U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2013, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,346 posts, read 82,809,176 times
Reputation: 17500

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
This is almost the definition of Agnosticism.
I don't think this statement is correct. I don't think an agnostic would say he believes in god.

"... an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity ..."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2013, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,084,845 times
Reputation: 3033
There are Agnostic Theists: Agnostic theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,177 posts, read 3,827,898 times
Reputation: 2473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
That's correct. I don't believe it. I know I exist and I know the physical world exists. I am almost certain god doesn't exist. I think extraterrestial life probably exists. I think the Lakers will lose to the Spurs. I will probably be alive at the end of the day.

See, I didn't need to use the word "believe" to express what either is or probably is. Belief is unnecessary.

Also, notice politicians and salesmen start sentences with "I believe..." as a way of non committing to whatever they're saying.
You need to study epistemology. According to the most accepted argument, knowledge requires that you 1) hold a belief, 2) the belief is justified 3) the belief is true. You don't know anything unless you hold a belief, the belief is justified, and the belief is in fact true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,346 posts, read 82,809,176 times
Reputation: 17500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield View Post
You need to study epistemology. According to the most accepted argument, knowledge requires that you 1) hold a belief, 2) the belief is justified 3) the belief is true. You don't know anything unless you hold a belief, the belief is justified, and the belief is in fact true.
Sounds unnecessarily complicated. I only need to know what is required to make decisions.

But back to the original post. It is irrational to believe something for which there is no evidence. It is more rational to assign a probability to something for which there is no evidence. Who cares whether you believe it or not? What good does believing do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
14,274 posts, read 7,863,665 times
Reputation: 53245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
No it is not. It is irrational. If it were anything else besides religion, any mentally healthy person would call it delusional, even a mental illness itself.
Yes I would have to agree with this if everything was black and white. I think with a scientific mind and with logical thinking one would conclude that man is a result of evolution. Not from a supernatural being, so there fore how can there be a God? However, I've had some really bizarre things happen to me that I simply can't explain. I would love a logical explanation because it's very frustrating to me to not be able to understand these events. Ghosts? Telekinesis? Possession? There are many theories. The answer will only exist with our last breath. An open mind is receptive to all options. A closed mind is limited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,084,845 times
Reputation: 3033
Without getting too complex and off topic but without a fundamental understanding of epistemology and being able to discern non-justified beliefs, how would we know what is justified.

And metaphysically just because we see something or hold something doesn't mean it exists; we still have to explain how that process happens.

Granted, we imply this underlying fundamental belief, and then use those tacit understandings to make the informed/justified leaps to knowledge.

However these leaps and need for justification don't excuse irrational beliefs; as they shouldn't. However having a belief about what could be without current proof, is one of the underpinnings of science; it's just it is based off of the physical world.

So, there's a difference between: "I believe in X, but do not fully understand," "I believe in X and here are the reasons," "I believe in X just because." One of these, through epistemology, is closer to Knowledge than the other.

In the end beliefs just are, it is the intentionality, recognition that certain beliefs might not ever be knowledge, and justification which lends into a belief being more rational than another.

---

Lastly, semantically, when people use terms like belief in a folk sense, often I think they really mean faith. Which in some cases is entirely different.

To have faith in X and not have any desire to prove it is absurd, as it is/was in Kierkgaard's case and can be viewed as irrational, but even that conclusion was a bit more complicated than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Southern New Hampshire
7,194 posts, read 12,581,379 times
Reputation: 21655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield View Post
Say I have no concrete evidence neither for or against God, but I believe that God exists. Is this rational of me to believe?
It's not RATIONAL, but that won't stop you from believing it.

As Charles said, if many "religious" beliefs (of ANY religion) were taken OUT of the context of religion, people would say, "How can anyone believe such things?" But religious people (especially religious fundamentalists, who by definition believe really unbelievable, in fact nutty things) take offense at that. (Of course, if you describe to them the beliefs of OTHER religions, they will ask "How can anyone believe such things?", but they don't ask that question of THEIR beliefs.)

I'll give you another example. We just had a strange thread on the Cats forum ... someone wanted advice about "pet psychics." One person had claimed (in a different but related thread) that she called a pet psychic and said psychic had a long, detailed conversation with her dead cat and gave her the transcript of said conversation. It was mind-bogglingly, well, stupid. The OP of the new "pet psychic" thread clearly WANTS to believe that there are pet psychics so she can call them up and "talk" to her dead cat. I love cats, I have a bunch of them, but that "belief" is utterly absurd. I suggested that she call up a "pet psychic" and ask that psychic to ask the dead cat what the dead cat's name is ... if said psychic is indeed talking to the dead cat, surely said psychic can find out its name. Not going to work, but clearly the OP wants to believe and wanted everyone to validate that belief. OK, you can "believe" all you want, but to suggest that such beliefs show an "open mind" (as the OP of that thread did) is, well, incorrect. And more to the point of THIS thread, such "beliefs" are not rational.

End of rant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2013, 09:30 PM
 
10,456 posts, read 15,444,955 times
Reputation: 11708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield View Post
Say I have no concrete evidence neither for or against God, but I believe that God exists. Is this rational of me to believe?
Yes. You have what is called innate presence of the Supreme in you. You may also expand it, and try to imagine yourself dead, or never born. You will fail in both cases.
This is proof to what you truly are - immortal Self in a physical body.
Biggest mistake you will ever make on your Way, friend, is to start listening to those, who will tell you otherwise.
As it has been said - and will be no worse enemy to a man, than his family and his close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,035,618 times
Reputation: 36073
There is a difference between "belief" and "acceptance". Belief is a rational position on a premise upon which there is apparent evidence. Acceptance is the presumption that a premise is good enough, and is consistent with your state of being.

Christian do not "believe" in the God described in the scriptures, because they have never had any evidence to weigh. They accept that God, because to do so, doesn't conflict with their lives.

If a person says "I believe in God", I know that they have not gone through a rational process. If they had been rational, they would say "I accept God and use that acceptance as a force in my life, because it works for me".

The same distinction works the same in secular daily life matters. If a person tells me he bought a new TV, I don't really care if he did or not, nor do I care if he is telling the truth. I simply accept his statement at face value, and go about my life as if he had just bought a new TV. I don't "believe" that he bought a new TV, I simply "accept" that he did what he says he did. But if he tells me that he sees a strange man calling on my wife when I am gone to work, then "accept" is not good enough, and I will feel compelled to determine whether I need to "believe" him or not. And then is when I need to be "rational", and judge the premise.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-20-2013 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 09:25 AM
 
383 posts, read 449,161 times
Reputation: 139
Your statement is a bit relative for me. It depends on your definition of "No Evidence" If you mean that you think the moon is made of cheese and there is absolutely nothing to support it nor give any idea its true, then yes its irrational. But if you mean no evidence and by that you observe something happen and come up with an explanation that fits and tend to lean to that belief than I would say no that is not irrational but not at the moment supported. Lets say you see a cookie is missing from your table and your kid came home early from school. You have no evidence that the kid ate the cookie, but its not irrational to think its the most likely scenario with out any proof. So for me it depends on the thing your talking about and to say it about every situation is not rational. But I like cold toilet seats so what do I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top