But he doesn't give his mother a gift here at Sciforums, so his not having a DNA test and all that would prove she is his mother doesn't matter.
The gig is up.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
But he doesn't give his mother a gift here at Sciforums, so his not having a DNA test and all that would prove she is his mother doesn't matter.
I missed the part where you confirmed or denied that you give your mother a gift on mothers day (or would, if that was your tradition) based upon something other than whether or not you can verify (scientifically) that she is your actual biological mother.
Last edited:
People generally believe in things without having proof of them.
See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence.
What's so interesting about this thread is that UD doesn't have a
clue about what he's asking.
He somehow or other thinks we just upped and believed right off the bat.
He doesn't understand theism.
jan.
And who are these people? Zen monks living in monasteries?
While I think what you say above can be a good way to think about one's presumed knowledge, I think it is also too tentative for people in general to abide by it.
Without a sense of certainty, people tend to become anxious, and this can have many negative consequences.
It does seem like that, to many people. Even to me.
We've talked about this before, namely, how frustrating it can be to understand how someone has come to believe in God, and how misleading the testimonies of theists can be in this regard.
I agree that UD doesn't yet have the attitude that would be conducive to a more satisfactory exchange.
This sounds like bad advice.
Just imagine someone actually telling a theist something like this:
"When you talk about God, I feel uncomfortable, even more, I feel threatened. If what you say is true, I have nowhere to hide. I am really scared of you and everyone else who talks about God. I don't know what to do. ... When you answer my questions about your beliefs and God, I feel even more scared and hopeless. There doesn't seem to be a way I could ever have the certainty about God that you have. I am afraid that I will forever be at the mercy of people who claim to know God. So far, they have done some nasty things to me as well. But I am not sure - perhaps they are allowed to do that to me, because they are theists."
My experience has been that when I told a theist something like this, usually, all they seemed to have heard was "You theists are idiots" and they accused me of criticizing them. Which just made matters worse for me.
I suspect that underneath many an atheist rant, there is a deep fear of theists, sometimes also due to being abused by theists physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that the expectation that beliefs be justified by proofs is too strong. We rarely encounter proofs outside mathematics and formal logic.
In real life, beliefs are supported by varying amounts of evidence and by chains of implication with variable but rarely apodeictic soundness.
That means that beliefs typically have weights. Some beliefs are almost certainly true, others are more likely to be true than not, while other beliefs are simply speculations, sometimes little more than shots in the dark.
No it isn't. Few if any of our beliefs are justified by formal logical proofs. Nevertheless, everybody believes things. Even scientists.
I think that the word 'delusion' applies in cases where individuals continue to hold beliefs in the face of convincing (at least to everyone else) contradictory evidence and counter-argument. Delusion is the unshakeable belief in propositions whose likelihood-weights are so low as to be approaching zero.
So I take it the diversionary tactics mean that no one here can offer ANY proof to support their belief. LOL.
Looks like you guys failed to answer the question.
I think you are scared to answer the question.
I agree with all that. I would add however that the argument from inconsistent revelations while not necessarily having as much bearing on the probability of the existence of God as some might like to think, does come to bear on the probability of a certain set of beliefs being correct the more specific they are. So while there may be some probability that God is in fact real, it could be argued that there is a lower probability of any one religion representing the complete truth about who he is and what he wants from us.
Of course if there is only one true religion then the probability of it being the correct religion is 1. But since (as is argued in the above article) we have no way of determining such*, we have to roll the dice, and it may very well be a 128 sided dice since (as many of us will be aware) there is even argument within the many denominations of Christianity (for example) about which flavour you must practice (and to what extent) in order to ensure your salvation.
*Aside from the various testimonies we can find by reading books or articles online, I have personally seen the same qualities of faith and certainty in devout followers of many different religions. No one religion seems to have a monopoly on the manifestation of what seems to be "divine inspiration" in it's followers, yet one would expect to see something noticeably different in followers of "the one true religion". Either it's hiding in some obscure location, or personal testimonies are useless.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The word 'belief' refers to a representational cognitive state in which a proposition (which may be true or false) is at least implicitly affirmed or denied.
There's nothing wrong with beliefs or with having beliefs. It would be totally impossible to live our lives without affirming some things to be the case. There's no implication that beliefs can't be suitably justified by evidence and logic. In real life, some beliefs are and some aren't.
Among philosophers, the most common definition of knowledge is justified true belief. That's what LG's excellent Venn diagram illustrates.
The largest space consists of all possible propositions (things that can be true or false). Some of these propositions are in fact true, others aren't. (The circle labeled 'truths'.) Individuals affirm that some propositions are true, and thus hold beliefs. (The circle labeled 'beliefs'.) Some of the propositions that the individual believes to be true really are, but some might not be. And obviously there are some additional true propositions that individuals don't affirm and may not even know about. So the 'belief' circle only partially overlaps the 'truth' circle. The overlap represents 'true beliefs'.
But some true beliefs might just be accidentally true. So there's an even smaller circle inside the 'true belief' space that represents true beliefs that possess sound logical or evidenciary justification. That's 'justified true belief' and it defines the little circle that's labeled 'knowledge'.
There's nothing wrong with beliefs or with having beliefs. It would be totally impossible to live our lives without affirming some things to be the case. There's no implication that beliefs can't be suitably justified by evidence and logic. In real life, some beliefs are and some aren't.
Among philosophers, the most common definition of knowledge is justified true belief. That's what LG's excellent Venn diagram illustrates.
The largest space consists of all possible propositions (things that can be true or false). Some of these propositions are in fact true, others aren't. (The circle labeled 'truths'.) Individuals affirm that some propositions are true, and thus hold beliefs. (The circle labeled 'beliefs'.) Some of the propositions that the individual believes to be true really are, but some might not be. And obviously there are some additional true propositions that individuals don't affirm and may not even know about. So the 'belief' circle only partially overlaps the 'truth' circle. The overlap represents 'true beliefs'.
But some true beliefs might just be accidentally true. So there's an even smaller circle inside the 'true belief' space that represents true beliefs that possess sound logical or evidenciary justification. That's 'justified true belief' and it defines the little circle that's labeled 'knowledge'.
Last edited:
really? because i think you're too scared to get the proof yourself, and so you're passing the buck to scientists, or religious leaders, or me. but the truth is, that on judgement day, it's not going to be about anyone but you.
the one where you'll be saying, "but he said, but she said", and god will be looking at you like, "so what?"
Lol.
seriously though, if you were really scientifically minded, wouldn't you at least be looking in the right place by now? i think you're being safe, because you know you won't find it there. that won't help you.
Care to elaborate in a sensical fashion?
So lets get this right, if we start talking about the whogleflugle bird from somewhere in the cosmos.
How do they ascertain a solid basis in regard to that whogleflugle bird.
No sir your arse about face, no discussion unless its one we imagined, (IE, whogleflugle bird) can be discussed without it first having a solid basis.
It's clear it is you that has no idea. my claims are based on demonstrable facts, whereas yours cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than imaginings, anybody can imagine anything they wish and claim it's true just as you do. But until they offer evidence, we must reject it, else we would be believing anything and everything just because someone imagined it.
Exactly my point, you need a solid basis, from which to start.
Or your lack of beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof, (like say a heavy bias against empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibits your comprehension.
There is a reason empiricism exists, else every single crazy idea would have to be accepted until proven wrong.
No typo as I never actually said that ( your reading comprehension must be faulty), what I said was "you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur. "
No, the reason I can make that statement, is because the people claiming religious experiences have not met their burden of proof, it is not rocket science. I can reject it outright until some evidence is presented.
No!!!!! you have a slanted view as there is no rigorous proof in your world.
I'm surprised you don't believe in every religion and imagined idea, by the way you talk.
Actually its more the case that you opted out to elaborate on the sore points of your contribution.
Bet you didn't even know that physics is compounded (pun intended) by philosophical constructs, huh?