Belief... or lack thereof

[MPat]

It was unimportant… you pressed the matter, I replied. I think it’s polite to reply on forums.

You might note that this reply completely ignores the argument I gave.

Speaking of politeness, I don’t think it is that important to reply to a forum post. For example, here you only repeated that you think that belief about imaginary friends is not important to your atheism. But I already know that you think so. And I do not expect you to change your mind anyway. So, I do not see what would have been so impolite about you not responding to this point at all. The same reasoning can be used for whole posts as well.

And I tried to find a way to present to you the fact that some people have imaginary friends, and some of them think that (or act very much as if) those friends are real. True, you’ve made me see that it’s a minority that have this peculiarity, but it exists.

I have already disproved all that. I guess I can just refer anyone who reads this back to the part when this has been discussed, since, after all, there is little point to repeat it, as I do not expect to get significantly different answers.

I am aware that many people do not know about how their minds can conspire against them.
I cannot claim that for anyone in particular… I thought I made it clear that the “you” I used was not aimed at your person, but “you” as in general forum population, in this case, Catholics. If I didn’t, I apologize.

Yes, I know you meant the “you” in plural. But, since I am one of Catholics and “general forum population” as well, it is reasonable to expect that all that was meant to apply to me as well, isn’t it?

At least, I try to provide the best language I can, given the format at hand.

What makes you think that everyone else doesn’t try to achieve that as well?

Thus the point still stands: be perfectly clear yourself, if you want to demand such perfection from others. Trying is not enough. And, frankly, I do not get the impression that you always give clarity the highest priority. If you would do so, there would have been no problems with you talking about “that book by Luke” instead of “Gospel of Luke” (it is ambiguous since, as you probably know, St. Luke also wrote Acts of Apostles). I get the impression that in that case being disrespectful to Bible got a higher priority than clarity…

At least, I try to provide the best language I can, given the format at hand.
But… “clean heart” in order to “see God” is not something that goes in that direction, is it?

I mean, I can understand, conceptually, what that means… something along the lines of “Be a good person, follow the commandments set out by God, believe and you shall feel Him working from within you and, with that, you will, in a way, see Him. You will definitely see him after death.”

But I can also understand how it can be a part of a reinforcement mechanism, wittingly, or unwittingly, exploited by many religions. Start with a childhood-based belief imposed by caregivers - proceed to “feel” that God within → “see” God.
Not saying this is how it definitely happens… but it can be. Where would we find some research done on the matter?
Perhaps here: americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-cognitive-psychology-of-belief-in-the-supernatural/99999 ?
hmmm… this article is actually kinda good, although a bit biased by using american children…
I may have to bring my starting point a bit further back: start with a standard generic child, with a natural tendency to assign agency to natural phenomena… reinforce that and extend it to imply the existence of disembodied entities, such as souls, angels, God provided by caregivers, etc…

Given that I know that it is possible that such “seeing God” would be a product of my own mind, and knowing that you guys should be aware of that - I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written this - how was “clean heart” ever going to be a serious response to “how can you see God?”?

So, first you were saying that you didn’t understand what was being said, and now you are saying that you understood what was meant well enough, but just didn’t like the answer?

I guess I cannot decipher what you are really objecting to (since, apparently, I already got that wrong once)… Unfortunately, I get the impression that you are not able to explain that clearly and shortly, as you are also not completely sure what you are objecting to… Oh well, when you rely on intuition, sometimes things like that do happen…

About the aspect of my mind that pertains to lack of belief in the gods that many other minds believe exist.

That doesn’t change anything relevant here.

Anyway, I guess that is also related to clear communicating. Apparently, in the original post you have described the goal of the thread in the way that did not correspond to what you really wanted to discuss… What can I say - it is too late to change that, just do better next time…

 

[fbl9]

what about ‘blessed are those who have not see yet believe’, this leaves another group who have seen and believe. so its not limited to just a belief but also is actual, concrete knowledge.

We only have what was wrote by those that seen. And their witness is rejected by one who does not believe on account of the believer`s use of the written accounts as scripture.

 

[fbl9]

You won’t believe this, but I came mainly from my mother.

I don’t know who those people who claim they “came from nothing” are… I’ve met a few atheists and none made such a claim… (maybe they would, but they didn’t do it to my face).

I have seen an astrophysicist claim that, when adding all the energy and mass (converted to energy) in the Universe, taking into account the dark matter and dark energy and anti-particles and all those exotic things out there, the sum total is ZERO. So… maybe you’re not that wrong with your nothing in, nothing out.

Me? I don’t know how that guy came to that number. Maybe someday I’ll know and come to either agree or disagree with it. until then… it’s a hypothesis.

Where did life come from? It came from that which had no life. The pure elements of yesteryear. Sorry for the long delay.

 

[pocaracas]

You might note that this reply completely ignores the argument I gave.

The argument you gave?
That the few reports I linked to disprove that there are millions of kids who think their imaginary friends are real?
The few reports I linked indicate that the majority of kids with imaginary friends are aware that they are not real… majority… not all. This “not all” leads to quite a significant number of kids thinking that they are real.

But, as is often the case in these discussions, my original point had little to do with number of kids… that was a side track you decided to explore to avoid the main gist of my argument at the time… I was polite and stuck with you.
The point was that there is as much evidence for any god character as there is for imaginary friends. And belief in either is not evidence for their existence.

Speaking of politeness, I don’t think it is that important to reply to a forum post. For example, here you only repeated that you think that belief about imaginary friends is not important to your atheism. But I already know that you think so. And I do not expect you to change your mind anyway. So, I do not see what would have been so impolite about you not responding to this point at all. The same reasoning can be used for whole posts as well.

There would be no discussion, then, huh?

OP: “Hey guys, I’m an atheist”
[End of thread]

I have already disproved all that. I guess I can just refer anyone who reads this back to the part when this has been discussed, since, after all, there is little point to repeat it, as I do not expect to get significantly different answers.

No you didn’t disprove it. I failed to prove my initial assertion of “millions of kids”. There’s a difference.

Yes, I know you meant the “you” in plural. But, since I am one of Catholics and “general forum population” as well, it is reasonable to expect that all that was meant to apply to me as well, isn’t it?

Yes, it applies to you, but you can’t expect a general remark to perfectly apply to a single individual.

There are things about your mind that could fit what I said earlier…
Think about it…

What makes you think that everyone else doesn’t try to achieve that as well?

Thus the point still stands: be perfectly clear yourself, if you want to demand such perfection from others. Trying is not enough. And, frankly, I do not get the impression that you always give clarity the highest priority. If you would do so, there would have been no problems with you talking about “that book by Luke” instead of “Gospel of Luke” (it is ambiguous since, as you probably know, St. Luke also wrote Acts of Apostles). I get the impression that in that case being disrespectful to Bible got a higher priority than clarity…

-.-’
I’m not demanding perfection. Just accuracy.

The methodology to “see God”, is “have a clean heart”. Perfect clarity, don’t you think?

In the context of a Catholic forum, “that book by Luke” should be assumed to be one of the books in the Bible. To me, either gospel or acts are the same thing - part 1 and part 2, if you want to be chronological about it.

So, first you were saying that you didn’t understand what was being said, and now you are saying that you understood what was meant well enough, but just didn’t like the answer?

LOL, no…
At first, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. There must have been something hiding in there, some inside secret.
Turned out that no… it’s exactly what it looked like.

I guess I cannot decipher what you are really objecting to (since, apparently, I already got that wrong once)… Unfortunately, I get the impression that you are not able to explain that clearly and shortly, as you are also not completely sure what you are objecting to… Oh well, when you rely on intuition, sometimes things like that do happen…

Don’t worry too much… it’s of no consequence.

Intuition does work often enough to keep around, you know?

That doesn’t change anything relevant here.

Anyway, I guess that is also related to clear communicating. Apparently, in the original post you have described the goal of the thread in the way that did not correspond to what you really wanted to discuss… What can I say - it is too late to change that, just do better next time…

Will do (there is no try).

 

[pocaracas]

Where did life come from? It came from that which had no life. The pure elements of yesteryear. Sorry for the long delay.

Where did life come from? lifelessness is a rather general and not wrong answer.
But lifelessness is not nothing, is it?
Pure water, H2O, is lifeless, yet it is something.
The same can be said of most molecules out there… and many of their assemblies into macroscopic structures, such as rocks, planets, stars, etc.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

And just how much food are we wasting each day in the United States? Are you sure we can’t feed many more people?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Y
However, it’s nice to mention that some of those do not require a pre-existing consciousness, like a god. Thus allowing us to live happily and care free.

I would say that I see very little evidence of this happy care free existence in most non believers. I would say you found it in the earliest Christians and that most current Christians need rediscover and live the faith as they did.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[JerryZ]

I’d like to apologise to Pocaracas, and the other contributors to this thread, if my post #720 (about my frustration with the use of unclear phrases) has taken the discussion in a less fruitful direction. But, at the risk of stirring up more contention, I’d like to defend my position.

Take for example, the phrase “I feel it in my heart”. I understand that the heart is not literally doing any feeling. In fact, the heart is not involved at all. It’s a poetic or figurative use of the word. I get that. What I don’t understand is what is really meant. Is it something like: “This is a belief that underlies most of my most fundamental views.” Or is it more like: “This is a belief that is based on some innate instinct.” The former relates to emotional and intellectual investment. The latter relates to something other than normal conscious thought processes. Or are there other possible interpretations?

I’m not expecting any response about what this phrase might mean. But this is the level of clarity that I seek when I hear phrases of this type. Without a level of understanding of what is actually meant, and not just what might be meant, the phrase has no information value. Unfortunately, in my experience, clarification is rarely forthcoming.

The problem we have today and perhaps this goes back eons is that we tend to use language as if we are the masters of it when the reality of it is that the majority of human beings go about their entire lives totally ignorant of why and how we use this communication tool.

Take the sentence I bolded and seems to bring such contentions.

“I feel it in my heart”. We now days tend to understand that the meaning is figurative or “poetic”. Now if we had a time machine and went back a few thousand years we would find that to the people living in that era the meaning would be literal.

How come? Well in antiquity the heart was were people understood that the intellect resided.
People thought with their hearts. And “felt” the emotions: anger, love, despair, etc.

Today we might discount that as ludicrous, we think we know better, with our technology we have conquered reality
But since we are not robots with a microprocessor whirring away in our cranium cavity. Perhaps those ignorant forefathers did not have it wrong.
Consider this:
Our heart is the first organ to fully differentiate during our gestation period and starts beating even before our brain is formed. The brain continues to grow even after birth and in fact total cranial capacity is not reached until the head plates fully solidify. Yet the heart has been pumping non stop since the beginning.
Maybe totally irrelevant to your musing

…

 

[MPat]

The argument you gave?
That the few reports I linked to disprove that there are millions of kids who think their imaginary friends are real?

No, I meant the argument that if this claim about “millions” of kids believing was not important to your atheism, you would have dropped it after it was pointed out that evidence you have offered in its support is actually evidence supporting a contrary proposition. Yet you didn’t drop it, therefore, it is important for your atheism.

There would be no discussion, then, huh?

OP: “Hey guys, I’m an atheist”
[End of thread]

That doesn’t look quite that bad. In fact, I have no idea what one could say in reply to such post - or are you expecting many answers saying “Good for you.”?

Anyway, my point was that repeating the same exchange again is rather pointless. And that there is nothing impolite in avoiding that.

No you didn’t disprove it. I failed to prove my initial assertion of “millions of kids”. There’s a difference.

That looks like something that can be cited whenever you claim that Catholics haven’t proved, um, just about anything.

Yes, it applies to you, but you can’t expect a general remark to perfectly apply to a single individual.

There are things about your mind that could fit what I said earlier…
Think about it…

Sorry, but this is not a Russian fairy tale and thus I have no interest in instructions like “Go there - I don’t know where, bring me that - I don’t know what.” (“Пойди туда — не знаю куда, принеси то — не знаю что”)…

If you think you have something new, specific and useful or interesting to say - say that “something” and not just “Think about it…”. Also, if the same thing you said was found to be unpersuasive the first ten or so times, I don’t think it is reasonable to expect it to be persuasive the eleventh time…

-.-’
I’m not demanding perfection. Just accuracy.

The methodology to “see God”, is “have a clean heart”. Perfect clarity, don’t you think?

First, I do not see what that second paragraph has to do with “accuracy”. I guess you use that word in some non-standard way…

Second, as you can see, you haven’t added quotation marks around “methodology”. You added that word yourself. In fact, it is more of a “precondition” than a “methodology”.

In the context of a Catholic forum, “that book by Luke” should be assumed to be one of the books in the Bible. To me, either gospel or acts are the same thing - part 1 and part 2, if you want to be chronological about it.

In the context (you do remember it, right?) it was reasonable to expect you to tell us not just the book, but the verse as well.

LOL, no…
At first, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. There must have been something hiding in there, some inside secret.
Turned out that no… it’s exactly what it looked like.

OK, it looks like the main issue of this “debriefing” has been solved. Since other questions seem to be relatively minor (some of them are “minor”, because they seem to have reached the point where any progress is unlikely), I guess it means we can end the whole “debriefing”?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Not through the faulty medium of other people’s testimony…
Is that possible?

How then did the concept of God come into people’s minds?
Surely, it must have done so, at some point in humanity’s evolution, right?

How did you learn all the science you put your trust in? Was it through other peoples teaching you about it–and your believing what they have told you? Or have you done all this science yourself? Or are you trusting all those who have taught you this science–those who have given you their testimony regarding this science?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PRmerger]

How did you learn all the science you put your trust in? Was it through other peoples teaching you about it–and your believing what they have told you? Or have you done all this science yourself? Or are you trusting all those who have taught you this science–those who have given you their testimony regarding this science?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Oh, there is no doubt that what poca, as well as all other science-alone advocates are doing is, ironically, believing what someone else has told them.

And yet, peculiarly, they are oh-so-opposed to believing because someone told us something.

#doublestandard

 

[MarkInOregon]

Indeed, it’s independent of geography.
Why then are religions geographically bound? (well, they were before worldwide travel and spreading of the major European religion)

Actually various religions co-existed quite a bit and for quite a long-time in a great portion of the world. I suggest checking out “The Lost History of Christianity. The Thousand -Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How it Died” by Philip Jenkins. It was not really as geographically bound as we have been led to believe–there has been an ebb and flow.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Bradski]

How did you learn all the science you put your trust in? Was it through other peoples teaching you about it–and your believing what they have told you? Or have you done all this science yourself?

First up, it’s quite often down to what you are told as opposed to why it is being told to you. You telling me that Jeus died for my sins and I will be saved if I believe that means I have to change my whole world outlook if I accept what you say. It will be life changing for me and you want that for me. That’s the reason you are telling me. And this is a monstrously important point.

If someone tells my that a guy called Pythagorus had a way of working out the lengths of the sides of triangles, then it doesn’t impact on me in any way whatsoever (unless I use the formula in my work, which I do). The person telling me would have no real reason for wanting me to accept what he was saying other than he probably thought it might come in handy.

That’s the situation with all science. Interesting to know and handy if it helps in some way. But there’s no life changing requirement, so whether it is actually true or not is, by and large, irrelevant. There’s no need to doubt it because, assuming it has no personal effect on you, no-one cares if you accept it or not.

Secondly, all science is provisional. If we’re talking maths, then not so. There are brute facts. The square on that hypotenuse etc. But science is based on theories and theories are strengthened or weakened by evidence, but never proved That evidence has to be collected and associated with the relevant theory to show it works. That evidence has to to be collated. The theory has to be tested. It is all peer reviewed.

Do the necessary book-learnin’ and pay the requisite fees and you will have access to all this information yourself, so you can actually see if what someone says is true.

There is a third. Also quite important. Probably the deal breaker. If I am taught Pythagorus Theorum and I trust that it’s correct (the proof is only a few lines long) then that does not mean that I have to accept a lot of other mathematical theories because of that. I don’t automatically have to accept that there is a fixed relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter.

However,mIf I accept, on you say so, that Jesus died for me and Inaccept Him as my saviour, then I also have to believe a hell of a lot more as well. That His mother was a virgin. That there is a heaven and hell. That there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. That a wafer will become His body and winded His blood. That miracles occur. Tha the. I one is the word of God. The list goes on and on.

So what you tell me and what I learnt in school about the periodic table and other snippets of long forgotten science, well, there is something of a difference.

But I’m pretty certain you knew that already.

 

[Bradski]

It was not really as geographically bound as we have been led to believe–there has been an ebb and flow.

I think that you are being too literal in an attempt to deny the obvious facts. Yes, of course there has been, and always will be, areas of the world where there are a mix of religions. Israel is an obvious example. But hardly an example of an homogenous mix of beliefs, which is the point being made.

 

[PRmerger]

First up, it’s quite often down to what you are told as opposed to why it is being told to you. You telling me that Jeus died for my sins and I will be saved if I believe that means I have to change my whole world outlook if I accept what you say. It will be life changing for me and you want that for me. That’s the reason you are telling me. And this is a monstrously important point.

If someone tells my that a guy called Pythagorus had a way of working out the lengths of the sides of triangles, then it doesn’t impact on me in any way whatsoever (unless I use the formula in my work, which I do). The person telling me would have no real reason for wanting me to accept what he was saying other than he probably thought it might come in handy.

That’s the situation with all science. Interesting to know and handy if it helps in some way. But there’s no life changing requirement, so whether it is actually true or not is, by and large, irrelevant. There’s no need to doubt it because, assuming it has no personal effect on you, no-one cares if you accept it or not.

Secondly, all science is provisional. If we’re talking maths, then not so. There are brute facts. The square on that hypotenuse etc. But science is based on theories and theories are strengthened or weakened by evidence, but never proved That evidence has to be collected and associated with the relevant theory to show it works. That evidence has to to be collated. The theory has to be tested. It is all peer reviewed.

Do the necessary book-learnin’ and pay the requisite fees and you will have access to all this information yourself, so you can actually see if what someone says is true.

There is a third. Also quite important. Probably the deal breaker. If I am taught Pythagorus Theorum and I trust that it’s correct (the proof is only a few lines long) then that does not mean that I have to accept a lot of other mathematical theories because of that. I don’t automatically have to accept that there is a fixed relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter.

However,mIf I accept, on you say so, that Jesus died for me and Inaccept Him as my saviour, then I also have to believe a hell of a lot more as well. That His mother was a virgin. That there is a heaven and hell. That there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. That a wafer will become His body and winded His blood. That miracles occur. Tha the. I one is the word of God. The list goes on and on.

So what you tell me and what I learnt in school about the periodic table and other snippets of long forgotten science, well, there is something of a difference.

But I’m pretty certain you knew that already.

All we’re saying is that you get general knowledge in the same way that we Believers get
theological knowledge (that is, faith): by believing other people.

Thus, you ought not pooh-pooh anyone who has a (religious) belief because “A” told me so.

 

[PRmerger]

If someone tells my that a guy called Pythagorus had a way of working out the lengths of the sides of triangles, then it doesn’t impact on me in any way whatsoever (unless I use the formula in my work, which I do). The person telling me would have no real reason for wanting me to accept what he was saying other than he probably thought it might come in handy.

That’s the situation with all science. Interesting to know and handy if it helps in some way. But there’s no life changing requirement, so whether it is actually true or not is, by and large, irrelevant. There’s no need to doubt it because, assuming it has no personal effect on you, no-one cares if you accept it or not.

What about trusting your life to a pilot carrying you thousands of feet above the earth?

There certainly is the need to “doubt it”, don’t you think? A very real and dire need.

And yet…

you don’t ever doubt this. You just believe that she has passed her pilot’s license, really understood the physics her professor taught, didn’t cheat on her calculus exams…

One has to wonder why there’s this double standard.

This is sooo immensely curious and puzzling to me.

 

[Bradski]

All we’re saying is that you get general knowledge in the same way that we Believers get
theological knowledge (that is, faith): by believing other people.

Thus, you ought not pooh-pooh anyone who has a (religious) belief because “A” told me so.

Firstly, apologies for the typos in my last post. I was hurrying to do something else.

Bur, PR, your knowledge is not comparable to general knowledge in any way whatsoever. It might be, if that theological knowledge concerned other religions. If you were studying Native American beliefs or Hinduism. But you are not.

As I thought I made clear, the information that you get from others is relevant to the way you live your whole life. It is central to the way you live your life. You believe you are actually alive because of what you believe. If you believe it to be true, it is True with a capital T. Is is vitally important that you get it right.

If I am given scientific information, it doesn’t impact me at at all, unless I use that information in some way. I don’t have to know the details of photosynthesis to grow tomatoes. I don’t need to know chemistry to brew beer. I don’t have to know any physics to drive my bike.

Things that are important to me are things I really have to make sure I get right. If I’m going diving and some guy says: ‘There’s enough air in this tank’, then am I simply going to take his word for it? Hell, no. I’ll check the gauge, check the air supply, consider how long I’ll be under water, take I to account the depth, the entry and exit procedures, who I’m diving with, current, water temperature, my physical and mental condition and then I will decide if there’s enough air.

If some guy says that the atomic weight of helium is 4, then meh. I could check it if I wanted to. I could find out how to do the experiments to work it out myself, but big deal. I’ll take his word for it. As would everyone else.

That’s the difference.

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, apologies for the typos in my last post. I was hurrying to do something else.

Bur, PR, your knowledge is not comparable to general knowledge in any way whatsoever. It might be, if that theological knowledge concerned other religions. If you were studying Native American beliefs or Hinduism. But you are not.

As I thought I made clear, the information that you get from others is relevant to the way you live your whole life. It is central to the way you live your life. You believe you are actually alive because of what you believe. If you believe it to be true, it is True with a capital T. Is is vitally important that you get it right.

If I am given scientific information, it doesn’t impact me at at all, unless I use that information in some way. I don’t have to know the details of photosynthesis to grow tomatoes. I don’t need to know chemistry to brew beer. I don’t have to know any physics to drive my bike.

Things that are important to me are things I really have to make sure I get right. If I’m going diving and some guy says: ‘There’s enough air in this tank’, then am I simply going to take his word for it? Hell, no. I’ll check the gauge, check the air supply, consider how long I’ll be under water, take I to account the depth, the entry and exit procedures, who I’m diving with, current, water temperature, my physical and mental condition and then I will decide if there’s enough air.

If some guy says that the atomic weight of helium is 4, then meh. I could check it if I wanted to. I could find out how to do the experiments to work it out myself, but big deal. I’ll take his word for it. As would everyone else.

That’s the difference.

None of that changes anything at all.

You still have knowledge that you get because you believe in an entity (a person, an institution, a business).

Just like Believers do.

So it’s odd that you would object to theological beliefs obtained in this manner while permitting yourself the luxury of believing things–things of great IMPORT, such as whether an engineer who designed the bridge your daughter is driving over to visit you–obtained in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

 

[Bradski]

What about trusting your life to a pilot carrying you thousands of feet above the earth?

We’ve done this before and I’ve explained it before.

This is not an example of faith. This is a reasonable expectation. Just like you have a reasonable expectation that the bridge you cross to work every single day will not collapse the next time. Or the guy driving in the opposite direction will stay in his lane. Or the meal you eat at lunch is fir for consumption. Or the doctor who is going to fix your knee dips actually qualified to do it and will be sober whilst doing it.

All reasonable expectations. To imply they are faith based considerations is to twist the word so far from it’s meaning as to make it nonsensical.

You have faith that your belief is true. You have faith in what you have been taught about it. You don’t have a ‘reasonable expectation’.

I’m really not sure why you don’t get this. Anyway, I can’t explain it any clearer, so maybe the fault is mine.

 

[PRmerger]

Do the necessary book-learnin’ and pay the requisite fees and you will have access to all this information yourself, so you can actually see if what someone says is true.

But the thing is…you don’t actually do that for most of the knowledge you have.

So, what this looks like, in the end, is *exactly the same thing *as the modus of Believers.

At any rate, your paradigm of “so you can actually see if what someone says is true” (even though you never ever actually do this for 90% of what you believe) prompts the retort: “Well, we all will actually see if what Someone says is true, too” at our death, right?

So, again, it’s exactly the same modus as Believers.