Religophrenia

[Antone]

Belief vs. Perception - Doesn’t one require the ability to be able to perceive something before one can choose to believe it?

No. Just the opposite, I think.

First, the very definition of believing implies a lack of knowledge. If we

Second, what you perceive you cannot believe




Absolute knowledge: is a consistent and complete understanding of a given state-of-affairs; and the ability to express that understanding.
Relative knowledge: is understanding that fails to satisfy one or more of the following conditions necessary for absolute knowledge:

• 1) it may not be about an actual state-of-affairs.
  2) it may be incomplete.
  3) it may be inconsistent.
  4) It may not be expressible.

It may well be that schizophrenics are interpreting data in a different way but different doesn’t necessarily equate to being wrong or abnormal. This is a belief based on perception.
If we are talking about a malfunction in interpreting empirical/sensory data then religions and many areas of science belong in the category of mentally unbalanced because they ignore the data and replace it with something that contradicts what has been perceived, often putting in its place imaginary constructs.
I would say that “majority” thinking or reasoning doesn’t automatically make it right. We only need to remember flat-earth philosophy or the outrage that Copernicus caused, likewise the struggles of Galileo and the widely held belief that heavier than air flight was impossible are some examples that demonstrate just how badly consensus opinion has been wrong.
Perception is primarily a subjective experience imo and it’s not necessarily abnormal if it doesn’t fit with a common train of thought. Such differences might very well be considered abnormal to medical science but lest we forget that the same institute won’t even consider the works of Royal Rife or Robert Becker because it is deemed quackery. Is this a malfunction or is it simply a case of self-interest like Big Pharma practices with the placebo effect?

[Antone]

Sorry about the double post...

Belief vs. Perception - Doesn’t one require the ability to be able to perceive something before one can choose to believe it?

It depends on how you define your terms. In a sense, when we perceive something, we are aware of it. And, in a limited sense, [what we are aware of] we also [necessarily know]. We may not necessarily know it at a conscious level, but our irrational mind can be said to "know" it.

Belief, on the other hand, can be defined as something that is held without proof. In this sense, belief is the opposite of perception--if perception is held to imply knowledge. The problem, of course, is that you have to accurately state [what it is that you are perceiving] or, in other words, [what you know].

If I am driving along and I see [what appears to be a barn]... I am aware of seeing [something that appears to be a barn]. Thus I know that . [Common sense] and [empirical evidence], however, tells me that sometimes things are not what they appear to be. For example, it is possible that what I am seeing is not a [functional barn] but rather a [papier-Mache facsimile of a barn]. Thus, I DO NOT know that I am seeing a [functional barn], I only believe this to be the case. But I do know that what I am seeing [appears to be a functional barn].

In a sense then, whatever I perceive (if accurately expressed) I necessarily know.
By contrast, what I believe is what I deduce from what I know.

Faith, is belief that has little or no valid justification. We believe that God exists based on faith--but we must also believe that God does NOT exist based on faith--because there isn't any verifiable and incontrovertible evidence that conclusively supports either side.

As I have already shown, knowledge is a very complicated topic--largely because there are a great many similar and related words that we use interchangeably with the term, even though they are incompatible in meaning. For instance, I've often shown how we use the terms [know] and [believe] interchangeably. But we often do the same thing with words like: [faith], [awareness], [understanding], [learning], and so on. Each of these terms have meanings that are similar in some ways to [knowledge] but there are other ways in which they are distinctly different.

Another difficulty is that each of these terms are themselves defined in reciprocal ways... For example, consider the following distinctly different and incompatible types of [knowledge]:

I -- Absolute knowledge: I believe that nothing can be known in an absolute sense, for a whole laundry list of reasons. Yet this is what many people believe they mean when they talk about knowledge. They believe that knowledge implies that what is known is necessarily true. Here is my definition of the term:

Absolute knowledge: is a consistent and complete understanding of a given state-of-being; and the ability to express that understanding.

II -- Reciprocal knowledge: Can generally be interpreted as strong belief, accompanied by valid justification. Here is my definition of the term:

Relative knowledge: is understanding that fails to satisfy one or more of the following conditions necessary for absolute knowledge:
a. it may not be about an actual state-of-being.
b. it may be incomplete.
c. it may be inconsistent.
d. It may not be expressible.

Now, traditionally, some philosophers have attempted to define knowledge in terms of the following three conditions:
1. [P] must be true
2. [S] must believe [P]
3. There must be a valid justification for [S] to believe [P]. [/list]
In order for [1] to be a condition, we would necessarily have to be dealing with [absolute truth]--or we would have to restate it as:

[P] must be relatively true

I've already indicated, however, that nothing can be known in the [absolute sense]. Thus, the only kind of "truth" that has practical meaning is [relative truth]. Thus, it makes more sense to me to define everything in terms of [relative truth] and specify absolute truth when we wish to note the exceptions.

Given this agenda, I think it makes more sense to define truth as follows:
1. [S] must believe [P]
2. [S] must be able to express [P]
3. There must be a valid justification for [S] to believe [P].
4. [S] must accurately state the empirical evidence of [P]. [/list]

Now, we can reconsider the case of the papier-mache barn. Because [S] sees the [barn-like object], he necessarily must believe that he has seen it. Even if he believes that he is schitzophrenic and given to hallucinations, he must still believe that he has seen what he has seen--even if he believes that others probably do not see the same thing. So this case satisfies [1].

[S] can obviously express [P]. But lets briefly consider other examples that are not so obvious. We often say that we, "Know how to walk," yet we probably cannot verbally express the mechanics and muscle groups that allow us to walk. But if you think about it, this is what one SHOULD expect, because it is not our conscious mind that [knows how to walk], it is our subconscious mind. And our subconscious mind expresses this knowledge by the act of walking.

[3] tends to be a bit redundant with [1], since the [source of our justification] is commonly also the [source of our belief]. For instance, I can say "I know that X=X." Nothing we can perceive leads us to this conclusion. It is a purely logical deduction. Yet in is the same deductive reasoning that leads both to our belief and which provides a valid justification for our belief.

And finally, as I've already discussed, if we express (with absolute accuracy) what it is that we have justification to believe--then what we [know in the relative sense] is also [very nearly true in the absolute sense]. For it is very nearly [absolutely true] that we [appear to see a barn].

It's not [absolutely true] because we might not really be seeing the [barn-like object]. We may be dreaming it. or it may be a computer generated hallucination, etc. But again, the only reason these fail to satisfy the absolute requirement is because we have not expressed what it means to "see" the [barn-like object precisely enough. As soon as we express what we mean more precisely, we find that even what we see in a computer generated hallucination is, in some sense, SEEN. And thus, if expressed accurately enough, it satisfies our absolute requirements once again.

[Antone]

...If we are talking about a malfunction in interpreting empirical/sensory data then religions and many areas of science belong in the category of mentally unbalanced because they ignore the data and replace it with something that contradicts what has been perceived, often putting in its place imaginary constructs.

I agree that many so-called scientific theories do resemble religion more than science... because they are based on belief, rather than empirical data.

I would suggest that the vast majority of the actual data contradicts the idea that there is such a thing as Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Similarly, a significant portion of the scientific data contradicts many of the classical principles of astronomy. And significant portions of the data contradicts the theory of Darwinian-like evolution. And so forth.

These are cases of ignoring (or perhaps misinterpreting, if you want to be generous) the data that exists--

Belief in God, however, is quite different as it is not based on any empirical evidence. Nor is there any empirical evidence that needs to be denied to believe in God. The same is true of Atheism. The atheist does not base his beliefs on empirical evidence. He may deduce that there is a lack of empirical evidence for God--and therefore that justifies his belief that God does not exist. But the [lack of evidence for something] is not the same thing as [evidence against it]. After all, just because we can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. Else, there would be no electricity, no radio waves, no x-rays, no galaxies, no atoms, no great, great, great, grand parents, etc. Given this, I would argue that when it comes to religious belief, agnosticism is the most scientific in nature--because it says, "There isn't any conclusive proof either way."

Anyway, to me the above is a very clear distinction between the "religious-like" nature of [religion] and [some sciences]. Although some sciences share a greater similarity than others. For example, Darwinian Evolution was originally based primarily on a belief that Darwin was right--rather than any actual body of evidence. Even Darwin himself admitted that the evidence for his theory was somewhat thin. However, he suggested that the years to come would supply the needed proof--and essentially asked that others believe his theory based on faith--in large part because he claimed that there wasn't any other viable explanation that a rational person should be willing to accept. The intervening years, however, have provided very little of the evidence Darwin predicted would be forth coming; and a number of unforeseen complications.

To me, this whole line of logic seems rather analogous to the logic used by Atheists to justify their denunciation of religion.

Perception is primarily a subjective experience imo and it’s not necessarily abnormal if it doesn’t fit with a common train of thought. Such differences might very well be considered abnormal to medical science but lest we forget that the same institute won’t even consider the works of Royal Rife or Robert Becker because it is deemed quackery. Is this a malfunction or is it simply a case of self-interest like Big Pharma practices with the placebo effect?

Interesting, and I agree to an extent.

I would disagree with one minor point. Perception is ENTIRELY subjective.
There isn't anything that can be perceived collectively.

If you and I observe a table, we will each be looking at the table from a slightly different angle, and so it will "appear" to have a slightly different shape. The light source will strike the take at a slightly different angle, and so we will see the highlights on the table in slightly different places, and so forth.
If you and I observe the same TV screen, you will still see colors slightly differently than I do.

There is nothing that we can share as a perception that will be identical in every way.
That's one of the reasons why (as I claimed in the last post) it is impossible to have absolute knowledge--because it is impossible to perceive with absolute accuracy. And that is precisely because perception is necessarily subjective.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Antone

I got a little bit lost with the number of your responses, so I'll focus on the last one, forgive me if I miss anything crucial you put forward in the other threads.

Belief in God, however, is quite different as it is not based on any empirical evidence.

Which gets back to my original point - where is the difference between this kind of reasoning/thinking and other kinds of reasoning/thinking that has been collectively labelled mentally unstable by the collective reasoning of scholars, medical professionals, politicians and law makers, many who have been known to hold religious beliefs themselves?

I would disagree with one minor point. Perception is ENTIRELY subjective.
There isn't anything that can be perceived collectively.

So what are your thoughts on the meaningful correlation of random data?

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

There is nothing that we can share as a perception that will be identical in every way.

I agree. So I wonder why a collective view of reality can be deemed perfectly acceptable despite its obvious flaws when others are deemed (by the same consensus view) to be mentally unstable. It comes down to a power thing. IMHO

[Antone]

There is nothing that we can share as a perception that will be identical in every way.

I agree. So I wonder why a collective view of reality can be deemed perfectly acceptable despite its obvious flaws when others are deemed (by the same consensus view) to be mentally unstable.

The critical distinction is between that which is absolute and that which is relative.
We can't see exactly the same thing.
But how often do we need to distinguish between two shades of LIME GREEN? The eye can distinguish between hundreds of shades of LIME GREEN--but unless we're picking out a paint color etc. these distinctions don't mean a whole lot. In ordinary life, when I say LIME GREEN everyone (who isn't blind or colorblind) has a pretty good idea what color I mean. It isn't an absolute understanding, but it is a relatively accurate one. If there are 50 random object, and I tell 100 people to pick out the LIME GREEN object, there is a pretty good chance that every one of those 100 people will be able to pick out the object I mean from the 5 random objects--simply from that statement alone.

By contrast, if a mental patient sees blue spiders that no one else sees... and they say, "There are blue spiders on the wall," no one else will be able to tell, simply from that statement alone, which of the four walls in a given room is the wall where the supposed spiders are.

The hallucination of [blue spiders] is something that virtually no one else shares on any level. And it does not allow the person to function effectively in society.

By contrast, the vast majority of people share the [greater part of understanding] with respect to what the color LIME GREEN means.

It is this contrast that is probably the most significant distinction, I think.

Belief in God, however, is quite different as it is not based on any empirical evidence.

Which gets back to my original point - where is the difference between this kind of reasoning/thinking and other kinds of reasoning/thinking that has been collectively labeled mentally unstable by the collective reasoning of scholars, medical professionals, politicians and law makers, many who have been known to hold religious beliefs themselves?

Once again, the belief in God is not based on empirical evidence.

Seeing [blue spiders] is based on empirical evidence. Although it is evidence that is not shared, it still is something that the person 'sees' and thus experiences.

I think [belief in God] is more along the lines of a deduction. So it is similar to the conclusion that x=x. There isn't any empirical evidence that can prove that x=x ....(in the absolute sense).

Belief in God can also be obtained on pure faith. My father says he first came to believe in God because his parents believed in God. In the beginning he based his believe in God on the belief his parents felt.
This is a bit like believing that you mother will pick you up after school, when she drops you off for your first day. If you believe in your parent, you have faith she'll show up to get you.

Again, however, this is different from seeing spiders, since such beliefs do not interfere with one's ability to function effectively in society--and, in fact, as I've previously argued, I would suggest that such beliefs are collectively very valuable to a society as a whole.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Antone

Tautology springs to mind. Rather than continue going round in circles i'll end with this quote I found from Mikamar publishing:

“Can we agree that we have been born into a world of billions of homo-sapiens with a multiplicity of competing and mutually exclusive belief systems, each claiming to be the way, or the truth? Can we agree that not one of these ideologies, religions, denominations, organizations, groups or individuals is in a majority, but that every one of these is in a minority? Can we agree the inescapable logic is that at least a majority of these are significantly flawed, and a direct implication of what we see is that almost all, and possibly ALL, are wrong or false to some degree? In this context can we agree that we should be primarily challenging our belief system rather than defending it?”

Cheers

[Wolfgang1949]

Since so many people believe in delusional religious beliefs, these beliefs are not considered to be maladaptive, at least not in a manner relative to society, tho they are maladaptive in an absolute sense. . .but remember we are all on a ship of fools here on this planet. LOL
Wolfy

[CCCstar]

Take medical-science’s stance on schizophrenia for example. ... In comparison, ...the Catholic Church doctrine or theory. ... paranoid or bizarre delusions (the devil, damnation etc) which present significant social dysfunction (child abuse and paedophilia). Wikipedia

Your initial post is the logical fallacy Equivocation: Using the same term or word in different and incomparable senses. Also the logical fallacy of Straw man: Arguing against a premise no one has taken, knocking that premise down, and then assuming or implying that you have then discredited the original.

Antone responds with wisdom in

Society Wide Dysorders

[sic] above. However, I would add that you do not seem to know any people stricken with the medical condition of schizophrenia if you think the Wikipeda definition of the symptoms gives the condition a just expression of its severity.

Go and volunteer to help out in a mental ward as a "sitter" for a day and you will learn that mental illness, even in "highly functional" patients presents a level of "dysfunctionality" that you and 99% of religious zealots will not display. To put it bluntly, schizophrenia is a seriously f-uped state.

Another possible factor clouding your initial post is that the mentally ill are often drawn to religious terms of expression. The mental patient often exhibits mania (repeating focus), and grand delusion. The absolutes of religious precepts which comfort the sane are readily associated by the marginally insane mind.

As a final opine, IMAO only the most liberal leftist propaganda freely associates insanity with honest religious expression. This is social engineering by atheistic thinkers from at least the time of Marx onward. What have you been reading and believing to come to this hateful post in the first place?

[CCCstar]

My apology for the borderline rant above and double post here. In the responses to your original post there in an answer to another member in part

My point here was that a schizophrenic is defined as being mentally ill for abstract thoughts and behaviours, whilst at the same time many Catholics (including some of my family members) believe in a reality engulfed by fire are not

.

IMAO if you desire to understand why the Bible teaches of ("sheol" translated) "hell" as the place of the dead in the old testament, and of ("gehenna" translated) "hell" as Jesus described an example and analogy of the "burning" place of eternal judgment of the condemned; then you might study the Bible long enough to see why your family members find the ideas worthy of confidence and retention.

Look here is a place where the burning garbage dump "hell" is used in the Bible teaching a basic truth of human nature: (James 3:5-11ESV)
So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water?

IMAO it is high arrogance to assume your close relatives are all one step away from hospitalization because you have not yet agreed to value the culture and free expression of their religious liberty.
Must your preference mark them as mentally unfit?
Will you attempt to rationalize away their creative expression of worship?
In your investigation of intellectual honesty must you disrespect the key teachings of the culture of your ancestry?
Is your capacity for fealty so small that you cannot even investigate the roots of what they find valuable?

BTW: Some questions may not ever be answered with feelings of satisfaction. You have my sincere best wishes to find good answers and respect and honor your family relations. They may have given you more value than you realize at this time.