Belief. What exactly is it?

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

The show must go on.

 

 

 

Dodging questions is a good way to keep the show going on.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If I protest too much, you answer too little.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours 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".

 

 

Well, it's certainly not called "answering".

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

3 hours 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".

 

 

Well, it's certainly not called "answering".

 

Walter forgive him, for he drives a Dodge pickup and knows not what he do.....

 

 

[midniterider]

16 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. 

 

Thank you, Walter. Will have to comment later. Packing up a house for a move. 

[Edgarcito]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

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?

It's me, END3, Dude, from years ago.  I'm holding to the Christian version...

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Thank you, Walter. Will have to comment later. Packing up a house for a move. 

 

Not a problem Midniterider.  

 

Tomorrow morning I'm off to this place for three days.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay-on-Wye  Paradise for a bookworm like me!  A big part of the fun is not knowing what you'll find until you start scanning the shelves.  And it won't just be cosmology and astronomy, either.  German romantic art, M.C. Escher, Medieval stained glass, speleology, WW1 battleships, seaplanes, Renee Magritte, Babylon 5, etc., etc.

 

So, I'll be absent from the forum for a while too.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

46 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Not a problem Midniterider.  

 

Tomorrow morning I'm off to this place for three days.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay-on-Wye  Paradise for a bookworm like me!  A big part of the fun is not knowing what you'll find until you start scanning the shelves.  And it won't just be cosmology and astronomy, either.  German romantic art, M.C. Escher, Medieval stained glass, speleology, WW1 battleships, seaplanes, Renee Magritte, Babylon 5, etc., etc.

 

So, I'll be absent from the forum for a while too.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Ok, one small comment.

 

Escher is neat. Never got into actual spelunking where you have to (eek) swim. Visited Lavabeds National Monument in california and Oregon Caves, while growing up, though. Pretty interesting. Watched B5 in the 90s. Good show. 

 

I walked into a bookstore in Berkeley in the 90s and the whole store was full of eastern mysticism books and New Agey stuff. The only bookstore I never wanted to leave. lol. So I can definitely relate to your bookworm-ness. Enjoy your visit. 

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If I protest too much, you answer too little.

 

Walter,

 

Does that even make sense?  In context I would say no it doesn't. 

 

I was going to say that you were "triggered" or that you were stalking me, or something similar. Now I see that you about to go on a vacation of some sort and will be absent from the forum "for a while" and I have to say it helps, but only if you have an open mind. 

 

I believe that you are sincere, internet sparring partner, but I wouldn't base my faith on it.

 

Just something to chew on. I'm sorry that I didn't say it sooner, but I said it as soon as possible.

 

 

[duderonomy]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's me, END3, Dude, from years ago.  I'm holding to the Christian version...

 

You said bad things to me just a few days ago when you knew I didn't know who you were, but now you want a big reveal?

Is that the Christian version of anything? 

 

Good to see you old friend. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Walter forgive him, for he drives a Dodge pickup and knows not what he do.....

 

 

Just trying to decide whch route to take with it.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter,

 

Does that even make sense?  In context I would say no it doesn't. 

 

I was going to say that you were "triggered" or that you were stalking me, or something similar. Now I see that you about to go on a vacation of some sort and will be absent from the forum "for a while" and I have to say it helps, but only if you have an open mind. 

 

I believe that you are sincere, internet sparring partner, but I wouldn't base my faith on it.

 

Just something to chew on. I'm sorry that I didn't say it sooner, but I said it as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Then let me explain, Duderonomy.

 

When you read my 'manifesto' you said that I protested to much.  

When I failed to read your answers to the questions put to you I said that you answer too little.

That is the context of my words.  You still haven't answered the questions put to you by alreadyGone and myself.

 

I'm off on vacation after I log off and if I see no answers upon my return I'll have to let the matter drop.

 

And also conclude that you have no answers and no genuine reasons for what you wrote.

 

Bye!

[duderonomy]

OK, what am I to make of this?

 

Walter, if you were sure of yourself and what you assert, would you have to wrestle and grapple and jockey for position with me like you have been?

Why is it so important to you that I answer your arbitrary questions on your imaginary timetable? What's the big deal to you if I say my piece and you don't agree?

 

I said as a response to the OP that belief comes and goes but faith is a knowing. That's it. I don't have to define every word.

I know lefty libs want to redefine words to suit what they want them to mean but I'm old school and I meant what I said. 

 

If you don't agree, you don't have to fire back and you don't have to try to set me straight. You can if you want to of course, but why? 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 8/1/2022 at 10:47 PM, duderonomy said:

 

belief comes and goes but faith is a knowing. That's it.

 

So, if faith changes, the knowing changes??  

[walterpthefirst]

On 8/2/2022 at 3:47 AM, duderonomy said:

OK, what am I to make of this?

 

Walter, if you were sure of yourself and what you assert, would you have to wrestle and grapple and jockey for position with me like you have been?

Why is it so important to you that I answer your arbitrary questions on your imaginary timetable? What's the big deal to you if I say my piece and you don't agree?

 

I said as a response to the OP that belief comes and goes but faith is a knowing. That's it. I don't have to define every word.

I know lefty libs want to redefine words to suit what they want them to mean but I'm old school and I meant what I said. 

 

If you don't agree, you don't have to fire back and you don't have to try to set me straight. You can if you want to of course, but why? 

 

What are you to make of this Duderonomy?

 

Well, whatever you like. 

 

Being good to my word I'm letting the issue of unanswered questions drop.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

21 hours ago, Weezer said:

So, if faith changes, the knowing changes??  

 

Why do you ask? Don't you have faith in what you know?

-or-

I don't believe so (see what I did there?).

-or-

No, the knowing would change first, and if you believed in the changes, you would have faith in what you know.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Why do you ask? Don't you have faith in what you know?

-or-

I don't believe so (see what I did there?).

-or-

No, the knowing would change first, and if you believed in the changes, you would have faith in what you know.

 

 

 

Very interesting actually… that maybe our beliefs are solution driven… and specifically in a polar fashion… towards life on one end and less life on the other.  

[duderonomy]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What are you to make of this Duderonomy?

 

Well, whatever you like. 

 

Being good to my word I'm letting the issue of unanswered questions drop.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

No sir, thank you!

 

I was tired of hearing about your unanswered questions. Especially the ones I addressed and you didn't like my answers.

 

 

[midniterider]

If I gained some scientific knowledge about something, then years later some new theory replaced that knowledge, was the old knowledge really knowledge at all? Or was the old knowledge just an unfounded faith in something that wasn't true? 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

If I gained some scientific knowledge about something, then years later some new theory replaced that knowledge, was the old knowledge really knowledge at all? Or was the old knowledge just an unfounded faith in something that wasn't true? 

 

 

 

But should you have had 'faith' in the original theory in the first place, midniterider?

 

Or in the new theory that replaced it or in any scientific theory?

 

Given that all empirical science is tentative and never absolute?

 

This being the fundamental difference between mathematics, which deals in absolutes that can be proven and are never replaced and the empirical sciences, which never deal in absolutes, which are never proven and are always open to being replaced.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

No sir, thank you!

 

I was tired of hearing about your unanswered questions. Especially the ones I addressed and you didn't like my answers.

 

 

 

Thank you, Duderonomy.  

[midniterider]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But should you have had 'faith' in the original theory in the first place, midniterider?

 

Or in the new theory that replaced it or in any scientific theory?

 

Given that all empirical science is tentative and never absolute?

 

This being the fundamental difference between mathematics, which deals in absolutes that can be proven and are never replaced and the empirical sciences, which never deal in absolutes, which are never proven and are always open to being replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of "unfounded faith" let me replace that with "unfounded confidence". 

 

Is knowledge really knowledge if it turns out to be wrong later on?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

47 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Instead of "unfounded faith" let me replace that with "unfounded confidence". 

 

Is knowledge really knowledge if it turns out to be wrong later on?

 

 

Why not just substitute grace for uncertainty.  If you can't predict a percentage of an interpersonal relationship and screw someone's feelings over, then grace is the word.  If you can't adequately predict a scientific outcome then we have less certainty.  Same objective reality, different vernacular.  Unless of course, God planted a soul in the midst....  

 

If I'm not wrong, there is an old thought in science about doing one to many replications of your experiment and screwing your data over.... so yeah.

[walterpthefirst]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Why not just substitute grace for uncertainty.  If you can't predict a percentage of an interpersonal relationship and screw someone's feelings over, then grace is the word.  If you can't adequately predict a scientific outcome then we have less certainty.  Same objective reality, different vernacular.  Unless of course, God planted a soul in the midst....  

 

If I'm not wrong, there is an old thought in science about doing one to many replications of your experiment and screwing your data over.... so yeah.

 

Well, why?

 

Why substitute something with something else on the basis of 'ifs'?

 

? 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Instead of "unfounded faith" let me replace that with "unfounded confidence". 

 

Is knowledge really knowledge if it turns out to be wrong later on?

 

 

 

I'd say no, Midniterider.

 

The current mismatch between quantum mechanics and general relativity tells us that we do not currently have a 'Theory of Everything'.  One that explains the physics of the universe, from the biggest to the smallest scales.

 

Yet, using QM on its own gives astoundingly accurate results.  As does using GR on its own.  Both QM and GR give us reliable knowledge about the universe.

 

Perhaps the trick is to just accept that all such knowledge is provisional and tentative.  That way, whatever confidence we place in it is also acknowledged to be provisional and tentative.   

 

The handy side effect of doing this is that we never fool ourselves into believing that we have absolute knowledge and therefore absolute confidence.  Given the flawed and fumbling nature of the human condition, I'd submit that this is probably the best we can do.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.