Burden of proof

[BeHereNow]

Sarkus Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".

If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc.

I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.

Some beliefs (that others have,) are only in the mind. There are people who believe in leprechauns (or other gremlin type beings). You and I would probably agree these beings have no existence in reality, therefore they only exist in the mind (from our perspective).

Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?

Certainly this is only one meaning, and other meanings are possible.
I believe you put your meaing to the word below.

And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.

But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.

And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".

Not all evidence is rationally based. You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
This is a value judgment. It may be true, it may be false.
By use of circular reasoning, you can show it to be true. This will convince yourself and others who share your belief system.

Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.

As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.

Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.

These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.

My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.

You and I agree.

And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.

You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.
Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.
Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.

It also begs the question of what one means as "true".

True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?

 

[Sarkus]

I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.

Understood.

But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.

No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.

For example, if two people see a strange light, one might interpret it as a reflection, another as a ghost. Both might "believe" they know what it is, as it fits their interpretation of reality.

Not all evidence is rationally based.

Are you sure you know what I'm referring to here?

You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.

It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary.

As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.

No, they're not - but then not everyone is as logical and rational in such matters. To not follow the evidence rationally is surely to conclude an irrational position.

These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.

Justified = rationally concluded. One can always claim to be justified when one is irrational in where the evidence leads...
A can put the kettle on to boil.
A therefore believes in God, as a result of their ability to put the kettle on.

Is A's belief justified?
They might consider it so.

You and I agree.

You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.

It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.

Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.

No - they didn't use rational thought.

Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.

Knowledge IS limited to what can be achieved at present (or induced thereof), but I never shut the door on what might become known in the future.
How can one have KNOWLEDGE (i.e. a justified true belief) if there is no current means of verifying it, evidencing it, justifying it?

I won't have a belief in some possible future knowledge due to the lack of current evidence.
This is the rational position.
Yes, it remains a possibility (until proven not) - nothing more.
So I will also not have a belief that the future-knowledge is impossible / unobtainable - unless proven to be so.
I.e. I do not have the belief that God exists, but I do not have the belief that God does not exist.

Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.

True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?

Sorry - was being flippant with this comment.

 

[BeHereNow]

“Rational evidence” can mean two things.

It can mean evidence arrived by a rational (reasoning) process, or it can mean evidence that it would be rational (reasonable) to accept.

Empirical evidence is not rational evidence, but it is reasonable and rational to accept empirical evidence. Empiricasl evidence is non-rational.

Evidence that it would not be rational to accept, is irrational evidence.

Our belief systems determine what evidence is acceptable.

There are many types of rational-empiricists. Their variations will be in the relative strength they put on one compared to the other.
Evidence that is not rational in nature or origin, would be non-rational evidence, but not necessarily irrational.

If I observe you are standing in front of me, I have empirical evidence you are standing in front of me, which is not rational in nature, but it would be rational to use this evidence to determine if you are standing in front of me.

Sarkus No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.

All beliefs are based on an interpretation of reality. Some conform to reality, some do not.
You have the belief that reality can only be realized by rational or empirical evidence. This may be true, or it may be false. You believe it conforms to reality, because of your belief system.
I believe it does not conform to reality, because of my belief system.

BHN: You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
Sarkus It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary.

I should also add that you probably accept empirical evidence, but seem to be weighted heavily on the rational side of being a rational-empiricist.
You only accept rational/empirical evidence. This is your belief system.
You believe this because of your rational/empirical evidence. Like all belief systems, yours is self supporting.

If you accept that only rational or empirical if valid, then naturally all is rational or empirical.
Some people accept empirical evidence as being stronger than rational evidence. If they see it, they believe it, even if does not fit what they know to be rationally true.
It is easy to reason that ghosts do not exist. If someone believes they saw a ghost, they have to weight this empirical evidence against the rational/reasoned evidence. Someone who has a strong belief in no-ghosts, will probably determine their rational evidence is stronger than their empirical evidence. Someone who has a close friend that had a firm belief in ghosts, and is deceased, and the ghost has the appearance of their friend, might think about accepting the empirical evidence.

You have parameters on what you accept as valid evidence. These parameters predetermine what you find acceptable.

You have a belief that your standards conform to reality. Like everyone, you believe your beliefs are true, and you use your own standards to make this determination.
When you say
“I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary”, you have no convincing evidence of this, except you own belief system.
You say first ‘Only rational or empirical evidence is acceptable’, then conclude that there is no evidence except rational or empirical. Circular reasoning.
Of course you have good, rational, reasons for believing this.

You can easily convince someone with a similar belief system, that yours is acceptable.

You cannot convince me that your belief system is true, because you would have to use my standards to convince me, and using my standards, there are other ways of attaining knowledge besides rationalizing or believing empirical evidence.

I happen to not accept sacred texts as a means of acquiring special knowledge (they may have good moral lessons, but this is not special knowledge). But I have friends who do.

Let us say I accept sacred texts as a means of knowing god.
Using my standards, you cannot convince me your beliefs are true. From your perspective, you have knowledge, from my perspective, you have false beliefs.
This is the way it always is.
Our own beliefs are true, those who disagree are mistaken.

It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.

”Rational thought” is a standard. Non-rational thoughts is a different standard.
Your belief system demands that non-rational processes such as faith in sacred texts are not acceptable.

Your belief system demands that only what has convincing scientific evidence is true, and rational/empirical evidence is the only means for acquiring convincing scientific evidence.

Conclusions flow from the pillars of our belief systems.
Belief systems have certain pillars that are not provable. We accept certain things as true.
You cannot convince me your belief system is true. We have different pillars. Any attempt you make will be circular reason.

You only accept what you can arrive at rationally or empirically, because you only accept what is rational or empirical.

Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.

Those who believe do have knowledge right now, and these beliefs might be non-rational, but not irrational.
Faith is non-rational, but it is not irrational to accept faith, when faith is a pillar of a belief system.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BeHereNow,

An Oasis fan eh!
Good band.

Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.

Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.

From a point of view of scriptoral religion, Deism is atheism.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.

He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.

Based on your brief description it would be difficult to determine his world view.

I believe god is knowable by scientific methods,...

I don't see how, unless God is a natural being, and if that were the case he wouldn't be God, as nature would eventually consume him.

Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.

It all depends on what is being transferred and by whom.

Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.

Knowledge has to be understood regardless of whether it is personal or scientific, so i can't see how it matters as to what format it comes in.

I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.

I agree that there may well be some great discoveries to come, but based on the current scientific trend, I see a 'going away from God', and a steady, gradual shift (gathering momentum) toward full blown materialism.

Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.

How would they identify the evidence if it was (for the sake of argument) presented?
It would seem they would have to have a pre-concieved idea of God. Don't you think?

Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.

Such a position can never exist, because God is not a material being, by any description, and as such falls outside of the science radar as a direct perception.

Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.

I think that is correct, if you decide that science is the be all end all, in knowledge regarding God.

Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.

I'm not comfortable accepting something as true without convincing evidence, in fact I don't know anyone who is, although I suspect there are people who are. The fact is, either I believe in God, or I don't. Either way we still live out our existence. According to ANY scripture, God is the sourse of everything and to try and understand that from the point of view of material science must be like trying to find a particular needle in a universe.

If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.

I think I agree with that.

The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.

And this is what it boils down to. If God is, as described, the ultimate, absolute truth, then it is ultimately an individual quest not a concerted one.

This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.

This is why it is good to acquire intelligence for good discrimination, and is the point of science, philosophy, and even art.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Theism is, a belief in God, do you agree?
If a theist claims to know God exists, I strongly suspect it would be based on the grounds of their particular reasoning.
If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".

If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".

Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.

Jan

 

[Sarkus]

If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".

So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".

So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.

This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?
Or can you believe something without thinking it???
Or believe it without knowing it?
Or know it without thinking it?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person.

So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.

This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?

Very easily.
Actors do it all the time.

Or can you believe something without thinking it???

Can you perform any physical activety without using a muscle?

Or believe it without knowing it?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.

Or know it without thinking it?

Is it possible not to think?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

Anyone can think anything.

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

That is the only basis on which a rational debate can take place. It is not known to most of the religious and pseudo-scientists you will meet on here

 

[Myles]

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

It doesn't until you start banging on about ID, stem cell research and anything else that would improve our knowledge.

You are wrong about the moon; it is made of GREEN cheese

 

[Sarkus]

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person.

So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.

So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.

If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.

But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

Is it possible not to think?

You tell me.

Anyone can think anything.

No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.

SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

What my position is, is not the point. The point is that a theist is a person who believes in God, and that he exists. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with every credible dictionary.

So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.

If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

Well I am curious why you did.

But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

What one knows can strengthen of ones belief.

You tell me.

The question was directed at you in response to your point.
I cannot imagine not being able to think.

No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

Let me think.....pixie dust

SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

I am working with standard definitions. That is all you really need to know.

 

[BeHereNow]

Jan Arden I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.

This is a very strange way to use belief.

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.
The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

When all are convinced, the belief becomes a recognized fact.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

We call own truths beliefs, out of respect for others.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BeHereNow].

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

This is true, and to accept something means it must have been offered, meaning it comes from another source.

Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.

No, it means you accept it as true. This acceptance is based not having the full picture, or not knowing what actually is. If one had full knowledge of something, there would be no need to accept other versions of truth, as one would already know.

Buffalo is the capitol of the US.
Are you prepared to consider it as a truth, or are you not, based on what you know?

The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

But it is all based on belief, which can be altered at any moment.

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

Whether they can or can't, is not the point. Everybody believes according to their understanding.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Not in my experience.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

That is just a figure of speech.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

As I said to Sarkus, I am happy to use standard definitions. This way there should be no confusion.

Jan.

 

[BeHereNow]

Jan Ardena You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.

I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Vkothii
I can’t help feeling that the speaker has truths, whereas their opponent has beliefs.
Other than that, I believe the criteria is the same.

 

[Jan Ardena]

BeHereNow,

I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

Then I would say that you no longer believe Washington D.C is the capitol of the U.S, as you now know it to be. I would say that your belief now rests in your knowledge and understanding of the fact.
Would you honestly consider my belief, that Buffalo state is the capitol of the U.S.?

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

There are two positions here;
a) truth
b) belief in the sufficient, and convincing, evidence.

I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind.
Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence.
This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead ofto a truth.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

I am of the same mind regarding dictionary definitions, but, it acts as a common language of referance and understanding, in a reasonable discussion. The other alternative is to posit our personal definitions and opinions, which ultimately leads to no reasonable conclusions.
Accepting that something is true, does not make it true, which is why it is labelled "belief". This is my understanding.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

If the mind accepts something as true, there doesn't have to be any understanding. With regards to God, this would be labelled as blind-faith.
One can be of a certain opinion without invoking a belief or understanding, so I would tend to disagree with your first analysis.
With regards to likening my position to Kant's, I agree that there are heavy similarities.

Jan.

 

[BeHereNow]

Jan Arden I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind I cannot understand how a concept of randomness could account for what we percieve. I cannot think, or even imagine, how it could be. Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence. This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead of a truth.

We have a common goal: To know, realize or understand, objective reality.

Your approach is what I would call the scientific approach. Information or data passes through a series of ‘truth filters’, progressing up a defined path towards pure objectivity, what we can call a correct knowledge and understanding.

The problem is, this goal is never reached, it is at best, extremely close, but never actually there.

As evidence of what I say:

I have been told, by one who more of these things than I do, : BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't.


And by another: Scientific theories cannot be proven true.. . . we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. . . .We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen.

And by another:
Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability.

All of these statements are of course, true, for the science minded. This proof of a correct knowledge and understanding of everything, does not occur, by scientific enquiry. You can’t get here from here, by science.

Implied in this are some other truths of science.

Science is inherently without morals or ethics. There are sets of internal guidelines, such as how to deal with colleagues or intellectual content, but not a morality or ethics in regard to the world outside of science. Just as it cannot judge the material world for absolute truth or proof, it cannot judge itself as to rightness or wrongness of its actions.
Outsiders must apply external morality and ethics to the field of science, to give it direction and purpose.

There are many examples in recent history where grave inhumanities where done to humans, in the name of scientific advancement. The information gathered from the Nazi experiments were considered by many to be not worthy for retention or study. From a purely scientific point of view, data is data, and it can be as useful from the suffering of other humans, as if it can from watching a summer storm.
Data has no morality, and its existence causes no ethical problems. Please note that I said from a purely scientific point of view. . .

Naturally science does not operate in a vacuum. Moral and ethical restrictions are imposed on science, to keep it in line, as it were. To a large extent they are permitted to self regulate, peer to peer judgment.

Science is a wonderful thing, and in many endeavors, it is without equal.

But it never gives us proof, never gives us truth. It brings us to the edge, and we have to jump over, or stagnate. If we jump over, we may land at various points.

I do not believe reaching the correct knowledge and understanding of everything, has to be done scientifically, through a series of truth filters.
I am not sure what you mean by “correct”. It may be objectivity, or it may be an ideal subjectivity, relating to mankind’s relationship with it. I do not think it matters much.

I believe this same correct knowledge and understanding can come by methods other that the purely rational or empirical. I believe in those areas where science has no authority, other means can and must be successfully used.

I believe it is self evident, that other disciplines must have their own standards of truth judging, so as to be able to judge the actions, progress and goals of science.

These various methods are considered by science to be substandard in determining proof of objectivity, or a correct knowledge and understanding of everything.

I believe the mind can grasp what science is unable to touch.
I believe the mind can determine the correct moral action, according to an absolute moral law, that is not dependent on any particular religious group, any more that the physical laws are dependent on particular scientific group.

I believe in the field of science and mathematics, a correct knowledge and understanding is possible, by intuited truths, which withstand the scrutiny of science. Intuited truths bypass rational thought processes, and arrive immediately at the truth,at the understanding of reality.

When I believe something, I take it for truth, because I believe the mind is capable of knowing the truth.

If I can be proven wrong (which is probably not possible, scientifically speaking), then I was mistaken.

When science can make no judgment concerning the veracity of a belief, the mind can make absolute judgment.
Some would rather make no judgment than the possibility of making an incorrect judgment.

Others would rather have an absolute judgment (with the possibility of error), rather than an unknown judgment (‘Right or wrong, no one can say.’)

Yes, your usage of belief fits well in a scientific model.
For myself, it doesn’t fit well with my beliefs.

 

[rjr6]

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".

My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see.

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"? I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity. So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter. What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world. Afterlife and Atoms aside. God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him. Peace.


"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.

 

[Sarkus]

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".

I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".

My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see.

Does this even make sense?

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"?

If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity.

I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?

The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter.

The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world.

Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him.

And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.

Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?

 

[rjr6]

I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".



Does this even make sense?

If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?

Pardon me for interrupting your discussion. Your response to my post varies somewhat in an interpretation of the threadstarter's views and then an explanation of your own. In betwixt I am not sure how to respond.

Suffice to say there is no "proof" of "the afterlife" and the "proof" is everywhere. You, are in fact, "proof of the afterlife". I propose there is no empirical "proof of the afterlife" that the world would agree on. So what the poster is asking is for personal proof that he would believe in.
How does that differ measureably than me asking for proof of an Atom without a microscope?

 

[BeHereNow]

Sarkus Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value
"awareness"?

Logical fallacy here.
You are using evidence in two different ways.
Those who have a belief in afterlife, have evidence that is consistent with their belief system. Their belief is not without evidence, just without evidence you accept. You refer to their evidence, which is obviously different than yours, and yet you equate it with yours. It is not the same. Two different kinds of evidence.

Their belief is not arrived at irrationally, by their standards. Therefore their awareness is not arrived at through irrationality.
If they want to convince you, they would need to use your standards, no disagreement there.