Faith Makes Life Possible

[Received]

Intuition is often not sound. For instance: The world is flat.


I have no proof there is a reality that exists outside my head. But it would be pretty silly to act as if there wasn't.

It would be pretty silly because intuitively you grasp it so profoundly. So while intuition works poorly in many situations, it's exactly what allows you to easily consider doubting the external world as silly.

Conclusion: because it works poorly in some situations doesn't mean it's poor in all of them, and to say as much is to hastily generalize.

 

[Received]

The mechanisms of indiscriminately stabbing a kitchen knife into somebody else numerous times and surgery are the same, too.
I guess emphasizing technical communalities helps keeping the focus from the overwhelming substantial differences, or something.

You're conflating mechanism (knife) with applications (stabbing, surgery).

 

[bhsmte]

And yet there is no other reasoning than has been presented, and you're not presenting any here, which is fine if we admit an impasse, but instead you're presupposing I'm equivocating and the burden is on me. See?

In my experience, as non-believers and believers delve into deep conversation, there will almost always be an impasse.

I like you, but at times, you try too hard and seem to move away or ignore the knowledge you have in regards to psychology and why people have different levels of believing, in anything.

Any faith or religious belief, is not going to hold up well to intense objective scrutiny, which is why it is faith. I have heard some of the most skilled apologist debaters, get their head handed to them, from an opponent who is capable of staying on task and asking simple questions.

People have religious/faith beliefs based on need and people who do not believe also do so based on a need, a need to be able to reconcile, to a higher level, what they choose to believe in.

Neither side is better than the other, just different.

 

[Received]

In my experience, as non-believers and believers delve into deep conversation, there will almost always be an impasse.

I like you, but at times, you try too hard and seem to move away or ignore the knowledge you have in regards to psychology and why people have different levels of believing, in anything.

Any faith or religious belief, is not going to hold up well to intense objective scrutiny, which is why it is faith. I have heard some of the most skilled apologist debaters, get their head handed to them, from an opponent who is capable of staying on task and asking simple questions.

People have religious/faith beliefs based on need and people who do not believe also do so based on a need, a need to be able to reconcile, to a higher level, what they choose to believe in.

Neither side is better than the other, just different.

All I'd like is admitting an impasse. You're a person who can admit that, and I appreciate it. But a significant majority of my fellow interlocutors never put down impasses (we agree to disagree) and implicitly suppose that the fault is mine because I look at things carefully.

And yeah, I do appeal to psychology, which is different than reasoning. I think we're living in a dreamworld if we think our beliefs and the very reasoning we do in any situation isn't determined by our psychology, particularly our emotions. I like thinking about that. Doesn't mean you have to, nor does it mean that I'm conflating psychology with rationality.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, we suspect schizophrenia is false because we trust our intuitions that his intuition that things are real is false. We implicitly appeal to a bell curve to determine normality. So what? Are you saying "you got intuitions, I got intuitions, erryone's got intuitions, we're all equal"?

Me???

Because that isn't a wall I run into with my presentation of intuition here.

Most certainly it´s the very wall you are building. Maybe, though, you have already prepared a loophole for yourself?
I´m curious.

 

[bhsmte]

All I'd like is admitting an impasse. You're a person who can admit that, and I appreciate it. But a significant majority of my fellow interlocutors never put down impasses (we agree to disagree) and implicitly suppose that the fault is mine because I look at things carefully.

And yeah, I do appeal to psychology, which is different than reasoning. I think we're living in a dreamworld if we think our beliefs and the very reasoning we do in any situation isn't determined by our psychology, particularly our emotions. I like thinking about that. Doesn't mean you have to, nor does it mean that I'm conflating psychology with rationality.

I'm with you. Most of what we do or not do, is based on our individual psychological makeup.

 

[Received]

Me???


Most certainly it´s the very wall you are building. Maybe, though, you have already prepared a loophole for yourself?
I´m curious.

Maybe if you expect nonsense from a person, continuing to debate with him means you're not down with arguing?

But keep going.

 

[quatona]

And yeah, I do appeal to psychology, which is different than reasoning. I think we're living in a dreamworld if we think our beliefs and the very reasoning we do in any situation isn't determined by our psychology, particularly our emotions.

Maybe you could elaborate particularly on those emotions that are responsible for believing that there is a world outside our heads?
Under consideration of the fact that without a world outside our heads we wouldn´t have anything to trigger our emotions, in the first place, please.

 

[Received]

Maybe you could elaborate particularly on those emotions that are responsible for believing that there is a world outside our heads?
Under consideration of the fact that without a world outside our heads we wouldn´t have anything to trigger our emotions, in the first place, please.

I'm not thinking so much of emotions with the external world. I think that is clearly an instinctive belief (as Russel said, that wrong bastard), which I consider intuition. But I'm thinking more broadly when I speak of emotions: there's no such thing, maybe in any situation, of "just" having an idea or belief *without* an emotion to package it. This might be seen in how you Germans use belief, right? From "lief", meaning "wish" (or something)?

Basically for any belief we currently believe, we have at least a slight positive emotional charge which packages the content of this belief. Which explains pretty easily why people aren't changing their ideas every second they find convincing argument to the contrary: they have the intertia of emotion to carry them forward. And definitely explains the people with *very* strong emotional charges for their beliefs and why they get so defensive or clearly upset when their beliefs are questioned.

Basically anyone interested in rationality as a value also has to have emotional intelligence, insofar as he realizes his emotions getting activated, is able to feel them or access them, and knows how to push through them.

As for the external world, same thing: instinctive belief packaged by an emotion. Intense skeptics are down with pushing through this emotional tug that goes with this instinctive belief/intuition, but the vast majority of people aren't.

 

[quatona]

Maybe if you expect nonsense from a person, continuing to debate with him means you're not down with arguing?

I´m not expecting nonsense from the person, I am expecting nonsense to be at the line of a particular kind of argument. The insistence on the communalities and the ongoing neglection of the relevant, significant differences surely look like ending up at the very wall you talked about.
I have a hard time believing that you put all this effort into making appear literally everything level (from an extremist hypothetical pov), just re-introduce those differences eventually that you put so much work in magicking away.
But surprise me. Release us, give us the punchline.

 

[Received]

I´m not expecting nonsense from the person, I am expecting nonsense to be at the line of a particular kind of argument. The insistence on the communalities and the ongoing neglection of the relevant, significant differences surely look like ending up at the very wall you talked about.
I have a hard time believing that you put all this effort into making appear literally everything level (from an extremist hypothetical pov), just re-introduce those differences eventually that you put so much work in magicking away.
But surprise me. Release us, give us the punchline.

Magicking being the key, question-begging, term.

Again, if you expect nonsense from a person or an argument (either or both), why do you keep debating? Because you hope in your heart of hearts you can convinced from your evil ways? No. Well?

 

[variant]

You're conflating mechanism (knife) with applications (stabbing, surgery).

Mechanisms are processes. You are both conflating machinery (knife) with mechanism (cutting).

 

[variant]

But let me answer your second points first: yes, there is the potential for misapplications. Yes, there is also a "volume" to our confidence, and things like our belief in the external world require a very low volume of confidence (you don't need to be a passionate zealot to have faith in the floor). I've never denied these things from the beginning.

It's more than that though, we become convinced there is a floor in a very different way than we become convinced in religious thinking.

Not all processes for requiring trust are equal.

If God were evident like the floor, no religious faith is necessary.

 

[quatona]

I'm not thinking so much of emotions with the external world. I think that is clearly an instinctive belief (as Russel said, that wrong bastard), which I consider intuition.

Where I come from, we call those assumptions without which we don´t get anywhere at all "axioms". They aren´t caused by emotions but by necessity. Questioning axioms and putting them on the same level as practically any other kind of assumptions is intellectually desperate.
But maybe I can word the question a bit clearer for you:
Which emotion would be required for us to let go of the assumption that there is something outside our heads? Or: Which emotion would we have to let go off in order to arrive at the conclusions that there is nothing outside our heads?

But I'm thinking more broadly when I speak of emotions: there's no such thing, maybe in any situation, of "just" having an idea or belief *without* an emotion to package it.

No doubt about this but, you know, without a world outside our heads there wouldn´t even be any situation whatsoever, to begin with.

This might be seen in how you Germans use belief, right? From "lief", meaning "wish" (or something)?

The German word "Glaube" covers part of the English words "belief" and "faith", if that´s what you mean.
Ok, now that I have grabbed for my Etymology Duden, I think I found what you are referring for (and which I actually hadn´t known ): "Glaube" has common roots with "lieb" (dear).

Basically for any belief we currently believe, we have at least a slight positive emotional charge which packages the content of this belief.

Would you mind explaining this with two examples, please:
1. I believe that the ebola virus exists. What is the positive emotional charge that packages the content of this belief?
2. What is the emotional charge packaging the belief that there is something outside our heads?

Which explains pretty easily why people aren't changing their ideas every second they find convincing argument to the contrary: they have the intertia of emotion to carry them forward. And definitely explains the people with *very* strong emotional charges for their beliefs and why they get so defensive or clearly upset when their beliefs are questioned.

Yes, that´s certainly true for many beliefs. Then again, I can think of countless beliefs that are either emotionally neutral or downright negatively charged (I´d rather Hitler had not existed, but I believe he did anyway; I like the idea that Shakespeare was the writer of all works published under his name, but I belief that that is not so...).
Enter "cognitive dissonance". Most beliefs charged with negative emotions are held to avoid cognitive dissonance (I hate it that there´s no pot of coffee on, but well, no amount of wishful thinking gets it there, so I am left to believe it isn´t there).
Now, I know what´s coming (changing from a category to the meta-category, pretend that the meta-category includes itself): Avoiding cognitive dissonance has a positive emotional charge, so avoiding cognitive dissonance is basically the same mechanism as wishful thinking. How did I do?

In any case, that´s where you´d lose me.

Basically anyone interested in rationality as a value also has to have emotional intelligence, insofar as he realizes his emotions getting activated, is able to feel them or access them, and knows how to push through them.

Sure, but that´s not all there is to it. See the coffeepot example. It doesn´t have to do with praise of rationality nor with emotional intelligence - this bloody thing simply isn´t there.
Do you think that if I go deeper into the emotion that makes me believe that the pot isn´t there I might end up believing that the entire world isn´t there? Same mechanism, same emotion - but just lacking the required intensity?

As for the external world, same thing: instinctive belief packaged by an emotion.

Come on, get real: Which emotion is it that trumps rationality (which, as we all know, dictates that there is no external world) and makes this utterly irrational belief in an external world so irresistably palatable? And more importantly, which emotion would I have to exercise more to reach the state of believing that there is no external world? Must be fun!

Intense skeptics are down with pushing through this emotional tug that goes with this instinctive belief/intuition,

Are these the guys who can´t get out of bed because, well, there is no bed, in the first place?

I mean honestly, Received: When I sit with four person around a table and all of them (despite desiring for a hot coffee) believe that there is no coffee on the table - the reason for this is that they all have a positive emotion towards the absence of coffee? Is that really the most plausible explanation?

 

[quatona]

Magicking being the key, question-begging, term.

Then call it logical fallacy. I have tried to explain how it works more than once. (That´s btw. one of the reasons that frustrate me about lack of feedback: In the next thread the same stuff will appear time and again as if it hadn´t been addressed).

Again, if you expect nonsense from a person or an argument (either or both), why do you keep debating?

I don´t expect nonsense, I see nonsense. And I keep discussing because I have hope that once we remove the nonsensical element there will be an interesting new thought in all this. IOW I hope the actual idea is good and doesn´t depend on the nonsensical element.

Because you hope in your heart of hearts you can convinced from your evil ways? No. Well?

No. Because I think of these conversation not as debate, but as a mutual exchange of thoughts, in which we also offer each other the service of spotting flaws in the others´ lines of reasoning. Because, well, you know, it could be that somebody is so emotionally dedicated to his conclusions that he gets a bit careless about the quality of his arguments supporting his conclusions. That´s why we occasionally need others to put us straight.
And don´t forget: It wasn´t me who put his hypothesis here out for discussion.

 

[quatona]

You're conflating mechanism (knife) with applications (stabbing, surgery).

No, knife is not a mechanism.
Cutting with a knife is the mechanism. We can do that in different ways, and for most questions the way we do it is of greater significance than the communality in the mechanism.

 

[Received]

Mechanisms are processes. You are both conflating machinery (knife) with mechanism (cutting).

Now we're getting somewhere!

No, the process is different than the thing. The knife is not the stabbing or surgical cutting. Is it?

 

[Received]

It's more than that though, we become convinced there is a floor in a very different way than we become convinced in religious thinking.

Not all processes for requiring trust are equal.

If God were evident like the floor, no religious faith is necessary.

Doesn't matter how. I agree there's a how, a process by which we become convinced. But it's still: same mechanism (faith, confidence), different applications (floor/secular belief, idea of God/religious belief).

 

[Received]

Then call it logical fallacy. I have tried to explain how it works more than once. (That´s btw. one of the reasons that frustrate me about lack of feedback: In the next thread the same stuff will appear time and again as if it hadn´t been addressed).


I don´t expect nonsense, I see nonsense. And I keep discussing because I have hope that once we remove the nonsensical element there will be an interesting new thought in all this. IOW I hope the actual idea is good and doesn´t depend on the nonsensical element.

No. Because I think of these conversation not as debate, but as a mutual exchange of thoughts, in which we also offer each other the service of spotting flaws in the others´ lines of reasoning. Because, well, you know, it could be that somebody is so emotionally dedicated to his conclusions that he gets a bit careless about the quality of his arguments supporting his conclusions. That´s why we occasionally need others to put us straight.
And don´t forget: It wasn´t me who put his hypothesis here out for discussion.

Mutual exchange of thoughts, plus a few droppings of superfluous provocative statements. Or not?

And you have a future implicit in your actions, q. This future either involves a neutral suspension of any belief about a person's behavior being nonsense as you're planning on responding here, in which case provocative statements you've made would be superfluous (these aren't compatible with such a suspension/neutrality). Or this future involves the expectation of nonsense by me, making your arguing with me entirely superfluous.

 

[Received]

No, knife is not a mechanism.
Cutting with a knife is the mechanism. We can do that in different ways, and for most questions the way we do it is of greater significance than the communality in the mechanism.

What you call mechanism I call mechanism + application. If the cutting with a knife is a mechanism, any object (literally or metaphorically, here being faith) has no potential for application and is only a mechanism. In your world, then, "application" has no meaning as a separate thing, given that it's always intrinsic to the mechanism to which it's welded with. So either application in this sense is meaningless, or application really exists by being distinguishable from mechanism. I.e., faith distinguishable from its application or referent; knives distinguishable from their application or referent.

These are problems.