The Belief Trap.

by Blueblades 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Fadeout

  What is the difference between knowledge and belief?

  I think it's a continuum.

  Less apparent evidence .................... More apparent evidence
  Belief..........................................Knowledge (of Truth)

  Knowledge approaches, but never reaches, 100% certainty. I would say this is true of even basic truths like "I exist," though the degree of certainty is high enough that nobody has gone wrong yet acting under the assumption that it is true and therefore knowledge.

  "But," some may say, "how can you make such an assertion about that which is proven beyond all doubt?"

  "Proof" is a human concept. Bearing witness to this truth is the fact that proof is different for each person. For some, the existence of the universe is proof of God's existence. For others, the fact the universe exists does not qualify as such proof, either because that evidence is insufficient or because they do not view that as valid evidence. So when we get frustrated at others for not accepting the "proof" that is staring them in the face, we need to realize that everyone has different standards of proof, and different standards of what constitutes "evidence."

  So we all have our own belief traps. We believe the things that are proven to ourselves, though they may not be proven to others.

  It is certainly beneficial to try to look outside our belief traps and see things from a different view. The common expression is "think outside the box."

  We are only human... we cannot actually leave our box, but we can enlarge it, expanding its boundaries to encompass possibilities never considered before.
• 

  Blueblades

  Many feel compelled to either believe or disbelieve all information they come in contact with and quickly pass a judgment on everything accordingly. Such a process leaves little room for actual knowledge and shows no particular interest in truth.

  For these individuals, pseudo-knowledge is good enough, especially if it happens to reduce anxiety and be widely accepted. This approach to information is unfortunate and produces a tendency to jump to conclusions based upon erroneous feel good assumptions.

  In 1969 when the witnesses first knocked on my door, the belief trap began for me and I fell into the two paragraphs written above. And so the captive of a concept that involved a belief system tied into the teaching "You can live forever on a paradise earth!" Trapped me and my family for over 33 years.

  We are all free from that belief trap now. And are trying not to fall for any other belief traps that may come our way.

  Blueblades
• 

  jaguarbass

  I believe that some of us get caught in our own belief traps, yours truly included. How do we escape this trap?

  I dont know if we can, I've been trying 25 years.

  I've tried to write my beliefs and reasons down, but all the pro's and cons fill the universe, there is no end.

  Today I say pick the belief that provides the most comfort and run with it.

  I always thought my God and beliefs should serve me, not the other way around.

  Keep it simple. KISS. I forget what the last S stands for.
• 

  Bring_the_Light

  Our own intellect could trick us into believing comfortable conclusions that are designed to reduce our anxiety, reassure our ego, and maintain our current self-satifying worldview.

  Blueblades

  If that's what belief traps do...... good, I'm ABSOLUTELY sure I'm not in a belief trap. That's (a little) reassuring.
• 

  Fisherman

  There exists a difference between Knowledge and Fact. One can think that they know something and yet be totally fooled, for example a person may read a Bible translation and think that they know for a fact the meaning of what the author wrote. He may put his head under a Guilutene believing that he knows. He might be right but unless the author told him waht he meant he really does not know even though he is comvinced that he does.

  Knowing that somemthing is true involves measuring (physical obeservation), believing that something is true involves reaching a conclusion.

  In order for someone to really know that something is true or factual, such thing must be measured and the person that thinks correctly is conviced that such is not an illusion if he measured correctly. A person may say I know that have 50 cents in my purse yet be mistaken becuase he miscounted or did not see clearly yet another person can claim that he knows that something is true and have accurate knowledge.

  Some people are so fooled that they believe that they know and think that they know that something is true or a fact but are in error.

  "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" The Saducees were mistaken in what they believed that they knew.

  What counts is what is a fact. Fact is not contingent upon knowlwdge of believe. A vaccine will work wether you believe it or not or know it or not.

  Belief is what God requires, and Religions if you want to be a member.

  People confuse believing meaning to trust and beliefs conclusions.

  God and Jesus wants us to (believe) trust them, not meaning that were are required to believe in theories that cannot be known.
• 

  Blueblades

  Thanks for all your responses, going to work now, will have more to write on this later this evening.

  Blueblades
• 

  Shazard

  If you thing about this all all you get is that Scientific Objectivity is consensus about subjective interpretation of some subjectively established experimental data! In genral... Scientific Objectivity is Subjective Opinion about how things work! It may be or may not be real truth!
  
  Evidence is nothing more as interperted data in context of some pre-defined or pre-created cognitive process... Your subjective nature/mind is allways part of data you do intepretate!
  
  And here comes nice blow... Naturalism defines, that our mind is machine of survival, not machine of truth. So all you can be sure about if you are naturalist, that your mind have produced propositions which allow you to survive, but they may not be true. Just like some ugauga-yamyam tribe could believe in Ctulhu who lives in electrical wires, and if you do not touch it, you will survive. They WILL survive, but their knowledge is not knowledge really!
  
  So how does naturalist, who has defined that his mind is result of evolution tuned for survival, comes to real truth is not clear and ovious. To define that truth is practical, is make truth subordinate to opinion and vote and making it into social construct of what is practical!
• 

  hamilcarr

  The scientific method doesn't try to reach the truth, but to approach it. The scientific method can hardly be called subjective, it's rather the apex of (possible) objectivity because for a theory to qualify as a fact it must stand the test of different scientists through repeated observations.
• 

  Terry

  Scientific Objectivity is consensus about subjective interpretation of some subjectively established experimental data! In genral... Scientific Objectivity is Subjective Opinion about how things work! It may be or may not be real truth!
  
  Evidence is nothing more as interperted data in context of some pre-defined or pre-created cognitive process... Your subjective nature/mind is allways part of data you do intepretate!
  
  And here comes nice blow... Naturalism defines, that our mind is machine of survival, not machine of truth. So all you can be sure about if you are naturalist, that your mind have produced propositions which allow you to survive, but they may not be true. Just like some ugauga-yamyam tribe could believe in Ctulhu who lives in electrical wires, and if you do not touch it, you will survive. They WILL survive, but their knowledge is not knowledge really!
  
  So how does naturalist, who has defined that his mind is result of evolution tuned for survival, comes to real truth is not clear and ovious. To define that truth is practical, is make truth subordinate to opinion and vote and making it into social construct of what is practical!

  1.Scientific Objectivity is consensus about subjective interpretation of some subjectively established experimental data! In genral... Scientific Objectivity is Subjective Opinion about how things work! It may be or may not be real truth!

  Subjective interpretation? Respectfully, I don't think you understand what you are criticising.

  Science measures actually existing phenomena. The fact that the phenomena actually exists makes it measurable. Measurement is always objective. Science uses math. Math and Logic. Math and Logic and Falsifiability produce all the objective technology we have today which impacts and improves our lives. Data is not experimental. Experiments produce data. What is Subjective is only true for one person. What is Objective is the same for everybody. You have produced a sentence which muddles, distorts and obfuscates. Clearly you don't understand.

  2.Evidence is nothing more as interperted data in context of some pre-defined or pre-created cognitive process... Your subjective nature/mind is allways part of data you do intepretate!

  I'm very sorry you went to the college that taught you this, I really am! Your Philosophy professor has done you a great injustice. Let us proceed to parse the mechanism of your sentence above. We'll take the last part first.

  Your mind is YOUR mind. That is true enough. Your brain feels YOUR pain and YOUR pleasure. That is subjective. But, Your mind and your brain can also interpret objective facts which EVERYBODY experiences. These facts are objective because they are the same for everybody. (Such as the wetness of water, or the pain of heat or the roundness of a circle). Consequently, evidence is evidence because it can be accessed by anybody, measured and weighed against the consistency of other facts. It is contradiction which enables aberrant data to surface. Contradiction is only possible because facts are objective. (The billiard ball rolls when you set it down. The table must not be level.)

  3. Naturalism defines, that our mind is machine of survival, not machine of truth. So all you can be sure about if you are naturalist, that your mind have produced propositions which allow you to survive, but they may not be true. Just like some ugauga-yamyam tribe could believe in Ctulhu who lives in electrical wires, and if you do not touch it, you will survive. They WILL survive, but their knowledge is not knowledge really!

  You are confusing nomenclature with objective existence. What the tribe calls electricity is of no consequence. It the fact that they do not understand the nature of electrons in motion which makes them ignorant in an important way: by understanding (arranging objective facts) how and what electrical phenomena is they could use it to their advantage and protect themselves at the same time. (Grounding).

  Our mind is only a machine of survival if we correctly identify threats and seek advantages based on reality in a practical way. Superstition and mislabeling due to ignorance has nothing to do with Science. It has to do with a failure to employ the Scientific Method. Truth is what accurately describes objective reality. Surely you are not trying to tell us there is no reality. How do we send the Shuttle to the moon and back if we can't master the practical phenomena around us?

  4.So how does naturalist, who has defined that his mind is result of evolution tuned for survival, comes to real truth is not clear and ovious. To define that truth is practical, is make truth subordinate to opinion and vote and making it into social construct of what is practical!

  There is nothing subjective about how many fingers and toes you have, is there? Is that a social construct? No, it is quantifiable and objective. The same is true about all actually existing things. Truth (conformity with reality) is not subordinate to interpretation. That is Primacy of Consciousness which your Philosophy Professor suffers from big time! The Universe is Objective. The failure to recognize reality is the result of a mystical mindset and poor education.

  Science is our best tool. Logic only works because reality is non-contradictory. When we detect any contradiction we discover immediately evidence of a faulty premise. Contradiction reveals faulty premises. It is our obligation to our survival and our rationality to root out contradictions. Survival is our ability to use nature by understanding it and our place in it to greatest advantage.

  Superstitious thinking (as you have described) is irrational belief based on whim and the failure to measure and eliminate contradiction.

  I hope this doesn't make me sound like a pedantic scold. I'm just drawing attention to your statements because they represent a poorly constructed view of reality which will not serve you well.

  The problem is not with science or reality. It is your Philosophy!