Materialism

[altonhare]

Before we go further we need to clarify exactly what you mean by faith, belief, and God

Bingo. If Web would define "faith" and "belief" in no uncertain terms this discussion would be basically over. [well at least alot easier to address his statements! ]

We also have an issue of conceptual analysis. Web has defined four categories of "God". So God1, God2, God3, and God4 are defined. But they all fall under the category "God" which has not been defined. So when Web asks me "which God" I believe in, he is jumping to the second stage in the conceptual hierarchy, when we have not covered the 1st stage yet.

0000000000000000000|- God1
0000000000000000000|- God2
God (We are here) ----| (Web is asking a question located here)
0000000000000000000|- God3
0000000000000000000|- God4

[webolife]

Alton and Plasmatic,
Your definition of causality disallows a first cause.
(My definition allows a first cause... and a distinct point of origin.)
Your definition of causality leads you to believe in an infinite and eternal material universe.
Moreover, you believe that irreducible complexity and orderliness are inherent in this universe.
There they are, that's just the way they are [their "identity"], no "origin" necessary.
By my definition, you are pointing at your infinite impersonal material god.

[Plasmatic]

Web Im not sure exactly why you have ignored my request to define these simple words so we con continue our fun little discourse. [faith,belief]

edit: also its not the definition that disallows a first cause its ubiquitous observation.

[webolife]

OK how about:
Faith: Reliance upon a person, systematic philosophy, or invisible process to explain ubiquitous facts.
Belief: Intellectual assent to an idea or concept not ubiquitously present in the factual observations.

Will these work for us... if not I'll try something else, so we can continue our fun!

[bdw000]

OK how about:
Faith: Reliance upon a person, systematic philosophy, or invisible process to explain ubiquitous facts.
Belief: Intellectual assent to an idea or concept not ubiquitously present in the factual observations.

Will these work for us... if not I'll try something else, so we can continue our fun!

Here's an opinion to irritate more than a few:

Ever notice that the word "belief" is rarely used, in common everyday language, when a person in fact is certain of what is being discussed.

People generally do not say "I believe my name is John doe," or, "I believe that the sky is blue," or "I believe that when I drop a rock it will fall to the ground," or "I believe that fire burns." What people say is "I am John doe," or "the sky is blue," or "fire burns." For indisputable facts, the word "belief" never enters into the linguistic equation.

In general, the word "believe" is used only when there is no certainty at all, when the claim cannot possibly be proven: "I believe that the republicans are the best party," or "I believe that the democrats are the best party," or "I believe that Christianity is the one true right and only way," or "*I believe that Islam is the one true right and only way." In other words, the word "belief" is only used when the topic being discussed is NOT an indisputable fact, but simply a matter of opinion.

Bottom line: people only use the word "believe" when they cannot win an argument using evidence and proof. It is pulled out as if it is a magic wand and then the user can simply say "I win" (without actually having won, of course).

In other words, it should not even be allowed in any serious discussion where all parties simply want to learn as much as possible about the topic being discussed. The purpose of words such as faith and belief is simply to claim certainty when there is none, usually in order to con less thoughtful people.

In my opinion the proper approach is simply to say something like "I don't know," and/or "you know, I just like this idea. I can't prove it. But I like it." This is a valid stance (especially when your opponent cannot prove his or her case either) which has the added benefit that it avoids the dishonesty that usually attaches to words like "faith" and "belief."

I am not claiming that this usage is absolute. But watch your own language use, and those of others, and I feel confident that exceptions will be rare.

[webolife]

I can agree with much of that, BDW...
But I think you are still dismissing the importance of my underlying premise... which is that everyone, including every scientist, and every scientific theory, bases their conclusions on an underlying premise that essentially cannot be proven, which I call your faith base. The premise of materialism, which disavows any "spiritual" or "immaterial" world or actions, underlies post-modern science, but was virually verbotten by most of the major players in the era of "modern science." Perhaps my following statement agrees (or does it disagree?) with your view:

I believe that there is a single unifying true universe. Each person's perspective on it leads to a different conclusion, but as we sharre our perspectives, each of us is drawn closer to an understanding of that true universe. Choosing, as some may do, to ignore or disregard some aspects of this universe, does not necessarily make their particular conclusion any more or less valid, although openness to other perspectives predisposes a person to being a better learner. Materialism is such a perspective.

Generally I define perspective, or viewpoint, in the same terms as faith or belief, a faith base.
As Herbert said, "They say there is no belief, and they believe this."

[StevenO]

I can agree with much of that, BDW...
But I think you are still dismissing the importance of my underlying premise... which is that everyone, including every scientist, and every scientific theory, bases their conclusions on an underlying premise that essentially cannot be proven, which I call your faith base. The premise of materialism, which disavows any "spiritual" or "immaterial" world or actions, underlies post-modern science, but was virually verbotten by most of the major players in the era of "modern science." Perhaps my following statement agrees (or does it disagree?) with your view:

I believe that there is a single unifying true universe. Each person's perspective on it leads to a different conclusion, but as we sharre our perspectives, each of us is drawn closer to an understanding of that true universe. Choosing, as some may do, to ignore or disregard some aspects of this universe, does not necessarily make their particular conclusion any more or less valid, although openness to other perspectives predisposes a person to being a better learner. Materialism is such a perspective.

Generally I define perspective, or viewpoint, in the same terms as faith or belief, a faith base.
As Herbert said, "They say there is no belief, and they believe this."

The trouble with physics and other 'sciences' is that they use "observations" as their central perspective. The process of observation is dependent on the concept of "now", that, based on a self-aware observer, can only be defined as an infinite regression, which we acknowledge as the progression of "time". The speed of this "now" is known as "lightspeed" and no information can be observed beyond the speed of "now" from an observers viewpoint. That fact makes the sciences of observation unfit for studying processes that go beyond the material, unless they would start applying concepts of multidimensional time.

It is all a matter of viewpoint. If you restrict your position in the universe to be that of an observer, the movement of time, the limit of the speed of information (lightspeed), relativity and quantum mechanics show up as a logical consequence. Only when we position ourselves as part of the universe we might get the proper perspective, but we are probably not able to have that viewpoint as long as we are tied to a bodily consciousness.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
You wrote:

It is all a matter of viewpoint. If you restrict your position in the universe to be that of an observer, the movement of time, the limit of the speed of information (lightspeed), relativity and quantum mechanics show up as a logical consequence. Only when we position ourselves as part of the universe we might get the proper perspective, but we are probably not able to have that viewpoint as long as we are tied to a bodily consciousness.

Very well stated. I've just read this:
The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01 ... ace-cosmos
and your statement reflects one of my (many) criticisms of it.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven,
You wrote:

It is all a matter of viewpoint. If you restrict your position in the universe to be that of an observer, the movement of time, the limit of the speed of information (lightspeed), relativity and quantum mechanics show up as a logical consequence. Only when we position ourselves as part of the universe we might get the proper perspective, but we are probably not able to have that viewpoint as long as we are tied to a bodily consciousness.

Very well stated. I've just read this:
The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01 ... ace-cosmos
and your statement reflects one of my (many) criticisms of it.

Interesting article but indeed flawed. They're starting to look into the right direction, but fail to see that it is the definition of observational science that restricts the results that can be obtained. Quantum effects like the uncertainty principle are just an effect of the last step in this endless chain of observational regressions that we call "time". The universe itself has no such limitations.

It can all be found in this 1934 booklet: The Serial Universe

[bdw000]

I can agree with much of that, BDW...
But I think you are still dismissing the importance of my underlying premise... which is that everyone, including every scientist, and every scientific theory, bases their conclusions on an underlying premise that essentially cannot be proven, which I call your faith base. The premise of materialism, which disavows any "spiritual" or "immaterial" world or actions, underlies post-modern science, but was virually verbotten by most of the major players in the era of "modern science." Perhaps my following statement agrees (or does it disagree?) with your view:

I believe that there is a single unifying true universe. Each person's perspective on it leads to a different conclusion, but as we sharre our perspectives, each of us is drawn closer to an understanding of that true universe. Choosing, as some may do, to ignore or disregard some aspects of this universe, does not necessarily make their particular conclusion any more or less valid, although openness to other perspectives predisposes a person to being a better learner. Materialism is such a perspective.

Generally I define perspective, or viewpoint, in the same terms as faith or belief, a faith base.
As Herbert said, "They say there is no belief, and they believe this."

Hey web, just because the other guys do it, is no excuse for "us" doing it.

I agree that materialism as a worldview is an assumption. What "they" do is not the point.

Why "believe" anything at all that you do NOT know?????? (and as I said in the previous post, the word "believe" is generally not used unless the user does not, in fact, "know").

Just be open to whatEVER reality might happen to be. Why claim to know what you do not? If you don't know, you DO NOT know. And if you do not know, any claim otherwise is dishonest. That's one of the main problems of modern physics and astronomy: very often they claim to know something when they in fact do not know anything at all about what they are saying. Just because materialism is an assumption, that does not prove that it is wrong. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. No one seems to be able to PROVE to all concerned which it is, so any claims are meaningless babble.

That's why I think language like "I think this is the way it might happen to be" is just the way to go. The word belief is just a way to try to make your own argument look better than it is (as far as practical usage goes, in my opinion). Why say "I BELIEVE that this is the way IT IS" when you cannot prove it?

Krishnamurti quote:

"Belief is the end of all knowledge."

For the reasons in my previous post I think that quote is right on.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
You wrote (and I originally missed):

I believe that there is a single unifying true universe. Each person's perspective on it leads to a different conclusion, but as we share our perspectives, each of us is drawn closer to an understanding of that true universe.

I couldn't agree more.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi bdw000,
You wrote:

Krishnamurti quote:
"Belief is the end of all knowledge" For the reasons in my previous post I think that quote is right on.

I'm guessing you mean Jiddu and not U.G. but have you got a source for that as I'm getting:

‘belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge.’
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
http://creatingminds.org/quotes/belief.htm

You are saying that you believe the reasons in your previous post are sufficient to prove the quote to be correct. Whoever said it, I disagree with them. For example, there is no point in trying to learn a new skill if you do not believe that you can.
On a more general note, I don't have a problem with the word 'belief'. It is not the sole property of religion. To me belief lies between ignorance and knowledge. If my friend says he will pick me up at 8 o'clock I believe him. I don't know he will as lots of things could go wrong in the interim.

[moses]

I have everything by J Krishnamurti on this computer
and a search for 'Belief is the end of all knowledge' or
'belief is the end of all knowledge' came up empty.
Mo

[bdw000]

Greycoould has the correct quote which incluedes ". . . is not the beginning . . ."

Anyway Greycloud, my approach is simply the practical usage of the word.

My opinion is just that people usually are trying to give the impression that they "know" when they use the word belief when in fact they do not. They are just trying to add some vague authority to their statements that they do not really have.

Even if someone does in fact "know" something, if you cannot prove it to someone else, what good is that "knowledge"?

Since the whole point is not to "believe" things just because someone else says so, I just don't see how the word "believe" is all that useful.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi bdw000,
I think you are putting things the wrong way round.
To me 'belief' is shorthand for 'my current understanding is...'. If I say that I believe that Homer's Iliad is one of the greatest books ever writtten, I mean just that. I don't it is as I do not have knowledge of every book ever written.
People say they 'know' when in fact they merely belieive. For example, some people 'know' that there was a big bang, and some people 'know' that it is an electric universe, when in fact neither of them actually 'know' but believe that the current weight of evidence supports their viewpoint.
As to what good is knowing something if you can't prove it to someone else, why do you need to prove it to someone else? Knowledge is knowledge.