Thinking about a faith based reality...

[Cassius23]

Now I bet some of the people reading this are thinking I'm going to talk about X or Y religion.

Actually, not so much.

What I'm going to talk about is skepticism.

In the sense that I am talking here, skepticism is the idea that we take on a degree of faith all of our perceptions or beliefs.

This is as true with the most staunch scientific materialist as the most ardent snake handling Baptist.

The argument for it goes something like this.

We determine all reality through perception or arguments based on perception.
Perception can be fooled
Ergo anything in reality we perceive can be false.

The analogy used nowadays for this is the Matrix/Brain in a Vat analogy.

How can you prove 100% that you are not in the Matrix, that you are reading the words I'm typing now on a computer?

The answer is you can only be about 99.99% sure of it.

Now this is good enough for most day to day work but it should be thought of whenever one decides that they are 100% absolutely right about anything.

If there is a very small chance that you are wrong about the very core of your reality, what else could you be wrong about?

Lates

[Taverner]

1. See: "The Seventh Seal" by Ingmar Bergman

That is essentially the message

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Yeah. And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I submit that when you go that far to prove a 'faith based reality' you are approaching the point of delusion.

I'm not 100% sure of anything, but if there is a god and I face him I'm going to spit in his eye and demand to know why he stacked the deck against belief.

Not that I believe there is the remotest chance of that happening.

[Cassius23]

3. Actually it does have a very practical use.

Consider in my line of work doing technical support.

If I believed with the same level of certainty of those individuals that call that the cause of X problem is Y and that's the way it is and that settles it then the only thing I'd get done is lots of colorful shouting about how stupid and delusional the other person is because they don't see what is "obviously True".

However, because of the skepticism that I have it helps me to see that I could be right, they could be right, we could be right, or we could both be wrong as far as what's wrong.

This allows us as a team to figure out what the problem is and fix it, or to realize we have no clue and send it to someone who does.

Also, God didn't stack the deck against belief at all. Quite the opposite. When you look at the human mind it seems that even those things that are hard wired(such as, say, a predisposition to alcoholism or depression) can be changed given time and effort, much less such things as if you believe in an amorphous figure in the sky tossing out pronouncements about what his/her/its followers should have for dinner.

Now as far as determining if a single belief is really, really, absolutely True, in that case I'll agree that God did stack the deck against us.

[MrModerate]

5. Nah, it's much worse than that . . .

If there were a god (cough, cough), and this god were interested in worship or his/her/its creations modifying their behavior in some particular manner pleasing to said god, (S)He'd be due a pretty serious talking to because there is absolutely no evidence for such a being's existence and hence -- as the original poster said -- the deck is stacked against belief.

I'm glad, however, that you acknowledge the possibility that the people who call your help desk might know what they're talking about -- in my experience, that trait is kind of spotty in the IT world.

[Cassius23]

15. Of course I acknowledge customers might know something...

Now that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about anywhere near as often as they think they do, but then that's because they fall into the error of according beliefs loosly based on facts(there is a problem with my computer that can't be resolved by restarting) the same level of reality as beliefs based on centuries of research(the law of gravity, for example).

And yes, very few of my fellow techs are as skeptical of their own knowledge as I am, I'm afraid.

[MrModerate]

4. There's an old joke (anyone who knows it . . .

. . . is welcome to upload the whole thing) about a mathemetician and an engineer in a hotel room with a beautiful woman giving them a come-hither look.

The punchline is "I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

As for myself, I'm content with less than 100% certainty, and it doesn't keep me up nights.

[lvx35]

6. HEHEHE! rock.

Lemme guess, it involved Zeno's paradox?

[MrModerate]

11. The winner! n/t

[lvx35]

7. Thanks! I take that as base level common sense.

Anybody who has thought about the nature of mind and knowledge should know what you said above, which is that no knowing is absolute....We believe in what works, period. The REAL fascinating stuff is how many things that most would consider completely wrong work, like the tribesman who doesn't eat the poison berry because folklore says it "contains a bad spirit". If you accept a memetic worldview, then you know that all human ideas are like genes: They are not completely true just like genes aren't completly optimized for their environment, they are just true enough (optimal enough) to ensure their own survival.

[trotsky]

8. I don't have a problem with less than 100% certainty.

What I do have a problem with is when lots of people use this reasoning to essentially say, "Well since no one can be sure of anything, then my pet belief is just as valid as yours."

Yeah, the belief of Christian Scientists that prayer is better for their diabetic kid than insulin is just as valid as the belief of a doctor that they need real medical help. :eyes:

It's one thing to get all mystical about "no one can be sure," it's another thing entirely when we come back to the real world and belief systems conflict - how do you resolve it? You *have* to declare one system more valid than another. For instance, we see in our Constitution that the values of secularism and church-state separation trump the beliefs of those who think this should be a Christian nation.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. As I have stated here before my belief

is not based on logic. It is intuitive, emotional and I will admit it might even be delusional. Although I am not prone to hallucinations, etc. I simply feel it, I have always felt it. I "know" with something other than intellectual knowledge.

But here is where my intellect DOES slip in. I look around and see billions of people worshiping (or not) in very different ways from me. My intellect tells me they cannot all be going to hell. Hell would be way too crowded if everybody was there except Episcopalians. And damn, heaven would be boring! Everybody would play golf all day and throw back martinis before dinner. So intellectually I understand that the path I choose to access my inner knowledge is cultural and probably of very little importance. Sometimes I do get confused about Christ (in whom I believe) saying things like "you can only get to the Father through me." But then I figure, there are 2000 years of translation. And who is "You" and who is "the Father"? A lot of variables I don't know. So I follow the path I'm on, do the whole Christian thing, and figure I have it covered. But as to whether or not anyone else has it covered, (and this includes my family) I feel it simply isn't my business. And THAT's where I veer off from the fundamentalists. I don't mean I think "F you if you don't believe like I do, burn in hell for all I care." I just trust that God, who is perfect also has it covered. I just trust.

T-Grannie

[Ready4Change]

9. My take:

Sure, the "real world" may not be real. However, it has strong consistencies that are lacking in any untested mental construct.

Now I love the imagination. Mine is strong and vivid, and I've spent many enjoyable hours in there. Great place. But a real, consistent, testable world? THAT'S interesting.

To me, God begins where science cannot yet go. But science is a sphere. As it expands, so does it's boundary. In other words, as science expands, so does the wonder that may be God.

[varkam]

10. Very true.

The scope of things we can know (and to know something, you must be certain - as one can not know a falsehood, definitionally speaking) is extremely limited. I know that there is a mind-existent world because of the concept "I". I know certain mathematical truths such as 2 + 2 = 4. Beyond that, it tends to get fuzzy.

I've always maintained that the agnostic atheist (a="without" gnosis="knowledge") or the agnostic theist position are the wisest paths to take. Moreover, they're the only positions that allow for rational and reasonable discussion on difficult topics. After all, if you "know" something, then you "know" anyone who disagrees with you is wrong; which is not exactly conducive to a productive argument between multiple parties.

So do I believe in God? Hell no. I'm very strong in my belief that we are godless critters in a godless universe. Do I know that to be the case? Hell no. I could very easily be mistaken, and am willing to entertain the possibility of such.

on edit: Welcome to DU! :toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Well....

perception has always been a fundamental question, and we all do perceive things in different ways. Taking this too far, though, leads to radical solipsism, where you're all figments of my imagination and creatures of my dreams.

We have to remember that scientific observation and experimentation is extrmely handy and works very well for what it's used for. But, while it measures and counts very well, it doesn't really explain why things should be measured and counted. It is quantitative, not qualitative.

Physics is very good at defining concepts, but then it falls down when we sit and wonder, as we always do, just what are we doing in this tiny corner of an insignificant galaxy.

Psychology is very good at understanding our motivations and emotions, but does it answer our deepest questions about our loves and hates? Do we want it to clinically prescribe love for us?

No, we have a spiritual and emotional side to us that we are all quite fond of, and art, religion, philosophy... respond to that side. Or, rather, that side responds with the non-rational explosion of feeling and understanding through a great artwork, a song, a feeling of oneness with some god...

This is not irrationality, but it is illogical in the world of Venn diagrams, formulae, and syllogisms. That it is "illogical" to cry at a movie or worship some god sitting on a cloud somewhere does not mean it is in any way wrong-- it is what makes us human.

The problem is when some people insist that their own personal emotional reactions are the only valid ones. That, as in science, is just not so. Science can rely on repeatability and proofs to show what is what, but these emotional revelations are personal, and may be shared, but not enforced or called "truth."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Very well said and thought out

thank you. This thread almost whooshed over my head and you brought it home.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. You're welcome. I've been thinking about...

this a lot over the years, but been negligent about studying it properly. Lots has been said about this, and I've looked at far too little of it.

I have been involved in a Peace project with some local Sunday School kids, and came across some very interesting related things about how to look at the Bible, prayer, worship, and religion in general while researching historic Christian attitudes toweard war and peace. I'll be away fropm the computer for a few days, but hope to post some of them when I get back.

[Finder]

13. False premise...

Skeptics understand that perception is not reality.

[Random_Australian]

14. I simply believe that which has the highest statistical coefficient.

Certainty never came into it.

Edit: :shrug: My logic skills are enough to have a go at God, therefore that came into it a long time ago. (Yes, have a go at God without producing much,as it appears the definition acts like an algorithm (to increase complexity) when you try to bottleneck the infinite possibilities into something you can use logic on to come to some kind of conclusion. The good thing about this is that the reverse is also true, that even someone with remarkably low intelligence can experience God, but this is all an aside and I daresay it may appear very arrogant of me, but logic is what I am all about)

Second Edit: What was I raving about in my first edit? I don't know. I am really tired right now.