale when it tended to wander outside the realm of treating one's "neighbor" morally. Clans have warred probably as long as clans existed, but the nature of warfare in prehistoric times was different than it is now. Even historically, there are different kinds and types of warfare, but most of it is at the clan level or above.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Also we cannot dismiss the value of ignorance. We take our evolved science and education for granted but back when if a clan elder gave a supernatural explanation you believed it for there was no alternative. For every avenue of inquiry into the why and when of mankind's spiritual and intellectual sentiments we can with a little thought find an alternative to the divine gift bestowed on us. There are no mysteries. And there is no valid case to support belief in the supernatural.

There is always an alternative...of course you might get tied up and shipped to a funny pharm, but that is the option available to anyone who dares think for themself. I disagree that there are no mysteries, there are many mysteries that science and logic cannot explain, and I posit that they will not ever fully explain, because the nature of the mystery lies beyond the purview of the science.

Originally Posted by _Z_

perhaps belief came about because as we evolved we ‘tuned in’ to the greater aspect ~ the presence if you will of infinite being or just of something very great.

Good to see you back around Z!

I think this is saying in yet another way what Tao and I both have been saying, this is simply your spin on the matter, your "belief."

Originally Posted by _Z_

i am afraid belief is present in science too!

Amen!

Originally Posted by Paladin

This is what I'm getting at, we live in the conceptual rather than the actual. Notice the resistance you get when this is pointed out. Living in the actual is uncomfortable and unpredictable. Here the son of man has no place to rest his head.

I'm afraid I disagree with this Paladin. We live in the actual, we have to live in some reality that is concrete. Our *perceptions* of that reality are what create all the subjective truths we tend to "believe."

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that there has to be some medium for all the parts and particles to clink around in. I'd call that belief. Fish need water to swim around in so they can do their fishy thing. Facts need something to swim around in so they can be rearranged into ever more concrete hypotheses.

I can go along with this. What are the dominating beliefs going to be in 100 years, 500 years, 2000 years? I would be very willing to guess that those predominant beliefs will be very different from those we hold today.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Dogma is the enemy of fact and reason. Since i have become evangelical i believe i have to say this

Agreed. Hence the value in the seeker attitude. But one must also guard against the dogma *of* fact and reason. Fact and reason do not provide us with ultimate truth, they only provide an alternate truth.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

True no 2 individuals share a reality on a personal level. But we do share a collective reality that we must have a duty to be aware of.

Yeah, what he said. Except I would insert "truth" where you wrote "reality on a personal level."

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That makes a lot of sense, Z. I think that one has to embrace an open ended commitment to humility and patience, understanding that there is no final plateau to be reached. In other words, you have to remain philosophical throughout. I do think that it's responsible and reasonable to say that, in the absence of absolute proof, certain processes or things seem to be trending a certain way with enough stability to make solid assumptions. And the beauty of belief systems, when they work properly, is that the scaffolding can be easily broken down and reused on a variety of projects. There is a danger there of constructing a web of assumptions based on false conclusions, but the advantage is that one doesn't have to start all over at the beginning every time.

Awesome, Chris!

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Where's an embarassed smiley when you need it?

That is supposed to be "Spartacus."

Moats n beems, eh huan?!

t.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Dogma is the enemy of fact and reason. Since i have become evangelical i believe i have to say this
Tao

Evangelism is the enemy of fact and reason.

s.