How does one come to believe something?

[lumberjohn]

To lumberjohn/atheist (post #237) who says "I'm not waiting for anything. If God wants me to believe, he can present good evidence. In the meantime, I'll continue not believing. I'll use the exact same standards you use to assess all religions other than Christianity"

==== RESP: Of course, to believe (or not) is your choice. You didn't address my reasons -- i.e. God being the better choice. "Exact same standards"? Hmmm, pretty cocky (presumptuous) for someone who doesn't know this Newbie.

When you mention your "neutral" -- I see 1) being stuck in neutral, 2) a cop-out, being wishy washy, by agreeing w "everybody". 3) everything is nothing -- i.e. no foundation or standards.

BTW: Why all religons but Christianity? Judaism, Islam, and others are also montheistic. So, you have a vendetta against (only) Christianity?

P.S. I guess your other atheistic compatriots have no response to my post #226. Are my statements & questions too hard?

As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards of late, belief in this context is not a choice. As for your reasons, I addressed them in the succinct manner they merited. I cannot help what you see when I use the term neutral. My position is that before we begin assessing a hypothesis such as the existence of a divine entity, we should begin with an open mind, without preconceived opinions regarding that entity's existence. This is true regardless of whether that entity is the Christian God or any other. My challenge to you is to demonstrate why you believe we should do otherwise.

The only question you pose in post 226 is whether a mental concept exists. I'd be happy to answer the question if you would elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "mental concept?" In what sense are you inquiring about existence? Do you mean as a mental state? A physical reality? A Platonic form?

 

[jonesdon]

1) This smelled of apologetics, which would get this thread closed quickly, 2) but since you have asked again: I am ignostic on the topic of gods. 3) If you are claiming that a "god" was needed as a "starting point", you will need to define what you mean by "god" and 4) show why such a thing was needed, and how you know this. 5) I am not asking for evidence for gods; I would ask that you define what you mean by the term in a testable, falsifiable manner. 6) As for your last question, it would follow that you define "mental concept" for the purposes of this discussion, so that we can compare it to how you have defined "god".

==== RESP: 1) This is strange. So, logical debate closes down threads? Hmmm. I'm new here, but .... 2) Again? Not me. But, thanks anyway. So this is what you mean by "fallible" or "seeker". To some extend all of us are, or should be, agnostic -- in search for answers. 3) Not a question of "need", but, rather "was". Yes, this is part of my definition.

4) Show? Can't. Just "demonstrate" as Aquinas did. Rather, it's just that in logic there can be only one ultimate -- original & creator are 2 of these. 5) I think I've defined my term, concept "God". 6) Would you please, also, answer my questions -- What is YOUR idea about a mental concept as reality? Does it really exist?

 

[lumberjohn]

[QUOTE="jonesdon, post: 68096151, member: 137792] OK. So, are you going to answer my questions? Including why God is not the better choice (of no God) as in post #187)?[/QUOTE]

As you apparently did not understand my previous response, I'll try again with a bit more detail. What you have proposed are prudential reasons for belief. You don't appear to be offering any proof of God, only attempt to show that it is somehow beneficial to believe.

The most famous of these prudential arguments is "Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal acknowledged that the existence of God could not be proven by rational argument. He argued that belief in God was nonetheless justified by comparing the advantages of believing versus disbelieving.

Pascal claimed that if one believed in the Christian God, but were mistaken, nothing was lost. If one disbelieved and were mistaken, however, one would lose an eternity of bliss and suffer an eternity in Hell. The cost of being wrong in the latter case is astronomical by comparison, far outweighing the risk of erroneous belief in God. Accordingly, it is prudent to believe.

There are many problems with Pascal’s wager, but the main one is the assumption that belief of this kind is somehow voluntary and can be given or withheld based solely on prudential considerations. If I were to offer you a million dollars to believe in fairies, would you believe in fairies? Of course not, because that isn’t the way belief works. We believe things for both emotional and for rational reasons, but never because of some cold cost-benefit analysis of believing.

Even if we could grant our belief after weighing its benefit, what worth would such belief be to God? Is this really the type of belief God would want from us? If you were to appear at the pearly gates, would you want to say something like “Well, it didn’t really make any sense to me, but I considered the advantages of believing, and it seemed like a pretty sweet deal. So I said ‘What the hey?’ I’ll become a Christian! Am I in?” If God exists and really is all-knowing, I cannot imagine this type of belief is what He intended to reward with an eternity by his side. I would expect He would find it deeply offensive.

Another problem is that Pascal’s Wager employs the fallacy of the false dichotomy – providing only two possibilities when there are in fact millions, each with its own separate cost-benefit analysis. Pascal only provides the choice between the positions of the Christian and the atheist. But what about all the other religions of the world that incorporate their own disincentives for non-belief? And what about the possibility there may be a god that is the subject of no existing religion but nonetheless horribly punishes those that don’t worship him?

A Hindu, Muslim, or Native American shaman, for instance, could claim their own version of Pascal’s wager. If the Christian chooses the wrong god to believe in, she may be subjected to eternal suffering in the Hell equivalent of whichever religion turns out to be correct. So one certainly cannot say there is no potential downside to believing in the Christian God over all others.

Finally (though this list is by no means exhaustive), even between the Christian and atheist positions, there are indeed downsides to wrongly believing in God and living life as an active Christian. Just one example is all the enormous time and effort wasted on a false belief. This may amount to years over the course of a lifetime with tremendous opportunity costs, as time spent listening to sermons on incoherent concepts such as grace and the nature of the Trinity could have been better spent forging stronger relationships with friends and family or educating oneself for a new career. Another example consists of the irrational beliefs into which Christianity leads otherwise reasonable people, often causing them to act uncharitably toward people of different religions or lifestyles under the mistaken understanding that such behavior is required of true Christians.

This earthly life is the only one we can be sure of. If we sacrifice it in doormat subservience to a non-existent god, then we have lost everything.

 

[Pink Spider]

________________________________________
MOD HAT ON!
________________________________________​

This thread has undergone a Cleanup.

Please keep in mind the CF rules:

Flaming and Goading● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

________________________________________
MOD HAT OFF!
________________________________________​

 

[zippy2006]

There are many problems with Pascal’s wager, but the main one is the assumption that belief of this kind is somehow voluntary and can be given or withheld based solely on prudential considerations. If I were to offer you a million dollars to believe in fairies, would you believe in fairies? Of course not, because that isn’t the way belief works. We believe things for both emotional and for rational reasons, but never because of some cold cost-benefit analysis of believing.

The fun part is that Pascal explicitly raises this concern, even placing it in the mouth of his interlocutor:

‘Quite; but my hands are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to wager, but am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot believe. What then do you wish me to do?​

Unfortunately, most folks criticizing the Wager haven't even read it.

 

[Davian]

==== RESP: 1) This is strange. So, logical debate closes down threads? Hmmm. I'm new here, but ....

To quote the Philosophy Forum Statement of Purpose: The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.

2) Again? Not me.

You asked that your post be revisited, did you not?

So this is what you mean by "fallible" or "seeker". To some extend all of us are, or should be, agnostic -- in search for answers.

Ignostic just means that I do not make any assumptions for what you mean by "god" or "God".

3) Not a question of "need", but, rather "was". Yes, this is part of my definition.

I saw some handwaving at some characters in books, but no definition. If you are claiming that a "god" was needed as a "starting point", you will need to define what you mean by "god" and show why such a thing was needed, and how you know this.

4) Show? Can't.

Then this is all just speculation. Agreed?

Just "demonstrate" as Aquinas did. Rather, it's just that in logic there can be only one ultimate -- original & creator are 2 of these. 5) I think I've defined my term, concept "God". 6) Would you please, also, answer my questions -- What is YOUR idea about a mental concept as reality? Does it really exist?

Are there brain states, or symbols or group of symbols together made from the physical material of the brain that the brain uses to denote a class of things in the world? Yes, brain states exist.

 

[Wayne R.]

We could spend pages and pages going through each of the Old Testament prophecies relied upon by Christians, but that would take this discussion way off topic and be an enormous time drain. Instead, I'll just provide one example, which I think is representative of the problem. Let's begin at the beginning of the first gospel appearing in the New Testament, Matthew.

Matthew begins his tale with Mary and Joseph. Immediately after their marriage, but somehow before they can consummate their vows, Mary becomes pregnant. Joseph is understandably troubled, but is assured by an angel that Mary remains a virgin; her child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Matthew claims this is the fulfillment of a “prophecy” found in Isaiah 7:14 (“Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a young woman / virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”)

There are several reasons to dismiss Matthew’s claim that Jesus’ birth fulfilled and Old Testament prophecy. First, no Hebrew scholar or critical scholar considers Isaiah 7:14 a messianic prophecy. It occurs in a story about King Ahaz of Judah, who is concerned that Jerusalem will soon be conquered. The prophet Isaiah promises Ahaz that God will destroy his enemies before a child named Immanuel (“God-with-us”), not yet conceived, reaches the age of reason. The point of mentioning the child is to establish the immediacy by which the destruction will commence. It is a secondary prophecy supporting a primary prophecy. Both prophecies come to pass, as Ahaz’s enemies are destroyed and disaster is averted. The Immanuel prophecy is made and fulfilled within the same story, leaving nothing for Jesus or anyone else to fulfill.

The second point is that while the original Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, “almah,” simply meant “young woman,” this word was subsequently translated into the Greek word “parthenos” in compiling the Septuagint. While “almah” does not imply virginity, “parthenos” does. The translator of the Septuagint therefore changed the meaning of the word, resulting in a natural occurrence being transformed into a miraculous one. It is clear that Matthew used the Septuagint as a source, and thus read Isaiah 7:14 as referencing a virgin birth when no such virgin birth was originally intended. Matthew surely would have recognized that virgin births were seen by many pagan religions as signs of divinity, noting that this would provide a great selling point for Christian missionaries.

Assume the original text of a document identified the birth of a three-legged goat as a portentous sign. Assume further that in translating that text into another language, “three-legged goat” somehow became “talking cow.” Finally, assume that a later writer supported his claims by representing that the sign was fulfilled, through the birth of a talking cow. You would no doubt dismiss his claim because (1) talking cows don’t exist in nature; and (2) the original text said nothing about a talking cow.

Matthew mis-identified scriptural authority for a virgin birth and shoehorned it into a prophecy that was never intended as messianic by its author. He then worked such a virgin birth into his nativity narrative specifically to demonstrate that such a prophecy had been fulfilled and that Jesus was indeed divine. For people willing to accept Matthew’s claims regarding the OT prophecy and buy into his narrative, this must have seemed like powerful confirmation. Once one recognizes how Matthew misrepresented the original prophecy, however, his story of an actual virgin birth is easily dismissed.

Typical antitheist interpretation, I've heard it a hundred times and it's no more accurate now than the first time told. Antitheist "scholars" waste their time attempting to interpret scripture, as it teaches: truth will be hidden from the arrogant. They have no interest in learning anything except what they can use to support their own religion of antitheism, then attempt to spread their religion at websites like this one. Antitheists seem to be as fanatical as any theist religion and the amount of time you spend here proves the point. You love your religion, but to believe there is no God makes no sense and defies logic, so you're welcome to keep it.

 

[Wayne R.]

Independent evidence supports that atheists are statistically

smarter (Burnham Beckwith, “The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith,” Free Inquiry 6(2) (1986): 46-52; Helmut Nyborg, “the Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 81-93.),

more scientifically literate (Richard Lynn et al, “Average Intelligence Predicts Atheism Rates Across 137 Nations,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 11-15; E.L. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature 394 (1998): 313); https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/religion-reduces-science-literacy-in-america/),

and better versed in the Bible
(http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/).

But I would never say “better.” That is such a subjective term.

Your humility is overwhelming. LOL

Hate to break it to you, but atheists have the same feelings and emotions you do. Atheists obviously don't confuse them for a god, of course, and instead realize that they are just how the human brain works.

LOL. Don't assume you know what I was referring to. It's a common mistake antitheists make, often.

 

[jonesdon]

1) I need a reason to believe in a God. I don't just believe because it is one alternative and we don't have the answer to everything, so we inject a God to explain what we don't know - yet. 2) And which God are you referring to? Do you have a description of this God you believe in, or do you just say; I believe in a God?

=== REPLY: 1) Don't look at "belief" so hard and, as I suggest, first try looking at the alternatives -- God or no God. If you can't chose from this, then, I guess we're finished here. BTW: Belief comes later, trust me. Get that cart & horse in the right order.

2) Easy on "which God?" -- the only God! My "description" is my definition. I've already stated this several times as a best choice. Do you have a problem with this or a better choice?

 

[lumberjohn]

Typical antitheist interpretation, I've heard it a hundred times and it's no more accurate now than the first time told. Antitheist "scholars" waste their time attempting to interpret scripture, as it teaches: truth will be hidden from the arrogant. They have no interest in learning anything except what they can use to support their own religion of antitheism, then attempt to spread their religion at websites like this one. Antitheists seem to be as fanatical as any theist religion and the amount of time you spend here proves the point. You love your religion, but to believe there is no God makes no sense and defies logic, so you're welcome to keep it.

I understand you disagree with my analysis, but I'm afraid your terse reply has left me without an explanation as to why. First, you chided me for not adequately responding, and then you chide me for spending too much time on my response. I would welcome hearing your in-depth analysis of the issue and your reasons for believing this to be a legitimate fulfilled prophesy. Please feel free to specifically point out any errors I've made in mine. I look forward to your response.

 

[lumberjohn]

The fun part is that Pascal explicitly raises this concern, even placing it in the mouth of his interlocutor:

‘Quite; but my hands are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to wager, but am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot believe. What then do you wish me to do?​

Unfortunately, most folks criticizing the Wager haven't even read it.

Yes, but how does Pascal respond to this concern? The position that we can choose to believe is known as doxastic voluntarism. Pascal's wager assumes that doxastic voluntarism is possible, and that God doesn't care if your belief is sincere. It is pretty easy to demonstrate that doxastic voluntarism is false. Just make yourself believe in Zeus. Can't do it? There you go. Pascal makes no headway in validating either assumption.

 

[jonesdon]

1) As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards of late, belief in this context is not a choice. 2) As for your reasons, I addressed them in the succinct manner they merited. 3) I cannot help what you see when I use the term neutral. 4) My position is that before we begin assessing a hypothesis such as the existence of a divine entity, we should begin with an open mind, 5) without preconceived opinions regarding that entity's existence. 6) This is true regardless of whether that entity is the Christian God or any other. 7) My challenge to you is to demonstrate why you believe we should do otherwise. 8) The only question you pose in post 226 is whether a mental concept exists. 9) I'd be happy to answer the question if you would elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "mental concept?" In what sense are you inquiring about existence? Do you mean as a mental state? A physical reality? A Platonic form?

 

[jonesdon]

1) As has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards of late, belief in this context is not a choice. 2) As for your reasons, I addressed them in the succinct manner they merited. 3) I cannot help what you see when I use the term neutral. 4) My position is that before we begin assessing a hypothesis such as the existence of a divine entity, we should begin with an open mind, 5) without preconceived opinions regarding that entity's existence. 6) This is true regardless of whether that entity is the Christian God or any other. 7) My challenge to you is to demonstrate why you believe we should do otherwise. 8) The only question you pose in post 226 is whether a mental concept exists. 9) I'd be happy to answer the question if you would elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "mental concept?" In what sense are you inquiring about existence? Do you mean as a mental state? A physical reality? A Platonic form?

==== REPLY: 1) My belief starts w a choice -- hence, I'm bypassing your "ad nauseum"! Is there a problem with this? 2) As for my reasons, I guess I missed your "succinct manner" -- or is "no resp" your manner? So, can't you tell me if you agree or disagree w post #187 (my 1st one?)? Should be a simple "yes" or "no" w a few caveats, perhaps.

3) True. But, this, mainly for others. 4) I agree! 5) So "God or no God" is a preconceived notion? 6) Another issue. 7) And, again & still, why can't you make this choice of God or no God? 8) Only Q in #226 - true! I had wanted to imply "agree or not agree" on my 1st post (#187).

9) Again, I'm asking YOU about your view! So? I'm not going off into red herrings or side bars about concepts w/o your view. You could start by answering your own Qs here!

 

[jonesdon]

[QUOTE="jonesdon, post: 68096151, member: 137792] OK. So, are you going to answer my questions? Including why God is not the better choice (of no God) as in post #187)?

As you apparently did not understand my previous response, I'll try again with a bit more detail. What you have proposed are prudential reasons for belief. You don't appear to be offering any proof of God, only attempt to show that it is somehow beneficial to believe.

The most famous of these prudential arguments is "Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal acknowledged that the existence of God could not be proven by rational argument. He argued that belief in God was nonetheless justified by comparing the advantages of believing versus disbelieving.

Pascal claimed that if one believed in the Christian God, but were mistaken, nothing was lost. If one disbelieved and were mistaken, however, one would lose an eternity of bliss and suffer an eternity in Hell. The cost of being wrong in the latter case is astronomical by comparison, far outweighing the risk of erroneous belief in God. Accordingly, it is prudent to believe.

There are many problems with Pascal’s wager, but the main one is the assumption that belief of this kind is somehow voluntary and can be given or withheld based solely on prudential considerations. If I were to offer you a million dollars to believe in fairies, would you believe in fairies? Of course not, because that isn’t the way belief works. We believe things for both emotional and for rational reasons, but never because of some cold cost-benefit analysis of believing.

Even if we could grant our belief after weighing its benefit, what worth would such belief be to God? Is this really the type of belief God would want from us? If you were to appear at the pearly gates, would you want to say something like “Well, it didn’t really make any sense to me, but I considered the advantages of believing, and it seemed like a pretty sweet deal. So I said ‘What the hey?’ I’ll become a Christian! Am I in?” If God exists and really is all-knowing, I cannot imagine this type of belief is what He intended to reward with an eternity by his side. I would expect He would find it deeply offensive.

Another problem is that Pascal’s Wager employs the fallacy of the false dichotomy – providing only two possibilities when there are in fact millions, each with its own separate cost-benefit analysis. Pascal only provides the choice between the positions of the Christian and the atheist. But what about all the other religions of the world that incorporate their own disincentives for non-belief? And what about the possibility there may be a god that is the subject of no existing religion but nonetheless horribly punishes those that don’t worship him?

A Hindu, Muslim, or Native American shaman, for instance, could claim their own version of Pascal’s wager. If the Christian chooses the wrong god to believe in, she may be subjected to eternal suffering in the Hell equivalent of whichever religion turns out to be correct. So one certainly cannot say there is no potential downside to believing in the Christian God over all others.

Finally (though this list is by no means exhaustive), even between the Christian and atheist positions, there are indeed downsides to wrongly believing in God and living life as an active Christian. Just one example is all the enormous time and effort wasted on a false belief. This may amount to years over the course of a lifetime with tremendous opportunity costs, as time spent listening to sermons on incoherent concepts such as grace and the nature of the Trinity could have been better spent forging stronger relationships with friends and family or educating oneself for a new career. Another example consists of the irrational beliefs into which Christianity leads otherwise reasonable people, often causing them to act uncharitably toward people of different religions or lifestyles under the mistaken understanding that such behavior is required of true Christians.

This earthly life is the only one we can be sure of. If we sacrifice it in doormat subservience to a non-existent god, then we have lost everything.[/QUOTE]

 

[bhsmte]

=== REPLY: 1) Don't look at "belief" so hard and, as I suggest, first try looking at the alternatives -- God or no God. If you can't chose from this, then, I guess we're finished here. BTW: Belief comes later, trust me. Get that cart & horse in the right order.

2) Easy on "which God?" -- the only God! My "description" is my definition. I've already stated this several times as a best choice. Do you have a problem with this or a better choice?

I guess if one believes in a God, they would need a descriptive concept of what this God is, would you agree?

And, I am very thorough in how I look at information and don't rule anything out. If there is adequate reason to believe something, I will.

 

[jonesdon]

lumberjohn says "As you apparently did not understand my previous response, I'll try again with a bit more detail. What you have proposed are prudential reasons for belief. You don't appear to be offering any proof of God, only attempt to show that it is somehow beneficial to believe.
"
===== REPLY: I'll ignore your resps until YOU ANSWER my basic, easy, questions! Is "God or no God" the best choice and about YOUR view on the nature of concepts. I admit that I might have missed something in your expose (and/or other red herring resps). I won't be driven off into your well- practiced chain of attacks until you answer me -- concisely. I haven't asked difficult questions!

 

[lumberjohn]

lumberjohn says "As you apparently did not understand my previous response, I'll try again with a bit more detail. What you have proposed are prudential reasons for belief. You don't appear to be offering any proof of God, only attempt to show that it is somehow beneficial to believe.
"
===== REPLY: I'll ignore your resps until YOU ANSWER my basic, easy, questions! Is "God or no God" the best choice and about YOUR view on the nature of concepts. I admit that I might have missed something in your expose (and/or other red herring resps). I won't be driven off into your well- practiced chain of attacks until you answer me -- concisely. I haven't asked difficult questions!

I'm afraid we're not connecting. The terms you are using are subject to many different meanings and interpretations. I need some clarification on your questions so that we do not proceed with different assumptions like ships passing in the night.

 

[jonesdon]

In what way is belief a choice? Can you consciously decide to believe that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or that Bigfoot exists? And then, later in the week, decide otherwise?

= REPLY: Don't change the subject. Is "God or no God" the best choice? P.S. Belief comes later.

 

[jonesdon]

I'm afraid we're not connecting. The terms you are using are subject to many different meanings and interpretations. I need some clarification on your questions so that we do not proceed with different assumptions like ships passing in the night.

 

[jonesdon]

==== RESP: Yes, but, how can we miss on my question "Is God or no God" a better choice? What word(s) here don't you understand.