• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Philosophers

A

anti150

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
83
Open mindedly.. spiritually speaking, what is more important.. WHAT you believe in exactly, or just BELIEVEING in SOMETHING whole heartedly?

Is it better to go through life beliving totatly in something.. Or being a skeptic until you die, trying to make better sense of the world?

If that question makes any sense.. I apologize for not being able to word it simpler.
 
Believing in something is by far way more important than the quiddity of belief. How do you make better sense of the world? Believing you are on to something. It can help or hinder your thinking.
 
I never understood why it's so important to just believe in something, anything. If that's the most important thing, you might as well choose your worldview by putting a list of them on a dartboard and chucking darts at it. When you believe one thing you exclude every other possibility and close yourself off. Skepticism is not the same as close-mindedness, in fact often it's the opposite.
 
Skepticism is a belief though. You (before knowing fully) believe something is wrong. In fact science itself is a construction of belief that knowledge is attainable. That is why belief is important. When Richard Dawkins says "science is not a belief" he is completely wrong. 'Faith which is a belief not founded on evidence is the principle vice of any religion' says Dawkins. Well the retort is you have faith you will find Truth through the vice of evidence based tests (after millions of dollars you find you are wrong). That is why belief is important, it works as an emotional drive towards something. Also Dawkins is a perfect example of close-mindedness.
 
believing is futile. it doesnt change anything. what we should be looking for is new ways to experience reality outside of the way we do: mainly with the thinking process
 
Last edited:
Shrooms00087 said:
Skepticism is a belief though. You (before knowing fully) believe something is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not what skepticism is. Skepticism is not disbelief, it's a questioning mindset. It means that instead of believing the first thing you're told, you approach it critically and seek to test its veracity where possible. Being a skeptic doesn't mean, as many people think, disregarding everything that doesn't match your worldview. That's faith.

In fact science itself is a construction of belief that knowledge is attainable.
Click to expand...

A common misperception, and to be fair, that's the way most scientists seem to behave. However, in its purest form, the scientific method actually has nothing to do with being correct. It's about being less wrong. A scientist is aware it's impossible to ever know anything for sure. He sets about designing tests and experiments to come up with the most consistent and useful model possible. If his model proves useful, it stays until somebody comes along with something better. If it was a belief in absolute knowledge, we would still be stuck on Newtonian physics and nobody would have listened to Einstein or Heisenberg (for example). Science is frequently conflated with materialism, even by scientists themselves, but they are not the same thing. Materialism IS a worldview, and a deeply faulty one at that. Science, however, is simply a method, which can be applied across any belief or lack thereof. It's as simple as this:

1. Identify a conundrum.
2. Hypothesise a solution.
3. Propose a test that will determine whether your hypothesis matches the data.
4. Conduct the experiment repeatedly to retain or reject the null hypothesis.
5. Present it to other skeptics to let them pick it apart.

If the experiment works, it's held as the best answer we currently have. Until someone can spot a valid problem, it becomes the leading theory of the day. There is actually a great deal of balance and humility to the method itself. Skepticism is regarded as the highest virtue in that a scientist who has held a belief for 50 years can still admit he's wrong if someone shows him compelling enough evidence.

Of course, sadly the reality is most people fail that rather crucial test when it comes to it, due to being attached to their beliefs, which is an all-too-common human flaw. There's a saying (I forget who said it) that the way to prove your new model is more useful isn't to convince the other side, it's to wait for them to die off.

Also Dawkins is a perfect example of close-mindedness.
Click to expand...

I happen to completely agree.

murphythecat said:
believing is futile. it doesnt change anything. what we should be looking for is new ways to experience reality outside of the way we do: mainly with the thinking process
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
That's not what skepticism is. Skepticism is not disbelief, it's a questioning mindset. It means that instead of believing the first thing you're told, you approach it critically and seek to test its veracity where possible. Being a skeptic doesn't mean, as many people think, disregarding everything that doesn't match your worldview. That's faith.
Click to expand...

Do you believe* in Evolution? Have you poured through the numbers? Or did you come about thinking Evolution was more believable than God magically appearing?

A common misperception, and to be fair, that's the way most scientists seem to behave. However, in its purest form, the scientific method actually has nothing to do with being correct.
Click to expand...

Ah but I didn't say it meant 'to be correct'. I said it's the process of filtration (A belief structure that a hypothesis can have a conclusion). In other and repeating terms: A belief that knowledge can be attainable. Which is ludicrous, maybe there are things we can never know, etc.

*That is also to say do you believe that the scientists structured themselves in a manner that is consistent with your belief of the scientific theory?
 
Last edited:
Ultimately we can't know anything. Absolute knowledge is a self-contradiction. It's true that the best we can do is believe.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it's risen every morning of my life to date.
I have it on everybody else's authority that it also rose every morning as long as the human race has existed.
And I have it on the total consensus of the scientific literature that it's been there for over five billion years.
Do I KNOW it was there over five billion years ago? No, that's a belief.
Do I KNOW it rose throughout al of human history? No, that's just word of mouth.
Do I KNOW it rose every day of my life? No, I'm relying on memory, which is a reimagining of events that aren't occuring right now.
Do I even know the sun exists when I see it in the sky? No. This could all be, and in one sense actually IS, my imagination. (Hey, I've done high-dose shrooms as well.)

Do I know it's going to rise again tomorrow? Inductive skepticism holds that just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen in the future. The analogy they often use is that the chicken 'knows' the farmer collects her eggs every morning... what she doesn't know, however, is that one day, it's Christmas, and the farmer comes not with a bucket, but with an axe.

Not only are there things we can never know, but in fact we can never know anything with total certainty. I don't even know that what I just said was correct. Does 1+1=2? It definitely seems to, but maybe not. We often hold that mathematical proofs are self-evident because they're just complex ways of saying A=A. But it's still part of our perception. Perception does not equal reality; once you perceive and interpret, you can only be a model of reality, with varying degrees of precision. And to use the word 'reality' at all implies there is an 'unreality' of falsehoods versus truths, so simply calling something real or unreal, true or false, creates a duality. Within a dualitistic mindset, objective implies subjective. Without dualism, it is meaningless to say anything is or is not. (That's one aspect of what we call enlightenment.)

So no, I don't think 'true' knowledge is attainable. If that's what the scientific method propogates, I agree it's ludicrous. But it isn't.

In light of this, the thread question was:

anti150 said:
Is it better to go through life beliving totatly in something.. Or being a skeptic until you die, trying to make better sense of the world?
Click to expand...

In other words, is it better to go through life believing totally that 1+1=2, God exists, or evolution occurs? Or, is it better to leave yourself open to question all those things, and try to make better sense of the world? To me, the answer is clearly the latter. It bears mentioning that this, too, is only my best interpretation. I hold onto it only until somebody shows me a better model.
 
It's true that the best we can do is believe.
Click to expand...

That's all I needed, lol.

If you look back I did answer the thread but also added skepticism doesn't escape belief, and barely anything does.

Shrooms:
Believing in something is by far way more important than the quiddity (The whatness) of belief. How do you make better sense of the world? Believing you are on to something. It can help or hinder your thinking.
Click to expand...
 
Shrooms00087 said:
Believing in something is by far way more important than the quiddity of belief. How do you make better sense of the world? Believing you are on to something. It can help or hinder your thinking.
Click to expand...

Believing in something false is unhelpful though. It pushes you further from the coalface of reality.
 
Uh but how do you know you are even experiencing something Real? However, like I said, it can help or hinder your thinking. Religion has produced vast amount of mythologies, art, poetry, etc.
 
Why would anyone want to believe in anything?
I mean as long as you've gotten past the fundamental reasons a lot of people use religion.
Wait I don't want to know.
Do I.?.?
 
Okay, I think I get you now Shrooms.

I suppose my take on skepticism is that it's more of an approach than a belief, but then, it's valid to say "I believe we should analyse things we're told to find out how accurate they are" so yes, that's a belief too.

So your point, if I'm following correctly, is that it's self-contradictory to believe in not believing in things at face value.

But it's the 'face value' thing I've been trying to emphasise. I had to be shown / realise that skepticism is useful before I started to apply it systematically to my perceptions. In other words, didn't do it just because some guy told me I ought to. That would be a silly way to kick off a rationalistic mindset, after all.

Anyway, what I've been trying to say is, I like having a somewhat consistent criteria for believing in things, else it just seems arbitrary what I choose to call fact or fiction.

The real / unreal duality is something we do get very wrapped up in, I think you and I can both agree the wall in front of us, or the ceiling or the floor, is just a perception, an interpretation, but not the reality itself. The reality can't be perceived directly, the moment it is, it stops being a perception. However, it's very useful to believe in them because otherwise things would get disorienting very fast (again, this is what the peak of 5g of shrooms is like for me, reality just dissolves). Is this what you mean by jumping wholeheartedly into a belief?
 
I'm nearly finished with my Philosophy Degree at the University of California, Riverside. My Philosophy? I would have to say "Do what is right." If a choice you are making has something that is throwing you off, do what is right. I've studied the mind, the soul, ethics, society, etc., and do you know what I've retained? Do what's right.
 
^ I suppose that is fine if you're okay with racism, fascism, jihadism, Mormon fundamentalism, etc, etc, etc.

I reckon the leader of N. Korea is convinced he is always 'right'.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

regards to op: Essence imo
 
Last edited:
mustapha said:
I suppose that is fine if you're okay with racism, fascism, jihadism, Mormon fundamentalism, etc, etc, etc. I am sure the leader of N. Korea is convinced he is always 'right'.
Click to expand...

The subjectivity of right and wrong certainly make "doing what is right" a difficult thing. There seems to be an absence of objective guidelines in our universe as to what constitutes these qualities; my right could be your wrong. It was 'right' for Aztecs to sacrifice children.

I think the law of Thelema "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" or as refined by neo-pagan Wiccan Rede "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will" or even the christian "Love thy neighbour" code-of-conduct have something more attainable then the idea of 'doing right'. But in essence its still a fucking good place to start. :)
 
It's a good question.

WHAT you believe in exactly, or just BELIEVEING in SOMETHING whole heartedly?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things I believe but don't believe wholeheartedly. In order for me to believe something wholeheartedly I have to have more than just an intellectual understanding. I need to have full blown experiential understanding. Then my belief becomes something more; it becomes an automatic understanding. It becomes trust. It becomes faith. So clearly in my mind believing something wholeheartedly is more powerful. Ok, but aren't our beliefs subject to confusions? Believing something wholeheartedly sounds dangerous then, because wholehearted beliefs are much stronger. Well, I'd claim that if you come to a realization wholeheartedly, it is the perfect belief to hold for you at this time, because a whole-heart would not accept a belief that is damaging to ones perception of the world. It's beliefs accepted half-heartedly I worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top