20
   

How flawed are your beliefs

 
 
Calamity Dal
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2014 04:59 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Mick wrote:
I like Senator John McCain's view- "I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

In other words we KNOW evolution occurs because we can see it in the animal kingdom via natural selection and the survival of the fittest, BUT at the same time there seems to be a guiding hand behind evolution, tweaking it and keeping it on track-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"
-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.


So your god did not create the earth as your bible says so? Did he also tweak apes into humans?
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2014 07:45 pm
Evolution is not part of a belief system but rather part of natural science. It requires understanding, not belief.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2014 08:06 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
Evolution is not part of a belief system but rather part of natural science. It requires understanding, not belief.

Science is part of a belief system.

The belief system is called Naturalism. More specifically it's Methodological Naturalism, but the general form is Naturalism.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2014 08:11 pm
@Calamity Dal,
Calamity Dal wrote:
What are the flaws in your system of belief, and how do you get around them?

Belief systems don't necessarily have to have flaws because belief systems don't require justification. They are simply choices which are made.

The only way a belief system can be "flawed" is if it is logically inconsistent with itself.

Beyond that, a person's behavior can be flawed in relation to their belief system if they claim to believe something yet exhibit behaviors which are inconsistent with that belief.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2014 08:21 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Why the ad-hominem for Jews (sheeny)? And, "schmuck" is just a Yiddishism for penis
Its part of my culture. I come from a line of Jews who converted to Christianity to keep from being tortured in the Pogroms.
ANYWAY, I call em as I sees em.

Sheeny means "brite like tinfoil" inotherwords a phony. Schmuck is a cobined term and Dick is just one of the accepted meanings is a detestable fellow (That's Yinglish).
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 03:31 am
@Calamity Dal,
Good response . . . a god-botherer is someone who always has god in his or her mouth, who is always telling others what god says, what god wants, what god expects us to believe. I saw your response to your own question, which seemed rather wishy-washy--it seemed that you were trying to dodge your own question. My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Then Professor Herr Doktor Doktor Know-it-all came along to make the matter nasty. Don't take it too hard, but do consider that you have avoided giving a clear answer to your own question.

My answer is simple. Evolutionary theory is the best answer i've seen to the question of why we see such a diversity of life on this planet. It's not an "ism" because it is not a belief that i hold religiously, and it's not a political position. If it didn't come up online, i'd very likely never discuss the matter.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 04:24 am
@Calamity Dal,
There is a view that in general it is perfectly normal to hold what logically appear to be contradictory beliefs. Their significance is essentially to serve as action schemas with respect to different needs within the same individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk
From that point of view beliefs are only "flawed" if they don't work out for the life of the holder. Logic has little to do with it except perhaps in debate situations where self respect or social relations may be at stake. If for example, as an atheist, I were a teacher of biology to a "mixed belief class" I might be faced with a social issue of promoting evolution over creationism.
BeHereNow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 04:37 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Belief systems don't necessarily have to have flaws because belief systems don't require justification. They are simply choices which are made.

They are called belief systems for a reason, not Truth Systems, and everyone has one, and they all have one or more fallacies as their basis.
They resort to circular reasoning, they are self supporting.
This does not mean they are incorrect, fallacies are not a guarantee of being incorrect, just of being beyond the rules of logic.
A fallacy is a weakness that should put doubt in the mind of the believer.
This doubt needs to be overcome, or at least realized and accepted.

A very strong believe system may have only one fallacy, a very weak belief system will be a house of card, teetering on 3 or 4 fallacies.

From my experience representatives from all belief systems will deny they have fallacious beliefs, not all representatives, but some.

Most religionists recognize this. They realize their beliefs are built on the words of god, or their sacred text, or supernatural experiences other have not experienced.

Atheists are different.
Many, certainly not all, maybe not even most, are in denial.
They do not admit that a lack of proof is not proof, and to accept a lack of proof that something is false, is fallacious.

Someone who says 'With science I can show that the supernatural does not exist.' is mistaken.
What they should say is 'Science can not show the supernatural exists.'
'Science lacks evidence to show the supernatural exists, so I do not accept it.'

Science, as a discipline, makes no pronouncement about the supernatural except to say "We have no evidence."

Science is not a basis for morality, and Atheists have moral beliefs, even those who are considered amoral. As they say, even if you do not decide, you have decided.
So for their morality they must go outside of science, they must use some form of circular reasoning to justify their beliefs.


Quote:
The only way a belief system can be "flawed" is if it is logically inconsistent with itself.

Lets give this a try.
"BeHereNow is the absolute judge of the cosmos, anyone who doubts what BeHereNow says, is immoral, and deserves death. If BeHereNow says something is true or false, there is nothing else to be said. If anyone thinks BeHereNow is incorct on any issue, they are delusional and immoral, and so is anyone who sides with them."
Any logical inconsistency?
An insane person can be logically consistent in their beliefs, does not make them right.
BeHereNow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 04:49 am
@fresco,
Quote:
From that point of view beliefs are only "flawed" if they don't work out for the life of the holder. Logic has little to do with it except perhaps in debate situations where self respect or social relations may be at stake.
Belief systems have as their basis a fallacy, and fallacies indicate a flaw in logic.

It is easy to imagine that some belief system is true.
In a philosophy discussion forum, logic should be an issue, even if it is discarded.
A good belief system will "work" for an individual, and they will not be plagued by doubts.
If by "flawed" you mean something that should be discarded, we agree.
An individual does not need logic for a good, working, belief system.
Calamity Dal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:14 am
@Setanta,
the wishy washy response was more likely a result of my low iq than design. I'll try again.

On the scale of agnosticism I am more inclined to creation probably due to nurture. I spent best part of 15 years arguing in the local churches with people who claim to have answers, 3 years ago I stopped trying.

How can a loving God create Hell to torment his creations
How could a loving God wipe the Earth of his creation in a worldwide flood
Why would a god create the earth for a "testing ground" and claim no responsibility for what goes on thereafter.
Why would a loving God step back and allow the devil to take over
If a baby dies, and we are here for a necessary test, how can that baby avoid hell if it has not passed the test? if it gets a free pass into heaven then how is murdering your child a bad thing? If the test is not necessary for a baby then why is it necessary for any of us?

the list goes on. Too many questions, not enough answers. I will sit and have a chat with anyone over it but I tend to get pissed off when it gets silly.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:33 am
@BeHereNow,
Are you agreeing with what I wrote or disagreeing?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:34 am
@Calamity Dal,
You can keep that "low IQ" crapola to yourself. If i wanted to insult you, i would be explicit. The problem i had with your OP and your subsequent answer to your own question was that it seemed that you wanted others to provide a response, but were unwilling to do so yourself. The problem i had with "evolutionist" is that it is a polemical term. I don't think a continued discussion here would benefit either of us.
Calamity Dal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:37 am
@Setanta,
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:47 am
@BeHereNow,
Quote:
Belief systems have as their basis a fallacy.


A strange premise. I can't see what that has to do with the rest of your post which seems to be endorsing my point.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:49 am
@rosborne979,
Smile moi aussi !
0 Replies
 
BeHereNow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 06:53 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Are you agreeing with what I wrote or disagreeing?
Belief systems have one or more fallacies at their very base.
If you consider a fallacy to be a flaw, than I am disagreeing.

We agree that they do not 'need' justification.

We believe what we believe, and that is enough.
0 Replies
 
BeHereNow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:02 am
@fresco,
Quote:
A strange premise. I can't see what that has to do with the rest of your post which seems to be endorsing my point.
What you call a 'premise', I say is part of the definition of a 'belief system', not at all strange, and not even a premise.

How can you describe a belief system, without mentioning that it is built on one or more logically fallacious pillars?
This is there nature.

It certainly does not stop us from choosing the best we can make or find, as we all have one.

"A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise."

"mutually supportive" is another way of saying circular reasoning.

BeHereNow
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:08 am
~ ~ ~quote
Science as a Belief System

Despite all the measures science takes to seek the truth and explain the universe, it is still easy to be skeptical of its claims. However, it is far easier to be skeptical of religious claims. Since no better alternative belief systems exist for explaining the universe, the choice between those we have is easy.
http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

Most of us have a belief system combining what we consider the best of science and - "religion", or more accurately, philosophy.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:29 am
@Calamity Dal,
I have a feeling that you ask questions not to get theological answers but to provoke people and you do not even want an answer which would satify you.


How can a loving God create Hell to torment his creations?
As far as I have seen and heard only sects talk about hell not the traditional denominations. In my experience you are decades behind what is preached in church.
How could a loving God wipe the Earth of his creation in a worldwide flood?
He never had a worldwide flood. The world for the people in those days was very limited. There probably was a great flood, but hardly a worldswide.
Why would a god create the earth for a "testing ground" and claim no responsibility for what goes on thereafter?
Testing what???? Maybe he gave us the responsibility to take care of our earth?
Why would a loving God step back and allow the devil to take over?
This a not only a theological question but also a psychological and a human question - we are a mixture of good and evil - how we cooperate with this is to a great extent our problem, not that of God.
If a baby dies, and we are here for a necessary test, how can that baby avoid hell if it has not passed the test? if it gets a free pass into heaven then how is murdering your child a bad thing? If the test is not necessary for a baby then why is it necessary for any of us?
A very good example of your questions which you do not want any anwers to. Your problem is that you ask questions and do not want an answer otherwise you would not have asked the same questions year after year in local chuches and probably in different denominations.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2014 07:36 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

How can a loving God create Hell to torment his creations?


If the god is a fictitious creation who enjoys tormenting its creations...he does it with no difficulty whatsoever.

Quote:

As far as I have seen and heard only sects talk about hell not the traditional denominations.


You mean like Catholicism and Anglicanism?

Are you kidding here?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 08:47:42