What do you think about this?

Question

An observation that I've made that I'd like to share & see what you think:


Much of the acrimony seen here on YA! and in society when it comes to religion seems to stem from some people's inability or refusal to separate two things (1) what is factual knowledge, and (2) what they believe to be true.

Factual knowledge involves some statement that is verifiably correct and doesn't require a given philosophical or religious belief system in order to accept.
Belief involves something that people can't prove, but still accept as true. (issues of morality, ethics, philosophy, etc)


I think that a lot of our problems here come from some people failing to make this important distinction.

If you confound fact and belief, arrogance of one's beliefs results. We come to believe that we are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong.
But if we are clear about what we believe (rather than factually know), then tolerance and open discussion becomes easier.

What do you think?

slickboy, I'm agnostic.

Don't assume that all non-believers are atheists.

This question is just as much a challenge to atheists as it is to theists.
If you re-read it with an open mind, you will see that.

Answer 1

I would say that it's a little more fundamental than that. The problems stem from what people regard as valid justification for a position. A rational person would argue that it is in the nature of reality that we cannot justifiably claim to 'know' something if we have neither valid argument nor objective evidence to support it. A 'spiritual' person (for want of a better word) would argue that we can 'know' things by other means - i.e. by some kind of supernatural or spiritual faculty, so that a belief can be justified even if they can produce no valid argument or evidence to support it.

So, it's not a case of distinguishing between things which can be known to be true, and things which can't, but it's rather it's a disagreement about what constitutes 'knowing' something at all. The rational person cannot generally use reasoned argument to dispute religious beliefs because religious beliefs are not acquired or validated by reason. Atheists simply don't accept the same justification for beliefs that theists do, and that is a gulf which is very difficult to cross.

Answer 2

Philosophy decides everything in this question, as in most others. Philosophy of science decides what is our standard of "verifiable", and when an assertion becomes "fact".

You see, all belief is based on other belief. Your (reasonable) belief in science is your basis for a definition of "factual knowledge". It is your (reasonable) belief that the Bible is evidence only of the Bible that makes you not accept it as "factual knowledge".

Here's a clear example. All experience is mental. I have no way to prove that anything exists outside of my own awareness. I am ultimately agnostic about anything else. I could say "I want evidence that something besides my own consciousness exists", but any evidence is dependent on that consciousness, so I'm stuck. The simplest way to account for my experiences, however, is to assume that my experience is transparent, that I experiece thing more or less as they are. I would have to have some other belief to override that explanation.

So it becomes a matter of dealing with the supporting beliefs. Some include an identification with a dogma; if I deny this I lose what I habitually think of as "me" - a Christian, a Pagan etc.. This is really no different for many atheists. They rail against the loss of self direction to a "God". Neither is reasonable for support of other beliefs, but they are still used, often unknowingly.

Answer 3

This same Question I put to you only turned around.

Much of the acrimony seen here on YA! and in society when it comes to religion seems to stem from some people's inability or refusal to separate two things (1) what is factual knowledge, and (2) what they believe to be true.

Factual knowledge involves some statement that is verifiably correct and doesn't require a given philosophical or religious belief system in order to accept.
Belief involves something that people can't prove, but still accept as true. (issues of morality, ethics, philosophy, etc)


I think that a lot of our problems here come from some people failing to make this important distinction.

If you confound fact and belief, arrogance of one's beliefs results. We come to believe that we are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong.
But if we are clear about what we believe (rather than factually know), then tolerance and open discussion becomes easier

Answer 4

You are right in some respects but in the area of personal belief I think there exists an insurmountable wall that I don't really have an answer for. Tolerance without resorting to insult would go along way.

The secular thinkers believe they are addressing spiritual issues from a common sense reality and refuse to succomb to what they see as an irrational conclusion to empirical evidence, and try to mock the religious by digging up what they see as problematic and inconsistent premises which end up being seen as persecution by the religious.

Those who tout themselves as believers are sometimes not properly trained in apologetics to defend their faith adequately and come off as presenting a mean spirited believe this or burn in hell ideology which just provokes others to attack them.

What the secular proponents do not understand is that the believers have a truth that is subjective and not so easy to communicate in terms that will be more respectful of those that they address.

What the believers fail to realize is that if they want engage to the culture they must equip themseves with the tools to do so that is more respectful of the intelligence of that culture.

If the secular thinkers would be more tolerant of where the believers are in their thinking and ask what led them to believe what they believe and the believers would see the secular minded as who their theology says they are as made in the image of God and everyone would quit resorting to a war of words rather than an exchange of ideas maybe an understanding and respect of each other could be had.

Wishful thinking maybe?

Answer 5

You make some very good points--always nice to see thinkers in progress!!!

Yes, there's always a good "debate" going on between the believers & nons...such is the duality of our humanness, yes? We live by opposites, and to think that belief systems, or lack of them, are negated in that would be ignorant, and yes, arrogant.

I, personally, find it a shame that they all conform to the mass conditioning that their diversities are deemed as separateness, rather than an opportunity to expand our creative productivity...ergo, making life more endearing here. If all saw science as a means to explain that which we can use our human senses for, and spirituality as a means of explaining that which we feel inside (our thoughts--the "gut" stuff), but cannot bodily sense, there would be more comradery, as well as the rationale to learn more from both sides...the proverbial wall will tumble....hey, it could happen, right??? I like to think that someday it will be so.

Answer 6

Actually it's comes from the lack of respect for others beliefs, not being able to prove or disprove anything. I'm a Christian. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, that's your right. I respect that, but don't mock me because I believe. RESPECT each other.

I would like to point out that atheists have beliefs, and so do agnostics, and they can no more "prove" their beliefs than a Christian can "prove" theirs. There are no scientific "facts" to disprove God exists. You either believe and have faith He does exist; or you don't believe He exists, and have faith in your unbelief; or you believe He isn't what the Bible says He is, and you have faith in that belief. Whatever you believe is based on your faith in that belief.

Answer 7

I think that outlines the prblem very well, as well as gives a solution to said problem.

It's sad really- that people get the two so mixed up that to those people they have become one and the same. They come here then, wanting to discuss religion and spirituality, but for them, it can only be one way, and should only be one way, and should be thus for the whole of humanity.

So yes, i would definently agree that we need to learn how to make this distinction, and then to keep the two seperate.

Answer 8

There are some subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.

*****************

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

Answer 9

Your totally right. I have seen some religious people on here that are able to make that distinction though, but at the same time I have seen so many that can not. I think this is when their beliefs because dangerous, not to anyone else but to them selves. Then we a fact is looking them right in the face they ignore it. Ignorance is dangerous and can be very expensive.

Answer 10

Well, while reading your question, I was wondering about your own beliefs about yourself & humans.

And I really think that your problems come from your failing to make the distinction between what you think people are and what they really are.

There are millions of people pointing out others, criticizing others' intelligence.

The audience focuses on the people who are pointed out.

Personally, I focus on the person who points others out. I wonder about his/her real motive.

You sound very demagogic. This is my belief based on a factual knowledge.