Belief

[andrewducker]

I don't have a religious background.

I mean, sure, go back two generations and you'll find one, but go back two generations and 99% of the population was religious. We're pretty much the first generation where a belief in God isn't assumed.

I have a materialistic worldview. Which is to say that I don't tend to believe in the supernatural. Which isn’t to say that I'm 100% sure that there are not beings out there with capabilities beyond our own, or that telepathy is completely impossible, but that if these things exist, they are part of nature and equally subject to investigation and analysis as electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles.

I am, in fact, happy to believe in a wide variety of things, so long as I am given a reason to do so. What I find impossible is faith. Most people seem to be happy to accept things on faith. When indoctrinated at an early enough age, they are happy to stick with that set of beliefs fairly indefinitely. This is evidenced by the number of people whose religion throughout their lives is the one which they happened to be born into.

When I've evinced a lack of belief in ghosts before, I've had people ask me why I need proof, why I can't just believe. From my side of things, this seems very odd - if I went around believing in things without at least some proof, then I'd have a vast collection of beliefs, very few of them being compatible with each other. I have a sceptical outlook; not cynical, which looks down upon other things, but sceptical, where I want to question them.

Which leads, of course, into why I don't demand proof for the existence of, say, Korea. After all, I've never seen that. And the answer there is that on weighing up the existence of places _like_ Korea, and the chances of a conspiracy managing to invent a wholly fictional country and keep that fact secret long term, it seems extremely likely that it exists.

But, I hear you cry, many, many people claim that ghosts exist, so why take the word of these Korean-believers, but not of those who believe in ghosts? The difference being that I could buy a plane ticket tomorrow and investigate the existence of Korea myself. The investigation of Korea is something that is open to all and (barring plane crashes) bound to succeed, whereas when many people have investigated the existence of ghosts they have had no success at all, and those people that have announced success have not been able to describe their methods in such a way as to allow others to do likewise.

One of the the thing that scientists usually do very well (and are supposed to do all the time, if only they weren't so darned human) is to check up on each other. When a scientist makes an announcement, particularly one of a surprising breakthrough, other scientists immediately try to replicate the experiment in order to confirm (or deny) it. When Pons and Fleischmann announced their cold-fusion breakthrough several other labs immediately tried to follow their methodology. When they announced their failure to achieve the same results the original announcement was immediately discredited.

The fact that declarations are not taken at face value, but are instead replicated, analysed and thoroughly investigated makes the results more trustworthy. Over long periods those theories which have no basis in fact are slowly disproved, those that work become more accepted. The body of knowledge can never be completed, because all new work is constantly in a state of dispute, and even accepted models can eventually be overthrown when a deeper understanding is found.

Most people seem to be unhappy about this lack of certainty. They find the idea that they cannot be told "The Answer" or have access to "The Truth" very unsettling. The idea that if you just have a little faith in what you're told, you can have the inner peace that comes with knowing that you know the absolute truth and the final answer to all of your questions is very appealing. Sadly, I just can't believe these explanations without thought or question, no matter how nice it would be to do so. No matter how much I want to believe, my scepticism won't let me.

Comments

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

The thing about death and afterlife and all that stuff is, something happens after we die. Either there is an afterlife, or we completely cease to exist as thinking beings, or we retain our mental capacity while being trapped in a slowly decaying body with no sensory input and no way of expressing ourselves, or whatever. But no one is likely to ever be able to prove what happens, to those who are still alive.

Instead we have a set of possibilities. Without the possibility of proof, the only option is to choose a possibility to believe in that best fits available data. It's totally subjective, and people make different choices with different results. Some choose to believe in God and are happy with that. Some choose to believe in God and are unhappy with it, blaming Him for all their problems. And some choose not to believe in any God, and wonder how others can.

I believe in God. I believe that life is too perfectly constructed to be an accident. I've asked hard questions, and I've been lucky enough to have been able to speak with priests and nuns who had also questioned, and had also found answers.

But you also won't find me looking down on other people and their faiths, or lack thereof. If, by your faith, you contribute to make the world a better place, that's fine by me. If you don't want to believe at all, that's ok by me, too. I admit that I could be entirely on the wrong track, that my beliefs are subjective and not fact.

If you use your beliefs to torture kittens to death or something, though, I think you should be tracked down and skinned alive. That's my subjective opinion.

[andrewducker]

Without the possibility of proof, the only option is to choose a possibility to believe in that best fits available data.

Actually, you can simply choose to not have any beliefs on the matter.

I believe that life is too perfectly constructed to be an accident.

The human body isn't well adapted for most of what we do with it. And it has obvious leftovers from the previous designs it evolved from. And most of the world is like that.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Actually, you can simply choose to not have any beliefs on the matter.

Really? I'm not sure how someone can have no belief at all. They could perhaps say, well, I'm not sure, but deep down, does anyone really have absolutely no guess or feeling for what happens after death?

The human body isn't well adapted for most of what we do with it. And it has obvious leftovers from the previous designs it evolved from. And most of the world is like that

But that's only vaguely related to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the entire net of interrelations that allows life to exist at all. Interlocking ecosystems, with one organism filling in gaps to form a symbiotic whole. I'm talking about evolution, so that organisms can adapt to change (albeit slowly). I'm talking about birds who sit in hippos' mouths and the bacteria that lives in our intestines and lets us process food, and the fact that plants process carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen and mammals take CO2 and turn it into oxygen, and that water evaporates into the atmosphere, then returns in the form of rain. Not that people don't have bodies well suited to sitting at desks all day long.

[andrewducker]

I have no belief regarding what happens after we die. At least no hard beliefs.

And using evolution as evidence of a creator seems odd, as evolution requires nothing but random chance.

[darkoshi]

Instead we have a set of possibilities. Without the possibility of proof, the only option is to choose a possibility to believe in that best fits available data.

So WolfLady looks at the evidence and decides that a God theory is more believable than an evolution-only theory, whereas AndrewDucker may look at the same evidence and decide that evolution-only theory is more believable.

But I don't think we only believe based upon what best fits available data. When something is highly unprovable, one can also choose to believe whatever one wants to believe, ie. whatever pleases one the most. So, perhaps WolfLady prefers to believe that there's a God who created everything on purpose, rather than it happening by accident, because there is something more appealing about things happening on purpose than by accident. And having such a preference, it may make it more difficult for her to believe in evolution only.

I'm not sure how someone can have no belief at all. They could perhaps say, well, I'm not sure, but deep down, does anyone really have absolutely no guess or feeling for what happens after death?
I have guesses, and since they are just guesses, they translate to "I'm not sure" and "I don't know". I don't have "feelings" about what happens after death. I do occasionally have desires.... like mentioned above, there are things which I would like to believe, because they are appealing. So, I have some pseudo-beliefs, which I don't really classify as true beliefs, because I know that I only "believe" them because I want them to be true. I'm skeptical enough that such a desire isn't enough to make me truly believe those "beliefs".

Oh, and regarding Pons and Fleischmann - in high school, my physics teacher was mentioning something regarding them to me. I looked at him oddly for a moment, and replied, "You're not talking about cold cream and margarine, are you?" Because in my mind at the time, Pond's = brand of cold cream, and Fleischmann = brand of margarine.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

When we die we physically decay in the same way as any living thing. (Well any mammal roughly our size, well, the clothes tend to make a difference... but you know what I mean). Bacteria and fungi and insects (and maybe hyenas) and stuff break us down (eventually) into component molecules that then get reused to build plants and animals and all sorts of stuff. Other stars eventually.

Brains don't work when decayed, or indeed without oxygen, so they'd be offline way before decay sets in. So no thoughts or anything like that.

But none of that is really belief - as Andy says I can investigate it myself (so long as I don't get caught!).

When you die, it's over. Now that may be a belief (but it is the simplest and most consistent explanation). Why do people freak so much at that thought that they have to make up the most bizzare belief systems to try to deny/ignore/bypass/get round this?? This is actually genuine curiousity, BTW, not getting at anyone.

[darkoshi]

When you die, it's over.

That's a distinct possibility, one which generally seems the most likely to happen and/or easiest to believe, and which I even sometimes desire to be true. It doesn't freak me out.
But there is something about being alive - feeling one's own awareness - that is sometimes hard to believe would be only due to cells in a brain, and nerve impulses, and neurons firing. I can envision cells, neurons, nerves and such, but equating that to my own feeling of awareness seems sometimes a tenuous equation.

If humans are able to make very technologically advanced robots some day, do you think those robots will have a self-awareness like humans and other living animals do? It's hard for me to believe that. We would be merely constructing things - putting pieces and parts together and writing programs... At which stage of technical complexity, would true self-awareness arise in such robots? Would we really be able to create something that could feel? Yet, physically, I don't see much difference between a very complex robot and a human. So, perhaps there is something about us that isn't merely due to our physical bodies and brains.

And when one doesn't truly believe that one's awareness is only due to a physical brain, then one may also tend to believe that when the brain dies, one's awareness or "spirit" or whatever, won't necessarily also disappear.

[andrewducker]

It's hard for me to believe that.

Do you believe that bacteria feel?

Fungi?

Sea Cucumbers?

Ants?

Spiders?

Lizards?

Mice?

Dogs?

There's definitely a chain of complication in people, and I don't view robots as likely to be any different.

[darkoshi]

Do you believe that bacteria feel?
Fungi?
probably not. although, perhaps...

Sea Cucumbers?
hell if i know

Ants?
Spiders?
yes, in some fashion

Lizards?
Mice?
Dogs?
yes, although still not necessarily in the same manner that humans do.

There's definitely a chain of complication in people, and I don't view robots as likely to be any different.
it is possible that complex robots would feel about themselves the same way we do about ourselves. Or perhaps not, perhaps not even as much as an ant does. Perhaps there is something special about "life" that mechanical, non-biological robots would not share. Or perhaps by creating such a complex thing, we would be transferring a magical "spirit" onto our creations, and perhaps that is what would make them feel, and perhaps after such creations "died", that spirit would live on... Or perhaps not.

Another occasional thought I have is that if my feeling of being is only an effect of the workings of my body, why do I even have to be here, feeling this. Why can't this body just be there, doing it's thing; why do I even have to be experiencing it... not a logical thought, surely, but still something that bothers me. Why am I in this body and not that one? Who is me and why is this body me, as oppposed to any of the other bodies on the planet.... what traps me here in this body, when it's all just a bunch of brains doing their thing...

I suppose I generally prefer the idea of there being some purpose/reason for my existence other than it just being due to a bunch of cells having grown from a bunch of other cells. Although i can't fathom any such purpose so far. Or even if my existence is merely due to a bunch of cells, it bothers me there not being a reason for those cells - that matter - existing in the first place...

Energy and matter don't make sense to me. Absolute nothingness would make sense to me, but matter and energy don't. Things, in the middle of nothing... why are they there? why have something when it would be so much simpler and logical for there to be nothing at all ?

If this doesn't make sense to anyone reading this, well... it isn't clear to me either. My thoughts and beliefs are rather... jellylike.

[andrewducker]

of my body, why do I even have to be here, feeling this. Why can't this body just be there, doing it's thing; why do I even have to be experiencing it... not a logical thought

Perfectly logical thought. The question of why our being requires consciousness and awareness is a very good one, and quite common in certain areas.

I recommend Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" for some interesting thoughts on the matter.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I'm quite impressed my various epiphenomenal and (damn! I lost the other word) synergistic (nah, that wasn't it)effects in other areas so I find it quite all quite plausible.

I'm not entirely sure that most human beings are "self-aware" in the way that I feel that I am, so I'd be willing to give such robots the benefit of the doubt. I'm also aware that what I feel is (like a lot of what I perceive) an illusion conjured by my systems to make me able to act and react to the universe in a vaguely appropriate manner. I do have "reality failures" where I have too much awareness of how tenuous my feeling of me-ness is and how many parts and layers it is made up of, but the habit of consciousness has thusfar been stronger and I always "come back".

I think that "self-awareness" is over-emphasised (and over-rated in what it gives you). Serial consciousness generally happens after the fact, justifying and explaining our actions, weaving it into the rest of our memories in a way that seems to link it in (enough but not too much - too many connections and you get paranoia and all the problems of over-significance).

[darkoshi]

You lost me there on the first sentence. Your... what? and... what? and... it makes what all plausible?

self-awareness...

something i've thought about upon occasion is, if i had no sensory input, what would I feel like? and if i had never had any sensory input, i would have no memories... so what would it feel like without sensory input and without any memories at all... Would I still be able to feel happiness and/or sadness and/or anger? Do those emotions depend upon having a body and/or memories? Would I feel anything at all? Would I even exist? Would I still have some sort of awareness or not? What would be the difference between me and a rock? What would I be? I could be a tiny speck or a gigantic sphere; I could be here or there or everywhere; there would be no difference. If I did still exist, and if there was another being like me, what would the difference between us be? How could anyone tell? How could anyone tell that there were two beings as opposed to one, or as opposed to ten billion?

I suppose that line of thought logically tends to the conclusion that without sensory input and memories, ie. a brain and body, that one wouldn't exist... but I haven't really come to that conclusion yet. It is still an interesting mental exercise for me.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I am, in fact, happy to believe in a wide variety of things, so long as I am given a reason to do so. What I find impossible is faith.

I feel exactly the same way. Faith makes absolutely no sense to me. The only real difference between me and most of the materialists I have met is that I accept my own subjective experiences as being valid. I believe in magick because I have seen and felt it work (and since I often do magick for practical purposes, I have more than subjective evidence here), I believe in gods and spirits because I have met and talked to more than a few in a wide variety of subjective and visionary experiences. OTOH, I would not in any way expect anyone without similar experiences to believe in gods. Quite honestly, the idea of gods seemed fairly ludicrous to me until I met a couple and was possessed by a few.

I initially became involved in the occult because what I had read sounded interesting and because I wanted it to be real, but w/o some fairly impressive experiences, I would have dismissed it as hogwash. From my PoV, this is what separates magicians and serious mystics from ordinary believers. I'm also fairly certain that people who choose to actively disbelieve in this whole range of phenomena are far less likely to ever encounter any of the subjective experiences I've had. There are a few things I don't want my worldview (satanic ritual abuse, hostile greys abducting people, George W. Bush running the US...) and I actively disbelieve those things without evidence to the contrary. However, I am willing to almost all of my change about reality in the fact of compelling evidence. Also, I have no opinion about many phenomena but if they interest me, I'll look into them and make my decisions based on what I find out. My only signficiatn disappointment with all of this is that I have encountered no useful evidence for any form for widespread life after death. Ghosts seem to be quite rare and not terribly durable, I've seen no evidence for any sort of "heaven", and while I believe in reincarnation, I also find it pointless for the PoV of personal survival, since at most fragmentary memories are preserved. Therefore, I maintain a keen interest in life extension technologies.

[andrewducker]

I have to say that in your situation I suspect I'd feel the same way.

I've seen things I can't explain (Marc Salem told my girlfriend that she'd been to Kansas while he was blindfolded and all she'd done was write it on a card he didn't even get to hold. And that wasn't the oddest thing he did). I'd love to have an odd mystical experience, but most of the people I've seen offering them were quite obviously in it for the cash or the power.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'd love to have an odd mystical experience, but most of the people I've seen offering them were quite obviously in it for the cash or the power.

That's the advantage of approaching such things through the pagan community. There are a host of flakes, but I've discovered that just because someone is a flake or even someone who sounds utterly insane, it doesn't prevent them from having real power. Best of all, very few pagans are scamming for money. The biggest risk are teachers on serious personal power trips or the occasional (but thankfully fairly rare) sex-related sleaze (typically men using their status as priests to attempt to get sex), but a bit of diligent work can usually turn up someone worth studying with.

[darkoshi]

I seem to recall that very occasionally, I've had very minor odd experiences, which due to their inexplicableness I might even consider to be mystical in some ways. The kind of little things that happen and make you think, "huh? what was that?" or "how did that happen?" or "did i just imagine that?". But these kinds of occurrences seem to fade from memory pretty easily. As if not having an explanation for something causes one's mind to easily dismiss it.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Yeah I've had that. Your brain can do all sorts of weird 'stutters' and given how it's actually behind your actual actions by about 5 seconds (so, normally, you do the thing effectively before you [the serial 'conscious' voice-in-your-head you] think 'I'm going to do that') and neither perception nor interpretation are anywhere near perfect, that's pretty much how life goes.

Reality is what happens whether you want it to or not.
Science is what works whether you believe in it or not.

I'd further add that reality tends to be what is more consistent.

Of course none of this may contradict what heron61 has experienced.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I meant 0.5 of a second.

half a second

not 5

eeep!

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but was there a moon landing....? ;+)

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

:-) Rational, sane, realistic, sceptical - it'll never catch on you know!

I'd rather be 'right' (and uncertain) than sure and happy.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

Your scepticism is actually following the teachings of scripture which tells us to test everything to be sure that it is of God.
I find that too many people of whatever faith blindly follow the opinions of their religious leaders without comparing these to the appropriate text.

more thoughts

[garthmyl.livejournal.com]

Interesting discussion with diverse views - some people 'have faith' and some people need empirical evidence. Just to throw in a few extra thoughts. Henry Ford said 'If you believe you can, or if you believe you can't - you're right'. Beliefs are true - for that person. Intellectually I believe that. However I have had practical evidence of this.

A number of years ago I was involved with a Guru - he was channelled - its quite common - many examples are documented. I was sceptical and he gave me lots of 'evidence' - so called miracles - things happened which were unexplainable. He manifested 'things' and he caused sounds to happen on my technology. He knew things that no one could possibly know. And he loved unconditionally.

I was changed - utterly. Everyone told me how different I was. I was positive and content. I believed the teachings (mostly Buddhist) utterly and proselytised constantly.

Cutting a long story short, it turned out that I was part of a cult and the Guru was a figment of the imagination of the so called channeller - I and 20 other high level intelligent professionals believed. We were conned by a very clever, well read, power seeking magician (yes, he aspired to being a member of the magic circle) - yet for us it was true.

Beware belief.....

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Pfft you know science is your religious background