>>12193>You are putting best in single quotes, which I gather means you don't believe it to be the best Oh, actually I do. I was trying to use the quotes to kind of imply a metaphor, but I may not have phrased that as well as I could have. What I meant by best that we got at the moment, was just that. Basically this is the best knowledge and tools that we have at our disposal, at the moment, but that can always change in the future as we continue to grow and learn. In the same way that we do not use barbaric surgery methods anymore because now we have refined machinery and technology that can help us to do it better. Or, for another example, we wash our hands before performing surgery because we have learned how bacteria and disease can spread. Does that make more sense?
>Where state force is not the issue, you get to choose and freely express your ideas and choices to others. I do think expertise has value and should not be dismissed without good reason, but in the end, where free, you may make your own choices, including choices with emotional or spiritual reasoning.Right, that's true. I was not meaning to imply that we take away one's rights, but more as a thought experiment on morals. As in, is it morally right? Obviously opinions will differ, but that's also the point of having a conversation about such things, is to see others opinions on how they feel about it.
>Any class of belief that influences action can cause damage. Perhaps I am having trouble thinking about the question properly as I have a limited knowledge of history. Personally I think science is the best method for forming consensus on matters in the scientific domain, but scientists must always be cautious about dictating to others. It's a balance, perhaps.I believe this is true, and I agree with you.
>>12194>This is not a position I can imagine myself coherently holding. Other people might; but I don't think I can.Alright, fair enough.
>The reason these are coupled is not for any direct moral imperative, but because you can only accomplish your goals (moral or otherwise) effectively by having beliefs that match reality. I wish to invest my belief in tools that actually work in reality, not in illusions, because that is what is going to allow me to accomplish my aims. That is not an imperative to believe today's science and medicine and such, necessarily; but it does mean that taking actions that don't correspond to what you actually think is actually true to your best assessment, is being stupid.This is interesting, and I find myself agreeing with much of it. Specifically the using tools that work in reality.
>I think that anyone who considers themselves to have a strong moral obligation to do anything in particular, also has the moral obligation to figure out as best they can what they think is actually true about reality, and then act accordingly. Taking actions that make sense based on what you wish were true when you don't think it is actually true is a failure to effectively uphold the moral obligation you set yourself.Another good point. I've definitely had my fair share of harming myself chasing after things that I wished were true, vs. facing the reality of the situation. This may be part of the reason that I wanted to start a thread like this and see differing view points from my own, because our inner thoughts can be illogical sometimes.
>>12198>for example, they wouldn't believe you can appeal to God in order to possibly get a specific, desired outcome for something.That's interesting, and reminds me of a conversation I was having with someone who was raised Christian, then left Christianity, and then came back to it through their own life experiences. I was asking them about their life experiences and why they chose to believe in it again, and one of the things they told me as they were kind of giving their timeline of events, was that at one point they were praying to try and manipulate God, which they then stopped themselves and with a bit of a wry/nervous smile, said, "which is not a good idea". We both had a good laugh over that, agreeing.
I don't really have a solid point with that, I just that it was an interesting correlation and felt like sharing.
>So, in such a case, and knowing this, I wouldn't say you ought to go off the deep end just because you had a compelling religious experience. I also wouldn't say that psychiatry is the "best we got at the moment," as I look at it as more of a last resort (in most cases) after everything else has been tried, including counseling...Alright, fair. I think I may also agree about psychology being a last resort. Up until a few months ago, I had a misunderstanding of what exactly it was that psychiatrists do. I was under the impression that much of their work was similar to therapy, and while I do think they can be a great tool to access under the right circumstances, I do find myself agreeing with you about them being a kind of last resort. I don't personally think I would take seeing a psychologist over my regular therapist and like group support.
>As far as a moral obligation in such a situation, I think that, perhaps, there may be one. (For example, from a religious perspective, one may do so as a way of honoring one's ancestors.) I would say that even religious and spiritual beliefs can change, so to suddenly give up all of your previous beliefs (including the foundations of science) for this other, new belief, seems kind-of short-sighted. Also, depending on the belief and if there is a strong following around it, there may be a risk of taking on incompatible or additional new beliefs without good reasons. Even if a belief is not founded on science, one still ought to use their own personal reasoning ablity to discern the truth (this is the difference between the objective reality-based reasoning of science, the virtue-based reasoning of virtue ethics philosphies, such as Stoicism, and simple blind belief in religious authorities - i.e.: objective reality need not be believed in in order to practice and reason in terms of virtue ethics). Perhaps, in such a case, I would just do as Zen Buddhists do, and sit and watch my mind and the belief with curiosity for a while and see what happens.Honestly, I feel very strongly with this take. I have spent quite a bit of time now pondering and trying to make sense of experiences that I've had over the past year, (and in previous years but that were not so obvious as the past year), and trying to figure out how all this new information fits in and sits with my previous set beliefs. I've had to change some a bit, and still have my core sense of what I feel is moral and right, but I'm also trying to be careful and not get carried away lest I end up being a person who repeats history because I could not learn from it.
As an example to explain what I mean, I have recently began to ponder and somewhat tentatively dip my toes into the waters of, "Okay, God may really exist. Whether or not I can figure out an accurate way to explain how or why they exist, I've experienced enough things that I'm willing to be open minded to the existence of them".
But with that new tentative belief, I've been trying to be mindful to not offer prayer as a solution to common ailments when my loved one's bring up things that are bothering them in their day to day. Like, I wouldn't tell them to pray if they find some new lump on their skin, I would tell them to go make a doctors appointment and get it checked out. Personally I feel like prayer, at least for me right now, is more akin to therapy and comfort, the placebo effect, etc., and if it won't harm anything or anyone, a last resort when it seems there is no hope for anything better.
I've also been trying to be respectful to people who
want to pray over their problems, even if I might suggest they also do something practical as well. Like I jokingly told a friend, "duct tape and a prayer. Duct tape to try to fix our tools, prayer to give us the tenacity to get through it."
Does that make sense? Thoughts?
