Belief and Disbelief

[InJoy]

A thread in this forum has gone off on a bit of a tangent that I think is worthy of further discussion in a more appropriate arena to its subject. The opening subject of the other thread was cloud busting, and there are a couple of people who have been very vocal in their belief that such things cannot exist, while other people, myself included, have claimed to have actually tried cloud busting with some success.

This disagreement inevitably led to other subjects, most recently God. Since God is the Big Kahuna of disparate beliefs, I was thinking it would be an interesting conversation to discuss why we do or do not believe. We don't have to limit the discussion to God, of course. It's just as interesting (and relevant) to talk about why people believe or disbelieve in astral projection, channeling, psychic energy, etc.

But I'll start with belief in God because it's nice and general - not to mention, all-encompassing.

These are some thoughts I had following comments made by someone who has expressed disbelief in God and anything else that cannot be proven by science:

Nobody can prove there is a God. Nobody can prove there is no God. Folks could (and have) argued for eons and never reach a provable conclusion in either direction. For one group to suggest that the other is flat-out wrong is illogical. As long as something cannot be proved, it cannot be disregarded as factually untrue. That includes atheism.

I think this argument holds water in regards to other "paranormal" activity as well. That includes claims of cloud busting. (I do believe that we could go further into proving or disproving this idea if we all lived in the same town and could test the theories in person, together. However, since we do not live under those circumstances, cloud busting remains a matter of separate and personal experience and opinion.)

Furthermore, another point was made (by a different poster) that unmitigated skepticism is just as limiting as the absence of skeptical thought. I agree with this. IMO, both are closed-minded approaches.

My bottom line: I believe that believers and non-believers are on equal footing as long as both remain open to the possibility that they are wrong.

What do you think?

[wolfgang]

I think some people come to believe something that is very subjective for them. They are able to believe it because of some kind of experience they've had.

Christians have a conversion event when they feel the holy spirit come into their hearts. Or is it Jesus not the holy spirit? Anyway, they believe in Jesus because of some feeling that they know, for sure, that they are living with Jesus. It's a subjective experience that can not be shown to anybody or expalined to the point someone else will believe it.

I don't understand faith. It seems to be a way to believe something one has not had a direct experience of. The leap of faith is wanting to believe something because it makes enough sense to. Or one is interested in some way of bettering their life/feeling/experience and thinks believing so and so will help. To me, that's sort of like trying out a belief and operating under the influence of what it means to believe that, and seeing if it's useful.

Then, I wonder, what beliefs are useful anyway? I mean, at some level all beliefs are temporary views/explainations of what we are experiencing.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by InJoy

A thread in this forum has gone off on a bit of a tangent that I think is worthy of further discussion in a more appropriate arena to its subject. The opening subject of the other thread was cloud busting, and there are a couple of people who have been very vocal in their belief that such things
cannot exist, while other people, myself included, have claimed to have actually tried cloud busting with some success.

This disagreement inevitably led to other subjects, most recently God. Since God is the Big Kahuna of disparate beliefs, I was thinking it would be an interesting conversation to discuss why we do or do not believe. We don't have to limit the discussion to God, of course. It's just as interesting (and relevant) to talk about why people believe or disbelieve in astral projection, channeling, psychic energy, etc.

But I'll start with belief in God because it's nice and general - not to mention, all-encompassing.

These are some thoughts I had following comments made by someone who has expressed disbelief in God and anything else that cannot be proven by science:

Nobody can prove there is a God. Nobody can prove there is no God. Folks could (and have) argued for eons and never reach a provable conclusion in either direction. For one group to suggest that the other is flat-out wrong is illogical. As long as something cannot be proved, it cannot be disregarded as factually untrue. That includes atheism.

I think this argument holds water in regards to other "paranormal" activity as well. That includes claims of cloud busting. (I do believe that we could go further into proving or disproving this idea if we all lived in the same town and could test the theories in person, together. However, since we do not live under those circumstances, cloud busting remains a matter of separate and personal experience and opinion.)

Furthermore, another point was made (by a different poster) that unmitigated skepticism is just as limiting as the absence of skeptical thought. I agree with this. IMO, both are closed-minded approaches.

My bottom line: I believe that believers and non-believers are on equal footing as long as both remain open to the possibility that they are wrong.

What do you think?

My beliefs...

God is everything not a seperate entity

Everything follows a scientific process, cause and effect

The big bang occured, we evolved and the universe has been unfolding ever since

I dont believe in anything paranormal. I believe people think they have powers due to interperatation, coincidence, fantasy, ego trip.

Your belief for Paranormal activity is a scientific process, the idea of paranormal acitvitity stimulates your mind so you chase that fantasy(we are all here for contentment, whichever way it comes)

All "paranormal" experiences can be explained via logic.

I think Paranormal belief creates cognitive dissonence by which the believer will always try to find a rationale to fit their fantasy rather than accept logic.
As does belief in a seperate entity god, heaven, soul and spirit.

I think Skeptics Vs Believers is not the same thing. Skeptics have a more accurate interperation of events.

[Shamou]

Einstein said,

"Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it…

He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. "

So,I believe that each of us has his own personal universe (reality) ...I live with the reality of my own God... and I respect other people's reality...

My God is good... he loves and protects me... and all He asks in return is a little gratitude on my part... I'm happy with this arrangement... and it has served me well throughout the years...

.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Furthermore, another point was made (by a different poster) that unmitigated skepticism is just as limiting as the absence of skeptical thought.

I think that's true. I don't see reason ever to suspend belief completely. That suspense of belief or disbelief almost becomes an active position in and of itself, closing off any discussion of the issue. Why not just hold one belief but also the possibility of its opposite? Or hold that two or more alternatives are equally possible? Skeptics and believers differ on the degree to which they believe one should err on the side of self-doubt. It's a matter of degree, not of kind, that separates a believer from a non-believer.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I think some people come to believe something that is very subjective for them. They are able to believe it because of some kind of experience they've had.

I agree. Aren't beliefs simply things that we think true on a consistent basis?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Christians have a conversion event when they feel the holy spirit come into their hearts. Or is it Jesus not the holy spirit? Anyway, they believe in Jesus because of some feeling that they know, for sure, that they are living with Jesus. It's a subjective experience that can not be shown to anybody or expalined to the point someone else will believe it.

Who knows, but the person experiencing it? Just because we cannot prove an experience to another person does not mean we did not experience it.

Do you love anyone, wolfgang? Can you prove it?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I don't understand faith.

But you have faith. You must believe in something. If you believe in the Big Bang (for instance), that is faith. You weren't there. All you have is a pile of suggestive evidence. You can't prove anything. You can't even prove that I or anything exists outside of your mind. You also cannot prove that we don't. So, whichever you believe, that is faith.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

It seems to be a way to believe something one has not had a direct experience of.

I'm confused about this statement, because above you said that faith is based upon a direct, subjective experience that cannot be proven to others. If God visits me and we have a chat, I may not be able to prove that to you, but I did have a direct experience.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Then, I wonder, what beliefs are useful anyway? I mean, at some level all beliefs are temporary views/explainations of what we are experiencing.

I think that's the most important question any of us can ask ourselves. What beliefs are useful to me? What beliefs are serving me? What beliefs make my life, and the lives of those around me, better?

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

My beliefs...

God is everything not a seperate entity

Nossusbeliefs, I thought you were an atheist. Was I mistaken?

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

The big bang occured, we evolved and the universe has been unfolding ever since

I can see why you'd have faith in that idea. I'm not sure whether I agree, but since nobody can prove or disprove it, it's as good a belief as any.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

I think Skeptics Vs Believers is not the same thing. Skeptics have a more accurate interperation of events.

I think skeptical believers have the most accurate interpretation of beliefs. However, people who believe everything and people who believe nothing are both deeply limited in what they can see through their respective filters. Don't you agree?

[wolfgang]

But you have faith. You must believe in something. If you believe in the Big Bang (for instance), that is faith. You weren't there. All you have is a pile of suggestive evidence. You can't prove anything. You can't even prove that I or anything exists outside of your mind. You also cannot prove that we don't. So, whichever you believe, that is faith.

I suppose I believe in gravity and the 3d world to a high degree because I keep experiencing it the same. I have a really strong repeatable world going on. It's as if I believe in 3d because I know next time I grab something my hand will feel it. It seems like it's always been that way, so I don't need faith to believe it. I'm not taking someone else's belief in 3d and wanting to believe just out of shear faith without any direct experience of 3d myself.

I have many things I could try to believe in and I'd have to use faith to say I believe that stuff. I don't understand how to extend my beliefs with faith, or why I would want to.

1) There's belief that comes from direct experience.
2) There's belief using faith in directly experienced evidence being conveincing "enough".
3) There's belief using faith in what other's say.

Any faith based belief, to me, is not really a belief. It's a "trying on". However, like you are saying to me, maybe number 2 is alot of my "belief" system. I have been convinced enough with my own direct expereince, and I believe something. So, too bad, there seems to be a grey area. Where's the line bewteen 1 and 2? Direct experience versus enough evidence.

I'm confused about this statement, because above you said that faith is based upon a direct, subjective experience that cannot be proven to others. If God visits me and we have a chat, I may not be able to prove that to you, but I did have a direct experience.

I think belief is based on subjective experience and can't be proved to others. Faith is what makes someone say they believe something even though they may not have had the direct subjective experience to know or feel it's true (for them).

If God did chat to you, you would believe it and you wouldn't need to walk out on a limb of faith to have that belief. As opposed to me saying I believe in God because everyone around me says they do, and I decide to believe that too - I would have that belief by having faith, not by experience.

I'm not sure that I said faith is based on subjective experience. A subjective experience is what changes faith into someone knowing and plain having their belief.

I said someone can have a conversion by feeling Jesus in their heart and at that point they don't have to have faith in that belief - they have an experience that makes that belief really true, for them.

[Angela]

There's more than just either believing or being a skeptic. There's also being rational: weighing the likelihood of a supposition, making your evaluation, and remaining open to further evidence.

Are you an aleprechaunist because you are skeptical and closed minded about the possibility of the existence of the wee folk? I presume that you might be willing to entertain the possibility if one showed up at your door with a shileghleh and a pot o' gold, but overall I assume that you have heard evidence for and against and made up your mind as to the likelihood of this happening.

If I were presented with compelling evidence as to the existence of a personal interventionist god, I would certainly consider it with an open mind. So far, though, the evidence I've seen is as compelling as that for leprechauns.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

1) There's belief that comes from direct experience.
2) There's belief using faith in directly experienced evidence being conveincing "enough".
3) There's belief using faith in what other's say.

I would add a fourth.

4) There's belief that comes about due to repetitive thought.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

So, too bad, there seems to be a grey area. Where's the line bewteen 1 and 2? Direct experience versus enough evidence.

I agree. I think that line can only be decided by the individual.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I think belief is based on subjective experience and can't be proved to others. Faith is what makes someone say they believe something even though they may not have had the direct subjective experience to know or feel it's true (for them).

Thank you for clarifying that definition for me. It makes what you are saying much clearer to me now.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If God did chat to you, you would believe it and you wouldn't need to walk out on a limb of faith to have that belief. As opposed to me saying I believe in God because everyone around me says they do, and I decide to believe that too - I would have that belief by having faith, not by experience.

Agree!

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I'm not sure that I said faith is based on subjective experience. A subjective experience is what changes faith into someone knowing and plain having their belief.

I'm not sure you said it that way either, Wolfgang. Let's call it my mistake. I wasn't clear about our differentiation between faith and belief.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by InJoy

I would add a fourth.

4) There's belief that comes about due to repetitive thought.

Cool, definetly lots of those beliefs in everybody, ha? We just act and think a certain way out of habit and conditioning and we form a belief to back up what we are doing and thinking.

I'm not sure you said it that way either, Wolfgang. Let's call it my mistake. I wasn't clear about our differentiation between faith and belief.

No worries. I'm just sorting out my thoughts on faith and belief while I write anyway.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Angela

Are you an aleprechaunist because you are skeptical and closed minded about the possibility of the existence of the wee folk?

LOL! aleprechaunist... great word!

I see your point, but I do believe there is a difference between skepticism and closed-mindedness. I am very skeptical about the existence of leprechauns, much (apparently) as you are about the existence of God. However, I do not consider myself closed-minded about it.

And, frankly, by your statement that compelling evidence might sway you, you don't sound closed-minded either.

By my definition and understanding, skepticism is a healthy bit of doubt about something, and it can be very useful in attaining the truth. Closed-mindedness takes it too far, because no new evidence or information is allowed in to disturb the established beliefs. That is where the skeptic forgets to be skeptical about his or her skepticism!

Shamou, I meant to mention...

Originally Posted by Shamou

My God is good... he loves and protects me... and all He asks in return is a little gratitude on my part...

This is only my belief and opinion, but God's desire for your gratitude isn't for God's benefit. Nobody is served more greatly by your gratitude than you yourself.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by InJoy

I see your point, but I do believe there is a difference between skepticism and closed-mindedness.

I agree with that. My point was that I'm not skeptical or doubtful about the existence of a personal interventionist god; rather, that I think the likelihood is about the same as that leprechauns gambol around the countryside, based on my evaluation of the evidence I've seen during my life.

In other words, there's more than two approaches; we're not limited to being either a believer or a skeptic.

I also fully agree with you about the benefit of gratitude laying mostly within the grateful. I'm starting to think gratefulness might be the most powerfully positive Force in life! (and I thank you for pointing that out! )

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm starting to think gratefulness might be the most powerfully positive Force in life! (and I thank you for pointing that out! )

Funny you should say that, because I am starting to think the exact same thing.

[nosussbeliefs]

To answer Injoys question, I belief in the Zen philosophy but I don't apply them fully... I'm content living my life with a healthy ego, but i try to live it with some zen factor. That is, accepting gods will(everything that happens)... try to have some control over my desires and attachments. I find this works for me and provides me sufficient contentment.

When I said I didn't believe in a god in a previous thread i meant an entity god. I try not to use the word "god" too much as it might give the wrong idea that i have faith in a higher entity.

[Gabo]

Nosussbeliefs, I think your error is the assumption that "science" is a complete model that explains everything in the universe.

Science is a system for better understanding the world we observe. All scientific theories are based on observable properties of the universe collected through experiments. But because we can never conduct and infinite number of experiments on a particular hypothesis, or test every hypothesis imaginable, we will never have a complete and accurate model of the universe. Absolute truth does not exist in science.


To give an example, suppose I formulate a hypothesis that all swans are white.
Now suppose I observe ten swans, and they are all white.

Some older scientific methods would say that the data has proven my hypothesis, but that isn't really true. The only conclusion I can reach from the data is that my hypothesis hasn't been rejected.... yet.

I could test a thousand, a million, or a billion swans, and observe all of them as white. And yet, if swan #1,000,000,001 is black, my hypothesis is false. Absolute certainty of a given hypothesis is scientifically impossible.


For this reason, I find it unwise to claim that paranormal experiences are impossible because they do not fit the laws of science. Science is constantly evolving, and new discoveries are constantly overturning old beliefs (take quantum mechanics, for example). There is still very much we do not know about our universe, so rejecting a hypothesis without testing it is harmful to the scientific process.

I'm not saying that paranormal activities are real in part or in whole, but I know for sure that writing them off as nonsense without testing them first will ensure that we don't know what they are.

[Mato Kinze]

A belief is simply an agreement we make with ourselves that we "know" something.

Once we give up the need to "know" and simply accept/submit, then the whole issue of "belief" goes right out the window.