Christianity

[henry quirk]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

What odd things we meat machines are that we pretend we're not meat machines.

Or, mebbe, we aren't pretendin'...

[phyllo]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

I'm thinking of the following examples:

1. Private prayer to God, for instance. Rationally there is no receiver of the prayer, and the praying person is praying to himself. However when the subject successfully pretends to be praying to a person who knows everything there is to know, it facilitates the subject's introspection .

2.Existentialist responsibility for all one's actions is too like Free Will to be comfortable, and we prefer to believe in Dasein. However a believer in Dasein may ad hoc pretend that Free Will is true, in order to facilitate personal responsibility.

3. Eastern non-dualism which denies the existence of self is rational on the same way that absolute idealism is rational. However we must live as if we were selves free to act in a material world.

"We are what we think ..."

So choosing to think something positive or useful is going to be beneficial. Unless it's directly contradicted by the physical world.

[Harbal]

If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

What odd things we meat machines are that we pretend we're not meat machines.

Or, mebbe, we aren't pretendin'...

To think we are anything other than a manifestation of a particular set of biological processes is an act of pure imagination. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be more to us than that, but if it turned out that there were, it would just be a lucky guess.

[Harbal]

"We are what we think ..."

So choosing to think something positive or useful is going to be beneficial. Unless it's directly contradicted by the physical world.

In other words; a false belief is beneficial unless it isn't.

[Harry Baird]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

I'm thinking of the following examples:

Kindly explain how, for each of the numbered beliefs that you list, you have come to the conclusion that it is "clearly" not factual. Cheers.

1. Private prayer to God, for instance. Rationally there is no receiver of the prayer, and the praying person is praying to himself. However when the subject successfully pretends to be praying to a person who knows everything there is to know, it facilitates the subject's introspection .

2.Existentialist responsibility for all one's actions is too like Free Will to be comfortable, and we prefer to believe in Dasein. However a believer in Dasein may ad hoc pretend that Free Will is true, in order to facilitate personal responsibility.

3. Eastern non-dualism which denies the existence of self is rational on the same way that absolute idealism is rational. However we must live as if we were selves free to act in a material world.

[henry quirk]

If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

What odd things we meat machines are that we pretend we're not meat machines.

Or, mebbe, we aren't pretendin'...

To think we are anything other than a manifestation of a particular set of biological processes is an act of pure imagination. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be more to us than that, but if it turned out that there were, it would just be a lucky guess.

There's some science that points to us bein' sumthin' other than or more than just meat machines. I'll post some examples later this morning. Right now, though, I gotta ask, again: If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

[phyllo]

"We are what we think ..."

So choosing to think something positive or useful is going to be beneficial. Unless it's directly contradicted by the physical world.

In other words; a false belief is beneficial unless it isn't.

One can do a cost-benefit analysis on a belief. Philosophically.

What are you gaining and losing by believing in prayer or personal responsibility or a persistent self?

[Harbal]

Right now, though, I gotta ask, again: If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

Well I did post my ideas about that earlier, but I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one. I can't be bothered to find the posts or write them out again though.

And not everybody does pretend they are not "meat machines". I, for example, don't imagine myself to be more than flesh and blood.

[phyllo]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

I'm thinking of the following examples:

Kindly explain how, for each of the numbered beliefs that you list, you have come to the conclusion that it is "clearly" not factual. Cheers.

1. Private prayer to God, for instance. Rationally there is no receiver of the prayer, and the praying person is praying to himself. However when the subject successfully pretends to be praying to a person who knows everything there is to know, it facilitates the subject's introspection .

2.Existentialist responsibility for all one's actions is too like Free Will to be comfortable, and we prefer to believe in Dasein. However a believer in Dasein may ad hoc pretend that Free Will is true, in order to facilitate personal responsibility.

3. Eastern non-dualism which denies the existence of self is rational on the same way that absolute idealism is rational. However we must live as if we were selves free to act in a material world.

One can't help but notice how neatly everything seems to fit into binary categories like true/false, fact/opinion, objective/subjective, black/white.

[Belinda]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

I'm thinking of the following examples:

Kindly explain how, for each of the numbered beliefs that you list, you have come to the conclusion that it is "clearly" not factual. Cheers.

1. Private prayer to God, for instance. Rationally there is no receiver of the prayer, and the praying person is praying to himself. However when the subject successfully pretends to be praying to a person who knows everything there is to know, it facilitates the subject's introspection .

2.Existentialist responsibility for all one's actions is too like Free Will to be comfortable, and we prefer to believe in Dasein. However a believer in Dasein may ad hoc pretend that Free Will is true, in order to facilitate personal responsibility.

3. Eastern non-dualism which denies the existence of self is rational on the same way that absolute idealism is rational. However we must live as if we were selves free to act in a material world.

I could, but I won't try to reinvent the wheel either. These questions are all answered in normal textbooks, and you will also find them being debated in philosophy forums like this.

[Belinda]

Right now, though, I gotta ask, again: If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

Well I did post my ideas about that earlier, but I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one. I can't be bothered to find the posts or write them out again though.

And not everybody does pretend they are not "meat machines". I, for example, don't imagine myself to be more than flesh and blood.

I answered your question already last month or something, Henry. It's a matter of fact we are not meat machines . This fact is not because we have a magic gift called Free Will. This fact is due to our experiencing . Meat machines don't experience.

[Dubious]

Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

If we're nuthin' but meat machines, then why do we need to pretend we're not?

...because pretending has always been part and parcel of our existence, no matter where, no matter when. Pretending is what we do almost every day without even noticing. Some "pretensions" are just bigger than others affecting whole societies and that's the way its always been.

[Harry Baird]

Kindly explain how, for each of the numbered beliefs that you list, you have come to the conclusion that it is "clearly" not factual. Cheers.

I could, but I won't

I see.

I have come to the opposite conclusion as you on each of them, which it is reasonably open to do, so...

These questions are all answered in normal textbooks

...if there are any textbooks citing any of your beliefs (after inversion) as "clear facts", then we know that the book and author are unreliable. At the very least, they deserve to be described as "clearly contested propositions".

[attofishpi]

..has anyone spotted the elephant in the room?

[Harry Baird]

One can't help but notice how neatly everything seems to fit into binary categories like true/false, fact/opinion, objective/subjective, black/white.

And how, sometimes, black is white!