How does one come to believe something?

[lumberjohn]

As I mentioned, the nations God judged were routinely burning their children alive, cooking them (as in Molech worship), and would certainly have killed the Hebrews.

You appear to be adopting the arguments of Paul Copin attempting to justify the Canaanite massacre. Copin claims that the Canaanites were so wicked that even their children deserved to be brutally annihilated. This argument is highly problematic for many reasons, though time and space require that I limit my response to a few.

First, our only evidence of Canaanite wickedness comes from the Bible, which was written by the perpetrators of the genocide. Gen. 15:16 says that at the time of Abraham, the Canaanites weren’t guilty enough to be wiped out. So God waited 400 years until the collective sin of the Canaanites had “reached its limit.” God apparenlty had no problem with the worship of gods in the areas surrounding Canaan, because he allowed Israelites to intermarry with those people. So it just so happened that the only people wicked enough to annihilate were the people living in the land God had promised to Abraham. Convenient.

If we take Gen. 15:16 at face value, it shows that God never intended to give Canaan a chance. He said they weren’t yet immoral enough. One would think that would have been the ideal time to send them a prophet. Wouldn’t God have rather had the Canaanites know him than be forced to destroy them? Abraham would have been the ideal man for this task, since he was already in Canaan. But God never sent anyone to warn the Canaanites. No, God needed their land, so he decided from the beginning that they would be wiped out. It was his first resort.

Another problem is that at this point in Israel’s history, Yahweh was believed to have been a junior member of the same Canaanite pantheon. In the earliest version of Deut 32:8-9, Yahweh is said to be one of several of El Elyon’s sons who received an inheritance from their father. At the stage in which the Canaanite conquest took place, Israel was thoroughly polytheistic. Monotheism didn’t come on the scene until Jeremiah, and wasn’t solidified until the Babylonian exile. At this point, Yahweh was merely a tribal deity, not even yet the creator God – and certainly not the one and only God of the universe.

And let me get this straight: Yahweh punished the Canaanites for sacrificing a few of their children by ordering the Israelites to kill all of their children? Sounds reasonable.

And what of God’s condoning / ordering of rape throughout the Old Testament? How do you justify that? In what way does that manifest “pure love?”

Your attempt to justify God’s actions only raises more troubling problems.

 

[lumberjohn]

Wayne,

You never really answer my question of why a timeless, all-knowing God would have needed to change his plan mid-course. You say that "gray paint" was never God's plan, but how could anything come about that was not part of God's plan? God is the master of time and space. If a result occurs that he doesn't like, he can just go back in time and make it so that result never occurred. If God knows all, he knows how things will turn out in the future. So gray paint must have been part of God's plan. If God doesn't know what the future holds, if his omniscience is somehow limited by man's free will as you suggest, then what confidence should anyone have that God will ultimately come out on top? Perhaps there is another surprise in store for God in the future that will unravel all he's been planning. This theological position is incoherent and contradictory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You appear to be adopting the arguments of Paul Copin attempting to justify the Canaanite massacre. Copin claims that the Canaanites were so wicked that even their children deserved to be brutally annihilated. This argument is highly problematic for many reasons, though time and space require that I limit my response to a few.

First, our only evidence of Canaanite wickedness comes from the Bible, which was written by the perpetrators of the genocide. Gen. 15:16 says that at the time of Abraham, the Canaanites weren’t guilty enough to be wiped out. So God waited 400 years until the collective sin of the Canaanites had “reached its limit.” God apparenlty had no problem with the worship of gods in the areas surrounding Canaan, because he allowed Israelites to intermarry with those people. So it just so happened that the only people wicked enough to annihilate were the people living in the land God had promised to Abraham. Convenient.

If we take Gen. 15:16 at face value, it shows that God never intended to give Canaan a chance. He said they weren’t yet immoral enough. One would think that would have been the ideal time to send them a prophet. Wouldn’t God have rather had the Canaanites know him than be forced to destroy them? Abraham would have been the ideal man for this task, since he was already in Canaan. But God never sent anyone to warn the Canaanites. No, God needed their land, so he decided from the beginning that they would be wiped out. It was his first resort.

Another problem is that at this point in Israel’s history, Yahweh was believed to have been a junior member of the same Canaanite pantheon. In the earliest version of Deut 32:8-9, Yahweh is said to be one of several of El Elyon’s sons who received an inheritance from their father. At the stage in which the Canaanite conquest took place, Israel was thoroughly polytheistic. Monotheism didn’t come on the scene until Jeremiah, and wasn’t solidified until the Babylonian exile. At this point, Yahweh was merely a tribal deity, not even yet the creator God – and certainly not the one and only God of the universe.

And let me get this straight: Yahweh punished the Canaanites for sacrificing a few of their children by ordering the Israelites to kill all of their children? Sounds reasonable.

And what of God’s condoning / ordering of rape throughout the Old Testament? How do you justify that? In what way does that manifest “pure love?”

Your attempt to justify God’s actions only raises more troubling problems.

If the Biblical God so abhors child sacrifice, then why didn't he stop Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter?
[VERSE=Judges 11:30-40,ASV][VERSENUM]30[/VERSENUM] And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, [VERSENUM]31[/VERSENUM] then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.

[VERSENUM]32[/VERSENUM] So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Jehovah delivered them into his hand.

[VERSENUM]33[/VERSENUM] And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

[VERSENUM]34[/VERSENUM] And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.

[VERSENUM]35[/VERSENUM] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me; for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back.

[VERSENUM]36[/VERSENUM] And she said unto him, My father, thou hast opened thy mouth unto Jehovah; do unto me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth, forasmuch as Jehovah hath taken vengeance for thee on thine enemies, even on the children of Ammon.

[VERSENUM]37[/VERSENUM] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.

[VERSENUM]38[/VERSENUM] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

[VERSENUM]39[/VERSENUM] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew not man. And it was a custom in Israel, [VERSENUM]40[/VERSENUM] that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.[/VERSE]

 

[zippy2006]

In other words, Pascal urges us to "fake it until we make it."

No he doesn't. He points out that the problem is apparently in the passions rather than the reason and prescribes a remedy for the unreasonable passions.

As I've said before, this assumes that we can somehow cause ourselves to ultimately believe something that conflicts with our sense of reason (doxastic voluntarism).

That's false. The first part of his essay is dedicated to the question of reason. At this point it is clear that there is no conflict with the reason.

Moreover, this passage confirms my second statement which is that it assumes God doesn't care if your belief is sincere.

I already addressed this above.

Finally why would anyone purposefully set out to convince themselves of something they find to be unreasonable?

Addressed above. Again, you are failing to read what Pascal actually wrote.

This gets into my other objections to Pascal's Wager, but it is important to point out here that Pascal is proposing that one begin with the presuppositional position that the Christian God exists and then work forward from that. Unfortunately, he never adequately justifies such a position.

Why would God's existence need to be presupposed?

So, overall, I feel I have adequately expressed Pascal's position as well as my objections to it. I would be interested in hearing your response.

I'm not a huge fan of Pascal's Wager, but I don't think you've presented it very well.

 

[jonesdon]

To ALL -- but, atheists, anti-theists, and closed-minded "seekers".

Now, on to Step 2-plus -- with agreement (or no disagreement or counter-arguments) to my premise(s) "God is the better solution for America" and the "God Concept is real and/or exists". (Step 1 - purpose of issue) These are accompanied by some top-level reasons in posts #187 & #382 (Step 2) for the pragmatic argument. These include both negative & positive reasons. To expand on the positive reasons as to why the God concept is needed, or at least, is beneficial, is the "proof" that it just works -- for personal comfort & social order! Examples:

Science (physics): Cannot answer everything. Meanwhile, a God concept can answer much -- until proven otherwise. E.g. 1) The origin & increasingly expanding (dark energy) of the universe, 2) The smallest (quantum) & largest elements. Science keeps finding "more". 3) Order in nature (as by design). [Alternative: Just accept that there is no known solution as for the conflict/paradox of infinite series (regression or progression).]

Psychology: Personal comfort. e.g. 1) Hope (and confidence) for a better place/eternal happiness, 2) forbearance of pain, 3) Hope for justice (unsatisfied here on earth), 4) Comfort -- as in after doing one's best, to turn the fest over to this God. 5) higher motivation, goals, & sense of purpose.

Social science: Promotes a "higher" order, w a God as the object, the motivation. No need for a Big Brother (ideally) w the Big Daddy. Specific lists of obligations for accountability: 1) The 10 Commandments (the orig. no's) as well as the enhanced NT version and the positive Sermon on the Mount.

2) Encouragement (even requirement) of higher values such as loving one's neighbor (despite shortcomings). Also, included -- respect for life & others, cooperation, empathy/compassion, etc. Like we've lost in Congress & civil discourse w secularism! 3) Higher motivation -- affecting one's own well-being, beyond.

These are by observation or personal experience. Next, step 3, is about evidence.

 

[jonesdon]

You can quote people's posts using the forum. You do not need to write it all out.

Also, this is a site with signatures on. If you don't want to look at them, you can turn them off. If you do not want to, then I do not know what to say.

==== REPLY: I do this (simple reply) for short posts. For longer posts, I cut & paste, add numbering (for briefer resps), and reduce words for clarity & economizing on space. I was "anti-white space" (saving trees) before it became fashionable! ;-) And, such applies to my own archives now as well.

As the new kid on the block, I didn't realize that the signatures could be turned off. How? Thanks.

 

[jonesdon]

RESP to DAVIAN (in brackets & bold):
2) You show a sense of humor. -- I think, if you are not having fun here, you have come to the wrong place. [Yes, fun and/or learn.] A "feature", huh! ;-) -- Indeed. You can turn off signatures in the user control pages. [OK. As the newbie here, I didn't realize. How?]

4) also provides answers to our purpose in life? -- Probably not purpose as you might have it. [Yes, we, probably, have a difference here (also). ] 7) Call it what you want. So, your answers to these issues are ...? -- I am not proposing answers. It is your answers that are on the table at this time. [Nope! My questions for you to answer. ]

8) OK. I'll file this (your statement) for later "science does not prove anything". 9) That concept that you won't allow yourself to realize. -- A concept that you say you believe in but cannot explain. [Again, patience! Obviously, you have more time than I do. ] 11) In good time -- I think before I write. -- So when is this appropriate time? ["Soon"]


12) Homo sapiens. By science criteria. Ask them. -- What is this criteria? [I've not the time or inclination to give you a science (biology) class here.] 13) ... You're "not sure" of anything! -- Where did I say that? [Several times now in our early exchanges.] I'll never be able to (even) define terms satisfactorily for you. Your wedge out of arguments? -- How is that my problem? [Only if you want to converse w me. So, apparently, not? ]

14) An open question of "how wrong the Bible". I've already mentioned allegory & other figures of speech which you just want to read literally, as a science or history book, for argument sake. -- Who made you the arbiter of what is allegory in the Bible? [No one. But, I am entitled to my views. There is no sense in such general discussion. Specifics, yes. If the specific is Creation, then, there are plenty who agree w my interpretation of allegory here. I know you'd rather argue with literalists so that you can tie them down, for example, to a Creation week of 24-7 days! Have fun.]

I just say "grow up" -- intellectually. -- No need to be insulting just because I disagree with you. [Not meant to be insulting, but, rather, to say that to even hope to understand arguments based in philosophy, you will need to know, or allow, such non-physical concepts. ]

 

[Davian]

...
Why would God's existence need to be presupposed?

...

If you do not presuppose the existence of something, why would you bother with it? I cannot imagine writing a sincere letter to Santa while I do not see him as anything but a fictional character.

 

[AllanV]

Is there a point to this?

It was just something Wayne wrote. The wrong idea about Good and Evil is often explained.
I want to believe?
Biological Humans are not going to be let out into this universe without a substantial change in the mind that motivates and is revealed in behaviors.

 

[zippy2006]

If you do not presuppose the existence of something, why would you bother with it?

Because a conclusion is not presupposed. If you really didn't bother with anything you didn't presuppose, you would be incapable of learning. Granted, this does explain quite a bit about your posts.

 

[Davian]

It was just something Wayne wrote. The wrong idea about Good and Evil is often explained.

And you have the right idea?

I want to believe?

Do you?

Biological Humans

What other kinds of humans are there?

are not going to be let out into this universe without a substantial change in the mind that motivates and is revealed in behaviors.

Are not "biological humans" already here? Us?

 

[Wayne R.]

On the big bang theory, yes.

while putting the blame for that on those that are merely sceptical.

What blame?
How do you know you're not imagining the computer you're looking at.

 

[Davian]

RESP to DAVIAN (in brackets & bold):
2) You show a sense of humor. -- I think, if you are not having fun here, you have come to the wrong place. [Yes, fun and/or learn.] A "feature", huh! ;-) -- Indeed. You can turn off signatures in the user control pages. [OK. As the newbie here, I didn't realize. How?]

Click on "user panel"; click on "preferences" and deselect "Show people's signatures with their messages"

Be warned, you will be missing my Christmas-themed signatures as the season approaches. Only 192 shopping days left!

4) also provides answers to our purpose in life? -- Probably not purpose as you might have it. [Yes, we, probably, have a difference here (also). ] 7) Call it what you want. So, your answers to these issues are ...? -- I am not proposing answers. It is your answers that are on the table at this time. [Nope! My questions for you to answer. ]

I will answer them to the best of my ability, unless answering otherwise is more humorous.

8) OK. I'll file this (your statement) for later "science does not prove anything". 9) That concept that you won't allow yourself to realize. -- A concept that you say you believe in but cannot explain. [Again, patience! Obviously, you have more time than I do. ] 11) In good time -- I think before I write. -- So when is this appropriate time? ["Soon"]

What will be "soon"?

12) Homo sapiens. By science criteria. Ask them. -- What is this criteria? [I've not the time or inclination to give you a science (biology) class here.]

I did not think you had anything here.

13) ... You're "not sure" of anything! -- Where did I say that? [Several times now in our early exchanges.]

Provide post numbers or retract.

I'll never be able to (even) define terms satisfactorily for you. Your wedge out of arguments? -- How is that my problem? [Only if you want to converse w me. So, apparently, not? ]

If you are unable to define your terms, we will not know what you are talking about.

14) An open question of "how wrong the Bible". I've already mentioned allegory & other figures of speech which you just want to read literally, as a science or history book, for argument sake. -- Who made you the arbiter of what is allegory in the Bible? [No one. But, I am entitled to my views. There is no sense in such general discussion. Specifics, yes. If the specific is Creation, then, there are plenty who agree w my interpretation of allegory here. I know you'd rather argue with literalists so that you can tie them down, for example, to a Creation week of 24-7 days! Have fun.]

Do you intend to put reality to a vote? Put me down for wanting an increase in the speed of light.

I just say "grow up" -- intellectually. -- No need to be insulting just because I disagree with you. [Not meant to be insulting, but, rather, to say that to even hope to understand arguments based in philosophy, you will need to know, or allow, such non-physical concepts. ]

Sure. But, allow me to be sceptical of undefined, unfalsifiable, unevidenced, and incoherent concepts.

 

[Wayne R.]

On the big bang theory, yes.

Then you do accept witness reports as evidence in weighing what you believe?

"Neither will yours."
Absolutely. Our beliefs obviously can't effect the past, but they will effect the present and future.

 

[Davian]

Because a conclusion is not presupposed.

Could you write a sincere letter to Santa, right now? Ask for new bike.

If you really didn't bother with anything you didn't presuppose, you would be incapable of learning. Granted, this does explain quite a bit about your posts.

Not at all. One could hypothesis about unexplained observations. Hypothesize, lather, rinse, repeat; after your explanation stands up to scrutiny, then commit to it. This is not what I generally observe from the religionists here on this site in regards to their god concepts.

 

[Wayne R.]

Is "fish bowl thinking" a euphemism for the scientific methodology that gave us everything from vaccines to the computer that you are using to have this exchange?

It's a euphemism for limited thinking or perspective. I love science, but do not deny it's limitations, neither do scientists, most of whom specialise in various "fish bowls". Oceanography being just one "fish bowl".

 

[Davian]

What blame?

Are you not claiming that it is because of the tguppy's shortcomings that it cannot conceive of your whale story, rather than it being you that cannot coherently convey this whale of a story and show that it comports with reality? The burden of evidence is on you, it is not?

How do you know you're not imagining the computer you're looking at.

Solipsism fails, as in it doesn't matter if what I am experiencing is virtual or imagined; if the the reality I perceive is persistent and consistent, and can be experimented on with predictable results, it is indistinguishable from reality.

 

[jonesdon]

To ALL -- but, atheists, anti-theists, and closed-minded "seekers". OK, now, into step 3 -- evidence, which ties in more specifically w the orig. subject by Joshua260. BTW: Are you still here, Joshua? Or, did you just start this thread and move on?

First, we must realize that there are different kinds of evidence. Off the top, I offer, at least, four kinds: 1) science (natural, physical), 2) historical (as in genealogy, one of my hobbies), 3) metaphysical (as in philosophy, logical concepts), and 4) "soft science" (as in social studies, psychology).

While this discussion starts with observations & questions in #1 (nature), the "proofs" go more in the line of #2 (as in scripture sources) or #3 (spiritual or metaphysical concepts). If one cannot accept "proofs" from all four kinds of evidence, or, worse yet, is confused between the kinds, then, there is little hope that logical argument can be done.

In genealogy, we have 1) sources (incl. observation), 2) gleaning evidence from these, 3) evaluation of the quality, 4) correlation toward a specific fact, 5) weaving these correlations together to establish a "fact" (or a conclusion). All of this requires mental processes & concepts -- referred to as such as hypothesis, interpretation, analysis, presumption, prove & convince.)

These are done in science, also, but with much more rigor -- on sources which a present (not past) and testable. So, comparing scientific results w genealogical ones is like comparing apples to oranges or, perhaps, even non-fruit to fruit! So, also, is trying to compare science to metaphysical proofs.

It is better that all types of evidence be used on a common issue to answer different types of questions to arrive at a better, more complete or comprehensive, result. This is as I see that science, & philosophy can, and should, do when delving into religious issues.

BTW: I was trained as a dualist (black-white, good-evil, physical-spiritual, etc.). But, I have become a "modified dualist" -- this is, inserting a middle 3rd element (gray, middle, metaphysical, ...). This middle ground may be a mixture of the other two or just unknown. When, unknown, a search may result it placing it in either. For here, the metaphysical will be the most operative.

With this foundation, next, I will go into the "proofs" (or demonstrations) of a God - e.g. Aquinas' five. This leads to the definition or description of my concept of God. After this, I will return to some of your posts for specific responses.

 

[Davian]

It's a euphemism for limited thinking or perspective. I love science, but do not deny it's limitations,

What limitations?

neither do scientists, most of whom specialise in various "fish bowls". Oceanography being just one "fish bowl".

I am open to alternative methodologies, if a case can be made for it. Don't bother with religious dogma.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

 

[Davian]

Then you do accept witness reports as evidence in weighing what you believe?

Reports that are properly documented, with names, address, and preferably with said witnesses still alive. These reports, as in most courts of law, will be disregarded if they conflict or do not comport with physical, testable, falsifiable evidence.

"Neither will yours."
Absolutely. Our beliefs obviously can't effect the past, but they will effect the present and future.

“All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” — Isaac Asimov