![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf you ask me about unproven assumptions I hold to, analagous to having faith in a god, I would normally claim something like "occam's razor" or "the scientific method". I can't show OR is correct without being able to extrapolate from past observations, but if I assume it, I can speculate confidently about the nature of the world.
There are also moral assumptions, which I've tried to articulate before. Eg. am I a utilitarian?
There are also much higher level assumptions, eg. about which political systems are generally beneficial. In theory you can measure that, but it's too complex to generalise about, so people tend to generalise from their own experience.
Most people I know wouldn't abandon deducing what the world is like with observation, science and logic, but progress isn't necessarily made by contradicting the previous position, but by saying it's fine as far as it goes, but it's only a small part of a larger system. I have other hidden assumptions, eg:
Learning, knowing, understanding more is both asthetically pleasing and beneficial
Ah, already I'm hedging. If I have two justifications I obviously don't believe in either very much. But it's a good description of what I feel. My first reaction to anything is always to learn about it.
I implicitely assume understanding something is good in the long term. And I happen to prefer it. So when someone tells me about God, my first reaction is "Is it true?" I'm sure that believing in a false religion is bad in the long term.
But that might be hokum. We've almost always believed in some supernatural beings. Maybe it does perpetuate the species better? Maybe it does make life better for people? Maybe there are things more *important* than truth.
I can't abandon my commitment to truth. But maybe I can accept *some* things as more important. What about the assumption:
We can make poverty[1] history
It's *possible*. Is it *plausible*? I don't know. It's a statement of fact, more relevent than the corresponding statement of morality ("we should..."). But in this case I can see believing it will be a good thing, and that's more important than truth, so I'd be willing to adopt this assumption anyway.
(This is inspired by a conversation with Angel, but I've no idea how related to what she meant it is.)
There are also moral assumptions, which I've tried to articulate before. Eg. am I a utilitarian?
There are also much higher level assumptions, eg. about which political systems are generally beneficial. In theory you can measure that, but it's too complex to generalise about, so people tend to generalise from their own experience.
Most people I know wouldn't abandon deducing what the world is like with observation, science and logic, but progress isn't necessarily made by contradicting the previous position, but by saying it's fine as far as it goes, but it's only a small part of a larger system. I have other hidden assumptions, eg:
Learning, knowing, understanding more is both asthetically pleasing and beneficial
Ah, already I'm hedging. If I have two justifications I obviously don't believe in either very much. But it's a good description of what I feel. My first reaction to anything is always to learn about it.
I implicitely assume understanding something is good in the long term. And I happen to prefer it. So when someone tells me about God, my first reaction is "Is it true?" I'm sure that believing in a false religion is bad in the long term.
But that might be hokum. We've almost always believed in some supernatural beings. Maybe it does perpetuate the species better? Maybe it does make life better for people? Maybe there are things more *important* than truth.
I can't abandon my commitment to truth. But maybe I can accept *some* things as more important. What about the assumption:
We can make poverty[1] history
It's *possible*. Is it *plausible*? I don't know. It's a statement of fact, more relevent than the corresponding statement of morality ("we should..."). But in this case I can see believing it will be a good thing, and that's more important than truth, so I'd be willing to adopt this assumption anyway.
(This is inspired by a conversation with Angel, but I've no idea how related to what she meant it is.)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 02:52 pm (UTC)It's also open to manipulation - to my mind it's a method (and one I use) rather than a thing to have faith in. Christianity is to my mind a way of thinking/being primarily, not dissimilar to Buddhism at its most basic, but with the added benefits of incarnation.
Occam's razor is a good corollary to Utilitarian thought, but perhaps is better used for something like Kantian ethics.
For me, faith is held in tension - I believe in the spark of God in all living things, but I believe also that that spark can be used for evil, and we should not underestimate our capacity for evil.
So I believe forgiveness is about seeing people as they are, with my emotions stripped away, and seeing people as God sees them. e.g. Someone steals my handbag. They have stolen, and thus need to earn my trust again, and they also need to face certain consequences. God sees that in them they have potential to be good people, and I should create a way for them to earn back that trust.
To have a single belief is dangerous, and dulling.