Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I recommend that you start a new thread to discuss that entirely new question and issue, because that's not what this thread is about.
eudaimonia,
Mark
It is.
The OP suggests: choice --> belief
I amended it as: choice --> verification --> belief.
Why is this not an appropriate response? It is certainly better than "Yes, and No".
Not investigating isn't the same as believing it. Believing Bill Gates can fly means, if you happen to be on a skiing trip with Bill Gates, and the ski lift gets stuck while you're on it, you think, "Oh, thank goodness I'm with Bill Gates. I'll just ride on his back as he flies down!"
This isn't asking if you can pretend, or decline to examine the evidence--it's about whether you can believe.
Because you're discussing the methods of reaching a belief, while the OP is discussing whether belief is a choice in itself. Your topic is an interesting one, but we're not all on the same page, then this thread will turn into people arguing past each other.
It is similar to the US justice system: innocent until proven otherwise.
In this case, I (as a small child) believe what Bill said (whole heartily) until somebody tell me that I am crazy (then I might think it over again).
Bill Gate is a bad example. I like fiction movies. Partially because I kind of believe what the fiction said could be true. This is a 100% choice. You may choose not to.
I don't think so. I think the OP simplified the wording and made the question not clearly described.
A belief is not an object. It is a process. If you choose, you are choosing to go through a process. The choice is the beginning of the process. It is not the whole process.
I think it's more sacrificing one's arrogance in thier own opinion than anything.
That's bewildering.Of course I can choose to do that.
Nonetheless, working from an assumption isn't the same as actually believing it, as firmly and surely as you believe the Earth is round or summer is warm. I just can't flip a switch and decide to believe something that has no substantiation. I can't decide to suddenly believe I can fly, and then confidently jump off a cliff. I can't suddenly affirm, attest, abjure, swear, promise, and bind, that where once I never believed in the existence of Lord Krishna, I now do. With or without contrary evidence, I don't see how anyone can do that - not out of intellectual honesty, but physically, how do you do it?But if I care about my choice, I will start to see if it true, even you offered me nothing.
The key is that I "have to" assume it is true to begin with (in other words, take it seriously). Otherwise, there will be no effective action toward the understanding.
And that is 100% a choice.
Yes. When my aunt and grandfather died of cancer within a week of each other, I cried out to God for an answer, for some sign that it was fair or somehow in the 'greater good' that he should put them through such suffering. My grandmother, a lifelong 'servant of the Lord' (her words), did the same, having lost her husband and daughter in one swoop. Neither of us got any form of response. That's the day I lost my faith, and, later, she hers. In essence, I realise that even if God did exist, he abandons us humans to the horrors of nature.Now how did I know you were going to tie back into that.Let's not get involved in a red herring, but let's stick to your OP. Let me ask you a simple question, have you humbled yourself like a child to a parent and cried out to God asking Him if He could make Himself known to you? Not in a demanding way, but in a I need you, you don't need me kind of way. Please answer this question honestly.
Einstein is (wrongly) quoted as saying insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Besides, I've only got one aunt left, and I'm just thankful - to her doctors - that she survived her brush with breast cancer.Also, if you have, have you done it consistently?
Than logic and reason? What do you suggest?No, I'm saying maybe in your case you should try something different.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if God is real, than the method in which to know He is real has to be acsessable to the every man and not just the ivory tower of acadameia. The God of the Bible wants to be first in our lives, and for the one who has put knowledge ahead of everything else, including God, than I think He is looking for that "sacrifice" if you will. I don't mean sacraficing one's intelligence either, but sacrificing what one thinks they know to be true, in order to obtain the knowledge of God and His existence.
I'm reminded of an old joke. A philosophy student barges into his professors office, disheveled and the look of someone who had been up all night. In his right hand was a book by Descartes. His looks at his professor with tears in his eyes and says, "Professor! Do I exist?!" His professor looks at him with a smile and says, "Who wants to know?".
The point is, analytical thinking always leads one to doubt their position.
Now, in regards to the article, I remember an article published in 2001 in the secular humanist journal Philo written by prominent atheist philosopher Quentin Smith. In this article, Smith laments the de-secularization of Academia, particularly in philosophy. He describes how over the last forty years naturalists have stood by passively and watched as more and more Christians began to enter into the field of philosophy and do first rate work that simply couldn't be ignored. He also described how philosophy was becoming a favorite point of entry for some of today's brightest young minds. Smith estimates that between 1/4 to 1/3 of American faculty in philosophy are now theists and most of them born again Christians.
The article that you posted had genuine findings and I don't doubt that analytic thinking can lead to doubts and unbelief, but the renaissance of Christian philosophers should lead one to think that there may be more to logic and God's existence than what is often presented on this board. Very smart people are Christians.
I think it's more sacrificing one's arrogance in thier own opinion than anything.
The very fact that you are sharing this information, of your inability to find God and your frustration, proves that you can find Him when you seek Him wholly.
You seem to be talking about two different things, neither of which is the OP.
One is the tendency for children to believe fantastic things, without questioning or verification. Of course they will. But kids don't get any choice in that, either, actually--they believe pretty much anything adults say to them in a serious voice. Either way, though, the question was posed to adults, not kids.
The other thing you seem to be talking about is whether you can choose to suspend disbelief in order to entertain an idea that you don't really believe. That's partially a choice (you can be trying to do it, but prevented because the movie is too riddled with errors and bad acting), but it also isn't belief.
We're talking about belief. Affirming, "Yes, this is true." Being willing to base risky actions on the assumption that it is true. Being willing to toss your arms around Bill's neck and hold on tight while he jumps from the top of the ski lift, because you believe he can fly.
That would be a much better phrasing, because one should never sacrifice what one "thinks one knows to be true", because that would be sacrificing rational judgment.
However, I see now that you are using that phrase in a somewhat sarcastic way, using "thinks one knows" to mean something more like one's firm "stance" on an issue, which may imply a lack of continued thought and reflection on the subject.
Certainly, we should all be open-minded.
Open-mindedness - YouTube
eudaimonia,
Mark
Yes. When my aunt and grandfather died of cancer within a week of each other, I cried out to God for an answer, for some sign that it was fair or somehow in the 'greater good' that he should put them through such suffering. My grandmother, a lifelong 'servant of the Lord' (her words), did the same, having lost her husband and daughter in one swoop. Neither of us got any form of response. That's the day I lost my faith, and, later, she hers. In essence, I realise that even if God did exist, he abandons us humans to the horrors of nature.
Einstein is (wrongly) quoted as saying insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Besides, I've only got one aunt left, and I'm just thankful - to her doctors - that she survived her brush with breast cancer.
Than logic and reason? What do you suggest?
Thank you for sharing; I'm sorry for the suffering you've endured. I don't pray, but my partner does, I'll get him to say one for you.I thank you for showing me a side of you outside of reasoning and science and into the emotional relam. I can't offer enough condolences to make what you experienced feel better, but I can connect with you on this same level. Allow me to share with you some things about me and my thoughts in regards to their situation.
When my father would take his anger out on me, where was God? When I was being bullied horrifcally at school, where was God? When my mother dissappeared, where was God? When I was out on my own to face the world alone as a scared teenager, where was God? When I was addicted to drugs and alcohol, where was God? When I was homeless living on the streets with no food in my belly, where was God? When I developed an extreme agoraphobia as a result of the tormenting I recieved as a child, where was God? When I was diagnosed with an incurable disease, where was God?
I've heard that sentiment before, but it doesn't solve the dilemma - why didn't God do anything? Saying he was next to you, or me, the entire time, doesn't offer consolation - my grief is for those lost, and if I believed in God I daresay I would experience anger at his utter indifference.The answer is that God was next to me the entire time, trying desperatley to draw me to Him and I was to angry to see it.
Perhaps, but there's still the question of why darkness exists in the first place. God's light may shine that much brighter, or we humans may be that much more awed, when there's darkness to contrast it to - but does that really justify the darkness?I know life is hard, suffering is a fact of life we all have to deal with. The only solace I have ever found was in God, outside of that life is pointless. I never wished God into existence and for so long I hated Him. Even after having "evidence" that would leave most people without any doubts I turned away from Him, not because of logic and reason, but because of hatred. If I have learned anything in my 30+ years on this planet it is that for all the misery that life brings, God is the light in that darkness.
But I have, as I explained before: I wanted some sign, however small, that it was all for the greater good, that there was some reason, that God indeed was suffering it all with me. Yet, there was nothing. So I have sought, and I haven't found. My heart is always open to the idea - who wouldn't want to believe in a being made of love, who loves you and makes it all better? I would love for there to be meaning or justification behind the suffering of my loved ones. But God, it seems, won't meet me half way. I no longer actively seek, as I don't believe Christianity has any truth to it, but I'm always eager to see God do... something. Anything.I have already suggested it. Be humble, not angry, sincerly seek and you WILL find. You will be in my prayers.
Indeed, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Have you tried them all? If Christianity is the only way (as per John 14:6), what do you make of those people of other faiths, who believe just as fervently (if not more) that their religion is the right one?I wasn't being sarcastic. In regards to open-mindedness, is one not being open-minded by trying all avenues? Surely someone who is seeking the truth will be open to all roads discovery and not just one.
If you have to sacrifice what you "know to be true" in order to believe in a god...that makes that god "untrue." Either that or "unknowable."
This takes what I said out of context. Simply put, I am speaking of putting your logic and reason in regards to God's existence by the way side and partake in a mode of discovery of truth that every man and woman can experience, not just privy to the halls of academia. In doing that you will have truth and get what you require to believe. You must humble yourself to Him, ask Him to soften your heart towards Him and show Himself to you. Cry out Him, Not in a demanding manner but as a child to a parent and ask for it in the name of Christ. Do this diligently and earnestly and He will show Himself to you. He did for me, and I am nothing speacial.
There's a book called Xenocide (in the Ender's Game series) that has a character wrestle with the question of how you make a moral decision when you know that you don't know everything. You might be interested in it.
Full disclosure: I only point it out because I agree with the conclusion, and I think it does a good job of demonstrating the thought process.
Basically, human being are restricted by what they know and understand. You have no choice but to assume that the things which, upon close examination, show every sign of being true are true. People have to make that assumption, because if we don't, life becomes unlivable. I watched a documentary on hoarding a while ago, and one guy in it had a very different motive than the others: he had some sort of mental problem where he literally couldn't trust what his senses told him. He never threw anything away, because, no matter how long he looked at it, he couldn't be sure that it was actually the thing it appeared to be and not, say, his vintage comic book collection. He couldn't cut anything, because he couldn't be sure that he wasn't accidentally about to cut his genitals instead of the thing he wanted to cut. He was afraid to turn a particular corner in his hallway because he was afraid he might accidentally walk into a tight nook, rather than where he was aiming, and then he'd get stuck.
In order to function, humans have to be able to work on the assumption that the world around them is as it appears to be. Some people do acknowledge that it might be different, but nonetheless, must continue to work on that assumption just because the world become meaningless if they don't.
So, when religious people say, "Sure this doesn't seem true, but you can't lean on your own understanding--you have to take it on faith," my question is, "Why would you do that?" Why would you sacrifice the most fundamental assumption a human being has to make, in order to be a functioning creature? Because, once you assert that there are things worth believing in, despite not appearing to be true, nothing else can be assumed, ever again. If, despite all appearances, there is a god at work in my life doing invisible things that affect me without any discernible cause, then there might also, despite all appearances, be a dragon in my closet or a fake patch in my floor that I might fall through or a rare comic book where I think there's a coupon in the newspaper.
If I can't trust that my most basic ability to discern the world around me is functional, then I can't trust anything, ever. Unless.....
There's one major exception. That's if something does appear to my senses, on a level that is comprehensible to me, and demonstrates the existence of something that is beyond my comprehension. If a god appears before me--proves they're a god (which is harder than you'd think), demonstrates their abilities and motives, and then says, "I won't appear to you again, but here's what you should know..... ok, now just trust me."
From then on, it would be possible to continue believing that the world around is more or less as it appears (and thus remain functional) while also trusting that there is more going on that is beyond my ability to discern or understand. But nobody who tells me I ought to do this is able to provide this type of reason. They basically say, "Don't trust what seems to be true to you; sacrifice the #1 thing that makes you functional; sacrifice your ability to discern truth from untruth and good from evil, because I'm telling you you should."
The example from the book was of a girl trying to figure out whether to help in a mission where it was very unclear what was going on. On the one hand, it might be that a government agency had caused the people on her planet to have a mental illness that kept them under the government's control, and she had the chance to help somebody cure the illness. On the other hand, it could be that the gods of her world were speaking to some of the people there, and if she helped in the mission, she'd be doing a monstrous thing--spreading heresy and maybe even severing the ties between the gods and their prophets.
Ultimately, she comes to the decision that she has to do what seems to be right, based on the information that she has, even though it's possible that she's wrong. This is simply because, to do what seems to be wrong is evil. If you act in a way that seems right, and you are mistaken, then you are a trustworthy, decent person who make a mistake and accidentally caused harm. If you act in a way that seems to be wrong, and it turns out you were mistaken, then you are still an evil person who does things they believe are harmful.
The idea of "lean not on your own understanding and just have faith," seems all nice and trusting and romantic, until you realize that it requires you to not care about what seems to be right, and that requires you to not care about anything at all.
People who actually live up to this tend to be utterly monstrous people who commit atrocities. The only reason this idea doesn't cause more harm than it does is because the people who say it don't actually live by it.
(None of this is to suggest that it's impossible to consider ideas that conflict with your understanding of how the world works. It's absolutely possible, and advisable, to examine hypotheticals based on, "So, if I'm mistaken about this, and it turns out that is actually true, then ..." But most Christians aren't asking atheists to do that. They're asking atheists to make the leap from "This is what appears to be true," to "no, that is actually true, even though it didn't look like it was at first," without any reason at all.
You call it putting knowledge ahead of everything else, others call it holding God to their best standards of determining truth.
Christianity is a belief system such that the only way for I (and others) to believe in it would be to lower their standards for determining truth. Christianity, if it is the ultimate truth, should have nothing to fear from this, and it should stand up to investigation by these standards. It fails at both.
No, not always. It can reinforce them too. It just means that our positions are often inaccurate, but analytical thinking is the best way of refining positions also.
Very smart people are also good at rationalising, and a renaissance doesn't mean anything if the arguments aren't compelling - which they aren't. And incidentally, I find interesting that you'd say this and yet make the claim that the means of determining God needs to be accessible to all, not ivory tower - and yet here you're citing nothing but ivory tower.
The philosophical debate about God is interesting as a mental exercise, but it's ultimately irrelevant - not only did Christ actively fight against the theological elites of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but he also promised that his followers would perform miracles, not come up with really neat modal logic ontological "proofs" of God 2000 years after the horse has bolted. Christianity has long since failed to live up to its claims in that regard.
And how aren't Christian philosophers being arrogant in their opinion exactly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?