what are good reasons of believing anything?

[ark200]

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:

1. tradition

2. authority

3. general agreement: crowd opinion

4. private Revelation

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

[pavelcherepan]

1. Indisputable evidence

[imatfaal]

Well-formed and valid logical progression from anything with "1. Indisputable Evidence"

 

Although getting people to agree that anything is incontrovertible is like herding cats.

[John Cuthber]

1. Indisputable evidence

Are you sure?

[Phi for All]

Emotional attachments to belief seem to be a bad thing. Not emotions in general, just emotions when they form the foundation of a belief. Like believing something because you're afraid not to, or believing all people from country X are evil because one of them killed your beloved grandfather in the war.

 

The title question seems to acknowledge that "reason" is necessary for a belief to be considered good.

[cladking]

I don't believe there's a good reason to believe anything at all other than that reality exists and it is exactly the same for all observers.

 

Of course we can't necessarily trust our senses and our perception of reality is usually dependent on perspective. We must try to learn to factor perspective out of observation just as we factor angle (parallax) out of reading analog dials.

 

Beliefs are destructive because we see what we expect and believe. We become our beliefs. It is much better to just estimate the odds of something being true and always avoid being more than 99.9% confident or you'll typically be wrong.

[pavelcherepan]

Are you sure?

 

Yeah. What's wrong with indisputable evidence?

[StringJunky]

 

Yeah. What's wrong with indisputable evidence?

No such thing because that implies a confidence level of 100%

 

If a model works under all known conditions that's about the very best basis you can get, I think.

Edited April 8, 2015 by StringJunky

[moth]

"You're only safe as long as I'm right"

-Hunter S. Thompson

 

What's wrong with empirical data?

 

Edit to fix Quote

Edited April 8, 2015 by moth

[iNow]

Survival.

 

Beliefs affect likelihood of this and the successful passing of genes to offspring.

[ark200]

Emotional attachments to belief seem to be a bad thing. Not emotions in general, just emotions when they form the foundation of a belief. Like believing something because you're afraid not to, or believing all people from country X are evil because one of them killed your beloved grandfather in the war.

 

The title question seems to acknowledge that "reason" is necessary for a belief to be considered good.

if there are bad reasons to believe then there must be good ones.

[iNow]

Acceptance into the larger group that holds those beliefs sacred?

[John Cuthber]

 

Yeah. What's wrong with indisputable evidence?

In essentially any useful case, if you can come up with evidence, i can dispute it.

[Gees]

Ark200;

 

Please consider:

 

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:

1. tradition

2. authority

3. general agreement: crowd opinion

4. private Revelation

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

 

1. Tradition is often hundreds or even thousands of years old, so it is time tested. Tradition is usually based on wisdom, which is even older, and has worked for people for generations. I don't see the problem in believing that tradition is the best alternative in most situations.

 

2. So we should not believe authority? We are in a science forum, so do you think that we should tell all of the scientists that they don't know squat? Or maybe we should just tell the ones who have degrees -- more authority -- that they don't know squat? (chuckle)

 

3. Regarding "crowd opinion"; if I were a police officer and a large crowd of people agreed that the thief, who ran away, was a tall, thin, blond guy in his 20's, I doubt that I would go looking for a short, fat, black woman in her 50's. Crowd opinion is not always bad.

 

4. Every time we have a "Eureka!" moment, or when the "light comes on" in our minds, it is a private Revelation. This is learning. Not so bad.

 

A good reason for believing would be to maintain our sanity. Consider that if one does not know what can be believed, then they would not know what is real. It would be like the experience that a schizophrenic has, never knowing what is believable and real or delusion. So I vote for sanity. Even if it turns out that we are wrong in our beliefs, we still have a point to start from -- to learn about our mistakes.

 

 

Imatfaal;

 

Well-formed and valid logical progression from anything with "1. Indisputable Evidence"

 

Although getting people to agree that anything is incontrovertible is like herding cats.

 

This is all true in my opinion, but I laughed myself silly when I read "herding cats". Good one.

 

 

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider:

 

In essentially any useful case, if you can come up with evidence, i can dispute it.

 

Probably, but will it do you any good? Science is not the only venue for evidence. Law also uses evidence and lawyers love terms like "indisputable evidence".

 

Belief is thought with emotion attached, so it is very difficult to change a person's mind with just thought. Evidence must be interpreted as to its relevance, so when we are talking evidence, we are talking thought. Emotion will always carry more weight than thought, because emotion is more valid and real.

 

Gee

 

 

[Mr. Laymen]

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:

 

1. tradition

 

2. authority

 

3. general agreement: crowd opinion

 

4. private Revelation

 

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

 

"Belief" seems like a term that describes a speculative subjective-perspective.

 

"Good" seems like a term that describes contribution towards human prosperity.

 

"Reason" seems like a term that attempts to describe objective logic (is that a thing?).

 

 

If that's what you're talking about then I'd say... Any "good reason" would be subjective and vary across human perspectives... but each would be because of math.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Mr. Laymen

[John Cuthber]

Probably, but will it do you any good? Science is not the only venue for evidence. Law also uses evidence and lawyers love terms like "indisputable evidence".

A good lawyer should know better.

[TheDivineFool]

The term 'reason' only makes sense if you're trying to justify a claim i.e. making a logical argument. So a 'good reason' is one that supports/justifies a claim. A 'bad reason' is one that fails to justify a claim.

 

I must inform you that this terminology (good/bad reason) is highly unusual. More often we speak of good/bad 'arguments'. Using the above definitions I think having 'good reasons' for a claim corresponds to 'good arguments' and having 'bad reasons' for a claim corresponds to 'bad arguments'. In this sense, there's an equivalence between the OP's perspective and prevailing wisdom in logic as a subject of study.

 

I like the list of 'bad reasons' which the OP kindly posted. They are sources of well-known fallacious reasoning.

 

Gee's post was fantastic - it had beautiful examples supporting the possibility that authority, crowd opinion, etc. could be 'good reasons' too.

 

However, the OP only claims that reasons in the list 'maybe' bad reasons. He merely points out that authority, crowd opinion, tradition, etc. are not INFALLIBLE. He's not claiming that they're always wrong. Only that they're not always'right.

[Skeptic134]

1. Tradition is often hundreds or even thousands of years old, so it is time tested. Tradition is usually based on wisdom, which is even older, and has worked for people for generations. I don't see the problem in believing that tradition is the best alternative in most situations.

 

Like slavery?

 

 

2. So we should not believe authority? We are in a science forum, so do you think that we should tell all of the scientists that they don't know squat? Or maybe we should just tell the ones who have degrees -- more authority -- that they don't know squat? (chuckle)

 

It isn't the authority associated with a position or degree that is significant its all of the evidence and associated research that goes along with explanations provided by a scientist...

 

 

3. Regarding "crowd opinion"; if I were a police officer and a large crowd of people agreed that the thief, who ran away, was a tall, thin, blond guy in his 20's, I doubt that I would go looking for a short, fat, black woman in her 50's. Crowd opinion is not always bad.

 

See tradition...

 

 

 

4. Every time we have a "Eureka!" moment, or when the "light comes on" in our minds, it is a private Revelation. This is learning. Not so bad.

 

And private revelation isn't taking seriously until it can be objectively examined or experimentally tested.

 

 

 

Science is not the only venue for evidence.

 

 

Where does empiricism exist outside the realm of science?

 

 

Emotion will always carry more weight than thought, because emotion is more valid and real.

 

 

Interesting... emotion is more valid and real than empirical evidence...

[pavelcherepan]

Like slavery?

 

Slavery is not a tradition - it's a form of economical system and there's been many examples in history when slavery didn't exist in some nation and suddenly came to be. You can't really call that a tradition, can you?

 

 

And private revelation isn't taking seriously until it can be objectively examined or experimentally tested.

 

From subjective point of view a private revelation is to be taken seriously and since the question is about beliefs and belief is also a subjective thing, then private revelation makes total sense.

 

 

Where does empiricism exist outside the realm of science?

 

Some empirical pseudosciences, traditional herbal medicines for example. Use of any particular herb is based on empirical data. It may be incorrect and not thoroughly tested but empirical data nonetheless.

[Skeptic134]

 

Slavery is not a tradition - it's a form of economical system and there's been many examples in history when slavery didn't exist in some nation and suddenly came to be. You can't really call that a tradition, can you?

 

 

Of course it is a tradition. You can call it an economical system if you like but it doesn't take away that it is a tradition, owning humans and using them for free labor to accomplish something is a global tradition.

 

 

 

From subjective point of view a private revelation is to be taken seriously and since the question is about beliefs and belief is also a subjective thing, then private revelation makes total sense.

 

The OP was regarding good reasons to believe something and private revalation isn't...

 

If a private revelation isn't supported by evidence and can't withstand vigorous objective examination than it is for naught.

 

 

 

Some empirical pseudosciences, traditional herbal medicines for example. Use of any particular herb is based on empirical data. It may be incorrect and not thoroughly tested but empirical data nonetheless.

 

So a person performing science incorrectly... that is an example where empiricism exists outside of science?

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider:

 

A good lawyer should know better.

 

A good lawyer does know better. That was my point. I worked in law and can assure you that evidence has little to do with Court decisions -- it ain't like on TV. Most cases are decided on what I like to call "gossip and spin" with a side of evidence; of course, the Court does not call it "gossip", they call it a person's character, and the Court does not call it "spin", they call it motive.

 

So the Prosecutor destroys a person's character and spins the little bit of evidence to provide a motive, then the Defense rebuilds a person's character and spins the little bit of evidence to deny motive. When a case is not plea bargained to save time and money, it goes to Court and the attorneys argue using interpretation, misdirection, showmanship, and salesmanship. It is about what the attorneys can make the Judge/Jury believe. Court is not about truth, justice, or evidence; it is about Court Procedures, Civil Procedures, and collecting fines.

 

Indisputable evidence = belief, so belief = indisputable evidence

 

When I was young and naive, I once asked an attorney what he would do if he knew that his client was guilty. He got the most surprised look on his face, like he couldn't believe that I had asked such a stupid question, and responded, "Attack the victim, of course." He was a very good lawyer.

 

 

Skeptic134;

 

Please consider:

 

Like slavery?

 

Well, you have picked the ugliest topic that you could find to discuss tradition, but I will run with it. Slavery started thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years ago and was caused by war. If you look in the Old Testament of the Bible, you will find references to the wars that the Jewish people were purported to have waged. In some cases, they were required to "smite" their enemy to every last man, woman, and child, but in other cases, they were allowed to take the women and children. These women and children would have been slaves.

 

If we are going to discuss this, we should do it honestly; so imagine two tribes going to war. The men in the losing tribe would be dead or run off, and the women, old people, children, and village would be left. What would you do with them? There are only a few choices. You can kill everyone off. You can leave them to their own devices to starve or maybe survive to come back at you in a few years, or maybe another tribe will take them, as they now have no protection, and this new tribe may become stronger than your tribe. Or you can take charge of these people.

 

So can you take these people home, give them a nice meal and a soft bed, and all will be forgiven? I don't think so. It is more likely that someone will stab you in your sleep because you killed their brother, father, or husband. So for many years, these people will have to be subjugated to prevent them from being dangerous. This was the start of slavery, a side effect of war, and it was originally a wise and compassionate decision -- much better than killing babies or letting them starve.

 

If you look in Deuteronomy (the Book of Laws) in the Bible, you will find that a man is only enslaved, or owned, for seven years, and then can win his freedom. Any women or children would eventually incorporate into the family that held them, so this was not a life sentence.

 

Slavery in the last few centuries has not been caused by wars, it is about economics and greed as Pavelcherepan explained. It is also about racism. There have always been despots and perverts, who are willing to subjugate anyone that they can, but this is again about greed -- not the traditional reasons for slavery.

 

And private revelation isn't taking seriously until it can be objectively examined or experimentally tested.

 

This must be why no one wants to get married anymore. Finding that you are in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with that person is a "private revelation". Instead of marrying, they "experimentally" test their relationship for five or ten years, then let it go. Of course this creates a lot of bastards, but it seems necessary. Just because families are falling apart and kids are out of control, this is no reason to forgo this testing, as we can't know until we test.

 

Don't know how they did it in the old days.

 

Where does empiricism exist outside the realm of science?

Well, let's see; in the nursery, the home, the job, the grocery store, the park, the car, the school, the hospital, the doctor's office, or everywhere there are people. Oh, and in the bedroom when a wife discovers lipstick and/or perfume on her husband's shirt that is not her lipstick or perfume.

 

I think you are confusing empiricism with the scientific method. Look them up.

Interesting... emotion is more valid and real than empirical evidence...

 

I did not state that. You are making a strawman argument.

 

Gee

[John Cuthber]

There are generally at least two lawyers in a court.
If one claims the evidence is "indisputable". it's the other one's job to dispute it. the first one should know that. if he says it's indisputable then the other can always prove him to be wrong about that. Having shown that he is wrong, you have shown that he is unreliable.
That's the sort of spin you are talking about and it's exactly why no good lawyer should say the evidence was beyond dispute.

(For the record, I'm a forensic scientist and trained as an expert witness, but I have never been called to court. The courts always accepted my written evidence. I didn't get the whole of my understanding of the court system from watching cop shows)

"If we are going to discuss this, we should do it honestly; so imagine two tribes going to war.... Or you can take charge of these people. "
And, if your old book doesn't tell you that it's right to enslave them you treat them as equal citizens.
Sorry, did you think you had a point there?

Of course the next question would be why have a war in the first place?
Would that be because your priests told you that the other tribe is "subhuman" and so deserves to be slaves because your God(s) say so or is it because of limited resources that,for some reason, your tribe has overpopulated?

I'm also puzzled about just how happy you think you would be as a slave, knowing that it would be "only" 7 years.

Edited April 12, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Skeptic134]

Well, you have picked the ugliest topic that you could find to discuss tradition, but I will run with it. Slavery started thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years ago and was caused by war. If you look in the Old Testament of the Bible, you will find references to the wars that the Jewish people were purported to have waged. In some cases, they were required to "smite" their enemy to every last man, woman, and child, but in other cases, they were allowed to take the women and children. These women and children would have been slaves.

 

 

There are many other traditions I could have picked to make the same point, tradition... doing something because that is what has been done for years, decades, centuries is not a good reason at all. As soon as an individual stops thinking about why they do things they've stopped using perhaps one of the greatest tools of humanity, intellect and rationality. Doing simply because of "that's just what we do" or because of being instructed to whether by an old book or old person makes you a pawn to be used perhaps for evil.

 

 

I always find it fascinating when someone defends slavery "because bible" as if using a terribly inconsisting book written by some fairly disgusting ancient men is a good reference point.

 

 

If we are going to discuss this, we should do it honestly; so imagine two tribes going to war. The men in the losing tribe would be dead or run off, and the women, old people, children, and village would be left. What would you do with them? There are only a few choices. You can kill everyone off. You can leave them to their own devices to starve or maybe survive to come back at you in a few years, or maybe another tribe will take them, as they now have no protection, and this new tribe may become stronger than your tribe. Or you can take charge of these people.

 

So can you take these people home, give them a nice meal and a soft bed, and all will be forgiven? I don't think so. It is more likely that someone will stab you in your sleep because you killed their brother, father, or husband. So for many years, these people will have to be subjugated to prevent them from being dangerous. This was the start of slavery, a side effect of war, and it was originally a wise and compassionate decision -- much better than killing babies or letting them starve.

 

I knew it would get interesting!

 

Because a book written by ignorant bronze age men says slavery is good and right you have convinced yourself that it all started out of compassion and wisdom? Wow.

 

So why are the two tribes going to war in the first place? Why have two groups of people arrived at a point where they have only the options of slaughtering each other or taking each other as slaves? Maybe the best question to ask of this scenario is what terribly misguided beliefs and decisioins lead to the circumstances where determining which is better between death and slavery needs to be weighed.

 

And lets not be too naive here, slavery isn't about compassion, slave labor can be pretty handy for the victorious tribe.

 

 

If you look in Deuteronomy (the Book of Laws) in the Bible, you will find that a man is only enslaved, or owned, for seven years, and then can win his freedom. Any women or children would eventually incorporate into the family that held them, so this was not a life sentence.

 

 

Yeah, this defense comes up often...

 

As if somehow it makes it fine that this ancient book of horrors states (with inconsistency) that its only for seven years that these humans are owning other humans.

 

Slavery in the last few centuries has not been caused by wars, it is about economics and greed as Pavelcherepan explained. It is also about racism. There have always been despots and perverts, who are willing to subjugate anyone that they can, but this is again about greed -- not the traditional reasons for slavery.

 

 

Right... so slavery in recent centuries has been about racism (see tribalism) and economics (see free slave labor for the conquering tribe) and is just a perverted example of the righteous and respectable way of doing slavery...

 

 

This must be why no one wants to get married anymore. Finding that you are in love with someone and want to spend the rest of your life with that person is a "private revelation". Instead of marrying, they "experimentally" test their relationship for five or ten years, then let it go. Of course this creates a lot of bastards, but it seems necessary. Just because families are falling apart and kids are out of control, this is no reason to forgo this testing, as we can't know until we test.

 

 

A private revelation backed up with observable evidence; how they treat each other, talk to each other, the things they do for each other over time...

 

 

I think you are confusing empiricism with the scientific method. Look them up.

 

You said there are other venues for evidence, and the only one you have provided is law. Which is interesting considering that how evidence is used in "law" is called forensic science...

 

 

I did not state that. You are making a strawman argument.

 

 

See your previous post below...

 

Evidence must be interpreted as to its relevance, so when we are talking evidence, we are talking thought. Emotion will always carry more weight than thought, because emotion is more valid and real.

 

So evidence is thought... and emotion always carries more weight than thought because emotion is more valid and real...

 

 

 

So to keep the discussion on topic... tradition is not a good basis for belief/action/idealogy/way of living life.

 

Neither is authority, herd mentality or revelation.

 

And if you find a source that lays claim to all four, RUN.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider my following thoughts. Please do not just react, but take the time to consider.

 

There are generally at least two lawyers in a court.
If one claims the evidence is "indisputable". it's the other one's job to dispute it. the first one should know that. if he says it's indisputable then the other can always prove him to be wrong about that. Having shown that he is wrong, you have shown that he is unreliable.

 

Agreed. When someone shows that an attorney is "unreliable", that unreliability is transferred to his/her client. If the attorney can not convince the Judge/Jury that the evidence is indisputable, then that attorney loses, so if your attorney loses, then you lose.

 

Hiring an attorney is like hiring a fighter to go into the ring for you -- you want the best. This is why rich people do so well in Court, as they can hire the best. If I had only two choices; to go into Court with innocence and evidence, or to go into Court with the best attorney, having worked in law, I would choose the attorney.

 

That's the sort of spin you are talking about and it's exactly why no good lawyer should say the evidence was beyond dispute.

 

No. Let us posit that forensic evidence proves that the gun in question is the one that shot the victim and that witnesses saw the Defendant standing over the body with gun in hand.

 

Prosecution states: Defendant shot the victim and was seen with the gun directly after the fact.

 

Defense states: Defendant heard the shot, rushed into the room and picked up the gun because guns are dangerous and Defendant was in shock -- not thinking.

 

Prosecution argues that Defendant is foul tempered, then will provide testimony for every time that Defendant lost his temper from his childhood on, and Prosecution will prove that Defendant hated the victim, who was trying to run off with and marry Defendant's daughter.

 

Defense argues that Defendant is an upright and well respected citizen, who is very even tempered, and then will provide testimony that supports this position. It will be further argued that Defendant supported the marriage between his daughter and the victim and that Defendant actually liked the victim, which will be confirmed by further testimony.

 

The above is gossip and spin, but what is the truth? Who knows? It might be either or neither. Maybe the victim was calling off the engagement, the daughter shot him, and the Defendant father is trying to protect his daughter. Or is this more gossip and spin? (chuckle)

 

(For the record, I'm a forensic scientist and trained as an expert witness, but I have never been called to court. The courts always accepted my written evidence. I didn't get the whole of my understanding of the court system from watching cop shows)

 

Then you should be able to appreciate the fact that most witnesses are not trained and will say things that can be construed in many ways by a clever attorney. Since you have never been called into Court, I suspect that your evidence causes attorneys to plea bargain. This means that a guilty person would receive a lesser sentence, and an innocent person would receive a sentence that is not warranted. Courts are not about justice; they are about procedures, expediency, and collecting fines.

 

I'm also puzzled about just how happy you think you would be as a slave, knowing that it would be "only" 7 years.

Well, it would be better than being dead, and there is a chance that I could eventually provide a home for my family and raise my children.

Gee

 

[Gees]

Skeptic134;

 

You wrote a fairly long post, but I have tried to respond to each of your points. Please take some time to consider my thoughts below:

 

There are many other traditions I could have picked to make the same point,

 

Yes, but you chose an ugly emotionally laden point. It has not escaped my notice that you talk about rationality while using emotion to make your point. This does not convey a sincere honest attempt at discussion.

 

tradition... doing something because that is what has been done for years, decades, centuries is not a good reason at all.

 

True, but doing something because it has worked for centuries is a different reason. A great deal of our traditions are rooted in wisdom. Why? Because wisdom was the only source that we had for predictable outcomes. We now have science, but science does not deal with many of the issues that tradition dominates; such as, family traditions.

 

In the US, we have thrown out many family traditions because they were old-fashioned. Instead we now have too many broken families, kids out of control, suicide rates that are double homicide rates, many people who disdain marriage, and a general breakdown in family and morality.

 

What is science's solution? Chemicals and Prozac. What would wisdom have to say? Duh. What did you think was going to happen?

As soon as an individual stops thinking about why they do things they've stopped using perhaps one of the greatest tools of humanity, intellect and rationality.

I can agree with most of this, but not "rationality". Rationality is a goal oriented linear process, which means that we believe something, then justify it by creating logical rational steps that prove our belief. It is a self-serving process that is often circular and is always guided by the rational aspect of mind. The rational aspect of mind being the only part of our minds that knows how to lie.

I prefer intelligence and reasoning.

Doing simply because of "that's just what we do" or because of being instructed to whether by an old book or old person makes you a pawn to be used perhaps for evil.

Or perhaps for good? In this quote, you have put your finger on the problem. Even the most intelligent mind can not possibly reason out every decision. We can not evaluate politics, religious beliefs, work problems, morality, family integration, financial decisions, and each one of our acts in each and every day. Most of us are overwhelmed with work problems, how to get the children to understand, and what to make for dinner. And these are the bright people; what do the less bright people do?

Most of us try to find someone that we can trust. It could be a political leader, a religious leader, a trusted family member or friend, or maybe it is the guy with the nice smile on the News broadcast. But we find someone to trust and allow them to instruct us. For myself, I reason out what I can, but find the old traditions and wisdom valuable because it has worked for so many people for a very long time.

I always find it fascinating when someone defends slavery "because bible" as if using a terribly inconsisting book written by some fairly disgusting ancient men is a good reference point.

 

I used the Bible because I could remember it and it is well known. I don't like to make assertions that are not logically reasoned out or do not have some frame of reference. There are probably other documents that are old enough to make my point, but I don't know them.

When complaining about inconsistency in the Bible, it would be good to bear in mind that the Bible is not a book, it is a book of books. Most of the books were written by different authors with different perspectives in different times, so consistency would be very surprising. Also consider that much of the inconsistency that people complain about is not actually in the Bible, it is between religion(s) and the Bible. Religions more often are consistent with church doctrines, which are spins of interpretations from the Bible. More gossip and spin. (chuckle)

Because a book written by ignorant bronze age men says slavery is good and right you have convinced yourself that it all started out of compassion and wisdom? Wow.

No one said anything about "good and right". You are making chit up. I have read studies about the American Indians and about cultures and tribes in Africa. In each case, tribal war meant either killing everyone, like the American Colonists did to the Indians, or leaving them to starve or be taken by predators, like the American Colonists did to the Indians, or subjugating the dredges of the losing tribe. So which one of these do you think is "right"? There is no right at that point, only the best you can do.

And lets not be too naive here, slavery isn't about compassion, slave labor can be pretty handy for the victorious tribe.

Yes, let's not be too naive. Slave labor better work hard because there are a lot more mouths to feed. And this is right after the duration of war, where most everyone either lost somebody or were maimed or hurt, and no one is feeling kind and generous.

As if somehow it makes it fine that this ancient book of horrors states (with inconsistency) that its only for seven years that these humans are owning other humans.

What is it with you and the Bible -- "Ancient book of horrors"? This looks like a very emotional response. (chuckle) Try to set your emotions aside for a moment and think about it.

What is the Bible? Well most people see it as a religious book, but is it really? It talks about God, but the large majority of the Old Testament is about Jewish history. It is a history book. And who writes a history book? Well, that would be the people who want to promote their own history. So does this mean that it is an accurate history? Well, no, maybe, sorta, kinda, from a certain perspective.

I find that it is easiest to understand the Bible by breaking it into four sections. The first section is the first six Books, that were purportedly handed down by Moses. These Books establish God as the authority, establish a chain of birth with all the "begats", and set down the Laws. The second section is the rest of the Old Testament and is made up of stories of Jewish history. The third section, the New Testament, is Jesus's philosophy, and the fourth section is Revelations, the Apocalypse, and futuristic ideas.

So ask yourself, what kind of people would take and cherish the first six Books as set down in the Bible? They would be a people who needed the legitimacy that a heritage and personal God could provide, and they would be a rather barbaric and uncivilized nation that needed the Laws that would teach them how to live well. Civilized people do not cherish laws, they simply accept them as normal, so the ancient Jews were not yet civilized. Is this the "horror" that you are talking about?

A private revelation backed up with observable evidence; how they treat each other, talk to each other, the things they do for each other over time...

Great. So do they wait to get married until all of these things are accomplished, or do they commit at the time of the revelation?

In the old days, they would commit by becoming engaged. Then she would learn to cook, sew, maintain a house, put in a garden, and maybe preserve veges. He would be busy getting land and building or buying a home and coming up with a ring. When all was accomplished, they would marry unless someone changed their minds. Their accomplishments would still be valid for the next relationship.

Now a days they would move in together, see if they liked living together without commitment. Since there is no real commitment, trust would eventually become an issue at which time they would either decide to commit, marry, or they would change their minds. If they changed their minds, there may already be a child, they would have to divide up their property, someone would have to find a place to live. It would be very much like a divorce. Would this make it difficult to trust in another relationship? Would this make it difficult for the child to learn trust? YES! YES! YES!

I like the old ways better. Tradition.

You said there are other venues for evidence, and the only one you have provided is law. Which is interesting considering that how evidence is used in "law" is called forensic science...

And material evidence and testimony . . .

If I walk in the door and find that the living room lamp is broken on the floor, and my son has a ball in his hands and looks guilty. That is evidence. Evidence is everywhere.

See your previous post below...

So evidence is thought... and emotion always carries more weight than thought because emotion is more valid and real...

 

No. Evidence needs to be interpreted by thought. See gossip and spin above. Between thought and belief, belief wins. Emotion is stronger than thought. Get it right.

So to keep the discussion on topic... tradition is not a good basis for belief/action/idealogy/way of living life.

Neither is authority, herd mentality or revelation.

And if you find a source that lays claim to all four, RUN.

 

Well, I would not run as that is a very emotional reaction. I would THINK.

Consider that 'to reason' is not the same as 'a reason'. When we reason, it is an activity that helps us to understand or evaluate something. 'A reason' is the conclusion of someone's evaluation and understanding. So when accepting a reason from someone else, we are in fact judging that person to be trustworthy and intelligent enough to come up with valid reasoning.

So trusting authority would depend on how that person gained their authority. I would trust older traditions rather than newer ones. Herd mentality is always iffy and must be judged by the circumstance, and private revelation should never be ignored, but also not accepted without careful consideration.

In my opinion

Gee