Understanding Belief

[pogi]

Unfortunately he does not explain what he means by this so I don't see how you can exclude that it is context that is creating the difference.

add-on: look, the only point I've been trying to make is that you are using a language that is meant for precision, etc. in a very imprecise way, a way it was not meant to be used for. Like the quote says you are dealing with the concept of infinity that needs much more than just a radio discussion to explore its depth and variety and impact.

It is like you have been given a fine precise music box and you decide to tune it with a hammer. You might get somewhere in the ballpark but it just doesn't come out sounding right. If your point on trust is self-evident or logical or commonsensical/intuitive or whatever you choose to call it, it should be easy enough to find another nonmathematical demonstration where you are more familiar with the elements so that your explanation doesn't come out sounding slightly off key.

When one is explaining something, it generally works better if one is familiar with the explanation rather than almost as ignorant of it as one's audience.

"Whilst in science absolutist views have largely given way to conceptual change views, following the work of Hanson, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend and others, absolutist philosophies of mathematics are still the dominant view. Absolutists believe that mathematical truths are universal, independent of humankind (mathematics is discovered, not invented), and culture- and value-free.

However, the absolutist view is increasingly subject to challenge and attack, for example by Lakatos (1976, 1978), Davis and Hersh (1980), Kitcher (1983), and Tymoczko (1986), as well as many others including Putnam, Bloor and Wittgenstein (1956). The fallibilist position is gaining acceptance year by year, as is illustrated by the publications of philosophically minded mathematics educators in journals such as For the Learning of Mathematics."

http://people.exeter...nest/soccon.htm

I don't see anything wrong with my example, I think you are just being finicky. It's like I am playing an A tuned to 439.9 hz and you are throwing a fit because it's not a perfect 440 hz. My point does not stand or fall with the validity of this simple example anyway. Throw it out, and you still can prove nothing with logic. I don't need to understand why or how 1=0.999.. or not. All I need to understand is that there are different theories of logic that disagree with each other to demonstrate my point. Perhaps the quote above would have better served my argument, but it is all the same argument. Logic proves nothing!!! Neither does math!!! Again, who do you trust, and how can you be sure that you are right? People place more trust in logic than faith, discrediting faith as it does not seem to work logically, nor does it fit into any mathematical equation. I don't understand why people place so much trust in it, given how little we really know. We have too few variables to really understand anything properly, even math. There may be a future mathematical discovery which invalidates previous assumptions (and yes math is based on assumptions) which cause it all to crumble in place of a higher law. As I said previously, it seems to work pretty well now, but will it always work? That is a matter of belief.

Edited November 29, 2012 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

With regard to Joseph Smith seeing God the Father and Jesus or Joseph Smith believing he saw them. A third option could be stated as: "I believe Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus . . ."

That would be fine if the examples proposed initially allowed for an additional party. The examples are statements and not testimonials given by believers.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

My mistake- I totally apologize !!

I took your quote of Valentinus with the quotes in red- post 164 to be YOUR comments (in red) on Valentinus's quote.

In other words I thought it was YOU who was saying it was "false" that God exists and was jumping down your throat for evidence of that assertion.

I expect it from Valetinus!

I totally apologize- I was wrong

Oh yeah - and welcome to the board!

I think I said something nasty on another thread too- sorry about that as well. I have to cool my jets a bit I guess!

I don't think I ever conflated "I believe" with "silly ideas". I'm not Richard Dawkins, after all.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think I ever conflated "I believe" with "silly ideas". I'm not Richard Dawkins, after all.

LOL I know that. I enjoy our talks and I think we understand each other pretty well actually- at least I hope so. That was said tongue in cheek.

[Damien the Leper]

LOL I know that. I enjoy our talks and I think we understand each other pretty well actually- at least I hope so. That was said tongue in cheek.

I know...that's why I made the Richard Dawkins reference. I do enjoy our exchanges as well.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

I know...that's why I made the Richard Dawkins reference. I do enjoy our exchanges as well.

He wouldn't be so bad if he was not so confident in his ignorance. He's just a blowhard. He doesn't even understand philosophy and goes shooting off his mouth unrestrained by trivialities like making sense.

I mean I don't go around pretending to be an ethno-biologist or whatever his real training is in, and yet everyone loves this guy. He doesn't even know what he is talking about and people just eat it up.

Not that I am opinionated about it or anything...

[Damien the Leper]

He wouldn't be so bad if he was not so confident in his ignorance. He's just a blowhard. He doesn't even understand philosophy and goes shooting off his mouth unrestrained by trivialities like making sense.

I mean I don't go around pretending to be an ethno-biologist or whatever his real training is in, and yet everyone loves this guy. He doesn't even know what he is talking about and people just eat it up.

Not that I am opinionated about it or anything...

I agree. When I tell people that I'm an atheist either an automatic wall goes up or they think of anti-theist atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. That's like saying Warren Jeffs or Mark Hoffman are good examples of Mormons.