As a kid you learned by taking whatever your elders tell you for granted, but now that you're grown-ups the following strategy is more appropriate.

1) Get rid of any predetermined notions. Often times this is easier with somebody else pointing out for you that you still have some predetermined notions left. If you start answering "I don't know" to all questions that means you've likely succeeded with step 1.

2) Whenever someone wants to introduce you to a new concept or idea, you ask for justification and proof. (If you don't do this you won't be able to distinguish good ideas from crap ones and will run into contradictions very soon.) Depending on how much justification and data you're presented you will then be more or less certain in those ideas and will be able to compare relative certainties of things. Absolute certainty will never be achievable.

3) Always be ready to abandon more notions and repeat 1-2.

That stuff is irrelevant if getting a better idea of the probabilities won't change anything you do. Here is an example:

You are diagnosed with a disease that people think has a 70% of chance of killing you even if you do everything right and a 100% chance if you don't. You proclaim to the world that you are certain you will beat this disease. Deep down you know that you are only a thirty percent shot but that is still easily enough to get you to change your health habits for the better. Later on scientists proclaim that in fact the diease is 85% fatal although the evidence for that is slightly controversial. What do you have to gain by studying that evidence and admitting its truth? You will still stick to your same diet and exercise plan. You will just feel worse about it.

You're saying saying sometimes more knowledge makes you feel worse? Ok, maybe so, and you may refuse to learn, but if you choose to learn the above is the way to go about it.

I should insist that you prove this before I accept it, right?

So far as we know so far the scheme I presented works incredibly well (it's at the foundation of all science). I don't have better alternatives. However I'm ready to adapt a new and better scheme, so if you have such a scheme, please do tell.

So since you have no better options we can confidently accept this without proof? But nothing else, right?

And who is "we" in "as far as we know", or did you mean "I"?

Since I have no better alternatives, I live with this until a better alternative pops up. Just like before this one I had the scheme of - "whatever my parents/teachers tell me is true".

What is your scheme for learning stuff?

Why does RLK need a scheme? You're the one making the assertion. Whether or not someone has an alternative has no impact on your obligation here. Does it?

The task is to figure out the best way for learning stuff.

I present you one way that works very well. I don't know any other ones that work as well or better.

If you're going to argue against using this one you need to present alternatives.

A new principle. You were at least a consistent advocate of "one who asserts must bear a burden of proof". Now the dissenter has an obligation to provide alternatives. This is kind of fun. Are there any other hidden obligations you would like to reveal, or do you just make them up as convenient to avoid any obligation on yourself?

It was simply the logical conclusion, if you have trouble following simple logic I don't think this will go very far.

Eddi, I'm not arguing against it. I'm following your recommendation. As kind of a test.

You said start with "I don't know." Then when presented with a new concept or idea, ask for justification and proof. Then depending on what you are presented, you can assess the idea, and how it compares to alternatives.

You've asserted - this works well for science, and that you think it works well. Is that really all the justification and proof you can offer, or all that you think you need?

Ok

That is indeed all the justification I can offer. I use that tool because I don't have any other ones and it's the best in my toolbox. Given that I need to use some method for learning, using the best I have available seems like a good idea.

Ironically, this is the advice you should apply to yourself. And then you should study the Bible using this method.

Wonderful, finally a believer who agrees with my method!

Do you really apply it to your study of religion? I tried and failed, maybe you can help out. I started with I don't know and then learned science (mostly physics and math) and was provided ample proof throughout. Then I tried scripture, and somehow there was no proof or justification that was even remotely in the same category as the previous ones I knew. Halp?

I agree with your method also

Eddi,

How do you approach a relationship with a person? When asking yourself a question like, "Do I trust this person?" are you frustrated by the fact that you don't have the same quantitatively measurable facts like you do with science or math?

The scriptures are much like a relationship so there are different levels of interaction, etc.

However, if this post is not some attempt to bash theists for apparent closed-mindedness, and you a seriously asking a question, I'm happy to share any answers I might have to any questions (which I'm going to guess are going to be science vs faith, etc.). FWIW, I'm the kind of person that drives professors and parents crazy because I'm always asking why, and questioning everything... and I'm a believer and I didn't start off that way. So ask away and I'll try my best.

T

Great

So why don't you present me your idea of faith assuming I know nothing except for science and never heard of your ideas of god or whatnot? No need to go into great detail, so don't make a huge post please - just start with a small and simple paragraph and we'll hopefully take it from there.

Eddi,

Instead of having a hypothetical conversation with the person you state above (knows only science and nothing about God), why don't you and I have this conversation? You clearly have a concept of God; however, it is a concept that you reject, don't like, have doubts, etc. Unless we address those specifically, how could any conversation be fruitful for either?

However, it seems like you are basically asking me to start at the beginning of why I believe what I do so I'll do that. You asked for a short paragraph so here is my best attempt to condense something so large that I don't even fully grasp it all. For me, my belief is personal and not some distant theory to which I adhere or reject.

I did not grow up believing in Christ. Nevertheless, by all accounts I have lived an unbelievably blessed life from educational opportunities to financial rewards. If you told me when I was 13 that this is how my life would turn out when I was 38 I would not believe it could possibly be that good. So I'm not someone who had to reach a bottom in their life to find Christ.
Yet throughout college to my earlier thirties there was a constant theme in my life... I was a case study in epic fail in achieving lasting happiness. Don't get me wrong, I've been pretty adept at achieving happiness or at least what I thought would be happiness, but I always found that it was fleeting or what I thought would make me happy just didn't. If only I could sleep with a hot chick I'd be happy... nope. If only I were rich... nope. If only I had an MBA and a great job...nope. And so on.
When I was getting married at 36, I tried something different. I felt humbled by marriage and really didn't want to mess it up (like I had most every other attempt at happiness). So I decided to live my marriage God's way even though I wasn't really even sure what that meant. Nevertheless, I lowered some intellectual walls I always had against Christianity and tried it anyway. I started listening to some podcasts from trusted sources, I read the Bible, I prayed, etc. I'm not sure I even really believed I was just testing it out to see if it made sense. Something amazing happened. I discovered it worked. I've found that God's way actually works in marriage, and that's emboldened me to apply that elsewhere.
God's way provides me with joy rather than happiness. Joy does not fade. Joy endures difficulty. Joy sustains. Joy kicks happiness' butt every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I didn't know it, but joy is what I've been after all these years.

So that's the core of my faith. I doubt it will inspire anyone to change their beliefs as its my experience and thus subjective. However, it is an example of how it can work.

So Eddi, if you are serious, I'm happy to answer questions about my faith, your faith, whatever. I don't guarantee to have all the answers and judge for yourself if I seem like someone who genuinely believes in what he's saying while at the same time constantly questions why, how, etc.

T

You mean like the procedure outlined in 1-3? Horray for self-defeating theories.

Hooray for not reading the rest of the thread.

LordTiberius: While that may or may not be an interesting story, it's hard to extract your ideas from it. I'd really you rather did not assume I know anything about god. I don't reject or doubt anything, please assume I'm just not familiar with the subject at all.

What I can extract from that story anyway is: you were not happy, then you read some books, listened to some stories, maybe did some self-help exercises (I'm referencing to praying) and became a happier person. Did I get it right?

I understand you have some explanation of why the above helped you become happier, but I want to get the facts right first - i.e. what exactly you did, not what you think is the explanation of why what you did worked.

I read the rest, and it's like you learned nothing from the previous thread. It's the exact same impasse as before. You just want to assert the dominance of your view even though it's clearly inconsistent, and present a picture that's clearly idealized and not particularly functional.

Like I said - give me a better learning method and I'll quit using this one. Before you do - this is the best I've got. There is no impasse on my part, only on the part of someone who objects but doesn't present a different strategy.

You keep saying that, but since you have provided no means with which to determine what is "better" it's an empty claim. So far, it's the best simply because you say it's the best.

Edit: This is no different from you asking for an example of the failure of "burden of proof" while simultaneously not giving an adequate definition of what it means for "burden of proof" to fail.

I'm really not interested in continuing this abstract conversation. If you have any other strategy, please present it. If you don't have any other strategies, I see no need of going into this empty discussion.

This strategy has a proven track record of working well. Consider "working well" to be my "better" criterion if you decide to actually present a strategy instead of just empty arguments.

I'm tired of this useless arguing of what if you come up with a strategy and I shoot it down, well come up with one, enough wasting time on what if's, and let's see what happens. Maybe I indeed don't have a good definition of "best" and if that's the case surely coming up with other strategies would point that out. What if there is a monster in the closet? Well go open it and find out.