critical thinking made ez

My 2002 new year's resolution is to try to believe that God exists.


1. Can one try to believe?
2. If I fail at believing is it my fault?

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Ojuice5001

An interesting question. I would say, it boils down to whether you think God "makes sense." In William James's terms, to what degree is God a live option?

If you look at the world, and your best guess seems to be that it is not ruled by any kind of God or gods, that is what you will believe. There definitely are people like this; I can't say whether you are one of these, critical thinking. I think most theists, if they are above the level of believing whatever their parents told them, believe their form of theism because they looked at the world and decided "The world looks like it is ruled by God(s), and this seems to be what he is like."

OTOH, in my experience you can make yourself believe anything. You will just end up changing your mind. And the less sense this new belief makes, the quicker you will abandon it. I have, in the past, successfully tried to believe in Christianity, naturalistic atheism, and the proposition that every tree is inhabited by a sentient spirit (in ascending order of how much sense they make). But I ended up disbelieving all three, because they just aren't the best way to make sense of the world.

Foxhole Atheist

ez:

Where are you at this point in time? With the amount of time you’ve spent here at II, have you not evaluated the god concept thoroughly enough so that you have a solid basis for your present belief, whatever that may be. From your premise herein stated, you do not believe; at least that is the way it appears to me.

If you were to say that your resolution were to continue to pursue knowledge in an effort to formulate a belief in a god, that would make more sense to me. I believe one’s beliefs are based upon the existing level of knowledge that one has on a particular subject and to try and believe without a solid base is impossible.

Your statement appears as though you believe you’re wrong in what you do believe. Why? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

critical thinking made ez

That was my point exactly. Theist think that all we need to do is to believe. It is so simple to them, they have a shallow understanding of what is really involved in simply "believing". So when I write it out, it doesn't make sense any longer, it even confused you.

Every time I ask a Theist WHY he believes, they give me some level of proof followed by a larger dose of faith. This defeats the purpose because, my level of required proof is just an additional amount greater than theirs. Anyway, they are not believing only by faith, there is a measure of proof to begin with. Thus, one can only believe or have faith based on a certain degree of proof, which they personally accept, then the rest is by faith/belief which is God dictated. The problem then becomes one of degree of proof not faith or belief.

Foxhole Atheist

ez:

I think you and I both know that theists want to believe. Their religious conditioning at an early age gives them a sense of immortality that they carry for the rest of their lives and they refuse to give up that concept. Theists want to believe regardless of proof. They simply cannot help themselves. At least that’s been my experience.

This level of proof that you speak of – exactly what is the level of proof that’s been offered? What level of proof is it that initiates the theist’s belief?

I think the theist’s conditioning begins at an age prior to acquiring the ability to logically evaluate what they are being taught. This teaching becomes ingrained and a part of their consciousness to the point of not being easily displaced. To do so requires either a momentous or cataclysmic occurrence or a long drawn-out search for the truth.

Some folks, as I believe most atheists/agnostics to be, have a skeptical nature about them. Others are conformists. Some will believe readily, without much evidence. Others require a little more than just dogmatic rhetoric or inscription.

My resolution, as it is always, is to keep an open mind. But not so open, as Carl Sagan would say, to where my brain falls out.

All kidding aside though, your resolution was said in jest. Was it not?

Makai

Heh, I don't know if one can 'try to believe'. It seems almost as silly as 'trying to not believe'. My one friend told me that he knew atheism was wrong. I asked him why, and he says,
"I tried being an atheist for a day, and I hated it. It has to be wrong."

I think it depends a lot on someone's nature if you can 'try to believe'. If you find the concept fundamentally absurd, then I imagine it would be near impossible. However, if you are merely unsure, then I think some amount of mental acrobatics could be done 'trying to believe'.

Ah well...have fun trying

-Makai

critical thinking made ez

It was not, not a jest.
That is the Question we are seeking an answer for.

I say that a Christian that claims to live by faith alone without the need for proof should accept the following without ever having read or received information from the Bible. A Christian should believe based on the following explanation and nothing more...

God exists, if you follow his direction, he will grant you everlasting life and he will sometimes grant your prayers. The end

A believer wanting or requiring anything more than that type of claim and direction would bring proof into play. Once the need for proof is brought into play, it must either play out to the nth degree or it should not have bring brought into play to begin with.

Proof is subjective. My requirement is different than the next guy's. Therefore, no one can be blamed for waiting to pass judgment on whether there is a god or not until a sufficient amount of proof has been given. God can not pass judgment either, since we have only a few books claimed to be written by him to draw from. None of which has provided enough proof.

So the minute a Christian grabs a prophecy to prove the existence of the supernatural, he has opened up the floor to debate of said proof. The minute a Christian claims to believe because of anything that has support found in the Bible, he has brought the proof claim into play.

Unless a person can tell me that he had a sudden transformation without any pre-knowledge of the Bible or doctrine/stories of Christianity, their conversion must be said to be from a certain amount of proof they obtained from some Knowledge source. Their belief is no longer valid by being based on faith alone, but by the combination of proof and faith. That becomes an impossible to reconcile problem for them!

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Foxhole Atheist

ez:

“… A Christian should believe based on the following explanation and nothing more...

God exists, if you follow his direction, he will grant you everlasting life and he will sometimes grant your prayers. The end “

This is exactly were I was going in my previous posts. This is what theists continually dance around. IMHO, immortality, with or without proof, is what the theist latches onto.

The constant claim of: a moral base is only possible with god, is worthless without the everlasting life part.

“A believer wanting or requiring anything more than that type of claim and direction would bring proof into play.”

I’m still at a loss to understand your posit of “proof”. What proof does the theist have that is valid without the supernatural?

“…but by the combination of proof and faith.” <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

critical thinking made ez

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Foxhole Atheist:

“A believer wanting or requiring anything more than that type of claim and direction would bring proof into play.”

I’m still at a loss to understand your posit of “proof”. What proof does the theist have that is valid without the supernatural?

[QUOTE]

Proof does not have to be valid to be classified as proof. It just has to be believe to be true. Therefore, a Christian can claim that because of X in the Bible being true, I believe in God/Jesus/Etc. My point is that this is not living by faith it is living by proof (although invalid proof to you and I, but again that doesn't matter in this argument). Since they believe for whatever reason that the bible is true, they are not living by faith but by their own justification in some type of perceived proof that the bible is true.

Faith on the other hand would be a belief without regard to any perceived proof (be it valid or not) or evidence they have obtained from outside their own sudden transformation brought about by God himself.

Luke 7:36-50 Gives us an example of what faith really is. In this story a woman with no foreknowledge of Jesus being God etc had some miracle happen in which she showed faith in this sudden knowledge that Jesus was God. Jesus then forgives her sins and tells her she is saved by her faith.

If on the other hand someone told this woman that Jesus was this or that and the woman believed said statements on the basis of her belief in the claims of this person. Her beliefs about Jesus would be based on some level of proof she gleaned from this knowledge source and not through pure faith.

Therefore, it would not have been faith but rather a type of proof. However, the Bible is very careful not to show any such communication between her and anyone else. So it appears as a clean example of faith. The problem becomes that unless this is how Jesus was revealed to you (Christians only) you can not and were not saved by faith nor can you have faith in Jesus, you have some degree of proof in Jesus, therefore you can not be saved by faith. You are going to hell.

I posit that a man is incapable of having such faith once they have any knowledge of the bible stories or doctrine or any other information that would create some level of rational evidence (to the Christian, again it doesn’t have to be true or provable to you or I) to build up the basis of having faith in God/Jesus/Etc.

You can not have faith and proof (valid or not) at the same time.

critical thinking made ez

This brings us the next platform.

If an atheist asks a Christian "Why do you have faith in Jesus Christ?" The answer should be "I have no Idea, there is no reason for me to believe in him, I just do, I don't know why."

Any other answer would show no faith but rather proof. The problem is that all Christians have some reason for believing in Jesus and so makes faith impossible for them. Said "Reason" is a type of proof. Poof, they are going to hell.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>