My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan
I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Later in your post you say "not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!" Which is a fine thing to say, although I disagree with it strongly. But saying your goal is to abolish belief is silly. You might as well say we should abolish thought. Humans are story-telling creatures. It's a much a part of us as opposable thumbs. First, before they are anything else, theories and models are stories. Beliefs are stories. Science is a story. — T Clark
Science isn't true. What does that even mean? Statements are true or false. It's reasonable to say that science is a useful method or methods for gaining knowledge about the world. It's not the only useful method. Beside that, truth, as defined by scientists, is a scientific concept. It's a circular argument.
All that being said, NDT is part right - whatever science is, it is whether or not people believe it is what it is. — T Clark
This is an incredibly naïve description of how science works. The models come first, then the evidence. All theories are models. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He didn't do experiments. He made models. Other guys came along later and gathered evidence. Our current, best scientific understanding of the nature of physical reality is called the "Standard Model." The Higgs Boson and gravity waves were predicted decades ago by theoretical physicists based on theories/models. They weren't confirmed until the last few years using extremely expensive, complicated equipment designed and operated specifically to confirm or deny those models. — T Clark
2. My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan
Are you theistic by chance? — ProgrammingGodJordan
1. True definition:"in accordance with fact or reality." — ProgrammingGodJordan
Both scientific theory and scientific hypothesis generally occur, and align on evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan
So what is you aim, if not to convince us? — Banno
How do we know that you do not believe, against your own recommendation, that the evidence persists regardless of belief? — Banno
— T Clark
What possible relevance does that have to this discussion? You should be addressing my statements.Are you theistic by chance? — ProgrammingGodJordan
whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan
Not always. Just occasionally, folk believe stuff because of the evidence. — Banno
Why do you garner you must believe, in order to observe that science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?
In other words, don't you recognize that regardless of whether or not you believe, science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan
You continue to use exact phrases in your arguments. Using single words consistently is a good way to make a clearer argument, but using entire phrases just means that you have an entire premise in your head which is unassailable; in other words, everyone responding to you in this thread is challenging your pre-concieved notion of what you think belief is, but because you believe your premise is unassailable, you're either blind to what's happening in the debate, or unwilling to acknowledge it. — Noble Dust
1. In contrast, I refer to standard definitions: — ProgrammingGodJordan
By extension, research shows that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25741291 — ProgrammingGodJordan
Whether you are theistic or not, shall probably affect how many steps my responses to you may contain. — ProgrammingGodJordan
After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief! — ProgrammingGodJordan
3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan
As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
Pertinently, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a concept that permits that one may typically ignore evidence, as observed in the analysis below:
Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.
However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
Unfortunately, I had been a theist up until my 21'st birthday. Fortunately, at age 22 (I am now 27), I finally identified as an atheist. After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!
As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan
It is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages. I need not belief to observe said probability. — ProgrammingGodJordan
My post didn't make any specific reference to theistic belief except in a quote from you. Isn't the whole point of your thread that all beliefs are invalid? Is there a difference between an invalid theistic belief and an invalid non-theistic belief? No need for any special approach. — T Clark
Regardless of whether or not ProgrammingGodJordan believes that he "observes" but does not believe things about belief, his belief about (his) belief persists regardless of his belief (or observation) of it. So, he's quite right about that. — Πετροκότσυφας
Hi. I must confess that I can find only another example of vague abstract evangelism here. Would you mind boiling this down in practical terms? Isn't this just the idea that everyone should be super-ultra-scientific? Doubt everything, except that what constitutes evidence is ambiguous and that doubt is somehow automatically virtuous?
Sometimes the word 'scientism' is thrown around a little recklessly, but I think it fits here. As I've followed the thread, I see you enact what I'd call a kind of fanaticism that won't budge an inch. I'm new here too, and I'm not trying to make an enemy. My thinking is that being on a forum is pointless if one isn't exposed to criticism, so I'm offering you some criticism. Maybe it'll speed the rule of artificial intelligence somehow. — dog
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.