I feel like you are splitting hairs.

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?

To my mind it seems the particular beliefs about the philosophy has nothing to do with practicing and become good at the physical motions, but if you can quantify the difference I would concede the point.

If it is not a quantifiable difference, then how can you claim there is a from the belief in chi consequence?

Yes I know this is true from personal experience. There are plenty of such examples. A Christian devotes his life to charitable works, for example, and lives a life of a spiritual kind that he would not have, had he not held a faith in Christ.

I feel like you have changed the subject.

I am not saying that different personal beliefs do not lead to different life experiences.

I am asking if you can show a quantifiable difference in results.
If person A and B practice the motions of tai chi, can you demonstrate that person A will perform quantifiably better than person B, with the only difference being that person A believes in chi while person B does not.

Again I am not disputing that a person can derive personal satisfaction from their beliefs.

But as far as a consequence goes, any faith can be personally satisfying.

B who does not believe in chi, given that each person practices tai chi the same amount? — m-theory

Person B must believe in it to the extent that she/he commits herself to practising it. That implicitly means that it is worth practicing. So to that extent they 'believe' in it, and actually that is pretty close to what 'believe' means.

There are plenty of people that do not believe in the existence of chi that practice tai chi, and become better at it's motions, simply as a way to remain more physical fit.

in such cases belief is not necessary, practice is sufficient. Were everyone to treat others equally, care for the poor and sick, and so on, then belief in religions would not be necessary, either - because they'd already be practising it.

It's not I that have changed the subject. 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. 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.

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

And I pointed out that saying that something is not yet disproved is not the logical equivalent that therefor that something is necessarily infallible.

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

Similarly a person may believe in chi and not practice tai chi.

I fail to see your point here?

What does that have to do with consequences of practice and belief?

Amen to this.

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

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.

Similarly a person may believe in chi and not practice tai chi. I fail to see your point here? — m-theory

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....

I think you need to read more carefully to avoid wasting the interlocutor's time correcting your misreadings or failures to read at all.

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.

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

You give examples of something that has not been disproved relative to some given personal belief.
Not an example of something that cannot be altogether disproved.
You do not have an example of infallible faith except according to a given set of personal standards of proof.

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

You have not provided an example of infallible beliefs.
The lack of evidence of chi is evidence of it's absence.

Of course you will argue

We cannot know with absolute certainty that chi does not exist.

But as I pointed out that just because something is not absolutely disproved in accordance with every standard of proof, this is not the logical equivalent that such a belief is infallible.
Recall my link to the argument from ignorance.

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.

So again, if you claim that religious or spiritual beliefs fall in line with option 3 or 4, this is not the logical equivalent that they are infallible
.

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

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.)

Argument from ignorance... — M-Theory

Many believers would say that there is something that atheists don't know - that they're ignorant of - because of not having ever committed themselves to a religious way of life and discovering from experience what the benefits are of that. Of course the substance of religious ideas is not something amenable to scientific analysis, but at the same time, they would say, if one truly engages with them, then there are things there to learn. Hence the perennial nature of religious cultures. (Actually, speaking of Chi, there is a line in the Tao Te Ching something like 'mystery wrapped in mystery, but inside something that can be tested'.)

Knowing is different from beliefs.

Knowledge is demonstrable, beliefs are not necessarily so.

So this is where atheists and theist often clash.
A religious person will claim to know something, that they then cannot demonstrate.

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.

I have never said the beliefs are infallible. There are two many misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what I have said for me to bother correcting them any more; it's just not worth the effort. Unless you address something I have actually claimed you'll get no more response from me.

I did address something you claimed.

You claimed that faith is infallible.
But then you failed to demonstrate that this is in fact true.

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

I agree that motivation to action is the most important function of any belief. I see nothing wrong with having "strong beliefs", however, as long as you don't try to force them on others. The point about religious beliefs in general is that they cannot, unlike empirical beliefs, be intersubjectively corroborated, and they are not, unlike the truths of maths and logic, intuitively obvious in an intersubjective way either. Acknowledging these facts leads to the realization that religious or spiritual beliefs are arrived at intuitively from personal experience; what 'feels right' or 'rings true' for the individual. So, they are definitely not beliefs to be imposed on others, because they may not be suitable for them, and it is never good for people to believe under constraint or coercion. Nothing wrong with gentle rhetorical persuasion though!

For fuck's sake man; how many times do I have to explain that I never claimed that religious beliefs are infallible?

My mistake.

I very much admire the ability to admit mistakes; it shows real integrity. :)

I have come to this thread late, so haven't read through it all.
I would point out that this issue is not really philosophical in the rational or logical sense. But rather a theological question, a question which presents itself to atheists and irreligious people upon death. I share Cavacava's observation that it becomes of pressing importance, even a crisis, to some people upon their death bed and is well documented. It can do away with a lifetimes conviction in a moment, in favour of what can be described as mystical experiences.

In reality "logic" is dispensed with early in the crisis and "reason" is harnessed to go beyond reason in a theological journey which is akin to the psychological "fight", or struggle with oneself the moment before a parachute jump, or bungee jump. This would suggest that it is a question of experience, not thought and conviction.

The balance in the wager is a no brainier, because on the one hand there is the bliss, comfort and divine embrace of faith in deliverance. While on the other hand is oblivion and an irrelevance of any abandoning of atheist conviction. It can only be a win win situation if the choice is in the affirmative any it can only be a loose loose situation of despair, or vacuous acceptance of oblivion, in the negative.

Why would an atheist cling to their conviction when rationally it is an irrelevance, because their sense of self esteem and integrity is teetering on a precipice of indifference, irrelevance, an infinite timeless void of nothingness. Why not follow the conceit of a belief in the afterlife for the last few minutes and hours of life, simply for comfort and a moments peace? Who knows you might wake up in heaven a few moments later, in the blink of an eye? And if you don't it doesn't matter because you don't exist anyway, by that point?

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

It's a perfectly good question, but the point I'm trying to make is that 'religious belief' is ultimately about something real. OK, you will say, if you say that, you must be a 'religous believer'. Actually I'm endeavouring not to be that. I believe (there it is again) that the most important elements of religious belief is that they signify an actual fact of profound importance. What is that? you will ask. To which the answer is, it can't be anything obvious - else why all the rigmarole?

I see nothing wrong with having "strong beliefs", however, as long as you don't try to force them on others. — John

But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know.

'Beliefs' have become important, because they represent ideas or principles which are real in themselves, but which we don't ordinarily see - hence the need for 'revelation'. But that need is because the ordinary state - that of the man in the street, you and I, the hoi polloi - is one of delusion and falsehood. So the purpose of a belief is to 'set you straight', to bring you into accordance with the Logos, Dharma, or Tao. But now belief has become crystallised into ritualistic formulas, and, what's worse, formulas which are dissonant with the reality of current life and society (what with all the tropes of 'sheep' and 'fields' and 'the blood of the Lamb' and so on.)

But on a deeper level, this whole tension between 'belief' and 'knowledge' is of great importance in this regard. In the early days of Christianity, there was a battle between the 'pistic' Christians - whose sign was the familiar fish-shaped logo - and the gnostics. The exemplary pistic saying is: 'believe and be saved'. The exemplary gnostic saying is: 'you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. And that tension has always existed within Christianity. As it happened, the pistics (championed by Iraneus and Tertullian) won the day, and 'history was written by the victors', with immense consequences.

There's a really interesting academic, Katja Vogt, who has written extensively on 'belief and knowledge' in the context of Greek philosophy, Belief and Truth: A Sceptic Reading of Plato:

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.

Likewise, in Buddhism, 'mere belief' is deprecated. In the general sense, it is necessary to believe that there is some need of a remedy, and that the dharma is that remedy, but beyond that, the whole application is based on 'right view' (samma ditthi) which is subtly different to 'right belief' (ortho-doxa). So this religious culture is about 'seeing it as it is' (yathābhūtaṃ) not about subscribing to beliefs, as such, unless those beliefs culminate in right view and right action. Whereas our culture says that 'seeing it as it is', is nowadays only about what can be known by science, by which the spiritual dimension of reality is routinely denied, and which doesn't provide any kind of moral context for action. That is the dilemma that Western culture is dealing with.

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

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.

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.

But this isn't an argument for belief in God. It wasn't meant to ignite faith in one. It simply wasn't. Read Pascal's Pensées, the wager plays a very minor part, on one or two pages from what I remember. You can take it out, and Pascal's greatness would not be diminished one iota. In fact, Pascal gives his reasons why you should believe in God before the wager.

Yeah, too bad the wager was never an argument for belief in God ;)

War also tends to favor belief over non-belief. — 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.

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

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.

Also remember this for practicality - if someone wants to punish you, and you can't avoid the punishment, ask and demand to be punished yourself. That's the way of wisdom.

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, I agree to this.

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

Yes. Evidence shows that belief in sports and competitions plays a major role in determining the winner or the one who performs better.

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

Agreed.

But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know. — Wayfarer

You're playing with words. You also believe that putting your hand in the flame is painful.

I think the person who has to make a deathbed conversion, takes everything into consideration, their life as a whole with its joys and sadness. The utility of the choice presents a conceivable way out, similar to how the prodigal son saw the return to his family as a way out of his starvation, but it was only by his sincere act of contrition to his father that he was accepted back into the family and they rejoiced.

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.

This is the viewpoint of the person considering the conjecture.

No, I don't believe War is about truth. It is about the immorality of man with man, it is an ethical issue, it is not an epistemological issue. It is about the rough reality of life, which is not cast in any book of logic.

We live in a world where "...only small groups of men who, however, hold in thrall many million of their fellow human beings and who defend their own antiquated interests" (Strauss) When I think about the war in Syria, there is no way I can think of this being the 'truth'. An evil man who is willing to sacrifice the whole of his nation, men, women and children so he can hold on to power. That can't be true in any sense of the term.

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.

I'm not sure you are getting to the crisis which the wager addresses. It is a universal crisis which people have faced throughout our history, well at least after the point in which a God was seriously considered within society(a very long time ago). People who have a conception of a God or creator find themselves on the point of death in the predicament of facing that being face to face, you know, the pearly gates. So some may turn to God at that moment, to offer themselves up. This is quite rational, but what about the atheist, who turns and offers themselves up? What has gone on in their mind to cause this turning to God? And surely if they offer in all sincerity, with all their heart, would they not be accepted and delivered by god?