"belief" is not a virtue
Does not being in a state of confusion first require a false "belief"? — A Gnostic Agnostic
Wouldn't the rationalists be playing into Satan's hands if they try to get us to believe that belief is bad and that their process for reaching this conclusion is rational? Wouldn't it be better to take a more cliche Zen approach and hit people when they seem to be believing something?
Confusion occurs when someone isn't sure what's the case and especially when there seem to be dissonances in the information at hand.
Aside from that, what you're looking for has nothing to do with logic, really. Logic is about "what follows from what" given certain assumptions, definitions, rules, etc.
In the context of Religion, you could say belief would be 'less of a virtue' when making a priori statements about a Deity.
Could one not confuse good for evil and evil for good based on a "belief" that one is the other, and the other is the one? — A Gnostic Agnostic
I don't understand anything you are saying there, unless it's just rhetoric. "Belief is not a virtue" does not necessarily render belief "bad". It should just mean that: it is not a virtue. Anyways, if "belief" is not a virtue is the point, where is the "get us to believe" point coming in? — A Gnostic Agnostic
If satan requires "belief" in order to confuse people into "believing" that:
i. "belief" is a virtue, and
ii. evil is actually good; good is actually evil (equivalent: satan is actually god)
then it necessarily follows that "belief" is not a virtue.
hthe problem of "belief". — A Gnostic Agnostic
If there is any logic that can be constructed from this or what needs to be clarified first, I am very curious to see how rationalists would try to address the problem of "belief". — A Gnostic Agnostic
I'm having difficulties following you. The only thing I can gather from your statement is the concept of logical necessity relating to Cosmology and causation; I guess you could say it is 'neutral' in some sense.
But this business about satan/virtue, etc. etc. I'm losing you.
There's a difference between the phenomenon of confusion--of someone saying, "I'm confused," and saying that someone else is confused. The latter doesn't amount to the person in question feeling confused.
When we say that someone else is confused, what we usually have in mind is (a) the idea that they should be conforming to some extent to conventional concepts, and (b) per those conventional concepts, they're getting things wrong in some way, mixing them up, not making distinctions, etc. And sure, we could have in mind that they're misidentifying something.
But "one being in a state of confusion" is someone saying "I'm confused." Not someone else thinking that the person has something wrong.
I did find the post a bit hard to understand, but it seemed the problem with belief might be exacerbated if people rationally or otherwise tried to get people to belief things, as here you were asking the rationalists to come and do.
In any case this seemed like a call to come and argue something in relation to belief. If they are rationalists, it seemed to me they might mount an argument, this being something leading to people being persuaded, which would, it seems, in this case, persuaded to have a belief about belief.
If there is any logic that can be constructed — A Gnostic Agnostic
No. There is no 'logic' which undermines belief in 'God' unless that belief gives 'God' essential properties which can be empirically tested or observed and that test 'fails'. That is because 'logic' must assume 'truth' of chosen axioms and cannot evaluate that truth. (Godel's incompleteness theorem, although mathematical in intent, has been extrapolated to most general systems, such that the 'truth' of at least one axiom cannot be deduced from the system itself)
1. Belief is unnecessary for goodness
2. Belief is necessary for evil
3. If belief is unnecessary for goodness and necessary for evil then belief isn't a virtue
So,
4. Belief isn't a virtue
Logical argument:
G = belief is necessary for goodness
E = belief is necessary for evil
B = belief is a virtue
1. ~G premise
2. E premise
3. (~G & E) > ~B premise
4. ~G & E from 1, 2 conj
5. ~B from 3, 4 MP
If you are using belief as it is generally used in philosophy - that is anything one believes to be true, regardless of the justification (iow scientific conclusions and folk beliefs and religious beliefs are all under the category of beliefs, just there are differing degrees of rigor) - then that is where my confusion is coming in. If someone used logic to undermine belief, that process would include both relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions - that is, more beliefs.I am looking for logic that undermines belief entirely. — A Gnostic Agnostic
GA, I'm a Christian Existentialist (some people refer to it as being 'Spiritual' if you like). Ethically/morally, when someone uses the term 'evil', that's a euphemism for 'lack of perfection' to me. I don't 'believe' in a sentient Being called Satan.
I think of our temporal nature and finitude, as all part of the tree of life extended metaphor. Meaning, it removes the ethical/moral notion of an external belief system (Satan) and associated paradigm's. I don't try to make sense of that. So in your context of struggling with that 'belief system', when say a far-right Fundy talks about Satan and his attributes and/or his nature it begs the questions of : who/what/where/why/how does he know this...
Our temporal nature and lack of perfection obscures our judgement ( in all domains personally/professionally/vocation-wise etc. etc.). And morally/ethically, we take on our own responsibility for our own actions and recognize that intrinsic value; we don't say 'the devil made me do it'.
You've heard the term 'existential angst' right?
Sorry, you've lost me. 'Belief' is not 'a property'. Its a noun implying a state of mind characterized by confidence in an idea without sufficient observational evidence.
Should that observational evidence be specified, and should that observation fail, then belief is logically undermined. The 'God/Satan' scenario already assumes these to be meaningful concepts, prior to belief statements about them. Their proposed relationship with each other might be part of that 'meaning', but 'belief' in such a relationship beyond 'a story' is a separate issue.
If you are using belief as it is generally used in philosophy - that is anything one believes to be true, regardless of the justification (iow scientific conclusions and folk beliefs and religious beliefs are all under the category of beliefs, just there are differing degrees of rigor) - then that is where my confusion is coming in. If someone used logic to undermine belief, that process would include both relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions - that is, more beliefs.
If you mean belief in the pejorative sense - which is generally not the meaning in philosophy - that's a different story.
If someone used logic to undermine belief, that process would include both relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions - that is, more beliefs.
One begets the possibility of "believing" something that is not true (which causes suffering/death) — A Gnostic Agnostic
Well, if you are undermining someone's belief using a process that includes logic (or does not for that matter) you are trying to reach a conclusion and demonstrate that other people should draw the same conclusion. That conclusion is a belief. If I want to undermine your belief in God, say, or that water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, I will present some premises and do some deduction to demonstrate something else is true, or I will try to demonstrate that one of your premises is incorrect. If I succeed you will now believe something else, including perhaps that your premise X is not true. You will also believe my argument makes sense. You would like also believe now or already that this or that type of deduction is correct.In what way would the process include relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions? — A Gnostic Agnostic
No. 'Being' implies continuity, whereas 'belief' implies segmentation.
Necessarily? How so? After all, presumably your mother loves you....
And there is the whole topic of "belief," accepting something for the sake of argument, that is fundamental in rhetoric. Think it through some more - never mind your "technical abilities" - and see if you arrive at any new and different conclusions.
Well, if you are undermining someone's belief...
using a process that includes logic (or does not for that matter) you are trying to reach a conclusion and demonstrate that other people should draw the same conclusion. That conclusion is a belief. If I want to undermine your belief in God, say, or that water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, I will present some premises to demonstrate something else is true, or I will try to demonstrate that one of your premises is incorrect. If I succeed you will now believe something else, including perhaps that your premise X is not true. You will also believe my argument makes sense. You would like also believe now or already that this or that type of deduction is correct.
Belief is necessarily not a virtue over consciously knowing what not to believe.
Sorry, you've lost me. 'Belief' is not 'a property'. Its a noun implying a state of mind characterized by confidence in an idea without sufficient observational evidence. — fresco
and given that we are fallible creatures what we think we know may turn out not to be the case. Which is why in philosophy, generally, knowledge is seen as a subset of beliefs, a type of belief with rigorous criteria, and then philosophers discuss what these criteria should be....no, not someone's belief. Belief itself as an agency and/or 'state of being'.
See, the "belief" itself matters not - not a particular "belief", but the agency of "belief" entirely.
That "I know..." is superior to "I believe..." if granting "I know..." is actually known and is not mistaken via "I believe I know...". — A Gnostic Agnostic
That's a belief. If you come to think that is true, it will be a belief you have. And I am guessing you believe it, to some degree, already.Belief is necessarily not a virtue over consciously knowing what not to believe.
and/or is this statement already obvious enough to grant as self-evident? — A Gnostic Agnostic
If one "believes" something that is not true, — A Gnostic Agnostic
If one "believes" something that is not true, this is due to ignorance which begets suffering. As such there is a correlation between ignorance and suffering ie. ignorance is suffered. — A Gnostic Agnostic
It seems a frame of reference problem: one who is confused need not necessarily know/understand or feel they are confused. I think a part of confusion is in the being unaware one is themselves confused. — A Gnostic Agnostic
Generally, in philosophy, it is idea that may have any degree of justification. On the street 'belief' tends to be contrasted with knowledge. In philosophy knowledge is a rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs. You'll find discussions justified true belief, for example.
That's a belief. If you come to think that is true, it will be a belief you have. And I am guessing you believe it, to some degree, already.
we are in possession of the perfect unaltered word of god
What has belief to do with truth? Until you're clear on that you're not going to get anywhere. And you write in categorical terms when your observations are better expressed provisionally and existentially. Some instead of all.
Belief is sometimes a matter of choice as, for example, a basis for understanding or facilitating something. And sometimes it's the presupposition of an argument. And your "which," what does that mean? And how do you know that something is not true? I grant what I think is your argument in some and for some cases, but you've expressed it in universal terms - which makes it false at best, or meaningless.
I don't think it's coherent to say that someone can be in a state of confusion without knowing that they are.
confused adjective
con·fused | \ kən-ˈfyüzd
Definition of confused
1a : being perplexed or disconcerted
b : disoriented with regard to one's sense of time, place, or identity
I ask others: does it hold? — A Gnostic Agnostic
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.