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

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
  1. He is the God of Justice, AND
  2. 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.

well, first we need to establish he even exists.

then we can talk attributes. Supposedly this God wants a relationship with me but why would he rely on an ancient book to communicate with me? A book written by anonymous sources and in a language we don’t understand, requiring translation and correct interpretation.

do you have a relationship with this God? If so, what do you know about this God that is not written in a book? If nothing then is it really a relationship?
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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?
His existence (or not) does not potentially complete me. Is that your view of God? If so, you are definitely starting off on the wrong foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
well, first we need to establish he even exists.
In order to look for Him, we, first, need to hypothesize that He exists.
do you have a relationship with this God?
Yes.
If so, what do you know about this God that is not written in a book?
He gives all of His believers this Superpower,
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

His teaching is consistent with the Bible, but it goes above and beyond. My knowledge, such as it is, isn't in a paradigm that you can understand; you require an upgrade.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot (even) see the kingdom of God.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
His existence (or not) does not potentially complete me. Is that your view of God? If so, you are definitely starting off on the wrong foot.

How did you make this conclusion concerning Santa?

In order to look for Him, we, first, need to hypothesize that He exists.
You said this concerning God but I’m saying that if this is an honest approach to determining what is true, then Santa gets to have the approach from us, does he not?

same with thousands of other deities and (thought to be) imaginary beings
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Is there anything that you cannot accept based on faith?

I'm not a fideist. I don't think there's anything that I accept solely on faith, but I don't see why it would be dishonest to do so.

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.”

You like quotes that amount to assertions without any evidence? Because there is no way to actually test whether any holy book, if destroyed, wouldn't come back just as it was a millennium later. Nor is there any way to test whether the scientific endeavor would lead to the same exact results a millennium later. It's highly unlikely, given the issue of paradigm shifts (see Thomas Kuhn) that a different culture would have the same exact scientific models of reality that we do.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He gives all of His believers this Superpower,
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

His teaching is consistent with the Bible, but it goes above and beyond. My knowledge, such as it is, isn't in a paradigm that you can understand; you require an upgrade.

plain speak, you have just admitted to not having extra Bible knowledge about God.

you may not be aware but I was a Christian previously and know what I’m talking about.

And any religion can make the same claim. You would only understand Allah, Vishnu etc. if you truly accepted Quran, Bagwadgeeta etc

but is it a reasonable and honest approach?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Pascal was probably NOT saying a person with doubt should believe for weak reasons simply to escape doubt.
Mmmm... Kind of though. Sure, it wasn't to simply escape doubt; it was for the sake of getting that sweet and tasty afterlife. But he knew there was no strong reason to believe so he suggested putting yourself in a position to obtain belief via an appeal to emotion, so yeah, for weak reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You like quotes that amount to assertions without any evidence? Because there is no way to actually test whether any holy book, if destroyed, wouldn't come back just as it was a millennium later. Nor is there any way to test whether the scientific endeavor would lead to the same exact results a millennium later. It's highly unlikely, given the issue of paradigm shifts (see Thomas Kuhn) that a different culture would have the same exact scientific models of reality that we do.

Why don’t we have Muslim chemistry or Hindu biology? Different cultures seem to arrive at same physics too. Am I missing something here?

as far as testing holy books we have observation that they change and replace one another. It’s thanks to Catholic Church that we even have the Bible as it stands today, if not for Catholics we may have read Godpel of Thomas or Mary’s Gospel instead.

im surprised you don’t see that all religious texts are different
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

So, are you thinking that honesty alone, in any epistemological endeavor, is good enough to move any mode of inquiry forward and to imply that it is being somehow done with full integrity? If your wanting honesty, I think Pascal is a fairly good example of a person who expresses this kind of thing, with the following writing of his from the Pensees being but one example of his thought in this regard. In fact, we might even consider the following to be a kind of beginning point or at least an attached corollary to whatever we deem is his beginning point when considering the epistemological and emotive structures of any person's attempt to "have faith in Christ." Of course, I would then ask you, do you consider the following comments by Pascal as classifiable "honesty"?:

229. This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion.; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied; wherefore I have a hundred times wished that if a God maintains Nature, she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow. Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty. My heart inclines wholly to know where is the true good, in order to follow it; nothing would be too dear to me for eternity.

I envy those whom I see living in the faith with such carelessness and who make such bad use of a gift of which it seems to me I would make such a different use.​
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

But context is just more content. It still does not matter who said it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Mmmm... Kind of though. Sure, it wasn't to simply escape doubt; it was for the sake of getting that sweet and tasty afterlife. But he knew there was no strong reason to believe so he suggested putting yourself in a position to obtain belief via an appeal to emotion, so yeah, for weak reasons.
@Moral Orel , thanks for the correction, and also thanks to @BigV who also posted good info on Pascal's wager.

It seems that Pascal was recommending that doubters pattern their lives after others who doubted and later believed. Apparently Pascal was thinking that the Christian rituals and lifestyle might increase the chances that a doubter might learn what is needed to believe? Or maybe I have misunderstood the quote from Pascal again.

It is interesting that Pascal seemed to view belief and faith as requirements for salvation. I had imagined this attitude wasn't present in Catholicism at the time of Pascal. Pascal's theology was apparently similar to the "turn-or-burn" Protestant theologies of today.

But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness
Pascal's wager - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But context is just more content. It still does not matter who said it.

This is where I diverge with you; yes, it kind'a does matter WHO has "said" something, because [truth] as a conceptual entity in my hermeneutical perspective may have a different---shall we say----'valence' than it does for you in your perspective. So, this is why I can say that you and I, in simple terms, are like a Venn diagram: we have some overlap, but we also have some non-overlap in our respective 'sets' of evaluative properties. Thus, this is one reason [but only one of the reasons] for the similarity and difference in my form of Pascalian and Kierkegaardian Existentialism as contrasted with your seeming Nihilism, of whatever form it happens to be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Apparently Pascal was thinking that the Christian rituals and lifestyle might increase the chances that a doubter might learn what is needed to believe? Or maybe I have misunderstood the quote from Pascal again.
No, you're right. Living the life increases familiarity with Christianity, which in turn gives you a "good feeling" that it's true. Humans like things that are familiar, that's all there is to it. Works for any religion if you just want something to believe in.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How did you make this conclusion concerning Santa?
You said this concerning God but I’m saying that if this is an honest approach to determining what is true, then Santa gets to have the approach from us, does he not?

same with thousands of other deities and (thought to be) imaginary beings
So, you are saying that I must prove or disprove SC et al. before you will consider the existence of the Hebrew God and the necessity to make peace with Him. GLWT
plain speak, you have just admitted to not having extra Bible knowledge about God.
Or it really is transcendent...
you may not be aware but I was a Christian previously and know what I’m talking about.
If you didn't get to the part where the Holy Spirit teaches you above and beyond the Bible, you didn't get very far.
And any religion can make the same claim. You would only understand Allah, Vishnu etc. if you truly accepted Quran, Bagwadgeeta etc

but is it a reasonable and honest approach?
Not if you are only trying to categorize religions. That is you being in charge. [The Hebrew] God cannot and will not be kept in a box. (He is too big.) Nor will He share His Throne with you.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Why don’t we have Muslim chemistry or Hindu biology? Different cultures seem to arrive at same physics too. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are, since different physicists even within our own culture haven't arrived at the same physics. Look at something like the controversy over string theory, for instance. Look at assumptions that have been seriously challenged by quantum physics. We do not have scientific facts--all we have are approximations, and there's no compelling reason to think that in a millennium, people would have the same exact approximations that we do right now.

as far as testing holy books we have observation that they change and replace one another. It’s thanks to Catholic Church that we even have the Bible as it stands today, if not for Catholics we may have read Godpel of Thomas or Mary’s Gospel instead.

How is this evidence for the completely unverifiable assertion that if all holy books were lost, they would not come back in a thousand years? If the Catholic Church's claim that it will never disappear is true, then the whole point is moot because it would be impossible that the book in question be fully lost in the first place.

im surprised you don’t see that all religious texts are different

I never said that they weren't different. I said that it's an unverifiable assertion to say that if they were lost, they would not come back in a thousand years. Unless you manage to burn every book in existence and build yourself a time machine to fast forward a thousand years, you have no way of testing that claim. If you want to be an empiricist, at least be logical and consistent about it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why don’t we have Muslim chemistry or Hindu biology? Different cultures seem to arrive at same physics too. Am I missing something here?
I'm not going to speak for @Silmarien since she can most surely speak for herself, but as one with a Master's Degree in Social Science which at least modestly involved some of these interpretive and cross-cultural motifs that you're trying to assert, I'd have to say to your last question: Yes, you kind'a are.

as far as testing holy books we have observation that they change and replace one another. It’s thanks to Catholic Church that we even have the Bible as it stands today, if not for Catholics we may have read Godpel of Thomas or Mary’s Gospel instead.
On this statement of yours, I'm just going to leave the floor open to all other Christians to dive in on this assertion, since it stands as it does on such shaky historical and documentary grounds. At best, it's a half-truth. So, fellow Christians, have at it! I'm skipping this comment.

im surprised you don’t see that all religious texts are different
Same as my statement just above.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I said that it's an unverifiable assertion to say that if they were lost, they would not come back in a thousand years.

fair enough. The knowledge could take a longer or shorter time to appear. The point is science refines itself and betters itself. The fact that there are no scientific facts is a plus because we realize the uncertainties and make predictions and assumptions based on this.

Religious texts are nothing like the science! They, in some cases, are hallucinations and “revelations”! They require FAITH!

If you care about truth and have a problem with science on what basis does one come to religious belief as being true?

I realize you are not a believer but if you disagree with scientific methods of arriving at truth and facts, what do you have that’s better?
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, you are saying that I must prove or disprove SC et al. before you will consider the existence of the Hebrew God and the necessity to make peace with Him. GLWT
What I’m saying is if you are consistent in your methods of arriving at true belief then you cannot disprove the existence of other deities or even SC.
Not if you are only trying to categorize religions. That is you being in charge. [The Hebrew] God cannot and will not be kept in a box. (He is too big.) Nor will He share His Throne with you

That’s just your assertion. Same claim can be made about any other God or even Santa.
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Religious texts are nothing like the science! They, in some cases, are hallucinations and “revelations”! They require FAITH!
The imaginary number "i" required faith (at first), but when you plug it into your math, it works. It is a staple of electrical engineering. It is the difference between a priori and a posteriori reasoning.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,491
7,061
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟952,359.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What I’m saying is if you are consistent in your methods of arriving at true belief then you cannot disprove the existence of other deities or even SC.
If I or God sought to satisfy your terms. That isn't going to happen.
That’s just your assertion. Same claim can be made about any other God or even Santa.
That you seek to elevate yourself above your subject matter, including the Hebrew God, is a matter of fact, not just my assertion. You seek to map [read: contain] Him, but that isn't going to happen, either.

The best that you can hope for is an Interface.
 
Upvote 0