Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

BigV · Oct 12, 2019

"I can feel nothing but compassion for those who sincerely lament their doubt, who regard it as the ultimate misfortune, and who, sparing no effort to escape from it, make their search their principal and most serious business."
(Blaise Pascal)

I have not verified whether Blaise Pascal's quote in 2PhiloVoid's signature is rightly attributed, but assuming it is, I'd like to pose a question.

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

Carl Emerson · Oct 12, 2019

BigV said:
"I can feel nothing but compassion for those who sincerely lament their doubt, who regard it as the ultimate misfortune, and who, sparing no effort to escape from it, make their search their principal and most serious business."
(Blaise Pascal)

I have not verified whether Blaise Pascal's quote in 2PhiloVoid's signature is rightly attributed, but assuming it is, I'd like to pose a question.

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

This is a good question. I go for the latter as I know He wants us to be convinced about Himself.

In fact How can one speak with any authority on a matter is there is doubt?

I believe that real faith stacks up with reality.

ewq1938 · Oct 12, 2019

If there is no God then none of it matters. If there is a God and the bible is true, then faith that isn't proven as fact is greater than anything that is fully proven.

Here is an example.

If you saw someone in need and ended up saving their life, let's say you saw someone being assaulted and you jumped in and saved them but no one was around that can back the story up. So you come home to your friends and tell them it happened but had no actual proof. Who would you be more appreciative of? Those who doubted it happened or those that accepted what you said in full faith because they trust you to be honest?

Sure, it's understandable to want proof to know something is true, but it's pretty nice for a friend to believe you just because you said it happened. Replace the saving a life with seeing a UFO, or seeing a Unicorn or whatever. In faith vs. fact, the one saying something happened would naturally hold dearer the ones that believed without the need for proof.

Or instead of friends, maybe it was parents you told:

Mom says, "Wow, that was so wonderful that you could save that person's life!"
Father, "You have never been the hero type. Did anyone else see or film this? I'd like proof that this actually happened."

And of course the believing parent can be the Father and the doubter the Mother. The point of course is which one is appreciated more? The one wanting proof that it happened or the one that believes you are being truthful?

Sabertooth · Oct 12, 2019

BigV said:
What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

Your post strikes me as you wanting God to meet you on your terms. It would not be to your benefit for Him to do so. Your seeking of Him is a type of humility which is a prerequisite if you would benefit from contact with Him. I can't make an apology for anything less.

He invites you to reach for Him, though.

Jesus said,
“So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." Luke 11:9-10 NKJV

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

cloudyday2 · Oct 12, 2019

BigV said:
"I can feel nothing but compassion for those who sincerely lament their doubt, who regard it as the ultimate misfortune, and who, sparing no effort to escape from it, make their search their principal and most serious business."
(Blaise Pascal)

I have not verified whether Blaise Pascal's quote in 2PhiloVoid's signature is rightly attributed, but assuming it is, I'd like to pose a question.

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

Pascal was probably saying that a person with doubt should search for good reasons to remove the doubt rather than complacently accepting a permanent state of uncertainty. Doubt can be replaced with belief or disbelief, but either is preferable to doubt when based on good reasons. Pascal was probably NOT saying a person with doubt should believe for weak reasons simply to escape doubt.

ewq1938 · Oct 12, 2019

"I can feel nothing but compassion for those who sincerely lament their doubt, who regard it as the ultimate misfortune, and who, sparing no effort to escape from it, make their search their principal and most serious business."
(Blaise Pascal)

Or in plainer words:

I feel compassion for those who have doubt and feel badly that they have such doubt and strive to do whatever they can to cease having this doubt.

Silmarien · Oct 12, 2019

BigV said:
What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

Of these two options, I would consider the former to be the more honest one. Relying upon scientific evidence to address the sort of deep existential questions that science can't answer actually strikes me as rather dishonest, since it involves using science as an excuse to avoid even engaging seriously with these types of questions. It also demonstrates a sort of modern need to control and dissect reality that I think is very problematic.

In any case, this is a false dichotomy, since it's entirely possible to combine belief and doubt. It's probably more common than you'd think.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 12, 2019

BigV said:
"I can feel nothing but compassion for those who sincerely lament their doubt, who regard it as the ultimate misfortune, and who, sparing no effort to escape from it, make their search their principal and most serious business."
(Blaise Pascal)

I have not verified whether Blaise Pascal's quote in 2PhiloVoid's signature is rightly attributed, but assuming it is, I'd like to pose a question.

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

... Good question, but wouldn't it be wise to see if you can first verify whether or not I even quoted Pascal correctly, particularly since you infer that it's best to have verifiable data in one's search for truth?

Nihilist Virus · Oct 13, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
... Good question, but wouldn't it be wise to see if you can first verify whether or not I even quoted Pascal correctly, particularly since you infer that it's best to have verifiable data in one's search for truth?

Isn't it the content that matters, and not who said it? Oh sorry I forgot, I'm talking to the #1 Name Dropper. :ahah:

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
... Good question, but wouldn't it be wise to see if you can first verify whether or not I even quoted Pascal correctly, particularly since you infer that it's best to have verifiable data in one's search for truth?

Honesty is what I'm after. I don't need to verify the quote if I'm saying I have not verified it. And I really have no doubt he said what he said. In light of the Pascal's Wager, it's probable that he did say that.

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

Carl Emerson said:
In fact How can one speak with any authority on a matter is there is doubt?

Do you believe with 100% certainty that Christianity is true?

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

Silmarien said:
Of these two options, I would consider the former to be the more honest one. Relying upon scientific evidence to address the sort of deep existential questions that science can't answer actually strikes me as rather dishonest, since it involves using science as an excuse to avoid even engaging seriously with these types of questions. It also demonstrates a sort of modern need to control and dissect reality that I think is very problematic.

In any case, this is a false dichotomy, since it's entirely possible to combine belief and doubt. It's probably more common than you'd think.

Is there anything that you cannot accept based on faith? I like Ricky Gervais quote:

… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.”
― Ricky Gervais
Start at 3:39 for the quote

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

ewq1938 said:
Or in plainer words:

I feel compassion for those who have doubt and feel badly that they have such doubt and strive to do whatever they can to cease having this doubt.

Yes, I read it the same way. I took these words as an admission that the Pascal was not a doubter himself, considering the Pascal's Wager.

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
Pascal was probably saying that a person with doubt should search for good reasons to remove the doubt rather than complacently accepting a permanent state of uncertainty. Doubt can be replaced with belief or disbelief, but either is preferable to doubt when based on good reasons. Pascal was probably NOT saying a person with doubt should believe for weak reasons simply to escape doubt.

I beg to differ on the highlighted part. Pascal's Wager, also written by Pascal says:
Pascal's wager - Wikipedia
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
You must wager (it is not optional)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Mountainmanbob · Oct 13, 2019

Sabertooth said:
He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

Yes, we must finish the good race.
Many will fall away.
Sad but, He never knew them.
M-Bob

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

Sabertooth said:
Your post strikes me as you wanting God to meet you on your terms. It would not be to your benefit for Him to do so. Your seeking of Him is a type of humility which is a prerequisite if you would benefit from contact with Him. I can't make an apology for anything less.

Well, all I'm asking for is to meet me on reasonable terms, that's all. Especially if God is the one who actually wants a relationship with me and, allegedly, has the means of making that relationship happen. Am I missing something with this?

Look, if God exists and he couldn't care less about people, then I can see your point.

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

ewq1938 said:
If there is no God then none of it matters. If there is a God and the bible is true, then faith that isn't proven as fact is greater than anything that is fully proven.

Here is an example.

If you saw someone in need and ended up saving their life, let's say you saw someone being assaulted and you jumped in and saved them but no one was around that can back the story up.

I there is a God and the bible is true then this would be a verifiable fact. There would be a difference between God's followers and atheists, a tangible difference. Assuming the Bible God is Almighty, and having a special relationship with his kids, there surely would be a difference between Almighty's kids and Atheists. Why wouldn't there be a difference?

Your example of an assault is an interesting choice since you selected something that happens. Why not use an example of abduction by an extraterrestrial Alien instead?

Sabertooth · Oct 13, 2019

BigV said:
Well, all I'm asking for is to meet me on reasonable terms, that's all.

"Reasonable" means my terms.

BigV said:
Especially if God is the one who actually wants a relationship with me and, allegedly, has the means of making that relationship happen. Am I missing something with this?

Yes, that relationship cannot happen without surrender (or, at least, humility) on your part. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Naaman wanted to dunk in the rivers of Damascus to get rid of his leprosy, but God required that he do so in the Jordan river. In Genesis, God wanted an animal sacrifice, but Cain would only offer vegetables... His terms, not yours.

BigV said:
Look, if God exists and he couldn't care less about people, then I can see your point.

He is the God of Justice, AND
He is the God of Love.

He is not willing that anybody should perish to the point that He offers terms of Amnesty but He maintains #1 at the same time. He loves you but He HATES your sin. The only way that you can approach Him in His #2 capacity, without being judged, is to forsake your sin (humility) and let Him wash it from you.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 13, 2019

Nihilist Virus said:
Isn't it the content that matters, and not who said it? Oh sorry I forgot, I'm talking to the #1 Name Dropper.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you for reiterating what I've said above, NV. The content matters, which thereby means also.....................................the context matters. It's inescapable.

BigV · Oct 13, 2019

Sabertooth said:
Reasonable" means my terms.

well, let’s consider Santa Claus. What would it take for you to believe he actually exists? And what sacrifices and surrenders are you willing to make in the process of getting to your belief?

Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Generic Theist

I love you three.

Existentialist

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Infectious idea

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Goat Whisperer

Junior Member

Junior Member

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Junior Member

Similar threads