Kasannagi Mig33 Family

Global Filipino Community
HomeHome  PortalPortal  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  



Go down 


Number of posts : 2122
Age : 37
Location : israel
Registration date : 2008-04-04



A Short Treatise On The Nature Of Belief

The heart of the question lies with the definition of the word
"belief". or most, a belief is an idea about reality, a definition of
Truth. I submit that such a definition is obsolete--pre-relativistic.
Unless we assume that all is known about everything, we must assume
that all of our ideas are incomplete.Therefore our knowledge of Truth
is, of necessity, also incomplete.

Viewed this way, belief,
as traditionally defined, is misguided. Unless or until all is known,
all beliefs are liable to be proven false as new knowledge is gained.

Physicists realized this in the earlier part of this century when they
proved that light was composed of waves. This was a problem because
they also proved that it was composed of particles (photons) and
further proved that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. They
demonstrated that it had to be composed of either waves or particles,
but that if one was true, the other had to be false.

caused much consternation because physicists found it useful at some
times to regard light as being composed of particles (i.e such an
assumption enabled them to make correct predictions of experimental
results--that is, to learn more about Nature) and at other times, it
was useful to regard it as being composed of waves. Traditional logic
demands that one or the other assumption should be discarded, as each
ruled out the other, but this would've required discarding an
assumption that was useful to them.

The solution? To assume
that light is composed of waves when that assumption is most useful,
and to assume that it is composed of particles when=that= assumption is
most useful. The question of ultimate reality was left to the
philosophers. Scientists were more concerned with what works than what
best agreed with their sense of logic. If logic (in this case, assuming
that light was either waves or particles, but not both) proved to be
less useful than illogic (assuming that it is composed of waves =or=
particles, depending on what you're looking at), they would go with
what was most useful:the illogical assumption.

At this point,
you might be wondering what all this has to do with reincarnation.
remember...reincarnation? ) The reason for my long digression was to
illustrate that, properly understood, a belief isn't a conclusion
(based on observation) about the nature of Ultimate Reality, but a way
of looking at nature that proves more useful than any other =in a given
set of circumstances=. With this goes the assumption that, since our
of the nature of Reality is incomplete, these assumptions are
tentative--to be discarded as soon as a more useful system of beliefs
is found.

In light of this, I find discussions concerning the
logical questions concerning reincarnation (e.g. the problems
concerning the number of souls in relation to the increase in the human
population) to be beside the
point. With the above definition of
"belief", it is not so much important whether or not reincarnation is
logically valid as is the question of what belief is most useful in
doing whatever we choose to do with our life.

For me, I find
that I'm much happier if free of fear of eternal oblivion (or worse, of
the eternal torture threatened by many of the world's
religions).Accepting a belief in reincarnation accomplishes this and
has the
added advantage of offering rich and fertile fields for exploration into a past that stretches across all cultures and all time.

Also, since fear has been a potent tool for those who would exploit us
to nefarious ends (most tyrants come to power by exploiting the fear of
those who can give them that power), any belief which lessens fear (and
mortal fear is at the root of all other fear) reduces the likelihood of
my being exploited by these tyrants.

For me, such an assumption
about the nature of reality allows for a happier, freer life. Put in
the terms outlined above, I believe in reincarnation because, for my
own subjective ends, it's most =useful=. After
all, isn't utility the most important criterion for accepting a model of reality?

Copyright 1987
William B. McLaughlin
All Rights Reserved
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://kasannagi.forumotion.com
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Kasannagi Mig33 Family :: Public Discussion Lounge :: Horror Lounge-
Jump to: