• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The need for absolute proof and the validity having it would give

E

EnforcerSG

Although I am new here I have been debating stuff like this for a while and there is a big question that I have. Why do many people feel that absolute proof is needed for things?

Maybe a better question is why do people feel the need to absolutely trust something, whether it be science, god, other people, that they are right, that something is important, or anything really? Many times I have heard something like "well science can't prove this so" and seem to expect that that fact makes it worthless.

And then there is faith in God which generally seems like it must be absolute or else it is not really faith.

I try to avoid believing things absolutely. In a practical sense there are tons of things I don't question. We don't really have a choice but to do so (we would starve to death debating if the need to eat was absolute), but none of those things I would say are absolutely proved facts that are completely unquestionable (we can be "fed" through an IV, eating is not absolute). And emotionally I might get hyped up to think that something is an absolute until I calm down. But all in all I do not see a need to believe something absolute and IMO all it does is close our minds to other possibilities.

Assuming that we are reasonable enough to not believe what seems practically true as absolutely true, why do some people feel the need to have absolute proof for things? If some scientific theory is not absolutely proved (none are), but in a practical sense there is no other known explanation for something, does the lack of proof somehow invalidate it? How does religion and faith play into all of this? Is it reasonable to have absolute faith in something you cannot absolute prove (and is absolute faith a requirement of many religions?)?
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am the ship. Absolution is the coarse I have set. I could stay my coarse, or I could change it, but I must have it. I must have absolution. I must have a coarse. Without it I go nowhere. Without it I do nothing. I would be but a ship at drift. Void of purpose or value. Utterly lost and going nowhere.

Men must have a higher purpose, an ideal grater than themselves for which to reach.
 
E

EnforcerSG

Jerry said:
I am the ship. Absolution is the coarse I have set. I could stay my coarse, or I could change it, but I must have it. I must have absolution. I must have a coarse. Without it I go nowhere. Without it I do nothing. I would be but a ship at drift. Void of purpose or value. Utterly lost and going nowhere.

Men must have a higher purpose, an ideal grater than themselves for which to reach.
Your metaphor is useful. You set a course but you don't know if it is right. Your compass could be off a little, map not accurate, a bad gust of wind blows you a wrong way. You have no idea at all if your course is right. You do not have absolute proof that it will take you to your ideal greater than yourself for which you are reaching for.

Does that mean you shouldn't go on the course you think is the best? Heck no. You should go for it and believe that it will get you there. Yeah you should update your heading if you get more information, trust it within limits, but my question is about how much we must trust it.

My question is why do some people seem to think that we need to believe that our course is absolutely right? Although I disagree that we need something to reach for, that is not what I am trying to ask. What is wrong with just saying to yourself 'It could be wrong, but it seems right, so I will treat it like it is right until something else comes up"? Does that invalidate a belief? Or what?
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
EnforcerSG said:
Your metaphor is useful. You set a course but you don't know if it is right. Your compass could be off a little, map not accurate, a bad gust of wind blows you a wrong way. You have no idea at all if your course is right. You do not have absolute proof that it will take you to your ideal greater than yourself for which you are reaching for.

Does that mean you shouldn't go on the course you think is the best? Heck no. You should go for it and believe that it will get you there. Yeah you should update your heading if you get more information, trust it within limits, but my question is about how much we must trust it.

My question is why do some people seem to think that we need to believe that our course is absolutely right? Although I disagree that we need something to reach for, that is not what I am trying to ask. What is wrong with just saying to yourself 'It could be wrong, but it seems right, so I will treat it like it is right until something else comes up"? Does that invalidate a belief? Or what?
I trust He who gave me my map, my cumpas, and teaches me how to navigate through life. I doubt my oun skill, for even if I am well learned in this navigation I can still make a mistake; I could still read the map wrong; I could still choose an inappropriate destination.....or smash my compas on the floor out of frustration "how could a God who love me so let bad things happen to me?".

Those who do not acknowledge the possibility, indeed the inevitability, that their navigation is in some way flawed, have an issue with confronting their oun imperfection. Perhaps they need to believe that their way is true because of some traumatic experience in life; they need something absolute to keep them from putting a gun to their head. Some have an addictive personality and choose to be addicted to God rather than cocaine. Some have a controle issue, either needing to be in controle, using God's word as a weapon, or needing to be subservient, choosing God rather that an abusive significant-other.

Others just wish to sell a book.

Saying that the source of the map may be imperfect invalidates the belief, because the belief is of a perfect source. One must attribute all fault in ones oun life to one's self, seeing all "bad" things as challenges to be overcome.
 
E

EnforcerSG

Jerry said:
Saying that the source of the map may be imperfect invalidates the belief, because the belief is of a perfect source. One must attribute all fault in ones oun life to one's self, seeing all "bad" things as challenges to be overcome.
But why do I have to believe that the source of my map is perfect? If I accept the probability the the map maker is not perfect then what is so bad about saying that the map itself is not perfect? And the "source of the map" may not be a god; for example, science says that evolution is probably true (I do not want this to turn into an evolution vs god debate, it is just an example). It does not say it is absolutely true, does that somehow invalidate it?
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
EnforcerSG said:
But why do I have to believe that the source of my map is perfect? If I accept the probability the the map maker is not perfect then what is so bad about saying that the map itself is not perfect? And the "source of the map" may not be a god; for example, science says that evolution is probably true (I do not want this to turn into an evolution vs god debate, it is just an example). It does not say it is absolutely true, does that somehow invalidate it?
If I do not trust the source of the map, then I can not trust the map, the compas, the direction and instruction given me. I must then spend my days testing all such things, never really going where I'm supposed to go or doing what I'm supposed to do.

Surly there are those who are meant to test such things, but I am not one such person. Testing, being a valued activity, is what science is.

Science can not prove anything absolutely, so I can not use science, and therefore evolution, as my absolution.
 
Top Bottom