From: li@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus)
Subject: Re: Quantum (and untutored Zen) and Beliefs (was Re: Absolutes)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:48:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.191717.8940@bmerh85.bnr.ca> yho@utcs.utoronto.ca writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.071934.10716@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.223721.4614@data-io.com> li@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:
>>>The existance or inexistance of God is one of those questions.  By some
>>>attitudes it *must* be true or it *must* be false, it cannot be both.  By
>>>my argument, since it cannot be proven, then both those who believe it is
>>>true are as valid as those who believe it is false.  In essense, each
>>>belief is as true as the other.
>>
>>	"I guess I don't equate the validity of a belief to the truth
>>of a proposition.  For example, suppose that we know that there was a
>
>I fully agree.  It is valid that one can believe that God exists, and someone
>  else can believe that God does not exist.  However, God cannot exist and
>  not exist at the same time.  So, either God exists and God does not exist.
>  One and only one can be true.

But...

chuckle...

The big but is that no one *can* know.

So, for all practical purposes, the *belief* in either, wheither it is true
or false is as good or as bad as the other.  Validity has no basis when
there is nothing to prove it.

God can exist for one person and not exist for another.

Witness your athesist and any diety worshipper. 

Both can probably make a list of where their beliefs have been validated.

In Michael's original example of the one who believed in an afterlife and
the other who believed there was none.  If both believed that it was true
for *themselves* and only themselves, then they would both be quite correct
if it turned out that they each ended up where they believed they'd be.  
They would both be right.

As Darkshot said, sometimes intolerance sources from the belief that if
someone else is right, we must be wrong.

>>monotheism and traditional Judaism.  Religions are not only
>>lifestyles-- they include assertions about the nature of reality which
>>must be either true or false.
>
>Exactly.  And a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact
>  it asserts.  For this reason, I do not support the claim the morality issues
>  can be regarded as true or false, since morality deals with good and bad,
>  which are entirely subjective.

And *exactly* the reason why there are religious wars.

I don't agree with either of you.  That those assertions *must* be true and
only true for a single religion and invalidating all others if they are
true.  I think that is why I brought up the original argument.  

To say that one must be true and all the others false is the basis of all
misunderstanding, closemindedness and intolerance of 'new' ideas becuase
the ones that one was taught to begin with MUST be true or the whole thing
falls down.  The whole thing does *not* fall down.  Us vrs. Them doesn't
*have* to be, except for people that believe it *must* be one way or the
other.

>I'm sorry I have to disagree with you, Liralen, but thank you for providing
>  me with a great deal of food for thoughts through email in the past two
>  months or so.  My conclusion is that we have very different notions of
>  what truth and false are.

I don't think so, actually.

There is a very clear difference between *belief* and *fact*.

I agree fully about facts which can be proven being true.  I don't think
that beliefs can be 'right' or 'wrong'.  Not so that we can know them and
not so that anyone can assert that they and only they are right.  To
actually believe one is more valid than another is just fine, but to ever
*assert* that one actually is provably more valid than another is utterly
false.

The belief that there either must be a God or not be a God is, in and of
itself, an unprovable belief.  Perhaps for some there is and some there
isn't, and it's entirely dependent on wheither or not someone believes
strongly enough?  As Michael noted, with his set of beliefs about what is
Valid and Invalid, pretty much every idea about what cannot be proven is 
most probably invalid.  

Religion is based in belief.  Belief and the working of actions in
accordance to those beliefs.  Unprovable, they only come to life given that
someone believes in them and works for them.  I disagree that a
disagreement of beliefs ever means that one person *has* to be wrong and
the other person *has* to be right.

Which is, in and of itself a belief.  Grin.

Thing is that I'd rather work with the belief that everyone's right than
the belief that, most likely, everyone's wrong.

-- 
Phyllis Rostykus     | "... and how you feel can make it real  | - _US_
aka Liralen Li       | Real as anything you've seen            |   Peter
li@inigo.Data-IO.com | Get a life with this dreamer's dream."  |   Gabriel
Newsgroups: alt.callahans