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.
If belief (talking religion here) is the opposite of knowing, then that means that we don't really know for sure when we say things like, "I believe in ...., or I believe that...." It then becomes essentially a guess about something that we only think in our minds that we know something about.
So the question for the forum is this: Why do people believe? Why is there a need for religious beliefs?
If belief (talking religion here) is the opposite of knowing, then that means that we don't really know for sure when we say things like, "I believe in ...., or I believe that...." It then becomes essentially a guess about something that we only think in our minds that we know something about.
So the question for the forum is this: Why do people believe? Why is there a need for religious beliefs?
For a variety of reasons, one being that they are convinced by the preponderance of the available evidence that something is true or factual. I don't agree that belief is the opposite of knowing in all cases because it depends upon the reliability of the evidence. There are degrees of confidence in what one believes, for example, I'm quite confident in my belief that the scientific method is reliable because of volume of evidence that has been provided. I'm not confident in my belief that aliens exist since I don't have enough reliable evidence to that end.
As far as religious beliefs, some would use the same criteria for their religious beliefs, while others are comforted by the thought that they will one day see their deceased loved one again, and still others who want to believe in an "ultimate justice". There are many reasons for religious beliefs, some reasonable, and some not so reasonable.
If belief (talking religion here) is the opposite of knowing, then that means ...
Wrong premise. Belief is not inherently a dirty word, nor is it the absence of knowing. Any given belief can be reasonable or unreasonable in its basis and construction. Belief can be afforded to things considered proven knowledge, as well as to less proven things about which there is considerable uncertainty. The only relationship to knowledge is that if there is not enough data to sustain a reasonable belief, it becomes either unbelief, or unreasonable belief.
In this space we often discuss (un)beliefs concerning deities and the belief-systems surrounding deities; this is really an edge-case scenario. Deities as generally posited are inherently unfalsifiable / unprovable hypotheses (if we even want to dignify them with the term "hypothesis"; they are more properly assertions). As an atheist I cannot (dis)prove any deity but withhold belief because not only is there no proof, but they are not provable.
On the other hand I believe that my wife loves me, even though I cannot connect a Category 6 networking cable between her brain and mine, and directly assess her actual thoughts and motivations -- and even though, under certain stressors, she can behave in objectively unloving ways (as can I, as can we all). This belief is based on the preponderance of evidence and experience and what I can observe of other people's relationships, my knowledge of human nature, etc. It has a sound basis and is therefore reasonable, even though decidedly imperfect.
Which proves that even an atheist can form a reasonable belief about something not entirely objective without some churlish unreasonable demand for ironclad proof. It is simply a function of the provability of a thing, the available data, and common sense.
Belief is not the opposite of knowing. Knowing is an enhanced meta-level state of belief, generated by reinforcing reference frames that are brought to bear on thoughts. The initial seed thought is ‘just there’ – there’s nothing you can do about it. We hold and adhere to the ‘confirmation reference frames’ according to what we choose to believe. This is most relevant to the subject of whether there is a God or not. He either is or is not, irrespective of our beliefs, but with regard to our beliefs (that’s the paradox, right there!), it is important for which reference frames form our confirmation bias. The judeo-christian belief system says that God gives us the faith to believe, and He chooses who that is, and also that He knows who is generally going to be pre-disposed to going along with His revelation of Himself. However, it also says that those who seek, shall find. So, it’s a darn predicament, except that it’s all down to Him, initially.
As you will see here, we are expected to disbelieve in a flying spaghetti monster, but it is plainly obvious there are pretty girls you can pose for a picture with, though quite why you would, to prove your point:
Belief doesn't occur in a vacuum. It comes about because you have evidence or testimony that convinces you that it's true or inspires you to believe something that would ordinarily be rejected. In the case of religion, concrete evidence is scant and much of the rest is contradicted by historical and arthaeological facts.
Belief doesn't occur in a vacuum. It comes about because you have evidence or testimony that convinces you that it's true or inspires you to believe something that would ordinarily be rejected. In the case of religion, concrete evidence is scant and much of the rest is contradicted by historical and arthaeological facts.
Pretty fair analysis, but the last phrase seriously depends on what one believes in. If it is details of accounts, then there is a problem, if it is in a particular message or way of community, it really does not apply.
Pretty fair analysis, but the last phrase seriously depends on what one believes in. If it is details of accounts, then there is a problem, if it is in a particular message or way of community, it really does not apply.
I have no real problem with that statement, but any "particular message or way of community" has a basis, and if that basis is faulty, then ultimately it undermines even the positive aspects of that "particular way".
If the motivation for, say, feeding the poor is animated by compassion and empathy for one's fellow humans, then that is one thing. To the extent it is animated by "fixing" or "correcting" them or subsuming them into your clan, that is another. Religiously sponsored charity can be fairly pure or a mix of the two or fairly slanted toward the ultimate goals of the religious organization.
I suppose it can be said that secular charity can, depending on the underlying politics, be more or less compassionate and pure, too, so I'm not really laying this 100% on religion. Some of it is just human nature. Conservatively minded people tend to regard poverty as self-inflicted at some level or other, liberal minded people tend to not prejudge and can more readily allow for the possibility that a person can be primarily the victim of circumstance -- and even when their issues are partly self inflicted they can still be approached respectfully and with some ability to retain their personal dignity. In religious terms, "there, but for the grace of God, go I" ... ironically it is the staunchly religious who seem least able to truly apply this saying to themselves and actually believe it.
I object to otherizing people for any reason, be it religious, political, or whatever. A good test of your motives is this. Randomly select anyone you've been most at odds with in discussions here. For me it might be one of the fundamentalist firebrand types like Vizio or Eusebius. If I found them in need of my help as a fellow human, would I deny it to them on the basis of our differences? Would I feel any schadenfreude even if I didn't deny it to them? Would I treat them even a little differently than someone whose views I agree with, or who is a bona fide member of my own formal or informal "tribe"? To the extent I would answer yes to any of those questions then I am denying the humanity of my opponent, not simply discussing a difference of opinion, however candidly. This is what the Biblical story of the "good Samaritan" is attempting to get at, and it's a laudable effort. Sadly, what is often lost in its retelling is that Samaritans were a despised underclass, and heretics ... essentially pagan half-Jews. The Samaritan in the story is conceptually no different than a modern Atheist. That Samaritan would have had his motives suspected by any upstanding Jew of his day ... because he was seen as only a vessel of god's wrath and capable of no good at all. The power of that parable is lost on us if we think it is just about not ignoring others in need.
If belief (talking religion here) is the opposite of knowing, then that means that we don't really know for sure when we say things like, "I believe in ...., or I believe that...." It then becomes essentially a guess about something that we only think in our minds that we know something about.
So the question for the forum is this: Why do people believe? Why is there a need for religious beliefs?
If belief (talking religion here) is the opposite of knowing, then that means that we don't really know for sure when we say things like, "I believe in ...., or I believe that...." It then becomes essentially a guess about something that we only think in our minds that we know something about.
So the question for the forum is this: Why do people believe? Why is there a need for religious beliefs?
That's the way how humans reach a truth.
Have you verified that the earth is truly revolving around the Sun? Or simply choose believe so? Or have you verified the existence of black holes or you simply choose to believe that black holes exist?
As long as it's science, you can always choose to verify by yourself. Now how above history? In regards to human history, you have to believe (or not) one way or another. Most of them are not verifiable other than believing them (or not), one way or another. History (= his story) is basically made up of human witnessing for you to believe or reject.
That is to see, basically humans have to rely on believing human witnessing to reach a truth. Even though some truths (such as science) are verifiable but we simply choose to believe rather than verify by ourselves about what is said. Some other truths are not verifiable at all, you have to have faith in order to reach a truth (say, in history). Or else such a truth will remain unreachable to you.
This is what the reality is, that is, in order to reach a truth humans rely mostly on putting faith in what is said by a small amount of humans who are believed to maintain a direct contact with the truth itself. This is the process of human witnessing. We believe what is said by the scientists (they are the witnesses of a truth) to reach a scientific truth. We put our faith in what is written by the historians (witnesses of a truth) to reach a distant truth occurred in the past. We put our faith in the reporters (witnesses of truths) to reach a current event (as a piece of news). We seldom verify a news by ourselves, we truth what is said by the media which is in a form of multiple account witnessing.
Today's humans (atheists mostly) are educated (by our education system) to be with a twisted world view to think that everything should be well evidenced that we don't need to believe with faith to get to a truth. Our education is the mark of beast to give everyone a stamp on their forehead (affecting their thinking) and right hand (affecting their actions).
Last edited by Hawkins; 12-22-2014 at 10:46 AM..
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.
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.
