|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #5019 on CommentsLevel 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
OfflineSend mail to mykoira Block mykoira Invite mykoira to be your friend flag avatar
Welcome to MyKorea, the best Korea, where food is good and internet almost exist
- Views: 2880510 interesting facts about Finland
673 94 Total: +579
- Views: 24439Catepilar Problem
288 16 Total: +272
- Views: 6547god damn cats
75 18 Total: +57
- Views: 415710 interesting facts about Canada
48 3 Total: +45
- Views: 506punchline
4 8 Total: -4
latest user's comments
|#568 - where is Kraken||14 hours ago on Where is Jessica Hyde?||0|
|#12 - Eat nothing and die of starvation, no farm animals who produce…||03/07/2014 on I am saving the planet||0|
|#38 - no it's manbat [+] (1 new reply)||03/07/2014 on Australia: Home of the nope||+3|
|#54 - TMNT [+] (2 new replies)||03/06/2014 on Dem Coincidences||+4|
|#221 - No need to thank.||03/05/2014 on Can I have some motivation...||0|
|#15 - So the Fed-Ex dude went in UPS' car to hide?||03/05/2014 on Run bitch!||0|
|#19 - don't worry,it has still 8 lives left.||03/05/2014 on Well Fuck||0|
|#24 - U.S. Army has done the same thing for a years.||03/05/2014 on The goats are behind this||+3|
|#53122 - I believe hope that there is something greater than just this. [+] (46 new replies)||03/01/2014 on Religion Board||0|
#53177 - Cambro (03/01/2014) [-]
Good route, mykoira. Knowledge isn't an essential part of religious belief. You can hope for something better and act in a way that aligns yourself with that something better. You can even say "I believe in God" without saying "I know there is a God." It is perfectly fine to say "I believe in God because my intuition tells me there is something more than this, and I hope my intuition is true." Its almost similar to saying "I have an intuition that even though I'm late my friends wouldn't have left without me, and I hope my intuition is correct." You believe your friends are still waiting for you and act as if they are, even though you are unsure that they actually waited or not.
#53673 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I find it strange that you spend so long talking about how practical something is despite it's truth but you can't just say
"I feel like helping this person so I will"
That seems to be the most practical "ethical framework"
I don't see why there can't be a true ethical framework though or why you have to take a really long route there are many reasons to help people out.
#53674 - Cambro (03/03/2014) [-]
The man in this example is looking for an ethical framework. "I feel like helping this person so I will" isn't an ethical framework, it only hints at an ethical framework that would include intuitions. So the man still needs to find an ethical framework for the practice of that framework to be even relevant.
#53445 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Yes I've made some mistakes here, things may not have to be true to be valuable but if they find truth that is where there value lies.Something has value in the purpose it gives to you, you hear terms like
"This is good value for money" "This is valuable to your education" "this has a lot of value in our economy"
Ptolemys theory only has value in coming up with predictions, why is it only this aspect of it which has value? because the predictions are true. Ptolemies theory only has value in that it is a path to truth, therefore when we value the theory we are still valuing truth.
The mechanisms of your computer are based on the truths that science has en covered, so truth has intrinsic value in that it can make these things possible. These examples of practicality supposedly being better than truth are flawed because the value they have is in finding truth. Truth is as valuable as truth.
It's like if you asked what's more valuable sailing or ship building, the value in ship building is being able to sail.
#53448 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
Your computer example is still faulty and continues to fall into the same issue you've been having. The mechanisms of my computer may be based upon trues of science, but they may not be. And I don't see that its necessary that the theories about electronics and computers be true for computers to be possible. Say we were completely wrong about electric energy travel. Say something strange like, cooper isn't actually an conductor but some property inside copper was a conductor. Or imagine that our theory about how electric works with conductors is wrong, its simply that it has had high correlation for some reason we haven't uncovered. Thus our idea of conductors and how electricity works with conductors can be completely untrue, yet we would still have computers. We can be wrong about the truth of the matter but be close enough that we obtain empirical results. Then what was it that helped us construct computers? Was it our empirical results, or was it the truth of our theories? Obviously it must be the empirical results! Whether the theory of at all is true is irrelevant, we've seen pragmatics arise out of the work of the theory whether the theory is true or not. So I pose that the truth of theories is irrelevant: if we can get good predictive and empirical results, that is all we need from a theory. A theory need not be true. Again, I see no value of truth in theories in science but only practicality. True theories may have higher chances of good empirical results, but I've shown counter examples where that hasn't been the case. Truth, then, isn't essential but pragmatics is. i don't see an intrinsic worth in truth, even with your computer example.
#53452 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
But now we have a real problem. "Delusion" brings negative connotations, such that you should pursue the truth and if you aren't you're doing something wrong. If you can't explicate the intrinsic value of truth, why should I care if I'm delusional or not if what follows from the delusion is beneficial?
#53457 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Well if you don't care about truth then you won't mind if you're deluded. But most people want to believe in things which are true and dismiss things which are false. However in this circumstance I don't see how the behavior is beneficial, muttering latin into bread is not beneficial, telling people that evolution is false and atheists are evil is not beneficial, talking to yourself is not beneficial, singing about fiction is not beneficial.
#53458 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
but you've assumed fundamentalism. There are literally dozens of ways to be religious without being a fundamentalist. Say you have a theological belief like I do, an restorationalist inclusivist (which is redundant) who values the pragmatics of religion over any thoughts of religion. Actually that's a lot of us Christians. So even if I were agnostic about there being a God, I could act as if there was this God of theological thought and it would lead me to being really loving to all and a morally upstanding person. In that case it would be beneficial, and there actually being that God is nearly irrelevant to the matter.
#53469 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
You (general you) can still practice anything a religious person would want to practice. you can do sacraments and all the traditional stuff, but it really matters more in the sphere of doing volunteer work for social aid, contributing to charity, and just overall not being a dick.
#53509 - Cambro (03/03/2014) [-]
Thus the inclusion of the sacraments. Religion may be beneficial if the person feared a loss of a deity would bring about nihilism. Perhaps this person believes secular humanism doesn't give any true motives for doing good, so he feels left without an ethical sphere. Following a religion, even if he were agnostic, would thus be beneficial in this case as well. My point wasn't that helping the poor and all that is religious, but it may follow from religious belief or being part of a religion (and I think many times it does). So again, deluding himself may be beneficial in this case if he does not find secular humanism to be strong.
#53512 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
I don't know what you mean by 'sacraments'
But if the individual wants to do good, then secular humanism is enough. The person you're describing wouldn't find a reason to want to help people but wants to follow a religion because they want to help people, that doesn't make sense.
Either they don't want to help people and so they wouldn't follow the religion to help people.
Or they want to help people, so evidently they don't need to follow a religion, they have it in them already.
#53518 - Cambro (03/03/2014) [-]
No, perhaps he has ethical intuitions and moral intutions that he should do good, but he doesn't find those intuitions satisfied with secular humanism. Without leading us into an entirely different discussion, perhaps he has an intuition to do right but he finds no ethical framework to fit to his ethics. This seems like a plausible hypothetical man. He is, however, convinced by Thomism. But Thomism can only work if you suppose God exists. So he assumes God exists so he can follow Thomism, and thus his intuitions get tied with a framework and he can do beneficial things thro that otherwise agnosticism toward there being a God. In a theoretical example (which also has many concrete examples of the exact variety of described who end up being catholic converts) where a man is not convinced by any secular ethics but convinced of an ethical structure pitched in the mind of religion, it is beneficial for him to be religious and claim he believes God even if he is agnostic about it.
#53664 - Cambro (03/03/2014) [-]
And he would respond that there needs to be a reason he feels like its his duty--thus why he was searching for an ethical framework in the first place! It is not enough to say "i feel like I have this duty" but that duty in any sophisticated ethical framework must be explained. This isn't someone who is "that complex," this is someone who is minimally curiously minded who doesn't simply do things on impulse.
#53667 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
Well he would feel like he needs to help people because of his culture and upbringing probably, it would be a psychological question as to why he feels the need to help people. But if you're all for practicality then it would be more practical to say "I feel like I want to help people so I will." than to pine to a delusion.
#53338 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
The difference with the example of the friends is that you do have evidence and reasons to believe your friends will wait for you. You know that you're friends like you based on experience and friends usually do wait for each other, therefore it's reasonable to believe that you're friends will wait for you. This would be a good reason to believe that. Just saying "I believe my friend will be there solely because I hope they are there" and disregarding your knowledge and experience is as nonsensical as saying "I believe I will win the lottery because I hope I will win the lottery". Does your hope affect the probability of things in reality? not an iota. In one circumstance you may hope to win the lottery and in the other you won't mind if you win the lottery. In which circumstance are you more likely to win? niether. In one circumstance you hope that you're friends will be there while in the other you don't mind. In which circumstance are you're friends more likely to be there? niether. What does make you're friends more likely to be there is the experience you have with them. Did they wait for you in the past? Did they really want to meet you? Are they dicks sometimes? these factors do affect the probability, if you're friends waited for you in the past then they're more likely to wait for you.
So the second method focuses on variables which affect probability to see what's most likely rather than hope which does not. You don't ask "Do I hope my friends will wait? Well then they're still there!"
If you're reasoning is as faulty is this then you must have missed a lot of dates with your friends.
#53364 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
You've entirely missed the point of what I said. I distinguished belief away from knowledge. And thus your exposition into how belief affects knowledge is already moot. You also ignored the direct ties I placed on belief and action. To separate the two in what I said leads you completely astray (which it did).
I hope my friends will be at the bowling alley still waiting for me, so I go there. There is no probability involved. I don't know if they'll be there or not, but that knowledge is utterly irrelevant. There is no assertion about the reality of what I'm hoping for, it is up in the air. Its simply that I hope its true, I hope to bowl with my friends, so I'll go there even though I'm late in the hope that I will get to do all those things.
It is the same with some outlooks of religious belief. I don't know if there is a God, but I hope there is one so I'll act as if there is one. Again, there is no assertion about the truth value of "there is a God" taking place at all, and there needn't be.
#53399 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Yes I know. I was assuming you would think that if we don't know something the next step is to think about probability, I don't know if I will win the lottery but it's unlikely so I don't believe I will win the lottery. I could be wrong, but the odds are ever in my favour man I love hunger games and so I am making a reasonable assumption.
If you're thinking process is
I don't know whether my friends are there or not, I hope they are there, I will see whether they're there or not
Then you neither believe your friends are there or believe they're not there, you're agnostic and testing the hypothesis. Hope is irrelevant to the thinking processor or to belief. You could take out hope and nothing would change, just like in the real world.
Saying "I believe in God" is a truth claim, it means you think God is true, so to align this with the analogy it would be like saying 'I believe my friends are there". If you are agnostic but go anyway you don't believe anything but you say "I hope my friends are there".
I hope there is a God obviously not the monotheistic one also, however my hope has no reflection on whether it's true or not and I believe in things because they are true, not because I hope they will be true. You never assert that you believe in God you say that you act as if there is a God, you sound like an atheist/agnostic, I'm not interested in why you act like there is a God I'm interested in why you believe there is a God, if you do believe. You can justify any belief this way.
" I don't know if there are many naked women in my garage, but I hope there is one so I'll act as if there is one."
Do you see why acting like there are naked women in my garage is illogical?
#53407 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
You're still missing the point. There are no probabilities being weighed. There is no testing of a hypothesis. It is acting in accord regardless of the hypothesis being true or false, thus testing is irrelevant. Perhaps the term "religious belief" is misleading you because its a misnomer in this instance. Act as if there is a God because you hope there is one and you will resemble one who wishes to assert that God exists. Its not believing that your friends are there, its acting as if you believed they do. Again, there is no connection to reality or an assertions about reality.
#53409 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
When I use the term "testing" I mean seeing whether something is true or not. If you don't know whether something is true and so you go and see whether it is true you are testing the hypothesis, inadvertantly or not, hopeful of a certain answer or not.
Therefore if you don't know if you're friends are there and you go and see if they are there then I describe that action as testing.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting you're goal, do you believe in something because you think it is true or because you want it to be true?
I certainly don't understand your aim to be like a man who wants to say that God exists, that's absurd.
Do you believe in God or not? if you just hope there is a God but do not think it is true then you're an atheist.
#53419 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
Firstly I'm not talking about me, I was talking about a route to be religious. That route is being religious because you hope God exists while you are agnostic toward your belief of God's existence.
This is why all of your discussion about testing is irrelevant. Acting as if God exists even though you are agnostic about it in the hopes that he exists is not a testing because it doesn't do anything towards verifying if God exists or not at all--it does nothing to reveal the truth. You took the friend's example to an extra step, even noting "inadvertantly or not", which is a sure sign you're putting more interpretation into an analogy than is there.
There could be many goals and reasons as to why one might find it beneficial to act as though God exists even though they are agnostic about it. Say the person interprets thomism as the best ethical structure and the thinking that leads to the most right actions for himself and others. Then acting as if the God who is behind that structure, even though the person may be agnostic about God's existence, exists would fulfill what this person sees as a beneficial way of life.
Or take in the broadest of senses. A person may be agnostic about the belief that there is a God (that is, a maximally good, just, and powerful being) but he may wish to act as if that God exists--which would lead to being loving towards each other and doing right acts to mankind--despite the hold of agnosticism. And this hold doesn't even need to be any strong or weak form of agnosticism in particular. He can be pretty sure there is a God, but 10% agnostic, or completely reversed. It doesn't matter.
Once again: There is no intellectual assertion that something exists by hope. There is the pragmatics of following a religion as if you believed it to be true 100%. There is no intellectual assent involved.
#53430 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
Exactly! Pretending to believe in something because that belief can be beneficial! That has been the whole point of what I've been saying this entire time. You've once again introduced belief in the scope of probabilities and what not, and once again I tell you those are totally irrelevant to what I'm claiming.
Now let me ask you a question: What value does truth have in the framework of what I'm discussing. What I'm discussing is beneficial action based on acting (or pretending if that word makes more sense to you) as if you hold a belief if you are agnostic about it. What value does truth have in the matter? Why, if the acting like you had the belief is leading to benefits, does the delusion take on a negative connotation? If a man is about to jump off a bridge, then he supposes he hears a whisper "I love you" and he gets off the ledge, but the whisper is just the wind, what value does truth have in the matter? Wouldn't revealing the truth, in this instance, be a bad thing which could potentially send him to be suicidal again? (Again, this analogy is not perfect either because we are supposing in this analogy a truth can be revealed but in the God example it cannot be).
Now let's look at it from an evolutionary standpoint: if a delusion was helpful in the survival of a species, would it need to be weeded out by natural selection? Would it be categorized as a negative trait of that species? Of course not! It would simply be another survival mechanism.
So now let me ask you a question with much more grandeur than the first: As an atheist, why do you presuppose the chasing of truth is paramount? Why is believing truth the best in all circumstances, even if something false is beneficial to believe? Why is it that rationality has any intrinsic worth when it applies to beneficial falsehoods?
#53431 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Ok, but I don't understand what would be beneficial about believing things which are false. Talking to God may be beneficial, talking to yourself isn't beneficial. Teaching children facts to help them understand the world is beneficial, lying to children is plain evil. Trying to get people to think critically and rationally is surely a beneficial thing to do, lying and deluding people with fallacies is evil. Perhaps if you really thought it would be true then you would not be evil, you wouldn't be lying, you would be honest but just deluded, but to acknowledge it as untrue and still spread it is evil. Believing in things which aren't true or pretending they are is delusional behaviour, it's not beneficial.
Just like with the very analogy you are using, if you go to the bowling alley and your friends are not there then it is not beneficial because you wasted time, money and you will be disappointed because of the hope you had. It would have been beneficial if you stayed at home and did something productive rather than go to the bowling alley and then go straight home. So even with your analogy your hope is only justified if we incorporate truth. Your pretending game would only be beneficial if it is true. To determine what is beneficial, you must determine truth.
If you don't care about truth then it would be hard to even determine what is beneficial. In the case of the suicidal guy it would be better to tell him it was wind when he got down from the ledge because otherwise he would have false hope. However generally it is better to believe in things which are true rather than found a culture or life on delusions and lies, is this not self evident?
I don't care what belief makes me feel good or be a better person, I just care about truth.
Evolution and ethics do not go together. Rape is also useful for the survival of a species in many cases.
Truth is important because it's my entire perspectiv, I automatacly dismiss lies. I can not turn off my BS detector.
#53432 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
I didn't see a thorough answer of my question. I asked the intrinsic worth of truth. You said you take it to be self-evident that truth has intrinsic worth. I do not. Defend your account of why truth has some intrinsic worth. I mean this firstly in the very general sense: Why does truth have value? And then secondly I mean it in a specific sense: If the truth is damaging and a delusion is more beneficial to believe in any one specific case (we can imagine such cases with ease), does truth remain paramount? If so, why?
#53435 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
My nitpicky complaint with your account of why truth has intrinsic value is that you did it by pointing to science and all the things it brought us. But I don't particularly seeing this necessarily being the case. Say a theory produces great results in terms of predictive success and thus becomes a very useful theory in allowing technological and scientific progress. Now suppose that the theory, despite its predictive success, ends up being false and another theory ends up being true, yet this true theory has considerably less predictive success and does less to progress science. Which theory is better? The true one or the practical one? One gets results, the other was simply correct. Cases like this have happened in the history of science. If you want to assert what you asserted--"truth remains paramount because it is more useful in solving a problem," how do you reconcile with theories which are not true yet more useful at solving a problem? Which reigns supreme in this case, usefulness or truth? It is not clear that truth automatically leads to usefulness, but only practicality and pragmatics lead to usefulness. How do you handle this situation?
And to your comment on my profile, I understand that your a rationalist but it still must be asked why. Hell, isn't that the point of the rationalist? I'm asking you why its rational to be a rationalist in the ultimate sense--that is, why should I value truth over something that is not true yet has greater value than the truth?
#53437 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Your question is impossible
"why should I value truth over something that is not true yet has greater value than the truth"
For something to have greater value than truth but for you to then value the truth greater than what has greater value is a logical impossibility. You seem to be using the word value in different ways in the same sentence.
#53436 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
I think this scenario isn't one which exists, if a theory is not true then it will not be successful. If you think paper is a good material for a boat and you're boat sinks the theory is false. Testing a theory determines the truth so if the test comes out positive it must be true. Your scenario is not realistic and so even if I said it would be better to drop the truth in this case it would have no relevance because the scenario would never come about.
If a theory is false, the predictions you make will be false, if the predictions are correct it is by definition true.
I am a rationalist because of my appreciation for science which main objective is to discover truth. Science has improved and enriched mine and many other peoples lives and I see the world by it. I think about science in the same way that CS Lewis talked about God.
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
― C.S. Lewis
#53438 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
There are a ton of philosophical issues with you using that C.S. Lewis quote for your rationality, mainly Lewis was a Neo-Platonist and thus he was referring to Christianity as the Form of the Forms from Plato's cave, thus the Sun illuminating the whole cave. For you to say rationality is that for you is either a bad analogy and a misquote, or you must assert that rationality and truth is on a higher plain which is divine. I value truth because I, too, am a Neo-Platonist. I'm asking you to give me a value of truth that has nothing to do with the assumption that rationality is on a higher plain because as a materialist you can't assert that.
But that point aside, you're still wrong. There are actually several scenarios where my proposition exists. Ptolemy's theory v. Copernican theory. Ptolemy, though false, gave accurate mathematical accounts of reality which lead to great predictions. Copernican theory when originally developed did not have the same mathematical success, but thro telescopes he could see he was right. Though Ptolemy was wrong his math still works. In fact his math is still use in nautics in some cases today. This is one example where Ptolemy's false theory had better mathematical predictive success than the actually true Copernican theory.
Here is a second example: Fresnel developed a theory of light that estimated that light is actually ether. He found the mass of the ether and crunched numbers which allowed him to accurately predict reflections and refractions to an absolutely amazing degree. His math still checks out today and you can use his theory of light being made of ether to accurate predict how light will behave in many circumstances. Problem is light is absolutely not ether. Once again, he was completely wrong about light yet his theory had great predictive success. Here are two concrete examples. Now answer: Truth or practicality? Which matters more and why?
#53439 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
I wasn't trying to say that rationality was divine obviously. By the quote I meant that I not only value rationality because I can see the progress which we have made by it, but because by rationality I see the world. I perceive the world and subjects critically and rationally.
Ok sorry i didn't know that. We can say that Ptolemys predictions are true while discounting the theory and we can say that Copernican theory is true and discount his predictions, we are still valuing and accrediting truth in this circumstance. There is no need to pretend, based on hope of all things, that Ptolemys theory is true, we can just say the predictions are true.
Truth matters more because it leads to practicality, it's good we know which theory is true and which predictions are true, this is useful in it's own light.
It's funny how this whole thread you haven't even answered O.P's question, he asked
"Why do you believe?"
Not why you pretend to believe.
#53441 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
You're back tracking. You're right that there is a supposed truth to the matter in that we believe Copernicus' theory is more true than Ptolemy's, but that wasn't my question. Ptolemy's math is better and thus progresses technology better, while not being true when we actually look at the planets. You want to say "truth leads more to practicality" but in both of the scenarios I listed that wasn't the case. The untrue theory has supreme math and predictions. So again I ask the question: what matters more to science, that a theory be true or that a theory be practical? If progress matters more, than practicality should be held above truth and if a theory can be pragmatically better than a true theory than you'd suppose the practical theory is the better one. But you don't want to assert that. Defend why truth matters more for theories than practicality. You can't say that truth leads to predictive value as a rule, because I've shown cases where that is not the case. Again, defend yourself: Why does truth matter more than practicality?
#53442 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Our recognition that one theory is not true but the predictions are true and the truth of the predictions are valuable, this is a valuable truth. Our recognition of these truths has led to practicality as we know a theory is false and the predictions are true. As long as we remember that the predictions are true and it is the predictions which are valuable, rather than the theory, we are making progress.
The theory is not valuable as it is not true but the true results are where the value lies, that's what we're using practically.
#53443 - Cambro (03/02/2014) [-]
How can predictions from a theory be valuable without the theory being valuable? It is only thro the theory that you can reach the calculations that bring about the predictions. And you still have skirted the question anyway. You said theories are not valuable if they're not true, but you haven't said why that is the case. If I were a scientist I would be worried about practicality. I want to get a light to reflect in such a way that i can make my telescope work. So which light theory do I use? The one with better predictive success and thus manipulative success would be Fresnel's false theory. I would take that theory to be the better one because it gets me better results and thus helps me find more things in the scientific realm and progress science. The better practical theory, to me, seems to be the better theory of science. What does the truth of a theory do for science? It doesn't do anything toward progress, in my eyes, if an untrue theory can be just as useful or more useful than a true theory. So once again I ask you the question I've been asking for over an hour: Why should truth matter more than practicality? What intrinsic value does truth have?
#53433 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
Well I myself have felt what it's like to realize that the people who I trusted to teach me and faithfully believed as a child were lying to me and that everything they taught me about religion was false after emotionally investing and investing time and hope in a delusion. It's not a good feeling.
Objectively though, truth has been good for human development. I feel very privileged to live in these times with internet, free health care, a basic understanding of the world around me, a wealth of knowledge and art and music, being able to talk to people around the world (I have aspergers so this is useful, I find it hard to speak to people in person), basic hygiene, a dog etc. All of these things came about because of the human devotion to discovering truth. Do you want to sacrifice these astounding truths and human progress which allow this conversation to happen and go back to the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? no (quoting star trek: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6NPq_kPSUM)
I f you base an engine on science and things which are true the engine will work. On the other hand, it doesn't matter how much hope you have, it doesn't matter how much faith you have, if you make an engine based on faith it will not work. Truth clearly has intrinsic value.
Truth is generally more valuable than delusion, as it is generally more value then you're better of concentrating and building you're values on a foundation of truth. Once you open your mind to faulty thinking then you are open to all kinds of nonsense, in other words, if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
#53426 - thebritishguy (03/02/2014) [-]
If your aim is to believe things which are true, then hope it irrelevant. If you're wondering whether to believe something the question you are asking is "is it true? if you are asking "do I hope it is true?" then don't, you're hope is futile. If you're aim is not to discern truth from delusion but your aim is to believe in things which you hope but are not true then go ahead and believe whatever you hope but it will be delusional behaviour. Should I act like there are naked ladies in my garage? because you're reasoning points to that conclusion, that I should start buying flavored condoms.
You made the testing relevant by saying that you should go to the alley and see if you're friends are there, I thought that was your whole point in the analogy.
You may find it beneficial but again it's about do you want to believe in things which are true? does the truth matter to you? do you care if you are being deluded? if you don't care about these things and are happy to live in a world of your own and prepare for a garage orgy then go ahead and believe whatever you hope, if on the other hand you believe in things because they are true and don't want to be deluded then you should think critically and not commit fallacy. I don't think many people want to be deluded though, I hope they don't, but that's irrelevant.
If you're saying that waiting to see if you're friends are there is as valid as waiting to see if God is there then you are very wrong because the probability of your friends being there is very high and so you have good reason to act as if you're friends are there. God on the other hand...
I'm beginning to think you don't care about truth and think that delusion is comfortable. The only question you should ask is whether something is true or not. If you start believing in things because they make you're tummy warm or because you need them to be nice to people then you should look in the mirror and find the definition of irrational.
|#1460 - Well, i have nothing but time, so why not.||02/28/2014 on /books/ board||0|