Invalid Beliefs

I often find people approach their life with little thought as to why they believe in the type of justification they believe in. A Catholic follows the bible and the pope. A scientist only supports statements which are which are based in solid fact. Or, an intellectual might state they follow reason.

All three of these of people, no matter how rational in their own minds, have made an initial leap of faith by founding their thoughts through the statement above and are therefore subscribing to a belief. I.e. they have chosen to take their observations, prior to comprehending them, and decide how to handle them.

The scientist for example would see 4 Chevy cars on the side of the highway, he/she might ask why the cars are broken down and study it but so long as a study does not state otherwise, the cars must be held in equal quality. The issue with a quantitative based world view is that it does not explain individual situations because the data can never be comprehensive enough to encompass all situations which do not fall under the studies error rates and finite controls. Perhaps in the example above, the scientist is driving through the desert and the AC in these cars will drain the alternator in hot weather, this would be a difficult fact to isolate prior to study because of the number of variables involved. Therefore, this person's observation is limited to that which is finitely stipulated and which available resources allow them to study.

The Catholic is just a rather self-explaining example, in that, if the Pope says bats are an evil bird, the person now observes bats as evil birds. However, bats are not birds and therefore this is in correct.

The the intellectual who bases their observation is logic is just as guilty as the two above because they are relying on their own observations to make statements about the world. The issue with one's observations, is that they do not account for others. Being logical in belief quickly creates a circle based on their own insights (I.e. observation -> rationalize -> contemplate -> make logical conclusion -> same observation -> same conclusion), that is, you can't observe an activity though another perspective because you must rely on your own reason to observe an action and therefore always filter though the same mechanism.

Because all three of these examples are wrong, one might conclude all thought is belief which I would tend to think is a half-truth because some thoughts are clearly more correct then others through all three perspectives (for example: the sky is blue).

So, the question I would like to hear people's thoughts on is, what determines a belief to be invalid?

Many things could show how a belief can be addressed as valid or invalid, in my opinion. I would say a belief which requires acceptance and unity is the least valid, as oppose to someone who is insane, which clearly states the impossible(ex: Insane person: My fridge is the god, it told me so). I would say it is important for your belief to have impacted you in some way therefore the personal experience is needed. I would also say there needs to be reason or possibility of said belief being true. And I would say a subtle hand guiding said belief, is also needed because not everyone is a leader. By hand I dont mean a person, yet it may be the case, but just some rails on the tracks.

In conclusion i would say all three need to be put together appropiately with previously said statements.

Each of the three ways suggest a different way of discovering and developing. One through faith, another logic and numbers, and the last through guidance. I do believe that some of the things that are needed to prove a "higher power" are not easily obtained. That "personal experience" just may be that tool that will never be in the books of research like you said. Though it may be 100% right, you have no way of recreating it due to lack of availability of resource and capability.

Good question and i hope my reply was adequate. : )

The key word here is "invalid".

Invalid to who? Others.

Each individual has a perspective from which beliefs are formed.

If an individual has a belief, it is valid (at least at the time of having it).

So what you are really talking about, is making an individual's belief acceptable to others.

Faith, reason & experiment are methods but it all depends on the perspective of the other(s) whether or not they can accept a belief.

What is it that you define as valid?
In my opinion, since the "Truth" of a "belief" doesnt exist (which is why it is called a belief instead of being called the truth) then the validity in a belief belongs to the individual doing the believing. For me, believing in a thing has nothing to do with truth.
It has everything to do with what that particular belief system does to my thought processes. If a belief allows me to live a way I want to live, and if that way of living does good things to my life, then it is a valid belief regardless of what the "Truth" may be.

btw, the truth is over rated and not such a mystery. Something causes the truth to be the truth. Sometimes that something is us. Sometimes that something is something else. Either way, we usually recognize it when it is presented to us and it doesnt really make much difference if we do not. The truth takes care of itself. Also, LOGIC cares nothing about the truth. Logic only assumes that IF this thing is the truth THEN that thing must be the truth too. So logical thinking, and so called reasoning, doesnt have much to do with the validity of the truth.

I choose to believe in everything until the "truth" tells me I am wrong. Whats the big deal? Believing I can fly doesnt mean I have to jump off the cliff.

No, my argument was that believing is not the same thing as truth seeking. So belief does not fall under the same constraints as truth seeking.
So then, seeking validity in a belief is not necessary.

We can find a million valid reasons to believe in THIS thing.
Likewise, we can find a million valid reasons to believe in THAT thing. So, which one do we choose?

I would argue that validity in one or the other is not what decides the believer.

In fact, I would argue (and did, though obviously not very well.) that the deciding factor in a persons belief, or disbelief, is rather based upon personal wants and needs than by someone else's views on the validity of that belief.

As to faries and truth.........
May I ask:

1) exactly what is the harm in believing in something that a bunch of other people think is unreasonable, or invalid?

2) exactly whose reasonable musings am I supposed base my beliefs upon?

3) How many philosophers does it take to create the reasonable, and logical truth? (Socrates doesn't count. He admitted to knowing nothing.)
So like, if a thousand people say a thing can not be, is that enough to make it true? More than a thousand? Less.

Hmm........
Thanks.
Tyrion

"Argue for what you can not have and sure enough you will not have it."

Ok, I have to sleep now. Tomorrow, or later today actually, I'll define belief, and talk about why gravity don't matter. Also I will explain why i believe you are wrong about logic and reason being based upon reality, instead of what people THINK they know of reality. Or at least try to get you to explain what reality is so that I too can be reasonable and logical.

Likewise to your explanation of how people get stuck in definitions, I would add that sometimes they take the most meaningless thing someone says and argue it to infinity..........please ignore my tongue in cheek, quite obviously in bad form, and downright horrible statement about flying.
I knew not what I had done.

Tyrion.

You said,
 It is not meaningless - it is a very pertinent example of your beliefs. If you erred, it is your fault,

I say,
Ok, ok I said I erred. It IS meaningless. I do not believe I can fly. That was supposed to be a flip remark in the form of an end line quote ( u know, like where you put that nonsense about reality busting illusions.) 

You said,
I'd like to hear about why gravity doesn't matter, though I don't see how that can be explained in a logical fashion since gravity, like fire, is irrefutable. 

I say,
Gravity doesn't matter, not because it doesn't exist, but because when we believe in a way around an obstacle, in spite of what we think we know, we do find ways to make the so called truth mean less. 
Uh oh, I guess I'm saying we CAN fly. In fact we DO fly, in those big metal birds. 
300 years ago, I would have been burned as a witch for just suggesting such a thing.

You said,
As for reality, it is basically probability - using sensory inputs, historical record, and mathemetical deduction to create probable truths. 

I say,
Here are some fun facts:

We see (with our physical eyes) approx 1% of all of the things it is possible to actually see.  We do not have sensors to see more than a tiny bit of the spectrum.

Likewise, we only hear the same amount of the available sound that reality has to offer. 

Likewise, we only feel that same small portion of physical feelings that reality has to offer. 

Same with taste and smell. 

Later, if you like, we can explore the ideas about how the mind has no choice but to create everything we perceive based upon these meager morsels that our poor senses are able to perceive.
The difference between what reality is, and what we perceive of it.....well now, THERE is a wall, if you must have one.


You said,
These truths form reality. 

I say,
So, here you are saying that OUR sensory inputs, historical record, and mathematical deductions create reality? Wait! Isn't that my argument?

 
You said,
Beliefs that are counter to this reality are inherently damaging because a belief that goes against reality will always lose when it hits the wall of reality.

I say,
Maybe true, but (forgive me for being blunt) you have no idea where that wall is, or what it looks like, or of what is is made.
And, what creates this "wall" of reality you speak so fondly of? 
If we are part of reality, then we MUST sometimes create it. 
I'll go one further: 

Here's a simple path.......
We define everything we can perceive. 
We live by those definitions.
We create new ways to perceive.
We have apparently agreed that our perceptions are the basis of our reality.
When we create ways to perceive that have never existed before, then guess what we are also doing..........
If A=B and B=C........


Reality changes all the time. Sometimes it's us that changes it. 
The physicist John Wheeler said that there are many things in reality that exist as one thing until they get interacted with by something else. 
That little wall of yours is paper thin at best.

You said,
There are absolutely probable truths.......What????

You said,
Any beliefs in opposition of these universal truths are inherently "invalid" and damaging.  

I say,
Ok, ok wait, so these absolutely probable truths are now universal and incontrovertible? I say again.....What????

Now, after rereading my posts, I have come to the belief that I have indeed defined what I call a belief.  Several times.
I'll put them together now:

A belief is the particular truth that we each choose to hold as our own, in agreement with, and in spite of, the beliefs that others choose to hold as their own. 
Validity need not apply. The position is filled. Validity implies that someone else's ok is needed for it to be ok to believe this or that. 
No one else's ok is needed. Stand up and be not afraid to believe in your own validity. I can intelligently argue for, or against any belief anyone chooses to behold. 
Two differing beliefs can both be true and valid. We always choose to hold the one that means more to us. 

Tyrion

Ok, let's assume that your post is all true.

You only responded to the last paragraph of the post.
Are you claiming that my delusions are justification for ignoring the good ideas in the rest of the post?

Or, was I just supposed to realize that I am unworthy to your superiority, and shut up?

Tyrion.

I think if you believe something you work towards getting that or being that way, so like if you really want a car then you will find a way to get it you believe that you will definitely get it.

Invalid beliefs are needed in acting otherwise how can one be someone they are not?

In the end, we are all actors.