Fervent beliefs - do we need 'em?

fishin' wrote:

Well, I'm goingto hea doff to sleep here in a bit and I have a belief that I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning and I'm sticking with it. If I don't ever wake up I'll glady conceed that I was wrong!

There'd be no you to concede it, me dear!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I don't know as you'd call my belief that we exist fervent - I hold that I have no proof that anything outside my consciousness exists - I DO consider it ridiculous and dead-endy to question it all the time, though - so yes, I do consider it necessary to function at all. My position on it is what's his name's riposte to Descartes - given that we ignore Descartes' own answer to his dilemma - that a benevolent god exists and would not allow Descartes' posited evil demon to fool us - which is "so what"?

Yes, there are some beliefs we need to make life reasonable and actable in - (I am not entirely sure that they are uncriticised, though - are they not criticised in every Philosophy 1a course, for instance? Perhaps you have other types of belief in mind?) and I am happy to discuss them, if you wish to - what about ideological fervency?

Eg - I imagine some here would argue that we need such in order to fight against the ideological fervency that threatens us - those who believe we are in WW III.

Yeats' poem can very validly be read as a call to passionate intensity on the part of "the best".

Preach on, wise bunny!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I don't know as you'd call my belief that we exist fervent - I hold that I have no proof that anything outside my consciousness exists - I DO consider it ridiculous and dead-endy to question it all the time, though - so yes, I do consider it necessary to function at all.

Now you use the criteria. IMO it is the bold part. Burden of proof, not fervent.

0 Replies

Sorry?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I don't know as you'd call my belief that we exist fervent - I hold that I have no proof that anything outside my consciousness exists - I DO consider it ridiculous and dead-endy to question it all the time, though - so yes, I do consider it necessary to function at all. My position on it is what's his name's riposte to Descartes - given that we ignore Descartes' own answer to his dilemma - that a benevolent god exists and would not allow Descartes' posited evil demon to fool us - which is "so what"?

Yes, there are some beliefs we need to make life reasonable and actable in - (I am not entirely sure that they are uncriticised, though - are they not criticised in every Philosophy 1a course, for instance? Perhaps you have other types of belief in mind?) and I am happy to discuss them, if you wish to - what about ideological fervency?

Eg - I imagine some here would argue that we need such in order to fight against the ideological fervency that threatens us - those who believe we are in WW III.

Yeats' poem can very validly be read as a call to passionate intensity on the part of "the best".

Preach on, wise bunny!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

kickycan wrote:
dlowan wrote:
I don't know as you'd call my belief that we exist fervent - I hold that I have no proof that anything outside my consciousness exists - I DO consider it ridiculous and dead-endy to question it all the time, though - so yes, I do consider it necessary to function at all. My position on it is what's his name's riposte to Descartes - given that we ignore Descartes' own answer to his dilemma - that a benevolent god exists and would not allow Descartes' posited evil demon to fool us - which is "so what"?

Yes, there are some beliefs we need to make life reasonable and actable in - (I am not entirely sure that they are uncriticised, though - are they not criticised in every Philosophy 1a course, for instance? Perhaps you have other types of belief in mind?) and I am happy to discuss them, if you wish to - what about ideological fervency?

Eg - I imagine some here would argue that we need such in order to fight against the ideological fervency that threatens us - those who believe we are in WW III.

Yeats' poem can very validly be read as a call to passionate intensity on the part of "the best".

Preach on, wise bunny!

Just my way of saying I believe in what you're saying, but not too fervently. :wink:

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Sorry?

You kept using the wrong criteria for what you yourself wanted to say.

First it was "beliefs" then you got hung up with "fervent".

Ultimately you happened upon what you were trying to say all along by referencing burden of proof.

Let me tell you what you are trying to articulate ;-)

Your objection is not "belief" but rather specific beliefs.

Your objection is not about "fervent" either but about specific beliefs that can be fervently held (or not).

Your objection is about adopting beliefs that do not pass the test of burden of proof AND that are fervently held.

Lemme know if I guessed right.

0 Replies

Do you actually believe anything, which you don't believe fervently?

Can you 'sorta' believe something--or does belief imply pristine, unchallenged-by-your-own-mind belief?

Certainly, your belief would change if you get new information--but while you believe, is there room for doubt?

0 Replies

It appears to be a universal truth that folks object not so much to beliefs (we all have them) or even fervent beliefs (we all indulge in them every so often) and certainly not to beliefs that do not pass the "test of burden of proof" (you guessed it: we're all equally guilty).

The only thing we object to is beliefs which we ourselves do not hold. Then we make up artificial criteria for the validity of beliefs (pretending, of course, that our beliefs measure up to those criteria) to avoid the inevitable hypocrisy of it all Wink

Granted, some beliefs are more defensible than others, but it is a rare individual who is honest about the defensibility of their own beliefs relative to the beliefs of others.

0 Replies

From the point of view of "reality as a social contruction", the holding of "beliefs" or indeed the words "belief" and "fact" only have significance with respect to their impact on social relationships.

Thus the viability of the position of the pastor in question depends on the resolution of the social conflict about whether he can do "his job".
I seem to remember a similar conflict in the Anglican Church over the non-orthodox views of Don Cupitt.

It might be worth considering also the position of teachers of elementary levels of subjects like science or history who know full well that the "facts" they offer have very little to do with a fuller analysis of the subject. The concept of "pragmatism" appears to be common to both social situations.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:

Everything you think is true is a belief.

Is that true?

0 Replies

Yes, and yes it it a belief just like any other assertion of veracity.

0 Replies

So it's a belief that you insist is true?

0 Replies

I "insist" that anything that anyone asserts to be true is a belief, and that would of course fall into the same category (as in "anything").

You are acting like they are mutually exclusive when they are not.

0 Replies

Quote:

I "insist" that anything that anyone asserts to be true is a belief, and that would of course fall into the same category (as in "anything").

So you insist your above belief is true?

If anything anyone asserts to be true is a belief what distinguishes beliefs?

Quote:

You are acting like they are mutually exclusive when they are not.

False.

I merely asked 2 questions.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

So you insist your above belief is true?

I answered your question the first time you asked it twyvel and you can re-read if you fancy repetition.

Quote:

If anything anyone asserts to be true is a belief what distinguishes beliefs?

Distinguishes them from what? From what is not a belief? You may have noticed me saying that "anything anyone asserts" is a belief. So you are asking me to distinguish it from nothing.

Silly question. Rolling Eyes

I'm starting to remember why I chose to avoid the philosophy threads.

0 Replies

Quote:

I answered your question the first time you asked it twyvel and you can re-read if you fancy repetition.

Yes I know you did Craven.

I repeating the question because insisting a belief is true when, as a belief, it can be false is to insist that an uncertainty is true.

Quote:

If anything anyone asserts to be true is a belief what distinguishes beliefs?

Quote:
Distinguishes them from what? From what is not a belief? You may have noticed me saying that "anything anyone asserts" is a belief. So you are asking me to distinguish it from nothing.

If everything is white there is no white.

Quote:

Silly question.

Oh no.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

I repeating the question because insisting a belief is true when, as a belief, it can be false is to insist that an uncertainty is true.

No kidding, kinda like how any assertion of perfection except on a conceptual level is an assertion of perfection when whatever is being described is, in all likelihood imperfect.

It's not rocket science twyvel, pure certainty can't exist on some level, and anything anyone asserts to be a truth is merely a belief in the veracity.

And this is not a news flash or anything, it's always been this way. But if you feel the urge to repeat the question again, I suggest a re-reading of the answer I provided you the first time.

e.g.

Code:

while (twyvel wants to repeat the question)  {

echo $theanswertwyvelalreadyreceived;

}

That way, it can be done as many times as you would like while at the same time freeing me up for more worthwhile pursuits. A win-win situation if there ever were one. Very Happy

Quote:

If everything is white there is no white.

False.

The white will continue to exist.

What you were going for is actually best described by saying "that which describes everything describes nothing" but you settled instead for a patently false statement.

Let's just pretend you got it right because I don't want to waste a lot of time on circle thoughts right now. I'll also go ahead and get to the point you are trying unsucessfully to get to and answer your questions:

For practical purposes people also tend to use belief to only describe a subset of the full range of beliefs. They differentiate this subset from the grander set on the basis of the ambiguity as there are many beliefs that they are unable or unwilling to investigate to see if it meets their criteria for "true".

Other considerations include beliefs that are disputed to a significant (according to the criteria of each individual) degree as well as beliefs that the individual considers to be false while others consider true.

See jnhofzinser's post on this thread if you would like more edification in that regard.

Quote:

Quote:
Silly question.

Oh no.

Oh yes. And furthermore questions I am inclined to leave for others to spend time on.

0 Replies

There are many "flavors" of belief. Some of those beliefs require "internal faith" -- i.e., a faith in one's own faculties of observation or reason. There are also those beliefs that require "external faith" -- i.e., a faith in an authority or principle.

Moreover, there is also a spectrum of belief relative to the foundation for that belief. It has been my observation that in many cases, the strength of the foundation is not (apparently) related to the belief-target. That is, as one acquires more and more information on a given subject, one can honestly flip-flop on one's belief about that subject.

I'm with Craven -- I think that everything we hold is a belief ("it is all white") -- but we can (at least pretend that we can) construct an agreed-upon "threshold" of foundation by which we can refer to things as "facts".

It is a common mistake to dismiss the beliefs of others because there exists someone (not necessarily one's interlocutor) who has adopted that belief "blindly" (i.e., without foundation). Unfortunately, it is almost certainly the case that there are those who have adopted your beliefs without foundation, too!

Finally, the bromide that "we can believe what we like as long as we do not impose those beliefs on others" is a shallow (and hypocritical!) defence of one's own belief that "we must not impose our beliefs on others" -- a belief that we are, in fact, imposing on others when we speak it in the first place!

0 Replies

jnhofzinser,

The last item you mention is a very good point.

0 Replies

Fervent beliefs - do we need 'em?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know