Philosophy: is everything just an unverifiable brain-perception? (religion, soul, morality)

[Vic235]

In other words, is everything just faith-based?

****************************************
"It's your faith against my faith, we're equal."

[Fred314X]

If it is, what are you debating?

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Vic235

In other words, is everything just faith-based?

****************************************
"It's your faith against my faith, we're equal."

Nooooooow you are FINALLY figuring it out Vic! I've posted on this extensively before.

It's ALLLLLL faith-based. Since EVERYTHING is fallible, and NOTHING is absolute (except God IMO), we require faith for anything and everything there is.

So to answer your question--YES.

BUT! We're not equal! The "God" concept, dominates the "No God" concept to such an overwhelming degree...you could never say there is equality. But as far as both of the concepts requiring faith...that follows, and is a given...because everything requires faith.

[SoCalAngel2009]

Originally Posted by Vic235

In other words, is everything just faith-based?

****************************************
"It's your faith against my faith, we're equal."

Earth to Vic235... it is verifiable through our souls.

Understanding what is our soul is something that we all should know and once we develop our soul perceptions, we are on the right track.

[SpidrAkirE]

Originally Posted by Vic235

In other words, is everything just faith-based?

****************************************
"It's your faith against my faith, we're equal."

Yup Well, this is my perception. And Kant would agree as he proposed that all we know is our perception of reality.

[Vic235]

No wonder being called "deluded".

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Yes, I suppose everything is just an unverifiable brain-perception - we all have faith that we're not just brains in vats like in the Matrix. But once you accept this persistent world as real (whether it is or not), then there are verifiable things and also things that would take faith to believe - and these things are not equally justified beliefs in this world. In order to interact successfully in this persistent world, we must base beliefs on consistency of observation - as observation/experience is our only link to the nature of this world.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by Vic235

In other words, is everything just faith-based?

****************************************
"It's your faith against my faith, we're equal."

No, nothing is, except for us. We're the ones with the problem; a piece of granite never wonders why it wasn't created as limestone, a star never wonders what is outside it's system (or inside for that matter). Things are real or not because we can't help but think about them and ponder the alternatives. Sentience is a bi!ch.

[OhioanKid]

It's true that we can only see a tiny window of the world and it could easily be smudged, fogging our vision. It may be we're all delusional in a way.

However, as for whether it's possible to transcend the limiting power of our dirty window, I'm not sure. I think that science and religion both try to do that -- science explains with objective observations and religion by asking you to put your faith in its truths. I have no problem with either.

[allen antrim]

It is all a brain perception. If it was not, then one would be an unreflective animal. We live in our brains and thoughts-well, some do, most today just go through life in a random way........like pin balls. That does not mean stuff can not be verified or that our ideas do not conform to "reality" as perceived. Reason is in everything, so ideas ( from reason and rationally constructed) of the mind can work with our perceptions of what is "out" there-this is obvious as they are working on my air conditioning today and it seems to conform to a lot of rules and standards that men have constructed in relation to what is naturally given. Experimentation is to confirm such things. It seems the problems increase with ideas that don't correspond to "things" in the "real" world. Mental structures such as god, ethics, morality, ghosts, democracy, and such like are mental objects rather than "real" objects (both are ideas to mind though). One can study the hardness of a rock (rocks don't exist in nature, at least by that term, we give them that term and define them for them, as these can not define themselves-our definitions may be incomplete and most of the time are; but that creates careers and nobel prizes to develop more information and uses), as a "real" object mediated by the senses (of course the senses are also ideas that we have of these "things"), set up a standard of hardness (since hardness scales do not exist in nature), and develop methods (since methods do not exist in nature) to determine hardness in relation to the standards (all mental and arbitrary-perhaps relative, even the rock is an idea for mind; composition would be the same, since only mind sees the mixtures). If all involved (here is the potential weakness in this) hold to the constructed processes and standards, then one can verify those processes and standards in relation to the rock, and learn something about the rock from those constructed processes (or about the idea of the rock; but in a lot of cases the rock behaves in relation to the standards as the standards suppose). But one does have the actual rock to work with-hold, look at, run tests and look at those, etc. This would seem to make the natural sciences, or what ever deals with "real things" less complex (such as road construction, airplane design, geology, and such), I don't know. The other stuff that has no "real" objects would seem to be more complex to verify as these can not be held and such; as mental objects, or "things" do not have "real things" to handle and such. Commies see democracy different than capitalists, philosophy is very complex and diverse. Categories here help to give a "firm" character to these "things" I suppose (I imagine that is the need for the split in the disciplines, liberal arts, hard science, etc). Ontology, as a category, would seem to limit this "object" like a rock would limit what can be known about it (ie, a rock would not be a gas). In ontology then, definitions and such would be established for all involved, to keep thought within the category and then one could verify one's thinking in this category by the standards set for it-in this way mind could "handle" the object. So perhaps, these metaphysical ideas are just as simple as the "natural" ones. Of course, much that can be verified, can just as easily be unverified by changing standards and processes and then respecified or having a disagreement between all those involved. Thank goodness life is always in flux as that guy once said, it gives us lots of maneuvering room.