Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote: So, Leo, what do YOU believe?

"belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell

As a philosopher of science I have no beliefs and instead operate according to a suite of working hypotheses which are continuously subject to change. Belief has always been the enemy of science because it is the foundation of the model-building methodology. It was belief which kept the Ptolemaic cosmology alive for 1400 years and it is belief which has retained spacetime physics as the operational theory in the physics of today, despite the fact that spacetime physics is riddled with self-contradictions and logical absurdities. Physicists know that there is a big piece missing from their theory and yet they continue to look for this missing link within the the theory itself, which is what my wife would call "having a "mans" look". Compared with women men are really bad at looking for things they've lost because they lack the self-doubt necessary to look outside the box.Belief leads to tunnel-vision, group-think and intellectual self-enslavement.

So what do I believe? I believe that belief is for the intellectually bankrupt who are too cowardly to think for themselves.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: So, Leo, what do YOU believe?

"belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell

As a philosopher of science I have no beliefs and instead operate according to a suite of working hypotheses which are continuously subject to change. Belief has always been the enemy of science because it is the foundation of the model-building methodology. It was belief which kept the Ptolemaic cosmology alive for 1400 years and it is belief which has retained spacetime physics as the operational theory in the physics of today, despite the fact that spacetime physics is riddled with self-contradictions and logical absurdities. Physicists know that there is a big piece missing from their theory and yet they continue to look for this missing link within the the theory itself, which is what my wife would call "having a "mans" look". Compared with women men are really bad at looking for things they've lost because they lack the self-doubt necessary to look outside the box.Belief leads to tunnel-vision, group-think and intellectual self-enslavement.

So what do I believe? I believe that belief is for the intellectually bankrupt who are too cowardly to think for themselves.

Geez. I can have a more intelligent conversation with a dehydrated sponge. What part of what you said is not properly ascribed to belief? Or more precisely, an uncoordinated and ad hoc belief system?

Inglorious. Naturally your opinion is of no interest to me so I see no value in responding to it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: So, Leo, what do YOU believe?

"belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell

As a philosopher of science I have no beliefs and instead operate according to a suite of working hypotheses which are continuously subject to change. Belief has always been the enemy of science because it is the foundation of the model-building methodology. It was belief which kept the Ptolemaic cosmology alive for 1400 years and it is belief which has retained spacetime physics as the operational theory in the physics of today, despite the fact that spacetime physics is riddled with self-contradictions and logical absurdities. Physicists know that there is a big piece missing from their theory and yet they continue to look for this missing link within the the theory itself, which is what my wife would call "having a "mans" look". Compared with women men are really bad at looking for things they've lost because they lack the self-doubt necessary to look outside the box.Belief leads to tunnel-vision, group-think and intellectual self-enslavement.

So what do I believe? I believe that belief is for the intellectually bankrupt who are too cowardly to think for themselves.

I'm sure you reserve some areas for "belief". I have a series of oughts, and aspirations which I feel is the correct application for that word.
Such as I believe that people ought to have the vote. I believe that people of all colours and classes should have equal access to the law.

I take your point, Hobbes, and grant that there are two different applications of the verb "to believe" in the common usage, both of which are valid. For instance I can say that I believe IN such things as the rule of law, free speech, the right to assembly etc etc. However these are more statements of ethical principles which I hold to be sacrosanct rather than beliefs in a suite of eternal verities in the sense intended by the OP. I'm fairly sure most educated people can readily understand that there is a distinction in meaning between saying "I believe X" and saying 'I believe in X".

Ontology: where atheists fear to tread. Ignored completely was this:

Many atheists argue that 'I don't know' is justified and presume the admission somehow makes them wise or more intelligent than 'believers.' But what is their history of accomplishments? What civilizations have they built up? How do they harness the forces that are necessary to create societies? Even Socrates, whom they imagine they emulate when they say 'I don't know,' admitted to having an internal voice that he considered divine or semi-divine.

I only ignored this bit:

Even Socrates, whom they imagine they emulate when they say 'I don't know,' admitted to having an internal voice that he considered divine or semi-divine

because it doesn't apply. Never for one second have I imagined that I emulate Socrates, or desired to do so.


If 'belief poses such conceptual difficulty, just use 'faith' for one kind of belief and 'conviction' for the other. There is also 'trust', as in "I believe my wife never looked at another man." and 'confidence', as in "I believe in Homeland Security."

It's not that the dictionary is so deficient that we have to pile all those meanings onto one word - it's that we're usually too lazy to choose a more accurate or exact word.

Skip wrote: It's not that the dictionary is so deficient that we have to pile all those meanings onto one word - it's that we're usually too lazy to choose a more accurate or exact word.

Exactly. Arguing over the meanings of words is precisely what deservedly gives philosophy a bad name. We all know that the word "belief" has quite a suite of different meanings which are contingent on usage and context so I suggest that this conversation be restricted to the specific usage and context alluded to in the OP. The proposition is that humans are neurologically hard-wired to believe in the supernatural and this is the proposition which I claim is bullshit. The tradition in the philosophical discourse is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that the burden of furnishing such proof always lies with the claimant. Where is it?

Both Skip and Leo show an extraordinary fear of ontology and confronting their unexamined beliefs.

They are hollow -- and quite boring.

All that I believe (provisionally, at this present time) regarding the natural and supernatural, and inclusive of my political, economic, ethical and interpersonal world-views is well enough documented that - even though I am at an age when proper nouns, PIN's and the location of eye- and foot-wear tend to elude me - I can readily account for the source, inception, aetiology and development of every one of my convictions.

The only thing I have sick and sinking fear of is a world dominated by religious bigots.
(Well, that and becoming incontinent and incoherent.)

The Inglorious One wrote:Both Skip and Leo show an extraordinary fear of ontology and confronting their unexamined beliefs.

They are hollow -- and quite boring.

Do you actually know what the word ontology means? I've asked before but you have a very poor record of answering direct questions. However this discussion may make some progress if you try and answer this one.

What on earth does a belief in the supernatural have to do with ontology?

Skip wrote:All that I believe (provisionally, at this present time) regarding the natural and supernatural, and inclusive of my political, economic, ethical and interpersonal world-views is well enough documented that - even though I am at an age when proper nouns, PIN's and the location of eye- and foot-wear tend to elude me - I can readily account for the source, inception, aetiology and development of every one of my convictions.

The only thing I have sick and sinking fear of is a world dominated by religious bigots.
(Well, that and becoming incontinent and incoherent.)

Skip. The degree to which you are betrayed by your body's autonomous functions is a question I'm disinclined to dwell on and wholly unqualified to offer either opinion or advice on. However at this stage I see no evidence of the disordered thinking and incoherence which traditionally accompanies one's cognitive decline. I suspect that you have yourself noticed that such disordered thinking and incoherence is also a common symptom of religious zealotry, the most certain pathway to cognitive decline ever devised by the ingenious mind of man.

Obvious Leo wrote:I take your point, Hobbes, and grant that there are two different applications of the verb "to believe" in the common usage, both of which are valid. For instance I can say that I believe IN such things as the rule of law, free speech, the right to assembly etc etc. However these are more statements of ethical principles which I hold to be sacrosanct rather than beliefs in a suite of eternal verities in the sense intended by the OP. I'm fairly sure most educated people can readily understand that there is a distinction in meaning between saying "I believe X" and saying 'I believe in X".

With the emphasis on "most".
But there is no doubt we are programmed to believe in this things.

The Inglorious One wrote:Ontology: where atheists fear to tread. Ignored completely was this:

Many atheists argue that 'I don't know' is justified and presume the admission somehow makes them wise or more intelligent than 'believers.' But what is their history of accomplishments? What civilizations have they built up? How do they harness the forces that are necessary to create societies? Even Socrates, whom they imagine they emulate when they say 'I don't know,' admitted to having an internal voice that he considered divine or semi-divine.

No one bothered with this is because your two points are completely disconnected.
The achievements of civilisations are not directly connected to any belief in invisible friends, and you'd have to ask yourself if things might have been better without Theism.

As a student of history I can tell you that the last 200 years in which Theism has taken a back seat has shown a remarkable and unprecedented acceleration in development, whereas places such as Islam has not benefitted from the same improvements.

So you are just blowing hot air as usual. If history proves anything, it is that belief is an impediment to progress.

Somebody's got to keep AiR warm, and it's not me....