Personal Beliefs (Taken from "I need enlightenment" thread)

[dharmaraj02]

Remember, what I said was that you should believe what is in your heart AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE

I think you're missing my point. You seemed to suggest that simply following someone else's lead is wrong, but this is inconsistent with the above statement since it is entirely possible, even common, that people _feel_ led to place their trust in other people.


Also, I don't understand where this comes from. Why do you think this is a true statement? Maybe you think it is true because it feels true, but that's circular reasoning. I'm not asking to prove it, just motivate it. Why should anyone who disagrees with the statement change their mind?

I can think of a number of circumstances when people's hearts lead them in the wrong direction. Suicides are driven by the heart, organized hate is driven by the heart, nonsensical policy measures are driven by the heart, Elvis still living is driven by the heart. What suggests to you that the heart is a reliable guide?

What they feel is right? Isn't that what belief is? How can you possibly believe anything else?

ok, maybe I've totally misunderstood you. Maybe, you mean that feeling=believing. The heart is the faculty of the mind that consider something true. In that case, you statement is a truism. You are literally saying: You should believe what you believe. This is a true statement for sure, but it has no philosophical content.

If we did, then none of us would have religion. We have already ascertained in another thread that it is impossible to prove the existence of any God.

Applying some intellectual criticism to beliefs does NOT mean proof. After all, it is probably intellectual examination that tells you that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Intellectual criticism tells me that I shouldn't have contradictory beliefs, or that I shouldn't pick and choose arbitrarily. It tells me my beliefs should reconcilewith reliable personal experience and the reliable experiences of others. It tells me certainty in many things is impossible, but reason should still be pursued.

No, I do not believe that the nazi is right, but I do not believe that Christians or Hindus or Wiccans etc are right either. I do however respect their right to believe whatever they believe.

Again, I grant that anyone can believe what they want, and they shouldn't be compelled. But the idea that you can't tell a Nazi that he is wrong, or that you should defend his believing that Jews should burn if it feels true to him is absurd.

I could not possibly disagree more. If you refuse to believe what you feel, why would you believe what someone else feels.

Ok, I'm confused again. Are you saying it's possible to not believe what you feel? If so, then you're saying that feelings and beliefs are not identical, and I think a description of what 'feel' means is needed. If they are identical, then disbelieving what you feel is impossible and nonsensical.

It sounds like you don't like when people sacrifice their own inclinations for the beliefs of others. But there are conceivably plenty of good reasons why someone might do this. It's easier not to attack every moral question but rather delegate the responsibility to a trustworthy source. I might think it's horrible that Israelites are being pulled out of Gaza, and I might feel inclined to go over there and fight the Israeli military, but then my professor father might say, "Son, it's not that simple." I hope I take his cue. Most/all of us CANNOT solve every moral problem. People often jump to conclusions or choose the prettiest picture or believe in whom they trust. It is not at all obvious which is the best choice, though of the 3, the last sounds the best at a glance.

By heart, I mean mind, soul, spirit, your conscience, your subconscious whatever you want to call it. That central core of your being, the essence of you.

Look, this just isn't that informative. A person has all sorts of inclinations within himself, some good, some bad. It sounds like you are suggesting that down 'deep', people are basically purely good, and if we listen to the 'deepest' part of ourselves, it will always give us the right answer. But it's impossible to determine which inclinations are 'deep,' which ones are not so deep. I don't even know what 'deep' means or 'core' means. How do you discriminate good inclinations from the 'heart' from bad inclinations? Why is this inferior to judging things first intellectually?

I'm very interested to hear your response, Awaiting. Take it easy.

 

[dharmaraj02]

I think the point here is more that as long as your actions are not hurting others, no one has the right to judge you or your beliefs and tell you they are wrong. Everyone is allowed his or her own differing(sp) opinion.

I really don't understand this, Freedom. I for one, disagree with it as I understand it. Are you suggesting I change my mind. If so, you're telling me I'm wrong, which you say you shouldn't do. So, I guess you are advocating that I disagree with you?

There are plenty of occasions when I can and will tell you you are wrong. If you think it's ok to hurt someone for no reason, you are wrong. If you think you are better than other people because of your skin color, you are wrong. If you think the world outside your mind does not exist, I can't argue with you or prove you wrong, but I believe you're wrong. If someone harbors these beliefs and does no harm, they are still wrong.

Everyone is allowed their opinion, but beliefs are not free from criticism. Not every belief is respectable, and even among the respectable ones, not every belief is true. Somewhere, somehow, respecting differences turned into 'no one can make any criticism at all.' I'm a scientist, and in science, there are often numerous theories to explain a phenomena. Some are interesting, some are boring, some are complex, some are simple. Many can be respectable, but there is one that is most true, and scientists aren't afraid to argue. Why not treat all beliefs this way.

 

[earl]

Hi dhamaraj02-perhaps it's indeed somewhat a matter of semantics. Earlier at this forum I'd posted re religious pluralism & quoted a Christian monk/theologian, Panikkar, as using the metaphor of "absolute Truth" being like white light & all the world's religions being like the various colors of that light as it gets refracted-i.e., truth as filtered through human understanding can come out in various "colors" each truthful in its own way; displaying 1 facet of the Truth. In a way that's what Ferrer's model is- he theorizes that Truth is manifested uniquely in each individual & in fact believes in essence in a continuous revelation of spirit in that he believes humanity will "filter" into being yet more facets of spirit. However, we'd disagree re the central importance of love-you'd be hard pressed to find any religion or approach to spirituality that doesn't posit that with spiritual advancement comes a greater ability to love-in fact some go so far as to say God is Love Take care, Earl

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Hi dhamaraj02,

To help me explain to you what I mean it would be usefull if you would answer this question,

What do you believe, and why do you believe it?

 

[dharmaraj02]

Hi dhamaraj02,

To help me explain to you what I mean it would be useful if you would answer this question,

What do you believe, and why do you believe it?

Where do I start?

Well, I have almost no political beliefs, so we can skip that.

My spiritual beliefs can be summed up by the Nicean Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets:

In one holy catholic and apostolic church:

We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.


As for why I believe it: I'm intellectually convinced that this is the most compellingly true compared to the alternatives. It makes believing easy that I love these truths, but were it adequately demonstrated by reason or evidence that they were faulty or inconsistent, I would change them. That is not to say that aesthetics are not involved in my belief. I have a strong 'desire' to believe that moral truths exist, which is in large part what leads to these beliefs. So, part of my motivation is that I have this aesthetic interest.

I concede the possibility of error in my beliefs. But I believe them, which means I believe contradictory beliefs are false. While I advocate everyone should have freedom of thought from physical compulsion, I do not advocate freedom of thought from intellectual criticism. To anyone that disagrees, I might try to persuade him otherwise if he was receptive. Likewise, anyone is free to persuade me that I am wrong if there is clash.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I'm intellectually convinced that this is the most compellingly true

Based on what?

As you can see from the very lengthy discussion on the thread, "Proofs for the existence of god," there is no proving God one way or another.

I put it to you that there is no intellectual argument to support your beliefs. This does not mean that your beliefs are wrong, only that you believe in them for some reason which is not intellectual.

 

[Wakiza]

Well, I have almost no political beliefs, so we can skip that.
My spiritual beliefs can be summed up by the Nicean Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;etc.etc.


English Language Definitions....just so that we do not confuse belief with knowledge or wishful thinking with reality.

Belief

1. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" "I felt God's presence"etc...etc....

Knowledge
the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning



It is a bit irrational to expect people to accept "belief" as knowledge or fact on the basis of someone's subjective "experience" or "feelings". Police departments often have to deal with "personal experience" and subjective "eye witness" reports, usually all conflicting with one another....so the same incredulity can be expected when individuals are expounding on their religious beliefs, experiences etc. I have been though the whole gamut...Catholicism, Buddhism...meditiation, Christian fundamentalism, Native Spirituality and others and have come full circle back to my initial state of searching...and have found no satisfactory direction....this has taken place over a period of the last fifty years....I am fifty-nine. All I want is the truth....I have tried the whole gamut...and have actually believed...at the time...the paths I was on. But of course we know that belief is purely subjective....and has no part with objectivity. So I find it amusing that those who "believe" in one "ism" or another, seem perplexed that those who do not follow their "ism" of the day have a problem. Personally, I truly hope that there is an afterlife, but must admit that I am very skeptical about this whole concept of a loving god who is concerned about his "children", who die in the tens of thousands daily in the most abject, dismal conditions of violence, starvation etc.throughout the world. Religionists are fond of stating that it is not god who does this but man...but that is not a satisfying answer to the question. The whole of nature is "red in tooth and claw". Those who pray and follow strict religious rituals receive no exemption from this pain and suffering...it all seems to be a crap shoot as far as determining who suffers pain or not.


"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." Henry David Thoreau