Believers Vs. Skeptics

[priestofmemory]

It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference in expectations between believers and skeptics when they discuss beliefs. What causes so many problems is that they often don't notice this difference

Comments

[rockstarpoet]

Depends on your stance and definition of faith I suppose. Faith is believing in something that can not be proven. So in order to have true faith, I believe you have to question it first, to realize it could be false. To be aware of the fact it can be totally fake. Anything else is blind faith.

So wouldn't a skeptic be a more true believer than one who has blind faith?

I just like Soren's definition of faith I suppose.

A believer that is sensitive to criticism lacks faith for the simple fact they are too afraid to ask these questions themselves, afraid of finding whats on the other side. A skeptic has no problem questioning these things, and once coming to a conclusion, has more of a solid foundation which to build that faith upon.

Left turn I know, but this is what I was thinking.

[sisalfish]

"What causes so many problems is that they often don't notice this difference

[sisalfish]

"From what I gathered, it isn't a forum on religion. Its a discussion community on science and spirituality"

Apologies- I meant to say it is both about science and spirituality, so belief and faith do have a place, I think. I value it because it mixes the two - what can be tested and proven, and what (as I understand it) can't be

[urwen_sakurafu]

I would like to see a little more evidence from both sides. This does not necessarily have to be scientific evidence, and this is a personal preference and is what I would like. I am well aware not everyone has the training to provide it:

Example statements that will make me raise an eyebrow and then ocasionally ignore the post/comment because I suspect the poster may have difficulty conducting a discussion in a sane or mature fashion, or seeing past their own dogmas:

"The (insert holy book here) says you should DEFINITELY never touch ANYTHING to do with psychic powers as they are a gateway to the wiles of the (Insert religous bogeyman here)"You are closed-minded/gullible and young. As you get older you will understand more about life

[sisalfish]

Yeah! all that works for me too!

As an example: "I follow suggestions and guidelines like this in many online and face to face communities I'm in, and it's been my experience that it leaves space for interesting discussions among diverse populations, all with an underlying element of mutual respect."

The above wasn't just an example, it's what I believe is useful in online communications -

I do very much want the input of scientists who may or may not share any religious beliefs with me, and may or may not see any validity or use in having such beliefs. I appreciate this dialogue on how the two POVs can more effectively communicate.

[urwen_sakurafu]

This is how I have to make the two points of view communicate inside my head, hehe.

[priestofmemory]

Well, there's no reason it wouldn't hold for the negation of X, provided that that can be formulated as a belief.

[avekid]

For a belief to be justified, the believer needs reasons (and good ones at that). Faith need not be -- and, in fact, by its very nature, cannot be -- justified in the same way. If we talk want to talk about beliefs, we can talk about the reasons we use to justify those beliefs. An appeal to faith effectively ends the conversation.

(I think this is more or less what you were getting at -- or something in the same ballpark -- without the misguided but all-too-common appeal to head vs. heart. My heart is a complex of muscles that works to pump blood throughout my body. My beliefs -- be they convictions, opinions, or otherwise -- are the result of complex cognitive processes.)

[urwen_sakurafu]

I imagine it's the shape that makes it stick in your throat, X has got all those arms.