Yes, that's what I said. It's about feeling good and belonging to social groups.
quote:What reasons do you have for your speculation about my motivation?
I admit I'm using the hidden assumption that your actions are not completely random. You must get something out of your 'beliefs', although clearly it's not a conviction that they are actually true. Conforming to local custom is the most parsimonious explanation. Had you been born in Turkey, you would instead believe - rather, you would mouth the words - that there is but one god, and Mohammed is his prophet.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
The Jews are welcome to them. I do not consider them useful, so I will stick to my own definition.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get all sorts of good from my beliefs. I am convinced that they are true. Most of my social groups are secular. My family is not religious and, in fact, I converted to a specific religion that my parents don't share - one sibling does but she converted after I did.
It is certainly possible that, had I no exposure to Christianity, I would have found some other way to connect with God. I did find Christianity, though, and my belief in it is sincere.
What evidence have you that I am insincere about my convictions?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say you were insincere. Many people quite sincerely believe whatever happens to be convenient for them. But since, as you admit, it's not about evidence, what else do you suggest it's about, if not your own convenience? How nice for you, to believe that the Universe should just happen to be arranged in exactly the way that your delicate psyche is comfortable with! But as a serious argument, well, really now. A child's belief in Santa is equally justified and sincere; it's not about evidence, it's about the dang gifts. But the child is more honest about it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, you have a special word for believing whatever you damn well please, especially if it makes you feel good. And to emphasize how good it makes you feel, it is very conveniently a word loaded with positive associations! A perfect self-reinforcing circle, yay! But you must realise that this has nothing to do with truth; it's just a word you invoke when you don't feel like arguing anymore. "I don't have to present evidence, it's about faith". In a question which was actually important to you, you would laugh that to scorn. Since the truth of your beliefs is completely irrelevant to how good they make you feel, you think it's acceptable.
Also, I must say that the 'inconvenience' you quoted the last time we had this discussion, to wit, having to rein in your temper occasionally, does not vastly impress me. Any social system has that requirement; no supernatural beliefs needed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have to present evidence - nor could I. It isn't about evidence. Not everything is about evidence.
I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous. Used correctly, it isn't a nice word.
Why do you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QUOTE] I consider people Christians (or Muslims, Jews, whatever) if they rest their belief on some evaluation of the available evidence.
Being Jewish is not a matter of belief. Judaism has specific laws that determine who is a Jew.
The Jews are welcome to them. I do not consider them useful, so I will stick to my own definition.
I'm with KoM on this. Jews have definitions of who is a Jew and who is not. That is only useful for a Jew. Jews have laws about how to relate to other Jews, and who is Jewish is defined through those specific laws.
But for the purpose of interfaith dialogue and understanding, I think it is more useful for one to categorize someone else based on your best judgment of how that person interacts with evidence, and available doctrine.
I have a friend who is Muslim but tells me that he really is Jewish because Islam is true Judaism. Okay, great. But for my purposes, the guy aint Jewish.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think it's acceptable to make things up, and then believe in your own lie? That's what "not about evidence" comes down to, and it's wrong.
quote:Used correctly, [faith] isn't a nice word.
Quite so. And yet here you are, saying "I have faith". Why are you so eager to claim this filthy word for yourself? You know the consequences it's had in the past; you know it leads millions to believe things you believe wrong; and yet somehow you think it's acceptable when you do it. What makes your faith so dang special? The things you believe are not true. Can you not grow up and deal with this?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have to present evidence - nor could I. It isn't about evidence. Not everything is about evidence.
I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous. Used correctly, it isn't a nice word.
Why do you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
The reason why people stress understanding, provability, measureability and other scientific methods isn't because they love science. Science is a tool. The reason people love these things is because they are a means to a very important end. Truth.
If you don't know the truth, you can be operating under major assumptions that can be quite dangerous to you if proven wrong. Or, under less disastrous mistakes, you may be wasting time, or precious resources.
Belief, if arbitrary, is only meaningful to the extent that it makes you feel good. But it is incredibly dangerous is made without method, and if it disregards the true reality that you live in. Now, you align your beliefs with your moral intuition, which is great - you may not be harming anyone, but you might be harming yourself. You might be in the wrong religion, with disastrous consequences - not necessarily fire and brimstone, but a life of lost opportunity.
Or there might not be any religion, and you have tied yourself down unnecessarily, and helped perpetuate a farce that causes pain and guilt for so many.
So yes. Truth is important so that we can correctly determine reality.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful, you're foaming at the mouth just a bit.
Not nice is not the same thing as filthy. The things I believe are true. Prove they aren't.
I do understand the desire to "tame" the universe. Again, what makes you think that being understandable, provable, measurable to you is a condition of existance?
ETA: that was to KoM. Armoth, you might want to tread carefully when you suggest that science is the only way to find truth. You are a man of faith yourself aren't you?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... I have a friend who is Muslim but tells me that he really is Jewish because Islam is true Judaism. Okay, great. But for my purposes, the guy aint Jewish.
Eh, for the purposes of interfaith discussion, to be consistent with my acceptance of "if they say they're Christian, they're Christian" then I'm fine with them being both Muslim and Jewish Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we talk about epistemology, we need to analyze what is a source of truth and what is not. Ultimately, it's all going to come down to what each person believes is a reality for him.
Now, if something feels true to him, that is a wonderful reason to say that it IS true. However, they need to hedge that against other truths within him. Ask: Do I have a motivation to believe this is true? Could this be clouding my mind? Is "feeling" something true a valuable way to determine its reality?
Say you believe in Christianity. And say I told you that if you were WRONG about Christianity, you would go to hell...
1) Would you even let the weight of that question sink in? 2) If so, would you still be confident in your belief in it.
The reason to ask those questions is because they show whether you are operating in reality, or whether you are lying to yourself. Lying to yourself isn't always a bad thing - you can chose to be a member of a religion because you find it romantic, and because it is great to be a part of a community - but it is real and you have to accept the consequences that come out of it.
I am not a man of faith. To me, faith = faithfulness, or loyalty. I don't arbitrary believe in what I believe in. I make my judgments based on evidence. The result of which is that I obligate myself to things that sometimes don't always align with my moral intuition. You, clearly place higher epistomological value on your moral intuition than on your own faith.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, you can no more scientifically prove the existence of God than I can.
Not being able to scientifically prove something does not make it arbitrary.
Elmer's Glue, so?
ETA: Okay. That was a little harsh. That kind of proof works very well for a lot of things. It doesn't work for everything.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure I can. Logic is a science, and i can more logically prove the existence of God than you can.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You know, I can't think of a line any any of the creeds that says the resurrection is evidence of Jesus' divinity. How'd you come to pick that one?
Without the miracles performed by Jesus, and in particular the resurrection, the whole thing dissolves into another set of moderately ethical guidelines with no supernatural content, such as anyone with a modicum of charisma and a desire for attention might preach. To "have faith" in such a mish-mash is quite un-necessary; you could just say that you try to follow the guidelines and be done.
I think you are trying to take an argument that Christians use against those who argue that Jesus was nothing just a moral teacher and use it in reverse. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in reverse. While it is possible to argue that performing miracles and rising for the dead are sufficient to prove divinity, it hardly follows that they are necessary for divinity. I do not know of any Christians who see it that way.
Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Or after Jesus cleared the temple of money changers the Pharisees asked him by what authority he did what he did. When in invoked his father's name, they asked him for a sign, and he said, "Tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up again." A clear indication of his resurrection down the road. If Jesus had failed to resurrect, it would have demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about in the temple.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those people may have needed the evidence of miracles. I don't. Which is good because what I have is stories of miracles written down by people who heard stories of miracles. I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
BB, remember the people who were telling the stories already knew that Jesus was resurrected.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
A rare nugget of sense among the river of wrongness. This is of course the mistake that BlackBlade makes, to mistake hearsay for evidence. But that is a lesser evil than to think oneself so special as to need no evidence at all!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You two don't understand what I am saying. Miracles are evidence of Jesus' divinity because if we assume he didn't perform them, that makes Jesus challenge that only somebody sent from God could do the mighty works he was doing self convicting. Jesus is the one insisting his miracles are evidence of his divinity.
Either Jesus was the son of God and therefore able to use God's power to perform miracles, or else he was a liar and wasn't really performing miracles. Or else he is a liar and performed miracles by some other way.
In anycase, you can't take Jesus' miracles away and say he was still the messiah.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't quite see what I'm misunderstanding. Obviously the miracles are evidence of Jesus's divinity, or would be if they were true. Your mistake lies in assuming that the stories of the miracles are correct. Why those particular miracle stories, and not the ones from Norse mythology? Which, incidentally, has a much broader attestation in non-oral-tradition evidence than the Jesus stories do.
quote:Either Jesus was the son of God and therefore able to use God's power to perform miracles, or else he was a liar and wasn't really performing miracles. Or else he is a liar and performed miracles by some other way.
Or a third party lied about the miracles, or indeed about the whole thing.
quote:And you seem to think I am unique somehow. Really. Not so much.
No, no, a lot of people make the same mistake, but that's hardly a defense!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Those people may have needed the evidence of miracles. I don't. Which is good because what I have is stories of miracles written down by people who heard stories of miracles. I believe those stories, but they are not evidence.
BB, remember the people who were telling the stories already knew that Jesus was resurrected.
Are you a pluralist? Do you believe that it is alright for someone to be a Muslim or Jew?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: you overlook the possibility that he didn't say exactly what you believe he said.
Then we are back to Jesus simply being a moral teacher anyway. What else would make him divine other than a mandate from heaven to do divine work?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. For instance, he could be the son of God, not have done miracles, and never said that his miracles were proof of him being the son of God. That is a possibility not enumerated by you that is logically consistent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
So was he trying to say that Elisha and Elijah were sons of God?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I am not a man of faith. To me, faith = faithfulness, or loyalty. I don't arbitrary believe in what I believe in. I make my judgments based on evidence. The result of which is that I obligate myself to things that sometimes don't always align with my moral intuition. You, clearly place higher epistomological value on your moral intuition than on your own faith.
Quite the demonstration of open-mindedness, there, especially since Armoth was responding to a challenge you posted yourself.
quote:Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
You're assuming a level of consistency-checking which just didn't exist prior to industrialistion. People don't think like this on a large scale without being socialised into doing so, and in fact this is rarely accomplished even now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well, to me, Jesus says several times in effect, "If you do not believe I am who I say I am, look at my works (including miracles) I could not do the things I do, if I was lying about being the son of God."
Which is puzzling, when you think about it. I mean, what had he done? Healed lepers? Elisha did that. Resurrected the dead? Both Elisha and Elijah did that, and Elisha did it again after he was dead. Walked on water? Well, Elisha made an axe head float to the surface. Bread and fishes? Elisha did that, and he made a pitcher pour a never ending stream of oil, too.
So was he trying to say that Elisha and Elijah were sons of God?
No, but Elisha and Elijah claimed to be prophets of God, meaning if they said they were prophets, but were not, they could not have done those things either.
edit: ----- fugu13: That is a possibility it's true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I get that this is frightening for you. It should be frightening. It would be much safer if everything could be measured and proven and explained. Faith is dangerous.
Your church killed innocent men, women and children for "faith". Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. Gutted by swords, torn apart on the rack, burned alive.
So yes, faith is very dangerous. Closing one's eyes to reality is dangerous. Unfortunately, it's dangerous to more people than just the believer.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Yes, swbarnes, I said that faith is dangerous for a reason.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but what have I got to do with anything? Anyway, back to the question that interests me: Why do you think it's ok to believe lies, provided you label them 'faith'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Last time (that I saw) he used a relatively unsophisticated version of the Argument from Design.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, Science is a tool. You can't prove anything scientifically. All science can do is carry you from point A, to point B.
For instance, I can't prove that you exist, but I can test your blood and tell you what blood type you are.
The reason I can do that is based on a number of assumptions that we both agree to.
I can't prove God like I can't prove that you exist. But, thankfully, what we value as credible evidence upon which we rely on, upon which often stake our lives on - that sort of evidence, i can provide.
The same reasons I would bet my life on the existence of China, although I have never been there...
So no, my "proofs" will not be new, but if you want me to, I can attempt to show that the standard upon which we intuitively rely upon for determining our confidence that something is a reality, under that standard which we use in our everyday lives, you can prove God.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It won't amuse me. He can try; he will fail to provide scientific proof. You seem to like that sort of thing. Do you think he will come up with anything you haven't already seen?
Last time (that I saw) he used a relatively unsophisticated version of the Argument from Design.
This is what I hate about the internet. I'm right here you know, I can read that.
I'm not used to condescension until a few rounds into an argument.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize. It does read snider than I meant it to. However, in the thread I was thinking of, you were making an argument that has been around and been refined substantially over a significant period of time.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pretty much all the arguments and counter-arguments have been around forever. The only thing we can offer is new perspectives, not new arguments.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. When an argument is refuted, you should not give a new perspective on that argument, you should give it up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument wasn't refuted. If it fails, it fails because a perspective of the person hearing the argument.
One such perspective is that life sure would be hard. Or, "I've been believing the opposite my entire life." or, PROVE it to me - what? You can't prove god, or that I exist? Then it's all stupid anyways, and so I don't care. Or, I don't want to believe in God, because if he exists, he sure is mean...
posted
Armoth: you seem to be confusing a refutation of a proof of god and a disproof of god. A refutation of a proof of god just means that proof either has a false premise or a step not supported by the rules of logic; it does not mean the existence of god has been disproven.
All arguments for god (relying on evidence generally available) that I am aware of have been refuted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
