ChaoticMindSays wrote:
I see empirical evidence as being a function of logic. SO the two are almost interchangeable. Forgive me for my mis-communication.
Any idea that can't be expressed by a logical demonstration is at best of low quality/cognitive value/significance, at worse meaningless/false, an illusion/delusion.
The empirical method is the testing of an idea put in a logical form.
So, its purpose is to validate (when possible) an logical
valid conclusion. Meaning it allows us to prove it
sound (i.e. true).
You have to imagine that an idea, before to be considered true, must be meaningfully/rationally (i.e. logically) expressed. If you fail or neglect to do so, your idea has no or little value.
Doing this, you verify the
validity of the logical demonstration you made.
Now, to validate the conclusion of your demonstration (your idea if you will), you must confront it with 'Reality', that's why we use the empirical method. Because logic cannot validate/prove itself (that would be a self-referencing loophole).
If your conclusion is verified empirically, your logical conclusion is qualified of
sound (i.e. true).
If your (logical) conclusion is contradicted by the result of your experiment, then it is said
unsound (i.e. false).
If the result of the experiment doesn't directly confirm nor contradict your idea (logical conclusion) is said
undetermined/undecided.
It can be because your idea is not ideally formulated or because the experience you designed is not good enough.
So, not only the empirical method cannot be conflated with the logical method but it is necessary (when possible) to determine the soundness (truth) of an assertion.
I believe desire to have quite a bit to do with the nature of our reality.
So, do you believe that 'Reality' can be created by our desires/thoughts?
They can influence 'Reality' (not how we percieve Reality, but Reality itself)?
Proof isn't the issue here, it is the question why?. I don't believe that Nearly every culture that has ever existed all just happened to believe in a 'God' because it is logical for people to be afraid of death. Not all people are afraid of death, not all cultures are afraid of death.
It's not logical. It's irrational (like we are) and it's a fact.
And, yes all people in all cultures are afraid of dying/ceasing to exist. But their acceptation of it through self-sacrifice for example, is highly dependent on their beliefs and the indoctrination/brainwashing (call that culture if you want) they have been subjected to.
If these beliefs are strong enough, they can create the illusion of knowledge, the knowledge there is nothing to fear. In doing so, transforming an 'unknown' by a 'believed'.
But a true decrease, never absence, in fear can only be obtained through knowledge, not belief.
When the moment, of the sacrifice for example, comes they very much feel fear.
If there is only one instinct, it's the one of survival.
So, if there is only one fear, it's the fear of 'death'.
I agree, we make our own purpose. But I also believe that that purpose is more than just our desire. It is made tangible by our desire, the purpose is real.
No, what I mean is that our life has for only purpose the one we give it to. There is little chance there is an Objective ('real') Purpose. This idea rely only on, again, beliefs.
It would be 'better' if the purpose we give to our life was constant (intellectual/cognitive) improvement of ourselves and the people we can help (by transmitting the knowledge/experience we think we have for example) though.
At least we would have done our part.
I disagree, just because you desire something does not mean you automatically allow yourself to believe in said thing.
You right, I should have said: "
is more likely to induce this or this belief. It depends on your experience and how much you value truth instead of belief (if you can discern them from one another).
Kant said: "
The value of someone is determined by the number of truths he/she is able to accept."
I couldn't agree more...
Also, yes, 'Truth' has a price, but to be forced to wake up/snap out from a delusion is even more painfull.
You pretend to believe that you know that "the fact that so many people do so is due to their fear of uncertainty, the unknown.", Maybe it is because of your fear of the unknown?
I should have said: "
is one of the reason for"...
I don't believe in anything. I think to believe is stupid and counterproductive.
I don't have any problem to don't know.
Don't misunderstand, I would prefer to know... But not to the point to create a fantasy and believe in it to reassure/comfort me.
I prefert to assert and accept a lack of knowledge, than to indulge myself in illusion/wishful (or harmful) desires/fears.
I included always because, in my opinion, it is unattainable.
Maybe but if you want people to answer to your poll (to express
their opinion), you should consider all possibilities (at least, here, one more).
I know this and am not saying that it should be by 'the force of majority rule', just that because billions and billions of people have believed in God that that means, logically, that there may very likely be something more to the idea of God than what our human logic may be able to reveal.
So, you know it's a fallacy... But, still, you (desire to) use it
as if it was a valid argument. Well, it's not.
Again, I gave you examples, using logic to
why people are inclined to believe such thing.
You there must be other reasons, without citing them, and when someone gives you some, you dismiss them.
Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.
That's circular thinking and a belief has never been a proof of anything else than the desires/fears causing it.
I believe that this weight should put it equal to logic, reason, empirical evidence, whatever you want to call it. I just don't believe logic to be the ultimate that so many people give their faith to.
Read the thread "
Can knowledge stem from faith?" from Meleagar.
I demonstrate that no knowledge can be induced by belief/faith.
Faith/beliefs have little if not none cognitive value.
Alun nailed it. Even more than he allows his reasoning to go:
Alun wrote:However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable.
Logical thinking (i.e.
reasoning) not the only reliable/meanigful way to communicate, but also to form/express one.
The rest, again, is illusion and meaningless.
Nonsense, philosophy is concerned with everything and was built by truths that can only be made by intuition.(metaphysics)
These
axioms, are simply proof of the limit of our understanding of Reality, our knowledge.
It's not because there are some things that we have to assume as being true today (that can change with time), without real proof, that it is justified to abandon all reason or to assume that all knowledge come from beliefs, these axioms.
In fact, I would like someone to give us some of these logical axioms and see if they cannot be logically (at least) demonstrated. Therefore, not being axioms.
For all intent and purpose they must be few...
I see logic as a box.
Logic is not a box, nor a prison.
See it more like glasses. Without them, you can't see properly. If you never put glasses on you can imagine that your view is perfect, that everyone see the world as you do. But it ain't so...
You can also think that you don't really need them because it's constraining to wear... Well it's your choice.
You have to decide if you prefer the illusion of freedom or the actual increased capacity to make choices, because you WILL understand EVERYTHING better... You just need a little mental/intellectual discipline.
You can try to get around it as much as you like, the desire to see beliefs (or
'something else', whatever that means...) as equal to logic demonstration doesn't make this belief true.
It's like a 7 year old child being convinced and believing that he can write a dissertation/text as well/meaningful/significant as his parents could...
He's really convinced of this, no one can seem to make him understand that it's not
possible. He
believes.
The problem for us, humans, is that 90% of the population has the same belief, they are all children. The 10% left (I'm being overly optimistic here) at least understand and accept that freedom doesn't mean delusion/narcissism, That logic, method and mental discipline is required.
But logic is even more, they are glasses that, when you put them on, people also see (understand as Alun pointed out) you better.