Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
    #3618909 -

A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.

An irrational belief has no verifiable base and the facts do not lead an objective observer to anywhere near the same conclusion. When you hear double-speak or "special logic" such as "God made the fossils look old to test us," know that you are in irrational territory. Experts in this arena have no such methodology and we must take their word for the story. Whether or not we accept the story or belief is based mostly on personal charisma and /or social acceptance factors.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619040 -

Quote:

A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.




I have my own data Swami.

What makes a belief? To think something when you only have hints as to whether or not it's true? If you have to have "data" to have a "rational" belief then would that not make it a fact? It all comes down to a personal level.

based on your statement:

Your belief that one of the main reasons people have belief in God is because they are not confident in themselves and want to use God as a crutch is an "irrational" belief because it is not based on data, but your own thoughts.

We have data that supports both creation and evolution (if you want to argue against this do some research), but it all comes down to a belief.

And so it seems... the fact that I believe in God is "irrational" because your belief against God is "rational" to you, but based on what you say your belief is also irrational...


where's your damn data?


--------------------

Edited by ld50negative1 (01/12/05 03:58 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: ld50negative1]
    #3619079 -

I'm not sure why I responded talking about God, but somehow I believe (irrational? - i have no data) this thread has alot to do with your last thread.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619081 -

I guess at some point you have to do `the leap`.
Like in that Koan about what do you do when you reach the end of a 100 feet high pole and are asked do to the next step.
What I mean is, logic / rationality is quite O.K., but it can only take you that far.
Can you leave logic behind when it?s necessary, Swami ?
Does that feel like dying ?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619101 -

Swami said:
A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.

An irrational belief has no verifiable base and the facts do not lead an objective observer to anywhere near the same conclusion. When you hear double-speak or "special logic" such as "God made the fossils look old to test us," know that you are in irrational territory. Experts in this arena have no such methodology and we must take their word for the story. Whether or not we accept the story or belief is based mostly on personal charisma and /or social acceptance factors.


Yes, but many times even scientists have skipped the rational part and took a risk by adopting some hypotesis and acting on it.
That get's stuff moving far quicker. There is more risk, but that's
everyones choice


--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: skystone]
    #3619250 -

There is no such thing as objective data and furthermore nothing can ever be proven absolutely because you would first have to prove the basis for this, reality, and then you would have to prove consciousness which is the basis of experiencing reality. Prove you aren't a brain in a jar.

Some beliefs are rational or irrational based on logic, or our conventional view of things. But there is no absolute way of knowing if you are right or not. And anyway life as we experience it is only really significant in the symbolic sense so it really doesn't matter.

A serious flaw with scientific methodology is that operates only on a intellectual or conceptual level. It does not take into consideration experience at all, and experience is the basis of all understanding. It is certainly possible to transcend intellectual realities and experience others that are not quantifiable or even understandable by intellectual science. If I experience God directly, what rational explantion can factually disprove this, and thus take precedences? If direct experience is the most significant way that I know things, and science cannot disprove what I experience, why should I be wrong?


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Edited by Divided_Sky (01/12/05 04:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3619301 -

Divided_Sky said:
There is no such thing as objective data and furthermore nothing can ever be proven absolutely because you would first have to prove the basis for this, reality, and then you would have to prove consciousness which is the basis of experiencing reality. Prove you aren't a brain in a jar.

Some beliefs are rational or irrational based on logic, or our conventional view of things. But there is no absolute way of knowing if you are right or not. And anyway life as we experience it is only really significant in the symbolic sense so it really doesn't matter.


Of course, that's all true, but when we say "objective", we mean relativley objective, objective in the domain science is right now.
We wouldn't get far if science started in the begining from trying to prove that there is objective matterial reality. It's pointless,
we built everything on top of that and now we are discussing in that domain. But we are all (well can't speak for everyone) aware that nothing can really be proven.


--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: skystone]
    #3619324 -

Yes, I do believe a conventional reality exists and that logic is the best method in dealing with it, but I think Swami assumes that we understand much more than we do, and takes his materialist assumptions about reality too literally.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619330 -

I think you're making the same false dichotomy that many economists make. You assume there is only rational and irrational. There is also non-rational, which is distinct from both of the former categories. The majority of human behavior is non-rational.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Paou]
    #3619538 -

my money's on divided sky for dis one

summed it up well

:cool:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: deff]
    #3619938 -

are rational, irrational, and non-rational arranged on a spectrum, or in a triangle?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3620051 -

I think non-rational is separate from the rational/irrational spectrum. Non-rational implies the thing can be neither rational nor irrational. For example, your favorite color is a non-rational preference. It can't be rational or irrational by nature.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: ]
    #3620077 -

makes sense

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3620432 -

Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality.

Objectivity is the act of referencing reality in determining the truth. It is the act of founding one's knowledge on reality, and making one's thoughts and ideas conform to it. To be objective, reality must be an explicit standard to be compared to. Objectivity is the process of actively comparing one's thoughts to reality, and this can only be accomplished if the purpose of the comparison is identified. The purpose, of course, is to set the standard for validity.

It is a common mistake to believe that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something. The implication is that the emotion or motivation necessarily prevents one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any influences.

Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind, without reference to reality. It holds that gaining knowledge about the world is done through introspection. It holds that metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations. It holds that because reality is an aspect of our minds, it is affected by them.

Like most misbegotten notions, this theory is never held consistently. The effect of trying to hold it consistently would be a complete inability to interact with the world. One would just sit and wish for things to be "better", confused at why the world isn't doing its part.

No, the practitioners apply it only in certain respects, and to certain degrees. It is an act of evasion. An attempt to ignore the facts of reality. It is the claim that the mind controls particular aspects of reality, or that certain facts of reality don't exist, and can be whatever you mind wants. A common use of subjectivism is in the field of ethics. A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence.

Subjectivism [philisophically] is a denial of reality. It is the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness. It is a denial of reality, and a denial of the Law of Identity. It states that "anything goes", and lets desires, whims, and emotions run rampant.

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions.

A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3620580 -

to me, subjecticism is the admittance that the perception we have of the reality is altered from whatever the source of that reality is, through the act of perception itself. in this regards, it acknowledges the differences that are inevitable between any two realities, as the perceptions are based around past interactions stored within the brain, as well as dozens other factors.

it is not the denial of an objective state per se, but the acceptance that such a state cannot be known as knowledge acts to abstract direct experience, itself subjecttive in nature.

but there's obviously overlap between realities, and we assert that to be the consensual objective reality. of course, it's entirely possible that humans percieve similar realities, but these altogether may be entirely different than an alien perception of reality.

in a way, this view states that no perception can be proven to be more real than another, as all we can base this upon are our past experiences - now stored in the present moment within the brain as memories.

to me, the only objective state is void :smile:. any experience that limits itself, or filters itself out from this infinite nothingness is subjective, as it is relative to what perceptual 'lens' is.

morality is subjective, and I think this is clear to see. the fact that we argue whether or not it is, itself, is proof to this fact. not only that, there may be some consensual aspects of human morality that help humanity as a whole, but these themselves are not objective. common characteristics between humans is not objective, as humans as a species percieves reality subjectively different than animals (and those bloody aliens :smile:)

:cool:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3620586 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth....

Objectivity is the act of .....

It is a common mistake to believe that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something. The implication is that the emotion or motivation necessarily prevents one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any influences.

Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind ....

Like most misbegotten notions, this theory is never held consistently.....

No, the practitioners apply it only in certain respects, and to certain degrees. It is an act of evasion. An attempt to ignore the facts of reality.....

Subjectivism [philisophically] is a denial of reality. It is the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness. It is a denial of reality, and a denial of the Law of Identity. It states that "anything goes", and lets desires, whims, and emotions run rampant.

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil.....

...Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted.....

....Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.



first of all, lemme guess: you are an objectivist.

let's see... objectivists think they know what reality is, and how it works?

emotional attachment does not skew judgement?

Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind. so objectivism holds that knowledge is 'generated' from 'reality'? and we then use our untrickable eyeballs to see the knowledge and internalize it?

is objectivism used consistently?

is allowing desires, whims, and emotions to run rampant Bad then?

there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted
so does objectivism tell us which values should be accepted?

aaand finally, I have difficulty seeing who benefits from this policy. who does? the strong? the guilty?

please note, I only asked all these questions because you wrote such an intensive paragraph pitting objectivism against subjectivism. (I will admit to leaning towards Subjectivism as you describe it, and thus having a bias.)

please further note, subjectivists ARE objectivists in a way, in that they believe they have an understanding of reality (in this case, that it is based on their consciousness or whatever) and base their decisions on this belief

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3621665 -

Skorp & Zeke -
Keep it coming.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sclorch]
    #3622273 -

All beleifs are irrational because they are not rooted in real experience.

Just as one who tastes honey, no longer believes in that taste, he knows that taste through his experience.

I suppose its the same with god!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sinbad]
    #3622768 -

I DO NOT subscribe to subjectivism. I believe that subjectivity is objective and objectivity is subjective, but no subjective reality negates or contradicts another one. So in a sense things are objective because they are universal and predictable, but also not because they only exist subjective to experience.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3622805 -

Hmm, i see what your getting at!

Will think about that one, but i dont agree that things are predictable, at least they're not for me anyways!

Irrational and Rational beliefs are most certainly subjective and objective, what might seem irrational to one person, might be completely irrational to another. But in order to rationalize a belief we attempt to relate it to our own experience objectivly! Both ways have no actual root in our real experience, therefore they are contradictory.

Just as one who has experinced god but is not living within that knowlege, becomes a christian, or a hindu or a (insert your own here) and formulates an abstract belief based on that experience, but that belief can never truley mirror, replace or compare in any way to that actual direct experience!

So therefore it becomes useless and irrational to formulate it in the first place!

In the case of irrational beliefs one makes an assumption that has no base is ones own experiences, isnt this also true for rational beliefs?

Now im going to stop dribbling and make myself a cuppa tea!

Peace


--------------------

Edited by Sinbad (01/13/05 09:56 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 7,069 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Are Believers Rational Beings?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Swami 8,769 60 04/22/02 03:23 AM
by infidelGOD
* Desperately Clinging To The Irrational: Terri Schiavo
( 1 2 all )		 DiploidM 3,401 24 06/18/05 12:43 AM
by DF2K
* Terence McKenna's beliefs about time-telescoping
( 1 2 3 all )		 question_for_joo 6,052 44 07/25/05 03:46 AM
by alsey
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,914 13 01/24/05 10:34 AM
by shroomydan
* how would u change an ingrained belief ?
( 1 2 all )		 lucid 1,579 21 12/30/04 06:33 PM
by Moonshoe
* Swami's Annual Summation on Belief
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,381 53 06/20/04 11:10 PM
by Swami
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 3,142 33 08/11/03 07:13 AM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,771 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 25 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.