Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

logical belief


Marv.2

Recommended Posts

Just curious here.

Do you consider your beliefs logical?

And is it important that your beliefs be logical?

Joseph Campbell said one of the main functions of a working belief system is to provide a model of reality that is accurate.

Now I know this is a touchy subject. Some people argue about science and religion and people deny some things that seem very factual according to science and some people deny the possibility of anything that cannot be proved by science.

But for many, an accurate model of reality would include concepts of good and evil and the human soul, and also incorporate the physical evidence of dinosaurs, evolution, and a 14 billion year old universe.

Such beliefs might not be held "logical" by strict scientific standards, but if the beliefs do not contradict our experience of reality is that not providing an accurate model of reality? For example. If one believes in a God that does not interfere directly in human events, but perhaps wrote the laws of physics that control our physical universe and is active on a spiritual plane, that would not contradict our current knowledge of reality.

And for that matter, intelligent design, while not scientific, might be considered one such belief.

Edited by Marv.2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • IamsSon

    4

  • StarMountainKid

    3

  • libstaK

    3

  • Marv.2

    3

Top Posters In This Topic

Pardon my typing. I went back and tried to edit out my typos. I hope my point is clear now.

Edited by Marv.2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is science and scienctism, they are different. I see no contradiction between science and religion. Nor is belief in God irrational. In the near past, the undiverse was considered to be in a 'steady state' and eternal, that is no longer true.

Scientism

Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological. Drawing from the general empiricism of The Enlightenment, scientism is most closely associated with the positivism of August Comte (1798-1857) who held an extreme view of empiricism, insisting that true knowledge of the world arises only from perceptual experience. Comte criticized ungrounded speculations about phenomena that cannot be directly encountered by proper observation, analysis and experiment. Such a doctrinaire stance associated with science leads to an abuse of reason that transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma (Hayek, 1952). It is this ideological dimension that we associate with the term scientism. Today the term is used with pejorative intent to dismiss substantive arguments that appeal to scientific authority in contexts where science might not apply. This over commitment to science can be seen in epistemological distortions and abuse of public policy.

Epistemological scientism lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge. Human inquiry is reduced to matters of material reality. We can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method. And since the method is emphasized with such great importance, the scientistic tendency is to privilege the expertise of a scientific elite who can properly implement the method. But science philosopher Susan Haack (2003) contends that the so-called scientific method is largely a myth propped up by scientistic culture. There is no single method of scientific inquiry. Instead, Haack explains that scientific inquiry is contiguous with everyday empirical inquiry (p. 94). Everyday knowledge is supplemented by evolving aids that emerge throughout the process of honest inquiry. These include the cognitive tools of analogy and metaphor that help to frame the object of inquiry into familiar terms. They include mathematical models that enable the possibility of prediction and simulation. Such aids include crude, impromptu instruments that develop increasing sophistication with each iteration of a problem-solving activity. And everyday aids include social and institutional helps that extend to lay practitioners the distributed knowledge of the larger community. According to Haack, these everyday modes of inquiry open the scientific process to ordinary people and they demystify the epistemological claims of the scientistic gate keepers. (p. 98)

The abuse of scientism is most pronounced when it finds its way into public policy. A scientistic culture privileges scientific knowledge over all other ways of knowing. It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to exclude the laity from participation in policy formation. Despite such obvious transgressions of democracy, common citizens yield to the dictates of scientism without a fight. The norms of science abound in popular culture and the naturalized authority of scientific reasoning can lead unchecked to a malignancy of cultural norms. The most notorious example of this was seen in Nazi Germany where a noxious combination of scientism and utopianism led to the eugenics excesses of the Third Reich (Arendt, 1951). Policy can be informed by science, and the best policies take into account the best available scientific reasoning. Law makers are prudent to keep an ear open to science while resisting the rhetoric of the science industry in formulating policy. It is the role of science to serve the primary interests of the polity. But government in a free society is not obliged to serve the interests of science. Jurgen Habermas (1978, Ch 3) warns that positivism and scientism move in where the discourse of science lacks self-reflection and where the spokesmen of science exempt themselves from public scrutiny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin Ryder

University of Colorado at Denver

Peace

mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you consider your beliefs logical?

And is it important that your beliefs be logic?

That depends on what the "belief" entails.

If a belief I might have is verified through scientific research then I no longer need to believe in it. Conversely if my beliefs are dismissed via the same routes then I do myself a disservice by continuing to accept it as fact.

To me it IS important that my ideas be logical because my life depends on it. For example when it comes to things like speeding cars coming at me..it is imperative that I understand that they cannot stop on a dime and that I cannot stop time so I can get out of the way.

I am sure we all have our own personal beliefs but the real trap comes when we try to pass it off to others as fact or that we refuse to adapt to new information that refutes our belief.

I believed at one point, for example, that I could see auras but then I did my own research and discovered it was not true in the least so I discarded it because I now knew better and to continue clinging to it despite my new knowledge would simply make me look like a fool and I'd feel like one as well.

I one time thought I could influence the weather around me but again, after careful research and reading as well as unbiased observance, I quickly realized that I couldn't and my assumptions and claims simply made me look like a fool.

Fantasy can be nice but needs to be kept in check because we live in the real world and often those so-called "beliefs" can be a hindrance to ones own intellectual development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph Campbell said one of the main functions of a working belief system is to provide a model of reality that is accurate.
Such beliefs might not be held "logical" by strict scientific standards, but if the beliefs do not contradict our experience of reality is that not providing an accurate model of reality? For example. If one believes in a God that does not interfere directly in human events, but perhaps wrote the laws of physics that control our physical universe and is active on a spiritual plane, that would not contradict our current knowledge of reality.

Can an accurate model of reality contain any belief one wants to arbitrarily insert into it? I think not. I think logical belief is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction. Incorporating some belief that cannot be disproved into observed reality is an act of the imagination, and therefore not an accurate model of reality.

So, no, I don't think a belief can be drawn as a logical conclusion from observed reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an accurate model of reality contain any belief one wants to arbitrarily insert into it? I think not. I think logical belief is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction. Incorporating some belief that cannot be disproved into observed reality is an act of the imagination, and therefore not an accurate model of reality.

So, no, I don't think a belief can be drawn as a logical conclusion from observed reality.

But what model of reality is completely accurate? If I chose to believe in an afterlife, asserting that it is not observable from the five senses...and science tells me that there is no evidence of an afterlife with the five senses...then personally I am satisfied that my belief does not contradict our map of reality.

The belief may not have been formed using science or deductive reasoning as it is understood by scientists, but the scientific evidence does not disprove it to me. If there IS more to reality than science can measure then who is to say my belief is incorrect? And as long as that belief doesn't cause me do harm and I act responsibly to prolong my life and help others prolong their lives, what's the harm? I would say there is none. And everyone believes what they can accept as reasonable anyway. Science doesn't have final say in our own choices.

Should it? When I see someone reject medical treatment I know could save them based on their beliefs, I am disturbed. But I do not believe every belief plays out in scenarios like that. It isn't always a matter of "believing is equivalent to putting your head in the sand." There is a lot we don't know about. Even with science we know so little about the universe. True we know more than we would without it. But will we ever know it all? It is human nature to speculate on what lies beyond knowledge.

My argument is that this isn't a bad thing in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an accurate model of reality contain any belief one wants to arbitrarily insert into it? I think not. I think logical belief is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction. Incorporating some belief that cannot be disproved into observed reality is an act of the imagination, and therefore not an accurate model of reality.

So, no, I don't think a belief can be drawn as a logical conclusion from observed reality.

so you dont believe in abiogenesis or macro evolution, both are at best educated guesses, at worse is an attack on peoples belief in god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that sane humans make the best decisions they can with the information that they have available to them.

Sometimes, we receive conflicting information. When that occurs, we are forced to actively choose which information we believe to be correct based on the sum of all the other information available to us.

In short - our beliefs are usually internally consistent based upon our own unique perception of reality. Someone else who has different information may well consider those beliefs to be inconsistent.

Obviously, though - that's just my belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what model of reality is completely accurate? If I chose to believe in an afterlife, asserting that it is not observable from the five senses...and science tells me that there is no evidence of an afterlife with the five senses...then personally I am satisfied that my belief does not contradict our map of reality.

True, your belief does not contradict our map of reality as it is not included in a logical model of reality. Can any non-observable belief be considered authentic just because it doesn't conflict with a logical map of reality?

If there IS more to reality than science can measure then who is to say my belief is incorrect? And as long as that belief doesn't cause me do harm and I act responsibly to prolong my life and help others prolong their lives, what's the harm? I would say there is none. And everyone believes what they can accept as reasonable anyway. Science doesn't have final say in our own choices.

Of course no one can say your belief is incorrect. No one can say your belief is correct. It's just your opinion. Your personal belief may do no harm, but can everyone's belief be considered as reasonable? One's personal belief can be dangerous, as can one's personal conception of logic and reason.

But for many, an accurate model of reality would include concepts of good and evil and the human soul,

I think neither belief nor logic can be considered intrinsically moral. We may devise our own personal morality from a belief system or from logical conclusions we make, but is morality included in any model of reality? I think not. Reality doesn't seem to care about what we humans consider moral conduct.

For many an accurate model of reality may include the concept of the human soul, but does reality include human concepts of that reality, or is reality an amoral, disinterested physical basis for human conduct to function?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If belief is faith, it is not logical, at least based on the philosophical definition of logic. However, this should not discourage someone from having faith. If this method of reason is for you and if it brings you comfort, that is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you don't believe in abiogenesis or macro evolution, both are at best educated guesses, at worse is an attack on peoples belief in god.

I think I see what you mean. I may believe in abiogenesis even though it is not a proven scientific fact. For me, it is more logical to consider abiogenesis than to consider some spiritual origin of life on earth. I think the evidence for abiogenesis is more compelling than for some spiritual Diety creating the origin of life, even thought science does not at present understand the initial mechanism.

So I think I can believe something to be an accurate explanation of some event if this belief is based on an accumulation of evidence pointing to this explanation.

I don't think the motivation for the scientific inquiry into abiogenesis is to attack people's belief in god. It's just science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious here.

Do you consider your beliefs logical?

If you didn't consider your beliefs to be logical - then it would be rather pointles in you ever holding them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Logic is a fickle foundation for a worldview. A logical argument can be made for some absolutely heinous acts, or for some incredibly ridiculous ideas. I believe my worldview is reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious here.

Do you consider your beliefs logical?

Joseph Campbell said one of the main functions of a working belief system is to provide a model of reality that is accurate.

But for many, an accurate model of reality would include concepts of good and evil and the human soul, and also incorporate the physical evidence of dinosaurs, evolution, and a 14 billion year old universe.

Such beliefs might not be held "logical" by strict scientific standards, but if the beliefs do not contradict our experience of reality is that not providing an accurate model of reality? For example. If one believes in a God that does not interfere directly in human events, but perhaps wrote the laws of physics that control our physical universe and is active on a spiritual plane, that would not contradict our current knowledge of reality.

And for that matter, intelligent design, while not scientific, might be considered one such belief.

Lets see for me:

Refer Kabala - Tree of Life

Ain - Unmanifested Absolute, this would be before the existence of the Universe or any thing - but placidly sentient

Ain Soph - The point of intelligent conception

Ain Soph Aur - The Big Bang, Creation

I am going to be corrected on this as I always have trouble with Ain and Ain Soph, but ..

Progressing forward from there I have no cause to find my faith illogical. However, my faith is also based on personal experiences.

I can't use logic to explain that because it is not logical in any mechanistic sense of the word.

PS: I am primarily a non denominational christian with gnostic leanings,

I do believe in intelligent design, from the single cell amoeba through to the human race via Darwins Evolution over millions of years LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see for me:

Refer Kabala - Tree of Life

Ain - Unmanifested Absolute, this would be before the existence of the Universe or any thing - but placidly sentient

Ain Soph - The point of intelligent conception

Ain Soph Aur - The Big Bang, Creation

I am going to be corrected on this as I always have trouble with Ain and Ain Soph, but ..

Progressing forward from there I have no cause to find my faith illogical. However, my faith is also based on personal experiences.

I can't use logic to explain that because it is not logical in any mechanistic sense of the word.

PS: I am primarily a non denominational christian with gnostic leanings,

I do believe in intelligent design, from the single cell amoeba through to the human race via Darwins Evolution over millions of years LOL.

Interesting. Gnostic in what ways?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Gnostic in what ways?

Well, given that the Father is Kether and there is clearly a higher intelligence to that, then the God we know is more

the Creator God (or the manifested demiurge if you will) and the true God is completely unknowable by anything in creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, given that the Father is Kether and there is clearly a higher intelligence to that, then the God we know is more

the Creator God (or the manifested demiurge if you will) and the true God is completely unknowable by anything in creation.

Thanks for the reply. That sounds more Kaballah-related than gnostic though, doesn't it?

So, is the Christian part of this that Jesus is God in the flesh and died for our sins?

I'm always curious about what makes a particular person consider themselves a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends a lot on what a persons construct or ideal of god is. One person can construct or have an ideal of god as an omniscient omnipotent, but immaterial god, who sits back and does nothing.. Quite logical and impossible to disprove.

Another can have a construct or ideal of a real physical god who intervenes physically and personally. In that case such a belief can only be maintained logically via some anecdotal or personal evidences. These need to be logical even if not actually correct.

A logical belief in ghosts, aliens, ufos and abductions can be maintained in a similar logical fashion. Although one may not have personal proof either way, there is enough anecdotal and circumstatial evidence for anyone to form a logical position of belief that such things do/may exist (Remembering that belief does not require a high standard of proof to be coherent or logical.)

Skeptics would take a different position .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. That sounds more Kaballah-related than gnostic though, doesn't it?

So, is the Christian part of this that Jesus is God in the flesh and died for our sins?

I'm always curious about what makes a particular person consider themselves a Christian.

Not so much God incarnate but as the physical manifestation of Chochmah or the "son" which is the 2nd logos emanating directly from

the 1st logos, the trinity being completed through the holy spirit of the 3rd logos Binah, as all proceeds from the Father, then he is indeed the Son of God.

And I did say "Gnostic Leanings", it is important to myself to comprehend that age old question "who created God" or more correctly how did God come into being? the Gnostic Christians and Christian Kabbalists also explored these issues somewhat more effectively I think than the modern religions.

I have found I agree with many of their extrapolations far more readily than I ever have with the more traditional teachings.

Yes he did die for our sins, he stated "Forgive them Father they know not what they do". A direct supplication of the 2nd Logos of Wisdom to the 1st.

Edited by libstaK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much God incarnate but as the physical manifestation of Chochmah or the "son" which is the 2nd logos emanating directly from

the 1st logos, the trinity being completed through the holy spirit of the 3rd logos Binah, as all proceeds from the Father, then he is indeed the Son of God.

And I did say "Gnostic Leanings", it is important to myself to comprehend that age old question "who created God" or more correctly how did God come into being? the Gnostic Christians and Christian Kabbalists also explored these issues somewhat more effectively I think than the modern religions.

I have found I agree with many of their extrapolations far more readily than I ever have with the more traditional teachings.

Yes he did die for our sins, he stated "Forgive them Father they know not what they do". A direct supplication of the 2nd Logos of Wisdom to the 1st.

Again, thanks for your reply. I truly do appreciate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.