Why believe?

[RND]

The argument from inconsistent revelations;

Then I guess you don't "really" believe Pacal was a smart man in that case.

you may wager on the wrong God existing. Thousands of mutually inconsistent deities have been postulated. Then there is the assumption that God rewards belief over an honest seeker whose conclusion is not belief in him.

How can someone be an honest seeker but have no idea what they are seeking?

It's not simple because beliefs cannot be chosen so frivolously.

"Beliefs" are chosen frivolously every day! For example, a man may believe it's OK to steal an old lady's purse and does it. A kid may believe it's OK to drink and drive without worry of the consequences. A Wall Street financial guru may believe it's OK to rob one pension fund to invest in another. Beliefs such as these are acted out daily.

If I set up the same set of premises, only to persuade you that the computer you are using is really an elephant, rather than to persuade you to believe in God, you couldn't just "choose" to believe it.

That's because I have seen an elephant and a computer. Have any of us seen God?

You could recognize that you would like to believe it because of the rewards you stand to gain, but true belief would not likely follow. As Dawkins calls it, it is "cowardly bet-hedging"

What benefit would there be to me to believe my computer was a elephant? My computer doesn't require I feed it, water it and it does poop in my living room - all things I'm sure an elephant would do. So what reward would there be similar to Pascals wager for be to believe what you want me to believe about my computer?

Exactly.

Do you know what "faith" is?

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

In other words, belief (faith) is the foundation of what you hope for, yet there is no evidence to be seen. For example, you may have faith you are going to get an ice cream cone when you pull up to a Baskin-Robbins store. That certainly doesn't take that much faith. But believing (having faith) that you will physically live again one day with Jesus when you have no physical evidence takes a tremendous amount of faith. That faith is bolstered by the Holy Spirit and the word of God. Since you doubt you will live forever with Jesus you have nothing really to build your foundation on.

 

[RND]

To answer your second post: Discussing and reading about ethics, philosophy, etc. There exists no embodiment of perfection, but rather it exists as an ideal.

So you're meditating on an abstract idea? Doesn't it take "faith" then to believe in the abstract, that it is even partly obtainable? If not, then why waste your time meditating on something that doesn't exist or can't happen?

 

[coelacanth]

The argument from inconsistent revelations;

Then I guess you don't "really" believe Pacal was a smart man in that case.

you may wager on the wrong God existing. Thousands of mutually inconsistent deities have been postulated. Then there is the assumption that God rewards belief over an honest seeker whose conclusion is not belief in him.

How can someone be an honest seeker but have no idea what they are seeking?

[quote:3tqmrhlr]It's not simple because beliefs cannot be chosen so frivolously.

"Beliefs" are chosen frivolously every day! For example, a man may believe it's OK to steal an old lady's purse and does it. A kid may believe it's OK to drink and drive without worry of the consequences. A Wall Street financial guru may believe it's OK to rob one pension fund to invest in another. Beliefs such as these are acted out daily.

If I set up the same set of premises, only to persuade you that the computer you are using is really an elephant, rather than to persuade you to believe in God, you couldn't just "choose" to believe it.

That's because I have seen an elephant and a computer. Have any of us seen God?

You could recognize that you would like to believe it because of the rewards you stand to gain, but true belief would not likely follow. As Dawkins calls it, it is "cowardly bet-hedging"

What benefit would there be to me to believe my computer was a elephant? My computer doesn't require I feed it, water it and it does poop in my living room - all things I'm sure an elephant would do. So what reward would there be similar to Pascals wager for be to believe what you want me to believe about my computer?

Exactly.

Do you know what "faith" is?

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

In other words, belief (faith) is the foundation of what you hope for, yet there is no evidence to be seen. For example, you may have faith you are going to get an ice cream cone when you pull up to a Baskin-Robbins store. That certainly doesn't take that much faith. But believing (having faith) that you will physically live again one day with Jesus when you have no physical evidence takes a tremendous amount of faith. That faith is bolstered by the Holy Spirit and the word of God. Since you doubt you will live forever with Jesus you have nothing really to build your foundation on.[/quote:3tqmrhlr]

Blaise Pascal was at the very least a mathematical genius, and yes, I think he was very smart. I don't see where you conclude that the honest seeker doesn't know what they are seeking. This comment makes no sense. Yes, beliefs are frivolous on occasion, but what I'm talking about is postulations that are clearly reasoned through and yet the seeker comes to different conclusions than yours. The simple mathematical odds of a wager can't make someone actually believe when their reason concludes otherwise, and if you think they can then you have something to learn about what belief is.

About the whole elephant bit, clearly you read right over the phrase "If i set up the same set of premises", implying that eternal salvation could be gained from such a belief.

No, none of us have seen God and there is no evidence that God exists.

 

[coelacanth]

To answer your second post: Discussing and reading about ethics, philosophy, etc. There exists no embodiment of perfection, but rather it exists as an ideal.

So you're meditating on an abstract idea? Doesn't it take "faith" then to believe in the abstract, that it is even partly obtainable? If not, then why waste your time meditating on something that doesn't exist or can't happen?

There is faith based on reason, then there is blind stupid faith. I subscribe to the former.

 

[RND]

Blaise Pascal was at the very least a mathematical genius, and yes, I think he was very smart.

I think he was extremely smart.

I don't see where you conclude that the honest seeker doesn't know what they are seeking. This comment makes no sense.

It was based on your answers. On on hand you say, "Meditation on what true perfection is" but then you say that "There exists no embodiment of perfection, but rather it exists as an ideal." So you're meditating on an idea(l) that isn't possible? That sound like a wasted exercise frankly.

Yes, beliefs are frivolous on occasion, but what I'm talking about is postulations that are clearly reasoned through and yet the seeker comes to different conclusions than yours.

Without absolutes? Impossible.

The simple mathematical odds of a wager can't make someone actually believe when their reason concludes otherwise, and if you think they can then you have something to learn about what belief is.

I told you what belief is. You also don't seem to understand Pascals wager very well. It's rather simple. What does it hurt to believe in God? If He does then great then follow Him. If He doesn't, what have you lost? But if you don't believe and God really exists then you've lost all from not believing. Sounds like a simple answer to me.

About the whole elephant bit, clearly you read right over the phrase "If i set up the same set of premises", implying that eternal salvation could be gained from such a belief.

No, I didn't read over that. I showed you how absurd your analogy was and how it didn't make sense because neither being a computer or a elephant would change anything for me.

No, none of us have seen God and there is no evidence that God exists.

Well, that's a blanket statement. I believe God certainly exists so my belief is all the evidence I need. Now, I certainly understand my belief can't be made your belief, but fortunately your unbelief doesn't effect me one bit. Question: What astrological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

 

[RND]

There is faith based on reason, then there is blind stupid faith. I subscribe to the former.

OK, so what do you believe in and what's your reason?

 

[Barbarian]

Regarding this particular Catholic belief, how much of it is the Pope's opinion and how much of it is based on scripture?

It's a Christian belief, not merely that of Catholics. Indeed, only a minority of Christians have removed it from their theology.

As you may know, most Christians acknowledge that the Bible is not the only source of authority for a Christian. Indeed, the Bible was compiled by men, using scholarship, tradition, and prayer. It can be no more reliable than the means by which it was produced.

As you know, it is a given that God is just. And if a human for any reason cannot believe, but seeks the truth earnestly to the best of his ability, it would be a great injustice to sent him to eternal torment. Indeed, God tells His followers that it is preferable to be wrong about God and have compassion for others, than to be theologically correct, and not have compassion. The "Good Samaritan" parable does not mean "it's nice to help out the unfortunate." It means that those who do His will are saved, not necessarily those who call on Him. He says that at the Judgement some will be puzzled why they are saved, asking "when did we do anything for You?" And He will reply that when they did it for the least among them, they did it for Him. And He will welcome them into his kingdom.

 

[RND]

As you may know, most Christians acknowledge that the Bible is not the only source of authority for a Christian.

Well the Bible does say that people will fall away from sound teaching.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Indeed, the Bible was compiled by men, using scholarship, tradition, and prayer. It can be no more reliable than the means by which it was produced.

Scripture is God breathed and is extremely reliable.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you may know, most Christians acknowledge that the Bible is not the only source of authority for a Christian.

Well the Bible does say that people will fall away from sound teaching.

Indeed. It's obviously true, since the Bible itself says that it is not the sole source of authority, and yet many have simply ignored that part of it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Barbarian observes:
Indeed, the Bible was compiled by men, using scholarship, tradition, and prayer. It can be no more reliable than the means by which it was produced.

Scripture is God breathed and is extremely reliable.

But no more so than the process by which it was compiled. Hence, the magisterium of the Church (and not just of the Roman Catholic Church) is also God-inspired and reliable.

 

[coelacanth]

There is faith based on reason, then there is blind stupid faith. I subscribe to the former.

OK, so what do you believe in and what's your reason?

An example of something I have faith in....

I believe my girlfriend loves me. I cannot experience her thoughts and feelings, for those are her own. I only observe what she does and says, and from this I have concluded that when she says "I love you" that she means it with all her heart. This is based on a wide range of direct observation and direct interactions, but in the end, to believe it could be considered a type of faith based on reason.

 

[coelacanth]

I don't see where you conclude that the honest seeker doesn't know what they are seeking. This comment makes no sense.

It was based on your answers. On on hand you say, "Meditation on what true perfection is" but then you say that "There exists no embodiment of perfection, but rather it exists as an ideal." So you're meditating on an idea(l) that isn't possible? That sound like a wasted exercise frankly.

I didn't say it was an impossible ideal, I simply said there is no embodiment of eternal perfection. But nonetheless, please explain how I cannot possibly benefit from mental exercises aimed at self-improvement.

Yes, beliefs are frivolous on occasion, but what I'm talking about is postulations that are clearly reasoned through and yet the seeker comes to different conclusions than yours.

Without absolutes? Impossible.

When you've been raised to believe in absolutes, the world of relativity can be a scary one, but you grow accustomed to it and learn that one can still hold high standards of morality, etc.

The simple mathematical odds of a wager can't make someone actually believe when their reason concludes otherwise, and if you think they can then you have something to learn about what belief is.

I told you what belief is. You also don't seem to understand Pascals wager very well. It's rather simple. What does it hurt to believe in God? If He does then great then follow Him. If He doesn't, what have you lost? But if you don't believe and God really exists then you've lost all from not believing. Sounds like a simple answer to me.

The wager sounds nice but its logically incoherent, for the reasons I've described (albeit not in great detail): it makes many assumptions. One of them is that you have chosen the right God, one of them is that God requires belief, and another is that true and honest belief can actually be chosen.

About the whole elephant bit, clearly you read right over the phrase "If i set up the same set of premises", implying that eternal salvation could be gained from such a belief.

No, I didn't read over that. I showed you how absurd your analogy was and how it didn't make sense because neither being a computer or a elephant would change anything for me.

The analogy was intended to make you see the absurdity of wanting to believe something you know to be false. No matter how much incentive I add to believing that your computer is an elephant, you can't actually believe it in your mind and heart.


And why are you asking me about astrology?

 

[RND]

An example of something I have faith in....

I believe my girlfriend loves me. I cannot experience her thoughts and feelings, for those are her own. I only observe what she does and says, and from this I have concluded that when she says "I love you" that she means it with all her heart.

That's nice! However love is never defined by what one says but by what one does. People tell others all the time "I love you" but their actions say otherwise.

This is based on a wide range of direct observation and direct interactions, but in the end, to believe it could be considered a type of faith based on reason.

Correct, you have a "reason" to believe.

 

[RND]

I didn't say it was an impossible ideal, I simply said there is no embodiment of eternal perfection. But nonetheless, please explain how I cannot possibly benefit from mental exercises aimed at self-improvement.

According to your logic you meditate on something that is unobtainable. Odd.

The wager sounds nice but its logically incoherent, for the reasons I've described (albeit not in great detail):

Please, by all means explain then for my clarity.

it makes many assumptions. One of them is that you have chosen the right God,

I think Pascal was assuming that when he postulated his wager most would understand 'what' God he was referencing.

one of them is that God requires belief,

In that faith = belief that seems reasonable right? You just said you have faith (belief) that you girl loves you right? Wouldn't you say that your girl has a reasonable expectation that you believe her?

and another is that true and honest belief can actually be chosen.

Well, don't you have the freedom to chose to believe your GF loves you? Or does your GF force that expectation of belief on you?

The analogy was intended to make you see the absurdity of wanting to believe something you know to be false.

But that's just it....you have nothing to prove the existence of God is false.

No matter how much incentive I add to believing that your computer is an elephant, you can't actually believe it in your mind and heart.

That's right because there's no expectation that such a belief would be beneficial. Belief in God is different. For example, let's strip the argument then to it's essentials. Do you see the benefit in living forever, for eternity, with God as opposed to being totally separate from God and having no further existence?

In other words is living forever a benefit?

And why are you asking me about astrology?

I haven't asked you anything regarding astrology.

 

[coelacanth]

it makes many assumptions. One of them is that you have chosen the right God,

I think Pascal was assuming that when he postulated his wager most would understand 'what' God he was referencing.

It matters not whether his audience knew to which God he was referring. Pascal's wager sets up a total of four distinct and mutually exclusive sets of possibility. He does not take into account the possibility that he had chosen the wrong God, the possibility that God rewards and punishes based on whether or not you believe in him, and of course, the one I've been hammering on that YOU CAN'T CHOOSE TRUE BELIEF. All Pascal's wager can do is make you WANT to find reasons to believe. If it were action that were required rather than belief, then it would be a different story. But to believe something is to give the cognitive assent to its truth. This cannot be swayed by incentive.

and another is that true and honest belief can actually be chosen.

Well, don't you have the freedom to chose to believe your GF loves you? Or does your GF force that expectation of belief on you?

No, some evidence to the contrary would be required for my belief to change. You could offer me eternal bliss to not believe it, and it doesn't matter. No amount of incentive can change true belief. That has nothing to do with my desire to believe it, that is removed and has no domain in this discussion.

The analogy was intended to make you see the absurdity of wanting to believe something you know to be false.

But that's just it....you have nothing to prove the existence of God is false.

No, but fortunately for my case, the burden of proof when postulating fanciful claims about the supernatural rests with the one making the claim.

And why are you asking me about astrology?

I haven't asked you anything regarding astrology.

Question: What astrological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

 

[RND]

It matters not whether his audience knew to which God he was referring.

Why not? How many God's have promised to raise the dead and live with them eternally?

Pascal's wager sets up a total of four distinct and mutually exclusive sets of possibility. He does not take into account the possibility that he had chosen the wrong God, the possibility that God rewards and punishes based on whether or not you believe in him, and of course, the one I've been hammering on that YOU CAN'T CHOOSE TRUE BELIEF. All Pascal's wager can do is make you WANT to find reasons to believe. If it were action that were required rather than belief, then it would be a different story. But to believe something is to give the cognitive assent to its truth. This cannot be swayed by incentive.

It is certainly true that Pascals wager involves a measure of belief, which is simply faith. Which is certainly the point of the wager in the first place.

Would it not be more beneficial to believe that there is a God that promises and grants eternal life with Him than not to believe in such a scenario. In that sense Pascal's wager is on the money.

No, but fortunately for my case, the burden of proof when postulating fanciful claims about the supernatural rests with the one making the claim.

Not at all.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are on a boat on the Niagara River and you pass a sign that says, "Last chance to turn back in 1,000 feet." Is it the maker of the signs job to tell you to turn back or is the sign itself sufficient? Or do you say to the sign, "Prove it"?

[quote:z3hv8yyn]And why are you asking me about astrology?

I haven't asked you anything regarding astrology.

Question: What astrological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

[/quote:z3hv8yyn][/quote] I see my mistake, I should have said cosmological.

Question: What cosmological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

 

[coelacanth]

Would it not be more beneficial to believe that there is a God that promises and grants eternal life with Him than not to believe in such a scenario. In that sense Pascal's wager is on the money.

No, the dangers of belief are not taken into account. But I see what you're saying, yes, it sounds very fulfilling and pleasant.

No, but fortunately for my case, the burden of proof when postulating fanciful claims about the supernatural rests with the one making the claim.

Not at all.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are on a boat on the Niagara River and you pass a sign that says, "Last chance to turn back in 1,000 feet." Is it the maker of the signs job to tell you to turn back or is the sign itself sufficient? Or do you say to the sign, "Prove it"?

This is a strawman bait-and-switch that barely deserves remarking, but I'll do it, and all it requires is the principle of parsimony: Occam's Razor.

I see my mistake, I should have said cosmological.

Question: What cosmological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

Please clarify, I'm not sure where you're going with this

 

[RND]

No, the dangers of belief are not taken into account. But I see what you're saying, yes, it sounds very fulfilling and pleasant.

What are the dangers involved in believing in a God that grants eternal life?

[quote:381hmzn8]No, but fortunately for my case, the burden of proof when postulating fanciful claims about the supernatural rests with the one making the claim.

Not at all.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you are on a boat on the Niagara River and you pass a sign that says, "Last chance to turn back in 1,000 feet." Is it the maker of the signs job to tell you to turn back or is the sign itself sufficient? Or do you say to the sign, "Prove it"?

This is a strawman bait-and-switch that barely deserves remarking, but I'll do it,[/quote:381hmzn8] No bait and switch. You said the burden of proof remains with the one making the claim. Thus, by that logic, you wouldn't heed the warning of the sign saying go back because the claimant wasn't there.

This principle would work with any sign pointing out a hazardous situation. If you were driving down the road and a man was yelling at you, "The bridge is out" would you heed is call or become his example?

and all it requires is the principle of parsimony: Occam's Razor.

In that sense Pascal's Wager is still valid because it is the simplest thing to do.

[quote:381hmzn8] I see my mistake, I should have said cosmological.

Question: What cosmological aspect does the weekly cycle represent?

Please clarify, I'm not sure where you're going with this[/quote:381hmzn8][/quote] Can you explain why we have seven day weeks when there is no astronomical reason for them?

 

[coelacanth]

No, the dangers of belief are not taken into account. But I see what you're saying, yes, it sounds very fulfilling and pleasant.

What are the dangers involved in believing in a God that grants eternal life?

That's a discussion for a whole new thread

And as far as I know, it was the Jewish calendar that first acknowledged seven day weeks to honor the Sabbath and the Genesis creation. It's a hangover tradition from bronze-age mythology, just as Christmas is held on December 25th as a replacement for a pagan holiday.

 

[coelacanth]

No bait and switch. You said the burden of proof remains with the one making the claim. Thus, by that logic, you wouldn't heed the warning of the sign saying go back because the claimant wasn't there

This principle would work with any sign pointing out a hazardous situation. If you were driving down the road and a man was yelling at you, "The bridge is out" would you heed is call or become his example?.

When the claim is in dispute, yes. However, circumstantial evidence and prior knowledge would lead me to infer that the road ahead is dangerous. I could be wrong, but its not worth the risk. This is very different from Pascal's wager, however.

In that sense Pascal's Wager is still valid because it is the simplest thing to do.

I've explained to you why Pascal's Wager is invalid. If none of that has worked, try this one out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager

 

[coelacanth]

One thing that link points out is that there may be a benevolent God who judges us based on following our conscience rather than believing in him; a scenario I find far more plausible than one who saves people based on belief (in reality I believe neither). Therefore an unbeliever could go to heaven for living a good life.