First Believe, Then Understand

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:04 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:18 am Fortunately there is a minority who realize the importance of the religious truths which enable a person to experience the objective value or quality of what the partial truths of science reveal. Because they are open minded as opposed to being agenda driven they can experience revelation by intuition.
It's the other way around. Politics favor religion as a mechanism to justify laws where it lacks complete agreement by objective standards whether it be at odds with science or to sufficient popular appeal. Science, while not without similar politics, is strictly intended to deal with the lowest denominational truths agreed upon by all people regarding nature itself, ...as opposed to something 'super-natural' or beyond our objective AGREEMENT about them.

Intuition is an artistic aptitude with regards to thinking creatively and is useful for us to 'visualize' something prior to determining any proof needed that science later takes on. This does not exclude things that relate to religion but has to require a strict means to test claims that are not universally shareable. Science is a 'politic' in that it collectively votes upon observed phenomena, interpretation, and the routines used to determine the best agreement. But the ethics itself involves people which is a form of 'religious' participation of subjects within the minds of each scientist.

"Truth" itself is just a human term itself used to reference agreement between two or more people. Since all beliefs are broader an issue than the minimal things we agree on, all beliefs not shareable belong to philosophy properly but science to a subset of it that deals with Nature we can determine with what we have absent of mere 'faith'.
Obviously we are far part as to how we appreciate what religion is. Where you seem to be limited to a secular worldly meaning. I am more open to the universal meaning in which religion has different objective qualities. From this perspective there is the exoteric level, the esoteric level, and the transcendent level. You only accept the exoteric or outer level containing all the misconceptions normal for this level. When a seeker of truth experiences there is something greater than the exoteric which as you suggest is often used for secular manipulations, they can enter an esoteric path inwardly leading in the direction of the conscious origin of religion or the transcendent level. So when you write of religions it cannot make any sense to me until you specify which level of religion you refer to.

I know this must seem outrageous but here is some information on it for anyone interested. It is written by Thomas McFarlane who is a man of science. But for those like me, religion can be both a tool which serves political manipulation or serve as the foundation for a society in which technology serves Man's objective meaning and purpose by enabling the experience of objective "value."

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

-1- wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:10 am Re: First Believe, Then Understand.

I can't believe someone wrote this as a true assessment. I can't understand how it could be true.
This is just the scientific method. It begins with a hypothesis which we believe has merit. Then we test the hypothesis and if it is legit, it leads to the process of understanding its full significance.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Scott Mayers »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:42 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:04 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:18 am Fortunately there is a minority who realize the importance of the religious truths which enable a person to experience the objective value or quality of what the partial truths of science reveal. Because they are open minded as opposed to being agenda driven they can experience revelation by intuition.
It's the other way around. Politics favor religion as a mechanism to justify laws where it lacks complete agreement by objective standards whether it be at odds with science or to sufficient popular appeal. Science, while not without similar politics, is strictly intended to deal with the lowest denominational truths agreed upon by all people regarding nature itself, ...as opposed to something 'super-natural' or beyond our objective AGREEMENT about them.

Intuition is an artistic aptitude with regards to thinking creatively and is useful for us to 'visualize' something prior to determining any proof needed that science later takes on. This does not exclude things that relate to religion but has to require a strict means to test claims that are not universally shareable. Science is a 'politic' in that it collectively votes upon observed phenomena, interpretation, and the routines used to determine the best agreement. But the ethics itself involves people which is a form of 'religious' participation of subjects within the minds of each scientist.

"Truth" itself is just a human term itself used to reference agreement between two or more people. Since all beliefs are broader an issue than the minimal things we agree on, all beliefs not shareable belong to philosophy properly but science to a subset of it that deals with Nature we can determine with what we have absent of mere 'faith'.
Obviously we are far part as to how we appreciate what religion is. Where you seem to be limited to a secular worldly meaning. I am more open to the universal meaning in which religion has different objective qualities. From this perspective there is the exoteric level, the esoteric level, and the transcendent level. You only accept the exoteric or outer level containing all the misconceptions normal for this level. When a seeker of truth experiences there is something greater than the exoteric which as you suggest is often used for secular manipulations, they can enter an esoteric path inwardly leading in the direction of the conscious origin of religion or the transcendent level. So when you write of religions it cannot make any sense to me until you specify which level of religion you refer to.

I know this must seem outrageous but here is some information on it for anyone interested. It is written by Thomas McFarlane who is a man of science. But for those like me, religion can be both a tool which serves political manipulation or serve as the foundation for a society in which technology serves Man's objective meaning and purpose by enabling the experience of objective "value."

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/.
The term, "religion" comes from something like, "ra-" (speak) "-leg-" (from 'log', as the record or 'scripture'), "-ion" (piece/thing) [And where some have referred such as "the living word".(?)]

The concept of religion as it evolved, and as we now use it in general, refers to what people speak about regarding what is NOT understandable about scripted or recorded wisdom of those presumed to know our history of our origins and reality as a whole about nature.

This 'whole' (where 'holy' came from) is no longer believed to be accurately trustworthy on the mere fact of something written as it once was thought of when people's capacity to read or write was much rarer. As such many people thought there was something literally magical to it because they couldn't relate to how some mere set of symbols could effectively translate a message in the same way we might think of 'mind-reading' today. [Even mind reading is now becoming realistic through technology. The smart phone alone would be thought science fiction and hard to believe only thirty or so years ago by most.]

Since this thinking lacks necessity in confusion or mystery today, what such thinking is left for 'mystery' is to those who desire to manipulate or at minimal, be entertained by. Art in the form of abstractness, like popular songs and music, appeal MORE when it is LESS certain of the author's direct intent and OPEN to interpretation. This is because it permits the person listening to 'entertain' their own interpretation of it for an EMOTIONAL connection. Since the nature of abstraction permits no certainty, using the 'believe-before-understanding' mentality is relatively DANGEROUS where used in serious areas like science to represent some accuracy or precision it CANNOT convey.

What it does get used for artistically is not a problem on a subjective or personal level. But to propose that we reverse the significance of what is abstract as BEING more relevantly accurate or precise is either poor thinking or manipulative.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

uwot
This isn't true. My atheism is not a denial that one or other God exists, I simply don't think that the evidence is compelling. You can twist that and argue that I deny that the evidence is persuasive, which is fair enough, but that is not the same as denying the existence of any particular god.
You seem to be referring to intellectual analysis and not what I know of as conscious contemplation. Consider these two quotes from Simone Weil
“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached.”
Intellectual analysis are connected with attachments to results
There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too.
Detachment requires freedom from acquired habitual emotional reaction. Unfortunately I have witnessed how this negativity denies the purpose of philosophy. Conscious contemplation receives the world as it is rather than judge it as with analysis. It can open many doors towards understanding for those who become capable of it through conscious attention.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by uwot »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:41 amJust a side thought: I think that the Dark Ages were not necessarily 'dark' even though the Christianized Roman Empire may have been more apparent and more vocal where issues are raised.
Indeed; they weren't as dark as the name suggests. As it happens, I did my MSc thesis on Medieval cosmology. There was a fair bit going on, but because of the influence of more conservative clergy, original thinkers had to couch their terms in allegorical language, like Bernardus Silvestris, or risk upsetting the more blood and thunder elements of the catholic church, as happened to William of Conches. Those two were active during the 12th century renaissance, one of three main 'renaissances', the others being the Carolingian and Ottonian, prior to to Italian renaissance of the 14th and 15th centuries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:41 amI believe that the era was one of 'proprietary' protectionism such that people begun to keep certain learned ideas to themselves for their own advantages.
And safety!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:14 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:41 amJust a side thought: I think that the Dark Ages were not necessarily 'dark' even though the Christianized Roman Empire may have been more apparent and more vocal where issues are raised.
Indeed; they weren't as dark as the name suggests. As it happens, I did my MSc thesis on Medieval cosmology. There was a fair bit going on, but because of the influence of more conservative clergy, original thinkers had to couch their terms in allegorical language, like Bernardus Silvestris, or risk upsetting the more blood and thunder elements of the catholic church, as happened to William of Conches. Those two were active during the 12th century renaissance, one of three main 'renaissances', the others being the Carolingian and Ottonian, prior to to Italian renaissance of the 14th and 15th centuries.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:41 amI believe that the era was one of 'proprietary' protectionism such that people begun to keep certain learned ideas to themselves for their own advantages.
And safety!
This kinda nonsense has continued to happen even as recently as the 20th century.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Scott
This 'whole' (where 'holy' came from) is no longer believed to be accurately trustworthy on the mere fact of something written as it once was thought of when people's capacity to read or write was much rarer. As such many people thought there was something literally magical to it because they couldn't relate to how some mere set of symbols could effectively translate a message in the same way we might think of 'mind-reading' today. [Even mind reading is now becoming realistic through technology. The smart phone alone would be thought science fiction and hard to believe only thirty or so years ago by most.]
We have different perspectives as to the meaning and value of wholeness. First of all the whole is a perennial idea felt at the depth of human being. Plato wrote of it as the Good and Plotinus as the ONE. The conception was known back in pre-sand Egypt. Plato wrote of knowledge only in relation to the whole as distinct from opinions.

It has become natural for me to accept the idea that the vibrations of white light are the source of our perception of colors. We can prove the relationship of white light to colors but as of now science cannot prove the relationship between the qualities of being known as knowledge and opinions. For those who believe that the search for knowledge is best served by arguing opinions, the idea that the wholeness of objective knowledge within the highest quality of being is too
insulting to consider

Plato referred to four grades of knowledge:
noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)
Discursive thought is limited to duality which leads to the argument over opinions. Noesis is considered a higher intellectual function since its goal is the immediate apprehension of principles rather than arguing expressions of these priniciples.

Where the goal of discursive thought is learning something new, the goal of noesis is remembering what has been forgotten. Since the goal of modern education is indoctrination into correct opinions, the exploration of noesis not to be confused with escapist fantasy must be rejected as naive.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Scott Mayers »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:51 pm Scott
This 'whole' (where 'holy' came from) is no longer believed to be accurately trustworthy on the mere fact of something written as it once was thought of when people's capacity to read or write was much rarer. As such many people thought there was something literally magical to it because they couldn't relate to how some mere set of symbols could effectively translate a message in the same way we might think of 'mind-reading' today. [Even mind reading is now becoming realistic through technology. The smart phone alone would be thought science fiction and hard to believe only thirty or so years ago by most.]
We have different perspectives as to the meaning and value of wholeness. First of all the whole is a perennial idea felt at the depth of human being. Plato wrote of it as the Good and Plotinus as the ONE. The conception was known back in pre-sand Egypt. Plato wrote of knowledge only in relation to the whole as distinct from opinions.
I had a hard time following what you were getting at in most of your post. As to the concern about 'wholeness', do you think this is an exclusive either/or type of issue with respect to approach in understanding reality? Any rational inspection of issues requires looking at the different perspectives which include the whole versus its parts.

The problem I have in contention with this particular topic is about whether it is wise to first blindly believe something in order to deem whether it is real or not. How is it even rational to think this reasoning is appropriate outside of one's personal concerns of 'etiquette' between people within social behaviors?

We might sometimes deem it wise to NOT question someone's particular claims between friends or loved ones when they state something factual of which we have no direct means to determine is or is not true. But that is only a social reflection about integrity of the trust people have with one another. If you actively assert doubt about what one says of some incident, especially where unusual to everyday experience, it can indicate someone's dislike, disrespect, or some other emotional discomfort one has to the one asserting something. But this is more often due to many language cues related to the culture of people's social psychology.

The expectation demanded of people to actually 'believe' before understanding is like how we might presume someone "innocent" before "guilty" upon some accusation or charge of another. This though does not mean that it is an actual knowledge of ones' state of innocence or guilt.

When religious claims are at issue, "believing" in the context of expecting people to 'understand' through it is only a gamble at best. For religious claims, the gamble is indeterminate of its truth-value because you cannot even place a numerical odd to such claims. You have better credibility to 'believe' you'll win the lottery because at least a real probability applies.

I think also that those who think this behavior is a virtue, IF SINCERE, may be mistaking the outcome of people's psychological prosperity after the fact of some prior state of gamble about something they BELIEVE is relevant when it is not. If you prayed to God just before you bought a lottery ticket, the religious person will oddly credit that prayer as though it is what assured they won. Yet, this is also arrogantly ignoring all those who lost as though they did something wrong. This insults the intellectual factors involved about understanding outside of simply buying into the lottery itself. You can't 'win' a lottery if you don't buy. But just because one doesn't believe (ie, 'gamble') at all, does this mean they LOST?

You cannot 'understand' something if you don't even look at something. But if you lack an ability to even percieve something, like some 'god', they are no different to one not even buying the lottery ticket. They can't be interpreted as not undertanding either because one can know how the lottery is set up and its odds. Similarly, one can KNOW what religion is and how it operates. But to assert one does not undertand something for not believing first, it seems more like an ad campaign FOR some particular religious person or organization's intent to simply get people to invest in where they have no direct evidence to appeal to.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Scott
The problem I have in contention with this particular topic is about whether it is wise to first blindly believe something in order to deem whether it is real or not. How is it even rational to think this reasoning is appropriate outside of one's personal concerns of 'etiquette' between people within social behaviors?
IMO there is a large difference between belief and blind belief. A belief is like a hypothesis where blind belief is like a conclusion. Einstein wrote:
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
This is a belief. The question for those who believe it is true is how to understand it. The only way we can grow to consciously understand it is through our primary three senses. We have to be able to experience this spirit through our senses which experiences the facts of the world, feel its value in relation to the source of our existence through our emotions, and devise an intellectual hypothesis which would make it possible.

The dominance of blind denial prevents such efforts on a large scale so those with an open mind with the need for experiencing their place within a universal structure share in private to avoid blind condemnation within a place which encourages conscious contemplation as opposed to agenda driven analysis.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Lacewing »

uwot wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:26 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:40 pmBlind deniers and blind believers are both incapable of the open mind necessary for conscious contemplation.
Well yes, that's what "blind" implies. The mistake you make is to insult anyone who holds a belief that isn't yours by insisting they do so blindly.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:40 pmYet there is a minority who know the value of conscious contemplation inviting the experience of noesis. They are ridiculed by both sides
By far the most common reason that people are ridiculed is that they say ridiculous things.
Good points! Yes, isn't it ridiculous to have a belief system that labels all other/contrary beliefs as being blind or "in denial"?

What kind of universal consciousness would express itself or be known through only a minority?

Is it not from the small ideas and egoic needs of men to claim to know and possess some kind of "singular truth" above all others/else?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
Good points! Yes, isn't it ridiculous to have a belief system that labels all other/contrary beliefs as being blind or "in denial"?
What about those who believe they are asleep in Plato's cave so search for ways to wake up? Is this a ridiculous belief. The world and its experts will call it ridiculous but is it?
What kind of universal consciousness would express itself or be known through only a minority?
Universal consciousness does not deny anything. Humanity living in imagination rejects awakening to the reality of universal meaning and purpose. Only a minority are willing and able to free themselves from the dominance of imagination furthered by emotional denial

Is it not from the small ideas and egoic needs of men to claim to know and possess some kind of "singular truth" above all others/else?
It usually is but consider Socrates assertion that "I know nothing." This is a singular truth but does it reflect egoic need or the reality at the depth of ones being?

Intellectual doubt is a sign of intelligence while emotional skepticism which manifests as blind belief or blind denial is a poison for the psych.

That is why Simone Weil called atheism a purification. When based on intellectual doubt it is a necessary purification but when based on emotional denial it denies the ability for a person to acquire human understanding as opposed to becoming an expression of indoctrination.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by uwot »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 pmYes, isn't it ridiculous to have a belief system that labels all other/contrary beliefs as being blind or "in denial"?
Well, the article that was the inspiration for this thread was in the same issue that had my article https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia as its lead. The punchline to that piece is that since Kuhn and Feyerabend, it has been generally accepted that science is not immune to the idiosyncrasies of scientists, and that theories are largely chosen for utility and aesthetics rather than 'truth'. In respect to the thread title, scientific theories are not necessarily believed, but they are developed and used so that they are understood better. This fact has been misunderstood, manipulated and exploited by some post-modernist philosophers, a bunch of cranks and even extremely powerful politicians. What has happened is that because the 'truth' of a theory has become a function of it's utility, all these nutjobs believe they have carte blanche to insist that anything they find personally useful is 'the Truth'. The other factor is the internet, wonderful as it is, it also gives people the opportunity to have their fruitloopery reinforced by world wide webs of blithering half-wits. Like fags (cigarettes to Americans), booze and chocolate, ya can't have something good that doesn't also fuck you up. It's almost like there's some god making sure we don't enjoy ourselves too much.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 pmWhat kind of universal consciousness would express itself or be known through only a minority?
The answer to that goes back to Xenophanes:
The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 pmIs it not from the small ideas and egoic needs of men to claim to know and possess some kind of "singular truth" above all others/else?
Well yeah, it is usually men who shout the loudest, but we must not deny women the right to be equally batshit, and there are plenty of sisters who take one for the team and talk utters bollocks.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Lacewing »

uwot wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:52 am What has happened is that because the 'truth' of a theory has become a function of it's utility, all these nutjobs believe they have carte blanche to insist that anything they find personally useful is 'the Truth'.
It's fascinating to see people make claims as if no one else has the awareness/intelligence to see through them.
uwot wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:52 amThe other factor is the internet, wonderful as it is, it also gives people the opportunity to have their fruitloopery reinforced by world wide webs of blithering half-wits.
:lol: Artfully said!
uwot wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:52 am
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 pmWhat kind of universal consciousness would express itself or be known through only a minority?
The answer to that goes back to Xenophanes:
The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw...
Yes. Seems so logical and obvious to understand. Yet, so many argue against the logical and obvious. Are our primitive natures and thinking so slow to evolve/expand amidst the wealth of broader revelations/awareness?
uwot wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:52 am
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 pmIs it not from the small ideas and egoic needs of men to claim to know and possess some kind of "singular truth" above all others/else?
Well yeah, it is usually men who shout the loudest, but we must not deny women the right to be equally batshit, and there are plenty of sisters who take one for the team and talk utters bollocks.
Thank you...very generous and fair of you. :lol: Agreed! My reference to "men" was also referring to mankind/humankind... but it is true that I was also thinking of the statements made by Nick_A (a man), and of the males who crafted a male god above all others.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
Yes. Seems so logical and obvious to understand. Yet, so many argue against the logical and obvious. Are our primitive natures and thinking so slow to evolve/expand amidst the wealth of broader revelations/awareness?
Yes there is an intense hatred for the ancient ideas which reveal the reality of the human condition. That is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed. As we have seen, ideas of this quality in real life and on the Internet are simply intolerable for the educated elite enchanted with their imagined self importance. They must be eliminated. The wrath of emotional intolerance cannot accept anything less.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: First Believe, Then Understand

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot
The punchline to that piece is that since Kuhn and Feyerabend, it has been generally accepted that science is not immune to the idiosyncrasies of scientists, and that theories are largely chosen for utility and aesthetics rather than 'truth'.
Would you agree that the same is true with religion The truths it represents become lost to pragmatic and aesthetic concerns?
Post Reply