Jump to content

Religious and Spiritual Beliefs


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

having faith in something doesn't make it true

it makes it true for that said person who has that said faith.

CHarles, I have Isaac Asimov books Foundation Empire series. Reprint of course...and in the introduction to the book...he goes into the question of why his books were so popular....and admits his books had no action...no suspense...no suspenseful action....just a whole lot of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmm. I think he was being modest. I likes a lot of the robot stuff. It's been forever since I read Foundation Empire but I thought that was good too.

But yes there is an idea in that particular story I suggested. Wanted to see a reaction to it. it's an interesting thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

it makes it true for that said person who has that said faith.


Uh, what?

Having faith in Jesus's existance doesn't make it "true" in ANY WAY if Jesus DID NOT EXIST. Having faith that there is no God doesn't make God magically disappear so that it's "true for you".

"I have faith that if I jump off this 100 story building, I will live."

Hey, it's true for me since I have that faith, so when I hit the ground, i'll be in perfect health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My shot at the immateriality of the mind:

It is logically possible, however actually (from an empirical perspective) improbable, that I (that is to say, my "mind") am not my brain, and that neither my brain nor my body exist.

It is not logically possible to doubt my existence. (I think, therefore I am--Descartes)

Therefore, my brain and I have different properties--my brain has the property of "doubtability" and I do not.

Only entities with the same properties are identical. (Identity of Indiscernibles--Leibniz)

Therefore, my brain and I are different entities.

[ 09-16-2002, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dredd:

My main point is the risk calculus that if you have faith and are wrong is always going to be better than not having faith when you really should have.

Kindly, either you have faith or you don't, I would think. To "pretend" to have faith so that a God doesn't zap you when the clock hits "0:00" is pointless. Said God would know if you were bulls***ting or not. Belief should be in the heart, not in the head...

For example, above, from Sunata, "Therefore, my brain and I are different entities." If one believes that (s)he is more than the sum of one's parts, then this is a belief. It's not something that one needs proof for. They believe it... they know it to be true in his or her heart and it is true for that person.

[ 09-16-2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

My shot at the immateriality of the mind:

It is logically possible, however actually (from an empirical perspective) improbable, that I (that is to say, my "mind") am not my brain, and that neither my brain nor my body exist.

It is not logically possible to doubt my existence. (I think, therefore I am--Descartes)

Therefore, my brain and I have different properties--my brain has the property of "doubtability" and I do not.

Only entities with the same properties are identical. (Identity of Indiscernibles--Leibniz)

Therefore, my brain and I are different entities.

Logical flaw here, you say that entities with the same properties are identical, but this is inclusive, it in no manner prevents entities with different or divergent properties from being identical as well.

Furthermore, this does nothing to prove the immateriality of the mind, only to ÔÇ£proveÔÇØ that the mind and brain are not absolutely identical. I will postulate that the brain is the mechanism though which your consciousness works, and your mind is the bioelectrical reaction that is going on at the time. This nicely distinguishes between the two sufficient for them to be considered separate entities as your ÔÇ£proofÔÇØ requires.

quote:

Having faith in Jesus's existance doesn't make it "true" in ANY WAY if Jesus DID NOT EXIST. Having faith that there is no God doesn't make God magically disappear so that it's "true for you".

"I have faith that if I jump off this 100 story building, I will live."

Hey, it's true for me since I have that faith, so when I hit the ground, i'll be in perfect health.

Absolutely wonderful analysis, and absolutely correct. There are some things belief can alter, particularly those things dependant on your perception or on your internal chemistry, but beyond the very limited world of your body belief has no direct power, and even there its influence is minimal at best.

quote:

Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith. My risk calculus just gets rid of the question of "What IF i'm wrong?". I have faith, it's just that my thinking helps me discount some of the doubts which just about everyone has.

IÔÇÖm afraid I have to agree with Dredd on this point as well, there is no way that a logical, thought out, risk analysis would determine that believing in god is for the better because there is no logical reason to believe god exists. Furthermore, on infinitesimally small chance that god does exist, it is even more unlikely that he fits into the Christian mythos sufficiently that believing in him would make a difference. Thus we can see that this logic is derived to support faith, but stand up only under the premise that god either exists as imagined or probably exists as imagined. Any true skeptic would immediately dismiss this as preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

quote:

Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith. My risk calculus just gets rid of the question of "What IF i'm wrong?". I have faith, it's just that my thinking helps me discount some of the doubts which just about everyone has.

IÔÇÖm afraid I have to agree with Dredd on this point as well, there is no way that a logical, thought out, risk analysis would determine that believing in god is for the better because there is no logical reason to believe god exists. Furthermore, on infinitesimally small chance that god does exist, it is even more unlikely that he fits into the Christian mythos sufficiently that believing in him would make a difference. Thus we can see that this logic is derived to support faith, but stand up only under the premise that god either exists as imagined or probably exists as imagined. Any true skeptic would immediately dismiss this as preposterous.


Could you rephrase? I got the part that you agree that a risk analysis can't make anyone believe in God, but then I lost your train of thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dredd:

Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith...

True. You need a brain to understand the concept of faith and leaps of such and so forth. Just from experience there was a time where I understood faith and thought it logical to believe, and then slowly, one day I realized I could feel it in my heart. I simply believed, without logic, at which point it became illogical. Kind of like love, I hear... haha.

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

IÔÇÖm afraid I have to agree with Dredd on this point as well, there is no way that a logical, thought out, risk analysis would determine that believing in god is for the better...

I thought Dredd was saying that his risk analysis DID determine believing in God is for the better. You're confusing me... which isn't hard to do sometimes....

[ 09-16-2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like IÔÇÖm confusing the both of you.

Well, IÔÇÖm agreeing with Dredd insofar as his faith is not based on risk analysis, and IÔÇÖm going on to say that the inverse is true, his so called risk analysis is based on faith. There is no empirical evidence that shoes god exists, therefore the probability of there being a god can only be calculated as infinitesimally low (similar to the probability of a secret cult of aliens living beneath the surface of mars, theoretically possibly but highly implausible). Thus, any true risk analysis based on the existence of god would take in the extremely unlikely chance of there being a god and would show that there is no real advantage to believing in god.

However, if we were to take the view of someone who either believes in god or who isnÔÇÖt really sure, then the risk analysis turns out the other way. Rather then taking the logical path that places the probability of god existing as infinitesimally small, a person who believed in god would consider the probability of god existing as 100% and someone who wasnÔÇÖt really sure would consider godÔÇÖs existence to be reasonably probable. If either of these premises are true (that god exists, or that there is a reasonable chance god exists) would cause Dredds risk analysis to show that believing in god was advantageous.

Thus, this logic will only convince someone who isnÔÇÖt sure or who truly believes in god, but not a true skeptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

"I have faith that if I jump off this 100 story building, I will live."

Hey, it's true for me since I have that faith, so when I hit the ground, i'll be in perfect health.

no that's just utter stupidity.

faith is belief in things not seen, and no proof of their existence. not that stupid analogy aforementioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

Well, IÔÇÖm agreeing with Dredd insofar as his faith is not based on risk analysis, and IÔÇÖm going on to say that the inverse is true, his so called risk analysis is based on faith. There is no empirical evidence that shoes god exists, therefore the probability of there being a god can only be calculated as infinitesimally low (similar to the probability of a secret cult of aliens living beneath the surface of mars, theoretically possibly but highly implausible). Thus, any true risk analysis based on the existence of god would take in the extremely unlikely chance of there being a god and would show that there is no real advantage to believing in god.

However, if we were to take the view of someone who either believes in god or who isnÔÇÖt really sure, then the risk analysis turns out the other way. Rather then taking the logical path that places the probability of god existing as infinitesimally small, a person who believed in god would consider the probability of god existing as 100% and someone who wasnÔÇÖt really sure would consider godÔÇÖs existence to be reasonably probable. If either of these premises are true (that god exists, or that there is a reasonable chance god exists) would cause Dredds risk analysis to show that believing in god was advantageous.

Thus, this logic will only convince someone who isnÔÇÖt sure or who truly believes in god, but not a true skeptic.

Hmm, but i'd have to disagree with you there. A person with a totally closed mind wouldn't accept the risk analysis, but anyone that has an open mind at all or any sort of logic would give it some weight since it's impossible to disprove the existance of God. The fact that the universe exists and everything has a cause means that you have to have faith in one of two possibilities:

1. God created it (and God always was).

2. The universe always was (was=existed).

Under your logic, a skeptic would dismiss both, since you can't prove either. Of course the concept of God is slightly less likely since it's an additional step back, but both are highly improbable.

I think my risk analysis would be analgous to a totally dark room that someone could be in. Because someone COULD be in there, you probably aren't going to take a gun and start shooting up the room, or burn the room down, since there's always the possibility your going to kill someone.

Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple:

Probability of result * Seriousness/Impact of result= Risk

Even if the probability of the Christian God existing is .00000000000001%. The impact of having him pissed at you when you die is infinity. .00000000000001% * infinity = infinity, thus, you don't want to risk the impact, just like you aren't going to do something that could kill someone (although that impact isn't infinity, it is pretty close since murder is really, really bad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

no that's just utter stupidity.

faith is belief in things not seen, and no proof of their existence. not that stupid analogy aforementioned.

Actualy, there is no proof that you couldnÔÇÖt fall off of a 100 story building and survive, or perhaps even end up with little or no damage. Such things are very rare (unless you have a parachute, but thatÔÇÖs something different entirely) but they do happen. If I recall correctly the current record for the longest fall survived is something like six thousand feet, and while the record for the longest fall taken with relatively little damage is lower then that, itÔÇÖs still higher a 100 story building.

When you call someone stupid, make sure youÔÇÖre not the one whoÔÇÖs wrong, it sounds really bad.

quote:

Hmm, but i'd have to disagree with you there. A person with a totally closed mind wouldn't accept the risk analysis, but anyone that has an open mind at all or any sort of logic would give it some weight since it's impossible to disprove the existance of God. The fact that the universe exists and everything has a cause means that you have to have faith in one of two possibilities:

1. God created it (and God always was).

2. The universe always was (was=existed).

Under your logic, a skeptic would dismiss both, since you can't prove either. Of course the concept of God is slightly less likely since it's an additional step back, but both are highly improbable.

Actually, darling, a skeptic would say I havenÔÇÖt a bloody clue and leave it at that. Theorizing on how the universe came into being can be fun, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that I would put a lot of faith in those theories. The universe does exist, this is obvious, and whether it always existed is fairly irrelevant, but god is not proven to exist. ItÔÇÖs like in quantum physics where you consider a particleÔÇÖs location to be a probability curve until its location is measured. The universe exists as it does today, no probability involved, but god may or may not exist, and thus exists only as a very minute probability.

quote:

Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple:

Probability of result * Seriousness/Impact of result= Risk

Interesting analogy, except that you have all the probabilities wrong and you fail to note the advantages of not believing in god. A better example would go that a mosquito lands on your hand, and you must decide either to kill it so that it doesnÔÇÖt drink you blood or spare it on the off chance that it has randomly mutated into a sentient being as intelligent as humans. Now, I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I wouldnÔÇÖt bother even considering that it may have evolved sentience, it is simply to infinitesimally improbable, and so I would swat the damn thing.

quote:

Even if the probability of the Christian God existing is .00000000000001%. The impact of having him pissed at you when you die is infinity. .00000000000001% * infinity = infinity, thus, you don't want to risk the impact, just like you aren't going to do something that could kill someone (although that impact isn't infinity, it is pretty close since murder is really, really bad).

First off, nothing is close to infinity. If you hade a googol printing stations each printing out a googol digits a second (that a googolplex digits a second) for the next googol years you would not approach infinity by even the smallest margin, you would in fact be infinitely far away from infinity having made exactly no progress.

Now, you might have the chance of god existing based on current evidence however. So take that preposterously large number you just finished writing down (you did write it down didnÔÇÖt you?) and you compare it to the disadvantage of going to hell (which is not necessarily all that bad, depending on your view of hell), keeping in mind that (if I recall correctly, and IÔÇÖm no expert on the Christian mythology) you donÔÇÖt actually suffer in hell for eternity, just until judgment day, and so there is no conceivable way you could calculate the disadvantage of going to hell as being infinity.

However, I simply donÔÇÖt worry about it at all. Sure, I COULD go to hell, but the probability against it is just not worth worrying about, after all, it is just as likely that god exists entirely different from the Christian mythos and I would go to hell (or some equivalent) if I did worship him in the Christian manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That explanation actually helped. I am no longer confused....

quote:

Originally posted by Dredd:

Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple:


I understand but wouldn't (or shouldn't) faith be along the lines of somehow knowing in your heart that someone else is in the room, even though there's no evidence? I understand the risk analysis idea clearly now. It makes sense. But, again, should faith be based on statistically favourable outcomes based on some moral code or should it be based on a truth one feels, a truth one believes.

For example, I would say I believe God exists/there is someone in the room because I just know someone is in the room/God exists. No evidence. No proof. And the reason I wouldn't shoot up the room is not because there's a chance I'd hit someone... it's because I KNOW I would.

Ditto for the mosquito: you wouldn't kill it thinking chances are, it's not sentient. You'd kill it KNOWING it's not sentient, without proof or evidence.

[ 09-17-2002, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

When you call someone stupid, make sure youÔÇÖre not the one whoÔÇÖs wrong, it sounds really bad.

who did I call stupid....Miss. Dragon Lady?

I didn't call anyone any names. For the record.

[ 09-17-2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Cruis.In ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

quote:

Hmm, but i'd have to disagree with you there. A person with a totally closed mind wouldn't accept the risk analysis, but anyone that has an open mind at all or any sort of logic would give it some weight since it's impossible to disprove the existance of God. The fact that the universe exists and everything has a cause means that you have to have faith in one of two possibilities:

1. God created it (and God always was).

2. The universe always was (was=existed).

Under your logic, a skeptic would dismiss both, since you can't prove either. Of course the concept of God is slightly less likely since it's an additional step back, but both are highly improbable.

Actually, darling, a skeptic would say I havenÔÇÖt a bloody clue and leave it at that. Theorizing on how the universe came into being can be fun, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that I would put a lot of faith in those theories. The universe does exist, this is obvious, and whether it always existed is fairly irrelevant, but god is not proven to exist. ItÔÇÖs like in quantum physics where you consider a particleÔÇÖs location to be a probability curve until its location is measured. The universe exists as it does today, no probability involved, but god may or may not exist, and thus exists only as a very minute probability.


Yes, the universe exists, but the reality behind the universe existing is what you have to have faith in. I dont think there's a third option from waht I listed. Either the universe always has been and always will be, or God always has been and always will be. Yes, I admit that, logically, it's slightly less probable that there is a God since it's one more step. Regardless, the fact that the LOGICAL/RATIONAL likelihood of each is so small, there's no reason why you would immediately dismiss the existance of the universe as a clue (not proof) for God, since the idea that everything has to be caused by something would lead one to believe that SOMETHING caused the Big Bang/The Universe.

quote:

quote:

Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple:

Probability of result * Seriousness/Impact of result= Risk

Interesting analogy, except that you have all the probabilities wrong and you fail to note the advantages of not believing in god. A better example would go that a mosquito lands on your hand, and you must decide either to kill it so that it doesnÔÇÖt drink you blood or spare it on the off chance that it has randomly mutated into a sentient being as intelligent as humans. Now, I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I wouldnÔÇÖt bother even considering that it may have evolved sentience, it is simply to infinitesimally improbable, and so I would swat the damn thing.


What?! What advantages of not believing in a God? You get to do whatever you want without any punishment beyond those that humans set up?!? That just pushes the idea that might makes right and morality (right/wrong) is defined by those in power.

Also, if a mosquito lands on your hand, there's an extremely high chance that it's going to suck your blood, and it's empirically proven. In order to avoid harm, you kill the mosquito. That doesn't really relate to the idea of God and faith and risk. My analogy still applies the best since it applies directly to the concept. No one should/is ever going to carry out an action that could possibly cause them intense pain and suffering for the rest of their lives unless the alternative choices are worse. Shooting into a dark room where people could be is an example of that. The belief in the existance of God is just an amplified version of that, since the result of refusing God would be external pain and suffering for the rest of time due to a separation from God.

quote:

First off, nothing is close to infinity. If you hade a googol printing stations each printing out a googol digits a second (that a googolplex digits a second) for the next googol years you would not approach infinity by even the smallest margin, you would in fact be infinitely far away from infinity having made exactly no progress.

Yes, but time is infinite, and the Christian belief system that I believe in is that when you die you are either separated from God forever (the rest of time, which is infinite), or you aren't, and that separation or companionship with God is either infinitely bad (the worst thing possible to the greatest degree possible), or infinitely good.

quote:

and you compare it to the disadvantage of going to hell (which is not necessarily all that bad, depending on your view of hell), keeping in mind that (if I recall correctly, and IÔÇÖm no expert on the Christian mythology) you donÔÇÖt actually suffer in hell for eternity, just until judgment day, and so there is no conceivable way you could calculate the disadvantage of going to hell as being infinity.

I've gone through many different stages of religious belief for awhile, and I can't think of any version of hell that isn't "all that bad", unless you buy into the extremely illogical version of all the sinners partying all night long and the "good" people floating in clouds.

Hmm, i'm not entirely sure about how long you suffer in hell, but i'm pretty sure the passage says that the sinners will be sent to His left and the others to His right and the ones on His left will be separated from the Father forever. Regardless, even if it isn't the infinity of time, the infinity of the pain and suffering would probably be enough too to make up for the time (since if you believe in God, there's no reason He can't do it)

quote:

I COULD go to hell, but the probability against it is just not worth worrying about, after all, it is just as likely that god exists entirely different from the Christian mythos and I would go to hell (or some equivalent) if I did worship him in the Christian manner.

So your assuming indifference is safer than taking a stance? If you believe in the theory that the opposite of love is apathy/indifference, and the opposite of hate is apathy/indifference, then your probably a lot more likely to piss off the big guy upstairs by doing nothing. I don't see anything wrong with not worrying about which Religion/God is right, but I do strongly believe that everyone should follow, for the most part, the Christian concept of morality and good/evil.

quote:

I understand but wouldn't (or shouldn't) faith be along the lines of somehow knowing in your heart that someone else is in the room, even though there's no evidence? I understand the risk analysis idea clearly now. It makes sense. But, again, should faith be based on statistically favourable outcomes based on some moral code or should it be based on a truth one feels, a truth one believes.


Faith is based on the truth one feels and believes.

My example isn't being used to PROVE faith. There's no way to use reason to make someone believe. It is intended to show a reason why people shouldn't ASSUME God doesn't exist and should at least choose faith when choosing between faith and skepticism or dismissal.

My point is that you can never have faith that there is someone in the room when your mind is already made up that there is no one else in the room and that your going to open fire. I have faith, I just also reconcile any doubts that I should do "whatever I want and forget God and morality" with the idea that if I do that, there's the chance i'm going to REALLY, REALLY, REALLY regret it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I hate to argue with Dredd, because I agree with a alot of what he says.

BUT, God=morality NOgod=Nomorality has never computed with me.

I know MANY athiests that would make many christians envious. They do not need the threat of eternal damnation to be moral people.

They do not need a god or a religious belief to tell them what is wrong and what is right.

That's the only point I wanted to make about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Ditto for the mosquito: you wouldn't kill it thinking chances are, it's not sentient. You'd kill it KNOWING it's not sentient, without proof or evidence.

Nice try, but my experience with mosquitoes, and I have no doubt that entomologists around the globe would agree with me on this, is that they are not sentient. I have never heard of a sentient bug, or any non-human for that matter, and I feel its reasonable to believe (based on my knowledge of such things) that should solid evidence of a sentient bug be discovered (and assuming it is supported by the scientific community, which would be understandably skeptical of such a thing) that I would have heard of it.

Now, we can argue the point that mosquitoes may be sentient and that we simply canÔÇÖt tell, but that seams a waist of time. All evidence suggests that mosquitoes are not sentient and that sentience takes billions of years to develop. Please explain why my faith in the non-sentience of mosquitoes is blind and ÔÇ£without proof or evidence.ÔÇØ

quote:

who did I call stupid....Miss. Dragon Lady?

I didn't call anyone any names. For the record.

My apologies, you referred to his idea as ÔÇ£utter stupidityÔÇØ when in fact it was not utter stupidity. I admit that there is a difference between calling someone stupid and calling there idea stupid, but now weÔÇÖre quibbling over semantics and that I simply refuse to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I'm sorry, I hate to argue with Dredd, because I agree with a alot of what he says.

BUT, God=morality NOgod=Nomorality has never computed with me.

I know MANY athiests that would make many christians envious. They do not need the threat of eternal damnation to be moral people.

They do not need a god or a religious belief to tell them what is wrong and what is right.

That's the only point I wanted to make about that.

Yeah, I *think* I agree with you, and I think my religious ranting just came across a little wrong.

I know that there are plenty of atheists who are moral people and I probably know even more Christians (Catholics specifically since that's my environment) who are REALLY immoral.

I think I may have mentioned it very breifly in my last post, but I believe people should follow a common morality that is based in Christian values. I don't believe that everyone needs to have my beliefs, and I don't think that morally good people who don't believe in God are going to hell, I just think that if you carry the concept of morality w/o God to a logical conclusion, that having an atheist viewpoint makes immoral actions a *LOT* easier.

I'm not saying that it makes atheists immoral, just that there's a lot less reason TO be moral if you aren't worried about a God or afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...