Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: "Belief is the antithesis of knowledge.".... Bertrand Russell.

A ridiculous statement when you consider knowledge is often gained from the seed of a belief.

Astutely observed. He who does not believe does not even believe enough to seek.

It's fair to say that the main of epistemology since the 1960s fully supports you on that. Kuhn and Feyerabend had that insight, and it has become a mainstay of postmodern epistemology -- one of the things, in fact, that make postmodern epistemology it truly post-modern. Back in the '60s, key philosophers came to realize that before any scientific hypothesis comes personal knowledge, as Michael Polanyi so deftly demonstrated. His book, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy (Chicago: U of C Press, 1962) should be mandatory reading for every scientist or philosopher of science: and he would agree with you completely, I believe.

In fact, he'd say more than "often": he'd say "always."

Immanuel Can wrote: Astutely observed. He who does not believe does not even believe enough to seek.

What a crock of shit. The pursuit of knowledge is not motivated by belief. It is motivated by curiosity, observation and logic. A child does not learn to walk because he believes he can. He learns to walk because he can observe other humans doing so and concludes that this might be a more practical way to get around. If you knew anything whatsoever about the psychology of learning you'd know that the acquisition of knowledge is fundamentally a process of cognitive trial and error. Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever but I see no evidence that they are any the less curious about the world around them than are believers. In fact the opposite is almost universally the case. If our primate ancestors had believed in god they'd never have climbed down from the trees.

Obvious Leo wrote:Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever...

Do you really believe that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever...

Do you really believe that?

I accept it as a fact on the basis of the prevailing evidence.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever...

Do you really believe that?

IC...you took Leo's quote out of context. ..now I ask you...is that the honest thing to do?

Obvious Leo wrote:If our primate ancestors had believed in god they'd never have climbed down from the trees.

Yes they would, how else would they get to church?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever...

Do you really believe that?

The problem here is a failure to communicate, you are obviously using the word "belief" in different ways without clarifying it. One sense is that a "belief" is knowledge without proof of any sort or the possibility of said proof. The other sense is the "belief" of an idea that can be proven with the proper tests or experiments. Both are valid, but the difference must be made clear before valid communications can happen.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Astutely observed. He who does not believe does not even believe enough to seek.

What a crock of shit. The pursuit of knowledge is not motivated by belief. It is motivated by curiosity, observation and logic. A child does not learn to walk because he believes he can. He learns to walk because he can observe other humans doing so and concludes that this might be a more practical way to get around. If you knew anything whatsoever about the psychology of learning you'd know that the acquisition of knowledge is fundamentally a process of cognitive trial and error. Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever but I see no evidence that they are any the less curious about the world around them than are believers. In fact the opposite is almost universally the case. If our primate ancestors had believed in god they'd never have climbed down from the trees.

That is also BS, a child walks because the knowledge is instinctive and the child only needs to develop the physical ability to do so. Young children are not just small rational human beings, they are animals that need to be trained in the ways of society. most parents believe that their children are the most wonderful little people on Earth, most parents are blind fools that need to have their eyes opened to reality.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Most people manage to get through their lives without being burdened with any beliefs whatsoever...

Do you really believe that?

I accept it as a fact on the basis of the prevailing evidence.

More like your prevailing bias, that has no basis in reality.

attofishpi wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:If our primate ancestors had believed in god they'd never have climbed down from the trees.

Yes they would, how else would they get to church?

But wasn't the earliest Christian church wherever several Christians gathered together, and that could have just as well been in a tree?

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:IC, I mostly agree...

Thank you, sir: kindly said. Yet if occasion appears, you are welcome to disagree as well, with no hard feelings raised. You've 'earned your spurs' on that, I think.

Thankyou, "earned my spurs" can I put that on my resume?

Seriously, I thankyou for permission to post what I might need to correct you on, but I think that we are mostly on the same page. If I think of any points that I really need clarification on, I will bring them up, but for now, I believe all is clear.

The one point I never got to clear up with my Muslim friend, is that God never had any children, and therefore never had any grandchildren? How can they accept that Jesus will be the messiah but not the Son of God, I thought that was part of the package, how can they separate it? BTW, this question is for anyone to answer, if they are so inclined.

artisticsolution wrote:IC...you took Leo's quote out of context. ..now I ask you...is that the honest thing to do?

I did not: he said people get through life without believing things...and now it's apparent that not only is it not true of other people, it's certainly not true of him.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:IC...you took Leo's quote out of context. ..now I ask you...is that the honest thing to do?

I did not: he said people get through life without believing things...and now it's apparent that not only is it not true of other people, it's certainly not true of him.

This is part of your problem understanding complex ideas as they pertain to the bible....you do not understand the subtly of language. Clearly Leo was talking about religious beliefs ...how do you not get that?

I was speaking of belief in the context of Russell's statement, which should be self-evident to anybody with the rudiments of English comprehension. In my view a belief in god is indistinguishable from a belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, astrology or the healing power of crystals. It is a psychological crutch which serves to fulfill an inner psychological need. We all have such inner psychological vulnerabilities but I prefer to deal with mine by way of a calming toke of quality home-grown washed down with a glass of red. It's simply a matter of personal preference.

artisticsolution wrote:Clearly Leo was talking about religious beliefs ...how do you not get that?

Actually, it's Leo who doesn't see that "belief" doesn't mean anything spooky or weird. It's an operation every person does every day.

When you get into an elevator, you're never 100% sure it won't plunge to the basement and kill all occupants. Such things have happened, and just because you rode the same elevator yesterday does not mean it's impossible for it to fail today. Your certainty about that is not 100%. But you believe the elevator won't fail, and so you trust it. And you're perfectly rational to do so.

How much wiser is it to believe God than to trust in an elevator?

Christian belief is not some different species of belief. It's exactly the same kind everyone has every day. It's just belief based on what you already know to be true, extended into a new application. That's all.