I think that distinction is useful. But does it apply to religious beliefs? If there is a God, then religious beliefs may not come from a private psychological state. They may come from the insight that there is a God - an insight that some people happen not to have. Which gets us back where we started. — Cuthbert

Sure. I think it does. :fire: :up:

Just that every belief system is supported by faith. — frank

What is that belief based on?

What is that belief based on? — Corvus

That's not a belief system.

This is not true.

This is not true. — 180 Proof

It is. Witty agrees.

That's not a belief system. — frank

Is it a verified knowledge or proposition?

Is it a verified knowledge or proposition? — Corvus

Yes.

Yes. — frank

Could you please show the detailed arguments for the verification? Thanks.

Could you please show the detailed arguments for the verification? Thanks. — Corvus

Ask @Banno. If he's in a good mood he will explain it to you.

2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs. — Corvus

I'm just responding to some of what's in this quote, and expanding on it a bit.

What you're describing here is an opinion or an intuition, which by definition has no justification, or very little justification. I think it's true that psychology plays a large role in what everyone believes, i.e., everyone is affected by their experiences, culture, friends, etc, but the goal, at least for many, is to have a justification for what they believe beyond the subjective. Beliefs that are justified, are superior to beliefs that aren't justified. Moreover, justification comes from different sources, logic, sensory experience, testimony, linguistic justification, etc., so we shouldn't think that logic is the only way a belief should be justified.

For me, I find little evidence to support any religious worldview, which isn't to say that there aren't truths within these worldviews, but to say that these worldviews as a whole have serious flaws. For example, beliefs that damn half the world to hell, or beliefs in the resurrection, or beliefs that we should kill infidels, etc.

On the other hand, I find that the materialistic worldview to be about as close-minded and biased as you can get. In many cases they are unable to see beyond their myopic perspective, but this isn't just true of atheists, it's true of many people who have a passionate worldview.

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." ~Twilight of the Idols

We're using the term "faith" in completely different, even incommensurate, contexts. Belief systems are not "justified by faith" but are used (trusted) insofar as they work or function. No "religious mysteries" are involved in most cases. We trust in our tools; they are working assumptions, rules of thumb, standards/criteria, etc so long as they reliably do what we task them to do. This, of course, has nothing to do with the prevailing discussion here of "religious faith" (i.e. trust in "mysteries"). Misread Witty to your heart's content, frank.

We're using the term "faith" in completely different, even incommensurate — 180 Proof

I don't think so. It's just a little more nuanced than you're allowing

Belief systems are not "justified by faith" but are used (trusted) insofar as they work or function — 180 Proof

Theyre supported by belief that has no foundation.

Belief systems "supported by belief"? I suppose the problem of the criterion is lost on you, frank. And infinite regress (or vicious circularity). :roll:

There's nothing circular about beliefs supporting beliefs. It happens all the time. ?

:lol: We're not even talking about the same thing (and we haven't been all along). So good luck with that.

Ok then.

We're not even talking about the same thing (and we haven't been all along). So good luck with that. — 180 Proof

Belief systems are not "justified by faith" but are used (trusted) insofar as they work or function. — 180 Proof

If you're denying that you have faith in the truth of your statements, but you're instead only interested in the pragmatic application of your conclusions, you're not avoiding the problem of faith, you're just admitting that truth has no meaning outside of pragmatism. The theist response would be no different, as he too could claim his beliefs lead him to functional results. He just has different goals he wishes to achieve with his belief system. If he wishes to make life sacred, it would not serve him well to adopt your belief system.

It seems your better approach would be to say that religious views are wrong because they're wrong, not just because they don't work. Not working is only not working if it doesn't do what you want it to.

You find meaning in your life through psychology texts? — Hanover

It’s kind of hard not to when those psychologists are Gene Gendlin and George Kelly. Gendlin’s major work was ‘Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning’, and Kelly wrote papers with themes like ‘A Psychology of the Optimal Man’, Psychotherapy and the Nature of Man’, ‘Sin and psychotherapy’ and The Psychology of the Unknown’. I can’t think of any better aids to finding meaning in one’s life.

Strawmen and non sequiturs. :yawn:

I think there are some insightful and committed atheists right here in this thread and also some theists and we seem to be getting along ok. It's possible to acknowledge the gulf in perception without trying to drag everyone over to one side or the other. — Cuthbert

Apologies Cuthbert, I’m used to discussing with aggressive atheists.Hlad to know not all of them are like that here

1. The beliefs based on the rational or inductive knowledge such as believing that flying is a reasonably safe form of transportation or Covid vaccines will protect the takers from the infections. — Corvus

Most people don’t have to believe flying is reasonably safe, unless the rate of accidents go up. Or they have some personal reason to go the point of having to believe. May be when flying first became something that was possible, most people didn’t believe it could be possible. But after so many years, we know it is possible, so no need to believe.

With regard to the covid vaccines, it is not the vaccines that are the problem. It is the governments, scientists, pharmaceuticals, and main stream media that people believe, or not.
I would say that belief or lack of belief only applies to other person.

Most people don’t have to believe flying is reasonably safe, unless the rate of accidents go up. Or they have some personal reason to go the point of having to believe. May be when flying first became something that was possible, most people didn’t believe it could be possible. But after so many years, we know it is possible, so no need to believe.

With regard to the covid vaccines, it is not the vaccines that are the problem. It is the governments, scientists, pharmaceuticals, and main stream media that people believe, or not.
I would say that belief or lack of belief only applies to other person. — Jan Ardena

I think beliefs are not necessary conditions for someone making decisions or taking actions as you said. But my point was, there are different types of beliefs - beliefs based on rational facts, and beliefs based on personality intuitions and tendencies. Religious beliefs are the latter kind, and it is a special type of beliefs, which must be defined as faiths (IMHO).

Aren't there all sorts of beliefs we have based on intuition, guesswork, habit, childhood experiences (and I mean, everyone) that guide our actions. Like beliefs about the opposite sex (some of which we may not even realize we believe), parenting, political beliefs, ideas about how long we need to focus on something for us to think we 'thought it through enough', how to spend our time, how to be happy and so on, what decisions should be made with intuition and what with rationality and in those that use both what percentages..... Whole swathes of beliefs that would be very hard or impossible to demonstrate to others are correct, but which we nevertheless believe in.

yes, I think so. I stand to be corrected.

Those beliefs you mentioned all come under your worldview, based in your experiences, interactions, and observations.
IOW I would maintain that your main belief/worldview shapes the whole of how you perceive and interact with the world around you.

Those beliefs you mentioned all come under your worldview, based in your experiences, interactions, and observations.
IOW I would maintain that your main belief/worldview shapes the whole of how you perceive and interact with the world around you. — Jan Ardena

I agree with this. The mechanisms by which we build our worldview are not usually addressed in epistemology, even though, as you note, that is the source of most of what we know and believe. It makes philosophy look pretty silly.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

I think the fundamental religious impulse is one about there being an overall purpose and direction for the universe or world as a whole (a teleology), part of the human search for meaning and purpose.
Lots of people function just fine without being concerned about universal meaning; they find meaning closer to home in their work, their relationships, their hobbies, etc. Some people have larger goals, world peace, curing cancer, ending discrimination, stopping climate change or any of numerous worthy goals, pursuits and endeavors.

Lots of individuals think that science has all but destroyed the notion of the universe having any larger purpose and meaning. In ancient times it might have been reasonable to think of the earth as the center of the universe and man as the crown of creation. Copernicus displaced the earth and later astronomers made the earth a small planet orbiting an ordinary star in a universe too vast to comprehend. Darwin and associates made man one creature among many in a natural system where mass extinctions repeatedly happen and Homo sapiens (modern man) is but the sole survivor of several species of hominids who had evolved. Resistance to the implications of these scientific findings and their conflict with literal interpretations of religious texts gives us the Young Earth creationists and anti-evolution, anti-science movements among some adherents to organized and established religion.

"Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science." By Alfred North Whitehead.

I do not think traditional religious dogma is compatible with modern science. I think if religion wishes to survive it must change its conception of “God” and the relationship of “God” to the world (universe).
Despite all this, and despite my education in science, I would still refer to myself as having religious inclinations and consider myself religious in some degree or form.

I do not accept that science dictates that the universe must be accidental, purposeless and without value. Science and evolution certainly change, limit and dictate what any reasonable notions about the divine, the holy or the numinous might be.

When I look at the universe I see immanent principles of order and self-organization, I see “forms most wondrous and beautiful” evolving from primordial chemical soup. I see planets and galaxies and stars forming from clouds of interstellar gas. So I name this self-organizing ordering principle which leads to creativity, experience and aesthetics “God” or the divine. My view of the divine is not anthropomorphic (God is not a person) and I don’t think the divine concerns itself much with human survival or human morality. Some would not even consider this a religious conception and certainly not a traditional conception of God but in philosophy of religion, in Eastern religious traditions and among the process theology school which evolved primarily from Whiteheads process philosophy and chapters on God and the World in Process and Reality, I find some company.

You asked, I answered to the best of my ability.

I think the fundamental religious impulse is one about there being an overall purpose and direction for the universe or world as a whole (a teleology), part of the human search for meaning and purpose. — prothero

Quite true. We can't see clouds as clouds; our overactive brains force us to see "faces" in clouds. Horror vacui. A congenital defect which when left untreated, or unchecked, leads to philosophical suicide (aka "the leap").

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

1. I've tried to make the best use of my senses and by them, I've come to believe in God (Christianity). I think you classify it as "personal religious experience" (as a child, 8-9- yo.).

However, religion now stands irreversibly stronger in me, the Kierkegaardian doubt is killed by the following:
a) God is proven by radio-astronomy combined with radiological signal interpretation which output produced on pc-tablets is the closest thing of "God talking to you" as you look at it (white with gold and silver streaks), you'll ever come (except when you land in Heaven in the After-Life, second half of Life as such.
b) 100% Psychiatrically healthy people believe in God. This can be proven by curing a person of the mental illness of schizophrenia. It will become widespread truth later, just wait, please.
c) When the choice is between wart-religion (schizophrenia) and religion, I think all sane people choose religion. To be short: wart-religion is a deterioration of the nervous system that produces warts on the body or inside, also in the head, brain-area and turns around evil, moving closer and closer toward one totem person who is most evil. (Best practice psychiatry has made this "game" a chaos lately as they never quite know who is most evil these days.) Warts like these are also considered cancer now.
d) People suffering from (technical) schizophrenia are considered the negative proof of people who are not religious. To be short, schizophrenics are found to be so crazy that nobody would choose their life if they can. Nowadays, they seem to be able to deselect schizophrenia and possibly ending up in depression instead, but with far better cognitive senses and ability to be a good friend to all people they are connected to. Remember, please, that there are people who are deeper into their schizophrenic illness who are so far removed from normal life that resenting them and their mental inventory becomes a duty (unless professional relation or hospice).

2. That's easy, I find that life with God is unequivocally good w/ significant highs and non-important lows. This makes me try to convince the young people to turn to God (JCI++) by apologetics. That is, this is purely missionary on some grand ecumenistic scale. Though, this is also for discussion and connecting with people.

(Edited once.)

Satisfied? Corvus?

"Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science." By Alfred North Whitehead. — prothero

Should it regain its old power? Is it good thing to happen to the world we live in?
Is it possible to achieve?

I do not think traditional religious dogma is compatible with modern science. I think if religion wishes to survive it must change its conception of “God” and the relationship of “God” to the world (universe). — prothero

How should the conception of God changed? Can the old traditional religions do that? or do you want to see totally new religions born and manifested with the new concept of God?

a) God is proven by radio-astronomy combined with radiological signal interpretation which output produced on pc-tablets is the closest thing of "God talking to you" as you look at it (white with gold and silver streaks), you'll ever come (except when you land in Heaven in the After-Life, second half of Life as such. — DrOlsnesLea

Did you carry out the proof by yourself? How could be sure the radiological signal was from God? What type of frequency did you use for the proof? From which direction did the signal being transmitted from?

b) 100% Psychiatrically healthy people believe in God. — DrOlsnesLea

What is your definition of 100% Psychiatrically healthy people? How are they different from not 100%
Psychiatrically healthy people?