what are good reasons of believing anything?

[Skeptic134]

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.

 

 

Slavery is a tradition, one you have chosen to defend because of an apparent affinity for an ancient book. It's not my problem slavery is an uncomfortable or ugly tradition and one which you would perhaps rather ignore. Regarding emotion, perhaps you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to a book or idealogy?

 

However, what is obvious is that slavery is an excellent example of why doing something simply because "that's what we do" is such a fundamentally flawed paradigm.

 

 

 

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? If you are trying to offer examples of where/when tradition is "good" perhaps you could offer a specific one instead of generalities. Of course it would be pointless. The discussion isn't about is there one example, two examples maybe a dozen where doing something just because "that's what we do" has worked out ok; the point is that there needs to be some objective system of critical analysis of beliefs. And tradition isn't it, neither is authority, nor herd mentality nor revelation.

 

 

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.

 

Really? I can't speak for most people but that just isn't how I live my life. I actually can't fathom the idea of looking for someone or something to instruct me. I'm an adult, I have my own thoughts, I have my own desires and I am willing to accept responsibility for my own decisions. I thought that was what being an adult was about.

 

 

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.

 

Have you read the book? Finding solace, inspiration or morality in those pages seems a stretch. Well unless of course you cherry pick. Which defeats the point of having an authoritative book from which to as you put it, receive instruction. As you are using your own intellect to select which passages you decide are meaningful.

 

Since it would take us off topic I don't see how too much discussion of the bible is pertinent. I believe it is sufficient to say that like authority in general, a presupposed authoritative book is equally a bad reason for belief.

 

 

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.

 

Right... that's why science journals don't include experimental data, evidence, explanations.... it's just people talking about how they feel about a theory...

 

 

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.

 

So you need to critique the authority...

Herd mentality judged by the circumstances...

Revelation needs to be carefully considered...

 

That's interesting... none of those can stand on their own they all require some objective analysis...

 

But then older traditions are better than newer ones... Which is just peculiarly as if humanity doesn't learn overtime.

 

Anyway in regards to the OP... it now appears that you are at least conceding that authority, herd mentality, and revelation need some sorta system to measure them since they are unsufficient to stand on their own.

 

Progress...

[Moontanman]

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.

 

Gee

 

 

If you read the bible you would have seen that the going free after seven years only applied to hebrew slaves. All the others were property as long as they lived and could be passed down to your children. So yes it was a life sentence...

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber;

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

And yet, it remains the case that if someone disputes the evidence described by their opponent as indisputable, they get to show that their opponent said something that's not true.

Since they can always dispute it, the guy who calls it indisputable is a fool- no matter how much he gets paid.

 

Re.

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.

False dichotomy.

[Ten oz]

Consistency and repeatability

[Gees]

Skeptic134;

 

I believe that it was twice before in this thread, that I have pointed out where you have misrepresented my statements. You have neither admitted nor denied this. Apparently you still seem to need to misrepresent me, but your following statements have graduated to assumption, imagination, and false accusations. Do you really think this is philosophy?

 

Slavery is a tradition, one you have chosen to defend because of an apparent affinity for an ancient book.

 

There is a difference between defending something and understanding something. A doctor does not study diseases because he likes or defends disease. A person does not examine the causes of slavery because they like or want to defend slavery. Your above assumption is untrue and a little idiotic.

 

It's not my problem slavery is an uncomfortable or ugly tradition and one which you would perhaps rather ignore. Regarding emotion, perhaps you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to a book or idealogy?

How could I possibly examine a concept while ignoring it? There is no logic here.

 

Perhaps you should have been a lawyer. Lawyers love to use leading statements like this to mislead and ensnare the weak minded, but if you choose to enter law, I should warn you that this does not often work on Judges, as Judges like to have things like facts and evidence rather than imaginings. Also consider that lawyers have to deal with an ethics board.

 

However, what is obvious is that slavery is an excellent example of why doing something simply because "that's what we do" is such a fundamentally flawed paradigm.

 

No. It is a very poor example as we have yet to determine a good way to handle the losers in a war situation. Slavery after war is not a good solution, but thus far no one has a better idea that works. I noticed that you didn't come up with anything, except don't have war. Good luck with making that happen.

 

The discussion isn't about is there one example, two examples maybe a dozen where doing something just because "that's what we do" has worked out ok; the point is that there needs to be some objective system of critical analysis of beliefs. And tradition isn't it, neither is authority, nor herd mentality nor revelation.

And just what do you think that "objective system" would be? It would be a nice change to have some constructive ideas from you.

I actually can't fathom the idea of looking for someone or something to instruct me.

This does not surprise me. But you might consider that learning is not such an awful thing.

Have you read the book? Finding solace, inspiration or morality in those pages seems a stretch.

 

Why would I look for "solace, inspiration" in a history book? No logic here.

 

As far as "morality" is concerned, laws are built on morality. A lot of people from other cultures have stated that law in the US is "Christian law". Others argue that there is a separation of church and State in the US, so this is not so. After having studied some law and then examined the Book of Law, Deuteronomy, I have concluded that both arguments are correct. We do have a separation of church and State, as regards power, but the roots of our Common Law (moral law) are deeply embedded in Deuteronomy.

 

A discussion of this would pull this thread off topic, so if you are interested, start another thread. But first consider that I would not be willing to discuss this topic with anyone, who will not take instruction or does not already have a good basic understanding of the foundations of law. Too much work.

Well unless of course you cherry pick.

 

Do you understand what cherry picking means? It means that you choose the information that supports your theory/belief. This is what religions do with the Bible.

 

A study of the Book of Law, and comparison to current law is not cherry picking, it is a study.

 

Since it would take us off topic I don't see how too much discussion of the bible is pertinent. I believe it is sufficient to say that like authority in general, a presupposed authoritative book is equally a bad reason for belief.

 

You mean like science journals? Dictionaries? Encyclopedias? Are they all bad "presupposed authoritative books"? Or do you mean books that you believe do not have authority? as opposed to books that you believe do have authority? This is simple bias as to beliefs.

 

Right... that's why science journals don't include experimental data, evidence, explanations.... it's just people talking about how they feel about a theory...

 

So you are saying that science journals are just pictures? They don't use words (thoughts)?

So you need to critique the authority...

Herd mentality judged by the circumstances...

Revelation needs to be carefully considered...

That's interesting... none of those can stand on their own they all require some objective analysis...

Of course they require analysis. There is not much interesting here as this is a "no brainer".

But then older traditions are better than newer ones... Which is just peculiarly as if humanity doesn't learn overtime.

This is also a "no brainer". Older traditions would have been tested for a longer period of time and tested in more cultures/situations, so there is more tested consistency. Traditions that have proven to be invalid would have been dropped. New traditions may or may not accomplish their required goals, so it takes time to see if they are valid.

 

Humanity has learned very little about humanity in thousands of years. If you think otherwise, start a thread.

 

Anyway in regards to the OP... it now appears that you are at least conceding that authority, herd mentality, and revelation need some sorta system to measure them since they are unsufficient to stand on their own.

Progress...

 

No it is not progress. Progress might have happened if you had not felt a little froggy and jumped to conclusions with assumptions about my thoughts. The OP stated that the following reasons for believing were bad, then listed those reasons. I pointed out that in each case there could be valid reasons for believing the listed items. At no time did I state that they were good, nor did I state that they were bad. Why? Because that would not be true.

 

A lot of people in forums do this. They make an erroneous assumption about another person's post, then argue that the person is wrong, because of this erroneous assumption, and the thread dissolves into a argument that goes off topic. This is not philosophy. This is nonsense.

 

You could have simply questioned me if you thought that I was defending these things as always being true.

 

Gee

Moontanman;

 

If you read the bible you would have seen that the going free after seven years only applied to hebrew slaves. All the others were property as long as they lived and could be passed down to your children. So yes it was a life sentence...

 

You are correct. I briefly scanned Deuteronomy and found the passage that you are referring to, and it specifies Hebrew slaves. When I first looked at Deuteronomy, it was decades ago, and I was comparing what I found there to current law. Since slavery is no longer legal, I did not consider it as carefully as other aspects of law.

 

I remembered it because indentured servants were often given 7 year sentences, or 14 years which supposes that it was for two different convictions or claims. It makes one wonder if this passage of law in Deuteronomy was a justification that people used for slavery in old England. People always try to justify what they do, whether the act is just or not. It should be noted that England abolished slavery well before the US did.

 

This is just speculation at this point, but: This passage applied to, Hebrews, or their own kind, so in translation maybe white, whether it was English, Irish, Scottish, or French, were considered of their own kind, but black was considered other and therefore exempt from this rule? Or it could have applied to Christian and non-Christian. Of course, racial issues are much older than these laws, but it is always nice to have some moral justification when trying to do something that is morally unjust.

 

So I retract that part of my statements, and thank you for the correction.

 

This does not change the fact that in many tribes on different continents, slaves were sometimes allowed to marry into families, and children were sometimes adopted by families legitimizing them as citizens.

 

Gee

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider:

 

And yet, it remains the case that if someone disputes the evidence described by their opponent as indisputable, they get to show that their opponent said something that's not true.

Since they can always dispute it, the guy who calls it indisputable is a fool- no matter how much he gets paid.

 

I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying that it does not matter.

 

One can argue that indisputable means that it can not be disputed.

One can argue that since it can be disputed, nothing is indisputable.

This is arm-chair philosophy. It has no meaning and can be argued until the end of time.

 

What is the reality? The reality is as follows:

It is indisputable that 2 + 2 = 4, yet some people will dispute it.

It is indisputable that you are who you think you are, but the Twilight Zone movie might dispute it.

 

Why are these things indisputable? Because you believe them. Indisputable means believed. Something that is believed is indisputable -- until we change our beliefs. (chuckle)

Re.

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.

False dichotomy.

 

I don't think this is a false dichotomy. You asked if I would be "happier" as a slave. I can not know. Whether slave or free, there are many things that might affect my happiness, so it is an impossible question to answer. I tried to give you a fair answer by expressing hope. As long as there is life, there is hope, and that is all that I can know.

 

Gee

[Skeptic134]

 

There is a difference between defending something and understanding something. A doctor does not study diseases because he likes or defends disease. A person does not examine the causes of slavery because they like or want to defend slavery. Your above assumption is untrue and a little idiotic.

 

 

Your own words:

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

First you defended tradition in general as a good reason for belief. Then you specifically defended the tradition of slavery by using the bible, an extremely questionable source of morality to somehow conclude that slavery is wise and compassionate.

 

Offer forth whatever semantical game you like, but you were the one to call slavery wise and compassionate... tell me more about idoicy?

 

And lets not forget your defense of tradition via the diatribe on the breakdown of family values which is leading to an apparent decrease in morality... I suppose as opposed to the morality of owning slaves.

 

 

No. It is a very poor example as we have yet to determine a good way to handle the losers in a war situation. Slavery after war is not a good solution, but thus far no one has a better idea that works. I noticed that you didn't come up with anything, except don't have war. Good luck with making that happen.

 

It's an amazing example because it points out complete ignorance of doing something "because" without examining what is being done.

 

Really ashame all Germans and Japanese were enslaved and owned by Americans and British for seven years following WWII...

 

 

And just what do you think that "objective system" would be?

 

I think most people have offered up the obvious anwsers, specifically repeatable evidence and rational examination of said evidence.

 

 

You mean like science journals? Dictionaries? Encyclopedias? Are they all bad "presupposed authoritative books"? Or do you mean books that you believe do not have authority? as opposed to books that you believe do have authority? This is simple bias as to beliefs.

 

You just don't get it...

 

Just like your comment on this being a science forum regarding the "authority" of scientist...

 

Relativity isn't a widely supported theory because guys in lab coats had authority and told everyone you better believe it... its due to the incredible predictions made based upon the theory, the supporting evidence and the repeatability of gathering the supporting evidence.

 

 

The OP stated that the following reasons for believing were bad, then listed those reasons. I pointed out that in each case there could be valid reasons for believing the listed items. At no time did I state that they were good, nor did I state that they were bad. Why? Because that would not be true.

 

A lot of people in forums do this. They make an erroneous assumption about another person's post, then argue that the person is wrong, because of this erroneous assumption, and the thread dissolves into a argument that goes off topic. This is not philosophy. This is nonsense.

 

The OP was correct, each reason listed is a bad reason for believing.

 

Tradition is a bad reason for believing, in fact it's not a reason (requires thinking) at all.

 

Just because occasionally something that has been done for years and some people that are drones continue and the belief has few negative results doesn't mean that doing something simply because ignorant people did it before you were born is a valid rationale.

 

Authority is a bad reason for believing, and once again it isn't even a reason as it requires no thinking and just means being a drone.

 

Revelation is a bad reason for believing, people have thoughts all the time that turn out to be utter crap.

 

Herd mentality is a terrible reason for believing, and once again is not even a reason as thought is removed from the equation.

 

Regarding nonsense, perhaps claiming slavery was the result of wisdom and compassion falls into that category.

 

 

You could have simply questioned me if you thought that I was defending these things as always being true.

 

 

Perhaps you could have simply acknowledge that tradition, doing something because ignorant people did it before you, is a bad reason for doing something because you get things like slavery. You instead doubled down, used a ridiculus source (bible) and defended slavery.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Gees]

Skeptic134;

 

I do not understand your animosity. It occurs to me that we may have different things in mind when we use the word "tradition", so following is a sampling of some of the things that I would refer to as traditions.

 

In my second year of high school, someone told me that I was now a Sophomore. So I asked, "What is a Sophomore" and was told that Sophomore means wise fool. I was insulted and asked why the second year was called wise fools, and was then told that it was tradition and had always been that way. A Freshman is a newby and knows very little, a Sophomore comes in confident and a little cocky because they think they know everything, a Junior has learned from the mistakes that were made as a Sophomore and is more careful, and the Senior is the wise one who knows the ropes.

As I grew, I learned that the descriptions were very accurate and wondered what genius figured this out long ago. Then I realized that it did not just apply to high school. We start as Freshmen again in college, then again at work, in our marriages, in parenting, in grandparenting. Each time we start something new, we go through these same steps. Do you remember when you first drove a car? It seemed as though it would not fit in the lane -- Freshman. Later you got a little too sure of yourself and maybe blew a stop sign or picked up more speed than you intended? As a Junior you started to learn how to time lights, how to handle a car in bad weather, and learned where the traffic problems come up. As Seniors we become good defensive drivers -- the wise ones.

It is interesting to note that most trucking companies will not hire a driver under the age of 26, although they do not specifiy why. Since being 26 years old does not guarantee that one is a good driver, it is my thought that they are trying to ensure that they do not get Freshmen or Sophomores.

In my early 20's, I got tired of trying to get other people to take me for rides on their bikes, so I went to a Honda shop and bought my own. Then I had to call my brother and ask him to drive it home for me, as I had not yet learned how to drive a motorcycle. Hearing this, the salesman took me aside and told me to be careful learning to drive my bike, but to be especially careful next spring. He said that most people die from accidents on their bikes in their second year of riding. I thought to myself, "Ah yes. The Sophomore." I was much more confident in my second year and wanted to push my bike, but I never forgot his warning.

Traditions come in all shapes and sizes. Have you ever wondered why the front door is by the livingroom and the back door is by the kitchen? Even if the house is backward like houses built on a lake. I have visited houses where you turn off the road into a driveway, and there is the back door. The front door is by the living room facing the lake, which means the front door is in the back. Why is that? Tradition, just the way it is. If I wanted to build a house and put the kitchen in the front, would I have reason to regret it? Don't know. Maybe I should ask an architect, but that would be asking authority.

I know a man, who is six and a half feet tall, and when he decided to renovate his bathroom, he was going to replace that short sink and cabinet. He was tired of having to fold himself in half just to brush his teeth. Have you ever noticed that bathroom cabinets are much shorter than kitchen cabinets? Well, he could not find a taller cabinet because they were all made the same size -- that is just the way it is -- so he built one. He really liked it, but the mirror was too high for his wife and she told him that she was not going to stand on tiptoe to put on her make-up, so he got a larger mirror. It worked well until they had kids. When his kids were five years old, they still had to stand on a step stool to reach the sink. It made for a lot of spills, accidents, and busted lips. I asked him if he had the chance to do it over again, would he still install that tall cabinet. He said, "Yes. But I would have waited until the kids were half grown." Sometimes there are reasons for things being just the way they are.

Why is it that Thanksgiving dinner is never really quite right since Mom got too old to bake her homemade pumpkin pie? The store bought pumpkin pies are just not what they should be. Is Mom's pumpkin pie that important to this tradition?

Why are electrical outlets a hammer's length up from the floor? Why are the switches all at about elbow height? This is just the way it is in everyone's houses. Is there a reason? Maybe. An old electrician might know, but consistency does make it easier to find outlets and switches in the dark.

When I was a kid, we traditionally learned to turn things clockwise or counter-clockwise. But kids now do not always even know how to read a clock because so much is digital. What will happen when a young man is learning how to become a mechanic, and the old mechanic says to turn that clockwise? What?

My husband understood this problem and taught the kids, "Lefty loosy; righty tighty." A new tradition. So far this is working, but what will happen if the manufacturers of nuts and bolts and screws decide to change things up? Are we tightening the screw or loosening it? Who knows? They all work different! Some times, the traditional way of doing things is kind of nice -- just let it be the way it is.

So I like tradition and will accept it in most things unless a reason to reconsider presents itself. A new idea is not always a better idea, and time is a good test for ideas.

Gee

[Skeptic134]

 

Another diatribe filled with off topic anecdotes...

 

 

I'll condlude with the following, as this discussion continues to get further off topic, more long winded and harder to connect the dots.

 

Whether you can personally come up with stories of what you consider tradition and how that tradition turned out swell has little to do with a system that can objectively and consistently discern good ideas from bad ones and plausible explanations from implausible.

 

Tradition isn't a good method... there are many ugly traditions that are the result of ignorance.

 

Authority isn't a good method... doing something simply because another human being wants you too is dangerous.

 

Herd mentality isn't a good method... if you are surrounded by ignorant people what is the herd going to do?

 

And revelation isn't a good method... bad ideas come to people all the time, with much higher frequency than good ideas.

 

I've stated this adnausem and you apparently don't get it or just want to be argumentative.

 

Is an authority figure going to occasionally command someone to do "the right thing".... of course.

 

Is a tradition going to occasionally be "ok"... of course.

 

Is a herd or a revelation going to occasionally turn out "correct" ... sometimes.

 

But how can you tell when to listen to an authority and when not too? Or do you plan to listen to all authorities, or toss a coin?

 

How do you decide what traditions to follow? Chance and where you were born? Or will you try to use rationality and evidence to steer you?

 

 

 

If you aren't able to objectively test and distinquish between good and bad traditions, authorities, herds and revelations than you are directionless, incapable of morality and simply a drone.

 

And finally, defending slavery is a highly questionable path, you can try and backpedal but you directly used the words wise and compassionate to describe slavery. That's on you, not the person pointing it out.

[John Cuthber]

 

(1) One can argue that indisputable means that it can not be disputed.

(2)One can argue that since it can be disputed, nothing is indisputable.

(3)This is arm-chair philosophy. It has no meaning and can be argued until the end of time.

 

(4)Indisputable means believed.

 

 

(5)I don't think this is a false dichotomy. You asked if I would be "happier" as a slave. I can not know. Whether slave or free, there are many things that might affect my happiness, so it is an impossible question to answer. I tried to give you a fair answer by expressing hope. As long as there is life, there is hope, and that is all that I can know.

 

Gee

(1) that's pretty much a matter of reading the word,rather than arguing.

(2) That's exactly why no good lawyer should say that anything is indisputable.

(3) indeed, so why are you arguing about it?

(4 )No it doesn't.

(5) you are saying the choice is between death and slavery, which is a dichotomy. I'm saying that those are not the only two choices so it's a false dichotomy.

It is plainly evil to put someone in a position where those are their only two options.

You could choose not to do the evil thing- but only if you don't follow the evil book.

"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.

 

 

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider:

 

(1) that's pretty much a matter of reading the word,rather than arguing.

(2) That's exactly why no good lawyer should say that anything is indisputable.

 

So try this: The Prosecutor in a murder trial states, "The victim is indisputably dead." Are you going to try to dispute that?

 

 

(3) indeed, so why are you arguing about it?

 

You just can't see it, can you?

 

OK. Fine. You win. I will concede that your argument that nothing is indisputable, as all things can be disputed, is valid and true. I lose because I can not dispute your argument; thereby, proving that I am right that some things can not be disputed.

 

This is a logical trap that you can not win and I can not lose.

 

If I win and you lose, then we find that some things are not disputable.

 

If you win and I lose, then we prove that some things are not disputable.

 

This is why I called it arm-chair philosophy with no meaning. So if you can not win the argument without proving me right, why are you arguing?

 

 

It is plainly evil to put someone in a position where those are their only two options.

 

This is an argument that would be better served in the Ethics Forum.

 

 

You could choose not to do the evil thing- but only if you don't follow the evil book.

 

I have found that people, who use the word "evil" a great deal, usually have a religious leaning. This is because religion has the only philosophy that uses "good v evil", which is a false dichotomy, as good and evil are not antonyms, nor are they in opposition except in the minds of the religious.

 

Since you seem to be accusing me of following "the evil book", it may be that you think that I have religious leanings. If this is what you think, I am asking that you keep that information quiet. I have a lot of family and friends, who would be elated to find that I have suddenly discovered religion after all of these years. Hell, they might even invite me to their churches. It would be very awkward and embarrassing to have to tell them that John is mistaken and has an indisputable belief that I am religious. So to save us all a lot of embarrassment, please keep it under your hat. Kay? Shhh. (This was just too funny. I couldn't resist it.)

 

Gee

[John Cuthber]

Well, thanks for admitting that you are trolling.

If you cite something you don't actually believe in support of your point of view then you must know that POV is otherwise unsupportable.

"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.".

Re the long pointless discussion on diputability.

I disagree with your interpretation.

And, having done so, I have proved that everything posted so far is not indisputable. (one or other of us has disputed it)

You have forgotten to take account of the fact that truth doesn't affect disputability.

 

I'd argue that the lawyer's assertion of death was irrelevant (since that's the job of the coroner's court)

And also that it may well be a case of mistaken identity.- they may have misidentified the body.

In doing so I'd almost certainly not convince the jury that the person was alive, but I'd show that the prosecutor was careless with his use of words- and I'd bring that fact up at the end.

[Gees]

Ark200;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

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?

 

Let's look at this from an entirely different direction. Let us say that you are correct and all of the above reasons for believing something are bad and invalid. What does that leave us with?

 

1. Tradition is based on something that was studied long ago, the conclusions of which people have adopted and accepted traditionally.

 

2. Authority is the current thinking, based on current studies, on what is acceptable. Anyone can argue if they like, but the reality is that science is THE authority on anything physical.

 

Conclusion: Nothing that has been studied in the past or currently is acceptable to believe. So if studies are not acceptable, then that leaves us with what? Making things up? If nothing from the past and nothing current is acceptable, then that leaves us with futuristic ideas. Since we can not know the future, that leaves us with speculation and imagination.

 

3. General agreement; crowd opinion is an objective perspective of something.

 

4. Private Revelation is a subjective perspective of something.

 

Conclusion: Nothing that is objective or subjective can be accepted and believed. This leaves us with what? Faith?

 

So apparently, the only reasons that are acceptable for us to believe something is when we have faith in the things that we make up using imagination and speculation. Did someone move us to the Religion forum when I wasn't looking?

 

There is nothing logical about any of this. It is all nonsense. I see two possibilities:

 

Either logical fallacies have nothing to do with logic,

 

or these logical fallacies are being twisted, abused, and warped so that they are no longer logical.

 

I think that it would serve this thread better if people would discuss when 'tradition' is not believable; under what circumstance 'authority' is not believable; when 'general agreement' is invalid; and under what circumstance 'private revelation' is not valid. And I suggest that this should be done using logic.

 

Gee

[John Cuthber]

I still think that 10Oz was on the right lines when he said "Consistency and repeatability ".

If many independent traditions agree consistently and repeatedly on something, that carries a lot more weight that any single tradition. Ditto for authorities or observations.

Edited April 19, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MWresearch]

Tradition should be in the middle, there are good ones and bad ones. Obviously things like not letting women vote or have a say in their own lives isn't a good one, but traditions such as "treat others how you want to be treated" have helped many societies.

Survival.

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

And what happens to your belief when the only way for others to survive is for someone to sacrifice themselves? Would it be better to let thousands die just because they coincidentally don't have that .00000000000001% genetic difference that you have? Even if so, what is the purely objective and logical reason grounded in tested physics for such an action? Statistics controls no lives, it results from life.

 

What's another good reason? "Repeatability" isn't exactly a way to live life, its more of a test. Inevitably we could just be in some giant computer, but because we would have no control over that anyway, relying on observations of multiple people can be a good reason. Is it better to have a dictator, or is it better to have many people thinking and contributing?

Edited April 19, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

My point was that beliefs allow you to be identified as a member of a larger group or tribe that shares those same beliefs, consequently bestowing the benefits and protections that come with being part of a pack or herd.

[Greg H.]

1. Indisputable evidence

I'm happy with a preponderance of evidence. Indisputable evidence doesn't leave room for change.

[MWresearch]

My point was that beliefs allow you to be identified as a member of a larger group or tribe that shares those same beliefs, consequently bestowing the benefits and protections that come with being part of a pack or herd.

And what does merely identifying yourself have to do with survival? What if it's a cannibalistic satanist group that also commits mass suicides? Surely the mere act of being in a group does not suffice, and a culture tends to outlive individual lives anyway. Religion had its part a long time ago. For humanity, it was often meant as an incentive to bring people together if that's what you mean, at least for the more reasonable ones. But, it eventually became a tool for destruction and manipulation, ultimately it did not become as large a benefit.

 

I'm happy with a preponderance of evidence. Indisputable evidence doesn't leave room for change.

Indisputable evidence is also impossible, the chances of getting something 100% right requires measuring everything to infinite accuracy.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

And what does merely identifying yourself have to do with survival?

Walk into the home of the leader of a drug cartel like the Zetas in Mexico and identify yourself as a member of the DEA who believes that leader must be assassinated and report back (if you're not dead) with your findings on what "merely identifying yourself" has to do with survival.

 

Imagine yourself in a plane crash stranded on a remote island with just a few others. Merely identifying yourself as part of the group who shares similar beliefs will increase your chances of survival, the likelihood that resources will be pooled and you won't have to fend for yourself.

 

Go into a Boko Haram camp in Nigeria or an ISIS camp in Syria and declare your belief in Jesus as savior or better yet your belief that Muhammed enjoyed fornicating with pigs and eating his own feces and tell us then if you finally grasp my point that beliefs can play a very large role in our acceptance in a group and consequently our likelihood of survival.

 

Surely the mere act of being in a group does not suffice, and a culture tends to outlive individual lives anyway.

Of course there are exceptions and surely specific circumstances matter, but that's really not the point. The OP asked what are some good reasons for believing in things and I responded that sometimes beliefs increase our likelihood of survival. Sometimes they identify us as members in a larger group and confer upon us the accompanying benefits. Religion may in some instances be related, but ultimately is largely irrelevant to my core point.

[MWresearch]

Walk into the home of the leader of a drug cartel like the Zetas in Mexico and identify yourself as a member of the DEA who believes that leader must be assassinated and report back (if you're not dead) with your findings on what "merely identifying yourself" has to do with survival.

 

Imagine yourself in a plane crash stranded on a remote island with just a few others. Merely identifying yourself as part of the group who shares similar beliefs will increase your chances of survival, the likelihood that resources will be pooled and you won't have to fend for yourself.

 

Go into a Boko Haram camp in Nigeria or an ISIS camp in Syria and declare your belief in Jesus as savior or better yet your belief that Muhammed enjoyed fornicating with pigs and eating his own feces and tell us then if you finally grasp my point that beliefs can play a very large role in our acceptance in a group and consequently our likelihood of survival.

 

Of course there are exceptions and surely specific circumstances matter, but that's really not the point. The OP asked what are some good reasons for believing in things and I responded that sometimes beliefs increase our likelihood of survival. Sometimes they identify us as members in a larger group and confer upon us the accompanying benefits. Religion may in some instances be related, but ultimately is largely irrelevant to my core point.

And what of my point about religions, a rather important set of groups throughout history? But now that I think more broadly about it, I also don't see how it logically connects to "what is a good reason to believe in something..." Survival or other subjective statements don't make sense as the basis to determine if general statements are truthful, to me it sounds like you're trying to use apples in place of oranges or are you trying to make a subjective argument for what you assume are arbitrary standards. I guess the op will have to clear it up, what is a logical reason to believe it, or what is an ethical reason.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

Please clarify what point about religions you made and what specifically you'd like me to address.

[MWresearch]

Please clarify what point about religions you made and what specifically you'd like me to address.

A religion is a group, being part of that group did not necessarily benefit more of the human race than it damaged nor present a better opportunity to survive. Sometimes it is better to have more independent thought, just being in a group, pretentiously so or otherwise doesn't automatically make everything better. Grouping itself isn't solely what allowed humanity to progress, it's the ability to focus on specific research and record knowledge over years as different individual members explore a wider variety of ideas, technology based or sociologically based, branching off from that knowledge.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

Okay, and...???

 

All this talk of religion and benefit to the human race and independent thought and making everything automatically better or allowing humanity to progress and focus on research and knowledge are all red herrings and a bit nonsequitur to what I said.

 

I'm still not following the logic of your point since none of what you're saying challenges my core point that beliefs sometimes allow you to be identified as a member of a larger group or tribe that shares those same beliefs, consequently bestowing the benefits and protections that come with being part of a pack or herd.

[MWresearch]

Okay, and...???

 

All this talk of religion and benefit to the human race and independent thought and making everything automatically better or allowing humanity to progress and focus on research and knowledge are all red herrings and a bit nonsequitur to what I said.

 

I'm still not following the logic of your point since none of what you're saying challenges my core point that beliefs sometimes allow you to be identified as a member of a larger group or tribe that shares those same beliefs, consequently bestowing the benefits and protections that come with being part of a pack or herd.

Did you already forget what you said?

"My point was that beliefs allow you to be identified as a member of a larger group or tribe that shares those same beliefs, consequently bestowing the benefits"

That is not always the case that a group brings benefits, or that if they do the benefits for the individuals do not always benefit humanity, and furthermore, as I said and you consequently ignored, this group belief mechanism you speak of no longer seems to be a "good" reason to believe something for the purposes of the topic. As mentioned, it has been a very long time since the overall benefits of assuming a strict group identity has brought more benefits than costs. Even the concept of countries and nationalism creates pride and elitism, leading to wars and disputes, excuses to deny resources so that few may gain power and so on. Really, modern nationalism is a mask for trade specialization, where certain regions are better at producing specific goods than all others.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

That is not always the case that a group brings benefits

But sometimes it is, which was my point.

 

...or that if they do the benefits for the individuals do not always benefit humanity

I wasn't talking about benefit to humanity, hence my previous suggestion that this is a red herring.

 

I said and you consequently ignored, this group belief mechanism you speak of no longer seems to be a "good" reason to believe something for the purposes of the topic. As mentioned, it has been a very long time since the overall benefits of assuming a strict group identity has brought more benefits than costs. Even the concept of countries and nationalism creates pride and elitism, leading to wars and disputes, excuses to deny resources so that few may gain power and so on. Really, modern nationalism is a mask for trade specialization, where certain regions are better at producing specific goods than all others.

Okay. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

[MWresearch]

But sometimes it is, which was my point.

Can you elaborate as to what groups you think being a part of constitutes a reason to accept something as proof without empirical data (believe)?

 

I wasn't talking about benefit to humanity, hence my previous suggestion that this is a red herring.

But then we arrive at my other point, why would one group surviving be worth more than other groups surviving? Why would it be better to develop survival in groups as opposed to more isolated at all? So then why should surviving as a trait of a group be the focal point for belief? But if the goal of believing is survival, how do you compensate for the fact that identifying as part of a group through a belief can create inefficient pride and violence among people who are biologically almost exactly identical?

 

Okay. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

If they were all in fact opinions I would say thanks.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch