Only two different types of belief

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

[Divine Insight]

This probably should have been posted in Philosophy instead of Christianity and Apologetics. I actually have quite a few philosophical points to make.

First off I think there are many different categories of "belief".

Your Type 1 and Type 2 classifications are certainly not all that is possible.

When it comes to "belief" I would argue that there also exist a Type 3.

Type 3 beliefs would be to believe in plausible hypotheses that can neither be currently proven nor demonstrated to be ruled out by known facts. I think that there is room for people to "believe" in the plausibility of things that cannot be shown to be false, and this is especially true if they can make reasonable arguments for why they consider them to be plausible, and therefore possible.

In fact, I would hold that the scientific hypothesis of String Theory is a Type 3 belief. It certainly doesn't qualify under your category of Type 1 beliefs.

Having said that I would pretty much agree with everything you have listed in your Type 2 beliefs, and agree that these can be ruled out as being highly unreasonable.

But clearly there exists Type 3 beliefs, even in the sciences. String Theory is most certainly a Type 3 belief, and not a Type 1 belief. In fact, most honest scientists will readily confess that it could indeed be wrong, but they tend to "believe" in it as a matter of faith anyway. Otherwise they wouldn't put so much time and energy into studying it and trying to move it forward.

So Type 3 beliefs, are not only reasonable, but these are the type of beliefs that keep the cutting edge of science moving right along.

So I don't accept your simple dichotomy and I have offered a third option along with the observation that this third option is indeed the basis of modern science.

~~~~~~~

If I were going to explore or expound on my Type 3 beliefs I would first want to offer two more classes of "beliefs". One is a dichotomy, the other is a trichotomy.

~~~~~~~

The Foundational Dichotomy of Reality.

Reality is either reducible to individual parts or "atoms", as in the Greek philosophical sense. Or reality is a continuum and cannot be reduced to individual parts. This was in fact, the great debate in ancient Greece.

Do we live in a "discrete" reality, or is reality a "continuum".

In ancient Greece the philosophical belief that reality is a continuum won the greatest favor and became the norm ever since. Early proponents for a discrete reality (i.e. men like Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea) held strong to the discrete philosophy of reality, but they were in the minority.

Today we live in an age of great irony. This is because Quantum Physics has basically vindicated the discrete picture of reality put forth by men like Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea. We now know, or believe, from observational evidence that we live in a "Quantum World". And this basically means that the world is quantized. It's discrete. Everything from energy, matter, motion, and even time must proceed in "Quantum Jumps". That's a discrete reality.

This is an irony, because even those Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea, have been vindicated the mathematical community says, "Not so fast". The mathematical community believes that they have shown Zeno to be wrong. They claim that their Calculus proves that Zeno was wrong. *(I personally disagree with this passionately, but that's a whole other story).

The mathematical community not only rejects a discrete reality but they insist upon a continuum. They have gone to great lengths (no pun intended) to construct an infinite "Number Line" that has no gaps. They insist on mathematics describing a continuum.

So here we have Physics saying that the universe is quantized (i.e. discrete and can only behave in discrete jumps) and we have a mathematics that is designed specifically to describe a reality that is a continuum with no gaps, and no jumps.

So our science and mathematics are actually bucking heads but everyone seems to be blind to this fact.

In any case, there is a real dichotomy here. Either reality is based upon a continuum, or it's discrete. It can't be both. Or can it?

Another thing to realize here also is that this leads to two entirely different philosophies

Reductionism and Holism

Either the universe is the sum of individual parts (A Discrete Reality or Reductionism)

Or the universe is a seamless whole, (A Continuum Reality, or Holism)

Or possibly it's both, depending on the level we examine.

The macro universe appears to be continuous where General Relativity Rules.

The micro universe appear to be discrete where Quantum Mechanics Rules.

But most physicists agree, that Quantum Mechanics is actually the "Truth" of reality. In other words, the only reason the macro universe appears to be a continuum is because the level of discontinuity is simply too small to be noticed.


In any case, these are the foundational dichotomies of reality.

Reality is either Discrete in which case Reductionism rules.

Or Reality is a Continuum in which case Holism Rules.

So this is not only a dichotomy of reality, but it's also a dichotomy of philosophy.

Note: I am personally unaware of any third possibility but I'm always open to suggestions.

~~~~~~

The Foundational Trichotomy of Reality.

Now when we consider a possible mystical, spiritual, or divine essence to reality we have only three choices. At least only three that I can imagine. Perhaps you can add more?


1. Pure Secular Materialistic Atheism.

There simply is no mystical, spiritual, or divine essence to reality. It's all just a material world. And this is usually thought of in terms of "Reductionism". In other words reality is actually the result of material particles or "atoms" in the Greek sense of the term. Clearly modern day Greek Atoms would be "Strings".

2. Theism based on an idea of an external Godhead

There is a creator God that is totally separate from us. This God created us knowingly and with intend. It makes sense that this God should hopefully have a plan since he's doing this will intent.

3. Mysticism, as either Pantheism or Panentheism.

There are many version of this, but the bottom line is that all of reality is nothing other than a manifestation of this mystical, or spiritual being, and therefore we are it, or at least we are an integral facet of it. Often times this mystic being is imagined to be some sort of "Mind" or computer using today's jargon. Life could be said to be but a dream in the mind of this single holistic being. This philosophy is one of "Holism" where the whole is "God" and everything within the whole is a manifestation within the mind of God.

~~~~~

If there are other potential scenarios for reality I am unaware of what they might be.

~~~~~~~

So having given all of the above as a preliminary setting I would say that my "beliefs" about reality are as follows:

TYPE 3 Beliefs - (a belief in what I see as a reasonable plausible reality, my believe in this reality is very much the same as a String Theorist's belief in String Theory)

I also believe that Reality is a Holistic Continuum. This may seem to conflict with Quantum Physics in some ways, but I believe that it is actually quite compatible.

And finally I believe in the plausibility of Mysticism, as either Pantheism or Panentheism. One reason I believe in the plausibility of this picture is because I have seen many philosophies that justify its plausibility. This of course does not make it true. It simply keeps it within the realm of plausibility.

Finally, I'm also not convinced of the plausibility of "Pure Secular Materialistic Atheism". For me, there are reasons why this scenario is not as plausible as many atheists seem to think it is.

[atheist buddy]

This probably should have been posted in Philosophy instead of Christianity and Apologetics. I actually have quite a few philosophical points to make.

First off I think there are many different categories of "belief".

Your Type 1 and Type 2 classifications are certainly not all that is possible.

When it comes to "belief" I would argue that there also exist a Type 3.

Type 3 beliefs would be to believe in plausible hypotheses that can neither be currently proven nor demonstrated to be ruled out by known facts. I think that there is room for people to "believe" in the plausibility of things that cannot be shown to be false, and this is especially true if they can make reasonable arguments for why they consider them to be plausible, and therefore possible.

In fact, I would hold that the scientific hypothesis of String Theory is a Type 3 belief. It certainly doesn't qualify under your category of Type 1 beliefs.

Having said that I would pretty much agree with everything you have listed in your Type 2 beliefs, and agree that these can be ruled out as being highly unreasonable.

But clearly there exists Type 3 beliefs, even in the sciences. String Theory is most certainly a Type 3 belief, and not a Type 1 belief. In fact, most honest scientists will readily confess that it could indeed be wrong, but they tend to "believe" in it as a matter of faith anyway. Otherwise they wouldn't put so much time and energy into studying it and trying to move it forward.

So Type 3 beliefs, are not only reasonable, but these are the type of beliefs that keep the cutting edge of science moving right along.

So I don't accept your simple dichotomy and I have offered a third option along with the observation that this third option is indeed the basis of modern science.

~~~~~~~

If I were going to explore or expound on my Type 3 beliefs I would first want to offer two more classes of "beliefs". One is a dichotomy, the other is a trichotomy.

~~~~~~~

The Foundational Dichotomy of Reality.

Reality is either reducible to individual parts or "atoms", as in the Greek philosophical sense. Or reality is a continuum and cannot be reduced to individual parts. This was in fact, the great debate in ancient Greece.

Do we live in a "discrete" reality, or is reality a "continuum".

In ancient Greece the philosophical belief that reality is a continuum won the greatest favor and became the norm ever since. Early proponents for a discrete reality (i.e. men like Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea) held strong to the discrete philosophy of reality, but they were in the minority.

Today we live in an age of great irony. This is because Quantum Physics has basically vindicated the discrete picture of reality put forth by men like Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea. We now know, or believe, from observational evidence that we live in a "Quantum World". And this basically means that the world is quantized. It's discrete. Everything from energy, matter, motion, and even time must proceed in "Quantum Jumps". That's a discrete reality.

This is an irony, because even those Democritus, Leucippus, and Zeno of Elea, have been vindicated the mathematical community says, "Not so fast". The mathematical community believes that they have shown Zeno to be wrong. They claim that their Calculus proves that Zeno was wrong. *(I personally disagree with this passionately, but that's a whole other story).

The mathematical community not only rejects a discrete reality but they insist upon a continuum. They have gone to great lengths (no pun intended) to construct an infinite "Number Line" that has no gaps. They insist on mathematics describing a continuum.

So here we have Physics saying that the universe is quantized (i.e. discrete and can only behave in discrete jumps) and we have a mathematics that is designed specifically to describe a reality that is a continuum with no gaps, and no jumps.

So our science and mathematics are actually bucking heads but everyone seems to be blind to this fact.

In any case, there is a real dichotomy here. Either reality is based upon a continuum, or it's discrete. It can't be both. Or can it?

Another thing to realize here also is that this leads to two entirely different philosophies

Reductionism and Holism

Either the universe is the sum of individual parts (A Discrete Reality or Reductionism)

Or the universe is a seamless whole, (A Continuum Reality, or Holism)

Or possibly it's both, depending on the level we examine.

The macro universe appears to be continuous where General Relativity Rules.

The micro universe appear to be discrete where Quantum Mechanics Rules.

But most physicists agree, that Quantum Mechanics is actually the "Truth" of reality. In other words, the only reason the macro universe appears to be a continuum is because the level of discontinuity is simply too small to be noticed.


In any case, these are the foundational dichotomies of reality.

Reality is either Discrete in which case Reductionism rules.

Or Reality is a Continuum in which case Holism Rules.

So this is not only a dichotomy of reality, but it's also a dichotomy of philosophy.

Note: I am personally unaware of any third possibility but I'm always open to suggestions.

~~~~~~

The Foundational Trichotomy of Reality.

Now when we consider a possible mystical, spiritual, or divine essence to reality we have only three choices. At least only three that I can imagine. Perhaps you can add more?


1. Pure Secular Materialistic Atheism.

There simply is no mystical, spiritual, or divine essence to reality. It's all just a material world. And this is usually thought of in terms of "Reductionism". In other words reality is actually the result of material particles or "atoms" in the Greek sense of the term. Clearly modern day Greek Atoms would be "Strings".

2. Theism based on an idea of an external Godhead

There is a creator God that is totally separate from us. This God created us knowingly and with intend. It makes sense that this God should hopefully have a plan since he's doing this will intent.

3. Mysticism, as either Pantheism or Panentheism.

There are many version of this, but the bottom line is that all of reality is nothing other than a manifestation of this mystical, or spiritual being, and therefore we are it, or at least we are an integral facet of it. Often times this mystic being is imagined to be some sort of "Mind" or computer using today's jargon. Life could be said to be but a dream in the mind of this single holistic being. This philosophy is one of "Holism" where the whole is "God" and everything within the whole is a manifestation within the mind of God.

~~~~~

If there are other potential scenarios for reality I am unaware of what they might be.

~~~~~~~

So having given all of the above as a preliminary setting I would say that my "beliefs" about reality are as follows:

TYPE 3 Beliefs - (a belief in what I see as a reasonable plausible reality, my believe in this reality is very much the same as a String Theorist's belief in String Theory)

I also believe that Reality is a Holistic Continuum. This may seem to conflict with Quantum Physics in some ways, but I believe that it is actually quite compatible.

And finally I believe in the plausibility of Mysticism, as either Pantheism or Panentheism. One reason I believe in the plausibility of this picture is because I have seen many philosophies that justify its plausibility. This of course does not make it true. It simply keeps it within the realm of plausibility.

Finally, I'm also not convinced of the plausibility of "Pure Secular Materialistic Atheism". For me, there are reasons why this scenario is not as plausible as many atheists seem to think it is.

Hey, about to go to bed and didnt read your whole post, but totally agree with the first part, and the example fo string theory. Thanks for pointing that out.

We could call those "Placeholder beliefs". Beliefs that will instantly be abandoned when evidence is presented for the inaccuracy of those beliefs, but which are temporarly and very tentatively held, as a mere tool to expand our knowledge.

I think most scientists would be just as ectatic if string theory was debunked, as they would be if it were confirmed to be true, because in any case we would have expanded our knowledge of the universe.

In any case, it's true, that is a third category.

[1213]

...Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769,...

What empirical evidence we have for that? Or do you mean imperial?

[atheist buddy]

...Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769,...

What empirical evidence we have for that? Or do you mean imperial?

Birth records from the hospital.

Also report by Keralio, the Inspector of Military Schools, when Napoleon was in school at Brienne

[1213]

...Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769,...

What empirical evidence we have for that? Or do you mean imperial?

Birth records from the hospital.

Also report by Keralio, the Inspector of Military Schools, when Napoleon was in school at Brienne

If those are empirical evidence, is Bible also empirical evidence for God? I don’t see any difference in those scriptures.

[atheist buddy]

...Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769,...

What empirical evidence we have for that? Or do you mean imperial?

Birth records from the hospital.

Also report by Keralio, the Inspector of Military Schools, when Napoleon was in school at Brienne

If those are empirical evidence, is Bible also empirical evidence for God? I don’t see any difference in those scriptures.

There is a huge difference. The evidence for Napoleon's birthday is not contradicted by ANYTHING.

The evidence for Jesus walking on water, for Noah's ark, for the talking donkey, for the rain of frogs, for the zombie invasion, are contradicted by everything we know about science.


What's the difference between these two statements:

Statement 1: Steve went to work on monday

Statement 2: Jane is a bachelor's wife, and she went to work tuesday on the back of her magical dragon.

[Divine Insight]

If those are empirical evidence, is Bible also empirical evidence for God? I don’t see any difference in those scriptures.

If you don't see any difference then why wouldn't you be worshiping Napoleon as God's only begotten son?

Clearly there have been extremely unreasonable claims made in the Bible.

I don't even personally question whether or not some guy a named Jesus actually lived, argued with the Jewish Priests, and was crucified for blaspheme.

All of that is certainly "believable". Of course, just because it's believable doesn't mean it's true. I don't believe that we even have convincing evidence for even that much of the Jesus stories. Some people are arguing that there never was any such man even historically as a pure mortal man. They point to a lack of historical evidence as reason to dismiss the entire thing as being nothing more than rumors.

I'm willing to entertain that some guy might have actually lived and sparked the rumors of Jesus. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in all the supernatural rumors associated with the man.

God spoke from a cloud?

If that's true then why doesn't he speak from clouds today?

Dead saint's physically climbed out of selected graves that were jostled open by an earthquake? That's not reasonable.

These same saints supposedly went into the Holy City of Jerusalem to show themselves to the people there, yet there is no independent historical record of anyone having seen these zombie saints? That's not reasonable.

Jesus was resurrected in a physical body complete with the very wounds that killed him? And then he physically ascended to a spiritual heaven taking his wounded physical body with him? That's not reasonable.

In fact, that last claim is not reasonable on any level. Even if I were going to accept the miraculous and superstitious belief that a God could raise Jesus from the grave, why would he raise him in a wounded body?

I would expect that if a God is going to magically resurrect someone he would simultaneously heal them of all their wounds. I would at least expect Jesus to have been resurrected in a pristine body with all wounds miraculously healed.

After all, even Jesus was supposed to heal wounds. Surely the Father God could do even better.

Some Christians claim that God left the wounds there just for the "Doubting Thomas". But what sense does that truly make? A God who can resurrect a perfectly healed body is going to leave Jesus full of wounds just to prove to a doubting Thomas that it's really Jesus?

You've got to be kidding me. Jesus should have been resurrected with a pristine body. Then when the "doubting Thomas" said to Jesus, "It's not really you because you don't still have your wounds", Jesus could have simply replied, "Thomas, you're an idiot. Do you think that God cannot heal wounds?"

The whole thing is not only unbelievable, but to be perfectly honest with you it's absolute absurd.

Some of the things that these authors actually wrote into these stories only serve to convince me that the stories are stupid, they don't serve to convince me that they are real which was clearly the authors intent.

Like I say, a REAL God would have known that I would be far more impressed by a Jesus that was restored to pristine condition than one that was resurrected complete with his existing wounds.

That brings up all sort of questions. If Jesus had been beheaded would he have been walking around carrying his head in his hands after the resurrection?

These fables are not only unreasonable on a practical level, but they aren't even reasonable on a superstitious level. They are absolutely absurd in every possible way.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

What an awesome post, and what a shame it didn't get more response.

Kind of off topic (but the topic died anyway) let me throw back a few thoughts.

On quantum discreteness and the mathematical continuum
Like all mathematics, the continuum doesn't have to depend on the real world for its validity. And the continuum is there... once you start doing addition and multiplication you will eventually be led to it because it's the unique complete ordered field. Even if we had always believed space to be ultimately discrete we would have discovered it. And the calculus that uses it does things that a "discrete" viewpoint can't - try doing relativity without infinitesimals.

You say that quantum science is "real" and it's just that the discrete nature of reality isn't apparent at large scales
We should have learnt by now that it's hasty (and unnecessary) to declare that any objects postulated by a scientific theory are "real". The moon landings were achieved using Newtonian mechanics even though that was already known to be "wrong" because it was the best tool for the job. Everything you can do with the Standard Model will still work if String Theory (or something else) supersedes it as a description of the smallest scales. And like I said, try doing relativity with the tools of quantum mechanics. Why should we ever expect to reach a point where our theories cannot be revised?

A theory fits observation closely enough for the task in hand or it doesn't. The notion of "real" is redundant.

Hence...

Another dichotomy
Either there is a definite way reality is or there isn't. Either there is something behind the veil in the Holy of Holies, or not.

Materialism versus pantheism
Is there really a difference between your first and third options? If so, what? It seems to me that the question is, do the rules work all the time or are their sometimes miracles. If you go with option one then the difference between materialism and pantheism is only labelling and a matter of taste. If you go with option two then we can ask for empirical evidence of the miracles and we return to Atheist Buddy's original dichotomy.

Like I said, a pleasure to read...

[1213]

There is a huge difference. The evidence for Napoleon's birthday is not contradicted by ANYTHING.

Yes, but it is a thing that really matters. Only few would bother to disagree with it, because it is not important thing.

The evidence for Jesus walking on water, for Noah's ark, for the talking donkey, for the rain of frogs, for the zombie invasion, are contradicted by everything we know about science.

I agree that modern science and modern people don’t understand how those could be possible. However, in my opinion it is not wise to define possibilities by lack of knowledge. I have no reason to believe that today people have the highest knowledge so that they could tell what can ever in any situation be possible.