by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Does a belief system that contributes to happiness need to contradict "reality"? - Retro
No. That is the whole point of my thread. Please read the OP again.
Must we dogmatically call the current scientific understanding "reality"?
Yes. The details will be refined with further research but in general terms the bullet points in the OP describe reality.
Retrovirus:
Does a belief system that contributes to happiness need to contradict "reality"?
i hope not!
Must we dogmatically call the current scientific understanding "reality"?
Reality is reality. Science try to describe reality. The question is not well-formed.
You can try to ask if you ought to want to be right if you want to describe reality, but thats a personal question. I can pretend all that is virteous to believe is that the scientific method is bunk and I am a giant talking twinkie; I wont hear the booming voice of Einsten from the sky telling me that I ought not believe that. Honesty is a choice.
Let's define reality first though, because that seems to be the trickiest part; getting all parties to agree to what reality is.
'Reality' as we know it is defined by observation. There is reality that escapes observation. This can be demonstrated by theoretical mathematics and physics.
Science deals only with reality as it can be grasped through observation and/or experimentation. And even then, that 'reality' is a floating concept subject to interpretation.
Eden
@Bohm
Reality is reality. Science try to describe reality
Perhaps you were trying to say "The scientific method formulates theories and tests them against reality."
You can try to ask if you ought to want to be right if you want to describe reality, but thats a personal question. I can pretend all that is virteous to believe is that the scientific method is bunk and I am a giant talking twinkie; I wont hear the booming voice of Einsten from the sky telling me that I ought not believe that. Honesty is a choice.
Once again, a bit hard to follow. To state my position: if a person has a faith that demonstrably supports them in their life, it is unlikely to contradict our observed reality, because that would cause cognitive dissonance and lead to stress.
A belief in things unseen that does not contradict what we see around us doesn't have to be less than honest.
Retro
Retro: firstly, I was trying to say what I wrote.
Secondly, " A belief in things unseen that does not contradict what we see around us doesn't have to be less than honest."
Well no, but it come with the caveat that it can be uninformed, not well thought through, based on bad information, based on bad methology, etc...
@Cofty,
Thanks, I did re-read your OP and agre with most of it.
But, right at the end but" it is necessary to allow reality to set the boundaries of your beliefs"
we part ways here. The present picture of the world that science shows us is certainly wonderful and exciting. Why cannot our beliefs be even more so?
Retro
retrovirus: The present picture of the world that science shows us is certainly wonderful and exciting. Why cannot our beliefs be even more so?
you are free to make things up and the result can certainly be interesting; some forms of mathematics is in a way like that. the issue is if you want to relieably know your beliefs correspond to reality. for instance, if you want to say: there really are collections of physical objects that are in bijective correspondence with the reals, then thats a statement you cannot realiably know is true without basing it on some sort of observation.
The underlying issue is the number of ways you can be right about the world is a subset of all things you can say or think about the world, so you cannot just accept everything you can think of as truth.
It is strange how you always do that cofty when I post of late. The claim that you and anyone else including even me don’t understand what I have written. You know what though? Some others might. Philosophical points really are not that complicated.
Bohm, sure, I'm a bit grammar-sensitive. I guess grammar is a reality to me.
Well no, but it come with the caveat that it can be uninformed, not well thought through, based on bad information, based on bad methology, etc...
As can any opinion on things testable or not. Maybe we can agree that holding stubbornly to a belief that can be demonstratedto be based on incorrect facts or logic won't help a person in any way.
Retro
