Can one believe something they don't logically think is true?

[mabts]

Can someone actually *believe* something they don't logically think is true or don't have any evidence for?

I keep reading posts like "I believe in God, Christianity, Cat Stevens etc. etc. because I have nothing to lose, if it's true I'll be rewarded, and/or because it makes me feel good."

I guess I just can't relate at all. While I recognize that there may be advantages (mental, physical, and/or eternal) to having faith, I don't have the ability to make myself genuinely believe because of that. If I did choose to believe on such a basis, I would always know deep down that my motives were false or ingenuine and that I don't actually hold it to be true.

[TheLastMohican]

I think those who say "I believe in God because I have nothing to lose" do not really believe. You can't truly believe in something unless you actually think it is correct. Otherwise you are just saying you believe in it.

[ElstonGunn]

I never understood the "It works for me" rationalization. It doesn't make sense to believe in something solely because you want to believe in it. To me, that makes as much sense as saying, "I believe 2 + 2 = firetruck, because I prefer the equation to look that way."

[Homini Lupus]

The "bet about god" argument can be a good starting point for your search, as it can be understanding that men need to search for god. Believing or not is a choiche. I don't think is rational or unrational, it's arational because even if it is a logical jump there are many things we need to believe without experimenting directly.

By example I think many cold war presidents have never been in Moscow; they've seen many proofs about its existance but they could have been totally fooled; nevertheless, acting as if Moscow didn't exist wouldn't have been very rational.

Indeed, evidence about the existance of god can't be overwhelming otherwise you wouldn't have the "deus absconditus" (hidden god) idea and then no faith. Thus faith is a choice, with rational aspects but not totally rational.

I chose not to reject the teachings I received mostly because
A)You can't proof the existance or non existance of God
B)I found that people with strong faith is generally more interesting than people strongly atheist. This is because asserting something is much more difficult than denying.
C)People arond me never oppressed me with religious themes, so I could really choose what to believe and why.
D)The search of God is somewhat universal. I found no good reason not to join in: denying God is easy, you just have to say that you don't believe what you cannot proof. I found that reasoning that way you can deny even the existance of the computer you are using right now or of your own body.

[thod]

I believe they can.

We see this is atheists visiting graves of dead relatives and talking to them. Abandoned lovers who wait in the hope of their lovers return against reason. The mother that continues to believe her convict son is realy a good boy at heart etc.

[DeadSpace]

People believe in things all the time that make no logical sense...egads...look at pop culture. Or how many buy products believing it will make them irresistable to the opposite sex. Most everyone wants to hedge their bets...so to speak. Paying lip service to a faith in hopes of reward is one of the more detestable ones...but nothing new. Basic survival of self over anything.

[Moriarty]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a seriously flawed argument for many very good reasons. Recommended reading.

[mabts]

I chose not to reject the teachings I received mostly because
A)You can't proof the existance or non existance of God
B)I found that people with strong faith is generally more interesting than people strongly atheist. This is because asserting something is much more difficult than denying.
C)People arond me never oppressed me with religious themes, so I could really choose what to believe and why.
D)The search of God is somewhat universal. I found no good reason not to join in: denying God is easy, you just have to say that you don't believe what you cannot proof. I found that reasoning that way you can deny even the existance of the computer you are using right now or of your own body.

So basically you're argument is:
1. God's existence can't be proved or disproved
2. You personally like theists more than atheists (because asserting God's existence is more difficult than denying it)
3. Your religious choices have not been falsely biased or influenced
4. We all search for God. Again, you claim it's easier to deny than to believe, so you believe.

I don't get how this is even remotely an argument in favor of believing in God. Why do you affirm that it is easier to deny God than believe in God? If anything, it seems much more difficult to deny God's existence. Believing in God generally brings a sense of comfort and well-being for people. Furthermore, the vast majority of people, at least in America, believe in God and are hostile with people who don't.

Just because we all, or most of us, search for God doesn't make God's existence any more or less likely. And even if it is easier to deny God's existence than to believe in God, as you claim, this still doesn't make God's existence any more likely or something that should be believed in.

[sriv]

I suggest that believing in God is a weak person's decision. Once they believe, they gain motivation for life, gain morals, and follow rules because some prophet told them that God told him. Check your sources please? One can logically and practically derive that motivation for life, morals, and rules are essential to the continued healthy existence of humans.

[vkut79]

For most believers, a very large component of religious belief is not logical. Therefore, it is possible to believe in religion without applying rigorous logic to ascertain the logical validity of the belief. To do this would be extremely difficult if not impossible anyway. One may think that one's religious beliefs are true based on faith. There are major reasons why someone would be inclined to do this that outweigh the need for logical certainty.

Religion is not a rare example of this non-logic based sort of belief - far from it. I think we have many beliefs that are not based on strict logic. Religion just happens to be one that is more visible and influential.

[blueback]

Belief requires faith.

You can't believe in God without faith because there is no evidence that can possibly prove God exists. That is why there are so many people who try to pretend their faith in God is rational. They understand that logic and rationality work better than faith, but they can't get to God through logic and rationality, so they confuse the issue and hope no one calls them on it.

[vkut79]

I suggest that believing in God is a weak person's decision. Once they believe, they gain motivation for life, gain morals, and follow rules because some prophet told them that God told him. Check your sources please? One can logically and practically derive that motivation for life, morals, and rules are essential to the continued healthy existence of humans.

It's not literally so that a prophet told a people about all these morals and rules and the people started blindly following these conventions immediately afterwards as a result. I see organized religion as a more of a synthesis of beliefs (morals, social rules, etc.) over a long period of time in a group of people's history that were later attributed to a single person, but in actuality religion and its beliefs consist of cultural and social practices that were not simply formed in an instant. So religious beliefs are, in a sense, practically derived.

To address your last sentence, the reason why religious belief is so popular is because it addresses people's emotional and spiritual needs, and pure logic obviously does not. Other types of people need this emotional and spiritual direction in order to feel content and satisfied with their lives. Without religion, many of these people might become very unhappy when they realize that life has no concrete meaning. They need the illusion of a higher power and purpose and the promise of an afterlife in order to stay psychologically healthy. For them, truth can be found just as easily in religious faith as it can be for a lot of us logical-rational types in strict empirical evidence. We have different psychological needs, essentially. It would be narrow-minded to call those people weak.





vkut79 added to this post, 13 minutes and 54 seconds later...

That is why there are so many people who try to pretend their faith in God is rational. They understand that logic and rationality work better than faith, but they can't get to God through logic and rationality, so they confuse the issue and hope no one calls them on it.

It seems to me that logic and rationality do work better in the world of our physical, concrete experience, where objective analysis is possible. But I think faith works better for a lot of people when it comes to personal, emotional experience. In that sphere, logic and reason provide very little meaning for people who are naturally inclined to follow their emotions in viewing the world and their place in it. Religious faith works better for them in that regard because it provides them with inspiration, meaning, and appeals to their emotions. If they were somehow forced to rely logic and reason, their emotional, "spiritual" needs would go neglected and they would probably fall into depression. These people can still use logic and reason when dealing with physical, concrete experience, but in their subjective view of reality they rely largely on faith. It seems people believe the beliefs that will make them happier, not necessarily what can be best supported by empirical evidence.

[TheLastMohican]

Belief requires faith.

You can't believe in God without faith because there is no evidence that can possibly prove God exists. That is why there are so many people who try to pretend their faith in God is rational. They understand that logic and rationality work better than faith, but they can't get to God through logic and rationality, so they confuse the issue and hope no one calls them on it.

So much for that. Check out the first part of my logical reasoning path to my belief in God (it got hung up a bit with people arguing over OBE's, but I am going to pick up where I left off and finish it). It's on the "Religion and INTJ's..." forum.

[futureperfect5]

People seem to believe almost anything ...
they do not know, it is just something that they have been told or observed (perhaps superficially) and come to a conclusion, whatever ...
I think that unsubstantiated knowledge is going to be more and more difficult to encourage in people because so much information is generally available now ...

In times past, one of the keys to belief and knowledge was that they could be closely controlled -- education was heavily orchestrated. Now, if a parent, teacher, minister says something ... many people have (at least in developed, industrialized countries) the resources to get raw data to analyze for themselves, to make their own conclusions -- (the potential for) INDEPENDENT THINKING makes us the most powerful society that has ever lived. IF we chose to take the responsibility and do it.


There are still people (some have no choice), who prefer to leave the thinking to others --- perhaps out of tradition, or socialization, others just by shear ... laziness: not wanting to commit to the effort.

[mschristinetan]

Believing in something, means that u urself must be convinced to a certain extent to accept the truth or existence of it. Being convinced need not require u to be thinking logically. U can be convinced simply because u choose to believe. It's a choice. But being logical will require you to analyse and dissect. In doing so, you will believe in that something, based on factual representation.

[mabts]

I guess my original post didn't express very well what I mean.

I think what I was getting at is the fact that I don't have the ability to believe something without reason or logic behind it. This isn't to say I need to have perfectly logical arguments for everything I believe because I don't. But when there isn't a definitive answer one way or another, I believe that which is logically and/or statistically most likely to be true. If there is no way to know either way, I refuse to hold a belief on the matter. It seems to me that this is one of the distinct characteristics of most INTJs. And, since INTJs often have this characteristic, I am surprised at the level of religious belief within INTJs on this board.

[Antares]

I guess my original post didn't express very well what I mean.

I think what I was getting at is the fact that I don't have the ability to believe something without reason or logic behind it. This isn't to say I need to have perfectly logical arguments for everything I believe because I don't. But when there isn't a definitive answer one way or another, I believe that which is logically and/or statistically most likely to be true. If there is no way to know either way, I refuse to hold a belief on the matter. It seems to me that this is one of the distinct characteristics of most INTJs. And, since INTJs often have this characteristic, I am surprised at the level of religious belief within INTJs on this board.

This is what I think as well. I've heard this so many times: "Well, it's called faith." I didn't bother to further the topic; as it would bring about nothing worthwhile. In my reasoning, the universe doesn't need a God to give it a kick start; it can start on its own and since just about everything else in the world is natural, I'm going to give nature the first preference (unless you count first-hand testimonials).

So much for that. Check out the first part of my logical reasoning path to my belief in God (it got hung up a bit with people arguing over OBE's, but I am going to pick up where I left off and finish it). It's on the "Religion and INTJ's..." forum.

Your logic would work on the grounds that certain premises are true (again, thanks for your time and patience in putting up with me and my questions ;)), but for some of us, testimonials are not good enough.

[TheLastMohican]

Your logic would work on the grounds that certain premises are true (again, thanks for your time and patience in putting up with me and my questions ;)), but for some of us, testimonials are not good enough.

My pleasure. :)
At least you read my arguments thoroughly.

[HappyMondays]

Can someone actually *believe* something they don't logically think is true or don't have any evidence for?

I keep reading posts like "I believe in God, Christianity, Cat Stevens etc. etc. because I have nothing to lose, if it's true I'll be rewarded, and/or because it makes me feel good."

I guess I just can't relate at all. While I recognize that there may be advantages (mental, physical, and/or eternal) to having faith, I don't have the ability to make myself genuinely believe because of that. If I did choose to believe on such a basis, I would always know deep down that my motives were false or ingenuine and that I don't actually hold it to be true.

Well, years ago, I took another look at my faith. I was raised Catholic and, because of a number of experiences, declared myself atheist. For years, I lived as an atheist and never seemed concerned. As my children grew, though, I thought I owed it to them to re-examine the question.

What I found was that my sense of pride was over-developed and was getting me into trouble, even beyond spiritual trouble. When I tempered my pride, I found that a great deal of my hardened conclusions needed to be revised. One of the conclusions was G-d and His role in my life.

I have since accepted on faith that G-d exists and that He is as He revealed in the Bible.

To me, faith and reason are two railroad tracks, moving parallel toward the same goal, but can never cross (because their job is distinct).

How can I "check out" of reason when it comes to faith? Well, because I have a good grasp of what I know and what I don't know. What I don't know is a heck of a lot more and it's pretty presumptuous to think I can figure it all out. Human logic already create logical paradoxes and yet we don't think that it is more a limitation of our mental capability, but rather an example of our own cleverness.

I've come to think that, as smart as we are, we also thought we were pretty darn smart 1,000 years ago and yet - in comparison - we looked pretty backward. Our own sense of reason develops and shows that what was reasonable and "scientific" years ago isn't as rock solid as we believe.

So, I accept with faith the idea of an all-powerful and all-knowing G-d. Or, at a minimum, G-d has power and knowlege well beyond mine. With that in mind, if I hold that His power is so great as to create the universe, who is to say the wonders in the Bible really didn't happen? Our reason and logic? The same reason and logic that's failed us in retrospect?

If it does not benefit me to contradict the written word and if I believe in the incredible power of G-d, I might as well accept some of the more unexplainable provisions on the Bible.

[Vicimdhar]

Can someone actually *believe* something they don't logically think is true or don't have any evidence for?

Absolutely. Example: MBTI. Scientifically, MBTI is rather worthless. The tests are only 70% accurate, so types can not adequately be determined. Verification and other methods aren't reliable either. At my work, at least 50% of colleagues are obviously mistyped and some still identify with their wrong types. Logically, I also don't see any reason for why these dichotomies/cognitive functions are used. Scientifically, things don't exist when they can not be measured. That's why most scientists currently use the Big Five-model, which has a solid empirical basis, for personality typing.

Still, even without reliable empirical or logical support, I use it for myself and place an amount of belief/trust in it. Why? Probably because it appears to increase my understanding of the world. I can understand certain types of behaviour and thoughts better than I could without the theory.

Religion (not Christianity BTW) for me isn't much different.

Interestingly, Lenore Thomson considers using theories that work without actually 'believing' in them as a basic attitude of INTJ's.

[Santana28]

well, i dont know about anyone else - but the other day my husband got fed up with me (we're going through a divorce) and he yelled at me in all seriousness - "You're just so damned...RATIONAL!"

like thats a BAD thing?

to him, he knows things are "true" because he "feels" they are true. which, in a custody battle, is conflicting pretty harshly with reality. its a shame.

[TheLastMohican]

Absolutely. Example: MBTI. Scientifically, MBTI is rather worthless. The tests are only 70% accurate, so types can not adequately be determined. Verification and other methods aren't reliable either. At my work, at least 50% of colleagues are obviously mistyped and some still identify with their wrong types. Logically, I also don't see any reason for why these dichotomies/cognitive functions are used. Scientifically, things don't exist when they can not be measured. That's why most scientists currently use the Big Five-model, which has a solid empirical basis, for personality typing.

Still, even without reliable empirical or logical support, I use it for myself and place an amount of belief/trust in it. Why? Probably because it appears to increase my understanding of the world. I can understand certain types of behaviour and thoughts better than I could without the theory.

Religion (not Christianity BTW) for me isn't much different.

Interestingly, Lenore Thomson considers using theories that work without actually 'believing' in them as a basic attitude of INTJ's.

The way I see it, MBTI should not be taken as absolute measure of a person, but rather a general collection of traits that vary greatly in intensity and relative balance. I do not see it as "worthless." The test tend not to be very accurate, but it is a very imprecise science. I think that 70% is not bad considering the factors of the score. The person is trying to honestly answer questions about himself, which can get difficult; Often other people can determine the answers better than the subject himself.

The MBTI system could be compared to the Ptolemaic Model of the solar system. Few people really think it is the exact truth, but it is very useful for measurement and prediction. I doubt that people really are limited to the 8 letters to describe their personalities, but they work for forming general categories and summarizing the basic thought processes by which the people make their decisons.

That said, I find that the MBTI type descriptions are very accurate for the general concepts. It is surprising how much it can tell you about how you think.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 0 seconds later...

well, i dont know about anyone else - but the other day my husband got fed up with me (we're going through a divorce) and he yelled at me in all seriousness - "You're just so damned...RATIONAL!"

like thats a BAD thing?

to him, he knows things are "true" because he "feels" they are true. which, in a custody battle, is conflicting pretty harshly with reality. its a shame.

Who actually says that? What kind of feeler...

[mabts]

Well, years ago, I took another look at my faith. I was raised Catholic and, because of a number of experiences, declared myself atheist. For years, I lived as an atheist and never seemed concerned. As my children grew, though, I thought I owed it to them to re-examine the question.

What I found was that my sense of pride was over-developed and was getting me into trouble, even beyond spiritual trouble. When I tempered my pride, I found that a great deal of my hardened conclusions needed to be revised. One of the conclusions was G-d and His role in my life.

I have since accepted on faith that G-d exists and that He is as He revealed in the Bible.

To me, faith and reason are two railroad tracks, moving parallel toward the same goal, but can never cross (because their job is distinct).

How can I "check out" of reason when it comes to faith? Well, because I have a good grasp of what I know and what I don't know. What I don't know is a heck of a lot more and it's pretty presumptuous to think I can figure it all out. Human logic already create logical paradoxes and yet we don't think that it is more a limitation of our mental capability, but rather an example of our own cleverness.

I've come to think that, as smart as we are, we also thought we were pretty darn smart 1,000 years ago and yet - in comparison - we looked pretty backward. Our own sense of reason develops and shows that what was reasonable and "scientific" years ago isn't as rock solid as we believe.

So, I accept with faith the idea of an all-powerful and all-knowing G-d. Or, at a minimum, G-d has power and knowlege well beyond mine. With that in mind, if I hold that His power is so great as to create the universe, who is to say the wonders in the Bible really didn't happen? Our reason and logic? The same reason and logic that's failed us in retrospect?

If it does not benefit me to contradict the written word and if I believe in the incredible power of G-d, I might as well accept some of the more unexplainable provisions on the Bible.

So you have four basic rationales for having faith:

(1)
1. You used to be prideful
2. This was a problem
3. You tempered your pride and changed some conclusions
4. One conclusion was to believe and have faith in God

(2)
1. Faith and reason are separate but ultimately lead to the same thing
2. Human logic changes, can be wrong, and can be paradoxical
3. Therefore, you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created everything

(3)
1. Who's to say the Bible is wrong?
2. Reason has been wrong before
3. Therefore, you believe

(4)
1. There is no benefit in rejecting the Word of the Bible
2. Therefore, you accept it

I don't understand the reasoning/basis for any of these conclusions. The conclusion in (1) just doesn't follow from the premises.

In (2), while it may be true logic can be wrong or paradoxical, I don't see why this would give one a positive (positive in the philosophical sense) reason for having faith or believing in God. Again, how does this follow?

In (3), while no one can say the Bible is definitively wrong, no one can say the Koran, Torah, Scientology, etc. is definitively wrong or right either. What makes you choose one over the other? And, if it is just completely random because none can be completely disproved, what kind of a faith is this?

(4) contains similar issues that my first post was meant to address. Just because something is beneficial to believe doesn't mean it should be adopted. All sorts of false beliefs may be beneficial to adopt, this alone doesn't mean they should be adopted.

[Vicimdhar]

The way I see it, MBTI should not be taken as absolute measure of a person, but rather a general collection of traits that vary greatly in intensity and relative balance. I do not see it as "worthless." The test tend not to be very accurate, but it is a very imprecise science. I think that 70% is not bad considering the factors of the score. The person is trying to honestly answer questions about himself, which can get difficult; Often other people can determine the answers better than the subject himself.

The MBTI system could be compared to the Ptolemaic Model of the solar system. Few people really think it is the exact truth, but it is very useful for measurement and prediction. I doubt that people really are limited to the 8 letters to describe their personalities, but they work for forming general categories and summarizing the basic thought processes by which the people make their decisons.

That said, I find that the MBTI type descriptions are very accurate for the general concepts. It is surprising how much it can tell you about how you think.
I agree mostly, except for the point that it's useful for measurement and prediction. Interestingly, only your last paragraph mentions a reason why you actually 'belief' MBTI. But MBTI itself wasn't actually the point.

I think that belief in a theory implies that you consider that theory to be an accurate description of reality (is this different from truth?). A measure of that could be how strongly you attempt to let reality confirm with the theory. For example: from an MBTI-viewpoint, a person with INTx-preferences does not exist. A non/weak-belief in MBTI would mean that you'd consider the person to be right (no real preference for Ti-Ne, Ni-Te, functions are just approximations and don't really exist anyway, etc.). A strong belief in the theory would mean that you'd consider the person to be underdeveloped/lacking self-knowledge, because there really are separate cognitive functions on which all healthy people should have preferences.

I'm not sure if from this viewpoint you'd consider yourself to have 'non/weak' or 'strong' belief. I currently tend more towards the 'strong belief', like many others on this forum. When a person says he doesn't really fit a type, I tend to think that he actually should fit a certain type anyway.

So, for me, that means that I believe something without real evidence or logical reasoning. The only argument I really have is that it 'works' for me (similar to yours).

[TheLastMohican]

I agree mostly, except for the point that it's useful for measurement and prediction. Interestingly, only your last paragraph mentions a reason why you actually 'belief' MBTI. But MBTI itself wasn't actually the point.

I think that belief in a theory implies that you consider that theory to be an accurate description of reality (is this different from truth?). A measure of that could be how strongly you attempt to let reality confirm with the theory. For example: from an MBTI-viewpoint, a person with INTx-preferences does not exist. A non/weak-belief in MBTI would mean that you'd consider the person to be right (no real preference for Ti-Ne, Ni-Te, functions are just approximations and don't really exist anyway, etc.). A strong belief in the theory would mean that you'd consider the person to be underdeveloped/lacking self-knowledge, because there really are separate cognitive functions on which all healthy people should have preferences.

I'm not sure if from this viewpoint you'd consider yourself to have 'non/weak' or 'strong' belief. I currently tend more towards the 'strong belief', like many others on this forum. When a person says he doesn't really fit a type, I tend to think that he actually should fit a certain type anyway.

So, for me, that means that I believe something without real evidence or logical reasoning. The only argument I really have is that it 'works' for me (similar to yours).

I think the human personality is far too complex to fit into a theory like MBTI. The reason I employ MBTI frequently for human relations is that it pins down the basic functions, and makes it much easier to figure out the intricacies. In other words, the general stereotype can be used to determine the nature of the exceptions to the stereotype.

The only evidence I have for MBTI's validity is that I have not encountered a person who did not fit in a type. Once I successfully type someone, the behaviors fit very well with th type description. It also makes intuitive sense when I think about what different methods of thinking a person could have. The 8 letters represent pretty much all of the processing that can go on in normal function.

But I think that consistency is enough to accept the theory on, not necessarily as reality, but as a reliable predictor of what results from reality.

[mabts]

Differences between Belief, True Belief, and Justified True Belief:

Belief vs. Justified True Belief: Belief can be held with or without justification

True Belief vs. Justified True Belief: I may hold a true belief, but it may not be justified. For instance, I may believe that exactly 70,037 red-haired people live in Wyoming with no justification at all for this, but this belief may in fact be a true belief.

Justified True Belief: Believed, it is true, and there is reason/logic to justify the belief.

[HappyMondays]

So you have four basic rationales for having faith:

(1)
1. You used to be prideful
2. This was a problem
3. You tempered your pride and changed some conclusions
4. One conclusion was to believe and have faith in God

(2)
1. Faith and reason are separate but ultimately lead to the same thing
2. Human logic changes, can be wrong, and can be paradoxical
3. Therefore, you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created everything

(3)
1. Who's to say the Bible is wrong?
2. Reason has been wrong before
3. Therefore, you believe

(4)
1. There is no benefit in rejecting the Word of the Bible
2. Therefore, you accept it

I don't understand the reasoning/basis for any of these conclusions. The conclusion in (1) just doesn't follow from the premises.

In (2), while it may be true logic can be wrong or paradoxical, I don't see why this would give one a positive (positive in the philosophical sense) reason for having faith or believing in God. Again, how does this follow?

In (3), while no one can say the Bible is definitively wrong, no one can say the Koran, Torah, Scientology, etc. is definitively wrong or right either. What makes you choose one over the other? And, if it is just completely random because none can be completely disproved, what kind of a faith is this?

(4) contains similar issues that my first post was meant to address. Just because something is beneficial to believe doesn't mean it should be adopted. All sorts of false beliefs may be beneficial to adopt, this alone doesn't mean they should be adopted.

I can see your confusion. If I were to summarize things in that way, it would be as confusing to me.

Put the scientific method in your mind as a starting point.

First, I am prideful and it can be a problem. Acknowleging it was a step to understanding that I may be allowing personal bias color my conclusion. Therefore, I sought to re-examine from the beginning with the understanding that I must be mindful of possible bias due to a belief in my own intellectual indulgence. To put it another way, "My beliefs may change, but the fact I am always right never does."

When I was reasonably certain I controlled for the bias of pride, I continued with the re-examination.

Exploring the limitations fo human reasoning is a step to understanding that there may be things that exist beyond reasoning and experience. We experience this world through five senses. However, if we were all blind, we would never know about the concept of color. The physical world and our mental limitations can lead us to hasty conclusions that, centuries later, seem rather silly.

Therefore, controlling for the limitations of reason, I continued to see if there might be a way to re-examine my beliefs using a different yet equally valid means. Faith is that means. If you do not believe faith is a valid means to move through life, you must wince whenever you sit in a chair because you can never know with complete certainty that the chair will hold your weight. You balance your experience and judgement with an element of faith in the outcome.

The idea of accepting the Bible rests on accepting the idea of an all-powerful (or far more powerful than we can really imagine) being. If the idea of such a being is accepted, there is no reason to doubt such a being can make wonders that baffle our reason.

In your third point, you raise the question, "What makes X more worthy?" Well, as I've stated before in another post, I do not believe I have a special line on what is expected by G-d or, for that matter, whether someone can live as non-Christian and still be saved. Theoretically, in my view, anyone around me could be saved. It's not a matter of which direction you bow or which book you read. It is G-d's salvation to give, not mine to manipulate G-d into giving me.

Now, why Christianity? Christianity rests on the Jewish texts and prophecies. The prophecies of the Jewish Messiah were fulfilled in depth by Christ. The Jewish prophecies and prophets hold weight (and are therefore a source of credibility) because their prophecies came to be. Had they not come to be (and I'm talking in addition to the prophecies regarding the Messiah), they would not have as much credibility. Further, the prophets and apostles performed miracles. Now, whether you accept the miracles occurred is a matter or personal belief (as I said, if you accept an all-powerful being, then His works are no longer limited by what "makes sense" to our notably limited capacity to reason).

Contrast that with Islam. Muhammad performed no such miracles. He is the only prophet I am aware of that claimed to speak for the Judeo-Christian G-d who could not perform miracles in His name. Further, he had different views about how the Jewish folks should be treated - the same Jews who have been the chosen people for centries and lead through trails and bondage and everything in between. Finally, the text of the Koran contradicts itself as it progresses. While the Bible shows apparent contradictions, there's something to be said for differing authors and translations. With the Koran, there is no allowable translation from Arabic and the author, by and large, was the same man.

Now, all of this weighing and measuring of religion X and Y is a mental exercise. To me, there's not a lot of spiritual merit to looking to posture one religion above another because I only have a glimpse of His plan. Could He have revealed different messages to different cultures? Certainly possible. If we see a pattern of similar messages, perhaps it's His way of getting it through our skulls in as many ways as possible. Buddhism has a message of peaceful coexistance between man. Confucianism has a central tenet similar to the Christian Golden Rule. "Do not do to others what you do not want done to you." Similar, yet culturally different than the more active "Do unto others as you would have done to you." And so on.

In the end, it comes down to this.

I accepted my limitations and controlled for my biases and other factors that may tamper with results. I found that I had faith to believe in G-d. G-d's power was great enough to create all around us and could be easily scaled down to provide miracles for His prophets and servants. The Christian faith teaches great tolerance for fellow man and is suitable for my culture.

I accepted Christ as my Savior and I am a Christian again.

[Antares]

Could He have revealed different messages to different cultures? Certainly possible. If we see a pattern of similar messages, perhaps it's His way of getting it through our skulls in as many ways as possible. Buddhism has a message of peaceful coexistance between man. Confucianism has a central tenet similar to the Christian Golden Rule. "Do not do to others what you do not want done to you." Similar, yet culturally different than the more active "Do unto others as you would have done to you." And so on.

Why do people assume that if some other religion has a similar rule, it must be laid down by their god? Maybe it was Allah who gave you all these rules and your religion, or maybe it was Zeus. Besides, Confucianism is more of a philosophy and not a religion. They've immortalized him, yes, but he never meant it to be a theistic religion. Does morality come from religion? No. Can't a modern philosopher, never having heard of the Golden Rule, come up with something similar? I'd think so. In fact, before I was aware of this rule, I thought of something similar (in very immature language, of course). "When she flaunted her grades, she was fine with it; but when I flaunted mine, she hated it. Perhaps, if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't do it to people?"

[HappyMondays]

Why do people assume that if some other religion has a similar rule, it must be laid down by their god?

Actually, I think I was saying something closer to our G-d, not my G-d.

Maybe it was Allah who gave you all these rules and your religion, or maybe it was Zeus.

Allah=Judeo/Christian G-d. Just the Arabic name. Point made, though, and covered above.
Besides, Confucianism is more of a philosophy and not a religion. They've immortalized him, yes, but he never meant it to be a theistic religion.
What I believe I said is that He may reveal His word in different ways to different cultures. This would include using philosophers when it is more appropriate.
Does morality come from religion? No. Can't a modern philosopher, never having heard of the Golden Rule, come up with something similar? I'd think so.
Sure he can. Of course, I'm reminded of a quote (Blake?):

"Every generation drives it's plow through the bones of the dead."
In fact, before I was aware of this rule, I thought of something similar (in very immature language, of course). "When she flaunted her grades, she was fine with it; but when I flaunted mine, she hated it. Perhaps, if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't do it to people?"
Hallelujah! He worked through you before you knew it!





Just a joke, dude.

[IgnoranceIsKind]

"It is truly a mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it" -Socrates

Case in point, I'd say only semi-morons might accept what might be illogical. Today's mainstream society is ruled by the Hive Mind. That is to say, they go according to how what others do and what others think, which ultimately results in what they are supposed to do and think. Intellectual independance is only derived from a well polished intelligence, one who'd truly think for themselves.

[mabts]

HappyMondays,

I hope I'm not coming off as harsh or aggressive in my posting -- my intentions are genuine and curious.

Your further explication makes many of your points much clearer. I also think genuine religious search much begin with a suspension of the ego.

I guess where we split is that I recognize our limits in rationality as due to the fact that we order the world causally in space and time (Kantian cognition theory). So, because of the way we order the world a priori, there are certain questions we can't properly answer (such as how something could come from nothing or how something could be infinite). But I don't come to faith as a result of these limitations -- mainly just agnosticism. There may or may not be a God with or without certain characteristics -- I have no way of knowing.

I've never seen the laws of the natural world broken and much of the beauty of the world comes from this fact. Your belief in miracles and suspension of natural laws is one thing I can't relate with whatsoever.

[HappyMondays]

mabst,
You've wounded me terribly. This is a forum of highly sensitive types who cannot sustain the full broadsides associated with frank discussions. I'd appreciate further comments prefaced with, "Somewhere in the distance, thers is an ideal place for you with sunshine and marshmallows, but here you're an idiot."

I didn't take it as harsh, just spirited.

I don' think I would say I smothered reason and found faith (or that it was your suggestion). It's more that when I recognized, accounted for, and segregated internal predispositions, I found that I had faith and felt faith. As if I was humming for years and when I finally tried to listen above my humming, I found there were other sounds in the world.

Somewhere, in the distance, a lib arts grad student I mocked is laughing.

Had 9 beers or so, so I plead guilty.

[Serket]

DoubleThink, George Orwell 1984.

At the youth group I pretend to belong to doublethink is lauded as the ideal. They have actually applauded leaving reason behind in matters of faith. They say you can't question religion on the basis of logic as logic and faith govern two separate regions of life.

Crazy people.

[TheLastMohican]

DoubleThink, George Orwell 1984.

At the youth group I pretend to belong to doublethink is lauded as the ideal. They have actually applauded leaving reason behind in matters of faith. They say you can't question religion on the basis of logic as logic and faith govern two separate regions of life.

Crazy people.

I find that very bothersome. I am a Christian, but I consider the kind of "faith" they are talking about to be "blind faith," which is by no means a good thing.

[Homini Lupus]

So basically you're argument is:
1. God's existence can't be proved or disproved
2. You personally like theists more than atheists (because asserting God's existence is more difficult than denying it)
3. Your religious choices have not been falsely biased or influenced
4. We all search for God. Again, you claim it's easier to deny than to believe, so you believe.

I don't get how this is even remotely an argument in favor of believing in God. Why do you affirm that it is easier to deny God than believe in God? If anything, it seems much more difficult to deny God's existence. Believing in God generally brings a sense of comfort and well-being for people. Furthermore, the vast majority of people, at least in America, believe in God and are hostile with people who don't.

Just because we all, or most of us, search for God doesn't make God's existence any more or less likely. And even if it is easier to deny God's existence than to believe in God, as you claim, this still doesn't make God's existence any more likely or something that should be believed in.

Sorry if I'm late but your posts begs for better explanation.

I've always heard people saying that believing is reassuring but to me it's always been quite the contrary; by example I would rather accept non-existance in afterlife than some sort of judgement in wich nobody can be considered innocent.
And no, I don't personally like theists more than atheists. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and most of believers look like very shallow to me. But sice now I found thinking theists more intellectually interesting.
Personally I found asserting God more challenging than denying it. Maybe this makes me quite an unbeliever or not sincere, but I don't care too much.
I also was born in a former State of the Church region wich means people tend to be rather atheist and anticlerical.

Also, this post was supposed to explain a personal view. I already posted about God's existance and I find pointless to post the same arguments in every post about spirituality.

[Antares]

What I believe I said is that He may reveal His word in different ways to different cultures. This would include using philosophers when it is more appropriate.

Or maybe Ra revealed his word through Christianity?

[TheLastMohican]

Or maybe Ra revealed his word through Christianity?

Don't be ridiculous, Antares. I'm not in the best mood today, so don't start anything. :irked:

(Note: The above comment can be ignored by all who wish to ignore it.)

[Antares]

Don't be ridiculous, Antares. I'm not in the best mood today, so don't start anything. :irked:

(Note: The above comment can be ignored by all who wish to ignore it.)

But I am ridiculous! I can't help it :scared:

[TheLastMohican]

But I am ridiculous! I can't help it :scared:

Okay, I guess we just have to accept that.

But Ra is even more ridiculous.

[Capt57]

The atoms of our body are made up of mostly empty space. All humans are walking bags of self delusion. As ants look out at a 12 lane superhighway we look out at the universe...mostly clueless. Our goals and aspirations seem to fall very neatly in line with our DNA. I would argue that man's search for meaning is not spiritual but rooted in our biology based on in group survival value like tribalism. Even if that's true it still fails to punch any holes in the incomprehensible fantastic mystery of life, the universe and everything as Douglas Adams would say.

[Latte]

I see 2 forms of "religious" approaches which are vastly different.

There is pure belief, and there is finding something highly likely based on own thinking and discussions with others.

The latter usually aren't completely in sync with the mainstream belief communities when it comes to how they view things. The latter is also susceptible to alter their reality perception if they see something doesn't fit, to make the structure fit with itself again. It's a system that can correct/change itself. A sort of philosophical approach, where one tries to understand.

The former won't really change by (valid) logic at all, as they have no real coherent structure in that part of their reality, but merely a set of statements that they do not question. Correction/change here is mostly only from figures viewed as having more authority on the subject. This is an approach where one merely learns from others.


I distinguish highly between these 2 approaches. I only see the former as a proper threat to others due to sheep tendencies that make the authorities able to manipulate the followers.

Although most use both these approaches in a mixed way to create a reality structure, some use the latter approach much more in life (not exclusive to matters of religion), and I always find it way more interesting to discuss things with them, regardless of them being religious or not, as they are usually reasonable people. I care more about how a conclusion is reached by an individual than what an individual has concluded, and see flaws in way of thought as far more dangerous than the conclusions reached.

[blueback]

...it still fails to punch any holes in the incomprehensible fantastic mystery of life, the universe and everything as Douglas Adams would say.

That's not very profound. . .that's actually kind of lame. Apparently you forgot the important part of what Adams said which was that no one could figure out the question. The answers are easy, it's phrasing the question that's hard.

In order to form a question you have to get outside of something. You can't ask a context-less question. That means that we can't even ask questions about the "universe" because we can't get outside of it to get any context. All the answers are right in front of us, but the question eludes us.

[Capt57]

Then the question is a mystery...what did I forget? I thought the ans was 42?

[Serket]

The Egyptians belived Ra was merely the aspect of G-d (which I'm spelling that way to be sensitive to others).
Ra represented the majestic powers of G-d that is embodied by the sun during the day.

"All gods are three. They are Amun, Ra and Ptah" as the Egyptians used to say. They have a physical dimension or body (Ptah), a heavenly manifestation (Ra) and a spiritual dimension which you can't see(Amun).

I am not advocating the worship of Ra, just clarifying what Ra was.

[Noehelia]

I would like to ask this. Is there anything in your life that you believe or at least let some doors open that it might be true even though you can not explain it logically or scientifically?
Let's say this as an example. If you had a friend, or been married to someone or a family member that you trusted fully, you thought that he was absolutely sound and rational, he hasn't lie to you once and he told you that he could see dead people in old houses and that was something so normal for him that he has accepted it as it is, what your reactions would be? I mean this is a problem because on one hand there is a statement you can not find a logical explanation and on the other hand it came from someone that you can not find anything to accuse him for.
This has nothing to do with the issue of God, I am just elaborating on the question in the title.

[TheLastMohican]

The Egyptians belived Ra was merely the aspect of G-d (which I'm spelling that way to be sensitive to others).
Ra represented the majestic powers of G-d that is embodied by the sun during the day.

"All gods are three. They are Amun, Ra and Ptah" as the Egyptians used to say. They have a physical dimension or body (Ptah), a heavenly manifestation (Ra) and a spiritual dimension which you can't see(Amun).

I am not advocating the worship of Ra, just clarifying what Ra was.

Oh, but you had me worried for a minute there. ;)

[acyckowski]

I think the question itself is not valid...how can I "believe" something without having evidence?

Well, shit. If I had convincing evidence, it would not be belief, it would be knowledge. If there was convincing evidence to the contrary, it would not be belief, it would be denial. Belief is reserved for the unpredictable and undemonstrable. I believe that human beings have a soul, which is immortal. Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? Also, no.

The sticky widget in all of this is how belief is applied. Good example with 2+2=firetruck. Eminently disprovable, so no sense in making the assertion. But somebody try to explain to me what "justice" or "evil" means without resting the argument on beliefs of some sort. Yet, we (uniquely) as humans recognize those concepts as real, even if we have trouble explaining them precisely.

So, I would submit that if you can't "believe" something without logical argument or compelling evidence, you've kind of missed the point.

p.s. Prove that 2 is not 1. Hint: you can't, it's a fundamental definition. How do you "know" it? Somebody told you it was true, and you believed it.

[Beery Swine]

Homini Lupus said: Believing or not is a choiche. [sic]

Could you choose to believe that I can transform into the Hulk? I choose to believe that I'm Wolverine and have 10-inch retractable adamantium claws that can cut through anything and are completely indestructable. I've never seen them, but that's just because I've never chosen to take them out, and I know it doesn't make sense, but I have faith that I am James Howlett, I was born in the late 19th century, served in WW2, and have no memory of these events because the Weapon X program installed memory implants.

Just trying to hold up a mirror is all, no offense.

[Monte314]

I think all of us probably know people who "believe" things they know aren't true. This is a hallmark behavior of co-dependency, for example. A wife is convinced that her husband won't get drunk this three-day weekend and beat her (as he has every other three-day weekend) because this delusion holds her world together. It seems insane (because it is), but she actually does believe this, with all her heart.

On a less pathological level, we can believe things with our minds that our intuition doesn't. Do fast clocks run slow? Do fast meter sticks get short? Do fast masses get heavier? Intellectually, I believe they do, because I've read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Einstein. Do I believe it in any other way, e.g., intuitively? I'd have to say I don't, because it is completely outside of my experience.

In religious matters, we may believe things in a similar manner: I believe in a heaven I have never seen. I can't touch it, I don't know where it is, or what it's like. The reason I believe is that I know the One who told me it exists. Because I believe Him, I can believe in His heaven.

Tertullian, the third-century theologian, said this:

The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed - because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible - because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain - because it is impossible.

What he was pointing out is that IF God is infinite, all-powerful, and transcendent, then we would expect His nature and actions to exhibit mystery; in fact, if He could be completely understood and explained, we would have to question His infinitude! The above has been paraphrased as "I believe, BECAUSE it is absurd."

Finally, there are some things I believe without any mental assent or thought at all, because belief in them is essential to efficient living. I have to take an airplane trip next week. I believe the plane will fly through the air. I could engage in a skeptical analysis of this whole process, but I've got better things to do; since I have to fly, I might just as well, FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE, believe that everything will work... even things I know nothing about and don't understand.

[marcclarke]

Can someone actually *believe* something they don't logically think is true or don't have any evidence for?

I keep reading posts like "I believe in God, Christianity, Cat Stevens etc. etc. because I have nothing to lose, if it's true I'll be rewarded, and/or because it makes me feel good."

I guess I just can't relate at all. While I recognize that there may be advantages (mental, physical, and/or eternal) to having faith, I don't have the ability to make myself genuinely believe because of that. If I did choose to believe on such a basis, I would always know deep down that my motives were false or ingenuine and that I don't actually hold it to be true.

Sure. Faith = belief in the absence of evidence.