Beyond a Belief’s Attire
I often find people approach their lives with little thought as to why they believe in the type of justification they believe in.
A Muslim or a Christian will follows their holy book and their religious guide (Sheikh or 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 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 Religious is just a rather self-explaining example, in that, if the Sheikh or Pope says bats are an evil bird, the person now observes bats as evil birds. However, bats are not birds and therefore this is incorrect. Yet the basics of which a religious person would lay his/her thoughts upon are the practices, rituals, commands and commandments of which he strongly knows & claims in heart with the solitary believe in God.
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 seemingly correct without the exaggerated explanation I have implemented, yet one might conclude all thought is belief which I would tend to think is a half-truth because some thoughts are clearly more correct than 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? And how should we rely our concrete belief on if not the combination of three aspects together for not one.
~A spoken word is a moment. A written word is eternal~