Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Faith Must Have Its Doubts

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 10:24:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The reason for disagreement should not be for its own sake. The goal of not agreeing with someone else should be to provide another perspective, another vantage point, on the consideration of a commonly held phenomenon. In considering each point of view, the debater's argument in order to develop must take on that with which he, or she, disagrees; in other words, the debater must consider all sides of an argument in order to honestly refute it. It is with an honest appreciation for contrasting views one's beliefs begin to take shape.

Beliefs that are not brought into doubt or beliefs free from questioning are not beliefs, at all. Any belief that is so unstable it dares not subject itself to scrutiny has very little assurance. The belief that can stand in the face of doubt, like gold before the refiner's fire withstanding the burning away of impurities, is that which is a sincere and an honest belief. Sincere beliefs are never left alone; they are found with much doubt and questioning. They evolve and change, leaving behind those things once held with confidence, only, to fall away as other beliefs proved stronger.

Every thesis is the synthesis of a former thesis with its antithesis. Everything is defined by that which it is not.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?

I think a belief in nothing would lead to psychological instability. The personality needs something on which to anchor.
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 7:32:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?

I think a belief in nothing would lead to psychological instability. The personality needs something on which to anchor.

Beliefs and faiths represent a type of mental activity that produces an unnecessary and dangerous false sense of trust and wrongful information (thinking coupled with the feeling of 'truth'). Faith rarely agrees with the world around us. History has shown that beliefs and faith, of the most intransigent kind, have served as the trigger for tragic violence and destruction and sustained the ignorance of people. Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.

Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.
janesix
Posts: 3,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 8:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 7:32:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?

I think a belief in nothing would lead to psychological instability. The personality needs something on which to anchor.

I agree. Most people dont understand human nature, or they would see this.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 11:21:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 7:32:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?

I think a belief in nothing would lead to psychological instability. The personality needs something on which to anchor.

It is difficult to go through life without some assumptions which must be accepted axiomatically (I am not in the matrix) in order to function in this world. However, I don't see that belief in a deity is one of those. I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at, but I wanted to be clear as to how far my agreement goes.

I respect what you are getting at in the OP. Doubt is a trait of a reasonable person, IMO.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 11:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 10:24:46 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The reason for disagreement should not be for its own sake.
Surely that's tautologous, Anthony. You're just saying that circular reasons aren't real reasons.

The goal of not agreeing with someone else should be to provide another perspective, another vantage point, on the consideration of a commonly held phenomenon.
This is a productive use of disagreement, but doesn't follow from your first.

Exploration is a possible goal of disagreement, but other goals might be to test rigour, conviction or motive. Rather dishonestly, some people also feign disagreement to gain exposure for an unrelated matter. Furthermore, in this forum are a small number of posters who'll disagree solely to provide excuse to insult, humiliate or wound. Such people don't really care about the topic or its resolution.

In considering each point of view, the debater's argument in order to develop must take on that with which he, or she, disagrees
Presupposing intent, trust, respect and a common regard for truth and integrity -- which cannot always be assumed.

; in other words, the debater must consider all sides of an argument in order to honestly refute it. It is with an honest appreciation for contrasting views one's beliefs begin to take shape.
Presupposing that the principle reasons for disagreement are to explore and learn. Many people do not disagree for this purpose, or principally for this purpose.

Beliefs that are not brought into doubt or beliefs free from questioning are not beliefs, at all.
This isn't supported by anything you've previously written. A belief can be recognised as an idea you act on. There are many such ideas that people don't question.

The belief that can stand in the face of doubt, like gold before the refiner's fire withstanding the burning away of impurities, is that which is a sincere and an honest belief.
The history of Christian apologetics is full of weak and unrigorous testing of undemonstrable beliefs: people who pretend to be self-doubt, only to evade the full scrutiny of skepticism. Such pseudo-testing creates watered-down, strawman controversies resolved by rhetorical devices framed in closed-world assumptions whose principle outcome is to persuade the persuaded of already-accepted dogma. Here's a random example, but you can find countless others: [https://carm.org...]

They evolve and change, leaving behind those things once held with confidence, only, to fall away as other beliefs proved stronger.
When tested, delusions seek more elaborate rationalisations. Such testing doesn't actually produce better quality insight because the criteria for recognising truth and the methods for realising it are constantly shifting to avoid the risk of falsification.

An effective way to avoid this is to lock down falsification criteria to specific, evidentiary, transparent observations reviewed independently of one's own biases.

Doubt is simply emotional -- one can doubt over nothing, or dismiss doubt through rationalisation. But rigorous falsification is more accountable and constructive than doubt. It sets up a contract with one's own integrity, saying: "I'll know I'm wrong if the following reasonable things occur."

Every thesis is the synthesis of a former thesis with its antithesis.
I don't personally believe that every thesis is best represented as a synthesis of dualities. If you're describing ontology in dualities at all then that's simply one class of analysis. Many people choose to work that way, but that doesn't make it the best or only way to work.

Everything is defined by that which it is not.
That's a reasonable position to take, but if you take it, then certain intuitive ideas -- such as the universe -- cannot be defined, while even fundamental ideas like mass and energy can become contentious.

Moreover the definition of certain nebulous notions -- spirit, gods -- can depend so heavily on what they're not that they evade all accountability for what they are.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 5:56:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 10:24:46 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The reason for disagreement should not be for its own sake. The goal of not agreeing with someone else should be to provide another perspective, another vantage point, on the consideration of a commonly held phenomenon. In considering each point of view, the debater's argument in order to develop must take on that with which he, or she, disagrees; in other words, the debater must consider all sides of an argument in order to honestly refute it. It is with an honest appreciation for contrasting views one's beliefs begin to take shape.

Beliefs that are not brought into doubt or beliefs free from questioning are not beliefs, at all. Any belief that is so unstable it dares not subject itself to scrutiny has very little assurance. The belief that can stand in the face of doubt, like gold before the refiner's fire withstanding the burning away of impurities, is that which is a sincere and an honest belief. Sincere beliefs are never left alone; they are found with much doubt and questioning. They evolve and change, leaving behind those things once held with confidence, only, to fall away as other beliefs proved stronger.

Every thesis is the synthesis of a former thesis with its antithesis. Everything is defined by that which it is not.

Spoken like a true CalculusTurd.

So when you define something by figuring out ALL that it is not, which happens to take an ETERNITY, what happens when you find out that what you thought something was, it is not?

Answer: You have a new Truth/Thesis.

So then, what was the old Thesis?

Answer: A Mistruth calling itself the Truth.

Thus, your so called Thesis can be the Truth or Mistruth, thus, your argument fails.

"Everything's a Boojum." - Louis Carroll (see: Hunting of the Snark)

Ribbit :)

Ps: Faith is for fools. ;)

"Faith replaces knowledge/truth, when ignorant of the truth, forming an even greater ignorance." - Old Toad Proverb
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I wonder if they have doubts why then they keep adhering their religion.

I believe religion speaks of things much deeper than the fundamentalist considers.

I believe the fundamentalist idolizes the archetypes and motifs. The fundamentalist limits one's understanding to concrete objects; he, or she, fails to see the nuances and particularities that only vary by degree, nuances and particularities showing things as confluent and not merely separated in space and time.

It is this fragmented view that puts the fundamentalist at odds with one's neighbors; it is this fragmented view that destabilizes and makes volatile one's personality. The fundamentalist is not contentious because he, or she, holds one's beliefs with deep conviction but because the fundamentalist believes with the slightest bit of scrutiny his, or her, house of cards will come tumbling down.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 3:11:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Noted.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 3:25:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 10:24:46 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The reason for disagreement should not be for its own sake. The goal of not agreeing with someone else should be to provide another perspective, another vantage point, on the consideration of a commonly held phenomenon. In considering each point of view, the debater's argument in order to develop must take on that with which he, or she, disagrees; in other words, the debater must consider all sides of an argument in order to honestly refute it. It is with an honest appreciation for contrasting views one's beliefs begin to take shape.

Beliefs that are not brought into doubt or beliefs free from questioning are not beliefs, at all. Any belief that is so unstable it dares not subject itself to scrutiny has very little assurance. The belief that can stand in the face of doubt, like gold before the refiner's fire withstanding the burning away of impurities, is that which is a sincere and an honest belief. Sincere beliefs are never left alone; they are found with much doubt and questioning. They evolve and change, leaving behind those things once held with confidence, only, to fall away as other beliefs proved stronger.

Every thesis is the synthesis of a former thesis with its antithesis. Everything is defined by that which it is not.

Na, debating is similar to chess, the better man wins, not necessarily the better cause. And the Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is, and is what one believes, the Truth? And two, once hearing or coming into contact with what is the Truth, does one really believe, or even value the Truth in order to continue to believe the Truth, even tough one has come to know the Truth? Therefore what is the verification that one knows the Truth?

If one is a parent, and one"s child is being deceived to it"s own detriment, what would one do to the deceiver given the opportunity to do so? One might rip his heart out and show it to him before he died. So to justify deceiving is a game of self delusion. Granted "iron sharpeneth iron" but it"s a believer that makes the other believer stronger, not "mud shapeneth iron", not a non-believer makes a believer stronger. It"s a successful soldier that teaches the untrained to do well, not the objector that refuses to be a soldier.

And a apple tree is defined by the fruit it bares, not by the lack of apple trees around it, or a hostile environment. It's still an apple tree.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 11:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Beliefs and faiths represent a type of mental activity that produces an unnecessary and dangerous false sense of trust and wrongful information (thinking coupled with the feeling of 'truth'). Faith rarely agrees with the world around us. History has shown that beliefs and faith, of the most intransigent kind, have served as the trigger for tragic violence and destruction and sustained the ignorance of people. Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.

Belief, and faith, is essential to having confidence, or assurance, in oneself and the world. A lack of belief leaves one feeling insecure, and insecurity causes feelings of anxiety. Believing something for the mere sake of sentimentality will naturally lose any sense of assurance as the tradition fades into obscurity. The traditionalist who refuses to evolve with the collective will soon become incoherent and incompatible with one's culture.

Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.

Belief is partly based on that which is evidential and that which is not. It is a bridge between doubt and assurance. Without the mediation of faith, confidence is not achievable. Nothing is immediately found evidential; all new propositions must be questioned; nothing is ever taken at face value. It requires some degree of faith to move from doubt to assurance.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 12:09:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 8:53:12 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/2/2015 7:32:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?

I think a belief in nothing would lead to psychological instability. The personality needs something on which to anchor.

I agree. Most people don't understand human nature, or they would see this.

I agree.

Most people see doubt as a sign of weakness and confidence as a sign of strength, but I don't believe you can be sure of anything without first scrutinizing it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 5:29:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is difficult to go through life without some assumptions which must be accepted axiomatically (I am not in the matrix) in order to function in this world. However, I don't see that belief in a deity is one of those. I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at, but I wanted to be clear as to how far my agreement goes.

I don't believe a belief in any one thing is essential to a stable personality.

I believe belief is that which allows us to move from doubt to assurance. It is our ability to find confidence in the midst of doubt that gives us hope. If we had belief in nothing, meaning an inability to transcend doubt, life would be hopeless.

That which you choose to put your faith in holds significance to you.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 6:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So when you define something by figuring out ALL that it is not, which happens to take an ETERNITY, what happens when you find out that what you thought something was, it is not?

I don't believe we will ever know, exhaustively, all that something is.

If you believe something to be one thing, only, to find out later it is not, you're misinformed. With a more complete understanding of that which it isn't, the distortion fades. As long as you have a finite knowledge of things, there will continue to be misinformation.

Answer: You have a new Truth/Thesis.

So then, what was the old Thesis?

Answer: A Mistruth calling itself the Truth.

The old truth was not absolutely false. For instance, yesterday, I drove up to a deli, thinking it was a doughnut shop. It is true the deli was not a doughnut shop; however, that truth was realized by discovering that which the deli wasn't. Everything the shop was made up my idea about it being a doughnut shop, except the fact it did not make or sell doughnuts. If the shop did not exist, I would have no reason to believe it was a doughnut shop. Falsehood does not arise from nothing; it arises from an incomplete understanding of that which already exists; in other words, you can't have falsehood in the absence of truth. A new truth is formed as we realize that which an old truth wasn't.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 8:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 11:09:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Beliefs and faiths represent a type of mental activity that produces an unnecessary and dangerous false sense of trust and wrongful information (thinking coupled with the feeling of 'truth'). Faith rarely agrees with the world around us. History has shown that beliefs and faith, of the most intransigent kind, have served as the trigger for tragic violence and destruction and sustained the ignorance of people. Replacing beliefs with predictive thoughts based on experience and evidence provide a means to eliminate intransigence and dangerous superstitious thought.

Belief, and faith, is essential to having confidence, or assurance, in oneself and the world. A lack of belief leaves one feeling insecure, and insecurity causes feelings of anxiety. Believing something for the mere sake of sentimentality will naturally lose any sense of assurance as the tradition fades into obscurity. The traditionalist who refuses to evolve with the collective will soon become incoherent and incompatible with one's culture.

Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with evidence, then it simply cannot have any validity to the outside world. All things we know about the world, we can express without referring to a belief. Even at its most benign level, beliefs can act as barriers to further understanding.

Belief is partly based on that which is evidential and that which is not. It is a bridge between doubt and assurance. Without the mediation of faith, confidence is not achievable. Nothing is immediately found evidential; all new propositions must be questioned; nothing is ever taken at face value. It requires some degree of faith to move from doubt to assurance.

"Faith is to Common Sense what Death is to Life, because Faith will always eventually birth Doubt, which will then kill your Faith, resulting in Purgatory, whereas Common Sense only births Logic and Logic has never killed anything but the Mistruth, resulting in Perfection." - Old Toad Proverb

You should read my 9 Deadly Sins thread and use it as a guide to help you to remove the Law of One from your thinking. It's only leading you astray because the OP is correct. Faith ALWAYS leads to DOUBT and while Doubt is necessary to bring about the Question, when Faith is the SourCe, the Question won't be asked because the answer could destroy your Faith.

So Common Sense over Faith is the ONLY answer to uncovering the Truth, which creates a Dynamic System. Faith is only good for creating a Static System, which sources Stagnation, which always ends in Death.

You kNeeD to read my 9 Deadly Sins thread:

http://www.debate.org...

"Everything should be made as simple as possible but not beyond necessity." - Old Toad Proverb (aka: Open System Law of Simplicity)

Ribbit :)
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 11:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Na, debating is similar to chess, the better man wins, not necessarily the better cause. And the Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is, and is what one believes, the Truth? And two, once hearing or coming into contact with what is the Truth, does one really believe, or even value the Truth in order to continue to believe the Truth, even tough one has come to know the Truth? Therefore what is the verification that one knows the Truth?

Like you said no one has a monopoly on the truth. In other words, it belongs to no one, yet transcends everyone.

So, if you believe you've won a debate, what is your claim? You may say you won the debate by claiming you hold the truth and your opponent does not. The moment you believe you hold the truth and your opponent does not you've come to the conclusion your opponent has nothing to offer. Thinking your opponent has nothing to offer, you've made concrete that which should be abstract, you've created stagnation out of that which should be fluent.

The truth is objective, concrete, and impartial only as it is absolute; a truth can only be absolute as it is known absolutely, and it can only be known absolutely as it is known exhaustively, meaning you must know everything there is to know about something before claiming to know it absolutely.

What do you know absolutely about something, from its smallest elemental particle to its greatest impact on the world?

To say you know something absolutely is having the capacity to predict it completely. Knowing something absolutely means knowing it not only as a static object but also as a dynamic phenomenon.

If one is a parent, and one"s child is being deceived to it"s own detriment, what would one do to the deceiver given the opportunity to do so? One might rip his heart out and show it to him before he died. So to justify deceiving is a game of self delusion.

No one is justifying delusion. Delusion is believing you know something completely.

Granted "iron sharpeneth iron" but it"s a believer that makes the other believer stronger, not "mud shapeneth iron", not a non-believer makes a believer stronger. It"s a successful soldier that teaches the untrained to do well, not the objector that refuses to be a soldier.

No one has a monopoly on the truth. Refusing to question that which you believe and surrounding yourself with only those who agree with you is a perfect recipe for confirmation bias, which leads to close-mindedness and tunnel vision.

And a apple tree is defined by the fruit it bares, not by the lack of apple trees around it, or a hostile environment. It's still an apple tree.

An apple tree is not an orange tree. If you can't tell me that which something is not, then, you can't tell me that which something is. Because, in telling me that which something is, you are in effect telling me that which it is not.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 2:37:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 6:11:55 PM, uncung wrote:
I wonder if they have doubts why then they keep adhering their religion.

Many do but they are incapable of discernment. Their fear drives their blind obedience to which ever faith they follow. They have given up looking for the truth, which is a forever on going quest. They are lazy.
Toad-Uoff
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 2:45:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 2:37:43 AM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 12/2/2015 6:11:55 PM, uncung wrote:
I wonder if they have doubts why then they keep adhering their religion.

Many do but they are incapable of discernment. Their fear drives their blind obedience to which ever faith they follow. They have given up looking for the truth, which is a forever on going quest. They are lazy.

Amen!

"Faith replaces Logic when Ignorance rules the Roost, then that Ignorance based Faith supplants Common Sense with Duality Perception sourced Morals, to then form the most perfect closed minded idiot possible, also known as a sheeple." - Old Toad Proverb (aka: Law of Fools)

Ribbit :)