What do you understand by "believe in"

[Coriolis]

what do you believe to be rigorous proof?

I accept the results of direct, repeatable observation; in short, the standards of scientific validity.

Scientism - Wikipedia

I see. So trying to prove the existence of God, for instance. It's the reverse of trying to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth. The right tool for the job. Belief and science can productively coexist, as long as we understand where each is applicable.

 

[Lark]

I accept the results of direct, repeatable observation; in short, the standards of scientific validity.


I see. So trying to prove the existence of God, for instance. It's the reverse of trying to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth. The right tool for the job. Belief and science can productively coexist, as long as we understand where each is applicable.

Trying to prove the existence of the incorporeal is a wasted effort.

I am not sure that believing in God and proving God's existence is the same thing anyway and one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Anyway, God is a trigger phrase for some people, instead, what about love, friendship, hope or charity? A future? A past?

 

[Coriolis]

Trying to prove the existence of the incorporeal is a wasted effort.

I am not sure that believing in God and proving God's existence is the same thing anyway and one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Anyway, God is a trigger phrase for some people, instead, what about love, friendship, hope or charity? A future? A past?

The highlighted is my point exactly. This is not a matter for science, but falls squarely under belief: something the faithful accept without proof. I have used love as another example that must be believed and not proven. There are many things that fall into this category.

 

[rav3n]

It is a common distinction made in science, as well as among those who discuss the differences and connections between science and faith. It helps to be clear on our meanings.

Oh, for sure but it doesn't change the multiple definitions of 'belief' within vernacular speech which dominates the population.

Our entire exchange has been one of semantics.

 

[Madboot]

My father told me that the most dangerous people were idealists.

Mine taught me that ideals are fine, but those who are fanatics to their ideals are the ones to be feared. Anything taken to an extreme can be dangerous.

 

[Madboot]

Belief and science can productively coexist, as long as we understand where each is applicable.

This is something I have believed my entire adult life.

 

[Mole]

This is something I have believed my entire adult life.

Beliefs can be true or false, harmful or nourishing. In the 18th century we started to apply evidence and reason to beliefs to sort them out.

However we have since learnt that beliefs are not dependent on evidence and reason, but depend on entrancement, where the critical mind goes to sleep and the imaginative mind wakes up.

This is why we hold so many beliefs that defy evidence and reason, and why we hold so many beliefs that are harmful to us individually and socially.

 

[Madboot]

Beliefs can be true or false, harmful or nourishing. In the 18th century we started to apply evidence and reason to beliefs to sort them out.

However we have since learnt that beliefs are not dependent on evidence and reason, but depend on entrancement, where the critical mind goes to sleep and the imaginative mind wakes up.

This is why we hold so many beliefs that defy evidence and reason, and why we hold so many beliefs that are harmful to us individually and socially.

If evidence and reason run counter to one of my beliefs, then I re-evaluate. It has happened before, and I am sure it will happen again. Many times even, over the course of my life. It is called growth. It is not the easiest thing to do, and that is why many cling to beliefs beyond reason. That is the choice of the fanatic, which I reject. I may have beliefs, but my critical mind constantly questions them.