Belief. What exactly is it?

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

So if I look up the definition of "religions" I will find that they must have a holy book or they aren't real religions?   Wow, didn't know that.

 

Pagan religions tend not to have a holy book. Or at least not one particular book. And it's not necessarily inerrant or divinely inspired. Maybe more of a how-to guide. Pagans often just make shit up as they go along or pick and choose shit they like from a variety of sources. 

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Midniterider,

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86462-jesus-in-the-exam-room/#comment-1251427

 

Here is a perfect example of what I was just referring to. 

 

The medic in question violated the professional and ethical standards of their job by bringing their personal religious beliefs into it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

I agree, Walter. If you go to a modern medicine facility you are there to take advantage of the medical science, not religion. 

 

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

So you are saying that the Bible definition is authoritative?    Now that's interesting.   

 

I'm saying that is the bible definition of the word "faith".

I have said also that the word faith does not mean certain knowledge.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Really?

 

Oh, I get it. Some ASAPs are more equal than other ASAPs.  

 

You want rabbit trails? I got your rabbit trails right here and mine are just as tempting as yours are.  You can move on with your discussion of what belief is anytime you want and so can aG.

I threw in my molehill and you are making a mountain out of it.

 

For the love of God Walter, don't be so serious!  If we are looking at death being the end our existence forever, why is any of this so important? Future generations? They will die too. So humans can explore the universe? It will die too, right?   If you agree, do you believe this or know this?

 

 

No, I can't Duderonomy.

That is, no I can't move on with my discussion WITH YOU of what belief is anytime I want.  That's because I still don't know why you find the evidence I cited to be invalid and I still don't know what you mean by faith being a 'knowing'.

 

And if I want to make an entire mountain range out of this molehill, I will.  Like this.  For the (what is it now, fifth or sixth time?) please answer the questions alreadyGone and I put to you.

 

Here they are again.

 

What do you mean by faith being a 'knowing'?

 

Why is the evidence I cited unacceptable to you?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Pagan religions tend not to have a holy book. Or at least not one particular book. And it's not necessarily inerrant or divinely inspired. Maybe more of a how-to guide. Pagans often just make shit up as they go along or pick and choose shit they like from a variety of sources. 

 

Point taken, Midniterider.

 

Duderonomy suggested that I was treating this forum as my religion.  So, does what you say above help his case?  Nope.  There's nothing divinely inspired in what goes on here.  Speaking only for myself, I don't just make up shit as I go along and I don't choose shit that I like from a variety of sources.

 

So, if anything, what you've pointed out disagrees with Duderonomy and helps me make my case.  This forum hasn't become my religion.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is what happens when my Lions go too long without a decent meal.

 

Oh lord, in thy mercy, lord, please, lord, send us another christian vict... um, I mean apologist, lord, that, lord, that my precious lions might feast at thy eternal table once again, lord. I, the Prof thy Mod, pray these things, in the name of jebus.

[Joshpantera]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is what happens when my Lions go too long without a decent meal.

 

Oh lord, in thy mercy, lord, please, lord, send us another christian vict... um, I mean apologist, lord, that, lord, that my precious lions might feast at thy eternal table once again, lord. I, the Prof thy Mod, pray these things, in the name of jebus.

 

Have faith, thy Professor, Synchrus will provide......

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is what happens when my Lions go too long without a decent meal.

 

Oh lord, in thy mercy, lord, please, lord, send us another christian vict... um, I mean apologist, lord, that, lord, that my precious lions might feast at thy eternal table once again, lord. I, the Prof thy Mod, pray these things, in the name of jebus.

 

I'm just trying to outwit Mr. Spock to help fill up Dave's hard drive.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is what happens when my Lions go too long without a decent meal.

 

Oh lord, in thy mercy, lord, please, lord, send us another christian vict... um, I mean apologist, lord, that, lord, that my precious lions might feast at thy eternal table once again, lord. I, the Prof thy Mod, pray these things, in the name of jebus.

 

I'm glad you raised the topic of Christian victims apologists, Professor.

 

If Duderonomy were such a Christian apologist and dodged questions like this there'd be growls of discontent from the Lions.

 

Hmmm...  it's very quiet in here.

 

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If Duderonomy were such a Christian apologist and dodged questions like this there'd be growls of discontent from the Lions.

That's true; but one possible explanation for that might be that the ubiquity of christian dodging we encounter makes us more ready to pounce on it.  It's tiresome and we come into it already frustrated with it.  This exchange between yourself, midniterider, and duderonomy is a good reminder to all of us that differing opinions are welcome and dodgy tactics are not exclusive to apologists. 

 

Don't mind me, though.  Y'all fellas carry on.

[midniterider]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Point taken, Midniterider.

 

Duderonomy suggested that I was treating this forum as my religion.  So, does what you say above help his case?  Nope.  There's nothing divinely inspired in what goes on here.  Speaking only for myself, I don't just make up shit as I go along and I don't choose shit that I like from a variety of sources.

 

So, if anything, what you've pointed out disagrees with Duderonomy and helps me make my case.  This forum hasn't become my religion.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

I dont know if I'm helping his case. But it's fun throwing my 2 cents in. It's a public forum. 

 

And i wasn't hinting that you are just making up shit.  

 

This forum hasn't become your religion... but I think science, for some, is like a replacement obsession for their old Christian religion. Words like theory and evidence become overly venerated... (edit) or sacred.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

This forum hasn't become your religion... but I think science, for some, is like a replacement obsession for their old Christian religion. Words like theory and evidence become overly venerated... (edit) or sacred.

Right, "Now let's turn to our textbook, and sing all four verses of # 3.1417, "The Remit of Science".  Lol.  

 

Very similar to the fundamentalist who preaches a few years into Christianity...huh Walter.

[freshstart]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh lord, in thy mercy, lord, please, lord, send us another christian vict... um, I mean apologist, lord, that, lord, that my precious lions might feast at thy eternal table once again, lord. I, the Prof thy Mod, pray these things, in the name of jebus.

  Love it!!

[Edgarcito]

Let me add, Christianity calls it grace, the application of not knowing and being known.  Science just says, it's certainty until more certainty changes our conclusion.  What a crock...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Right, "Now let's turn to our textbook, and sing all four verses of # 3.1417, "The Remit of Science".

# 3.1417 is "The Remit of All Things Round and Cylindrical" you bloody heretic.

[walterpthefirst]

This is for midniterider, Duderonomy and Edgarcito, so that they can be left in no doubt as to where I stand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

 

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

 

Let it be noted that I totally and completely reject Scientism and will have nothing to do with it.  So, for those who mistakenly believe that have an exaggerated trust in science or that I somehow venerate science or that it has replaced my Christian faith and has become my new religion - think again!

 

My approach to these matters is pragmatic and not ideological.  As far as I can see science simply represents a consistent and globally agreed method of understanding the physical world.  One that works across all religious, ethnic, racial and national boundaries.  That is why people of any religion, ethnicity, race or nation can become scientists and use science.   That is why, despite all of the fractures and divisions in human societies, a Christian Nepalese geologist can work with an atheist Bolivian one, a Jewish German one and a Canadian Sikh one, all of them using the same methods, protocols, units and procedures and all of them working towards the same end - a better collective understanding of the natural world.

 

But I have never, ever said, claimed, suggested or implied that science is the only way to understand reality.  Nor have I said that science is the best way of understanding reality.  That would be Scientism and I reject it.

 

There are many and various ways in which we can seek to understand reality and each of them have their strengths and weaknesses.  It's my opinion that using emotions to understand reality is a valid way of trying to make sense of reality - but only so far.  The emotion-based approach suffers from weaknesses that science successfully minimizes. 

 

I will explain.

 

Emotions, though common to everyone, express themselves within us is unique ways.  That's hardly surprising seeing as each of us is our own unique person, with our own set of unique experiences and memories and therefore, our own unique set of emotional reactions and dynamics. 

 

But that uniqueness is not a strength when it comes to collective efforts of understanding reality.  For collective efforts  to proceed, that which is unique must give way to that which can be shared and collectively understood.  I cannot fully share what I feel emotionally with anyone.  Instead I must try and communicate what I feel using what has been agreed between us, namely language.  I will fail a lot of the time because the words I use do not let others grasp why I feel something so deeply and yet they do not.  So, from get go, my uniqueness is not an asset to collective understanding - it is an impediment to it.

 

Once again, let me make it clear.  I am not saying that emotions are bad or wrong or false.  No!

 

I am simply saying that they cannot be meaningfully shared among us to the necessary extent that they improve or enhance our collective understanding of reality.  There is no useful or helpful common emotional currency between us.  There is some common emotional currency, as much as language permits, but not enough to make real and substantial progress in a collective effort in understanding reality.

 

History will make the case for me.  If we could successfully share our emotion-based understanding of reality far more deeply than language alone will allow us, wouldn't this have happened by now?  Where is the successful common emotional currency that works for everyone?  Why is it that there isn't a universal human emotional language that gives us a reliable understanding of the tides, the stars, the causes of diseases, the germination of flowers, the melting of ice, the aerodynamics of eagles, the strength of steel, the best way to sow crops or why neutrinos spin?

 

No, when I say a common emotional currency or a universal human emotional language I mean more than empathy.

 

Our emotions are perfectly suited to help us understand and share in the emotions of others and also certain animals.  But they are ill-suited at doing much more than that.  They can give us deep insights into ourselves and possibly into each other, but beyond these human-to-human or human-to-animal connections, they quickly lose their usefulness.

 

For a wider and collective understanding of reality we are forced to use that which can be agreed between us.  A common language that works across all racial, ethnic, political and religious boundaries.  I submit that science is just such a language.  I further submit that it has a proven track record of giving us a reliable understanding of reality.

 

This is where I stand. 

 

Science is not a religion, it is a tool and I make the pragmatic decision to use it where it is best suited.  I am not anti-emotion.  Emotions make us what we are.  But I also take the pragmatic decision NOT to use them where they are ill-suited.  I hope this clarifies where I stand, so that the apparent misunderstandings about me are duly answered.  If anything is unclear or requires further explanation I will be happy to oblige.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me add, Christianity calls it grace, the application of not knowing and being known.  Science just says, it's certainty until more certainty changes our conclusion.  What a crock...

 

False.  Science does not say that.  All of empirical science is tentative.  That is why things can be disproven. 

 

That is also why things can only be proven in mathematics and no other branch of the sciences.

 

You are trotting out an item of Christian apologetic disinformation, Ed.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Right, "Now let's turn to our textbook, and sing all four verses of # 3.1417, "The Remit of Science".  Lol.  

 

Very similar to the fundamentalist who preaches a few years into Christianity...huh Walter.

 

You shouldn't need to keep regurgitating this untruth about me if you read where I stand Ed.

 

But I've explained about science not being certain and not proving things to you before now.

 

And yet you still come out with this bs.

 

 

[duderonomy]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

This is for midniterider, Duderonomy and Edgarcito, so that they can be left in no doubt as to where I stand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

 

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

 

Let it be noted that I totally and completely reject Scientism and will have nothing to do with it.  So, for those who mistakenly believe that have an exaggerated trust in science or that I somehow venerate science or that it has replaced my Christian faith and has become my new religion - think again!

 

My approach to these matters is pragmatic and not ideological.  As far as I can see science simply represents a consistent and globally agreed method of understanding the physical world.  One that works across all religious, ethnic, racial and national boundaries.  That is why people of any religion, ethnicity, race or nation can become scientists and use science.   That is why, despite all of the fractures and divisions in human societies, a Christian Nepalese geologist can work with an atheist Bolivian one, a Jewish German one and a Canadian Sikh one, all of them using the same methods, protocols, units and procedures and all of them working towards the same end - a better collective understanding of the natural world.

 

But I have never, ever said, claimed, suggested or implied that science is the only way to understand reality.  Nor have I said that science is the best way of understanding reality.  That would be Scientism and I reject it.

 

There are many and various ways in which we can seek to understand reality and each of them have their strengths and weaknesses.  It's my opinion that using emotions to understand reality is a valid way of trying to make sense of reality - but only so far.  The emotion-based approach suffers from weaknesses that science successfully minimizes. 

 

I will explain.

 

Emotions, though common to everyone, express themselves within us is unique ways.  That's hardly surprising seeing as each of us is our own unique person, with our own set of unique experiences and memories and therefore, our own unique set of emotional reactions and dynamics. 

 

But that uniqueness is not a strength when it comes to collective efforts of understanding reality.  For collective efforts  to proceed, that which is unique must give way to that which can be shared and collectively understood.  I cannot fully share what I feel emotionally with anyone.  Instead I must try and communicate what I feel using what has been agreed between us, namely language.  I will fail a lot of the time because the words I use do not let others grasp why I feel something so deeply and yet they do not.  So, from get go, my uniqueness is not an asset to collective understanding - it is an impediment to it.

 

Once again, let me make it clear.  I am not saying that emotions are bad or wrong or false.  No!

 

I am simply saying that they cannot be meaningfully shared among us to the necessary extent that they improve or enhance our collective understanding of reality.  There is no useful or helpful common emotional currency between us.  There is some common emotional currency, as much as language permits, but not enough to make real and substantial progress in a collective effort in understanding reality.

 

History will make the case for me.  If we could successfully share our emotion-based understanding of reality far more deeply than language alone will allow us, wouldn't this have happened by now?  Where is the successful common emotional currency that works for everyone?  Why is it that there isn't a universal human emotional language that gives us a reliable understanding of the tides, the stars, the causes of diseases, the germination of flowers, the melting of ice, the aerodynamics of eagles, the strength of steel, the best way to sow crops or why neutrinos spin?

 

No, when I say a common emotional currency or a universal human emotional language I mean more than empathy.

 

Our emotions are perfectly suited to help us understand and share in the emotions of others and also certain animals.  But they are ill-suited at doing much more than that.  They can give us deep insights into ourselves and possibly into each other, but beyond these human-to-human or human-to-animal connections, they quickly lose their usefulness.

 

For a wider and collective understanding of reality we are forced to use that which can be agreed between us.  A common language that works across all racial, ethnic, political and religious boundaries.  I submit that science is just such a language.  I further submit that it has a proven track record of giving us a reliable understanding of reality.

 

This is where I stand. 

 

Science is not a religion, it is a tool and I make the pragmatic decision to use it where it is best suited.  I am not anti-emotion.  Emotions make us what we are.  But I also take the pragmatic decision NOT to use them where they are ill-suited.  I hope this clarifies where I stand, so that the apparent misunderstandings about me are duly answered.  If anything is unclear or requires further explanation I will be happy to oblige.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

 

Well, that's like your opinion.

 

You want to try to nail me down on the meaning of a word, but then you throw this manifesto out?

 

I might be wrong, but I think that you protest too much.

 

I've been there Walt.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

And all the above is proof that the show goes on.

[duderonomy]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me add, Christianity calls it grace, the application of not knowing and being known.  Science just says, it's certainty until more certainty changes our conclusion.  What a crock...

 

Yes!

But which one is real?

 

Are you really a Christian, or are you going to keep Jesus waiting until science has some breakthrough showing that you only have so much time to decide before you are dead?

[duderonomy]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

And all the above is proof that the show goes on.

 

 

The show must go on.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

The show must go on.

 

And this one has a little different flavor.  I'm trying to think of a name for it.

[duderonomy]

14 minutes ago, Weezer said:

And all the above is proof that the show goes on.

 

You only say that because you believed it would go on and made popcorn. You acted on your faith, right?  

[duderonomy]

8 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

And this one has a little different flavor.  I'm trying to think of a name for it.

 

I call it "thinking".