Is believing in only what we can see, to fall into a trap based on our own faulty logic?

Question

Isn't an 'idea', for example, something that bears fruit only in the future, and thus is not necessarily immediately visible, other than in theory?

Except maybe, in others.

Is this called [temporary] agnosticism?

The question though, is the one at the top. :-)

Answer 1

Just see what you see with no logic, no concepts, and no beliefs, now, welcome to my world, heh, heh. ~*~

Answer 2

To believe anything based on what we can see is itself a trap. The belief born thereby is based on our perceptions related to the sight seen. To see a sight or to experience an experience is to either see or experience something.

To believe something about those sights or experiences is to have been a participant in either the sight or the experience and this is where the trap lies. It is only a feeling which makes us believe this about that which we have experienced. We have therefore "picked up this feeling", owned it, become attached, it is therefore "ours". This feeling in reality belongs only to the experience or sight and when we think in this respect, the feeling cannot become a belief. We only take note of the feeling and ascociate it with the experience or sight or event noting it arise when the event occurs and wane when the event is over.

It is faulty logic to make a belief out of an experience...it is truth to note the feelings ascociated with the experience and it also truth to note the experience's true nature, that of impermanence. It is logical to only ascociate the feelings with the event or experience rather than "own" them, because when the event which caused these feelings is over, so to do the feelings ascociated with it dissipate.

Would it be logical to feel anger or frustration after leaving a football match where we felt these feelings when we attended the game...and during the game our team lost the match...? During the match these feelings arose and we felt them. Yet after the match these feelings dissipate. During the match we were the Observer of these feelings and the events which caused them. After the match we detached them from our consciousness because we did not participate in the match and felt better as these feelings dissipated. This is maintaining the Observer stance and this is why we do not believe in the match (only perceiving that there was a faulty referee), of course not, it was only a match was it not..? This is also why we should not believe in the experiences which we experience and also why we should detach from the feelings which we inevitably feel..

A Buddhist perspective on belief....maintain the Observer stance...

Answer 3

To believe ony in what you can see is to blind yourself to the whole universe of infinite possibility.

It seems to me that there are two sorts of belief.
There is belief in what is not verifiable - !I believe that the great green ash tray will come and carry us all to Smokey Mountain." OK. It's a belief, and it's probably faulty, but no-one can ever prove it.

Then there is the sort of belief which can come if you are, say, following a map someone has drawn for you.
'Oh, here's Southwick, that's good. Now here's Wickham, it looks as though the map's right. .
That kind of faith builds as its predictions come true.
So - 'many hours of meditation bring insight'. Hmm, I've been meditating, I've been having some insights, the rest may well be true.

At bottom, spirituality is like food. No need to question it. I eat and am nourished. I practice Zen and I am nourished.

So I would prefer to call it 'waiting for experimental results.'

Answer 4

Logic is only as perfect as the perception used. Perception is based upon knowledge, and therefore nobodies logic is perfect apart from God's.

This does not meant that one requires all knowledge to attain liberation. One needs the correct amount of knowledge to cure one's own ignorance. This required knowledge is different for all people and depends upon your many past lives.

Seeing past physical reality requires the knowledge of the scriptures, but some knowlegde is past down inately from one life to the next. Such knowlege becomes instinct. Ergo, every lifetime you are left to seach for that which you lack, as a sculptor chips away at marble to reveal the true image, the self.

When one's knowledge reaches a threshold, the individual can start serving God in devotion.

Answer 5

Ideas exist as electrical activity, YOU exist because of an idea that your parents had,, both are provable. You have failed to sum up `faulty logic` adequately, the trap is not `logic` but the assumption that others not sharing your views are faulty.

Answer 6

Yes it is a trap. The problem is that mankind's nature is to only believe in what can be seen at face value. Anything spiritual is immediately rejected. All part of the devil's plot to gain souls.

Answer 7

No. To believe in something for which there is no proof is faulty logic. You see the absence of belief is something that can be changed, whereas belief without proof feeds on itself.

Answer 8

The logic isn't necessarily faulty, just incomplete. Likewise, our current total human knowledge of the universe of all that exists, is only one very small drop in an infinite sea of Truth.


"Let not him who seeks cease until he finds, and when he finds he shall be astonished. Astonished he shall reach the Kingdom, and having reached the Kingdom, he shall rest. And the Kingdom of heaven is within you and whosoever knoweth himself shall find it. And, having found it, ye shall know yourselves that ye are sons and heirs of the Father, the Almighty, and shall know yourselves that ye are in God and God in you."

Answer 9

It is a trap. I prefer to believe in what can be proven or what I can logically deduce. I never, however, close my brain off to change.

Answer 10

Your logic may be faulty, but mine certainly isnt. Im an atheist - because of logic.

Answer 11

Seeing is believing and no one has seen god.
I don't find that to be faulty logic.