Why is one belief better than the other?

I like that !

Philosophy can NEVER give you answers, only more Questions!! Sometimes the ability to ask those questions is its greatest achievement!!

I ask more questions than I have ever been able to answer. I think you know the saying : People with knowledge know they don't know anything. Or something like that. Well, I don't know if I have a lot of knowledge but I have enough of it to understand I don't know anything.
I don't even know exactly why I'm studying what I'm studying. I find it interesting, yes, but why did I choose this over philosophy, history, politics, theology, other kinds of engineering or applied sciences ? I have no idea. I also have no idea what this has to do with the topic, but that's ok. (I think)

My beliefs are however that we should let people do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others in the process. If they believe what they're doing is the right way and they don't impose their beliefs on others then so be it.

The Question is, is it possible to do anything which doesn't have a consequence that may hurt someone else in someway, somewhere, sometime? Unless you live on a desert island, that might be difficult; ie the so called butterfly effect!!

Here's my thoughts for any who cares to read them

Because for some unknown reason people (in general) want/need/crave a "belief" system. One that claims to answer the basic fundamental reasons of their existence. IE. where did I come from, why am I here & where am I going(especially after i die)

People find comfort in a message that seeks to answer those questions. People gravitate to those who voice a "favorable" message, one that fits into their own personal desires and expectations. Basically a person belongs to a religion that teaches and tells them what they like to hear

So now Joe is happy in his religion, happy with the message, happy with his life and were he "believes" he's going.

Jack comes along and says "What? You honestly believe THAT??? That's crazy man...THIS is the truth!"

Jack proceeds to tell Jack all about HIS religion which may or may not have over lapping beliefs. At which point Joe has a choice, decide that Jack's religion promises a better future and has better answers to life's questions...OR he tell Jack that, no he's wrong and he's been mislead and it really HIS (Joe) religion that right.

They could at that point decide to go their own ways and call each other dump for believing in the wrong beliefs. Sometimes this happens, but only for a short period of time. Because the problem is now there's doubt, however small...the Jack's of the world become a threat to Joe's believe system by virtue of their own existence. It becomes if they're right then I'm wrong...and I KNOW I'm not wrong so they are wrong and they're spreading all their lies and leading others astray and contrary to the beliefs that I KNOW are right and true.

It then becomes Joe's duty to protect the integrity and truth of what he believes and has been told/taught is true.

It's the basic "If you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy.

To actually answer the OP's question....it's because a person's been raised or taught a certain belief system from day one. It's part of life and natural just as breathing is. That person is not going to look kindly on someone showing up and telling them that they're wrong. That they've believed the wrong thing ALL of their life. Oh yea...ALL of you friend and family and all your ancestors were wrong too lol

It kind of destroys the foundation of their very existence to even entertain the possibility that they indeed might be wrong.

The other possibility is that a person is simply unhappy or unsatisfied with the teachings or beliefs of the belief system they find themselves in. Yet they still have the need and craving to have a purpose and direction...so they search out and try and find one the "sounds" like something they can accept as "truth" and as the way it is.

I was raised in a pretty religious family. Went every Sunday and the thought of NOT going actually never entered my mind.

But years have passed since then and I'm not the person I once was. Because of my childhood and what I was taught I have a mind's eye of what I'd like things to be, what I HOPE things are and will be. But to actually come out and say that I know for sure that I'm 100% right or that someone else's beliefs are 100% wrong??? I find the whole process and ordeal absurd.

We (well most) have HOPE...that's all it boils down to. We hope that we have an idea of what to expect when we die. An idea for why we're here and why things happen in the world the way they do.

But when someone, anyone tries to tell me they KNOW for sure...I walk the other way. I've removed myself from the game. I neither praise, nor condemn any belief system. Except!!! for any that choose to actually harm (emotionally or physically) another that has a different belief/system. That in my opinion is the very hight of hypocrisy and is as close to pure evil I think one can get. (well one of the ways )

I have my ideas, my hopes based on my own study and philosophical thoughts. I'll know one day if I'm close to the truth or not.

One day I'll take my last breath here and my eyes will close...

I HOPE that they open again.

If that happens then I'll go from there

And I expect it'll be one hell of an adventure if that does occur lol

Regards to All

Roland

Welcome Roland, and thanks for your well expressed personal thoughts. I'll leave it to others to offer any criticism!!

Roland said:

Because for some unknown reason people (in general) want/need/crave a "belief" system. One that claims to answer the basic fundamental reasons of their existence. IE. where did I come from, why am I here & where am I going(especially after i die)

Click to expand...

That's why "Science" is to me an belief-system in itself, and a monocausal one (I would say "monotheistic", if in this belief-system were any Gods involved).

"Science" as a concept in itself doesn't allow any other explanations besides of it - like some monotheistic Gods do (the Christian God, for example).

Some of our greatest questions are important simply because some claims to have answers to them. The "meaning of life" is a such construct, which suggests that life itself must have a meaning. The actual question hidden beneath is "Am I valuable?" and the thought that scares us the most is that the answer to the question is "no". There is a mistake to believe that simply because there's a Genesis, there are those who can tell us were we came from and for Genesis to be untrue someone else must have a better answer. There's also the mistake to believe that one religion must be right.

Your comment on Science Alrik is dead wrong. Science as concept is what's included in the philosophy of science, which is a tool to get as reliable results as possible. It makes no explanations in itself at all. None, nada, zip. There's no "belief" in science. All results of following proper science is recorded not only with how to test the hypothesis but also what could prove it wrong. Personal observation have the highest authority within the scientific community. There are no book of explanations written in stone, only recorded observations and fruits of such observations.

There are moral ethics within the scientific community. The results from that tool is always open for discussion but those who are revealed to not follow philosophy of science are regarded as unethic or dangerous. Breaking such ethics can shatter an entire university and everyone working there, because of this scientists constantly watch over eachother to make sure things are done right. Also there is a fear that past mistakes might be repeated and also the fear that the public will loose their faith in science due to sloppy mistakes.

This is in no way the same as the Christian God. The Christian God is a concept introduced by one book, filled with claims, estimated to be written first parts 622-621 bc and the last parts 325-400ac. It's a book that disagrees with modern values, history, archeaology, natural science, modern medicine, psychology, freedom and many other things. In it's first commandment it say outright "you shall have no other gods" and it state everyone else as wrong.

As a Christian you will have to disagree with the comment "Seeing is believing". As a scientist what you believe have no value, only what you can show, because for scientists and for the rest of us outside church, "seeing is believing".

alrik you are right. I am a great fan of science but I have to admit that science is based of belief and religion is based on knowing.

You belief sience is right and the way they test things is right and so on.

Relgion is more about knowing ethics that aply from that relgion on to you

So Jemy you agree with seeing is believing?

I don't think you can agree with that either, seeing can be very deceiving. what you see is not necessarily true, or there, or even real, or what you see.

titus said:

Alrik you are right. I am a great fan of science but I have to admit that science is based of belief and religion is based on knowing.
You belief science is right and the way they test things is right and so on.
Religion is more about knowing ethics that apply from that religion on to you

Click to expand...

Uhm. No. Science is strictly about making observations.
Religion is about claiming they know what's right and true.
Anyone who know Socrates knows that's false by default.

titus said:

So Jemy you agree with seeing is believing?
I don't think you can agree with that either, seeing can be very deceiving. what you see is not necessarily true, or there, or even real, or what you see.

Click to expand...

Reality, as we know it, is an agreement on whats most reliable. The witness account of one person is less reliable then an observation that can be shown to ten people, or a hundred. It might be so, that you consider your neighbor to be a demon and kill him in his sleep, but the jury, who never saw a demon in their life, will not regard your witness testimony as reliable and therefore they will vote that it's not real. If you cannot show them a demon that is.

So while nothing can be known for sure, we can still put our trust in what's reliable and reject what's not. When it comes to the transcendent ideas of the past, they are usually to be taken at face value, with absolutely no confirmation at all. With our history of known charlatans, and the severe lack of critical thought when most of these stories were written, what reason do we have to see them as reliable? And what reason do I have to believe in the salesman who's best argument is that my doubt in his product is due to equally unreliable entities such as demons?

Corwin said:

The Question is, is it possible to do anything which doesn't have a consequence that may hurt someone else in someway, somewhere, sometime? Unless you live on a desert island, that might be difficult; ie the so called butterfly effect!!

Click to expand...

Of course not, but you can't worry about every single possibility in the future otherwise you'll die before ever making any decision. In life decisions are made, they'll make someone happy and someone else unhappy, but it doesn't mean you have to stop and not to do anything anymore with your life because someone, somewhere might get hurt at some point in the future. Life goes on.
What I'm saying is that as long as you don't hurt people directly and don't try to impose your beliefs on others then you do whatever you want.


Roland :
There's not much or any criticism I can give. Except for the fact that intelligent people should see when they are wrong even if their foundations are completely wrong too. If proof comes up that tells me dinosaurs are still alive and I can go see them. Then I don't care what I learned at school about dinosaurs being extinct for millions of years. I do understand your point however. It is very hard for people to change their beliefs, especially if that's how they perceive the world to be true.

Pladio, are you saying that hurting people directly is wrong, but that hurting them INDIRECTLY is fine?

No, I'm talking about thinking about every single possibility in the future. By indirectly I mean, by ways that are unthinkable of at present, if that makes any sense. You have to try and do good now, but there are many ways of doing good now that could affect the future in a bad way. If I save someone's life now and it so happens it's a woman who tried to kill herself and then 10 years later she's a sect leader and the whole sect performs a mass suicide, it doesn't mean I shouldn't have saved her life at that time.
I hope that made some sense.

There's a simple solution to that -- just factor the uncertainty into your ethical calculations.

If action A is 50% likely to save one person and 10% likely to kill two, you should go for it, since statistically you'd save 0.5-2*0.1 = 0.3 lives.

You can't predict future actions of people since there are too many unknown variables though....
Future actions depend on more than one event.
Saving that person might lead that person to five events with ten different outcomes which lead to another 35 events with ten differerent outcomes each ....
So, what I'm saying is that if your actions directly benefit people or don't hurt people (as directly in time) then those are the actions that should be taken except if you know they would have a bad outcome in the end, which is impossible to predict....

Long term consequences is the most difficult part to discuss when it comes to ethics. What will happen in the future is strictly abstract thinking and very difficult to calculate.

Here's some questions:
1. Is it right to believe that something that never shown signs of improvements will improve given enough chance?
2. Is it right to stop a person who want to hurt themselves? (Ban drugs, ban lethal firearms, force everyone to believe in Jesus before they die)
3. Is life itself valuable?
4. Is it morally right to make things worse in order to make them better up ahead?
5. When two rules collide, how can you tell what's right and wrong?
6. Is inaction ok?
7. Is it morally right to reject an expert since he contradicts your values?
8. Is there a such thing as good and evil?
9. Is there any advantage in labelling people based on their opinions?
10. Should you tolerate intolerant beliefs?
11. If you heard something bad about someone or something, should you warn others at once, or wait until you know more (and harm might be done?)
12. Is lethal misinformation murder?
13. If there is right and wrong, who's right and who's wrong?
14. Can we indoctrinate childen to reject indoctrination?
15. Can we restrict our children to teach them the value of freedom?
16. Can a totalitarian teacher teach a child to reject totalitarianism?
17. Can you know the value of freedom if you always had it?

etc.

OK, love those questions. Now, we need a thread for each one!!

inaction is an action itself. Doing nothing is just a choice you make, just like acting is a choice you make.
And I don't think you can aprreciate freedom if you have never experienced what is like to have no freedom. You wont know freedom if you don't know the opposite. Just the same with good and bad. The same goes for free speech. you don't know how important it is untill it is taken from you.