ConsiderTheSource Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Which is the stronger/better force, belief or factual knowledge? What is the appropriate measuring stick/metric for weighing/answering this question? It is clear that a vast majority of the world's population current uses a belief set as the software for their core personal mental operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I was going to chime in with a 'whatever the majority decides', but you already have that covered. Sadly, the "stronger" or "better" side of this argument really is determined by the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 We all have beliefs about things, such as the belief that our house can withstand a hurricane or moderate earthquake, for example. The difference between most of us and xians is that we tend to want to believe things that are based on good evidence, and we try to apply this standard consistently, including to the question of the existence of biblegod. Knowledge can make problem solving more effective and safer. Humans have a varying thirst for knowledge. Beliefs are the default position, ie we all have them, I guess to a similar degree as each other. I would argue that knowledge is stronger/better because the quality and timeliness of knowledge can make all the difference in important situations. It can affect our very survival. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 To most people I think they're basically the same. You have a set of beliefs and you generally hold them until they're replaced with a new set of beliefs. The how's, when's and why's of this whole process varies by the person and is fairly unimportant for what I'm getting at so I'm not going to bother going into it. The key aspect is people believe a thing and they believe it forever or until something they prefer (for whatever reason) comes along. Then you have knowledge based on facts. But most people don't actually bother gaining this information by doing the research themselves so they're taught factual information by some method (usually in school). At this point this factual knowledge works pretty much like the beliefs above. They'll hold onto forever or until they replace it (for whatever reason). I've heard old wives tales repeated time and again by people who have been shown otherwise. They won't let go of that belief. And I've heard old factual knowledge from people who were taught something in school as kids but fail to update their knowledge to the latest and greatest even though they've been made aware of it. These are basically the same things. Unless they have a good enough reason they'll both live with the beliefs or outdated knowledge they have. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Should we have this discussion over the internet that knowledge built or rather though telepathy that belief built? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 18, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2015 Knowledge gives the best results, but belief is stronger in most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I don't think there's really a firm line between the two. It seems to me that everything we claim to know is predicated on assumptions. Ultimately, what this means is that everything boils down to a set of beliefs. Of course, this does not mean that all beliefs are equally reasonable. There comes a point where we have no significant doubt, and in such cases we cease to speak of belief and begin to speak of knowledge. In other words, it seems to me that the set of things which I know is a proper subset of the set of things which I believe. Some of the things which I believe I do not know, but everything which I know I also believe. What this seems to mean, however, is that knowledge is merely a stronger form of belief. I'm not sure if this means it is better than belief, but it definitely goes further. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 18, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2015 Belief may be based on facts or nothing at all. Obviously, we have a sort of "belief" in things that we have demonstrated to be factually true. That kind of "belief" is actually just knowledge. Theists try to muddy the waters with sloppy definitions; their belief in creationism is NOT equal to my knowledge of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Belief may be based on facts or nothing at all. Obviously, we have a sort of "belief" in things that we have demonstrated to be factually true. That kind of "belief" is actually just knowledge. Theists try to muddy the waters with sloppy definitions; their belief in creationism is NOT equal to my knowledge of evolution. I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief....that we will marry belief and behavior and genetics and environment and will create a social utopia unmatched and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Or, OR, it could just be hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 18, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief... Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief...Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Just saying currently I'm leaning toward reductionism.....i.e. the knowledge or facts behind "belief". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief...Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Just saying currently I'm leaning toward reductionism.....i.e. the knowledge or facts behind "belief". So rejecting knowledge now will somehow give you knowledge later? . . . . okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 People believe what they want to in spite of available knowledge about most things, not just religion. America is hugely anti-intellectual. Anyone's opinion is considered better than actual knowledge in most public discourse. It mostly plays out as favoring persuasion with recourse to stereotypes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief...Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Just saying currently I'm leaning toward reductionism.....i.e. the knowledge or facts behind "belief". So rejecting knowledge now will somehow give you knowledge later? . . . . okay Who said I was rejecting knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Could you please describe your understanding of Reductionism, End? Or post/cite something that does the job to your satisfaction? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief...Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Just saying currently I'm leaning toward reductionism.....i.e. the knowledge or facts behind "belief". So rejecting knowledge now will somehow give you knowledge later? . . . . okay Who said I was rejecting knowledge? Oh come on. You do. All the time. We have talked about this many times. Need me to cite examples? How about the Can We Overcome Our Genetic Predispositions thread. Every time somebody with knowledge laid it out for all to see you would crap all over that knowledge with your belief. "I don't think it is that cut and dry" "Look, it's pretty simple, it either happens through chemistry AND God or just through chemistry." "What I gathered from RS was that it literally boils down to programmed chemistry/physics." Why do you reject knowledge for belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 By coincidence, neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella's blog at sciencebasedmedicine.org today starts with some thoughts about beliefs and knowledge: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/making-ones-own-reality-food-babe-edition/ The default mode of human activity is to construct our own internal model of reality based upon our desires, biases, flawed perceptions, memories, and reasoning, and received narratives from the culture in which we live. That model of reality is then reinforced by confirmation bias and jealously defended. But we also have the capacity to transcend this pathway of least resistance. Philosophy is the discipline of thinking carefully and systematically about ideas to see if they at least are internally consistent. Science is the discipline of systematically and carefully comparing our internal models of reality against objective reality, and then changing those models to suit the evidence. Everyone engages in a combination of bias, superstition, logic, and evidence-based reason to varying degrees – the question is, to what degree? The goal of science-based medicine is to increase the proportion of science and reason in the mix with respect to the practice of medicine and public health. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 End you don't really want to know us. I can't figure out why you're here. You know you're not going to reconvert us. Our debates are hopeless shambles. Every thread ends the same way. I wish that could have been a haiku. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Another End3 infected thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted March 19, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2015 Things which can be known require no belief (e.g. no one "believes" in evolution; they either accept it as probable fact or they don't). Contrariwise, things which must be believed cannot be known (e.g. nobody really "knows" the lord; they just really really believe what they've heard about him is true). Both may hold a strong place in the lives of humans, but for dramatically different purposes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm thinking that someday we will attain the knowledge behind belief...Not sure what that means. Many beliefs require no knowledge at at all; in fact, knowledge would destroy many unfounded beliefs if people weren't so stubborn in the face of facts contrary to them. Just saying currently I'm leaning toward reductionism.....i.e. the knowledge or facts behind "belief". So rejecting knowledge now will somehow give you knowledge later? . . . . okay Who said I was rejecting knowledge? Oh come on. You do. All the time. We have talked about this many times. Need me to cite examples? How about the Can We Overcome Our Genetic Predispositions thread. Every time somebody with knowledge laid it out for all to see you would crap all over that knowledge with your belief. "I don't think it is that cut and dry" "Look, it's pretty simple, it either happens through chemistry AND God or just through chemistry." Because our knowledge base is incomplete....and uncertain. It doesn't take a very smart person to keep some eggs outside of the knowledge basket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 End you don't really want to know us. I can't figure out why you're here. You know you're not going to reconvert us. Our debates are hopeless shambles. Every thread ends the same way. I wish that could have been a haiku. How do you expect them to end? I know many of you somewhat becauseof my efforts here. There is no easy end to these conversations.....because there is not a certain answer and never will be just shy of Christ returning or someone adequately defining the mind. Again, after a given time debating these questions, it should be rather apparent that "every thread ends the same way". Hence why I have said on numerous occasions that I like to discuss, I like to argue......no biggie. Sometimes it gets a little personal, but in the end, we are all just humans trying to do the best we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Because our knowledge base is incomplete....and uncertain. It doesn't take a very smart person to keep some eggs outside of the knowledge basket. There you go rejecting knowledge. Don't deny it. There is no reason to think that rejecting knowledge now will lead to knowledge later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Because our knowledge base is incomplete....and uncertain. It doesn't take a very smart person to keep some eggs outside of the knowledge basket. There you go rejecting knowledge. Don't deny it. There is no reason to think that rejecting knowledge now will lead to knowledge later. Doesn't science have peer review? You seem to think that all "knowledge" is immediately consumable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Because our knowledge base is incomplete....and uncertain. It doesn't take a very smart person to keep some eggs outside of the knowledge basket. There you go rejecting knowledge. Don't deny it. There is no reason to think that rejecting knowledge now will lead to knowledge later. Doesn't science have peer review? You know it does. You seem to think that all "knowledge" is immediately consumable. False I have never thought that. Never said it. Never implied it. Though I understand you get confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts