On reading a particular treatise on Faith, the following Q&A was included, and it actually made a lot of sense to me. I'll quote it, and then I'll give my commentary on what I think of it:
quote: ---------- How many things are necessary for us to understand, respecting the Deity and our relation to him, in order that we may exercise faith in him for life and salvation? Three.
What are they? First, that God does actually exist; secondly, correct ideas of his character, his perfections and attributes; and thirdly, that the course which we pursue is according to his mind and will.
Would the idea of any one or two of the above-mentioned things enable a person to exercise faith in God? It would not, for without the idea of them all faith would be imperfect and unproductive. ---------------
What this expresses to me is that no one can have Faith, unless they are first 'educated', and come to a, in many ways, 'logical' conclusion that the basic elements seem feasable:
a) Deity does exist b) You have apretty accurate understanding of the character and nature of that Deity c) That according to that knowledge of his will and nature, you have a desire for the same goals.
Other parts of the treatise discuss why the writer understands that there is plenty information available concerning the Biblical God that makes this sort of Faith possible.
The entire treatise is very in depth, and quite fascinating - but I wondered what the Hatrack response would be concerning this first element:
What exactly is required to have Faith?
There are too many people who thin kthat Faith is something that can just happen without any sort of frame of reference.
Example A, where the "Christian" is horrendously at fault for being a circular-reasoning goober:
CHRISTIAN: My life is good because I have God, and God is Good. FRIEND: How do you know that God is what makes your life good? CHRISTIAN: Because of Faith. FRIEND: Why do you have Faith? CHRISTIAN: Because God exists. And He'll make things better. FRIEND: I don't understand why you have faith in this being. CHRISTIAN: That's because you don't have Faith. FRIEND: Why should I have Faith that this exists? CHRISTIAN: Because God is good, and wants you to be Happy. FRIEND: How do you know God wants you to be happy? CHRISTIAN: Faith.
etc, etc, etc.
Faith, I believe, and as this treatise demonstrates, should be originally based on a formation of reason, and not JUST a 'feeling'. The 'feeling' should definitely be there, but I believe it should be in reaction to additional 'information', as well as additional witnesses. It doesn't come out of nothing. There should be credible reasons for you to have faith in something. In my personal opinion, I believe that the following are good examples of 'credible starting points' and progression for a development of Faith:
A) FRIEND "A" lives a life that is difficult, but they still don't seem to let it set them into a realm of depression. They seem to think that in the end, everything will be alright.
B) FRIEND "A" Claims that their calm and peace is due to their Faith in their respective Deity, and gives information about where one can find out more about those deity.
C) Ancient texts/scriptures are presented, which claim to be the records of individuals who have had first-hand encounters with said deity, and describe the results and words thereof, and presents a way and means to achieve a state of peace and joy.
D) Initial work is done to see where the texts came from, and the history thereof.
E) Others are observed who follow what the texts actually say.
F) If the result of D) appears even remotely possiblely credible, and the results of E) result in a people who live in a state of being that appears attractive, and in tune to what a cursory glance of the text appears to say the result of following it would be, then a personal study of the text itself would commence.
G) If the culmination results in a positive experience and 'feeling' at this point, leading to the thoughts that: ----a) The examples you have observed are honest trustworthy individuals ----b) The text is what it claims to be ----c) The text claims that following the instructions in the text would lead to a desirable result
Then Faith becomes the next 'logical' step, the additional 'leap' into following elements that may not have any additional 'founding'. Once source "A" is deemed reliable, then one can trust following what "A" states, even when there is no additional source to back it up - no 'double checking' is available.
This, I believe, is where Faith is in fact a step of logic, and in fact, the final step of 'pure' logic, leading into a completely different realm where now instead of jumping off from evidences, you now enter into the realm of 'things hoped for, and not seen', but promised.
In my opinion, many people reach the point of understanding and thought where Faith is the next 'logical' step, but choose not to take that step.
What do you think? Do you agree with the quoted treatise? My thoughts and conclusions based thereof?
[ September 25, 2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think I'm glad you put "logical" in quotes.
(That said, before I elaborate, are you in fact describing your own conversion? If so, this is a conversation I can avoid.)
[ September 25, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, my conversion took a much more twisted and different path, for several reasons. This hyposthesis discusses what could be the bare bones of what is required for any sort of Faith in a Deity to exist at all.
Please, don't bow out. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
[ September 25, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
My main point being, what do you believe, apart from a Personal Blinding Appearance of Deity in front of an individual (which would make Faith moot - at this point it would be Knowledge), would be the minimum to make Faith a next "logical" step?
[ September 25, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My own thoughts, based on a lifetime of doing almost exactly what you've described, are these:
If anyone says they've done enough research to complete any of the steps above, they're lying. Because I have spent years, actual years of my life, doing this, and I have YET to find a religion that exclusively meets any of the above criteria, much less all of the above criteria. I've found lots of religions with happy, satisfied members and miserable, unsatisfied members. I've found lots of religions peppered with occasionally plausible historical claims, along with lots of highly implausible historical claims. I have yet to find a religion founded by someone who, when his or her life is examined closely, doesn't appear to be a raging hypocrite -- except for Buddhism, and there you have to cope with all the Buddhist fringe sects that inserted their own hypocrisy after the fact.
And I haven't even looked that HARD. I'm not even thirty years old yet.
So if somebody thinks that they've done enough research before, say, the age of seventy, I'd like to see it.
----
But let's say that they've done "enough" research, and send out a tendril of hope on wings of faith to see if the dove of divine inspiration comes back to roost on their nose of inquisitiveness.
Lots of people do this. Lots of people get a metaphorical dove back. And lots of lots of lots of these people do not agree. Ergo, at least some of them -- at least MOST of them -- are lying to themselves. And there's absolutely no way for an outside observer to determine which ones are and which ones are not, meaning that it's far easier to just assume -- based on your own logic earlier, in which you state that people living according to the laws of God should in fact be happier and more prosperous and more contented, or whatever -- that none of them are in fact in contact with God, or at the very least are understanding what God is saying.
And then you remember how easy it is to fool oneself when one really, really wants to believe something. How when you were a kid, you were convinced that you could fly, or move your shadow independently of your body, or had an invisible dragon friend, or could control fish with your mind. How you KNEW these things were true. And you remember how you used to have this dream, over and over again, where God would come meet you on this green hill and tell you secrets and ask you to fix things, and it always seemed so real and so pure -- but, hey, that wasn't God, right? It couldn't be God, because what "He" was saying wasn't anything like what people say God says. And you remember the time you were in Israel for a pilgrimage and were six feet away from a little boy around the age of four when the top of his head got blown off in a firefight, all while you were cowering behind a stone wall watching it happen and praying as hard as you could to God to give you the courage to make things right.
And you realize that, hey, you really WANT to believe. And you COULD believe. In anything. ANYTHING could give you that warm, fuzzy, hopeful, right feeling, as long as you'd done just enough research to give yourself some reason to believe it and not enough research to discover its failings.
Which is pretty much where I'm stuck.
[ September 25, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:What are they? First, that God does actually exist; secondly, correct ideas of his character, his perfections and attributes; and thirdly, that the course which we pursue is according to his mind and will.
Personally, I would need a fourth step: That the course which God pursue is according to my understanding of what is good and moral. If God advocated things that I consider to be immoral, either he is a false god or an unjust one unworthy of my worship.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
vwiggen, I think your fourth step is "assumed" in the second step for most faiths. That is, a correct understanding would include a decision that he is good.
Dagonee
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Isn't that in many ways a rewording of the Third point? Not as much as finding if your way of understanding can merge in with how the Deity works, as much as how the Deity's mind can work with how you think.
EDIT: Dag made a point. The Second Step points out 'perfections'. Another article in the treatise goes in depth on each of these questions, and expresses why one must have the understanding that the Deity is a benevelent being of Mercy, Justice, and Truth before one can possibly desire to have Faith in it.
[ September 25, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I can live with that. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Personally, I would need a fourth step: That the course which God pursue is according to my understanding of what is good and moral. If God advocated things that I consider to be immoral, either he is a false god or an unjust one unworthy of my worship.
Or you're wrong. That's the other possibility.
[ September 25, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
That's true. But there are fundamental moral principles that I would not forsake even if it runs contrary to the decrees of a seemingly almighty being.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Here's some additional commentary from the treatise:
quote:Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.
First, the idea that he actually exists.
Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.
Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful...
...unless [The Deity] was merciful and gracious, slow to anger, long-suffering and full of goodness, such is the weakness of human nature, and so great the frailties and imperfections of men, that unless they believed that these excellencies existed in the divine character, the faith necessary to salvation could not exist; for doubt would take the place of faith, and those who know their weakness and liability to sin would be in constant doubt of salvation if it were not for the idea which they have of the excellency of the character of God, that he is slow to anger and long-suffering, and of a forgiving disposition, and does forgive iniquity, transgression, and sin. An idea of these facts does away doubt, and makes faith exceedingly strong.
But it is equally as necessary that men should have the idea that he is a God who changes not, in order to have faith in him, as it is to have the idea that he is gracious and long-suffering; for without the idea of unchangeableness in the character of the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith. But with the idea that he changes not, faith lays hold upon the excellencies in his character with unshaken confidence, believing he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, and that his course is one eternal round.
And again, the idea that he is a God of truth and cannot lie, is equally as necessary to the exercise of faith in him as the idea of his unchangeableness. For without the idea that he was a God of truth and could not lie, the confidence necessary to be placed in his word in order to the exercise of faith in him could not exist. But having the idea that he is not man, that he cannot lie, it gives power to the minds of men to exercise faith in him.
But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons, for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him; because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respecter of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life, the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege.
And lastly, but not less important to the exercise of faith in God, is the idea that he is love; for with all the other excellencies in his character, without this one to influence them, they could not have such powerful dominion over the minds of men; but when the idea is planted in the mind that he is love, who cannot see the just ground that men of every nation, kindred, and tongue, have to exercise faith in God so as to obtain eternal life?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Thanks Taalcon.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Tom:
quote: And then you remember how easy it is to fool oneself when one really, really wants to believe something.
What if one kind of doesn't want to believe something, but through their research and following the above model (for the reasons of understanding the individuals), it brings them to the point where Faith is the next step?
I guess a 4th Step would be:
4) While plausibility and understandings of the final outcomes mesh with what one understands, the means of reaching said goal in the texts and teachings are precepts one is willing to abide by.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
But I think the expanded quotes from the treatise make complete sense.
If one isn't able to believe the statements made within , then what would be the purpose of having Faith in such a being?
An understanding and reconciliation of one's understanding and that of the Deity's is, I think, an incredibly important step. Faith can't, and shouldn't, come before that, as I see it.
Which is why I find 'aggressive' missionary tactics, or the "Hellfire and Damnation" sermons to be extremely counterproductive, if the end result is intended to be the development of true Faith. - Fear in the Deity doesn't lead one to Faith - TRUST does.
Does anyone disagree with that? I'm really interested in seeing what either additional, or fewer caveats one would need have before they'd find Faith to be a next proper step to make?
[ September 25, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. The idea that a god needs to be perfect to inspire belief would seem to ignore the fact that many, many religions -- including almost all polytheistic ones -- do not believe in perfect gods, and yet believe in them. In fact, Taal, it seems that the essay is devoted not to proving that people have to believe certain attributes of God, but rather attempting a circular argument: "we know God is good, because no God we could believe in would not be good."
This ignores the fact, of course, that many cultures believe in gods which are not good, love, or any of the things called essential attributes of a god by that essay.
-----
"What if one kind of doesn't want to believe something, but through their research and following the above model (for the reasons of understanding the individuals), it brings them to the point where Faith is the next step?"
A belief you don't want to believe is not a belief. A belief you hold based on evidence you would rather not believe is in fact called knowledge.
In other words: if someone has done such poor research that they've fooled themselves into thinking that they found a religion worth investigating with a little feeler of hope, either the feeler of hope -- and, natch, the desire to believe -- exists, or else the person has actually stumbled upon genuine knowledge and no longer needs belief of any kind.
You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
This is very true - but I thik the treatise above is discussing discussing Faith in the Deity, not mere belief that it exists.
Which, now that I think of it, are two completely different elements.
I guess one can believe that a deity exists without having faith in it. From my understanding, which is wide open for correction if needed, many of those with wide pantheons of imperfect gods don't generally as much have faith in their deity to help them, but as much a belief that they do different things, and often times use ritual to appease them.
In reading about Japanese Kami spirits, it was stated that prayers addressed towards Kami were not generally intended to ask miraculous favors, but rather to appease an anger or temperment.
But yes, it's still faith. But I think you make a great point in showing that there is an important distinction between having faith in a deity, and having faith that there exists deity.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it.
Personal experience has shown me definitively that this is not 100% true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Personal experience has shown me definitively that this is not 100% true."
Forgive me, Dave, but I suspect that what it really showed you is that you wanted to believe more than you thought you did.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Hey, if that's what you think. Perhaps the idea of making a change that could potentially cause large amount of grief from my family, especially my father and grandfather who are ministers of a different faith, as well as alienation and fear from others towards me, and new and sudden attempts that would come to 're-convert me' and 'show me the truth' and be told that I'm now in an evil cult were something that appeared attractive to me.
What do I know what I thought? I'm just me.
--
But I don't want to debate this with you, and I know you don't want to either. I'm not going to question your statements of what you believe, and what you've found to work for you.
If you say you believe something, Tom, I believe you. If you say you've tried hard to find something to believe in and have come up flat, you know what, Tom? I believe you.
[ September 26, 2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it.
Tell this to parents who have to bury their children.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
What I do want to discuss in this thread is what people think is a sufficient amount of material to be presented to an individual before "Faith" isn't considered a 'stupid step' - or do some believe that the whole concept of faith is stupid to begin with, and nothing should be acted on without hard 100% evidence?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
PSI, what do you mean?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Taalcon, you asked him to remain in this thread, when he was afraid that by doing so he would offend you. I think you owe it to him to be a little more thick-skinned when it comes to his responses to you. And yes, it's possible that, despite all of the hardships that it caused, you had some yearning for the truth that you feel you discovered . . . like maybe deep down inside you were dissatisfied with your prior faith. So is what he is saying truly that offensive to you? I don't think he's calling you a liar; rather, he is psychoanalyzing you. But, hell, if he can't do that, then it's really a conversation killer, isn't it? You offer yourself as evidence, and then get offended when someone questions it. Kind of an instant "I win" strategy, neh?
I am finding this to be a very interesting thread, so far.
In any case, it seems to me you aren't describing how you came to have faith, then, but how you switched from one variation of faith to another. It doesn't seem like the same thing to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And: What ae asked. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
PSI is saying that parents who lose children have to believe something (that they're children are dead) without wanting to at all.
quote:Forgive me, Dave, but I suspect that what it really showed you is that you wanted to believe more than you thought you did.
This IS a conversation ender, no matter what the motivation, because there's no way to refute it. It's like saying, "You're just in denial." It might be true; it might not. But the person is left with no way to respond.
Edit: I dont' think it's necessarily a bad thing, it just demarks the point of a currently insurmountable belief gap between the two.
Dagonee
[ September 26, 2004, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:PSI is saying that parents who lose children have to believe something (that they're children are dead) without wanting to at all.
The parents don't believe their children are dead, they know so. Perhaps she meant that they choose to believe that God is good in spite of their not wanting to anymore and in the face of their personal evidence to the contrary?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: This IS a conversation ender, no matter what the motivation, because there's no way to refute it. It's like saying, "You're just in denial." It might be true; it might not. But the person is left with no way to respond.
Good point.
But then what we have is an impasse, not a reason to get pissed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Taalcon, you asked him to remain in this thread, when he was afraid that by doing so he would offend you.
Well, I still think there's a specific difference than discussing a theory and a concept than flat out stating that they believe what someone else says about their own life is false.
But yea. I do want him to stay, which is why I immediately followed up my initial reaction with an attempt to return to the question at hand.
..and is also why I wanted to keep my particular individual conversion story out of it, and will continue to do, because I don't want to change the direction of the thread, as I know it totally would.
And yes - it was a switch from one faith to another, but it also required having some faith in things that didn't exist before.
I guess I can also give some slack, because I haven't specifically discussed the events leading to my conversion publicly on the board. I've done so with many privately, but I didn't go out and landmark it.
So really, Tom doesn't know the circumstances, and maybe his idea of what he thought the circumstances were are quite differant than the reality thereof.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they haven't given me reason to distrust them before.
I'm leaving my previous gut-reply because it was truthful and in the moment, and in direct personal reply to my own personal statement of how I felt, and not a general concept or idea.
But yes - as I said, it was different, and this thread's discussion was focused on the reasons for an initial belief, or specifically faith in, a deity.
Tom believes you can't believe in something you don't want to believe in.
I believe you can.
...but the question at hand is, what would it take for you (using the generic Plural you, directed at Hatrack entire, and the poster reading this at the moment in specific) to feel like Faith is a next logical step, or is the idea of faith something that can never, ever, be logically led up it?
Discuss
I apologize for my tone, BTW.
[ September 26, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Part of Tom's point remains: a person can believe in anything - up to and including the Great Pumpkin.
You are, of course, welcome to believe in what you like - I cannot prove, nor can I disprove, the existence of the Great Pumpkin rising out of the pumpkin patch on all Hallow's Eve.
--
Just because I believe in the Great Pumpkin doesn't mean he/she/it actually exists. Of course, the fact I don't believe doesn't disprove his/her/its existence, either.
--
Edit: I think Tom's statement about "You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it. " (paraphrased) is best applied to non-factual data that cannot be verified and confirmed to the satisfaction of third parties.
When discussing hypothetical, mythological or religious elements that depend on Faith, his statement does hold tue.
Edit 2: for correcting the quote
-Trevor
[ September 26, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It sounds like a tautology to me, though. "You only believe that because you want to."
"How do you know I want to?"
"Because you believe it."
"But I didn't want to believe it."
"You only think you didn't want to believe it. You really did."
The problem is that the premise, "People can only believe in what they want to believe" is the exact kind of "non-factual data that cannot be verified and confirmed to the satisfaction of third parties" under discussion.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah, but it's arguably a logically sound tautology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As is the "God is good" thing Tom keeps complaining about. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm not sure how to better explain the concept:
If we are discussing something that has no relatively undeniable elements - no corpses, nothing we can or could test for, evaluate or otherwise analyze, we are now dealing with something that lies outside the realm of fact.
In order to believe in something that lacks undeniable or irrefutable evidence, something well within "beyond a reasonable doubt", a person must be willing to believe in something with no discernable proof.
It is possible that God is the one thing that exists outside the logical realm and therefore denies the standard of logic we apply to everything else.
But, in order for me to believe God, Satan or The Great Pumpkin exists, I must first want to believe they exist because otherwise I would not have reason or grounds for that belief.
Sorry, I'm rambling.
-Trevor
Edit: If I don't want to believe, then the miracle s or acts of Divine Intervention are simply coincidences, happenstance or even luck rather than acts of the Divine.
If I wanted to believe, then coincidence, happenstance and luck are actually signs of the Divine and His intervention on my behalf.
Edit 2: Damnit, still rambling. I hated this feeling in philosophy class - feeling like I can grasp this concept, but it's just this far outside my reach and it keeps slipping through my fingers just when I think I have a grip.
[ September 26, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Trevor, you're looking at this as if there's only two choices.
quote:If we are discussing something that has no relatively undeniable elements - no corpses, nothing we can or could test for, evaluate or otherwise analyze, we are now dealing with something that lies outside the realm of fact.
This is not true. A fact is something that is true, or in a more general sense, is possible to accurately designate true or false if all information is known.
You're confusing the nature of truth with the nature of proof. The proving of a supernatural fact is difficult - even impossible to - when limited to the information that can be acquired through our senses.
quote:But, in order for me to believe God, Satan or The Great Pumpkin exists, I must first want to believe they exist because otherwise I would not have reason or grounds for that belief.
Why? Saying so doesn't make it so. If you're reducing this to, "People only do what they want to do" then you're right, but I don't think that's what you're saying. What is it about belief, as distinct from all other activities, that makes it impossible to do without wanting to do?
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Do = Believe.
Believe in the context with which we have been using the word involves an active effort lacking evidence to the contrary.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I don't believe it's raining. Ok, easy.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I believe it's raining. I'm wrong and, barring disagreements on what constitutes "raining", in defiance of available fact.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I believe it's raining Martians.
Hmm...ok, head hurts now.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right, but what does that have to do with desire?
You (and Tom) are saying that no one can believe without desiring to believe.
Either belief is somehow different from every other mental activity in that it can only be done when one wants to, or it is the same, in which case all we're doing is playing games with what "want" means.
Again, I ask, why is it the case that one can only believe what one wants to believe?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that belief in spite of desire is in fact knowledge. Ignorance WITHOUT desire is just ignorance; ignorance WITH desire is faith. Once you eliminate that ignorance -- once you have reason to suppose something -- you are no longer "believing."
And, yes, it is possible for people to face facts without wanting to do so. I might not, for example, want to believe that people can be cruel to each other -- but I have to accept that they can, because I have observed this behavior. In the same way, perhaps someone does not want to believe in the Christian God, but does anyway because he was struck down on the road to Damascus.
I don't mean to harp on Dave's example, but it seems to me that the things he lists as reasons to NOT want to believe are not in fact relevant factors in that desire. Things like "I felt like the church was completely baseless," or "I hated its tenets," or "I simply couldn't get past the fact that it called for us to flay dogs alive" would in fact be reasons not to want to believe; I submit that "my family would disapprove" is in fact, for amny people, exactly the kind of psychological factor that would ENCOURAGE a conversion.
I suggest that there are very few people who have come to believe in a church whose tenets they hate and despise without having had some experience that, to them, constitutes knowledge -- which in turn defeats the point of belief.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
To believe in something unavailable to our senses requires action or desire on behalf of the perceiver in order to exist.
We see an empty room. You see an empty room. I see the Great Pumpkin.
The Great Pumpkin would seem to exist outside the realm of our physical senses (none of which precludes the idea I can see something you can't), however, since we lack the capability to physically perceive the Great Pumpkin, I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Therefore I desire to believe in something that I would otherwise have no basis for believing - would it ever occur to you that the Great Pumpkin is present in the empty room?
-Trevor
Edit: Unless you wanted to see or were desirous of seeing the Great Pumpkin?
[ September 26, 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would argue that belief in spite of desire is in fact knowledge.
So if I don't desire to believe something but I do, I know it, even absent proof?
quote:I suggest that there are very few people who have come to believe in a church whose tenets they hate and despise without having had some experience that, to them, constitutes knowledge -- which in turn defeats the point of belief.
Tom, why do you think not wanting to believe something requires hating and despising the tenets of that belief?
quote:I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Are you equating choosing to do something with wanting to do something? In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?
I'm just trying to get a sense of how you're using the word "want."
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So if I don't desire to believe something but I do, I know it, even absent proof?"
I would argue, again, that it not POSSIBLE to believe something you don't want to believe.
"In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?"
Yes. No one makes choices they don't want to make. Even when choosing between two bad choices, people choose the one they think is less bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. No one makes choices they don't want to make. Even when choosing between two bad choices, people choose the one they think is less bad.
Then we don't really disagree about anything except what "want" means.
Of course, this makes the statement "it is not POSSIBLE to believe something you don't want to believe" basically meaningless, because any verb could be substituted for believe.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:
quote:I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Are you equating choosing to do something with wanting to do something? In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?
I'm just trying to get a sense of how you're using the word "want."
Yes. You may not like what you're doing, but you want something to happen. If only to avoid negative ramifications.
-Trevor
Edit: Yeah, what Tom said.
[ September 26, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What I said to Tom.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's amusing how many points people don't disagree on.
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For what it's worth, from my perspective, Tayman fought his own conversion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not possible, kat. No one can be converted against his will -- barring, of course, the presence of actual knowledge, which apparently denies faith.
------
Dag, do you honestly believe that people can choose to do things they do NOT want to do?
[ September 26, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He stopped looking when he realized what was happening, and when events seemed to point him that direction again he stopped ignoring it, but he defintely, definitely didn't set out to become converted.
---
Motivations are more complex than want to/don't want to. Someone may not want to join the church, but they do want to follow where the Lord leads them and they want to embrace truth. You could make an argument that there's nothing out there that a part of everyone doesn't want to do. I don't want to be a soldier, but I do want to have a definite purpose and wear the boots - that doesn't mean that if get drafted, it's what I secretly always wanted.
[ September 26, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
With time and motivation, Tom, I'm pretty sure I could brainwash you into believing in the Great Pumpkin.
It might be more accurate to say he allowed his conversion to occur after his objections and reservations were sufficiently answered, resolved or otherwise overcome.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you honestly believe that people can choose to do things they do NOT want to do?
Absolutely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there's a huge difference between setting out to be converted and wanting to convert. You can meet the latter criteria without falling into the former.
-----
Dag: can you give me an example? I honestly can't come up with one. Even Sophie's Choice ultimately resorted in her wanting to choose one of her children.
[ September 26, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It might be more accurate to say he allowed his conversion to occur after his objections and reservations were sufficiently answered, resolved or otherwise overcome."
Oh, I agree. And it's precisely in the definition of "sufficiently" that I think the element of "want" is most prominent here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If what you do is proof that that's what you want to do, then what does the word "want" mean?
I pay my taxes not because I want to pay my taxes but because I don't want to go to jail.
Want is a transitive verb. The object of want is important to the meaning, not separate from it.
People might only choose to do things that provide them with something they want or they they want (although I think this is debatable), but that does not mean they "want" to do the thing doing the providing.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's another example. Suppose a man holds a gun on you and says, "Give me all your money." If you do, you have chosen to do so. But it makes no sense to claim you wanted to give the man your money.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does not-converting in the face of evidence serve as proof that the reason there is no conversion is because one does not want to?
Like Robinson Crusoe hearing singing on the island and still refusing to believe there was another human there because he hadn't yet shook the hand of one.
[ September 26, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which goes back to making a choice between two possible outcomes.
You want to not get shot, so you do what is required to achieve that outcome.
You may not like the situation, you may not have been desirous of being in that situation, but when faced with a choice, you made a decision.
All things being equal, I suspect you would rather not have been robbed at all, but that is not the same as saying I wanted to give him my money because I had nothing else to do and he looked like he needed it.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Does not-converting in the face of evidence serve as proof that the reason there is no conversion is because one does not want to?
What if the evidence you percieve is actually evidence of something other than what you might be considering, and you never see conclusive proof for either?
If I hear singing but never meet the other person, how do I know it's not just a broken radio or a bird mimicing what sounds like human singing?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Poor Mr. Crusoe might have questioned the singing as not being clearly identifiable as being of human origin or, in fact, singing so he was not inclined to use tenuous evidence as the sole basis of his acceptance of another human being in a remote locale where no humans had been found previously.
-Trevor
Edit: What Jutsa said.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You want to not get shot, so you do what is required to achieve that outcome.
You may not like the situation, you may not have been desirous of being in that situation, but when faced with a choice, you made a decision.
But Trevor, you're confusing both verbs and both objects. I wanted to not get shot, so I chose to hand over the wallet.
I could also have chosen to run, if I believed that would keep me from getting shot. Or to try to grab the gun or talk the robber out of it.
In other words, you are confusing the motivation with the means.
Dagonee
[ September 26, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"You are" or "you're", not "your".
Ok, ok - digging out the English book now.
"Want" as defined by www.Webster.com (which I have bookmarked now, thanks to you people. )
quote: to have a strong desire for
In this example your want or your "having a strong desire for" not being injured dictated the choice you made.
So when you made the choice to give your wallet to the mugger, you felt it was the best way to achieve the desired outcome. The outcome you wanted.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. I strongly desired not to get shot, so I chose to give the man my wallet.
I did not strongly desire to give the man my wallet.
Different objects, different verbs.
Dagonee P.S., And I fixed it before you posted. Edit: And I fixed the second "your" after you posted.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That was the point I was trying to make earlier:
You did not "want" or desire to be in the situation and given the choice, you would rather be almost anywhere else.
However, we're not discussing how desirous you are of the situation at large.
We are talking about evaluating the specific situation in which you:
Want to not be shot
You evaluate your choices to achieve this outcome
You pick the choice most suited to achieving the desired outcome
Ergo, you want to give him your wallet because of the situation forced upon you, this was deemed the best possible option to achieve your desired objective
-Trevor
Edit: Sigh, need more caffeine. Ignore me.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But it's fallacious to say I "want" to give him the wallet.
If I could avoid it, I would. I "want" to live. I want to keep my wallet. It's true that I want to live more than I want to keep my wallet. But the point is, I want to keep my wallet. That's the opposite of wanting to give it to him.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. Dag, in the pinch, your desire to not get shot was stronger than your desire to retain your wallet. Ergo, you wanted to give up your wallet precisely because it prevented you from being shot.
If you felt there were some other alternative to giving up your wallet -- like, say, attacking the guy, running away, or yelling for help -- you would have considered those alternatives, and then chosen the one that seemed most likely to produce the desired outcome: you, unshot, with your wallet. If no such outcome seemed likely, you would have had to choose whether retaining your wallet was worth being shot.
Either way, you are the person making that choice, and desirous of a given outcome.
Consider this: I want an ice cream cone. I also want to avoid spending money. If I buy an ice cream cone, having rejected other alternatives (like theft, begging, etc.), I am trading one lesser want for the satisfaction of a greater want. In the case you cite, you are sacrificing the lesser desire for your wallet to satisfy a stronger desire for your life.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If you wanted to keep your wallet, you would.
You actually don't want to keep your wallet because if you did, he might shoot you.
You might not like giving him your wallet, much in the same fashion you don't like the fact this lazy bastard is robbing you instead of working a job.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Desirous of an outcome. The outcome I desire is to be alive with my wallet. I have no desire to not have my wallet.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am trading one lesser want for the satisfaction of a greater want. In the case you cite, you are sacrificing the lesser desire for your wallet to satisfy a stronger desire for your life.
Exactly - my lesser desire, not my desire for the opposite.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Then, clearly, you are not choosing wisely, or else want something impossible.
I want ice cream, but I do not want to spend money at any step to obtain this ice cream. I do not own a cow, and have neither milk nor ice. I am too proud to beg. So which is more important to me: ice cream, pride, spending money, etc.? Does it mean that I don't want ANY of these things if I choose one of them? Of course not.
---
To bring this back to the specific conversation at hand: Dave may not want to cause problems for his family. However, he wants to believe in the True Church, and knows this may cause problems for his family. Does this mean he does not want to believe in the True Church? No. It means that he must sacrifice his lesser motivation -- keeping his family happy -- for a greater one. At no point has he done something he did not want to do; he simply realized that one thing he wanted was more important than something else he wanted.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You want ice cream. You spend money to get the ice cream. The spending money is not what's desired - the ice cream is.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. But I also want to hang onto my money. Having money is a good thing, right?
So my want for money is, in this case, of less importance than my want for ice cream. I do not WANT to spend money, but I do want ice cream, so I ignore one want in favor of a more important one.
At no time have I done something I did not want; I just prioritized.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you could say that someone who doesn't believe in the face of evidence is not converted because he wants to not believe more.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If you believe surrendering your wallet will save your life, do you really want to keep your wallet or does the overriding concern for your life eliminate any desire to retain your wallet under the current circumstances?
-Trevor
Edit: Actually Tom, you did do something you didn't want to do, although that particular want was of less importance than the other.
If you want to keep money, you don't want to do anything that contradicts that desire.
[ September 26, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But what if I don't WANT to believe surrendering my wallet will save my life?
Dagonee P.S., We're now repeating ourselves. I haven't contended people don't weigh outcomes to make choices. I merely contend that avoiding a bad outcome does not make one desire the consequence necessary to avoid it.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:So you could say that someone who doesn't believe in the face of evidence is not converted because he wants to not believe more.
Or that the whole idea of how the evidence is interpreted is different for different people. You hear singing and you see divine providence, while I hear a bird off in the distance.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes, Kat. I think.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dag.
Fair enough. Without a common frame of reference, we're arguing about the semantics of interpretation.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So you could say that someone who doesn't believe in the face of evidence is not converted because he wants to not believe more."
Absolutely. Although since we're talking about belief, it's worth noting that belief in the face of conclusive evidence is impossible.
In the likely middle ground you're talking about -- where someone has some evidence that points one way, and either evidence that points the other way or nothing at all -- it does indeed boil down to a conscious decision to say "I want to believe this." Because there's no other reason to do it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The key to that sentence is conclusive.
Like Robinson Crusoe with the singing again (yes, I know he saw footsteps - I'm switching sentences). If Crusoe does not believe the singing means the presense of another human being, then that's his choice. Believing would be just as reasonable, but it doesn't fit in with what he wants.
Your last sentence be true if it ended with "'I want to believe this.' or 'I want to not believe this.'"
[ September 26, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Let's take this 'Great Pumpkin' case that people are throwing around.
Linus is the case of someone who didn't follow the above three steps suggested in the treatise, and yet still professes a blind faith, even though time and again it's shown to be baseless.
We're never told where he got the idea of the Great Pumpkin. In case, more than anything, it's hinted he's mixing a couple of ideas together.
-There are no other believers in the Great Pumpkin who have experiences a 'witness' or 'testimony' of the works of the great Pumpkin. IE, nobody appears talk to him who actually has recieved presents they believe are from the great pumpkin. If he has, this is never shown in the forefront of the strip.
-There appear to be no historical prescedence for a belief in the Great Pumpkin. Linus has a story that he repeats ad nauseum, but where did he get it from? Did he make it up? Is, as speculated before, did he make up the idea by confusing the concept of Santa Claus with the idea of carving pumpkings on Halloween, and mesh them into a singular Being? (Much like there are Japanese who have taken originally mutually exclusive religions, such as Buddhism and Shinto, and 'meshed' them together). IE, we appear to have no 'Great Pumpkin Scriptures'.
-Linus has never seen, nor reaped the benefits of the Great Pumpkin. Every single year he sits in the patch, and grabs someone else with him to view the sight he claims will occur, and yet it doesn't. Every single year, without fail.
There is no base, no apparant reason, for Linus to continue in his Faith. He has the perfect right to believe in the Great Pumpkin, but there doesn't appear to be even circumstantial or subjective evidence. There exists merely the desire to believe without any other outside sources backing him up - not even merely the testimony of others.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Don't blaspheme against the Great Pumpkin!
Seriously though, the standards by which you apply can and probably would be dissected by Tom, myself or any of the other more outspoken non-believers.
As Jutsa illustrated, one person's human singing is another person's croaking bird.
And just because a lot of people tend to believe the same thing doesn't make it factually accurate - the world hasn't been flat for a long, long time.
And if you'd care to show me any miracle that God has signed and acknowledged to be His work, I'd love to see it. And the deposition.
And for the record, I invoked the name of the Great Pumpkin as a reference we can all identify, more or less.
-Trevor
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:The key to that sentence is conclusive.
Like Robinson Crusoe with the singing again (yes, I know he saw footsteps - I'm switching sentences). If Crusoe does not believe the singing means the presense of another human being, then that's his choice. Believing would be just as reasonable, but it doesn't fit in with what he wants.
Your last sentence be true if it ended with "'I want to believe this.' or 'I want to not believe this.'"
Why are you ignoring my replies? If you are not ignoring, why are you talking right past them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've always wanted to wait for the Great Pumpkin.
Justa: I'm not ignoring them - I'm sorry. I was Monorail train of thought and thought there were a couple of conversations going on. Just a second.
quote:You hear singing and you see divine providence, while I hear a bird off in the distance.
Or, I hear singing and decide that's a good case for a human voice existing within ear shot, and you hear singing and since you haven't seen a human, decide it must be a bird because there's no evidence otherwise. Except for the singing. But there's no evidence besides that.
You are choosing to not consider it sufficient evidence.
[ September 26, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You are choosing to not consider it sufficient evidence."
You say this as if it matters. Why does it matter if one words it "I choose to believe that this is sufficient evidence" or "I choose not to believe that this is sufficient evidence?" Either way, the choice is the same; you're only wording it differently, as if the onus of proof were suddenly reversed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Choosing not to believe is a choice with consequences as surely as choosing to believe is. You can't stand at the fork forever - that's like deciding to never decide what you will be when you grow up. You'll have grown up and become something whether you actively chose to become it or not.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Or, I hear singing and decide that's a good case for a human voice existing within ear shot, and you hear singing and since you haven't seen a human, decide it must be a bird because there's no evidence otherwise. Except for the singing. But there's no evidence besides that.
You are choosing to not consider it sufficient evidence.
Or the same event is being perceived differently by two different people. Is that really such a difficult concept to imagine? Since no one can really claim to know who the hypothetical voice belongs to but the original voice, it's all conjecture to begin with, signifying a deliberate choice in deciding what to believe it is. Calling it evidence is only good after the fact. Since I doubt that anyone here is willing to take the step required to know after the fact, dying, I would say that this is the impasse of faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a logic game, however. "No one knows what it is except the owner of the voice." I love a philosophical logic game as much as anyone, but faith isn't a game.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:That's a logic game, however. "No one knows what it is except the owner of the voice." I love a philosophical logic game as much as anyone, but faith isn't a game.
It's as much a game as logic. They just aren't the same game. You're the one who mentioned something like the hypothetical voice as the supposed evidence, I was just showing how easy something like that can be, and often is, misconstrued by personal interpretation of the supposed evidence. This is what I mean by a faith impasse, because it there really is no reasonable way to argue past it in any direction.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You hear a voice, there are a few possibilities, but claiming unsolvable ignorance is a game.
[ September 26, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Who said it's unsolvable? I surely didn't. I said that unless someone is willing to take the trip necessary to find out what it is, that the rest is conjecture. It's solvable, but even in that it still retains its personal nature. I have a problem with you calling it evidence, but I'm not demeaning it. Instead, I'm pointing out that even what you call evidence can be interpreted differently by someone else as being evidence of something else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Someone says they talk with God: is that insolvable ignorance, or not? How do you confirm that they do -- or do not -- speak with God?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Don't blaspheme against the Great Pumpkin!
Damn that pumpkindamned Pumpkin to hell! Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Someone says they talk with God: is that insolvable ignorance, or not? How do you confirm that they do -- or do not -- speak with God?
You die and see if god is waiting for you. Otherwise, it's all supposed evidence without any conclusory proof.
[ September 26, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I submit that you can't prove and test other people's spiritual experiences. Only your own.
[ September 26, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
And the original point of the thread is what specific steps would need to be taken - short of absolute voice from the thunders knowledge - to bring you to a place where you would be willing to take on a leap of faith?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
My short answer is that it depends.
I take leaps of faith all the time. It's part of approaching things intuitively. Placing such faith on the full weight of my soul isn't such an easy thing to answer, and I would wager that just like faith itself, it will vary from person to person. I don't mean that to dodge the question, but to point out that there is likely no one manner to do so.
From what we can tell of the wide range of people with faith, though, is that:
It does not require a surrender of intelligence.
It does not require indoctrination from youth (though it helps).
It does not require any single cultural background.
Much like intelligence, it does not require a lack of education.
It does not necessarily require a great deal of willpower (though living according to the faith usually does).
I do not know of the ingredients that can be used to create faith, though. Perhaps there are general lists, but not all the parts are required for all types of religious faith. Can we first pin down one type and work from there?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
This is an interesting discussion.
On the subject of Robison Crusoe hearing singing, I propose the following:
Robison is an adult that has likely heard both human and bird voices on many occasions and has the wisdom to judge between the two. It isn't that hard to tell the difference. Birds generally repeat the same sound over and over or repeat specific sounds they have heard (usually clips of which are not long). A human voice will contain nuance that the bird's will not. It should be fairly clear whether or not this is a human voice--if he is being objective.
If Robison hears the voice, if he is being objective and logical, he should consider the possibility that there is indeed another human on that island, even if he doesn't want to believe it. If he does not consider that possibility, he is being foolish.
The possibility (depending on how convincing it is) logically should lead him to want to pursue this to find out which it is unless he is in denial and doesn't want to know, because he is afraid it will, in fact, be a human--in which case he is again acting foolishly. Foolishly in that he is fooling himself, wanting to believe what he wants to believe.
I propose that there are agnostics and athiests who do not wish to believe in God because they don't like the idea of having to answer to a supreme authority. It cramps their style. Therefore, those individuals will deceive themselves rather than pursuing further evidence--or go to great lengths to discount evidence received. I do not say that anyone on this board is of this mindset, only that I believe there exist people who feel this way.
[ September 27, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom has proposed that we cannot believe something we do not want to believe. If we believe something that we do not want to believe, it is because that thing has become knowledge and there is no need for belief.
Here is an example: There exists a Creationist who has been taught Creationism from birth. He is part of a faith that rejects any form of the theory of evolution. But as he learns and becomes educated, he cannot deny that evolution makes a lot of sense. He has questions and pursues the matter. He does not want to believe in evolution, though, because it would mean being cut off from his family and community. It would mean being alone in many respects, changing his whole life. He believes that as he searches these questions, he will prove Creationism to be true. But such is not the case. More and more evidence points to the fact that he is wrong. Though he tries to deny it for a long time, he finds he cannot lie to himself. He is truly convinced of the truthfulness of evolution.
Does he believe this against his will because it has become knowledge and he cannot deny it? How similar might this be to Dave's conversion? And if it is similar, would you say that Dave doesn't just believe but that Dave has knowledge that what he believes in is, in fact, true?
If the above Creationist-to-Evolutionist example is not typical of believing against want being knowledge, what might be a better example?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It depends. Has he simply stopped believing in Creationism, or has he started believing in Evolution? I would argue that he has discovered knowledge that makes his belief in creationism impossible, and subsequently chooses to believe in evolution (although he has not acquired sufficient evidence to have knowledge of evolution.)
Had he truly not wanted to believe in evolution, as opposed to simply not wanting to stop believing in creationism, he would now believe neither. It's not an either/or proposition, unless he chooses to make it one.
[ September 27, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm assuming in the example that in his search to disprove evolutionism, he gained enough evidence to convince him that evolutionism is true. He would have to be dishonest with himself to continue believing it is not true.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm older than TomD.
Holy crap.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heh, it would appear that Tom and I are the same age.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Beverly, the Robinson Cruso argument is flawed, because you are assuming from the start that there is a human to begin with. If instead we begin assuming neither, then it is far more believable that hearing singing, whether it be simple melody or actual words, can be misconstrued in many ways, or simply interpreted by different individuals of different experiences differently.
Since the voice of any god is far less simple than any fictional character on a fictional deserted island, ignoring outside influence of other people would be incredibly ignorant. Our perception as to how we define all of the various messages that we get from many sources throughout life is shaped from the start by those around us. Language alone is a wonderful example of this. We cannot assume that just because a child can learn to speak well with his or her parents that they will be a great orator, or that they will be a great speaker in another language. So, learning does play a part in it, but so does the vagaries of communication that go beyond simple language. Regional dialects in just the English language alone illustrate how language alone sometimes fails as adequate communication.
So, while I may hear a bird and you may hear a person, someone else may hear their imagination or be remembering a symphony recording they heard six years ago.
I think a better example would be to ask what different people here think of ghost stories. Do ghosts exist? If so, based on what we know and how we perceive things, what are these apparitions? Where do they come from, and what do you think their purpose is?
I bet that the answers to that would be far more telling about how people develop their faith than using an example from a book that someone may or may not have read.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry, wasn't my example. I just figured if I were on a deserted island and I heard singing, I would at least consider that another human being might be on the island--even if the idea seemed unlikely and surprised me greatly. If the singing sounded identifiably human, I might be strongly convinced of it, though I hadn't seen anything. Since I haven't read the book, I am simply imagining myself in the scenario and thinking how I would respond. It is a valid hypothetical.
Your ghost example could work also, and I personally like the big foot example far more than "The Great Pumpkin" or a "Giant Pink Bunny in the Sky" because there is some precident for it to make a case. Someone else may have an experience that convinces them that ghosts (or sasquatches) are real, but I have not. I am going to be far less convinced by their hearsay than they will be of their personal experience.
(To all:) I think coming up with stuff like "The Great Pumpkin" and the like does a great disservice to many believers out there by coming up with something out of the blue (as Dave so aptly pointed out).
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI is saying that parents who lose children have to believe something (that they're children are dead) without wanting to at all.
quote: The parents don't believe their children are dead, they know so. Perhaps she meant that they choose to believe that God is good in spite of their not wanting to anymore and in the face of their personal evidence to the contrary?
Whoops, forgot to come back to this thread. I'm awesome like that.
Yes, I was saying what Dag said. I think that as far as knowing your kids are dead versus believing it, it depends on the situation.
What about the call you get from the police station when they find your child's car upside down in the ditch? The policeman sounds so confident on the phone, positive that it was your child in the driver's seat. You believe him, because he has seen the driver's license and can tell you your child's name, address, and SSN, but asks you to come down to identify the body anyway, because that's standard procedure. You believe he knows what he's talking about. You believe you will find your child's body on the table when you get there. But you don't want to believe it, and you don't *know* it because you haven't seen it with your own eyes.
Unless we want to argue that you *know* your child is dead because of the witness of the police officer, but if you said that you'd have to concede that people who believe in God know he exists because of the witness of the people who spoke to him.
I would also submit that it's probably easier to not want to believe something that you believe than it is to not want to believe something that you *know*.
If that made any sense at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"if you said that you'd have to concede that people who believe in God know he exists because of the witness of the people who spoke to him."
There's a matter of credibility and consistency, as well. I doubt that police officers are consistently as wrong about reporting fatal accidents as believers are about their belief.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Are they inconsistent within the same religion, or just across different religions?
I propose this is a good reason for God to call prophets to speak for Him--few in number, but trusted well enough for Him to speak to face to face. He inspires many people, but inspirations are gentle nudges, easily twisted by a person's own filters. Those who have sufficient faith and are sufficiently trustworthy to God, He is able to speak to more directly and have them speak to the people for Him. I believe that their words (coming straight from the source) agree with each other. While they may change slightly to meet the needs of the people at that time, they do not contradict each other.
This is why within one religion the people are encouraged to stay near the scriptures (assuming that religion has scripture). That is the information closest to the source. If personal inspiration is at odds with scripture, the personal inspiration is the one likely to be wrong. I assume religions with out scripture are far more likely to have variance in interpretation from one person to another.
So, if you are comparing individuals receiving these gentle nudgings of information to officers of the law receiving direct evidence, that isn't a good comparison. It would be better to compare them to individuals (within the same religion) called to receive direct communication from God in the form of heavenly visitations.
But I will agree with you that of those you could choose--Catholic Popes, the founding prophet of SDA, LDS prophets, David Karesh, Mohammad, and others, there are large discrepancies. I can understand being skeptical that they all are receiving direct communication from God in the form of heavenly visitation. The prophets of the Old Testament are old enough for the differences to be considered a product of the needs of the people at that time. These later ones overlap more.
I am curious--for agnostics out there, if you were to discover that there is a God, would you be of the opinion that all religions are equally right, some are more right than others, one is right or none are right? Perhaps you have no expectations of the sort because it just makes more sense to you that there is no God/s. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh. And to think I promised I was done with this thread.
Knowing, beyond any doubt, that a God exists is only half the battle.
After that, we have to establish our relationship with Him/Her/It - some religions will look at this analysis as a "we're right, they were wrong" scenario. I look at it more as a means of "ok, Dad...I just found out you exist and I know nothing about you...wanna get a milkshake and talk?"
Depending on the answers...I don't know. It could be something as simple as, "glad we got that straightened out - you do exist, but I refuse to bend knee" to something infinitely more complex that makes the eternal Father/child relationship somehow more palatable.
-Trevor
Edit: There are so many possible answers, I don't have a stock response for how I would react if I found out God exists. Is he actually a Catholic and everyone else was wrong? Or LDS? Or Buddhist? Or whatever? Or is your belief that he has appeared to varying people in varying forms valid - at which point all religions have, more or less, the same basis in truth and varying degrees of perversion by Mankind.
I don't believe in God because I have no basis for which God to believe in - the Judeo-Christian tradition is as valid as anything the Norse, Vikings or Greeks concocted. And I have yet to have a Divine Experience that would sway me one way or the other.
Farmgirl believes signs have been put forth and I am deliberately ignoring them. That's fair - I don't think I've turned my back on God knowing he was trying to contact me, but I freely admit my interpretation of dumb luck might be God's attempt to hit me over the head with a metaphorical brick.
[ September 28, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
For me it wasn't a brick.
It was rocks.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "ok, Dad...I just found out you exist and I know nothing about you...wanna get a milkshake and talk?"
I like that. That's cute. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I kinda like it too. It implies a dialogue, communication - listening as well as talking.
...and Ice Cream, of course.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Mmmmm.... Cookies 'n' cream comes to mind.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
In a strictly metaphysical sense. Vanilla, for preference.
-Trevor
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Are they inconsistent within the same religion, or just across different religions?"
Yes. I can't think of a major religion on the planet that hasn't suffered from serious internal inconsistency. And, of course, it's pretty much impossible to expect any kind of consistency across different religions.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think most religions agree on:
There is a God
God demands/expects/deserves our worship and praise
Most religions agree God has a prophet or similarly agreed upon figure undeniably linked to God. Now, if they could only agree on what he said...
The particulars, including whether or not to have a door open, will vary. -Trevor
Edit: For layout
[ September 28, 2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(or "gods," for [many] religious people in the world -- India, China, the animated spirits of Japanese Shintoism, etc)
[ September 28, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Supernatural or divine power(s).
-Trevor
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Fascinating (religious affiliation in the US, 1990-2001, as per the American Religious Identification Study.
133,000+ surveyed in 1990, national sample 50,000+ surveyed in 2001, national sample
[No worries, Trevor -- I had to edit mine to be correct, too]
[ September 28, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
68%??
Tayman, I don't think your conversion is going to make a blip on the statistics.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You've never managed to worry me yet, dear.
Except for the chocolate incident last year, but other than that...
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But, hell, if he can't do that, then it's really a conversation killer, isn't it? You offer yourself as evidence, and then get offended when someone questions it. Kind of an instant "I win" strategy, neh?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)