Live as an insane person or Die as a sane person.

The choices aren't that great, but before we grumble, let's not forget it could've been worse (no choice at all).

I believe water is continuous stuff. But its just a bunch of marbles in reality.

Anyone who thinks Belief is a key part of practiced science is delusional.

The term ‘belief’ can be used in different ways so it is probably worth understanding the different ways in which this word can be used:

- I belief I live on Earth (maybe used in sarcasm or as a pedantic statement to outline the possible limits of sceptical thought).

- I believe intelligent alien beings with thee heads live on The Moon because someone posted a story about this online.

- I believe in god.


These are three very different different uses of the very same word. Conflating the uses of the term is a mistake.

I have heard the silly argument that ‘believing in science’ like believing in a deity. Absolutely not, because when people state they ‘believe in science’ (if they do so with sense) they just mean they understand the practice of science and how and when it can be reasonably applied to help understand and question the world we live in.

There may be a good reason to belief in a god for some people, but it is reason itself that underpins the practice of science as an ever changing and ever developing system that builds upon refuting itself at each turn. This is not to say that scientists cannot be ‘dogmatic’. It makes sense that science has a kind of ‘dogmatic’ feel to it in some ways because when a new idea comes along (ie. General/Special Relativity) the mainstream will brutally attack it putting the onus on the theory to provide a means of supplying evidence to back it up.

I think belief is like a spring encircling the sin(ethereal within) of man. We don't have choice to believe(turn belief off), but rather the opposite, we can do, not to believe(run command not believe from believe). If we stop denying our locale in the life matrix, we have to believe in what we have got. If anything, science is changing our beliefs.

We deny our current model and re-imagine the way of the world almost every day unless some of us have reached a settling down point.

I believe in what I know.

If I say I don't believe in what I know, and I say I know what I know- it still leaves a gap about my knowing.

Belief, as said before, is menial strength.

If it's constantly springing around us the most I can do is deny, but it'll only reshape what I believe when I rest.

An intriguing question by all acounts.

The JTB theory of knowledge mentions justification as a separate condition i.e., in other words, false that belief $\leftrightarrow$ proof. Clear as crystal, oui?

Plus, the whole rights issue (freedom of thought, freedom of religion) implies that one is at liberty to believe anything you want, the caveat being you don't impose or foist your whacky beliefs on others; to do that, one needs strong justification (philosophy) or one needs to have a silver tongue (sophism), preferrably both (philosopher-orator). :snicker:

Belief has an incline towards 'convinced.'
I know many theists who are not convinced god exists but have taken Pascal's wager or are too scared of the consequences of not believing due to indoctrination when they were young via a particular set of religious proposals. I am personally 'more convinced' by the Penrose bounce theory for the origin of our Universe than I am for the multiverse theory. I still think that the fundamental quantum of the universe may be vibrating strings, at least, I am more convinced.
I am completely convinced I am alive and solipsism is nonsense and our Universe is not a simulation but these are just MY beliefs.

I agree with:

I have heard the silly argument that ‘believing in science’ like believing in a deity. Absolutely not, because when people state they ‘believe in science’ (if they do so with sense) they just mean they understand the practice of science and how and when it can be reasonably applied to help understand and question the world we live in — I like sushi

To conclude, delusion isn't all that bad but can be misplaced — Varde

Delusion can be absolutely lethal to yourself and to others. You must have peer reviewed, rational reasoning behind your 'beliefs' and even then seek regular clarification of them, otherwise you risk becoming a mere reflection of the misguided beliefs of others who you follow for reasons such as biological loyalty or loyalty due to love or celebrity or blind respect or towards status, authority, wealth or title. All are dubious reasons to nurture or embody the same belief as another.

is it wise to assert that pure belief is not a weak kind of delusion but rather a type of menial strength? — Varde

No, I think what you call 'pure belief,' I would call 'unsubstantiated belief,' and it is unwise and not a strength at all to move such personally held beliefs any significant distance up the incline towards 'convinced.' You MUST have the empirical evidence first before you move a 'belief' up the incline towards 'convinced' status.

Live as an insane person or Die as a sane person — Agent Smith

Are those really the only options you consider?
Is there no way to live as a sane person?

Are those really the only options you consider?
Is there no way to live as a sane person? — universeness

The bitter truth is described as such because it's debilitating (depression), even lethal (suicide). Psychiatrists make a big deal of what they refer to as losing touch with reality.

Here's a story I read in a book on psychiatry. There was this woman, living next to an airport. She was "suffering" from delusions of grandeur (thought she was a Duchess or something like that).

She was taken to a shrink, who promptly, in good faith, treated her. She was declared cured (of her delusion). Within a fortnight or so she took her own life!

[...]And from making the cure of the disease more grievous than the endurance of the same, Good Lord, deliver us. — Dr. Robert Hutchison

Is there a context where delusion isn't bad?

Perhaps this is the context I point to...

Otherwise I'll agree, delusion IS bad.

Here's a story I read in a book on psychiatry. There was this woman, living next to an airport. She was "suffering" from delusions of grandeur (thought she was a Duchess or something like that).

She was taken to a shrink, who promptly, in good faith, treated her. She was declared cured (of her delusion). Within a fortnight or so she took her own life! — Agent Smith

A sad story but are there not stories such as 'tried to kill myself, that was my turning point, now regret that I let myself reach that low point in my life. Had a lot of help since. My life now is so much better than it was and my future looks good and stable.' I think there are many such stories to counter the one you cited.
So based on the title of this thread, 'Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?' For you, has it been proven wrong that 'the vast majority of humans have the potential to live a happy fulfilling life?' Do you think the majority of humans are doomed to a life of suffering and misery no matter what efforts they make to counter such?
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?

It's hard and rude to think for others. My point was to simply give you a real life example of someone who was happy because they were a little mad, "out of touch with reality" as some shrinks like to say.

Happiness, it looks like, is more important that reality/truth; out goes the window the so-called transcendentalia (verum, bonum, pulchrum). Epicurus, it seems, hit the nail on the head (everyone would, under the right circumstances, like to be plugged into the experience machine).

Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?

Yes. Isn’t it so? Don’t people live their lives goaded by beliefs that have been proven wrong? How else will you explain our lives/our way of living wherein we make preparations for future security, when we clearly know our existence can be cut short at any moment? More importantly, how can we even believe in the existence of security, when human experience going back to the beginning of time has clearly proven, there is no security! How else will you explain our belief in one thing or another, be it social, political, economic, etc. that have for millennia been proven wrong? The study of oneself and our species will point to millions of such discrepancies where we believe in things that have been proven wrong. And we do it every day, unfailingly.

My point was to simply give you a real life example of someone who was happy because they were a little mad, "out of touch with reality" as some shrinks like to say. — Agent Smith

Absolutely, I understood your approach, you were suggesting that the woman 'coped' with her delusions of grandeur, in fact, it may have been the most stabilising 'escapism' she had. So she's delusional but she is surviving. The 'shrinks' get involved, tell her how things 'really are' and a short time later, she is dead. I understand. So would it have been better to let the woman continue with her delusion?
I would agree the answer is yes, IF the result of professionals trying to help, was her death but as usual, hindsight is a great leveler.
There is always risk, if you choose to try to help any delusional, addicted or heavily conflicted person. Your intention is to do good but you can cause more harm, I agree.
But it's very hard to just surrender and accept that an individual cannot be helped towards a better life.
I was just citing back to you, some counter scenario, where 'interference,' has actually had very positive outcomes. We hear of examples on both sides, don't we? So as I typed,
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?

Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?

Yes. Isn’t it so? Don’t people live their lives goaded by beliefs that have been proven wrong? How else will you explain our lives/our way of living wherein we make preparations for future security, when we clearly know our existence can be cut short at any moment? More importantly, how can we even believe in the existence of security, when human experience going back to the beginning of time has clearly proven, there is no security! How else will you explain our belief in one thing or another, be it social, political, economic, etc. that have for millennia been proven wrong? The study of oneself and our species will point to millions of such discrepancies where we believe in things that have been proven wrong. And we do it every day, unfailingly. — skyblack

So, it seems, a shallow inquiry/attribution of meanings to words/thoughts is a continuity of our beliefs, which resists, and becomes reactive when exposed to truth/facts (challenged). A deeper inquiry into these beliefs will show that your (humanity) entire existence is founded on beliefs, irrespective of your belief in the primacy of reason, or your zealous propagation of the same.

A deeper inquiry into these beliefs will show that your (humanity) entire existence is founded on beliefs, irrespective of your belief in the primacy of reason, or your zealous propagation of the same. — skyblack

I think many/most individuals base their entire existence around their personal wants/needs/desires rather than what they perceive as their beliefs. Do you think personal wants/needs/desires create personal beliefs? or do you think the more compelling direction is that beliefs drive personal wants/needs/desires? Certainly, young human children are driven mainly by personal, perhaps even purely instinctual, wants/needs/desires.

I think many/most individuals base their entire existence around their personal wants/needs/desires rather than what they perceive as their beliefs. Do you think personal wants/needs/desires create personal beliefs? or do you think the more compelling direction is that beliefs drive personal wants/needs/desires? Certainly, young human children are driven mainly by personal, perhaps even purely instinctual, wants/needs/desires. — universeness

Good questions, which will flow into several threads if we really get into it. I am guessing we don't want that.

Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid excuse for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Absence of such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness.

Furthermore there is no purely "personal" beliefs, because the human is a conditioned continuity of the collective. Failing to see the influences of the collective in the personal is a serious error and indicative of the strength in beliefs. The OP, it seems, isn't talking about "personal beliefs" but perhaps wants to look into the nature of belief per se, as one should, since it affects all. And if anyone hasn't thought it through, it seems that's where our focus should be anyways. For reasons i have already stated.

One can see Belief is a movement of human thought-feeling, common to all, without exceptions.

For now we will leave "children" out of it. That's a special case.....and we are not children.

@universeness

Hope, yeah, we can hope! It's a recommended course of action.

Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid reason for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Failing such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness. — skyblack

I don't know what point you are making here. The sound of woosh! As it went over my head.

Furthermore there is no purely "personal" beliefs, because the human is a conditioned continuity of the collective. — skyblack

I disagree, we are strongly influenced by 'the collective,' there is no doubt about that, but do you think that an individual human is capable of thinking a thought that no one has ever thought before?
I agree that new science builds on old science but there is also original thinking. So new original belief seems quite plausible to me.

One can see Belief is a movement of human though-feeling, common to all, without exceptions — skyblack

Maybe, or maybe human belief is just synonymous with a human need to justify human actions and yes, in that sense such a need to give reasons for what a person does by themselves or as part of a group is a common need but what about the concept that any generalised 'rule' has exceptions, why do you insist on rejecting the possibility of exceptions?

For now we will leave "children" out of it. That's a special case.....and we are not children — skyblack

You should never ignore your foundations but sure, we can leave childhood influences to one side.

Hope, yeah, we can hope! It's a recommended course of action — Agent Smith

:cool: Remember this old song of hope:

:smile:

I don't know what point you are making here. — universeness

Then that is a problem which will prevent any further inquiry.

In any case a further deliberation doesn't seem needed, as the original points have already been addressed. Not interested in going into tangents. However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this topic, either on your own or with others. GL.

However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this either on your own or with others. GL. — skyblack

:rofl: Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require.

Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require. — universeness

Yes, my sentiment about that person as well.

Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require. — universeness

Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did. Better luck next time.

I don't know what point you are making here.
— universeness

Then that is a problem which will prevent any further inquiry. — skyblack

Perhaps you will choose to explain yourself more clearly in the future.
Imparting ideas to others takes time, effort and good communication skills.

Yes, my sentiment about that person as well. — Jackson

Well, seems like I second your opinion, but maybe in time he/she will improve their communication skills. Perhaps that's why he/she reads posts on TPF.

Perhaps that's why he/she reads posts on TPF. — universeness

Perhaps.

Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did — skyblack

A shame you feel so defensive. I was not attacking you until you started to throw your toys at me.

@universeness

Children can't entrap adults. This will increasingly get clearer in future, if it isn't presently. The reason is simple. Adults have already passed through that stage, so they can identify the masks. Rather easily.

One will leave you to continue with similar juveniles (as yourself)....looks like you have already found one. Bye bye.

Children can't entrap adults — skyblack

It's a shame you still see yourself as a child. I didn't realise you were trying to 'entrap' adults.
Paranoia is treatable, you don't have to suffer in silence. You are correct that the masks you wear are obvious but if you keep reading posts on TPF and contribute now and again when you feel you have grown up a little more then I am sure there will be many here who will show some pity for you and interact with you, even with your obvious social inadequacy issues.