• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Infallible Beliefs

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I've decided that infallible beliefs are my mortal enemy. I will respect people's beliefs, but I'm convince that once people decide that their beliefs are infallible, it leads to closed mindedness and inevitable conflict.

Once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, they usually become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs, often by marking their beliefs as inferior. They then declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone.

Even science constantly tests established beliefs, with hopes of disproving them and discovering something new about what we thought we knew.

In fact, I've decided that whenever a person accepts that their beliefs are infallible it displays a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

Thoughts?
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Everyone has infallible beliefs. Without infallible beliefs people could not reach conclusions. The difficulty is finding infallible beliefs that everyone can agree upon. Here is an example of an infallible belief that I hold:

The Reflexive Property of Algebra, i.e.

A = A

I hold that in an algebraic context A is always equal to A, and I will not change my view regardless of what you say, so there. ;) Now shall we duel with pistols or rapiers?
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
Everyone has infallible beliefs. Without infallible beliefs people could not reach conclusions. The difficulty is finding infallible beliefs that everyone can agree upon. Here is an example of an infallible belief that I hold:

The Reflexive Property of Algebra, i.e.

A = A

I hold that in an algebraic context A is always equal to A, and I will not change my view regardless of what you say, so there. ;) Now shall we duel with pistols or rapiers?

Rapiers.
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
I've decided that infallible beliefs are my mortal enemy. I will respect people's beliefs, but I'm convince that once people decide that their beliefs are infallible, it leads to closed mindedness and inevitable conflict.

Once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, they usually become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs, often by marking their beliefs as inferior. They then declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone.

Even science constantly tests established beliefs, with hopes of disproving them and discovering something new about what we thought we knew.

In fact, I've decided that whenever a person accepts that their beliefs are infallible it displays a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

Thoughts?
This subject hits home in a big way for me. My parents love me and support me always but they are devout Christians and their (and my siblings) faith is paramount in their lives. A few years back when I told them I didn't know that I believed in God, it shattered them. We've had conflicts and debates over the years. My parents trying to convey to me how real God is to them and being frustrated with me being unable to see it or understand it. It's been very frustrating at times and though my parents and family make it clear that they have unconditional love and would do anything for me, it has left me feeling very alienated.

So basically, I just wish it were easier for my parents to accept my use of rational logic when confronting faith and spirituality. I respect faiths of all kinds but cannot understand how it can consume a person and brainwash them so extremely. I claim that my beliefs (or lack of) are not infallible and that absolute truth cannot be obtained. Why does this have to be seen as a crime to some? It shouldn't be...

I wish my lack of faith wasn't a burden for the only people I care about. Religion kills.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
I've decided that infallible beliefs are my mortal enemy. I will respect people's beliefs, but I'm convince that once people decide that their beliefs are infallible, it leads to closed mindedness and inevitable conflict.

This isn't an infallible belief of your own is it ;) But I agree with your general thrust. I am always wary of people who cannot question their own beliefs from many different angles.

Once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, they usually become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs, often by marking their beliefs as inferior. They then declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone.

I still believe there are some things that can be universally right for people willing to look. It is not an "infallible belief" mind you, but it is something I find more true day to day.

Even science constantly tests established beliefs, with hopes of disproving them and discovering something new about what we thought we knew.

Yes. But we have to think, why is science trusted so much? If they were constantly changing their minds, I doubt that it would be also. You have to question and be skeptical of spurious results that fly in the face of principles. Only very repeatable observations of results that break principles are heeded. Experimenters make mistakes all the time. Sill, the Millikan oil drop experiment is a cautionary tale on the other side.

In fact, I've decided that whenever a person accepts that their beliefs are infallible it displays a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

Thoughts?

Again, this isn't an infallible belief of your own is it ;)

I've spent a lot of time with evangelical Christians. Most of the ones I met believe Darwin was wrong, and that evolution is "just a theory" with intelligent design as being equally valid. I even knew a chemistry professor (and pastor) who held this belief. He was certainly capable of critical thinking.

He posed a rather plausible(to me) separation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution with pointers to the fact that cross phylum evolution is not a viable thing, let along cross kingdom. It is a point-of-view I still consider, but in light of homeobox genes and punctuated equilibrium (a phenomenon exhibited in genetic algorithms on the computer too), I decided (tentatively) that evolution is the same process whether it was micro or macro.

Still, this chemistry professor, and pastor holds a fairly literal interpretation of the bible, and I cannot call what he believes irrational nor lacking in critical thinking because it seems quite reasonable (to me).

I still don't consider the intelligent design arguments believable and believe they shouldn't be taught in school, but explaining why that is, would be a serious derail of your thread.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Thoughts?
Both "relativism" and "infallibilism" are uncritical, and fail to promote "critical thinking". The first because it permits no standards by which criticism can be conducted, and the second because it permits no criticism at all. Foruntately, the dilemma is false. It is possible to tentatively hold critical standards without being dogmatic, by holding those standards open to criticism and rejection.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Both "relativism" and "infallibilism" are uncritical, and fail to promote "critical thinking". The first because it permits no standards by which criticism can be conducted, and the second because it permits no criticism at all. Foruntately, the dilemma is false. It is possible to tentatively hold critical standards without being dogmatic, by holding those standards open to criticism and rejection.

You are late to the show nocture. I created the Objectivism vs. Relativism thread for that very reason. :D
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have to say, when Descartes said "I think, therefor I am" I couldn't really disagree with him.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I have to say, when Descartes said "I think, therefor I am" I couldn't really disagree with him.

Well a rock can't think, so does that mean it doesn't exist? Or does the rock exist because we can percieve it? Or does it exist outside of our perception and regardless of its ability to think?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...I still don't consider the intelligent design arguments believable and believe they shouldn't be taught in school, but explaining why that is, would be a serious derail of your thread.

ID doesn't even really make an argument, honestly. In short, it says:

1. We don't understand how life could have developed on its own.
2. Therefore God must have created it.

That's ID, in a nutshell.

There's nothing there to prove, show, test, or experiment with.

Worse, the typical progression over the centuries has been religious people making the exact same argument ... and science resolving it when enough knowledge had been gained. This particular argument can be traced to a book published in the very early 1800's... and today's ID'ers basically just swipe the basic argument for their own use.

As technology (i.e., computer speed/capability and laboratory practices) improves, we are going to gain even deeper understanding about mutation and natural selection because it allows evolution to be used as a process by which problems are solved and products created. The concepts of evolution have already been used to create products, resolve problems, etc. (Instead of trying to design a particular drug, for example, to counter a particular disease/bacteria, the chemists will set things up and let the drug essentially develop itself.)

The only place evolution is seriously questioned on a broad scale, as far as I know, is in the United States... and only really because of religious reasons, not because of the reasoning used to develop it. The whole ID movement is really just a religious objection that couches itself in scientific terminology. It has no other alternative to the evolutionary processes that have been shown to occur, except, "Well, God made this." Which, again, cannot be shown.

ID thus should be categorized among religious theories, not among "science." Since it is not testable.

To tie this back in, scientific theories by nature test themselves. They are set up in ways to be testable. ID is not testable. I think it is fine to strongly promote ideas that are testable... because they can be challenged and then changed if need be. Religious doctrines that are promoted as certain truth do not have any sort of mechanism by which to weed themselves out. SO they can become destructive and dangerous.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well a rock can't think, so does that mean it doesn't exist? Or does the rock exist because we can percieve it? Or does it exist outside of our perception and regardless of its ability to think?

Nothing about the statement claims that you must think to exist.
What it claims is that at the very least, you know that you must exist because you are thinking.
 

FallsPioneer

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
260
MBTI Type
INTJ
I agree with the above statement. I also think that anything can be rationalized.

Nothing's any more true the more you violently defend it or impose it upon someone else. There are convictions, and then there are things that I don't quite see can be proved wrong...yet?
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
ID doesn't even really make an argument, honestly. In short, it says:

1. We don't understand how life could have developed on its own.
2. Therefore God must have created it.

That's ID, in a nutshell.

There's nothing there to prove, show, test, or experiment with.

Though I think I understand where you are coming from, this is bit simplistic of a description.

(Instead of trying to design a particular drug, for example, to counter a particular disease/bacteria, the chemists will set things up and let the drug essentially develop itself.)

Replace 'God/Designer' for 'chemists', and you get another simplistic description for ID from what I have seen.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I've decided that infallible beliefs are my mortal enemy. I will respect people's beliefs, but I'm convince that once people decide that their beliefs are infallible, it leads to closed mindedness and inevitable conflict.

Once a person accepts that their belief is infallible, they usually become completely incapable of changing their minds. They become so drunk on the passion of their idea, that they automatically dismiss everyone else's beliefs, often by marking their beliefs as inferior. They then declare that people must respect their belief above all else. It becomes their duty in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking because it escapes their conception that what they believe is right, may not be universally right for everyone.

Even science constantly tests established beliefs, with hopes of disproving them and discovering something new about what we thought we knew.

In fact, I've decided that whenever a person accepts that their beliefs are infallible it displays a lack of cultural relativism and critical thinking on their part.

Thoughts?

I agree with that for many reasons. It's better not to declare a belief inferior so much as to try and prove/disprove it. If you prove they are wrong, they have to accept it. If they prove you are wrong, you have to accept it. People who just assert a belief is right without any explainable reason for doing so are somewhat unnerving. The only thing that gives their belief strength is the will of the person/people supporting it.

Well a rock can't think, so does that mean it doesn't exist? Or does the rock exist because we can percieve it? Or does it exist outside of our perception and regardless of its ability to think?

You certainly think about rocks a lot, Kiddo. :smile:

What he means is that you can determine whether you exist if you are conscious. Descartes applied doubt to all knowledge, including knowledge of his own existence. All that he continued to be aware of was that he was doubting. He concluded that if he was doubting, he had to be thinking. And from that, he concluded that in order to think, he had to exist. Thus the axiom "I think, therefore I am." Having read that is the only reason I don't periodically doubt my own existence, and I'm grateful to him for that. :yes:

Now, if someone could just find a way to prove that something that is perceived actually exists, that would be great.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Now, if someone could just find a way to prove that something that is perceived actually exists, that would be great.

It is either the case that there is something perceived, or there is not something perceived.

If there is not something perceived, then nothing is perceived.

If nothing is perceived, then you perceive nothing.
 
Last edited:

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I remember a Philosophy Club meeting that had a lot to do with the topic of whether or not intelligent design was a science and should be taught in schools.

The way I see it is like this: If intelligent design claims to be scientific, it should then be held to the rigors of science, i.e. the scientific method. Since there is no observation of a divine creator designing things, it goes to show that intelligent design is not in fact science, until a divine creator is witnessed influencing evolution.

I apologize for this being a bit off-topic.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Both "relativism" and "infallibilism" are uncritical, and fail to promote "critical thinking".

The problem, as I see it, is not critical thinking, nor is it imaginative, creative thinking.

Rather the problem is the relationship between the two.

For critical thinking plainly has its benefits in science, and imaginative thinking plainly has its benefits too in art and religion.

And the problem seems to be that they are mutually inhibitory.

And so we make the mistake of thinking they are mutually exclusive.

Whereas they both have a lot to say to each other.

Sometimes this is expressed in the slogan, "Faith and Reason".

But really the problem lies at a deeper personal level. And that is the dissociation of criticism and imagination.

However the association of criticism and imagination, the conversation of criticism and imagination, the dance of criticism and imagination, can be formally leant.

And all it requires is abandoning Prussian Pedagogy and embracing l'alternance.

And I can tell you, l'alternance is just dying for a hug.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
I agree that all beliefs should be tested. Mine have many times, and Yahweh God has proven Himself again and again. I explored and learned about a plethora of religions, philosophies, creeds, etc., but I have found that it all comes down to one huge difference - Yahweh God was the only One that actually spoke to me and took visible, undeniable action in my life. I do not persecute others belief, but I do like to learn and/or discuss - especially if it is something I am unfamiliar with. However, I do not like deceit at all and will call out a 'chameleon' in a heartbeat.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I agree that all beliefs should be tested. Mine have many times, and Yahweh God has proven Himself again and again. I explored and learned about a plethora of religions, philosophies, creeds, etc., but I have found that it all comes down to one huge difference - Yahweh God was the only One that actually spoke to me and took visible, undeniable action in my life. I do not persecute others belief, but I do like to learn and/or discuss - especially if it is something I am unfamiliar with.

It may well be that you heard Yahweh speak to you, but no one else heard Yahweh speak to you.

And so as far as we can tell, you were having a delusion.

And the best way for you to keep on having this delusion is to join others with a similar delusion.

So you should take yourself to a church, a synagogue, a temple or a mosque to share your delusion with the faithful.
 
Top