Belief... or lack thereof

[pocaracas]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ATHEISM. Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: “Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it” (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the Council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)

Wow… so many atheists… Someone has said that atheists are like a herd of cats… each goes off in his own direction and pays no mind to any would-be cat-herder.

I wouldn’t say that atheism is a problem facing mankind… it’s something that comes out of our current state of things. Most believe in some form of god. Those who don’t, get branded.
We have no brand for people who don’t believe in fairies, nor for people who don’t believe in leprechauns, nor for many other mythological creatures. Why? Why brand almost everyone as anything other than just human?

Did you know that in the first to second or third centuries, Christians were considered atheists by the romans?

Also, why would atheism be a problem? If there is a god and it desires us to acknowledge it, it has a really easy way of accomplishing it. That it doesn’t do such a thing, is only hinting at the non-existence of such a god.

Certainly, belief helps some people control other psychological traits that would maybe be a bit anti-social or outright criminal… but those are not the majority.
I would consider human empathy to be independent from any form of belief.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I would consider human empathy to be independent from any** form **of belief.

I think you conceive “form” the same way Pope Francis does!

 

[ericc]

All results in the lab are unnatural… although they do try to mimic what the natural condition are for the particular experiment.
Sadly, we do not have millions of years to run an experiment where things just happen naturally.

Or not… there are somethings that will likely remain unknown forever.

I’m glad you are honest to admit that science doesn’t have the answer.

Why would it be a miracle to consider that space and time exist before the Big-Bang?

Are you claiming that space and time exist before the Big Bang? Not what scientists are saying though. Space and time was the result of the Big Bang, not the precursor.

Chemistry, geology, and physics may have played a role in it… not so random after all, huh?

Sure, but not enough time, technology, intelligence to get there. You have about 13 billion years to play with. And unguided physics/biology/chemistry won’t get you very far. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Then less out the time for it to be cool enough for life to form. Then you need to allocate time for differentiation and specialization. You run out of time before you get something viable.

Are those not made in a working brain?

Couldn’t those also be made in a working brain?

Are they? How did that information get there? From who/what?

Obviously, not all concepts that exist are prone to be investigated by science.
But we’d expect that something that allegedly interacts with humans would have some measurable footprint

Is that sufficient to earn the tag “science”? Well people who have undergone a spiritual experience do exhibit changes in behaviour and attitude but I don’t think that qualifies as science. Scientific method doesn’t work that way.

 

[pocaracas]

Help me here. Can you highlight the difference between:

a) A disbelieve in God/gods
b) Believe in no God/gods

What would be the difference that affects your intellectual honesty? And why would you prefer a) over b)? Does the difference makes a difference in your choice of a) over b)? Meaning how did you come to the conclusion that a) is correct and not b) and on what basis, scientific or otherwise you discern the difference.

My Oxford dictionary say an atheist is a person who belief that there is no God. Your initial exuberance sort of display you didn’t really care about labels, but apparently you do.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist:
“A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”

Perhaps your Oxford dictionary is a bit out of date. Sometimes, concepts do evolve in their wide usage enough for a new definition to make it to the dictionary.

The difference between a) and b) is that in a), I simply do not accept that God/gods exist. In b) I affirm that God/gods do not exist.
I know I can’t make a claim of not existence of such a being.
I can say that it seems like it doesn’t exist… but it’s been philosophized into such a corner of immaterialness that it’s impossible to state that it doesn’t exist.
So all we can honestly say is that we don’t believe that it exists.

…not sure I helped to clear it up…

 

[pocaracas]

The only walking, talking apologetic God intended was the flesh and blood Pope Francis is always on about, the smiling mother (I just read a thread about a mother), the people unafraid of mess, the people who are “the mess”.

Why do we think anyone will let us win an “argument” with them!

I… I don’t follow.
I don’t know what Pope Francis is always on about.
“Flesh and blood” sounds like it deals with something a bit grotesque…
But I like the smiling mother part.

If we ask people “are you an intelligent design?” they might say “well, I’m intelligent-ish, and I’m a thrown-together sort of design as it happens” but they don’t know how or why to integrate, compare or contrast it with what is usually grouped in religion or faith.

(For those squeamish about the vocabulary “design” let’s borrow the term “intentional” - do you get out of bed intentionally of a morning?)

I’m lost again… why would we be designed?

So let’s radically reshift the entire “debate” - I mean really really radically - and make it existential.

Let’s also make it 100% pro everything and 0% anti anything. Let’s frame it as “the best of belief or lack thereof”.

What do your beliefs do for those around you? What have others’ beliefs done for you. For your soul, your heart, your wellbeing as a human being.

To show you what I mean I’ll start.

When I was 13-14 my schoolmate who was an atheist, probably from an atheistic family:

• kept me good company (not something I could take for granted generally)
• played wonderful piano for himself and me
• talked enthusiastic science
• shared with me the priceless gift of verbal humour

He understood words, he understood music, he understood science (supplementing my lessons), he hadn’t given up hope so he (probably without thinking about it) understood relating. He literally and simply brought those things into my life. For him, atheism was part and parcel, not an uneasy add-on.

There is even the aspect of what do you mean to you, what do you do for you. What are you glad of about you? What do you appreciate about you? That doesn’t mean you have to be exactly big-headed. A doormat is not the opposite of big-headed.

Because “belief” is part of a person’s core I think “lack of” either is a euphemism for a real belief or is a signal that a person is in some form of collapse.

Great story.
In real life, I rarely have to mention anything about religion.
Where I live people just either assume that you’re christian or nothing and deal with the person as a human being, independently from belief.
I even married a nice catholic girl and had 3 kids with her… but she can’t (or won’t) keep up with my reasoning on a these subjects… so she just believes and hangs on to it. I don’t mind.
I have no idea why, out of all the catholic people in this country, she ended up sticking with me… Perhaps because I too, taught her some sciences, played some piano and made her laugh…? (true story, not making this up, nor taking advantage of your story, just finding it an awesome parallel to my own)

On to some more serious things.
“what do you mean to you”?

• I have no idea of how to answer this, besides… I mean everything to me. Without me, I am nothing.

“what do you do for you”?

• As opposed to what do I do for others? I do play around a bit, I’m on a few online forums (or is it fora?), I play games, I watch movies and tv series and listen to music and read books and learn new stuff almost every day, now, thanks to the power of RSS and facebook. Some of my income is definitely geared towards making my life easier… but also to make the lives of my family members easier… not sure I replied as you were expecting…

“What are you glad of about you?”

• This is starting to look like a dating site…
  I’m glad all of my parts work well enough… the eyes could be better, but glasses help… I’m glad I can do all the things I enjoy… I’m glad in general.

“What do you appreciate about you?”

• My ability to think as someone else. I can imagine what it would be like to believe and create a persona that acts just like a believer. Sadly, I can’t understand all the inner workings that lead to such belief… that’s in part why I come to religious forums… to try to understand the “other side”. I often ask my wife “Why do people believe in these things?” she can’t answer, so here I am.

 

[pocaracas]

I think you conceive “form” the same way Pope Francis does!

Well… like him, I was raised in a mostly catholic country, with a latin-derived language… so yeah… that makes sense!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well… all my answers are given… don’t even need to answer!

Well, I made assumptions about your answers that you’re free to refute

I agree with you for the most part.
There’s a tiny detail that, for an infinitely powerful being, any complexity of our Universe should be considered infinitesimal… not something that would take that much “time and effort”… so maybe the loving part is missing a bit, unless we’re not discussing an “infinitely powerful being”…

I disagree. Complexity is complexity regardless of the ability of the person doing the complex thing. When a theoretical physicist solves a problem it has the same degree of complexity as when I solve it (I being very, very far from a theoretical physicist ) Both solutions require the same degree of care and attention, it’s just that it comes easier to one of us than the other. To speak in terms I’m more familiar with, as an architectural intern it takes more effort for me to come up with a competent design than my boss, but that doesn’t mean that I care more about the design than him, or that he cares about it more than me, it’s just become more natural him. With this in mind, I think my point still holds true regardless of the infinite nature of God and the fact that it would not have been “difficult” as we understand it.

Actually, we haven’t defined what you mean by “God”… but I was working with the standard “all powerful” bit.
Some people have added “All loving”, suggesting that these are not necessarily two features that depend on each other, as you said.
Perhaps they arrive at the “all loving” conclusion by some other means… I’m curious about those…

My personal frame of reference is that of the Christian God, but my premise can stand without any preconceptions about our theoretical ‘god.’

Hehe… I too had to sleep.
Now, I’m “working”… while the program runs, I read and reply…
PMs are overrated… and my PM box is way too limited, for some reason…

Your pm box grows as you’re more active, it’s to keep spambots from sending mass pms to users, and to encourage public discourse.

Also, my answers will probably be pretty sporadic today, lots to do at work >_>

 

[pocaracas]

I’m glad you are honest to admit that science doesn’t have the answer.

Thank you. I try to be as honest as possible.

Are you claiming that space and time exist before the Big Bang? Not what scientists are saying though. Space and time was the result of the Big Bang, not the precursor.

I’m claiming that this is a possibility.
Scientists are not making any claims about pre-BigBang conditions. They can only make claims about what is measurable and where the models lead, provided the current observable Universe.
The model of the Big Bang states that the Universe began as a point-like thing which expanded and is still expanding and will likely keep on expanding.
All the space-time contained within the Universe would have been in that point-like thing… but that doesn’t mean that there’s no more space-time out there (if “out there” or “out of the Universe” are things that make sense - we don’t know). Maybe there is more of it… maybe not. But if there is, then one can make some claims about it, based on observations of the space-time within the Universe.

Sure, but not enough time, technology, intelligence to get there. You have about 13 billion years to play with. And unguided physics/biology/chemistry won’t get you very far. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Then less out the time for it to be cool enough for life to form. Then you need to allocate time for differentiation and specialization. You run out of time before you get something viable.

Why do you say there wasn’t enough time?
Universal expansion allowed for quarks to coalesce into protons. Gravity brought bunches of protons together… they were so many that they started fusing, thus originating stars. Gravity from these stars clumped into galaxies and… well… these initial stars would have burned up quite “quickly”, within 5 billion years, casting out the products of all their fusion reactions… .these products find themselves near other bunches of protons which are clumping together and forming a new star… around this second generation star, the heavier elements produced by the first star can coalesce into planets… these heavier elements include Lithium (3 protons), Beryllium (4 protons), Boron (5 protons), Carbon (6 protons), Nitrogen (7 protons), Oxygen (8 protons), etc… up to Iron (26 protons). Anything heavier was produced as the star went nova and is only found in trace amounts. This order of things is consistent with the abundance of these elements on Earth and the solar system.
Carbon is the lightest element which can bond with other 4 elements, all other elements can only bond with 3 or less other elements (except silicon which can bond with 4, but is heavier).
So it’s to be expected that carbon is the one that makes up most of the chemical reactions on Earth… it makes sense that carbohydrates would be formed - they are composed of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. The presence of water is also to be expected, as it is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen. Water can serve as a medium where these carbohydrates can flow… eventually forming ever more complex molecules… then, by some conjunction of events, these molecules would become self-replicating, thus starting the life cycle that still lasts.
According to fossil records, this took some 1.5 billion years on Earth… why would it not be enough time?

Are they? How did that information get there? From who/what?

How did consciousness and religion get to people’s brains?
Consciousness seems to be available in a few animals, so it may be a very old trait, a very handy trait to have in social animals.
Religion is thought to have appeared when mankind started having time to think about the great questions - is this all there is?, what happens to me after I die?, why am I here?
And they had the time to think about these things after discovering how to handle fire, it seems.

Is that sufficient to earn the tag “science”? Well people who have undergone a spiritual experience do exhibit changes in behaviour and attitude but I don’t think that qualifies as science. Scientific method doesn’t work that way.

There’s a branch of science called “psychology” which I think deals with this sort of thing…

 

[pocaracas]

Well, I made assumptions about your answers that you’re free to refute

No need. They’re mostly accurate enough.

I disagree. Complexity is complexity regardless of the ability of the person doing the complex thing. When a theoretical physicist solves a problem it has the same degree of complexity as when I solve it (I being very, very far from a theoretical physicist ) Both solutions require the same degree of care and attention, it’s just that it comes easier to one of us than the other. To speak in terms I’m more familiar with, as an architectural intern it takes more effort for me to come up with a competent design than my boss, but that doesn’t mean that I care more about the design than him, or that he cares about it more than me, it’s just become more natural him. With this in mind, I think my point still holds true regardless of the infinite nature of God and the fact that it would not have been “difficult” as we understand it.

I see your point, but you’re comparing two humans… humans which should have a very similar brain capacity and potential.
But when comparing an adult with a child learning, say, maths, the adult will dismiss a multiplication as something mundane and not worth the effort and will use a calculator, while the child who is learning will struggle to perform the calculation and feel good when he arrives at the correct result.
An all-powerful God, such as the Catholic one, would find that making something finite like a Universe would be simple and of little worth.
Unless He isn’t all-powerful… unless He isn’t infinite… I don’t know… educate me on the Catholic God… is He supposed to be infinite and all-powerful?

Your pm box grows as you’re more active, it’s to keep spambots from sending mass pms to users, and to encourage public discourse.

Oh… really?
So we must keep engaging in public!

Also, my answers will probably be pretty sporadic today, lots to do at work >_>

Don’t worry about it. If you write here, I’ll read them.
Real life always takes precedence.

 

[Bballer32]

Sure. You choose to speak English. But you don’t ‘believe’ English. The comparison is non existent.

Let me put it this way. It is literally impossible to believe something unless you have received some information about it. You have a choice as to whether accept the information as being valid or not. That is, you accept it or reject it and THEREFORE believe it or not.

If that is not the case then there would be things that you believe about which you have no information (literally impossible) or things that you believe despite the fact that you have rejected the evidence for it. To prove your case, you are going to give me an example of that. Otherwise, that order, that sequence stands.

You are given information.
You accept it or reject it.
You THEREFORE believe it or not.

It cannot happen any other way.

Right. You just agreed with me.

Here’s the original post:

I must disagree.
I think people can’t choose their beliefs.
They just believe what resonates the most with them… and, usually, that will be what they are taught as children.

So, by what you posted and what I posted, we both agree that you do choose your beliefs because you are compelled in some way shape or form to believe them.

If I’m wrong on us agreeing then correct me.

 

[Bballer32]

Chance is a word used to describe our ignorance of all the factors involved.

This is not what common science teaches about chance.

It doesn’t mean that the underlying cause for the event isn’t ordered, it just means that we don’t know enough about it to understand the order of things.

So, things have been ordered since time correct? By your definition of chance, you are claiming that Order could have existed since the beginning of the Universe.

So the question then is this: How was the Order created? According to the Big Bang Theory, electromagnetic waves, anti-matter, and some other things came together to create the Universe. Was this by chance or due to some sort of Order? Also, where the heck did this stuff come from?

The problem of working backwards is that we can think up of many potential “first causes” and many of them can account for the Universe as we know it… And not all of these first causes are sentient beings.

That’s not true at all. A first cause means just that, a First Cause. If there are multiple first causes, then it is no longer a first cause. So, the claim that we can have many first causes is faulty.

 

[pocaracas]

This is not what common science teaches about chance.

Could you be confusing the concept of chance and probabilities?

So, things have been ordered since time correct? By your definition of chance, you are claiming that Order could have existed since the beginning of the Universe.

“Could”, yes. I’m not saying that it did.
I don’t know… I’m just a lowly human.

So the question then is this: How was the Order created? According to the Big Bang Theory, electromagnetic waves, anti-matter, and some other things came together to create the Universe. Was this by chance or due to some sort of Order? Also, where the heck did this stuff come from?

I don’t know.
Theories exist about how particles can come from vacuum space-time… but they have never been tested out of the Universe… not sure that would be possible.
Even if such theories do pan out… that doesn’t mean that they represent the exact mechanism by which the Universe got started.
We don’t know. We may never know.
Some people acknowledge this as a limitation of our ability to explain things… I do.
Others persist in providing answers, even if not grounded on anything but their own minds.

What happens when this second group manages to captivate other equally oblivious people?

That’s not true at all. A first cause means just that, a First Cause. If there are multiple first causes, then it is no longer a first cause. So, the claim that we can have many first causes is faulty.

It seems you missed my point… I meant that there can be many candidates for this “first cause”. Many concepts can be thought of as first causes and many of those can be seen as valid, considering all we know about the great beyond the Universe (which is next to nothing).
The possibilities are endless…

 

[Bradski]

So, by what you posted and what I posted, we both agree that you do choose your beliefs because you are compelled in some way shape or form to believe them.

If I’m wrong on us agreeing then correct me.

The first statement makes no sense to me. If you are compelled to believe something then it’s not a free choice. By definition. You HAVE to choose it.

You have decided to accept the evidence for the existence of God. THEREFORE you believe He exists. I, on the other hand, have decided that the evidence is not strong enough to be acceptable, THEREFORE I don’t believe He exists.

Again, you cannot say that you believe in something without first being given evidence either for or against its existence. You either make a conscious decision to accept the evidence, and therefore believe or make a conscious decision to reject the evidence and therefore do not believe.

The only choice is accepting or rejecting that evidence. Which, incidentally, doesn’t have to be true. And the decision you make in accepting or rejecting it doesn’t have to be the correct one either.

What you are suggesting seems to be something along these lines: ‘This sounds like a good idea, so I choose to believe it. I will then look for evidence to confirm if I have made the right decision or not’.

Is that your suggestion?

 

[MPat]

There are also some people in this forum who seem to operate under a few misconceptions about atheists, so I’d like to address them… Here’s one:

• All-mighty Lady-Chance-did-it: If no God creator of the Cosmos made all this and provided that mighty initial spark for life, then chance must have done it - no purpose, no intent, no reason… Or something like this, right?
  Well, I prefer not to be so bleak, but ultimately, yes… Under the assumption that no God exists, there seems to have been no consciousness that somehow started the Universe. Mind you, we, human race, don’t know how the Universe came into being. We can trace it back to the big bang… well, almost to the Big Bang and then our known physics becomes unsuitable, so the real answer is “I don’t know”, actually, no one knows. If anyone claims to know, they’re making it up. Any claim of divine revelation is also seen as making it up.

So, at this time you claim that “making it up” is a bad idea? Yes, it sounds reasonable. But let’s look what you write next:

So, provided no God is available, why do people believe in them? How did that happen?
Sadly, written history starts at a time when religions already exist, so we don’t have any way of knowing the answer to this question.
We can try to reason it out, using the few pieces left behind for archaeologists to find, mingling them with known psychological traits shared by most humans (and likely shared with those humans who started the belief in spiritual entities).
Bah… we can never know the particulars, but my general guess is that, at some point, the frustration of not knowing many answers to questions that were burning their early curiosity-ridden minds led them to speculation… from wild speculation told over a campfire to a story which feels like it’s conveying the reality of things would go but a few generations, if any at all.
And then… just build upon it. The evolution of religions… it seems there are books written on that subject… (no, I didn’t read that… I arrived at that conclusion independently). It does make some sense, seeing as Christianity itself is clearly an evolution of the Judaic model.

“my general guess”? So, in effect, you just made it up…? But wasn’t making things up supposed to be a bad idea?

Not to mention that divine revelation only “looked” made up to you, while it is clear that this story about origin of religions is made up. So, if you say you lack belief in any sort of divine revelation, would you say you also lack belief in this story you offered here?

With this, my mind is satisfied as it allows for everything that we see and experience to be caused by natural means.

What exactly do you mean by “natural” and would your mind would be unsatisfied if something proved to be caused by “non-natural means”?

Depends on what you wish do show, I guess.
There’s that old saying “extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence”…
Ordinary claims, on the other hand, can the evidenced by simple things.

But what exactly is an “extraordinary claim” and what exactly counts as “extraordinary evidence”? For example, if most people believe that God does exist, wouldn’t that be an “ordinary claim”? With the contrary claim being “extraordinary”?

Also, why should we accept “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? Why shouldn’t we accept, let’s say, Pascal’s Wager instead? Or some “extraordinary certainty requires many pieces of evidence” that I just made up?

 

[Bballer32]

The first statement makes no sense to me. If you are compelled to believe something then it’s not a free choice. By definition. You HAVE to choose it.

You have decided to accept the evidence for the existence of God. THEREFORE you believe He exists. I, on the other hand, have decided that the evidence is not strong enough to be acceptable, THEREFORE I don’t believe He exists.

Again, you cannot say that you believe in something without first being given evidence either for or against its existence. You either make a conscious decision to accept the evidence, and therefore believe or make a conscious decision to reject the evidence and therefore do not believe.

The only choice is accepting or rejecting that evidence. Which, incidentally, doesn’t have to be true. And the decision you make in accepting or rejecting it doesn’t have to be the correct one either.

What you are suggesting seems to be something along these lines: ‘This sounds like a good idea, so I choose to believe it. I will then look for evidence to confirm if I have made the right decision or not’.

Is that your suggestion?

Not quite…I still feel like our communication through the use of text doesn’t help out our understandings

I’ll add to the sentence you created:

“This sounds like a good idea because of what I have been told, researched, and experience, so I choose to believe it.”

Even if that person said it sounds like a good idea because of what they have been told, researched, and experienced does not mean they have to choose to believe it.

 

[Bballer32]

The possibilities are endless…

Then would it not be more beneficial believing in a God rather than not? If the possibilities are endless, then that means the possibility of a Creator. And if that follows, then divine revelation is possible. And if that follows, then the Catholic Church is possibly correct. Which then follows that it would be possibly correct to follow the Catholic Church. Granted this can lead to some sort of “indifferentism” (very very little) on the views of Creation, but more in the sense of waiting to see who is right; on of us is wrong.

Also I think you might find this beneficial:

I once had a friend tell me about a debate he was having with an atheist. The man asked my friend, “What if it was definitively found out that God really does not exist? What would you do then?” To which my friend thought about it for a bit and then responded “If God truly did not exist, I would still follow the way of Life of the Catholic Church because it has the best and most perfect way of life to follow. I would still be formed to be a good human being through the rules and doctrines of the CC, even if God didn’t exist.”

 

[pocaracas]

So, at this time you claim that “making it up” is a bad idea? Yes, it sounds reasonable. But let’s look what you write next:

“my general guess”? So, in effect, you just made it up…? But wasn’t making things up supposed to be a bad idea?

Not to mention that divine revelation only “looked” made up to you, while it is clear that this story about origin of religions is made up. So, if you say you lack belief in any sort of divine revelation, would you say you also lack belief in this story you offered here?

Oh darn… caught with my pants down!

But I’d say that making up an explanation of the way the Universe got started is a bit different from the guess I made, which uses some known psychological traits that most people have.
But you’re right, that story I offered as a guess is not confirmed. It is not certain. What is certain is that, at some point(s), mankind acquired the belief in gods, afterlife and other mythological entities.
I provided a general reasonable guess as to how that may have come about.
To me, it’s enough to put that matter to rest, but if you’d like to discuss further, by all means, let’s.

What exactly do you mean by “natural” and would your mind would be unsatisfied if something proved to be caused by “non-natural means”?

Good one!
Natural is a tricky concept here… I’d go the dumb way and just make it mean “things explained by science nowadays”: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and a few others… (down deep, they’re all physics! BUHAHAHA)

I’d be thrilled to have something proven to come about by some non-natural means. New stuff is always cool!

But what exactly is an “extraordinary claim” and what exactly counts as “extraordinary evidence”? For example, if most people believe that God does exist, wouldn’t that be an “ordinary claim”? With the contrary claim being “extraordinary”?

What is an “extraordinary claim”? A claim of some non-ordinary event. For example, at this moment, the claim of a sighting of an an alien landing on Earth would be extraordinary.
What would count as evidence?.. well, that’s the million dollar question, right there. Testimony is evidently flawed, judging by all the sightings throughout the last decades… Photos can be altered… video too…artifacts made of strange alloys unknown to science? could be… all together would form a nice picture, yes.

You example has a tiny flaw, as far as I see it… how did most people come to believe that God does exist? That methodology should be relevant.
If you were to tell me that most people know that God exists, I’d also ask how do they know it… but, provided that they knew through some solid method, then yes, they’d be the ordinary case… and those who don’t know would be the non-ordinary.

Also, why should we accept “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

Because if you don’t, you’re open to charlatans and other kinds of deceitful people…
I’d rather not be influenced by people who are wrong.

Why shouldn’t we accept, let’s say, Pascal’s Wager instead?

Why should we accept Pascal’s Wager? It is a silly wager and, at best, it can only result in “pretend belief”… if God can be fooled by such kinds of beliefs then I don’t think it’s a god at all…

Or some “extraordinary certainty requires many pieces of evidence” that I just made up?

You just made up a rough sketch of the scientific method!

It wasn’t easy to convince people that quantum mechanics was an accurate description of the nano world. Einstein himself didn’t like the theory and fought it off for a long time.

 

[pocaracas]

Then would it not be more beneficial believing in a God rather than not? If the possibilities are endless, then that means the possibility of a Creator. And if that follows, then divine revelation is possible. And if that follows, then the Catholic Church is possibly correct. Which then follows that it would be possibly correct to follow the Catholic Church. Granted this can lead to some sort of “indifferentism” (very very little) on the views of Creation, but more in the sense of waiting to see who is right; on of us is wrong.

Why is it beneficial to believe in something that may be wrong?

And why would I choose the Catholic Church over some other religion?
Muslims tell me that theirs is the most logical religion.
Hindus are awesome and relaxed.
Ancient Egyptians lasted for some 4000 years… maybe they were on to something, until those damned Romans screwed everything up…?
Or maybe it was the human sacrificing Maya and Aztec? Oh… that didn’t work out so well…
I don’t know… might as well stay out of them all.

Also I think you might find this beneficial:

I once had a friend tell me about a debate he was having with an atheist. The man asked my friend, “What if it was definitively found out that God really does not exist? What would you do then?” To which my friend thought about it for a bit and then responded “If God truly did not exist, I would still follow the way of Life of the Catholic Church because it has the best and most perfect way of life to follow. I would still be formed to be a good human being through the rules and doctrines of the CC, even if God didn’t exist.”

I agree. If you take out the God parts, the CC does try to keep civilization going with some nifty general rules. Love thy neighbor, avoid conflict… keep only one sexual partner, etc…

However, I don’t understand the continued ban on condom (and general contraceptive) use. I mean… it’s not like the planet can feed many more people, better take some care with how many more we add to the next generation.

 

[Bballer32]

Why is it beneficial to believe in something that may be wrong?

I can ask you the same thing, why believe in nothing, when it might be wrong. That was my whole point of the “indifferentism” side of things.

I agree. If you take out the God parts, the CC does try to keep civilization going with some nifty general rules. Love thy neighbor, avoid conflict… keep only one sexual partner, etc…

Point taken. Even though I clearly disagree on the whole absence of the God.

it’s not like the planet can feed many more people, better take some care with how many more we add to the next generation.

Ok, I don’t want this to become off topic but I do want to address this real quick.

Growing up with farmers, in a farm state, in the middle of farmstead America, this statement is completely false to the point that I want to puke. It’s such a false argument that “over-population” liberals try to use.

That’s my soap box for the day

 

[pocaracas]

I can ask you the same thing, why believe in nothing, when it might be wrong. That was my whole point of the “indifferentism” side of things.

Because then you’ll be receptive to whatever is proven to be right… or should be receptive…
Stubbornness does tend to seep in…

Ok, I don’t want this to become off topic but I do want to address this real quick.

Growing up with farmers, in a farm state, in the middle of farmstead America, this statement is completely false to the point that I want to puke. It’s such a false argument that “over-population” liberals try to use.

That’s my soap box for the day

Maybe the population isn’t very well distributed, geographically…
Perhaps this will help put things in perspective:
nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/
Or maybe this study:
grains.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/US-Grains-Council-Food-2040-Report-FINAL.pdf
There are countries that have to import food.
The world isn’t all like the farmstead America.

Let’s take an extreme example for comparison:
US - population:~320million, land area: 9million sq km (sorry, I’m European, metric’s my game, but it’s irrelevant for this)
Bangladesh - population: ~165million, land area: 157 thousand sq km

According to some estimates, around 1 acre of farmland is required to feed one human, on average. That’s 0.004 sq km.
So, (oh, I’m assuming all land can be used for farming, which is, of course, wrong - people need a place to live, ecosystems must be maintained, etc…)… the US has enough land area to feed 2.25 billion people.

Bangladesh, on the other hand, can feed 39 million people. But… but… there are 165 million of them in there! More than 4 times the number of people they can feed!

Not all food can be transported from places of bounty to places of need and people aren’t really allowed to move across borders in order to keep the worldwide population nice and homogeneous…

It’s a mess, but the fact is that overpopulation and scarcity of food is already a reality in some places, even without any burden of conflict and war. And encouraging the population to grow unchecked is, to me, an irresponsible act… not something we’d expect from an institution interested in keeping the peaceful coexistence of all humans.
We know all too well how humans become when faced with scarcity of food…