The Science of Belief

by LittleToe 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  xjdub: Having my thinking turned upside down used to be very troubling to me, but now I find it exhilerating.

  I am delighted! I would say I've come through the same crucible myself. I, too, celebrate my uncertainty.

  bernadette: My intuition tells me that I'm jumping in way over my head.

  Thanks for my first morning laugh! I must say, you are holding your own very well. I can see the progression of your unformed thoughts. Don't let our heavyweights intimidate you. Just because someone speaks (writes) well does not prove they have fully worked through their argument. Or where it ultimately leads.
• 

  kid-A

  I guess my point is that the materialist outlook isn't holistic enough. Neither does it truly take into account the biases of the observer, merely by virtue of them being a homo ssapien sapien. They take to the experiment the biases of their own human nature.

  LT, absolutely I agree that scientists do carry pre-existing biases to the lab. There are basic human reasons for this, since we all evolve unique cognitive templates upon which we must construct our theories about the world around us. On a more practical level, I am influenced by the work of previous researchers. More down to earth, I need funding from governmental agencies, ergo: I need to publish. Now freely admitting that all of these factors can influence the direction of scientific research, the system has a built-in mechanism for correcting these biases: Peer review and replication.

  You suggested that research does not take into the biases of the observer. However, any legitimate experiment is performed in a blinded fashion, such that the observer must not know a priori what he is observing. Simple example, when the analyst performs statistical analyses on two groups of subjects, say a "drug treated" versus "placebo" control group, it is imperative, and built into the experiment that the analyst CANNOT know which of the two groups he/she is performing the analysis on until after the results are formally tabulated, only at that point, is the identity of the group codes revealed.

  In other words, anything I attempt to publish is rigourously ( and often viciously! LOL) subjected to devastating criticisms by my own peers. More importantly, my work needs to be replicated and verified independently of my lab before its taken seriously, until then, its just a "novel finding", not accepted as fact.

  But even in the unlikely event some result I published ever was accepted as "fact", it would still only be 'tentative' knowledge and subject to being proven wrong in the near future by a competing lab. I know all these issues have been raised ad infinitum in previous chats, but I think its fair to say, "belief" based on internal, subjective experiences simply cannot be compared to belief that derives from the process of scientfic discovery. We really are talking about two completely different realms of knowledge.
• 

  Terry

  I would only add that the art of belief doesn't rule out a reflexive science of (the art of) belief, which has nothing to do with dogmatics (what is [to be] believed) but takes subjective belief itself as its object. Of course, this particular kind of cogitatio fidei would naturally belong to the realm of human sciences rather than to theology, but I think a religious approach ("pisteology" perhaps) is possible too. Its object would be how belief works, regardless of specific religious beliefs or the lack thereof (for in that sense atheists also believe).

  Narkissos,

  Wouldn't this make FAITH a verb without an object? FAITH is an ongoing action which stems from.........? What?

  To me, in order to comprehend, I have to create an analogy for my brain to wrap around. Here it is:

  Hunger is a craving for sustenance. When there is abundance we are highly selective in what we eat, how much and how it is prepared and consumed.

  Starvation is a craving for sustenance that is in extremis and leads to a desperate quest to fill the emptiness without much practical regard for what is consumed.

  If we can insert FAITH into this analogy for a moment we would say this:

  Faith is a natural craving for substantial purpose. When there is an abundance of choice available we are highly selective in what we choose as our purpose. We selectively follow our preferences as to whom we associate with, how often and what activities we engage in ritually.

  Fanaticism, then, is a kind of starvation for meaning & purpose which leads us to cling desperately to an absolute no matter what the cost to fill the emptiness.

  Does this fly for you?
• 

  Terry

  I agree that scientists do carry pre-existing biases to the lab.

  Some of the really important scientific discoveries were not purpose-driven. Which is to say they were accidental discoveries stemming from other purposes. The observation that something "mysterious" or "unique" was going on led the scientist down a different path.

  Pre-existing bias doesn't filter out very well in non-science because there are no repeatable experiments by peer review. Take as a large example the famous CONVERSION EXPERIENCE of christians. How can anybody else test such a subjective reaction to inward cognitions?

  But, the Germ Theory of disease is testable, repeatable and confirmable by contrast.

  Science is not mere personal, subjective opinion because of the Scientific Method which requires that there must be FALSIFIABILITY. (A way to disprove the assertion).

  I always ask people who are arguing with me about their religious belief, "Are you willing to be wrong if it leads to some factual truth?"

  Often this is met with a peculiar reaction. As if to say, "Why would anybody in their right mind be willing to be wrong?"

  Being wrong is necessary to science and having your most cherished theories and hypothesis available for scrutiny, testing, quantification and falsifying is exactly what elevates the scientific process from mere opinionating and belief.
• 

  trevor

  This is an interesting thread Little Toe. I have just read through it as my web connection has been down for two weeks due to moving house.

  Terry has once again shown that he, ‘ can with logic absolute, the two and seventy jarring sects confute.’ (Omar Khayya`m)

  While watching children I used to wonder why they would adopt an old rag doll or teddy and then carry it everywhere with them. They become inseparable from this most loved friend.

  Children often have pets and people they can love and cuddle but the rag doll is better. Why? My theory is that they can project anything they want onto the lifeless doll. They can tell it off, throw it across the room in a fit of temper or hug it. Blame it for everything they themselves have done wrong or praise it. It accepts all this without complaint and becomes exactly what the child wants it to be.

  No real person can fulfil this need. Children are weaned away from their beloved friend when they find another friend that will be whatever they want, accept praise and blame and never answer back.

  Their local church will provide an invisible friend to replace the doll.
• 

  Narkissos

  Terry,

  Wouldn't this make FAITH a verb without an object?

  Not necessarily; faith/belief can have (give itself?) many objects; as a phenomenon it can nonetheless be studied, to an extent, regardless of its object. One would just have to focus on the invariants (just as you can study the process of hunger, feeding and digestion independently of any particular food by observing what is common to it as it involves many different foods).

  But it is true, I think, that the object of faith/belief tends (asymptotically perhaps) to 0. Because each time faith names its object it tends to erase it immediately (there is a long but straight line from the monotheistic struggle against idolatry to atheism, via the Christian theology of the cross). So perhaps faith is both the hunger and the food...

  Here's Tillich's definition (in The Courage to Be) fwiw:

  Theism in all its forms is transcended in the experience we have called absolute faith. It is the accepting of the acceptance without somebody or something that accepts.
• 

  SixofNine

  "It is the accepting of the acceptance without somebody or something that accepts."

  Isn't that pretty much just gibberish?
• 

  Terry

  But it is true, I think, that the object of faith/belief tends (asymptotically perhaps) to 0. Because each time faith names its object it tends to erase it immediately (there is a long but straight line from the monotheistic struggle against idolatry to atheism, via the Christian theology of the cross).

  As the believer ever approaches the object of belief it becomes more and more difficult. As you rightly express here it can be the nullifying threat of bonding with that object which disproves itself.

  My theory is that the closer the religious hunger becomes to starvation for resolution the more necessary it is to create an artificial crises which will satisfy all needs. Ergo: ARMAGEDDON is declared due in 1975 so that it is real.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  ew You stole my thunder, that's where I was going with my question to Nark!

  Matthew 7:23

  Alors je leur dirai ouvertement: Je ne vous ai jamais connus (Greekginôskô), retirez-vous de moi, vous qui commettez l'iniquité.
  

  Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
  

  Nark Would "I know how to swim"or"I know swimming" be a better translation of "je sais nager" ? LT

  Did we inherit Adam's knowledge and relationship, or was it lost through his "fall" and ultimate demise? I wasn't arguing in a communal sense, but rather in an individual sense. How else can you apply your castigation of Derek, but on an individual level?

  Good questions!

  You say you're not making or looking for excuses. Maybe derek, LT, D Dog or (I know this is a stretch) ellderwho would not have fallen, had they been in Adams shoes and had his knowledge? Or perhaps Adam would not have fallen had he been given more "knowledge".

  See my point? I don't see the relevance of "knowledge"where belief is concerned. Nature and/or presupposition are much more important.

  We have a relationship, even though we've never met.

  True, and I think you would admit that our relationship is based on the fact, that we both presuppose, that God exists.

  Of course your opinion matters, both from the perspective that this is a "discussion" board, and from the fact that I asked for it.

  OK, My opinion is that the answer to the question has been clearly revealed!

  Do you really believe Pilot wanted his question answered?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hello ross my old friend!

  way cool post, and thread.

  in the last while, i have come to understand with greater clarity, that there are many ways of knowing, and being, of which the empirical is but one. a very important, and perhaps manifestly real one, but it is only one way of seeing, none-the-less. i think that people who only want to approach the universe and existence with *one* way of knowing and being, are short-changing themselves, even if it is ONLY the empirical that they hold to.

  i believe that there is a balance (the middle-road-mind) to be struck with the empirical and transcendental, for an enriched human experience. one can truly experience, with a sort of faith (eek!), certain experiences of a so-called mystical nature, and still in the light of day analyze them with their empirical mind. i feel that there is power in this, as i am sure you know.

  i mean, i think many of us know what the most elegant and simple explanations for mystical experiences are. i think science is showing us what they are. but i do not think that this knowledge lessens the value of the mystical experience. for example, over the last few months, i have had several experiences that many would consider totally mystical. this is because, in the moment that they were occuring, i was not seeing and being through the lense of skepticism, but rather through other conduits that i have become aware of. they were sublime, and beautiful, and i will always cherish them, knowing that language is not going to do them full justice. on the other hand, i also know what probably occured, and i would never try to convince any other person of their mystical nature, because i do not believe this is fair to me, or them. it was all in my head, and yet the experiences still held the power to change me at core. and they did.

  i think that the message you bring to this site, ross, and the way you do it, is really cool man. but it's because you have obviously seen the Light too.

  evolution, peace, sentience, love,

  tetra