»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Curiosity vs Belief
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Curiosity vs Belief |
|
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Yes another vs thread for us to argue, knock heads and contend about  The question i pose is simle and yet disconcerting and deep at the same time (at least to me). Can i Curious and inquisitive mind ever settle firmly in a belief? Can you have a deep interest in the world that lies around you, a burning passion in how everything works, why everything works and settle down in a faith? The question is exactly what the title suggests. Also i wound like to continue here the Knowledge is power idea that we have in the Religion vs Reason thread. A sign in the wind The fatal last breath Soft prelude to death Alone Amidst black roses |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Digital_Hell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
I think that at points you can have curiosity and faith (at the same time), but it is spread out inbetween long lengths of a)curiosity or b)faith. Both of these (curiosity/faith) are sort of contradictory if you think about it. Curiosity is about thirsting for knowledge and evolving your thoughts and ideals. While faith is about firmly believing in the set rules and teaching of whatever that spirital avenue is. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Not only are they not contradictory, but, indeed, you can't have one without simultaneously having the other. |
||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
hmmmm...well they may not be contradictory (in some instances). Curiosity can lead to faith, but you still can have curiosity and faith seperate. Faith needs curiosity, but you don't necessarily need faith for curiosity all the time...not that I know of...But you probably are in the right in this instance Ron. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think it is impossible for a human to remove curiosity or belief from his Human Nature. They are immortally fastened in its fathoms and therein also, I think, fastened to each other. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I believe I can remain curious, but also stand like a rock on my personal constitutions...with an open mind to change and grow, if need be? |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
quote:Well id have to disagree. To have a burning interest in knowledge and a keen interest in increasing your understanding of the world and everything is contradictory to saying This is the absolute truth and it is the only way. quote:And yet we have those amongst us who have no need for faith or belief. They hold no absolute belief. What of them? SO to stand on personal beliefs with absolute conviction but still be willing to have an open mind towards them? I for one believe that to havea keen interest in all things, a burning desire for knowledge, i developed sharp intellect is directly at odds with a belief system which is absolute and allows for no discussion on its laurels A sign in the wind |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Are you sure of that? Absolutely sure? quote: A burning desire for knowledge would allow no time for eating, for drinking, for sleeping, or for any of the other things that makes life possible. Like a flame, it would consume you. See what happens when your own words are carried to extremes?  A belief system, even an absolute one, doesn't necessarily preclude room for discussion or adaptation, just as a burning desire for knowledge doesn't necessarily preclude time to eat. Everyone has faith in something, else they could not function. Everyone believes in something, else there would be nothing about which to be curious. Belief is the foundation upon which reason and intellect are built. Mathematicians call them axioms, scientists call them Laws, but every human endeavor, whether it names it or not, depends on faith. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam." Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand. "Negligentiae mihi esse videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod credimus, intelligere." I hold it to be a failure in duty if after we have become steadfast in our faith we do not strive to understand what we believe. -Anselm Bishop of Canterbury |
||
|
XOx Uriah xOX Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403Virginia |
Whatever you believe is belief. Even if you believe you don't have one. The belief in not holding to a belief is a belief. ::smiles:: I believe. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, quote: I agree that faith in certain circumstances is necessary, faith that when I breath my lungs will fill with air, faith that gravity will pull me back to earth if a leap in the air, faith in all the axioms and laws that shape my interaction with the world. I also agree that without these faiths we would find life extremely difficult however there is one specific type of faith that isn’t a universal faith, one that is neither required nor necessary – religious faith. After all I function without it, as do many people. I read the original question as being about the compatibility of curiosity and religious faith in particular. If my reading was correct I’d have to say that curiosity was still compatible but only up to point. To explain what I mean I can use the broader definition of faith. I have faith that when I leap in the air I’m going to be pulled back down to earth – that’s an effect and as such it has to have a cause – in this case my belief is that the gravity is the cause. Now let’s introduce curiosity, suppose I’m led by curiosity to examine gravity and find that gravity isn’t the cause, it is in fact caused by bubbles of luminisant ether bursting due to changes in altitude above sea level. Let us further suppose that I have evidence that clearly supports my claim – the scientific method allows for this, the cause can be replaced but my faith that when I leap in the air I’m going to be pulled back down to earth (effect) remains unchanged. Now let’s try that with religious faith. I have faith that Christianity is the one true faith– that’s an effect and as such it has to have a cause – in this case my belief is that God is the cause. Now let’s introduce curiosity, suppose I’m led by curiosity to examine God and find that God actually doesn’t exist, the cause is in fact due to a misinterpretation of the Bible by early Christian scribes. Let us further suppose that I have evidence that clearly supports my claim – religion has no way to deal with this (unless you count claims of heresy), the cause cannot be replaced without my faith that Christianity is the one true faith (effect) falling apart, one is mutually incompatible with the other at this point. If I was going to argue against this I’d suggest that it isn’t curiosity that’s incompatible but knowledge gained through curiosity though I’d be hard pushed to separate the crrelation between the two. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Grinch, all you're really doing is substituting one faith for another and, indeed, in doing so, have introduced us to the one belief shared by all sane people. No, not a belief in gravity, though I might point out it, like God, seems to defy any clear understanding. I'm talking, rather, about your faith in cause and effect. Generally, when we find people who have lost their faith in cause and effect, we throw them in an institution. Your analogy, I think, is flawed because your comparisons are flawed. If you want to use falling and gravity, then you should use creation and God as counterpoints. Just as falling will remain an effect even should you discover it has a different cause, creation, too, would withstand any denial of God. If you want to, instead, talk about Christianity being the one true faith, then I think you need to compare it to your own faith, i.e., compare it to your conviction that cause and effect mandate you will continue to fall to Earth even in the face of new discoveries. You contend that religion is an effect and must have a cause, but offer no real proof of that. Is cause and effect an effect, too? What, then, is the cause of cause and effect? Your faith in the way the Universe is (not an effect, simply a reflection of reality) isn't all that different than a Christian's faith in the way God is. And, like the Christian, you can't simply substitute a new faith should the old one fail and continue to function in the same way you have all your life. By the way, Grinch, I didn't interpret the question exactly as you did, but that's probably because I don't think of religion the same way you appear to think of it. Religion isn't necessarily just about God. I think we are subject to many religions, from the scientific method you mentioned in your own post, to democracy, to human rights, to a belief in the sanctity of human life. Religion isn't a four-letter word. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, quote: I’m not sure it is but I’m willing to go with the flow. If I believe that creation, as laid out in the bible, is an effect and the cause was God and then prove that God did not in fact exist my belief in biblical creation is untenable. If I believe that creation, as laid out in the bible, is an effect and the cause was God and then prove that God was not the creator (the cause) God may still exist, the creation theory may still hold up (though you’d need a substitute creator) but Christianity as a religious faith would then become untenable. Which was my point, in science gravity (the source) can be replaced without losing faith in science or faith in the effect, scientific faith is amended not replaced completely. Religious faith is reliant on the existence of God, the whole God and nothing but the God. Take away God or God’s hand in creation and religious faith cannot be amended, it must be replaced completely. The difference between the faiths of science and religion can be seen in other ways. Science for instance sees an effect and offers the best explanation, Religion sees an effect and offers one explanation, if someone’s curiosity leads him or her away from that explanation, they’re said to have lost faith. If a scientist’s curiosity leads them to a better explanation they’re given a medal and congratulated on keeping their faith in science. So which faith is more compatible with curiosity? quote: Religion did not exist and then it did, a sane man would take that as evidence that there was a cause. quote: But my faith in science doesn’t stand or fall on one underlying belief it’s a multiplicity of single beliefs all of which can be amended and none of which are key to the existence of science as a whole– removing gravity would be the equivalent of swapping a psalm or two in the bible removing God would require scrapping the whole book. quote: It depends on the definition of religion, as simply a belief or faith I’d agree all the above fall within the definition but when narrowed to a belief or faith in a God or Gods I’m not so sure. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If you equate religion with God, as you did earlier, then there was never a time religion/God did not exist. If, instead, you insist religion was created, then it was created by Man, not by God. I'm willing to accept either perspective for the sake of discussion, Grinch, but not a mix of the two. quote: Sure it does, Grinch, which I thought I already demonstrated. As long as we're playing If/Then ... If I proved that cause and effect was but an illusion, perhaps a means of "training" humanity implemented by magical beings, your faith in science would become just as untenable as a Christian's faith when you proved God didn't exist. Science, and indeed, our entire interaction with the physical universe, depends on unbridled faith in cause and effect. (What does a lab rat think about cause and effect, I wonder, when we train it push a lever for food? Does the lever always cause the effect of food? Or only when an unseen human makes it so? It's the kind of short story premise Asimov would have loved to write. )(Here's another one. Let's suppose that every effect is a completely random event, but we can only experience and remember those effects that are preceded by something we can perceive as a cause. Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound? We perhaps see only a tiny sampling of all that happens around us, only those events we can associate with a cause, and all else, the random ghosts and UFOs and psychic gobbledygook, goes largely unmarked and unquestioned. ) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, quote: I’m not sure I did equate God with religion – I did say that one was an effect and the other the suggested cause but equating one with the other would be a mistake. God is to religion what Elvis is to Presley fans. The second perspective is more acceptable quote: You mean you’d prove that the EFFECT was an illusion by reference to the CAUSE, would your method not disprove your hypothesis? (I knew reading Heller would come in handy at some point). quote: I think Asimov may have found that the rats had formed an association between pushing the lever and receiving food, you could call it a low level recognition of cause and effect but they have no interest in the mechanics surrounding the effect. The rats are playing the same game a baby plays when it cries to be fed – it doesn’t work every time but as long as it works some of the time they’re happy. However science could help both of them discover the true correlation between the two events if they were curious enough. quote: Now this I believe would sound more promising to Asimov, a world where only a small percentage of the things around us can be perceived. Even here there is a problem though, for cause and effect to be recognised by science it would need to be repeatable, if the effect is completely random in relation to the cause the association wouldn’t be perceived – if the rat pushed the lever and random effects occurred there would be no cause and effect – Asimov could ask Heller but I think It’s that catch again. Thanks for making me think though, even if I’m wrong the exercise is good. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. See, Grinch, like you, I can't help but think in terms of cause and effect. It's nice to know, I guess, that my sanity is still intact? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Does existance have a cause? If you say it does, then methinks you are contradicting yourself. For how can existance have a cause, if there isn't already existance for a cause? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
First Cause has been explored and argued for thousands of years, Essorant. It's nothing new, and certainly not intuitive. Whether First Cause is divine or natural in origin, it always comes down to the same thing. When you roll the clock back far enough, the clock ceases to have any meaning. God exists outside the constrictions and limitations of time, and so, too, must have the singularity we would eventually come to name the Big Bang. Without space and something to occupy the space, time no longer flows, and just as science depends on cause and effect for its meaning, cause and effect depend upon time. Without time, cause is necessarily concurrent with effect (though simultaneity, itself, becomes a concept that makes no sense in the absence of time) and becomes effect as much as cause. Anything outside time, outside years and minutes and seconds, is eternal. It cannot have a beginning, because the very concept of beginning is time-dependent. First Cause has no meaning when first and second and third can no longer be measured by the passage of time. The natural flow of time is just one of the many, many things in which we put our faith every day. Interestingly enough, that which you are questioning, i.e., existence itself, is something else that cannot be proven but only accepted through faith. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
My opinion was said best in a few poetic lines I wrote quite a while back: "Powers and weights, densities and amounts all are the core, all are the perfect cause compounded any way - everything counts and is a maker and breaker of laws." |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Truely Digital, another interresting thread. Not only does the curious mind continually wonder to different paths but it also forces people to "follow the path not taken" if you will. I know this from personal expeiriance. Blessed Be Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
