Quote:
I rather think that you confuse belief and intuition in this case. It is the intuition which us ballad / makes advance but not obligatorily a belief (word much too strong).
Indeed, the two notions can, from certain angles, be confused. If you continue the article you will also find: " In its minimal sense, belief is a universal phenomenon which concerns all individuals, and in a certain way all living beings: to undertake an action, one must "believe" in the possibility of its realization. »What I said before and I didn't copy it, it's just a question of common sense, ... of intuition ???.
Quote:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croyance
Quote:
Belief is the mental process experienced by a person who dogmatically adheres to a thesis or hypotheses, so that he considers them as absolute truth or an irrefutable assertion, and this independently of the evidence, notably empirical, which attest or contest it credibility1 2.
Not necessarily, if I say I believe the sky is blue, is it the result of dogma? and if I consider it as an absolute truth, an irrefutable assertion, it is because it is the only possibility offered to me by culture, by "science" etc ... but the estimate of blue is abstract , subjective since it could just as easily have been called yellow or sock.
So we are referring to "dogmas" for lack of anything better.
There was a long debate, interrupted, on the evolution which is only a dogma too, a particular way of interpreting facts and yet the majority of the current population (French at least), believes it all by being unable to prove this belief.
Quote:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntuitionQuote:
Intuition is a mode of knowledge, thought or judgment, perceived as immediate (in the direct sense); it is a faculty of the mind. The term intuition also designates a thought resulting from the action of this faculty. The field of intuition is broad: it concerns both actual knowledge (representation of the world) as well as feelings (about things) or motivations (to act). The word comes from the Latin intuitio, meaning an inner look, tueor, look.
Intuition seems to be immediate because it seems to operate without using reason or verbal thought, and is generally perceived as unconscious: only its conclusion is then available to conscious attention. Intuition would not operate by reasoning: it would never be the conclusion of an inference, at least consciously.
In addition, intuition often takes the form of a feeling of obviousness as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition, the assurance of which is all the more remarkable since it is often difficult to justify its relevance. For example, we will have the intuition that such an idea or action, such a feeling, is right, without knowing why. However, it is often possible to rationalize an intuition a posteriori.
Intuition is generally perceived as immediate, that is to say without mediation and not appealing to empiricism although it can in reality draw its relevance from memories buried in the unconscious or the subconscious; intuitions could be sort of syntheses resulting from information that we memorize and from perceptions that we are not aware of recording.
You do well, moreover, to also emphasize the notion of intuition! We could thus consider that Pascalou has the intuition that there is a parallelism between the Pantone system (not in its material dimension, but in its finality) and therefore believes itself to be in the duty to express it thus (after each reacts according to their culture and beliefs or beliefs). So intuition is more complex and therefore more subjective as well as a simple asserted belief, although the latter cannot exclude the initial intuition.
I have previously (I am not the original author) compared creator and creation with the watchmaker and the clock. It is intuition because in the impossibility of demonstrating it, nor of demonstrating the reverse. This then takes the form of evidence and turns into belief and it is valid for any subject.Quote:
History clearly shows that this unnatural alliance (science / belief / religions) has done great damage and among other things brought great scholars to their loss:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galil%C3%A9e_%28savant%29
There you make a confusion between religious fanaticism which is only a degraded form, deviated from spirituality and the true spiritual science which consists in knowing, as well in material form as in its spiritual form, the whole of the world which surrounds us and of which we are only a tiny part. Materialism has led to considering only one aspect of it and has therefore adopted an anti-scientific attitude to this fact.
A true believer must accept the two possible dimensions where matter and spirit are only two (at least) sides of the same coin and cannot therefore be separated.
Quote:
This "symbiosis" material / spiritual vision does not bother me as long as it is not instrumented to make bladders take for lanterns ............
Me too, I am often disturbed by certain materialist formulations instrumentalized for the same purpose. But I do with it because I understand that each individual needs to consolidate his beliefs whether they are materialistic or religious. However, I recognize that the way of expressing it, where it is not necessarily expected, can surprise and disturb, hence the reasonable proposal not to mix two reflections which seem so distant from each other (I am used to it with parables, I found that quite interesting, but how many are used to decoding parables on this site?) and I completely adhere to it because it is useless to mix two modes of expressions where each one does not not understand.
Quote:
In addition, most of the great scientific discoveries were (and still are) made by believers, whatever their religions, with the aim of better understanding the beauty of the world and of giving Caesar what is Caesar and God, which belongs to God, ie creation.
“Most of the great discoveries” were made by believers when the population consisted of an overwhelming majority of believers.
In a way: yes! But not all philosophers shared popular beliefs (often timely and even today) and yet adhered to the principle of an extrahuman origin of the visible world and which, for the sake of language, people call god. We must not believe that the current unbelievable reflection is also the result of a conditioning of the mind
Quote:
Now that atheists are not proliferating at all, it is certain that this condition of believer influences in one way or another the quality or quantity of discoveries and this by returning to Caesar what is Caesar etc ...
It seems just as a reflection, but very far from reality. Atheism concerns only a tiny part of the population, but it has taken over the reins of education (or brainwashing, everyone has to choose their option) in schools and universities through the discrediting of religious systems ( It is the same thing in politics where the opposition becomes a majority and imposes its dogmas, its perception of the world which it wants to build, often in simple opposition in principle compared to the previous dogmas, but by taking up the same mechanisms.) but it's part of the game of influence, not of truths.
As I said earlier on another subject, humans lack imagination and only repeat schemes that have proven their effectiveness (in the absence of value!)