B who does not believe in chi, given that each person practices tai chi the same amount? — m-theory
The discussion was about whether beliefs that are not fallible or truth-apt such as a belief in God, or chi can have spiritual consequences. — John
Similarly a person may believe in chi and not practice tai chi.Of course they can. A person might not practice Tai Chi at all if she did not believe in chi, so your demand for quantifiably different results has nothing to do with whether beliefs have spiritual consequences. — John
And I pointed out that saying that something is not yet disproved is not the logical equivalent that therefor that something is necessarily infallible. — m-theory
Similarly a person may believe in chi and not practice tai chi. I fail to see your point here? — m-theory
But I haven't anywhere said that beliefs that don't count as fallible insofar as they cannot be in principle disproven are thereby infallible. I already said they are outside the context of fallibility/ infallibility altogether. — John
Of course and that would be a spiritual consequence too. The point was only ever that beliefs which are not fallible may have spiritual consequences. And since religious beliefs and beliefs associated with spirituality are generally of that kind.... — John
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Yes, but the fact is that beliefs, which are of kinds neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, are almost universally associated with any spiritual or religious practice, including martial arts.
It's hard to imagine why people would practice such things without the associated beliefs. — John
Argument from ignorance... — M-Theory
I think of belief as instrumental - to motivate one to right action. It has been turned into a rather artificial construction, perhaps through the formulaic recitation of creeds (creeds being from the word 'credence').
But belief is only useful for motivating correct action; those who have 'strong beliefs' are often dangerous people or ideologues, those who say they're committed to some ideal but who ignore the reality around them. That is quite common in the history of religions, isn't it? (See Karen Armstrong on the metaphysical mistake.) — Wayfarer
Why should a non-religious person accept that religious person does in fact know, when instead it is more likely that the religious person simply believes. — m-theory
I see nothing wrong with having "strong beliefs", however, as long as you don't try to force them on others. — John
In Belief and Truth: A Skeptic Reading of Plato, I explore a Socratic intuition about the difference between belief and knowledge. Beliefs, doxai, are deficient cognitive attitudes. In believing something, one accepts some content as true without knowing that it is true; one holds something to be true that could turn out to be false. Since our actions reflect what we hold to be true, holding beliefs is potentially harmful for oneself and others. Accordingly, beliefs are ethically worrisome and even, in the words of Plato’s Socrates, “shameful.” As I argue, this is a serious philosophical proposal.
If someone married you just because they believed they'd score a home-run doing so, would you appreciate them? I wouldn't. I may marry them if it were profitable to do so, but I'd also seek to divorce them as soon as I get the occasion, because everyone hates opportunists, even those who profit from them. Opportunists are at heart traitors, and they will betray you the very first occasion to do so they get. Better to take the initiative and get that thorn in your side out - the faster the better.I don't think it matters, you believe in what you understand, what you have been taught about God, if it is wrong then it is wrong, but if it is even a tiny bit right it is a home run. — Cavacava
>:O Not really. Believe in the false proposition, and your entire army may be wiped out. Doubt at the wrong time, and again your entire army may be wiped out. War is about truth - you have to find (or most often estimate in Bayesian fashion) the truth, there is no other option. War values the capacity to understand, in your imagination, what is the case, and what the enemy is doing and planning from the few bits of data you do have, and then act accordingly. There is no "maybe that's also a possibility" in war. You have to decide what actually is the case, and then bet on it with all your might until evidence to the contrary surfaces (if it ever does). There's no fence sitting in war - fence sitting means death - and jumping on the wrong side of the fence also means death. You just have to get it right.War also tends to favor belief over non-belief. — Cavacava
Preferably I would seek forgiveness before such a time. But if push comes to shove, I don't have another alternative. I would beg for forgiveness like a coward, and yet I would not expect to ever receive it. That way, I maintain my integrity, as I recognise I don't deserve forgiveness and can't earn it either. And I also recognise my failings, and therefore submit humbly before God for judgement - I will desire my punishment with all my heart. That way one gets out of the dilemma - to either switch from being an atheist to a theist and thus throw away one's integrity in the face of death like a coward OR to remain an atheist and go to the abyss with a cold and hardened heart.When you know all hope of recovery is gone, do you seek forgiveness or do you go steely eyed into oblivion. I've looked into those eyes. — Cavacava
Yes, I agree to this.I don't feel particularly attracted to any Christian denomination. I don't see or feel any need to join a Church. I am not a believer, not as yet, in any case. I think that if salvation is granted by God; there is no reason why good atheists should not be saved; so I don't think there is a need to espouse any particular beliefs. As I already said I don't believe merely intellectual assent to the existence of God constitutes faith in the sense that is intended by Christianity. I haven't been arguing for the soundness of Pascal's Wager; I think it is an example of simplistic thinking; I have only been arguing for its rational validity. If you accept the premises the argument is valid is all. — John
Yes. Evidence shows that belief in sports and competitions plays a major role in determining the winner or the one who performs better.Do you have any evidence that if person A believes in chi they will become better at tai chi than person B who does not believe in chi, given that each person practices tai chi the same amount? — m-theory
Agreed.Yes, but the fact is that beliefs, which are of kinds neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, are almost universally associated with any spiritual or religious practice, including martial arts. — John
You're playing with words. You also believe that putting your hand in the flame is painful.But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know. — Wayfarer
There's no fence sitting in war - fence sitting means death - and jumping on the wrong side of the fence also means death. You just have to get it right.
God and belief in him is not a business deal. You'll never get to Heaven if you treat belief in God as a business deal, the way Pascal's Wager treats it. Pascal's wager was a mere "in your face" showed to those who claimed to not believe in God because it wasn't profitable to believe in God in this world (you'd have to give up on the "fun"). The wager points that the "fun" is really in truth nothing. If you give it up in this world, you haven't given much up - even if there is no God. But if there is a God, and you give up God, then you have lost infinitely. Regardless of the truth, the safest option is God. The irony is that belief in God is ultimately superior - even in this world, and even if there is no God.
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.