Is questioning one's faith inevitable?

OB1Shinobi wrote:
whats your opinion on the moon landing?

molecules?

the big bang?

was george washington REALLY the first president of the united states?

is there really such a thing as "quebec"?

am i dreaming of you, or are you dreaming of me?

im not advocating the rejection of burden of proof
im simply responding to the presentaton of an absolute which i know is not realistic for me personally

i accept that a degree of faith is ok because otherwise i wont be able to have faith in simple communication woth other people

if there actually are any other people

OB1Shinobi,

I believe my first post answered most of your questions. I do not hold anything to be "true" based on faith. Rather I hold something to be true, only if there is good hard objective evidence to validate it. Those beliefs are subject to change as new objective evidence is presented. I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

If you find this answer unsatisfying, you are welcome to message me in private. Continuing it here will only derail the thread further.

I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

The point is that no amount of faith actually helps to protect you from being mistaken. If anything, it helps you to insist that you aren't when really you are. At the very least it helps you over that tiny gap still needed to absolute certainty which in my humble opinion is undesirable both in the sense that it is unnecessary and in the sense that I'd actually positively rather not have it.

It is not difficult to be wrong and change your mind once you find out if you are not bound to your sources by an unreasonable conviction. No part of the rationalist's ego suffers from their argument being defeated. There is no cost in questioning beliefs but it reportedly is difficult to question one's faith. So if you have no faith, it cannot be shaken, whereas what can be shaken pains you not even once it breaks.

The point is that no amount of faith actually helps to protect you from being mistaken. If anything, it helps you to insist that you aren't when really you are. At the very least it helps you over that tiny gap still needed to absolute certainty which in my humble opinion is undesirable both in the sense that it is unnecessary and in the sense that I'd actually positively rather not have it.

Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong...

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone...

Jestor wrote: I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

My own observations have been recorded on video, for later review.

I have no doubt of what I've observed first hand.

I am sure you understand what I am referring to.

Best regards.

Jestor wrote: Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong.

Is that so? Proof, please.

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone.

I would also add "in any areas" for two reasons: The fact that a sentence says "some, but not all" doesn't make it any less absolute so I think it is a stretch to say that there are people who are immune enough to the perils of irrational conviction that their growth is unhindered by it. Secondly, while there conceivably are such people, judging by how diverse the areas where faith is employed and the propositions that it reinforces in people's minds are, my intuitive guess is that, at least in principle, everybody is susceptible to the lures and the dangers of unreason.

Red Eye wrote:

Jestor wrote: I am not following this thread too much, but, I wanted to comment:

I also base my beliefs off my own direct observations, and will trust these even when popular consensus disagrees.

Never had your senses fooled?

My own observations have been recorded on video, for later review.

I have no doubt of what I've observed first hand.

I am sure you understand what I am referring to.

Best regards.

I do bud...

And, while I do trust what I observe with my senses, I also have to realize that my senses can be fooled... So, that 'trust' comes with a "grain of salt"...

Ive been fooled by magicians both in my face (front row at Siegfried and Roy, at a magic show), and on TV and video (Chris Angel, David Copperfield)...

All I am saying, is you have to leave room for doubt...

Hold your convictions, but loosely...

So that if proven wrong, your world doesnt come crashing down... :blink:

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote: Nothing can prevent anyone from being wrong.

Is that so? Proof, please.

... so, you want to prove that "there isnt anything that can prevent anyone from being wrong"?

That sentence kinda hurt my brain, lol...

1) Provide proof for you to tear down? Therefore, proving my statement...

or 2) Provide proof that you are not able to tear down? Therefore, proving myself wrong?

lol...

I cannot provide you any proof, sorry... Of course, I am merely stating my opinion, (I say opinion, because I cannot prove it, ..), and welcome a chance to learn... If you can find fault in my statement, please, show me, I really love to learn...

"Faith", depending on how one sees/defines it, can prevent some folks from growing any further, but, not everyone.

I would also add "in any areas" for two reasons: The fact that a sentence says "some, but not all" doesn't make it any less absolute so I think it is a stretch to say that there are people who are immune enough to the perils of irrational conviction that their growth is unhindered by it.

It doesnt make it anymore absolute either, lol...

I try to never box myself in (speak in absolutes), although it does happen on occasion...... Such as my other sentence, which is an sort of an absolute, and I feel a correct statement, however, I recognize the impermanent state of all things, and realize that it too could be proven false at some point, lol...

The world being ever changing... lol...

I try to be open as I can, and I do hold some beliefs, but I cant think of any I hold as an 'irrational conviction', as I am aware that any of it can be proven wrong, and while it might sting (which was a lesson I learned here at TOTJO, lol), it shouldnt... Unless it is this idea, lol...

I am sure there are others, which leads to the second half of what you posted...

Secondly, while there conceivably are such people, judging by how diverse the areas where faith is employed and the propositions that it reinforces in people's minds are, my intuitive guess is that, at least in principle, everybody is susceptible to the lures and the dangers of unreason.

I would agree that we are all susceptible...

Even myself, lol, despite my previous thoughts about myself, lol...

Jestor wrote:
Ive been fooled by magicians both in my face (front row at Siegfried and Roy, at a magic show), and on TV and video (Chris Angel, David Copperfield)...

All I am saying, is you have to leave room for doubt...

When you are recording yourself alone, you can rest assured Chris Angel, David Copperfield, and Siegfried and Roy aren't hiding in your closet to pull the wool over your eyes.

What I've seen, experienced and documented first hand leaves zero room for doubt.

Best regards.

My objection was not so much with the content as it was with t he phrasing. Being a scepic I do not myself think that there is anything to guarantee one's being correct on a synthetic proposition, so I reckon we are on the same page here, Jestor. However, to boldly (both figuratively and in text format ) declare that "nothing" could ever do so I cannot. That is not something I can show to be true so I cannot assert that it is, even if I suspect so. If you wonder, the reason I asked for 'proof' in this case rather than evidence as I usually would is because no amount of things we can exclude as preventives against being wrong, we will never be able to conclude that we have covered an exhaustive list; therefore, the truth of the proposition can only be demonstrated by a logical analysis that concludes that it is not even in principle possible to prevent oneself from being wrong.
Point in case, it was the power of the proclamation and the absoluteness of the statement, really... The wording, rather than the message was what I responded to, knowing you and understanding that what you meant wasn't quite exactly how you put it. On that note, lest I be rightfully called out on hypocricy, I must stress that absoluteness itself is not necessarily a problem. When for instance I say that "no amount of faith can prevent one from being wrong", I actually do mean "no amount" and assuming there is a way to map faith to something more quantifiable and maybe also monotony of the resulting function I can actually prove that.

It was similar in the second response also. Since in the statement I quoted "any" can mean both any one thing and all things, it is, for someone who doesn't know you, not clear whether you mean that there are people who do grow in some areas despite their faith in it or in others or that there are people who grow in all areas despite their faith with some. My suspicion is, and as of yet I have no demonstration of it ready, that faith in the definition we ended up agreeing upon is a hindering factor to growth in everybody who has it; that is not to say people with faith don't grow, rather that there is for each a non-empty set of areas in which the faithful doesn't grow, grows slowly or only grows little in comparison with someone who has no faith pertaining to the considered areas.

It's quantifiers I tried to add. Semantics. We are otherwise on very close pages on this one, it seems.

It is not just inevitable, it is required.

"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet the Ghost, kill the Ghost".


Faith is a standard of personal systems based around concepts of our existence. It is not made to be absolute, because the universe is dynamic. The changing elements of life and nature, require that we adapt.

Therefore meeting god, buddha, satan, yoda, what have you, are obstacles in themselves. You must question their source, you must find your path without them, even if that path is based around those idols of worship.

Doubt is wisdoms ally. Blind faith, is its enemy.