Do you believe; and why?

[*michaelsean*]

I believe. Can’t really say why. I could be as simple as that’s how I was taught and I dont see a good reason to try to disprove it although I have changed my belief on who God really is. I don’t believe in the God of organized religions. I think they’ve messed that up completely.

I had an idea of what I thought God was, and I read books that mirrored that. I imagine Conversations With God would be the most well known. Naive as it may sound, I felt like nobody could make it up. Of course the hard core Christians will say it and books like it were written by the devil to make us think we can live as we like without consequence in the next life.

Edit: I remember reading those Readers Digests funny stories that people send in. One was from a bookstore owner who says she sees lots of funny combinations of books people buy but the funniest was a person bought “ConversationsWith God” and “How to Argue and Win Every Time”.

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 07:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So tell me about the bad consequences of believing in a higher power?  I guess some people stop trying to help themselves and just depend on prayer to save them, but that is kind of rare.  Other than that I don't see any harm.

My example of third world living conditions were extreme, but the fact is that even in countries like the United Sates people suffer horribly when they lose loved ones.  Even highly educated people suffer from the loss.  Even very smart people get lonely when the only person they love in the world dies and is gone forever.  Even the most logical parent will be crushed by the death of their child.

So how exactly are people harmed by their belief in an afterlife where they will see their loved ones again.

Would you agree that, in general, it is best to believe as many true things and as few untrue things as possible? 

Would you also agree that believing in things without evidence is not the best pathway to truth?

If you agree with either of those statements in the least, then what you believe and why you believe it should matter. 

While I've never used the word "harmed", I do believe that holding a belief in the afterlife when there is no demonstrable evidence for it can led people to not fully take advantage of the one life we know for certain that we have, or to place unneeded importance on things that might not shape their opinions or positions if not for the promise of immortality and damnation. 

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 06:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe because I choose to believe.

That's pretty much it.

Respectfully, couldn't that be said about literally anything, regardless of how right or wrong it may be? 

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2019, 09:34 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Respectfully, couldn't that be said about literally anything, regardless of how right or wrong it may be? 

Believing in something doesn't make it right or wrong.

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 09:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Believing in something doesn't make it right or wrong.

Correct. The act of believing doesn't make the object of the belief right or wrong; but shouldn't we care -- at least to some degree -- if the belief itself is warranted?

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 06:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe because I choose to believe.

That's pretty much it.

ACtually, B, I don't think people can choose to believe, or what they believe.

I.e., people certainly have beliefs, and beliefs change, but people don't choose them or decide to change.  


I remember a discussion about this many years ago on the old message board.  Can't remember who all was involved.  Maybe Hearusroar.

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 09:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Correct. The act of believing doesn't make the object of the belief right or wrong; but shouldn't we care -- at least to some degree -- if the belief itself is warranted?

Is "truth" the only warrant though?  Fred posed an alternative a few hours back.

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 09:42 PM)Dill Wrote: ACtually, B, I don't think people can choose to believe, or what they believe.

I.e., people certainly have beliefs, and beliefs change, but people don't choose them or decide to change.  


I remember a discussion about this many years ago on the old message board.  Can't remember who all was involved.  Maybe Hearusroar.

Are you speaking of determinism?

[Millhouse]

I 100% believe in something beyond the physical world we live in. Whether that is part of a religious afterlife, another dimension, or something different, I don't know. But there is something that exists in the world of shadows per say, something I have had interactions with through 'scientific' or modern equipment (ie actual good cameras and digital recorders) over many years.

Now if I never had my own experiences and my own 'data', I would be skeptical as anyone. So I completely understand those that are.

At the same time, I don't believe that this proves God, Heaven, Hell, etc. exists. It just has proved to me there is something beyond our physical realm.

(But to be on the safe side I like to think I believe, though I am one of those that believes in the basic philosophy of JC instead of the religious dogmas that came afterward)

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2019, 08:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: He created a scenario in which the knowledge of good and evil would be accessible, yet he made that access forbidden. If he did not want them to be exposed to, or curious about, said knowledge -- then it seems to be rather capricious to tempt them with it in the first place. 

As for our quest for knowledge motivating people to prove that God does not exist; I would propose that its more the case that the accumulation of knowledge has often eliminated God as a plausible or relevant explanation. For instance, people once thought lightning and thunder were the result of an angry super being. We now know what cause lighting and thunder, which eliminates the need to insert a god as the cause. As the knowledge of how our universe actually works continues to bottleneck, there is less and less need and opportunity for supernatural explanation.

Yes he did create the scenario and I've never suggested he didn't want them to be curious; he wanted them to be obedient. He couldn't do that without a temptation. Not only did he tempt them by putting the tree there and saying "off limits" he further tempted them by allowing the serpent to coerce them. 

As to folks learning: Folks used to say the earth was flat but the bible always referred to it as round. 

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 09:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Is "truth" the only warrant though?  Fred posed an alternative a few hours back.

I would say that it depends on what value you place on truth. If the truth of a proposition is your objective, then I would offer that belief cannot be truly warranted until there is substantial reason to believe that truth has been demonstrably established. 

If truth (even knowing with a great level of certainty) is not the prime objective, then it's certainly possible to use one's own personal criteria, which will likely be met rather easily, which is why I feel it is not useful for anything other than self-confirmation.

I would ask those that believe "just because they believe" if they apply that same standard to other important aspects or areas of their life.

[Benton]

(05-08-2019, 09:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Correct. The act of believing doesn't make the object of the belief right or wrong; but shouldn't we care -- at least to some degree -- if the belief itself is warranted?

Warranted based on whose terms?

My daughter believes she's going to be the national teams goalie in 10-15 years. If I find that unwarranted, am I supposed to tell her no? If I find it warranted and it's not, am I supposed to tell her to pursue? 

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2019, 09:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Correct. The act of believing doesn't make the object of the belief right or wrong; but shouldn't we care -- at least to some degree -- if the belief itself is warranted?

Who decides what is warranted? Or right or wrong, for that matter? And what is their basis for that judgment?

I think you would agree that those judgments are external: another person or group of people make a judgment about what someone believes.

I think belief (separate from religion) is an internal thing, a choice an individual makes: "Do I choose to believe this or do I choose not believe this?" In that sense, the question of "Is it right or wrong?" becomes "Is it right or wrong for me?".

I think part of the problem comes when we take something that is very personal in nature and demand others believe the same thing without regard for their own ability to choose.



 

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2019, 09:42 PM)Dill Wrote: ACtually, B, I don't think people can choose to believe, or what they believe.

I.e., people certainly have beliefs, and beliefs change, but people don't choose them or decide to change.  


I remember a discussion about this many years ago on the old message board.  Can't remember who all was involved.  Maybe Hearusroar.

And THAT would be what you choose to believe.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-08-2019, 09:22 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Would you agree that, in general, it is best to believe as many true things and as few untrue things as possible? 

Would you also agree that believing in things without evidence is not the best pathway to truth?

If you agree with either of those statements in the least, then what you believe and why you believe it should matter. 

While I've never used the word "harmed", I do believe that holding a belief in the afterlife when there is no demonstrable evidence for it can led people to not fully take advantage of the one life we know for certain that we have, or to place unneeded importance on things that might not shape their opinions or positions if not for the promise of immortality and damnation. 

That really depends on if there is harm. Merely believing in God in whatever form does no harm and may add comfort. When you get into religion you can have some issues and present some issues to others, but merely believing in God and an afterlife does no harm. I think science and understanding of the universe brings us closer to understanding God, not closer to disproving Him.

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 09:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes he did create the scenario and I've never suggested he didn't want them to be curious; he wanted them to be obedient. He couldn't do that without a temptation. Not only did he tempt them by putting the tree there and saying "off limits" he further tempted them by allowing the serpent to coerce them. 

I've always thought this makes the God character sound like a mad scientist experimenting on confused lab rats. Even from a purely allegorical perspective, it certainly contains its share of absurdities and problematic conditions.

[Lucidus]

(05-08-2019, 10:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Warranted based on whose terms?

My daughter believes she's going to be the national teams goalie in 10-15 years. If I find that unwarranted, am I supposed to tell her no? If I find it warranted and it's not, am I supposed to tell her to pursue? 

There is a substantial difference between such massive, life-changing questions as, "Is there a God and an afterlife?" and whether your daughter (best of luck to her by the way) will a goalie on the national team. Your daughter's goal is rather different than the ultimate question of our species' existence. 

What I mean to say is that your daughter's belief is an aspiration, a "dream" that we have proof is at least attainable / possible, therefore making it warranted purely from an objective point of view. It would be up to you as to whether or not you find it subjectively warranted.

In the case of God and the afterlife, I have yet to see any evidence other than that of an anecdotal or interpretive nature. Is that sufficient to warrant belief in such things? The answer is yes if the only standard you are utilizing is what you find comforting. The answer would seem to be no if you choose to use standards that may be not provide conclusions that fit neatly within a personal comfort zone.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2019, 10:22 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've always thought this makes the God character sound like a mad scientist experimenting on confused lab rats. Even from a purely allegorical perspective, it certainly contains its share of absurdities and problematic conditions.

I suppose that's a finite way of looking at it, but we do agree in the fact that we are not God's equal nor does he view us as such. 

[Lucidus]

I must say that I am thoroughly enjoying the conversation. I enjoy having my own views challenged, and some of you have presented some interesting ideas and arguments. I hope that I have offered the same to you, at least in some small way.

These conversations are always very interesting and though-provoking, especially when done in a civil and respectful manner as this one has. Hopefully, while providing my own ideas and opinions on these topics, I do not offend anyone. I never mean anything to be personal in nature; only to challenge and examine the reasons for why people believe what they believe, and moreover, to have my own perceptions and conclusions put to the test.

In other words, I love the exchange of ideas and delving into the "why" of everything.

I have always thought that "why" is the most important question we can ask each other.

[Benton]

(05-08-2019, 10:47 PM)Lucidus Wrote: There is a substantial difference between such massive, life-changing questions as, "Is there a God and an afterlife?" and whether your daughter (best of luck to her by the way) will a goalie on the national team. Your daughter's goal is rather different than the ultimate question of our species' existence. 

What I mean to say is that your daughter's belief is an aspiration, a "dream" that we have proof is at least attainable / possible, therefore making it warranted purely from an objective point of view. It would be up to you as to whether or not you find it subjectively warranted.

In the case of God and the afterlife, I have yet to see any evidence other than that of an anecdotal or interpretive nature. Is that sufficient to warrant belief in such things? The answer is yes if the only standard you are utilizing is what you find comforting. The answer would seem to be no if you choose to use standards that may be not provide conclusions that fit neatly within a personal comfort zone.

Massive is context.

To her, life revolves around 4-5 kids, being a goalie and her pets. To me, it's my family, my business and my local community. To the POTUS, it's typically his family, a few million people, the free world.

The point is, it's all relative. So is God.

I grew up in church, but didn't always believe. I do now. I don't fault anyone who doesn't because it's a personal relationship.