Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations. The issue for "belief" is the criteria by which one is "convinced" in the truth of something that leads to their belief ... for some the foundation is rational and for others the foundation is irrational. One of the purposes of the "scientific method" is to establish, as much as possible, an objectively reliable and verifiable process upon which one can have as high as possible probability (known as a "confidence" or "alpha" level) that a "truth claim" is, in fact, true. Commonly, a confidence level of 98% probability, or higher, is used. However, even at this level, and even if confirmed repeatedly, most scientists will not say a proposition or hypothesis is "true" ... they'll say that the "data supports" or "doesn't support" the hypothesis at the selected alpha level. The "weight of the evidence" supports or not an assertion. For those higher than 98%, obviously, the higher the confidence that the conclusion is probably correct ... but there's still the recognized chance, however small (less than 2%, say) that it may not be correct. Even with high confidence some people will not believe and vice versa. So, each of us decides what level of confidence is convincing, and based on that we believe or not.
So, the question is, "what is convincing enough for any given person for them to believe?" For some, religious foundation is enough, for others it's "Daddy told me," for still others it's the reliability and verifiability of the experimental process ... What gives one confidence enough to believe? Ultimately, if someone can tell you how it is, or why it is, that they believe something, at that moment they also reveal the extent or degree to which rational or irrational sources are needed to convince them of something.
So, if one believes that belief is something not based on rational proofs ... then, it promotes one to wonder, can such irrational belief be true? Maybe ... and maybe not. And, how confident can we be of such belief? We all make choices like this, knowingly and not, every day ...
Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations. The issue for "belief" is the criteria by which one is "convinced" in the truth of something that leads to their belief ... for some the foundation is rational and for others the foundation is irrational. One of the purposes of the "scientific method" is to establish, as much as possible, an objectively reliable and verifiable process upon which one can have as high as possible probability (known as a "confidence" or "alpha" level) that a "truth claim" is, in fact, true. Commonly, a confidence level of 98% probability, or higher, is used. However, even at this level, and even if confirmed repeatedly, most scientists will not say a proposition or hypothesis is "true" ... they'll say that the "data supports" or "doesn't support" the hypothesis at the selected alpha level. The "weight of the evidence" supports or not an assertion. For those higher than 98%, obviously, the higher the confidence that the conclusion is probably correct ... but there's still the recognized chance, however small (less than 2%, say) that it may not be correct. Even with high confidence some people will not believe and vice versa. So, each of us decides what level of confidence is convincing, and based on that we believe or not.
So, the question is, "what is convincing enough for any given person for them to believe?" For some, religious foundation is enough, for others it's "Daddy told me," for still others it's the reliability and verifiability of the experimental process ... What gives one confidence enough to believe? Ultimately, if someone can tell you how it is, or why it is, that they believe something, at that moment they also reveal the extent or degree to which rational or irrational sources are needed to convince them of something.
So, if one believes that belief is something not based on rational proofs ... then, it promotes one to wonder, can such irrational belief be true? Maybe ... and maybe not. And, how confident can we be of such belief? We all make choices like this, knowingly and not, every day ...
Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations.
Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations.
Belief:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Belief:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Posted: Oct 8, 08 12:28am
Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations. The issue for "belief" is the criteria by which one is "convinced" in the truth of something that leads to their belief ... for some the foundation is rational and for others the foundation is irrational. One of the purposes of the "scientific method" is to establish, as much as possible, an objectively reliable and verifiable process upon which one can have as high as possible probability (known as a "confidence" or "alpha" level) that a "truth claim" is, in fact, true. Commonly, a confidence level of 98% probability, or higher, is used. However, even at this level, and even if confirmed repeatedly, most scientists will not say a proposition or hypothesis is "true" ... they'll say that the "data supports" or "doesn't support" the hypothesis at the selected alpha level. The "weight of the evidence" supports or not an assertion. For those higher than 98%, obviously, the higher the confidence that the conclusion is probably correct ... but there's still the recognized chance, however small (less than 2%, say) that it may not be correct. Even with high confidence some people will not believe and vice versa. So, each of us decides what level of confidence is convincing, and based on that we believe or not.
So, the question is, "what is convincing enough for any given person for them to believe?" For some, religious foundation is enough, for others it's "Daddy told me," for still others it's the reliability and verifiability of the experimental process ... What gives one confidence enough to believe? Ultimately, if someone can tell you how it is, or why it is, that they believe something, at that moment they also reveal the extent or degree to which rational or irrational sources are needed to convince them of something.
So, if one believes that belief is something not based on rational proofs ... then, it promotes one to wonder, can such irrational belief be true? Maybe ... and maybe not. And, how confident can we be of such belief? We all make choices like this, knowingly and not, every day ...
Posted: Oct 8, 08 6:50am
Well ... I beg to differ. Belief can be based on both rational and irrational, or both, foundations.
Belief:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
I stand corrected. Thank you.