What If Your Beliefs Were Wrong?

[quote]BBriere wrote:
What if you found out that your belief in the ancient Egyptian religion was a lie and that you should have believed in Thor all along? Would you take up a giant hammer, gloves of metal, and smack Loki upside his head?[/quote]

Nah, I think we’d be screwed, since Ragnarok would have already happened…

Would I trust anything?

You ask a good question. After realizing how, despite my scientific training, I was so thoroughly self-deceived by my emotions, I am definitely more skeptical now as a result.

Once burned, right? I still think emotions have their place, they just aren’t a reliable touchstone for truth.

I trust logic, reason, and reliable objective evidence as my guide to truth. Even those tools have their limits, but they are the best we can do, given what we currently know.

[quote]doogie wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Easy Example: people reject the possibility of ghosts when presented evidence of them because they firmly believe it is not evidence but gobbly-gook.

[/quote]

Are you implying ghosts are real?[/quote]

No. It is an easy example. There are some who do believe in ghost and some who do not think they could exist. What it comes down to is what qualifies as proof. For some believers it is the experience they believe they have had. For those who do not think they exist, quite honestly, is a bit shaky when they argue there is no proof ghosts exist (although I am sure there are other arguments). At that point it is all about what qualifies as proof. Thus, why it makes for a good example.

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I would adjust accordingly. But the proof would have to be beyond reproach, deductively irrefutable, and substantially supported empirically. I quest for truth, not just being right because I said it based on my ego. I want to be right, because I am actually right, not because I can shout someone down better. So if presented with a substantial case I would adjust.
Hell, I have many times. I think way differently than I did in my youth, because I was wrong about some things.[/quote]

I should have expected such responses (too much philosophy!) - but that’s good. I’m the same way. I’m referring to your, Tex, and Swole’s opinions with regard to the epistemological certainty.

I do agree that the proof would probably be beyond reproach.

What do you mean by ‘adjust’ accordingly?

The intent of my question is to replace your ‘foundational’ beliefs with something you find completely absurd.

Would you trust anything? (I guess this would depend on how you found out that egyptian religion was true).

[/quote]

I am glad I did not derail the thread.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

I am glad I did not derail the thread.[/quote]

Nah, you responded probably how I would have.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Would I trust anything?

You ask a good question. After realizing how, despite my scientific training, I was so thoroughly self-deceived by my emotions, I am definitely more skeptical now as a result.

Once burned, right? I still think emotions have their place, they just aren’t a reliable touchstone for truth.

I trust logic, reason, and reliable objective evidence as my guide to truth. Even those tools have their limits, but they are the best we can do, given what we currently know.[/quote]

Would you continue doing science?

COULD you continue? If ‘magic’ were suddenly real and obvious, and next to impossible to empirically examine, I’d imagine that practicing science would become very difficult indeed.

How would you (not necessarily you, but whoever is interested) approach life if you knew that the ‘bad’ part of you would be ‘cleaved’ from your existence upon death? *

I’m not sure how I would be.

I’m not sure that I would feel guilty for doing bad things. It would almost seem inevitable - or rather, unavoidable.

*This is assuming I’m right with regard to my memory and the Egyptian view of the afterlife, where Ammit destroys the bad part of your soul?

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Okay, this might sound like your standard question, but I hope it’s a bit different then what you’d see 10-15 times on an MB.

Let’s suppose that you were presented with evidence (whatever it would take) that your beliefs were wrong. So you are presented that the Christian God doesn’t exist, the Hindu Gods don’t exist, etc (atheism will be address further down). You can’t argue with this evidence, you can’t even believe that it is a trick by Satan (for whatever reason). So this is your new reality - your prior beliefs are wrong.

Couple that with absolutely positive evidence that another belief is correct. Whatever evidence you need, you have. If you are an atheist/agnostic/etc you now have the evidence that Gods exist.

The hitch is, it’s not just any Gods.

You have absolute proof that the Gods of the ancient Egyptians exist. So, everything you’ve known is now thrown away and a bizarre pantheon has replaced it. The world is magical to the prior atheist.

That’s the premise:

  1. Would this depress you?
  2. How would you deal with this?
  3. Would you seek to learn everything about ancient egypt and become a high priest?
  4. How would you deal with your prior religious beliefs? I’m wondering if, say, a Christian would feel bad for throwing out his bible, for instance. [/quote]

Is it the absolute truth?

  1. No, why would I be depressed over the truth?
  2. Um…I don’t get your question.
  3. If it was the truth, then yes I would try and learn everything I can from it.
  4. No, I wouldn’t throw out my Bible major literature piece of western history.

If magic were real and obvious, it would be supported by science. Your original scenario implied that incontrovertible evidence was provided to support Egyptian beliefs. That evidence, in order to actually be evidence, would require scientific verification. Maybe the laws of science would be refined or even transformed, but the methodology of science would remain the same.

I would still try to live a principled life, since I believe doing so makes you happier in this life, irrespective of what happens in the next life.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
You can always reject evidence if it does not fit into your ontology and epistemology. Why? Because it cannot exists as evidence unless you fundamentally believe that it does.

Easy Example: people reject the possibility of ghosts when presented evidence of them because they firmly believe it is not evidence but gobbly-gook.

Same with creationism. Dependent on ontology and epistemology some things are evidence for or against, the rest is gobbly-gook.

This is why religious beliefs are based on faith, defined as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” in Faith Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Ontology defines the fundamental categories of reality. Epistemology defines how we can know and reason that reality.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_differentiate_between_epistemology_and_ontology[/quote]

Okay, then how come as a Catholic I believe in Ghosts and I do not believe in creationism, both for a scientific and a religious reason?

I’m not sure what you mean here - yes?

Well, you could be depressed because you could feel like your relatives died and were not adequately prepared. You could feel depressed because you wasted your life laboring under a false pretense.

I just mean, how would you deal with this new paradigm. Like, would you rush to embrace it?

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

[quote]forlife wrote:
If magic were real and obvious, it would be supported by science. Your original scenario implied that incontrovertible evidence was provided to support Egyptian beliefs. That evidence, in order to actually be evidence, would require scientific verification. Maybe the laws of science would be refined or even transformed, but the methodology of science would remain the same.

I would still try to live a principled life, since I believe doing so makes you happier in this life, irrespective of what happens in the next life. [/quote]

Hm…You do have a good point there. This is going to be tricky - if I can even phrase it properly - but let’s suppose that magic is reproducible, in the sense that you could cast the same spell over and over again, but some how outside of all natural law. You can’t ‘see what it’s made of’.

How would you empirically verify that it was magic as opposed to something natural?

Hm…Maybe this suggests that there is a problem with the terms…

  1. Would this depress you?
  2. How would you deal with this?
  3. Would you seek to learn everything about ancient egypt and become a high priest?
  4. How would you deal with your prior religious beliefs? I’m wondering if, say, a Christian would feel bad for throwing out his bible, for instance.

So, I can sort of speak from some experience here as I am a convert (not to or from ancient Egyptian religion mind you). I went through a process of denial mixed with some depression (conversion does require a kind of death of your identity), then indecision, then rabidly devoured all the information I could get my hands on. Don’t know why you would throw out things from your previous religion as it would all be useful information in helping you understand those who still didn’t have the truth.

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean here - yes?[/quote]

Then yea.

Well they say not mature Catholic was died without bringing someone along. However, if it was a different religion I guess that doesn’t count, so I am not sure.

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If magic were real and obvious, it would be supported by science. Your original scenario implied that incontrovertible evidence was provided to support Egyptian beliefs. That evidence, in order to actually be evidence, would require scientific verification. Maybe the laws of science would be refined or even transformed, but the methodology of science would remain the same.

I would still try to live a principled life, since I believe doing so makes you happier in this life, irrespective of what happens in the next life. [/quote]

Hm…You do have a good point there. This is going to be tricky - if I can even phrase it properly - but let’s suppose that magic is reproducible, in the sense that you could cast the same spell over and over again, but some how outside of all natural law. You can’t ‘see what it’s made of’.

How would you empirically verify that it was magic as opposed to something natural?

Hm…Maybe this suggests that there is a problem with the terms…[/quote]

You don’t have to understand why it works in order to scientifically confirm it…you only need to observe and reliably replicate the effect. Nobody has seen gravity, but we know it is a real power by observing its effects. If magic acted in a similar way, I would argue that it is a force of the natural universe.

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I would adjust accordingly. But the proof would have to be beyond reproach, deductively irrefutable, and substantially supported empirically. I quest for truth, not just being right because I said it based on my ego. I want to be right, because I am actually right, not because I can shout someone down better. So if presented with a substantial case I would adjust.
Hell, I have many times. I think way differently than I did in my youth, because I was wrong about some things.[/quote]

I should have expected such responses (too much philosophy!) - but that’s good. I’m the same way. I’m referring to your, Tex, and Swole’s opinions with regard to the epistemological certainty.

I do agree that the proof would probably be beyond reproach.

What do you mean by ‘adjust’ accordingly?

The intent of my question is to replace your ‘foundational’ beliefs with something you find completely absurd.

Would you trust anything? (I guess this would depend on how you found out that egyptian religion was true).

[/quote]

It would be like replacing the idea that the moon is made of cheese (as little kids are often told) to the concept of it being a heavenly body, part of the solar system, galaxy, universe.

Some people will accept it fully and without question, others will hold to their original beliefs, and a bunch will fall somewhere within the continuum of those.

If irrefutable proof were presented, I would tend to believe it and act accordingly.

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
How would you empirically verify that it was magic as opposed to something natural?

Hm…Maybe this suggests that there is a problem with the terms…[/quote]

Very much so.

If magic became “truth” then it would not be “unnatural” on the contrary if one could cast spells, it would be quite natural. There would also have to be some association with the magic in order for people to control it. If I turned a human into a frog, I would have to at the very least think (turn that human into a frog) I would have to have some intent, weather there was a procedure, an spoken incantation or whatever other means you think this magic is derived by. Even if it’s soley intention based magic, it’s still testable. and thus verifiable by scientific method.

V

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I would adjust accordingly. But the proof would have to be beyond reproach, deductively irrefutable, and substantially supported empirically. I quest for truth, not just being right because I said it based on my ego. I want to be right, because I am actually right, not because I can shout someone down better. So if presented with a substantial case I would adjust.
Hell, I have many times. I think way differently than I did in my youth, because I was wrong about some things.[/quote]

I should have expected such responses (too much philosophy!) - but that’s good. I’m the same way. I’m referring to your, Tex, and Swole’s opinions with regard to the epistemological certainty.

I do agree that the proof would probably be beyond reproach.

What do you mean by ‘adjust’ accordingly?

The intent of my question is to replace your ‘foundational’ beliefs with something you find completely absurd.

Would you trust anything? (I guess this would depend on how you found out that egyptian religion was true).

[/quote]

It would be like replacing the idea that the moon is made of cheese (as little kids are often told) to the concept of it being a heavenly body, part of the solar system, galaxy, universe.

Some people will accept it fully and without question, others will hold to their original beliefs, and a bunch will fall somewhere within the continuum of those.

If irrefutable proof were presented, I would tend to believe it and act accordingly.

[/quote]

An in your case I’d be eating me some moon cheese!

V

The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.

The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.

Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

An in your case I’d be eating me some moon cheese!

V[/quote]

Not me. Too gritty and it tastes like it’s been left out for like a billion years.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

An in your case I’d be eating me some moon cheese!

V[/quote]

Not me. Too gritty and it tastes like it’s been left out for like a billion years.
[/quote]

to someone with a more refined palate we would call it ‘proper aged’.