That works for every opposing/differing ideology as well, btw. I mean, of course you believe you’re right (or at least more right than wrong), else you would’ve changed your mind already!
I agree that evidence dispels not willful ignorance! But, without trying to be pedantic, beliefs are not opinions. Opinions are like “I prefer vanilla to chocolate”, not “the universe has/does not have a Creator”. The first is a matter of preference (reality remains unaffected), the second is a matter of reality.
The word you chose was “ideology,” which is effectively opinion. My point was that it is wrong to falsely equate religious beliefs with beliefs that are scientifically derived. The scientific process can also arrive at wrong conclusions, but unlike baseless claims/ideologies, the scientific process includes the ability to update beliefs as we gain more evidence and refine our knowledge. And its results are reproducible, which makes it more difficult for bad actors to sneak in falsehoods.
Science and ideology are in completely different fields (with exceptions found in social and humanistic sciences sometimes [always? 🤔]), the former dealing with the state of the world as we can sense it and the other with everything outside of it (ideology has directionality, ofc), and opinions are in a different category altogether. If we can both see X for what it is, X, but we have different emotions regarding it, it’s an opinion. Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right? Where do you think your morals come from? Science? How can we derive oughts from what is? Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Wow, a philbro in the wild.
Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right?
No, you don’t have to. I do, because I have functioning senses and a brain capable of applying reason.
Where do you think your morals come from? Science?
Correct. Biology and evolution gave us our minds. Science is a process we use to gather and refine knowledge. We know that vaccines are safe and effective. Those who can get them should, or others may suffer and die for their selfish choices. A selfish society is unsustainable.
How can we derive oughts from what is?
Pretty simply: we are living beings. We evolved and are still evolving our morals. Because we are the way we are (your “is”), we ought to reduce needless suffering.
Morals came from our social nature as an evolutionary adaptation. And our sense of ethics and morals actually predate our humanity.
Specifically, they came from our ability to empathize with the people around us.
Where do you think your morals come from? Science?
That’s an absurd question. Science isn’t a creative force. It’s a process by which we learn about the world around us; by making observations, forming an explanation for those observations, and testing those explanations.
While I’d agree that those two things are fundamentally different, without a clear indication of which version is reality, you deciding to believe one over the other is just your preference between the two possibilities.
It is not needingly the same. You may prefer a given economical system because you think it better for some reason. Yet with the demonstration an other system would satisfy you better, you could change your mind. That would “just” require a strong rational demonstration.
Religious faith is not rational. It is not based on proof, but purely on feelings… And greatly on the fact all the efforts made for the faith would have beel made for nothing if the faith is admitted false, and therefore the cost seems too high for the believer. So the fact nothing may prove the object of faith becomes a test of faith that justify it.
Yet you also have some rational believes. Even on simple things such as the best way to wash your hands. Should someone demonstrate a better way to do it, we would doubt at first, but if the explaination is clear and proven, we would adopt this new way. And we would not feel a pain at changing. I think this absence of pain is a mark of rational belief.
That works for every opposing/differing ideology as well, btw. I mean, of course you believe you’re right (or at least more right than wrong), else you would’ve changed your mind already!
Not always. Evidence guides us to believe what is most likely true. Some opinions are wrong.
I agree that evidence dispels not willful ignorance! But, without trying to be pedantic, beliefs are not opinions. Opinions are like “I prefer vanilla to chocolate”, not “the universe has/does not have a Creator”. The first is a matter of preference (reality remains unaffected), the second is a matter of reality.
The word you chose was “ideology,” which is effectively opinion. My point was that it is wrong to falsely equate religious beliefs with beliefs that are scientifically derived. The scientific process can also arrive at wrong conclusions, but unlike baseless claims/ideologies, the scientific process includes the ability to update beliefs as we gain more evidence and refine our knowledge. And its results are reproducible, which makes it more difficult for bad actors to sneak in falsehoods.
Science and ideology are in completely different fields (with exceptions found in social and humanistic sciences sometimes [always? 🤔]), the former dealing with the state of the world as we can sense it and the other with everything outside of it (ideology has directionality, ofc), and opinions are in a different category altogether. If we can both see X for what it is, X, but we have different emotions regarding it, it’s an opinion. Science complements and informs belief/ideology, but you still have to believe/stand for something, right? Where do you think your morals come from? Science? How can we derive oughts from what is? Read some Hume and come back when you understand what you don’t understand. 👍
Wow, a philbro in the wild.
No, you don’t have to. I do, because I have functioning senses and a brain capable of applying reason.
Correct. Biology and evolution gave us our minds. Science is a process we use to gather and refine knowledge. We know that vaccines are safe and effective. Those who can get them should, or others may suffer and die for their selfish choices. A selfish society is unsustainable.
Pretty simply: we are living beings. We evolved and are still evolving our morals. Because we are the way we are (your “is”), we ought to reduce needless suffering.
Magic isn’t real. Please grow up.
Morals came from our social nature as an evolutionary adaptation. And our sense of ethics and morals actually predate our humanity.
Specifically, they came from our ability to empathize with the people around us.
That’s an absurd question. Science isn’t a creative force. It’s a process by which we learn about the world around us; by making observations, forming an explanation for those observations, and testing those explanations.
While I’d agree that those two things are fundamentally different, without a clear indication of which version is reality, you deciding to believe one over the other is just your preference between the two possibilities.
It is not needingly the same. You may prefer a given economical system because you think it better for some reason. Yet with the demonstration an other system would satisfy you better, you could change your mind. That would “just” require a strong rational demonstration.
Religious faith is not rational. It is not based on proof, but purely on feelings… And greatly on the fact all the efforts made for the faith would have beel made for nothing if the faith is admitted false, and therefore the cost seems too high for the believer. So the fact nothing may prove the object of faith becomes a test of faith that justify it.
Yet you also have some rational believes. Even on simple things such as the best way to wash your hands. Should someone demonstrate a better way to do it, we would doubt at first, but if the explaination is clear and proven, we would adopt this new way. And we would not feel a pain at changing. I think this absence of pain is a mark of rational belief.