quote:Why? If a belief turns out to be false, the believer and the non-believer both end up in the same situation - nonexistence. However, if a belief turns out to be true, then the believer has a significant advantage over the nonbeliever.
But the nonbeliever will presumably have gotten slightly better use out of their time than the believer. And if that time is all they're going to get, it becomes an incredibly precious resource.
As an aside, I'd note that, even if it turns out there's a God, the believer is probably still stuffed - there are many many religions and most of them seem to consider membership of another religion as sufficient to get you into afterlife trouble.
quote:but you can't understand why anyone would or could choose to believe anything other than your myth
I can well understand why people would want to believe there was something out there. I've been there, felt it, got the Tshirt. As I said, however, those beliefs, if inaccurate (and to some extent even if accurate), have negative side-effects.
quote:I'm not trying to be obnoxious here
And a good thing too, that's my job
quote:but since whether or not there is a God is not provable by scientific standards, then His non-existence is just as likely to be a myth as His existence. Which means we're back to what we choose to believe, based on the evidence we've seen as we interpret it.
I guess that's right. Obviously it's just as likely that Tezcatlipoca runs the show as it is that there's no-one out there. So does this mean you're volunteering for the next heart-removal ceremony on top of the pyramid?
Point being that believing in stuff without evidence is a bad mental habit that can lead to serious trouble later on. I'm pretty sure I'd never get taken in by a Scientologist or People's Temple member (the Jonestown cult) because I wouldn't be willing to take their word for it that the supernatural entities they postulate are real. Can you say the same?
quote:To call that life "wasted" that is lived according to faith is insulting, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the meaning of faith.
I wasn't saying that a religious person's life would be wasted (sorry if I gave that impression), just their Sunday mornings and prayer time. It's a misallocation of scarce resources as a result of unconfirmed information.
Of course, all the above is null and void if there's a solid reason to believe in a particular God.
Edited to add:
quote:Can I make the point that it's more difficult to prove a negative than a positive?
Which is why it's vitally important that we avoid believing in stuff without strong evidence - because once we start believing in it, it's so much harder to stop.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edited to add: When I said, "but you can't understand why anyone would or could choose to believe anything other than your myth," I was referring back to the original post. Sorry.)
quote:I wouldn't be willing to take their word for it that the supernatural entities they postulate are real. Can you say the same?
Yes. I don't believe in God because I just take other people's word for it. I also don't go on only what I can see and assume He doesn't exist, nor do I go only on what I can feel and do whatever feels good.
I've studied it out, found the evidence (personal and otherwise) to be believable, feel good about it in my heart, find joy in living as if it's true, and agree with those who say God exists.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those who want to equal the "god" and "no god" hypotheses.
The two hypotheses have not the same weight. On one hand there is a tool - science - that has a potential to describe the world without god. On the other hand there seems to be nothing to support "god" hypothesis. This tips the likelihood in favor of the "no god" hypothesis for me.
Also, to believe in the absence of a god is not the same as to not believe in god. Not believing in god does not make me a strong atheist automatically. I just do not believe in god, I do not believe in the "absence of god". I understand the question in the original post as being asked exactly from that point of view. A person does not believe in god, not actively denies its existance.
Finally, why do you believe in the christian god and not in the Spaghetti Flying Monster (google it if you haven't heard of it)? There are many deities proposed, and I doubt that the personal experiences, that many people mentioned as being major reasons for their beliefs, had indicated the specific religion that the people were expected to follow.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do you believe that science has the ability to discover every aspect of existence? Don't get me wrong, I think science is a wonderful tool. I am the offspring of a mathematical physicist, and the granddaughter of a chemical researcher. I teach high school science. I definitely think science is important!
But I also fully acknowledge its limitations. And there are more things in heaven and earth, Crocobar, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To rivka: quote: "Do you believe that science has the ability to discover every aspect of existence?" I do not know it, but yes, I believe in it because I've seen some results. This is something for "no god" versus nothing for "god", which tips the scale for me.
Quote: "And there are more things in heaven and earth, Crocobar, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." You do not know that.
To Dagonee: quote: "Because we know the person who made up the SFM, and he doesn't claim it's real." That was an absurd example of course, surely you've understood. That does not change the question. I am sure you can think of many deities, that are claimed to be real and do not have a known maker.
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll read through the thread and post again later, but I just wanted to clear something up quickly:
I don't believe there is no god any more than I believe that there is one. My thing is that there is no reliable way to glean the information needed to decide, so I just don't.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is where a breakdown occurs, in these type of statements:
quote:On one hand there is a tool - science - that has a potential to describe the world without god. On the other hand there seems to be nothing to support "god" hypothesis.
And
quote:I believe in it {science} because I've seen some results. This is something for "no god" versus nothing for "god", which tips the scale for me.
You say twice that there is "nothing to support" the existence of God. You have not seen or experienced the evidence, so you assume the evidence does not exist. On the other hand, those who have experienced the evidence don't understand why you can't see it.
It reminds me of creationists who say that evolution can't be true because there's no way humans are descended from apes. Evolutionists will say that's not quite how it works, and try to give a more detailed explanation that would show the evidence and why they came to believe evolutionary theory. But if the creationist doesn't want to believe in it, they aren't interested in seeing the evidence; or they will look at the evidence and still firmly believe that it's wrong, or manipulated, or doesn't really prove what the evolutionists say it proves. The same thing happens with some atheists: they say, "You can't prove there is a God." Believers explain why they believe, and the athiests say that evidence isn't scientific enough, or they haven't seen the evidence personally so it must be a lie, or the believer must be interpreting the evidence wrong.
One more faulty assumption:
quote:Quote: "And there are more things in heaven and earth, Crocobar, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." You do not know that.
You don't know, so you assume Rivka doesn't know. I used to fall into that same pattern: "I haven't seen it with my eyes, so I don't know; I know you haven't seen it with your eyes, so I know you don't know either." People who did know would tell me so, but I didn't believe them. They were either lying or deceiving themselves. It could'nt be possible that they had some other way of knowing besides seeing.
Now I know, too, but people who don't know think I'm lying or deceived, because they don't know.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wouldn't be willing to take their word for it that the supernatural entities they postulate are real. Can you say the same?
Yes. I don't believe in God because I just take other people's word for it. I also don't go on only what I can see and assume He doesn't exist, nor do I go only on what I can feel and do whatever feels good.
I've studied it out, found the evidence (personal and otherwise) to be believable, feel good about it in my heart, find joy in living as if it's true, and agree with those who say God exists.
Actually that is probably a sufficiently relaxed attitude for the Scientologists to get to you, at least. They have apparently convincing evidence supposedly drawn from deep within your psyche, own apparently supernatural equipment and have teachings which apparently give rise to joy in the Scientologist's heart. This would still not be good evidence for the existence of Xenu.
quote:You have not seen or experienced the evidence, so you assume the evidence does not exist. On the other hand, those who have experienced the evidence don't understand why you can't see it.
As I said, I think I have experienced the evidence, only it evaporated on closer inspection. I have never known reliable evidence do this in any other context. How closely have you inspected your evidence?
quote:Because we know the person who made up the SFM, and he doesn't claim it's real.
So why do you believe in the Christian God and not the Aztec Gods? Come on folks, if we don't sacrifice a few more people, Nanahuatzin won't be able to keep the sun moving through the sky. Have a heart. (Or rather don't)
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To JennaDean: No, I have not experienced "the experience". No, I do not assume that the evidence does not exist. However, by the descriptions offered I can easily see how a person can accept a random occurence for "the experience". Once again, and I think this statement is really important, and I can elaborate on the topic if needs be: human mind cannot effectively deal with the random intuitively. One must _check_ that something is not random, and this is not always easy. So, having a series of fortunate events in one's life does not qualify as "the experience" for me. I have seen too many examples when something "obviously" not random turned out to be perfectly random on closer inspection.
Quote: "I used to fall into that same pattern: "I haven't seen it with my eyes, so I don't know; I know you haven't seen it with your eyes, so I know you don't know either." People who did know would tell me so, but I didn't believe them. They were either lying or deceiving themselves." This is ironic. You said that.
About "know". I would prefer to know but I do not insist on it. I'd like to learn how other people get to believe. I see some answers, and so far it's only "the experience" method, and it is not acceptable to me.
On a side note: I feel bad about hijacking Jiminy's thread. Please, answer Jiminy first! (Our questions seem quite similar though...)
Posts: 114 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I feel I should expand slightly on the Scientology thing, to avert any implied insult to JennaDean. Scientology actually uses a very sophisticated "slippery slope" approach to drawing people in, which involves the use of mild sensory deprivation to induce hallucinations and uncritical euphoria. It then works its way slowly along the spectrum of craziness til you're willing to accept that invisible spirits are attacking you. See here and here for details.
The question then arises: why wouldn't you* fall for this. If you don't have a good answer, you're at risk of being Scientologised. My answer is that I'd be constantly inquiring about how the E-Meter worked, why these "body thetans" weren't detectable by objective means and so on, and eventually the Scientologists would be unable to give a good explanation (assuming that Scientology is factually inaccurate). What's your answer?
In case you're thinking that, well, maybe Scientology isn't as bad as I'm making out - what would be wrong with signing up if it made you happy? - please consider this site. It's a horrific illustration of why lowering one's "reality barrier" can be actively dangerous, however good it may make you feel in the short term.
* That's the plural "you" there - I'm addressing this at everyone.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time to explore those links now; I hope to later on, but wanted to point out one thing to Crocobar:
quote:Quote: "I used to fall into that same pattern: "I haven't seen it with my eyes, so I don't know; I know you haven't seen it with your eyes, so I know you don't know either." People who did know would tell me so, but I didn't believe them. They were either lying or deceiving themselves." This is ironic. You said that.
I think you missed my point, which was that I used to think that people who said they "knew" were either lying or deceiving themselves. Just like you seem to.
Now I realize that I was basing that judgment on my own experience (or lack of), and had no insight into what they knew. I was projecting my own doubts onto them when I said that since they didn't have evidence that I would accept, they couldn't know either.
And now I do have enough evidence and experience for my own satisfaction, but my evidence isn't good enough for you. So you assume I'm lying or deceiving myself.
I guess it is ironic, come to think of it, that I've been where you are. I just think it's important to note that I no longer believe those people were "lying or deceiving themselves"; at the time I was just unable to understand that they could have any way of "knowing" that was outside of what I could see.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but since whether or not there is a God is not provable by scientific standards, then His non-existence is just as likely to be a myth as His existence. Which means we're back to what we choose to believe, based on the evidence we've seen as we interpret it.[/QB]
You contradict yourself : In one breath you say that the existence question is undecidable by scientific standards. In the next you appeal to 'the evidence'. Well, what is science, if it is not the most effective means humans have invented to examine evidence? If a thing's existence cannot be proven scientifically, it is dishonest to appeal to 'personal evidence'. After all, plenty of people have personal evidence that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. We do not usually consider them rational, even if their claim cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I tried two or three times, but really, I'm not following. (Particularly the "dishonest" part.)
Are you saying there is no evidence for the existence of God?
Or are you saying that there is evidence, but it can't be reliably interpreted by scientific methods?
Or are you stating that anything that can't be interpreted by scientific methods is invalid?
Science is great in its sphere, but there are a lot of things in life that are not best interpreted by the scientific method.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science is limited. But I'm one who happens to thinks that it's limits roughly mirror the limits of what anyone using any method can reliably _know_.
Subjective experience just doesn't do it for me. I know how easy it is to fool myself. I've explored this ability of the mind extensively, and as such have every reason to think that people presenting subjective interpretations of events or feelings are, while not necessarily untrustworthy, are not really saying anytihng that's particularly helpful in discerning objective truth from subjective belief.
I don't think there is any comeplling existence of God, scientific or otherwise. While science isn't necessarily applicable to many issues concerning the potential existence of God, there are many places where it actually does apply: where claims are made about objective verifiable facts. Where science is irrelevant, I still find plenty of philosophical problems with the common claims.
I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I don't see why your faith needs to be affected by my lack of it. I'm certainly not going to spend any effort trying to dissuade you. But if we have a polite meeting of the minds, I'm going to be honest.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one's for Jiminy, since it's been requested that we answer the original post. (Also, I'm a bit tired of feeling like the guy in the middle of a game of dodge ball.) If it's too long for the rest of you, sorry, but it's taken quite an effort to put my thoughts into words.
Unfortunately, I can't try to “convince [Jiminy] that my Explanation is true,” since that's not allowed by the forum rules. However, I can try to show what makes me believe it.
Scientists rely on patterns to extrapolate the rules they think govern the Universe. I look at the patterns in life and see evidence for Someone higher than me, who has the intelligence to design the universe and the power to align the elements into His design.
I look around me at the world and the universe. I see the complexity of life, the stars, the planets. I see varying levels of intelligence, from ants in their little communities, to monkeys using tools, to human families. I see what happens as my children learn to build with their toys, and as adults learn to design and build bigger and better things. I also see what happens when things are left alone ... cooling down, slowing down, becoming less organized – entropy and atrophy. These patterns lead me to believe that things do not organize themselves without some intelligent being to design the patterns and make the laws (all those Laws of Science I keep hearing about). I can accept all kinds of explanations as to how that Designer created it all ... but I have no evidence to lead me to believe it could possibly happen by an accident, a chance.
I see the patterns in our own human lives: younger and weaker children depending on older and stronger and wiser adults for their existence, their safety, their education. Sometimes they chafe at the rules because they don't understand the reasons for them, until they get to be older and wiser themselves, and then pass the same rules along to the new young ones. I see us as adults knowing enough to guide the children, but still struggling against the things we don't understand. I see in this pattern a need for Someone wiser than we are now, who has the answers and helps guide us to a point where we will be able to understand.
When I learn something, particularly a concept in math or science, I often have the experience of going from being confused to a sudden “light bulb” moment, where it all becomes clear to me. I wonder if you've felt this – it feels like I'm not just learning it, I'm remembering it, like I knew it before but it was lost until that moment. That's how I feel when I recognize something as true. It clicks, it fits with the things I already know and builds upon them. Sometimes it also happens when I read literature ... even fiction can cause that light bulb moment when the author says something that strikes me as True. It adds to my understanding of life and I accept that new thing into myself as part of my view of the universe. No way to scientifically prove it, except that it fits what I have experienced of the world and helps me see things more clearly and hopefully be a better person because of it. (It's happened here on Hatrack, too, when people will post things in just the right words that “click” and help me understand something I hadn't before.)
The same thing happens when I learn about God – sometimes I have that light bulb moment, when I recognize it as true, or perhaps I'm remembering it from when I learned it before this life. It fits into the universe that I recognize and adds to my understanding of it, and of my place in it.
I have read the books that claim to be the revelations and commands of God ... the scriptures. Many times they have “clicked” to me – I knew they were true. Not true in the sense of historically accurate, because I haven't studied enough history to really know; but True in the sense that what they teach is how I need to live. Those same books tell me how I can know when something is true. They tell me to try “an experiment upon the word.” Sounds awfully scientific! “Take this into your life, try living this way for a bit, see if it makes you grow and gives you joy.” I take the challenge, I try the experiment, and the results are as it said they would be: it enlightens my mind and gives me joy. Others who so desire can have similar experiences if they are willing to try the same experiment. So I accepted that part of the book as true.
And now for the most personal evidence, evidence that cannot be scientifically tested, but is the most convincing to me. (I just ask that you not attack these experiences, as I'm the only one who had them, so they can't be interpreted by someone else. I know that makes them weak in proving anything to anyone else. I don't present it to convince anyone else of God, but to answer the question of why I believe in God.)
I have prayed and received the answers to prayers that I was promised in the scriptures. I have been comforted by the power of God in my darkest time ... not by someone else's hug, not by words or music that made me feel warm and fuzzy, not by anything I ate or drank, but comfort that came out of nowhere when I was completely alone and cried out for help. Comfort that didn't lie to me and tell me bad things wouldn't happen, but that comforted me anyway in the knowledge that I would be alright, I was not alone.
I have received inspirations at times of what I should do or say that came from somewhere outside of myself. I would find myself with no clue what to do, and pray, and then out of nowhere an answer would come that I had never thought of before or heard of anywhere else. It was specific to my situation and need.
It's been asked why on earth anyone would bother to believe. When I live according to my belief, including living by the rules that God purportedly gave, I am productive, I am happy. I have answers to my kids' questions. I have answers to my own questions. I avoid things that are harmful to me. I have a strong marriage and family. I have hope that even though we die, we will be together again someday. I live with them now so they will want to be together with me again after this life. I do not see how anything that causes these results is, as has been suggested, a waste of time.
I don't believe in just anything. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Scientology or secular humanism or paganism. I don't believe that babies who aren't baptized will burn in hell or float in limbo forever. I don't believe that God created a world so he could have lots of people end up in hell for never hearing of him or not believing in him. I believe in a loving Father who wants to guide us along as we grow and learn, gives us rules to keep us safe and help us be happier (even if we don't understand them now), and will give us as much as we're ready for in the next life. That fits the pattern of the world I see around me.
You asked how someone could accept faith as a basis for belief. “Faith” means trusting in something enough to act as if it's true. Or, in the case of God, trusting in Him enough to act according to what He says. We do it with other things all the time: I trust my husband loves me, and I don't sit around all day doubting the evidence because I can't prove it; I just live as if it's true because that makes me more productive and happy in my life. My experiences with God have consistently led me to trust that He is there and He loves me, so I believe it's true and act accordingly. It has made me happy and productive in life. So I choose to believe.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And now I do have enough evidence and experience for my own satisfaction, but my evidence isn't good enough for you. So you assume I'm lying or deceiving myself.
Jenna, do you believe that people who believe that they have been in direct communion with a non-Christian god are deceiving themselves?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE]You contradict yourself : In one breath you say that the existence question is undecidable by scientific standards. In the next you appeal to 'the evidence'. Well, what is science, if it is not the most effective means humans have invented to examine evidence? If a thing's existence cannot be proven scientifically, it is dishonest to appeal to 'personal evidence'. After all, plenty of people have personal evidence that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. We do not usually consider them rational, even if their claim cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved.
OK, so how would we prove scientifically that Napoleon ever existed at all? Assuming we accept the truth of his existence, are we in the 21st century not required to place some 'faith' in the accuracy of contemporary accounts?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've posed the exact same question about faith to myself and my peers for about 6 years now. I know the feeling of vertigo your body creates when you think of the idea that your "being" (that voice in your head that IS you) will no longer exist--ever again--for eternity. It's paralyzing. Our minds can't grasp eternity.
Unfortunately, your question (our question) is unanswerable. People who try to convince us that "we have faith every day" don't understand the difference between having faith in observable ideas (tested ideas) and unobservable ideas (boy it would be nice to die once, have it figured out, and come back and die again).
They also try to qualify God by saying "look at the world around you...that's evidence of god...look at how ordered it is" which, of course, is only evidence of organization, not of "God". And even then, it doesn't tell you which religion to choose.
The worst is when people say "well at least your chances are better believing in SOMETHING, right? It's SAFER to believe in God" Oh, so I'm supposed to choose religion because MY CHANCES will be better than believing in say, nothing? REAL strong basis for religion there. This is in fact, the admonition that they truly have no idea--and that, through faith, they're admitting that they just want to believe something that makes them feel more comfortable. Because all I know is that I'm depressed when I'm doubting, and happy when I have faith.
(excerpt deleted)
The bible says something about following the "straight and narrow" path--and I can think of no wider path taken than FAITH, to ease your mind and give you hope.
I refuse to lie to myself about something that doesn't make sense to my educated mind, at least for now. A life without faith is a straight and narrow path to follow. I might have to take the easy way out, choose a religion and brainwash myself out of logic and reason. It'll increase my chances of finding a good wife and raising good kids.
posted
I had a whole post written about how offensive it is to assume that religious people are brainwashed or are lying to themselves, but I decided to be a little more positive and address some of these specific points.
quote:People who try to convince us that "we have faith every day" don't understand the difference between having faith in observable ideas (tested ideas) and unobservable ideas....
People who have faith (by which I mean me, because I can't speak for others) have observed things that you haven't observed. They have tested those ideas and found them to hold up to testing. They live according to the things that have proven themselves to be true.
It's really very similar to the scientific method, with the only difference being that each person has to do the experiment himself; he cannot rely on looking at another person's experiment - without putting himself into it - and expect to see the same results. It's not fear that causes one to have faith ... it's fear that causes one to refuse to try the experiment because they have to put themselves into it.
It's like the tests they do to determine if various herbs and drugs really affect the common cold: they can measure some things, like how many times an hour someone sneezes, but they can't measure how much better it makes you feel. (Which is the point of the drugs - to make you feel better! Not saying that's the only point of religion.) Only those who take it themselves can know whether it worked for them or not. That doesn't mean it has no real, measurable effects - it just means that they can only be measured by the person who took it themselves. The doctor may remain unconvinced that the drug had an effect, but meanwhile the person who had a cold is feeling better and back at work.
I'm aware that some things are harmful and shouldn't be taken into oneself, so the first thing to do is look at the outside, measurable evidence and see if it appears harmful. There are some religions that seem to be harmful - if they lead people to suicide, for example, or if they lead them to give up all contact with their family, or lead them to support terrorism. Others seem to lead to good - responsible citizens, strong families, avoidance of harmful substances and behavior, happiness, hope, peace. That's what the saying means, "By their fruits ye shall know them." So you study it as carefully as a scientist would study the effects of a drug. But if you really want to be convinced that it can change your life, you have to take it into yourself. If you have no desire to see whether it can improve your life, at least don't ridicule those who were willing to perform the experiment and saw it work in their lives.
quote: And even then, it doesn't tell you which religion to choose.
You're right, it doesn't tell you which religion to choose. We're not discussing specific religions in this thread, we're discussing God. That's where you start.
quote:The worst is when people say "well at least your chances are better believing in SOMETHING, right?
You're right, that isn't a convincing argument. It's not even what convinced the believer; it's just something we realize after we have come to believe in God. But it's easier to say things like that, than to try to share - in a public forum, where you're vulnerable to attack and ridicule from all the passers-by - your personal faith experiences, and encourage someone to try the experiment of believing. (Which is, after all, what was requested in the original post.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's only lying if it's not true, and quite frankly, you have no way to prove that it's not true.
quote:I refuse to lie to myself about something that doesn't make sense to my educated mind
...which is another way to say that you aren't open to new ideas. After all, most scientific breakthroughs require a substantial change in thinking or perception.
Sorry for sounding offensive. I was in a cruddy mood last night and didn't mean to sound so negative.
"People who have faith (by which I mean me, because I can't speak for others) have observed things that you haven't observed. They have tested those ideas and found them to hold up to testing. They live according to the things that have proven themselves to be true."
Does this not mean that faith relies on completely subjective experiences that one can either be lucky enough to observe or not? You say that I should look at the outside, observable evidence caused by faith. From your posts, I can assume you had a positive experience with faith. What if someone had a completely negative experience with faith that nearly ruined their life and the lives of their family? The fact that we've both "tested" the ideas of faith (yes, I did, for 15 years) and gotten completely different results(no positive fruit of my labor) makes me think the experiment isn't really valid. I can just as well say that I live according to the ideas that I've tested to be true--that faith is damaging.
(the immediate response to this idea is that I must not have had a REAL experience with faith, or that I have always doubted, or that my negative experience with "faith" is misplaced, and that I should keep trying)
I did try faith. Unfortunately, I wouldn't know if it worked until I died (that's what I meant by unobservable ideas). And what reason would I have to keep trying it till then if all that faith brought to my life was lying and delusion. You obviously have had positive things happen as a result of your faith. The only positive things that have happened in my life have happened from believing in myself, relying on myself, and doing things on my own to get results.
Ironic, isn't it, that this is exactly the opposite of what most religions preach. Stop living for YOURSELF. Give yourself to GOD, and let HIM live your life. Just have faith.
Why?
*edit Camus, offensive analogy deleted. The point I was trying to make was that faith makes us feel more comfortable. And that I would only be lying to myself if I did have faith, much like other people lie to themselves to make them feel more comfortable.
I do keep an open mind. I still go to churches and study religion hoping to find an answer. The faith dillemma still stands. It will require a substantial change in my thinking or perception to have any breakthroughs. But for now, I do only what makes the most sense.
quote:What if someone had a completely negative experience with faith that nearly ruined their life and the lives of their family?
I would say, sounds like it's not workin' for ya. (to quote Dr Phil) Try something else. I wouldn't know whether it's because the faith was misplaced, or because it wasn't really faith to begin with, but I wouldn't stick with something that negative, either.
quote: Unfortunately, I wouldn't know if it worked until I died (that's what I meant by unobservable ideas). And what reason would I have to keep trying it till then if all that faith brought to my life was lying and delusion.
For me, I don't live by faith just because I'm worried about what's going to happen in the next life. I do think about it, but it's this life that I'm most concerned about, and my faith vastly improves my life with my family and my peace within myself. So I don't have to wait until the next life to see whether I'm right ... my faith has already "paid off", and if it turns out there is nothing after this life, it has already been worth it in what it gave me in this life. If all I got from faith were "lying and delusion", I would consider those "bad fruits", and I would assume that either I just wasn't getting what that religion was trying to teach, or it was really a harmful way to live.
I've known people in my own religion who haven't had the experience I have, but instead have been full of guilt and worry about whether or not they're perfect yet. It's my opinion that they're missing a fundamental part of the teachings of the religion. Someone else might say that proves the religion is false. Either way, the way they're living it doesn't seem to be bringing them much happiness, and they need to try something different if they want a different result.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have preferred if more of the men who are claimed as great prophets or servants of God would have had single female partners, since that is the common rule of this country now. Of course, it's a little late to change history.
One thing I find odd about faith, is those who ask you to have it often had multiple parnters--Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament, Joseph Smith, Muhammad--all of them claiming God gave them multiple wives or at least one concubine.
Maybe, it is cynicism, but sometimes I picture a brother to brother smile, with a look of 'I pulled a fast one on the ladies'.
I could think of one reason maybe they were allowed xtra women: God wants certain genes to replicate to combat all the bad dudes, or there is an old boys club of some sort that shares favors.
And if a man is doing his life work by reproducing well, it would make sense for him to seek safety from others bound to attack him for his pretty flock. Therefore, he would probably use a God fear to scare others from challenging his satisfying life (especially back in the old days since there was a lack of knowledge about the earth). And of course, make rules for others to follow that would probably ensure his safety.
Another thing odd -- no one seems to write scripture of the book type any more because it would be scrutinized so heavily with modern methods. I mean if I claimed I found some scriptures that God gave me and that I am his prophet, the media would hound me and demand proof. And then I would be in a real pickle, because I would have to tell them 'well, they were here before, but I seem to have misplaced them. Or well, God wanted them back, sorry, you don't get to see them. But here's my nice little book. And uh, he gives me rights to ten concubines who if they refuse me will go to hell'. Then the game would be up quickly.
But, I hope there is a God and an afterlife. 'Cause I never get tired of stuff like playing video games.
Just some thoughts.... Posts: 27 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another thing odd -- no one seems to write scripture of the book type any more because it would be scrutinized so heavily with modern methods.
Some people still manage to pull it off. All you have to do is convince your followers there's a conspiracy against them (Suppressive Persons if you're a scientologist, the US govt if you're one of Jonestown's Koolaid drinkers... Satan if you're a Christian?). Then, of course, any attempts to point to failings in the literal validity of that scripture are actually attempts to corrupt your followers, and obviously deserve all the scorn you can heap on them.
It's an interesting approach - if you wanted to convince other people to obey you, how would you construct the psychological package that you were going to sell to them?
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only positive things that have happened in my life have happened from believing in myself, relying on myself, and doing things on my own to get results.
I couldn't agree more. Good posts. I had negative experiences with faith too, my mind is more collected and easy to deal with when I don't put my mind in religious matters. Thats just me... I'm sure a lot of people really get a lot out of faith. There are people that I have seen that are real happy, quit doing drugs, whatever as a result of faith. The difference between me and a religious person is that I have solely on myself, and some other people, but not a religion or a god. There is still faith.
And I am thinking... And this maybe a little hard to decifer, but I am thinking the difference between having faith in yourself and having faith in god is non-existent at least in the mind. Now I am sensing that by what I am about to type will get some resistance, but here goes. The "self" is an idea . An ever changing idea (ie people's ideas of themselves change). Okay now God to is an idea. Of course in our minds we think that God is separate from us. But God, the idea pulsating in our head, the many thoughts that come with the idea of God. They are just a part of you as your thoughts of yourself. They're both in your head. Alright now here is an example of what I am getting at:
Bean and Carlotta are getting chased by armed robbers. They are coming to a point where they are about to jump out of a window into some water too get away from the robbers. Bean has faith in his self that he will make it. Carlotta has faith in God that she will make it. They both jump and swim to safety.
Both of them had faith in something. The effects were the same (Ugh... Damn, this is hard to explain). Both Bean, and Carlotta had directed faith towards thoughts, beliefs. So we all have faith in the same thing be it a scientist, or a religious person. We are just arguing over details. Faith in it can give the same results. My body saved me so many times from dying. I could think of it as God saving me or me saving me, and when such things happen sometimes I think somebody is up there protecting me. It also could just be that our bodies are much smarter than they appear on the surface, and what may seem like luckily surviving getting hit by a car may have been our subconscious minds purposely saving us.
Edit: I am NOT stating that the ACTUAL God if there is a God and your ACTUAL self are the same thing. Maybe they are... I don't know. I was just saying the thoughts/beliefs of God and Self are both thoughts/beliefs and reside in you. And in that sense EVERYTHING is you. Maybe thats what some philosophers meant by you are the world. I don't know.
posted
Very interesting post, Subhuman. Definitely a new perspective. Loved the Bean analogy.
I think a big difference between faith in self and faith in God...well, I "know" myself, or at least the idea of myself--much better than I know God. I can test myself and know my limitations and know what I'm capable of.
I don't know God, I can't test him, and I have no way of knowing anything about him that isn't subjective through experience or subjective through various scriptures and doctrines.
Although my idea of self is ever-changing, (and the idea of "God" changes often)-- most doctrines' idea of "God" is that he is permanent and steadfast, omnipotent and omniscient.
Lastly, the whole reason for this idea of "God" is the allusion to some type of afterlife. Do you think faith in one's self and faith in God are synonymous enough to get into heaven/reach enlightenment/avoid the bad places?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bean and Carlotta are getting chased by armed robbers. They are coming to a point where they are about to jump out of a window into some water too get away from the robbers. Bean has faith in his self that he will make it. Carlotta has faith in God that she will make it. They both jump and swim to safety.
Both of them had faith in something. The effects were the same
The problem is that only justified faith can be expected to consistently give good results. If neither Bean nor Carlotta could swim, it would still be consistent with Carlotta's faith to jump in the river, but Bean would presumably attempt to run along the bank or something. Result: Carlotta drowns, Bean gets away.
So, how do we figure out whether this belief in God is justifiable? Would we too fall into the trap of adhering to it when it isn't?
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is that only justified faith can be expected to consistently give good results. If neither Bean nor Carlotta could swim, it would still be consistent with Carlotta's faith to jump in the river, but Bean would presumably attempt to run along the bank or something. Result: Carlotta drowns, Bean gets away.
So, how do we figure out whether this belief in God is justifiable? Would we too fall into the trap of adhering to it when it isn't?
Well faith in anything has varying degrees of justifiability. Even if you've driven for 20 years there is still a chance that you will get in an accident. So that faith you had in yourself can still fail. But that is just a technicality. Anyways, to the point...... You would have to find away to test it. And if anything though Jesus said do not doubt. Having some doubt about the odds of something's achievablility. Asking yourself how it can be done. Looking at the possibilities. If that is done I think that will minimize the risk. Though doubting would destroy your ability to have complete faith. I don't know the idea of being faithful to a crazy degree like putting your life on the line when you don't have to seems loco to me.
There are people who are so arrogant like Tony Montana in "Scarface" that they make silly mistakes assuming they're the MAN, and everything is going to work out. Well as long as you have a cautious attitude, and don't snort 5 grams of cocaine there shouldn't be too many problems. There lies advantages in having great faith in yourself and avoiding ever questioning yourself, but there are also disadvantages. Napolean Bonaparte believed that you should never question yourself for it will take out the driving force of your soul. But looking at all his mistakes... It might have done him some good not to be so dillusional . Faith is VERY necessary. Without it you'd be scared to walk across the street. It is a double edged sword though. When you are in a state full of crazy faith your potential is greatly increased, I've experienced it 1st hand(back when I read Napolean Hill's book "Think and Grow Rich"). When you are hesitent you aren't as capable.
quote: Lastly, the whole reason for this idea of "God" is the allusion to some type of afterlife. Do you think faith in one's self and faith in God are synonymous enough to get into heaven/reach enlightenment/avoid the bad places?
I have no opinion on that. My mind goes blank when it comes to things like what happens after your dead. I am pretty sure that I will stay undecided on that question until the day I die. Unless somebody finds something out.
Lets assume it were though. Okay so anybody who has faith in anything can go to heaven. ANYTHING. You could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and go to heaven. And if anything it would be fair. What isn't fair is someone who has never heard of God being burned in hell for eternity after they die. And maybe all the religions are right, and they all go to there own unique heaven. And if that were so everybody would be right. Where ever you believe you will go, you will go. Whatever that is just a speculation. And not one that I believe.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They also try to qualify God by saying "look at the world around you...that's evidence of god...look at how ordered it is" which, of course, is only evidence of organization, not of "God".
I look at the great pyramids in Egypt, and I believe they are evidence of an intelligent civilization in that area a long time ago. I have no "proof", in the sense that I didn't see them built and have never met those who built them, but I have reason to believe they were built and did not spontaneously arise from the ground.
I guess I could look at them as "only evidence of organization", not of an "organizer", but that would be contrary to every other experience I've had with buildings, and everything else that makes sense to me about the world.
Likewise, looking at the world and the universe and its organization, without acknowledging that there must have been an "Organizer," goes contrary to everything else I know about organization.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
