Brahma's atheist

I've had discussions when I've been told that I've got to believe in something.
You have to ask 'Why do you have to believe in something?' Gods, the afterlife, astrology and any other crap. I live perfectly well in the real world without any of these opiates.

Skepticwithachainsaw

Well I believe that the external universe exists beyond my mind, although I logically can't prove it, I believe that my senses on the whole give accurate information about the external world

I also believe in the some structure to everything and that Logic on the whole can be applied to understand the universe to some externt.

I think thats a reasonable level of belief.

Bill

I guess that the answer lies in what "believe" means. You believe that "Gods, the afterlife, astrology and any other crap" is worthless, and that you "live perfectly well in the real world without any of these opiates." I think that is a perfectly good statement of what YOU believe in!

== Bill

PJPSYCO

the conflict here is that they are comparing blind faith with empirisism. They think they are equal. That's the problem.

optimist

Not that this is a conclusive arguement, but don't you find it strange that blind faith allows an infinite number of contradictory beliefs. While empiricism allows only one. If you use the "blind faith method" you can end up with green goblins as god, and the guy next to you can end up with monkeys as god. If you use a empiricist method you "should" end up with no god, assumeing you actually use the method and not "fudge" the results with a little blind faith.

Laurentius

Well, sometimes the atheistic believing in oneself is just the same "blind faith". Sometimes there is just a psychological urge to believe in someone else (God, for instance). And sometimes there is a social need that people put their trust in a divine, transcendent authority.

You've got to believe in something, one way or another.

AVE

barbelle

(echoing Bill)

(Hi, Bill. This is the second time; I tend to echo you...)


SO,
The first question is one of semantics.

In one sense of the definition, as long as we're in the cognitive process of taking in information and evaluating what is true, there is no escaping believing anything. For example, we 'have faith' in physical realities (we can see things, touch them, therefore they exist), and we exercise faith in every conclusion of our brain (possible neurosis excluded--beyond my ken) to the extent that we are confident that our conclusions are true, for as long as we hold them. I point out that we are sometimes wrong, even in the most 'evidential' of things: for example, historically, science has put forth some ideas that wax comical from a modern perspective. ~~Yet, what fascinating creatures we are, these brains of ours, always trying to make sense of things...

But I digress. Premise one: every conclusion is, in a sense, a belief. Dealing with the other half of the question--why people must put stock in opiatic fantasys, I can only refer to humanity's complex systems of culture, and also our fears. I have had the experience of living in a very Christian Town, and I personally know people who have been indocrinated in the fullest sense of the word. They have been completely inculturated in a religious doctrine that not only defines their morés, but their understanding of the physical world, reality, as well. They are not necessarily illogical, or bigoted to operate within this paradigm, whatever it's specifics; it simply doesn't occur to them to step outside of their learned system of cognition and to approach things 'logically': by the scientific method, for example.

But what happens when the experience of reality is incongruent to the Believer's religious premises? I feel, hypothetically, that a choice is made by the person, whether conscious or unconscious, also depending on their "cognitive-personality": do they approach things intellectually? emotionally? do they tend to follow the masses?--This choice of either sacrificing the authority of said religious paradigm in search of the answer to the inconsistency, or, choosing the religious premises to the denial (large or small) of experienced reality. (We could get into the fact that some faiths even encourage this: Christianity: "I walk by faith, not by sight") If one chooses to deny reality, I would hypothesize that the reasons for such could be fear (in all sorts of ways), social presure, guilt... Digressing again: some religious people are quite sincere, and would feel it morally wrong to mentally question--even in the evalualtory sense--the religious definition of reality.

There are more facets to the question, but I confess my own cognition wanes, so I'll have to work on mutally-defining-shared-conclusions-of-reality with you-all later.

regards,
b.



[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: barbelle ]</p>

beausoleil

In the spirit of 'you have to accept some things that cannot be demonstrated' as an interpretation of the question up front

What reason is there for placing confidence in empiricism? (Empirical arguments for believing in empiricism clearly won't do!)

Skepticwithachainsaw

What reason is there for placing confidence in empiricism?

Umm its bloody hard to get through life without it...

However I can get through life without beliving in God, nessie, martians etc...

beausoleil

Bloody hard - exactly. One has to "just accept" or believe in some things in order to make progress.