Belief, choice and education

1356

Comments

  • Or takes one away.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    But no one can observe God now in any way, nor could they in past times.

    How do you know this? Many claimed to have. What makes you so sure they are wrong?

    Right or wrong, true or false, if it is not reproducible, it doesn't exist for anybody else.

    There are so many things in life that are not reproducible, but very real. This is an overstringent qualification. Not everything is reducible to science. To think so is a philosophical, not a scientific, conclusion and as such is not .... reproducible.

    I didn't say it wasn't real. If one person experiences it, it's most certainly real to them and it could very well be "real" in the broader sense. However, what makes the irreproducible real for other people is faith.




  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.

  • Are we conflating religion and faith/spirituality?

    To me, faith/spirituality is something you arrive at and it's unique to the individual. Religion is an existing structure created by others which the individual joins.

    Religion is what you get when a lot of people get together and do faith/spirituality together. Humans are a communal/social species. If faith/spirituality is inherent in our species, then so is religion.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    Science and Religion are certainly not equivalent. It is their differences that make them useful together. From Jonathan Sacks’ book The Great Partnership, pages 6-7:

    “Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. Science sees objects. Religion speaks to us as subjects. Science practices detachment. Religion is the art of attachment, self to self, soul to soul. Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude. ”

    His excellent book offers an argument for both science and religion, rather than trying to argue for the triumph of one over the other.
    I do not agree with his descriptions.

  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    So you must be dealing with pride, given your last word.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    ECraigR wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    So you must be dealing with pride, given your last word.
    Reality? God is not reality. Pick a god and they might be real, that is not the same thing. Certainly not the usage LC appears to be going for.
    Essentially I am saying no one knows, which is not a prideful position.*

    *I've plenty of pride, likely even misplaced pride. But nothing in what I said reflects that.
  • To me, God is as real as the computer I'm using. Saying so is allowed, without my being accused of pride. It is simply the truth as I see it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Cameron wrote: »
    Science and Religion are certainly not equivalent. It is their differences that make them useful together. From Jonathan Sacks’ book The Great Partnership, pages 6-7:

    “Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. Science sees objects. Religion speaks to us as subjects. Science practices detachment. Religion is the art of attachment, self to self, soul to soul. Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude. ”

    His excellent book offers an argument for both science and religion, rather than trying to argue for the triumph of one over the other.
    I do not agree with his descriptions.
    Even if I agreed with part of his descriptions, I would not accept them as a whole since he is a senior cleric in his religion and has a firm belief in the Abrahamnic God.
    I

  • Had to go out to collect repaired hearing aid - so I'm sorry I've missed edit.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To me, God is as real as the computer I'm using. Saying so is allowed, without my being accused of pride. It is simply the truth as I see it.
    Truth is a plastic word, but substituting it for the more accurate word belief stretches it to the breaking point. Positing it sits equal with things demonstrable snaps it clean.
  • Truth is practically a non-term. To say that Venusian mermaids are the truth is meaningless. I'd prefer to be told how I can observe them.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    I haven't a clue how you got--whatever you're arguing against--out of what I wrote. Read more carefully next time. The first HUGE clue should have been when I lowercased "god" twice, which should tell you I'm not putting forth some argument about which is the true God. The second clue should have been the common gender-neutral "their", used ungrammatically by a grammar purist(ish)--which again should have told you something, when "he/his/him" was so near at hand. Finally we get a true plural in the second-to-last sentence, and if nothing else, that should have told you that I was addressing the general class of objects known as gods, as opposed to whatever randomness you thought I was addressing.

    My point was simple. Having a god--any freaking god--tends to cramp one's personal freedom. Gods of any religion tend to be interferers. Witness Zeus, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and his strange touchy-ness with those noodly appendages), gods in general. That's all.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Cameron wrote: »
    Science and Religion are certainly not equivalent. It is their differences that make them useful together. From Jonathan Sacks’ book The Great Partnership, pages 6-7:

    “Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. Science sees objects. Religion speaks to us as subjects. Science practices detachment. Religion is the art of attachment, self to self, soul to soul. Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude. ”

    His excellent book offers an argument for both science and religion, rather than trying to argue for the triumph of one over the other.
    I do not agree with his descriptions.
    Even if I agreed with part of his descriptions, I would not accept them as a whole since he is a senior cleric in his religion and has a firm belief in the Abrahamnic God.
    I

    I see. If someone has a belief in God you will dismiss what they write. That makes discussion with you rather futile for some of us here. That is disappointing.

    But you go further. You would not accept Lord Sacks’ comments: not because of what he says, but because he is a Rabbi. I was so angry, appalled and upset by this that I kept flipping between here and considering posting on the Hell board. But then I remembered hearing a speech that answered the underlying problem, which helped me get beyond that reaction of anger.

    It is from Lord Sacks.

    I beseech you, for the sake of your humanity, to listen to it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    To me, God is as real as the computer I'm using. Saying so is allowed, without my being accused of pride. It is simply the truth as I see it.
    Truth is a plastic word, but substituting it for the more accurate word belief stretches it to the breaking point. Positing it sits equal with things demonstrable snaps it clean.
    Truth is practically a non-term. To say that Venusian mermaids are the truth is meaningless. I'd prefer to be told how I can observe them.

    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly, but we can all use it and convey sense by using it. I do agree that confusing it with belief is wrong, as well as opposing any uncritical acceptance of the concept. But from the observation that truth is difficult to define it does not follow that it is useless, or a non-term, whatever that means.
  • Please, no weeping, this forum demands self-discipline and iron fortitude.
  • Hey, Churchill was a blubberer and he at least had the latter quality.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.

    Well done! You successfully identified one aspect of one philosopher’s theory of truth! There are, of course, several other theories of truth.

    Furthermore, Tarski’s theory is restricted to formal languages. If you’d like to go into natural languages and semantics then you’re just being a deflationist, probably, and then you have all of the baggage and rebuttals to that.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.
    I feel this is just pushing the air bubble to under another part of the wallpaper.

    The standard objection in the literature is that, statements like 'You should tell the truth,' or 'A lie is saying something that you know isn't true,' are meaningful, and 'true' and 'truth' are not obviously redundant.
    The response that I've seen by theorists who think Tarski's schema explains 'truth' in natural language is to say that 'A lie is saying something that you know isn't true' is short for the infinite series, 'A lie is saying 'penguins don't waddle' when penguins waddle or saying penguins are green when you know penguins aren't green or etc.'

    (Warning: excluding the bit in brackets, the following are merely my arguments on the subject, which have not been tested on any professional philosopher.)
    But there is no way that I can see of finitely constructing the infinite series in question without the concept of truth.
    For example, any explanation of why "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining, as opposed to if and only if it is not snowing, is going to involve appealing to the meaning of the sentence, 'it is raining', and I don't think one can adequately explain the meaning of the sentence 'it is raining' without some implicit appeal to the fact that it is a sentence that is true if and only if it is raining.
    (Basically there are a whole family of concepts to do with meaning, justification, and so on; it looks like one can explain any single one of them, such as truth, in terms of the others; but then all the others depend on that concept for their explanation. None of the concepts are any more primitive or redundant than the rest.)

    Another problem. Meaning is frequently thought to be use. If your car has a puncture and you ask me where you can get a spare tyre, I can say that there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. Now the sentence is a breach of conversational norms in one way if I know that there is in fact not a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. It is also a breach of conversational norms in another way if there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way but I know that the farmhouse has no supply of spare tires. Now it seems to me that one can't distinguish between the two ways of breaching conversational norms unless one has the concept of truth, such that you can say one is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding truth and the other is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding relevance.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.
    I feel this is just pushing the air bubble to under another part of the wallpaper.

    The standard objection in the literature is that, statements like 'You should tell the truth,' or 'A lie is saying something that you know isn't true,' are meaningful, and 'true' and 'truth' are not obviously redundant.
    The response that I've seen by theorists who think Tarski's schema explains 'truth' in natural language is to say that 'A lie is saying something that you know isn't true' is short for the infinite series, 'A lie is saying 'penguins don't waddle' when penguins waddle or saying penguins are green when you know penguins aren't green or etc.'

    (Warning: excluding the bit in brackets, the following are merely my arguments on the subject, which have not been tested on any professional philosopher.)
    But there is no way that I can see of finitely constructing the infinite series in question without the concept of truth.
    For example, any explanation of why "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining, as opposed to if and only if it is not snowing, is going to involve appealing to the meaning of the sentence, 'it is raining', and I don't think one can adequately explain the meaning of the sentence 'it is raining' without some implicit appeal to the fact that it is a sentence that is true if and only if it is raining.
    (Basically there are a whole family of concepts to do with meaning, justification, and so on; it looks like one can explain any single one of them, such as truth, in terms of the others; but then all the others depend on that concept for their explanation. None of the concepts are any more primitive or redundant than the rest.)

    Another problem. Meaning is frequently thought to be use in context. (Tarski himself was explicitly only considering artificial formal language not used in any real context.) If your car has a puncture and you ask me where you can get a spare tyre, I can say that there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. Now the sentence is a breach of conversational norms in one way if I know that there is in fact not a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. It is also a breach of conversational norms in another way if there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way but I know that the farmhouse has no supply of spare tires. Now it seems to me that one can't distinguish between the two ways of breaching conversational norms unless one has the concept of truth, such that you can say one is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding truth and the other is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding relevance.
  • True.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    I haven't a clue how you got--whatever you're arguing against--out of what I wrote. Read more carefully next time. The first HUGE clue should have been when I lowercased "god" twice, which should tell you I'm not putting forth some argument about which is the true God. The second clue should have been the common gender-neutral "their", used ungrammatically by a grammar purist(ish)--which again should have told you something, when "he/his/him" was so near at hand. Finally we get a true plural in the second-to-last sentence, and if nothing else, that should have told you that I was addressing the general class of objects known as gods, as opposed to whatever randomness you thought I was addressing.
    What I read may not have been what you intended, but it is a fairly reasonable inference.
    My point was simple. Having a god--any freaking god--tends to cramp one's personal freedom. Gods of any religion tend to be interferers. Witness Zeus, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and his strange touchy-ness with those noodly appendages), gods in general. That's all.
    That there is an intended constraint, I do not question. But people bend, twist and stretch those constraints, even interpret them differently. Non-theists constructions are not without consequences, even if most do not have an afterlife punishment.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.

    Well done! You successfully identified one aspect of one philosopher’s theory of truth! There are, of course, several other theories of truth.
    In other words, truth pushed into one mould and that there are others. In other words, truth is plastic.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Another problem. Meaning is frequently thought to be use. If your car has a puncture and you ask me where you can get a spare tyre, I can say that there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. Now the sentence is a breach of conversational norms in one way if I know that there is in fact not a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way. It is also a breach of conversational norms in another way if there is a farmhouse ten minutes walk that way but I know that the farmhouse has no supply of spare tires. Now it seems to me that one can't distinguish between the two ways of breaching conversational norms unless one has the concept of truth, such that you can say one is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding truth and the other is a way of covertly breaching the norm regarding relevance.
    Sharing a particular definition of a word is part of reasonably accurate communication.
    The usage you describe here is meaningful in its context.
    Truth as in belief has meaning, I suppose, but belief is much more clear and accurate. Calling one's belief truth is to create more that exists.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.

    Well done! You successfully identified one aspect of one philosopher’s theory of truth! There are, of course, several other theories of truth.
    In other words, truth pushed into one mould and that there are others. In other words, truth is plastic.

    Right, so arguments over a precise definition of a term mean that the term is “plastic?” And does this plasticity mean that the term is useless?

    If you’re suggesting that a concept’s content must be universally agreed upon for it to contain meaning and be useable then you’re proposing an insanely high bar for any term or concept to clear, and we can give up the ghost for all of our cherished concepts. This is the logic that leads to suggesting a concept isn’t real because it has no single, universally agreed on meaning. I presume you don’t want to go there.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.

    Well done! You successfully identified one aspect of one philosopher’s theory of truth! There are, of course, several other theories of truth.
    In other words, truth pushed into one mould and that there are others. In other words, truth is plastic.

    Or the word "truth" has multiple entries in the dictionary.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Philosophers everywhere are weeping at these statements. I suggest beginning with this.

    Meh.
    “Truth” is neither plastic nor a non-term. It’s highly complex, certainly,

    Tarski, a philosopher, made it very simple.
    Alfred Tarski wrote:

    "It is raining" is true if and only if it is raining.

    "True" and by inference "truth" adds nothing.

    Well done! You successfully identified one aspect of one philosopher’s theory of truth! There are, of course, several other theories of truth.
    In other words, truth pushed into one mould and that there are others. In other words, truth is plastic.

    Right, so arguments over a precise definition of a term mean that the term is “plastic?” And does this plasticity mean that the term is useless?

    If you’re suggesting that a concept’s content must be universally agreed upon for it to contain meaning and be useable then you’re proposing an insanely high bar for any term or concept to clear, and we can give up the ghost for all of our cherished concepts. This is the logic that leads to suggesting a concept isn’t real because it has no single, universally agreed on meaning. I presume you don’t want to go there.
    I am not suggesting that a word can only have one, precise definition. Truth is plastic because the definitions vary; because when one moves beyond truth meaning veracity, there is rarely a rigid line between definitions and meaning.
    What I am saying specifically in regards to Raptors Eye's use is that substituting truth for belief is at least less than ideal and often misleading.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    substituting truth for belief is at least less than ideal and often misleading.

    When Mousethief said "true", did he mean something other than "I believe that what you say is true" ?

    And if he did mean that, did he "substitute truth for belief" by using the word "true" and not the word "believe" in his answer ?

    Was his (commendably short) post misleading ?

    Or are you entirely happy to accept that saying "true" is an expression of belief, until the conversation turns to religion ?
  • 'The truth as I see it' is the same as 'I believe this is true'.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    'The truth as I see it' is the same as 'I believe this is true'.

    ...is the same as, I believe this.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    'The truth as I see it' is the same as 'I believe this is true'.

    ...is the same as, I believe this.

    True. :wink:
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    'The truth as I see it' is the same as 'I believe this is true'.

    ...is the same as, I believe this.

    True. :wink:
    I believe this is more accurate. And, since the OP references how we teach children, more honest.
    Belief is the bare, pine board. Truth is the oak stain, hiding the humble origin.
  • It's the other way around, surely? Truth is the ultimate reality. Belief is the quest in search of it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    'The truth as I see it' is the same as 'I believe this is true'.

    ...is the same as, I believe this.

    True. :wink:
    I believe this is more accurate. And, since the OP references how we teach children, more honest.
    Belief is the bare, pine board. Truth is the oak stain, hiding the humble origin.

    Yes, I think the idea of truth appears to add weight to some beliefs, but it's a con-trick.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    You only believe something if you take it to be true. Using belief as shorthand for true may be inaccurate and sloppy, but no one believes something they regard as false as that would defeat the purpose of regarding it as worthy of assertion and believability.
  • Rublev wrote: »
    It's the other way around, surely? Truth is the ultimate reality. Belief is the quest in search of it.
    Not even close. Belief exists from indoctrination. From laziness, from bias, etc. Only occasionally does it exist from any quest for truth. And some of those quests are too flawed from the start, so are disqualified.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    ECraigR wrote: »
    You only believe something if you take it to be true. Using belief as shorthand for true may be inaccurate and sloppy, but no one believes something they regard as false as that would defeat the purpose of regarding it as worthy of assertion and believability.
    Um, yeah, but you miss the point.
    I believe this = a greater acknowledgement of the uncertainty. THe way we word things matters as it speaks to intent and which gradation of value and meaning we are trying to impart.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    'Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no place'

    Zhuangzi on the Tao.

    Linear logic can only take you so far in the search for ultimate truth, which is known by revelation.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Perhaps the common usage of 'spirituality' to mean putting candles around the bath hasn't helped, nor the common usage of religion to mean a strict straitjacket rather than a helpful way.

    Ah, I'm actually rather in favour of the candles-round-the-bath approach to spirituality. It's part of the reason I chose to live in Glastonbury.

    The trouble I have with most religions is the god element. I'm happier with spirituality that doesn't have a god.

    I don't blame you. Admit a god onto the stage--a real god, with wishes and actions and ideas of their own--and you've got trouble. Because they're apt to interfere with what you want. Better to stick with inanimate objects, or controllable forces.
    What real God? What interference? For every instance that the God of Abraham interfered, there are instances of Vishnu interfering. There is no more proof for the Christian God than there is animism and no less proof of animism than the Christian God.
    Believe one is correct and the others not, that is fine. As soon as one starts throwing around real and true, one is dealing with pride and not reality.

    I haven't a clue how you got--whatever you're arguing against--out of what I wrote. Read more carefully next time. The first HUGE clue should have been when I lowercased "god" twice, which should tell you I'm not putting forth some argument about which is the true God. The second clue should have been the common gender-neutral "their", used ungrammatically by a grammar purist(ish)--which again should have told you something, when "he/his/him" was so near at hand. Finally we get a true plural in the second-to-last sentence, and if nothing else, that should have told you that I was addressing the general class of objects known as gods, as opposed to whatever randomness you thought I was addressing.
    What I read may not have been what you intended, but it is a fairly reasonable inference.
    My point was simple. Having a god--any freaking god--tends to cramp one's personal freedom. Gods of any religion tend to be interferers. Witness Zeus, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and his strange touchy-ness with those noodly appendages), gods in general. That's all.
    That there is an intended constraint, I do not question. But people bend, twist and stretch those constraints, even interpret them differently. Non-theists constructions are not without consequences, even if most do not have an afterlife punishment.

    Is there some reason why you cannot ever, no never, say "Oh, thanks. I get it now" ?

    Sheesh. I do that at least once a week. Other people do that. You can do it too. Try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the way people react to you.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    You only believe something if you take it to be true. Using belief as shorthand for true may be inaccurate and sloppy, but no one believes something they regard as false as that would defeat the purpose of regarding it as worthy of assertion and believability.
    Um, yeah, but you miss the point.
    I believe this = a greater acknowledgement of the uncertainty. THe way we word things matters as it speaks to intent and which gradation of value and meaning we are trying to impart.

    I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth etc.

    I believe Donald Trump is a racist.

    I believe lilbuddha is mistaken in their analysis.

    Look, no uncertainty with any of those.

  • @lilbuddha

    "Believe" just means "that which I hold to be true." I believe the sun is a mass of incandescent plasma where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees. Not from indoctrination (well a little) or laziness. You, like @SusanDoris, have this idea of dividing human thoughts into belief, which is irrational and the result of indoctrination, and knowledge, which comes from science and stuffs. Just a little reading in epistemology would blow that absurdity out of the water.
  • Thanks, mousethief. You said it more patiently and better than I.
  • Glancing through the comments, I am reminded what Alfred Adler said about truth--only he used the term fiction. He said that everyone has to develop their own personal fiction to navigate through a chaotic world. Over time, though, we learn to keep the fictions that are socially useful.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Glancing through the comments, I am reminded what Alfred Adler said about truth--only he used the term fiction. He said that everyone has to develop their own personal fiction to navigate through a chaotic world. Over time, though, we learn to keep the fictions that are socially useful.

    And if enough people compare notes and share a fiction, they call it "reality."
  • mousethief wrote: »
    @lilbuddha

    "Believe" just means "that which I hold to be true." I believe the sun is a mass of incandescent plasma where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees. Not from indoctrination (well a little) or laziness. You, like @SusanDoris, have this idea of dividing human thoughts into belief, which is irrational and the result of indoctrination, and knowledge, which comes from science and stuffs. Just a little reading in epistemology would blow that absurdity out of the water.
    Positing religion as truth has cased great harm over the millennia. It causes harm now.
    Pretending the phrasing is the same is missing how we communicate.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Glancing through the comments, I am reminded what Alfred Adler said about truth--only he used the term fiction. He said that everyone has to develop their own personal fiction to navigate through a chaotic world. Over time, though, we learn to keep the fictions that are socially useful.
    That is better. Whilst it is superficially the same, ideologically it is very different.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Had to go out to collect repaired hearing aid - so I'm sorry I've missed edit.
    Cameron wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Cameron wrote: »
    Science and Religion are certainly not equivalent. It is their differences that make them useful together. From Jonathan Sacks’ book The Great Partnership, pages 6-7:

    “Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down to their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. Science sees objects. Religion speaks to us as subjects. Science practices detachment. Religion is the art of attachment, self to self, soul to soul. Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude. ”

    His excellent book offers an argument for both science and religion, rather than trying to argue for the triumph of one over the other.
    I do not agree with his descriptions.
    Even if I agreed with part of his descriptions, I would not accept them as a whole since he is a senior cleric in his religion and has a firm belief in the Abrahamnic God.

    I see. If someone has a belief in God you will dismiss what they write. That makes discussion with you rather futile for some of us here. That is disappointing.
    I am sorry you have interpreted my remark about Jonathan Sachs in that way. I was responding to particular comments in a particular post. To take it that that means my comment would cover all posts in all discussions here is not correct.
    But you go further. You would not accept Lord Sacks’ comments: not because of what he says, but because he is a Rabbi. I was so angry, appalled and upset by this that I kept flipping between here and considering posting on the Hell board. But then I remembered hearing a speech that answered the underlying problem, which helped me get beyond that reaction of anger.
    I spoke about Jonathan sachs in particular not because he is a Rabbi, but having heard him speak many times (on radio) for many years, I have found him to be someone with a rather too high opinion of himself who expects deference. That is of course an entirely personal opinion and does not apply to other Rabbis or to his religion in general.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    @lilbuddha

    "Believe" just means "that which I hold to be true." I believe the sun is a mass of incandescent plasma where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees. Not from indoctrination (well a little) or laziness. You, like @SusanDoris, have this idea of dividing human thoughts into belief, which is irrational and the result of indoctrination, and knowledge, which comes from science and stuffs. Just a little reading in epistemology would blow that absurdity out of the water.
    Positing religion as truth has cased great harm over the millennia. It causes harm now.
    Pretending the phrasing is the same is missing how we communicate.
    Clearly that’s what you believe. I think you’re belief is mistaken. If religion hadn’t existed the harm-doers would have found some other justification.
Sign In or Register to comment.