No worries. Be well. Best wishes.

The only way to parse the word belief is by a definition of truth... — Shwah

I've nothing further until you offer the definitions I asked for. It's a waste of time otherwise.

When the gods created the world/universe — EugeneW

I've no reason to agree with this presupposition. I'm agnostic on the issue of the origin of all things. Could not care less really.

Oh! No one knowingly does evil, eh Socrates? — Agent Smith

Well, I do not use the term "evil" but all sorts of folk knowingly take actions that they know will cause all sorts of unnecessary harm to others.

So, people knowingly do bad stuff all the time, and that holds good regardless of the origin of the moral standard.

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. The substitution exercise spelled out earlier renders the things you're saying unintelligible and/or incoherent. I've no choice but to move on unless this matter is corrected.

They fire(for most people anyway) while observing another having a familiar experience. It's said to be the basis for empathy, although I'm not convinced of that. I've serious issues with how some people use fmri imaging to draw unwarranted conclusions. Those images are of increased bloodflow.

I do my best to not make enemies.

Mirror neurons.

You defined the term "true". The term "true" is not interchangeable with "truth".

Normal definitions are okay, I mean that's how people use the terms. But, there are significant issues with both layman use and academic uses.

Caveat for what?

its better to have enemies than friends. — Agent Smith

Nah. It's better to know both.

..those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway. — creativesoul

If it is possible to physically effect a subatomic particle residing in one location by virtue of physically disturbing a different one residing in another location, and it is, then that observable event lends direct support to all sorts of supernatural ideas and/or explanations(including gods) for all sorts of different scenarios/situations that people find themselves in.

Some folk believe that prayers somehow work. Quantum entanglement provides a possible means for that to happen. Etc.

That's all I mean by saying that quantum entanglement left room for supernatural entities.

Yes, I know that subatomic particles don't really reside in one location, and it doesn't really help to talk like that, but those who take quantum mechanics as fodder for deep-seated beliefs in non physical entities do not understand quantum mechanics or particle physics anyway.

...I assume belief is derived from truth... — Shwah

Define "belief" in such a way that we could write a coherent essay on belief, so that when we were finished, we could then replace each use of the term "belief" with the definition provided without the essay suffering from any significant loss of meaning. Do the same with "truth". Then see how much sense it makes to say that belief is derived from truth by substituting, yet again, the definitions for the terms in the claim "belief is derived from truth".

Generally speaking...

In order for one thing to be derived from an other, the latter must exist in it's entirety prior to the former. Otherwise, there is nothing to be derived from.

As it pertains - however loosely - to the thread, "truth" is a term once abducted by religion and capitalized accordingly. This was done as a means to refer to any statement as "Truth" or "the Truth", when it was believed to be somehow inspired by and/or coming directly from the God of Abraham.

I was thinking more along the lines of quantum entanglement(spooky action at a distance).

I don't think it's possible to ontologically negate/debunk anything (because we don't have epistemic certainty). — Shwah

Well, that's another matter altogether, replete with it's own set of common problems as well as some that are much less well known. However, that being said, I do not agree with saying that we do not have epistemic certainty about many, perhaps most things. I'll leave it there, for it is irrelevant to this thread.

Were the Greeks justified in positing Zeus? That all depends upon what counts as being justified. On my view, logical possibility alone does not warrant belief, so...

There's not a problem with it but you demonstrated a naturalist theory of religion and I was saying that it implies anaturalism even if you only use members of naturalism (e.g. it's not sufficient an explanation to say "the reason people thought zeus existed was to explain thunder" because it requires elements outside naturalism to substantiate it which it usually declares gods as being of the mind which isn't sufficient to explain the proposition as said). — Shwah

I've no idea what you're attempting to say here.

It is established, well documented, undeniable knowledge that many people across the globe of history have attributed all sorts of things to supernatural beings, of which gods are species. As the gaps in our knowledge have been bridged, the need to posit supernatural beings like gods has diminished.

The interesting thing, however, is that there is still room to posit forces of unknown origin. Hence, I find the agnostic stance the most reasonable one when it comes to the origin(s) of the universe, despite having more than enough reason to reject the God of Abraham as well as the other mythical gods throughout history.

What's the problem with what I wrote?

Is that supposed to count as relevant to what I wrote?

Why not go the whole nine yards and adopt atheism? — Agent Smith

Much of the deep-seated meaning and the resultant seemingly disparate array of meaningful influence that religion has had upon so many different kinds of people throughout the known history of humanity is found lacking in atheism. That's as it should be, given that atheism is a lack of supernatural belief, generally speaking. More specifically speaking, it is often described as a lack of belief that there is some supernatural creator of the universe. The point is that people have attributed a whole lot of meaning to gods and other supernatural entities. To some, religion gives answers to some of life's most important questions. Some of these questions, atheism has no answer for.

It is no accident that so many different people from so many different corners of the earth throughout human history all found themselves with explanatory needs; gaps in their knowledge base. No, that is no accident at all, my friend. To quite the contrary, Gods are just one kind of supernatural explanation, and we invented supernatural explanations out of necessity. Nowadays, many atheists dismiss them due to lack thereof. Supernatural beliefs are part and parcel to the everyday lives of most, I would dare to guess. It was necessary. I mean, in prehistoric days, people took note of the sun. Some got sunburned, and put two and two together. Some noted that certain animals only came out at night, and because they wanted to eat them, those people would wait for the sun to disappear from the visible sky while planning a hunt. Others wanted to know "why" the sun traveled in the sky the way that it did. People wanted to know what it was, this bright object in the sky. All this only to say that the sun - like all meaningful things - became more and more meaningful as people attributed more and more meaning to it. In short, we do this by drawing correlations between the sun and other things. At some point, we gave the star at the center of our solar system a name, and began using that name to pick it out to the exclusion of all else, all as a means to talk about it. Some worshipped the sun, which is not such a far stretch for a bunch of ignorant humans seeking to explain stuff.

So, it seems likely to me at least that the gap in our knowledge base is the origin of the gods throughout known history, including the God of Abraham.

I find that many raised in some sort of 'Christian' background, have a hard time shaking the vestiges of the religion. Some of those remnants have become codified by American law.

Anyway, to get back to the question asked at the top of this post...

It's takes a certain kind of person in a certain kind of situation in order to have what it takes to lose their religion. I can only tell you my own personal experience:It's not easy. Many find it difficult or impossible to find personal meaningful contentment and/or fulfillment without relying somehow upon some supernatural belief or another. In short, religion is far more meaningful to religious people that you seem to realize.

I had fun primarily in being articulate, clear, focused, logic and versatile while formulating my objections against your view... — neomac

:smile:

The above presupposes that you have a good grasp of my view. I'd like to see you offer a comprehensive summary of the position I hold and have been arguing in favor of. I mean, in order to levy valid objections against another's viewpoint, that viewpoint must be first understood rightly. So... show me.

I'm explicitly stating that my 4 claims are different from your 2 claims, except for their logic structure... — neomac

The structure was different. That is exactly what I pointed out. So, they are not just different except for that structure. To quite the contrary, they are different structures altogether, as I've already pointed out clearly enough for the average person to grasp.

False belief cannot possibly be true.
— creativesoul

Which I'm not questioning. Indeed also false statements cannot possibly be true. — neomac

...we can claim of a belief (or proposition) that is proven to be true (or false), that it could have been false (or true)... — neomac

Arriving at incoherence is a sign of self-contradiction and/or equivocation. You've littered the thread and this conversation with such things. I've just been far too busy attempting to be a charitable reader to care enough to point out all of the flaws in what you've offered here. There is plenty to choose from. The irony though is that nearly all of your critiques and/or objections are invalid. You do know what that means right? They do not follow from what I've said, but rather, they follow from your interpretations thereof and/or your own linguistic framework. You've demonstrated a deeply ingrained habit of assessing my claims based upon a framework other than the one I'm employing.

How many strikes do we get again in your game before being counted out?

I am very well aware of the difficulty inherent to what I'm setting out. I am very well aware of the affront that it exemplifies, particularly against propositional logic as well as paraconsistent logic. That's okay though, because neither of those practices have ever gotten belief quite right to begin with. I suppose you also hold the rules of logical entailment as a standard also, based upon what I've seen here.

All the shit you've said about me and logic is far less convincing when you employ practices that permit changing the truth conditions of belief as well as outright attributing belief that could possibly be true to an individual that has belief that cannot possibly be true. That you do not see that as a problem is typical though, you do follow the conventional practices that allowed Russell's clock, Moore's paradox, and Gettier the footholds that they still have to this day.

The sole purpose of logic(the rules of correct inference) is to preserve the truth of the premisses. The sole purpose of logical notation is to take proper account of human thought, belief, and/or statements thereof. It is claimed that there is some basic form that that comes in. Logical notation is purportedly setting that out. Currently, convention fails on both counts. That's no secret.

Reminding the reader of the notion of belief you're working from again...
— creativesoul

Unfortunately for you, my objections to your ignoratio elenchi fallacy do not depend on my theory — neomac

You're such a moron. The objection was based upon a conflation of belief and statements. I do not conflate belief and statements. The objection was based upon what you did, not I. What you did is irrelevant.

The irony is still strong...

An astute reader will note that the critique above holds good only if we conflate belief and statements.
— creativesoul

I'm not conflating anything — neomac

Reminding the reader of the notion of belief you're working from again...

The contents of an individual's belief, according to your own words, "express the point of view" of the individual believer. "That clock is working" is a proposition and/or statement which expresses of the individual's point of view at time t1, according to what you've been arguing here. You've also claimed that that proposition/statement could be true, and hinted at possible world scenarios...

False belief cannot possibly be true. The statement you've been arguing in favor of can.

So, yes you are.

There's nothing at all problematic about metacognitive endeavors which point out the simplest of details such as a true belief cannot be false; a false belief cannot be true; it is impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood; and it is impossible to knowingly be mistaken. The first two claims can be said of true and false propositions without issue. It is unproblematic to say that when we discuss whether belief or propositions are true or false, that our reports are qualifying both propositions and beliefs.

The issue is that all truth apt belief is either true or false, and that is the case regardless of whether or not we further qualify them during our metacognitive endeavors.

So, when we know that an individual's belief is false, we can also know that it cannot possibly be true, and that the individual cannot knowingly believe whatever it is that they do at the time. If we then make the further metacognitive claim that they believe something that can be true, or something that is believable, then we've just ascribed a belief to the individual that they cannot possibly have.

If convention has issue putting what I've presented into logical notation, it is not a flaw of what I've presented, rather it is the accounting practice that is found lacking.

A logic reader will understand that you are not logic. — neomac

Brilliant.

All propositions are existentially dependent upon language use. Not all belief are.

It is relevant to show:
the genesis of your ignoratio elenchi fallacy as explained here (third point).
That even if you compare beliefs and propositions you should distinguish qualified and unqualified subjects in your conditionals
The validity of the “cannot possibly be true/false” requirement (as in “false propositions cannot possibly be true”) depends on the meaning of “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms), not on the meaning of “belief” or “proposition” per se. — neomac

When an author is critiquing something other than what I've wrote, and/or something that quite simply does not follow from what I wrote, it is an irrelevant critique.

...

An astute reader with a keen eye will surely note that the critique in the post prior to this one, while seemingly reasonable, particularly at first blush, is based upon what the author takes to be an accurate report and/or rendering of what's being critiqued. It's plainly not. What I wrote can be simplified as follows...

If all A's can possibly be true or false, and false B's cannot possibly be true, then A's are not equivalent to false B's.
If all A's can possibly be true or false, and true B's cannot possibly be false, then A's are not equivalent to true B's.

The above puts what I wrote into simpler form. I'm comparing two distinctly different things, propositions and belief. As clearly shown below, the critique is not. Rather, the critique compares different kinds of the same thing. Salva veritate. There is an obvious substitution error here.

If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and false propositions cannot possibly be true, then propositions are not equivalent to false propositions.
If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and true propositions cannot possibly be false, then propositions are not equivalent to true propositions.
If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and false beliefs cannot possibly be true, then beliefs are not equivalent to false beliefs.
If all beliefs can possibly be either true or false, and true beliefs cannot possibly be false, then beliefs are not equivalent to true beliefs. — neomac

If all A's can possibly be either true or false, and false A's cannot possibly be true, then A's are not equivalent to false A's.
If all A's can possibly be either true or false, and true A's cannot possibly be false, then A's are not equivalent to true A's.

In the first rendering they compared kinds of propositions. In the second, they compared kinds of beliefs. Both have the form above. Neither shares the form of the claims I made. Those claims are what is purportedly being critiqued. Hence, it is an irrelevant critique, as a result of critiquing something other than what I wrote. Given that what followed, as copied below, is based upon a fatally flawed rendering of what I wrote, there's a bit more irony involved yet once again.

However, differently from your former 2 claims, what these latter 4 claims make more evident is that:We should distinguish qualified and unqualified subjects (like “true proposition” or “false proposition” vs “proposition”, or “true belief” or “false belief” vs “belief”) as reported in these claims. If we do not distinguish them appropriately, then the antecedents of the conditional claims will be contradictory: e.g. if “all propositions” means “true propositions and false propositions” then “all propositions can possibly be either true or false” is a contradiction in terms, while if we take "propositions" to generically refer to any proposition prior to (or independently from) any assessment of its truth-value then there is no contradiction.
The validity of the “cannot possibly be true/false” requirement (as in “false propositions cannot possibly be true”) depends on the meaning of “true” and “false” (which are contradictory terms), not on the meaning of “belief” or “proposition” per se. — neomac

emphasis above is mine

Differently from my claims...

Indeed!

The idea that science doesn't, or cannot address moral and conceptual framework neurologically, is itself a claim. One that is not true. — Garrett Travers

Science has nothing at all to say about what we ought do.

Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

All or some?

If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and false belief cannot possibly be true, then propositions are not equivalent to false belief.

If all propositions can possibly be either true or false, and true belief cannot possibly be false, then propositions are not equivalent to true belief.

You've ascribed a belief to Jack that is true. I have not. Jack's belief is false.

Correct but I don’t get what is supposed to prove... — neomac

It only follows that the belief you ascribed to Jack is not Jack's belief.

So your argument amounts to an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. — neomac

The irony.



At time t1, an individual capable of telling time wonders what time it is. Like all other folk who know how to read the hands of a clock, they look towards one. However, unbeknownst to the individual, they looked at a particular clock that had just so happened to have stopped working exactly twelve hours prior. While looking at the clock, the individual formed belief about what time it was based upon exactly what it said. The clock said it was three o'clock, and the individual believed it was three o'clock. The belief about the time was true, but that belief is not concerning. Rather, it is their belief about that clock that is of utmost importance.

At time t1, the individual believes that that particular clock is a working one. It is not. The individual's belief is false. False belief cannot possibly be true. Therefore, the individual's belief cannot possibly be true. "That clock is working" can be true. It only follows that "that clock is working" cannot possibly be what the individual believes.

QED

my theory doesn’t require any truth — neomac

Clearly.

At time t1, an individual capable of telling time wonders what time it is. Like all other folk who know how to read the hands of a clock, they look towards one. However, unbeknownst to the individual, they looked at a particular clock that had just so happened to have stopped working exactly twelve hours prior. While looking at the clock, the individual formed belief about what time it was based upon exactly what it said. The clock said it was three o'clock, and the individual believed it was three o'clock. The belief about the time was true, but that belief is not concerning. Rather, it is their belief about that clock that is of utmost importance.

At time t1, the individual believes that that particular clock is a working one. It is not. The individual's belief is false. False belief cannot possibly be true. Therefore, the individual's belief cannot possibly be true. "That clock is working" can be. It only follows that "that clock is working" cannot possibly be what the individual believes.


Twat.

And you're proud of your behaviour here...

A gifted shitshow consisting of a gross misattribution of meaning bordering on deliberate obfuscation...

I've much more important matters to be involved in.

Belief contents express the point of view...
— neomac — creativesoul

This notion of "belief" cannot take account of language less, mistaken, and/or false belief.

A mistaken creature's point of view does not - dare I say, cannot - include the mistake. Hence, when we ask Jack at time t1, what he's doing immediately after looking at the clock, he will not say "I believe that that broken clock is working". Rather, he will say something about finding out what time it is/was.

He is unaware of being mistaken. He is unaware that he believes that a broken clock is working. From's Jack's point of view at time t1, the mistake is unknown.

Inform Jack of what he needs to know and upon recognizing his own mistake, he will readily admit to having made it unbeknownst to him at the time. He will readily admit to having once believed that that broken clock was working.