Do you ever wonder HOW you believe what you believe?

[LaramieHirsch]

Does anyone here ever wonder *how *they believe what they believe?

I mean, we all know what we believe. We all have our opinions. But does anyone ever question *how *they believe?

For example: perhaps one believer holds their faith because they’ve concluded what they believe of God through a series of “if / then” statements. Or, perhaps another believer reached their conclusions through a feeling they’ve always had in their lives.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Does anyone here ever wonder *how *they believe what they believe?

For example: perhaps one believer holds their faith because they’ve concluded what they believe of God through a series of “if / then” statements. Or, perhaps another believer reached their conclusions through a feeling they’ve always had in their lives.

…and some follow the path on which their family or society put them getting justification from others in their social group. Some become concinced later in life from personal experiences. Some have a deep feeling that someone is looking over them. Some don’t know why they are convinced and are aware of those. Some examine why they were convinced and feel more justified or feel less justified. Some actually don’t believe, but take a disposition that makes it easier to interact with others.

 

[Nelka]

Interesting…

 

[Vanez]

Does anyone here ever wonder *how *they believe what they believe?

I mean, we all know what we believe. We all have our opinions. But does anyone ever question *how *they believe?

For example: perhaps one believer holds their faith because they’ve concluded what they believe of God through a series of “if / then” statements. Or, perhaps another believer reached their conclusions through a feeling they’ve always had in their lives.

I have the same question as you do

How i believe is…through the visions and bizarre personal events that I’ve had.

 

[clementVII]

Sounds like what you’re talking about is the whole epistemological question. You spend too much time in that place, you’ll start getting all tangled up and maybe even cease believing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sounds like what you’re talking about is the whole epistemological question. You spend too much time in that place, you’ll start getting all tangled up and maybe even cease believing.

One might stop believing some things and start believing other things. One’s convictions might adjust and change from self reflection and examination of available information and evidence.

 

[lmelahn]

Does anyone here ever wonder *how *they believe what they believe?

I mean, we all know what we believe. We all have our opinions. But does anyone ever question *how *they believe?

For example: perhaps one believer holds their faith because they’ve concluded what they believe of God through a series of “if / then” statements. Or, perhaps another believer reached their conclusions through a feeling they’ve always had in their lives.

If we have supernatural faith, then there is much more to it than simple reasoning (if/then) or a feeling. Those can be helpful, but there is also the action of God.

 

[oldcelt]

One might stop believing some things and start believing other things. One’s convictions might adjust and change from self reflection and examination of available information and evidence.

Precisely. Despite early indoctrination humans are quite capable of changing their beliefs based on any number external and internal forces.

 

[Rhubarb]

Well belief is doxastic, less epistemic. From what I can tell, a belief need only be a psychological state. There’s no real need for reasons or to worry about how they got there. We could talk about a reasonable belief, or a grounded belief, or a worthy belief but I don’t think a belief need any of this to be actually a belief.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

If we have supernatural faith, then there is much more to it than simple reasoning (if/then) or a feeling. Those can be helpful, but there is also the action of God.

What do you mean by supernatural faith?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Sounds like what you’re talking about is the whole epistemological question. You spend too much time in that place, you’ll start getting all tangled up and maybe even cease believing.

Nah. It is important that we understand how people come to their beliefs if we are to evangelize people who do not share the Catholic Faith.

Some of us are English majors, and so we see layers of meaning in everyday cultural things. Some of us are engineers, and we have a very basic and mechanical view of how the universe is constructed.

 

[lmelahn]

What do you mean by supernatural faith?

Just the theological virtue of faith. It is the virtue that allows us to know God, and and to accept everything He has revealed. We are unable to do this on our own power—God has to give us the capacity (virtus, virtue) to do that.

In the words of the Catechism,

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work through charity” (1814).

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Just the theological virtue of faith. It is the virtue that allows us to know God, and and to accept everything He has revealed. We are unable to do this on our own power—God has to give us the capacity (virtus, virtue) to do that.

In the words of the Catechism,

Interesting.

I’ve been speaking to atheists this year. It hasn’t really gone anywhere, save an education for myself in dealing with New Atheism. Most, if not all, do not know how to give the benefit of the doubt–as I did once or twice–in order to even have an ordered polite conversation.

So, would you say that these people lack something that God must give them?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Most, if not all, do not know how to give the benefit of the doubt–as I did once or twice–in order to even have an ordered polite conversation.

So, would you say that these people lack something that God must give them?

Try a different presentation. Instead of of a benefit if a doubt try talking about a hypothetical universe. “Benefit of a doubt” might be to close to saying “you’re wrong” to the person to which you have been speaking. Also keep in mind that a high level description of the scenario you have in mind might not be easily communicated because if different mental models that you and the other person may have.

The word “God” has had many different attributes associated, some of which may match what you have in mind, some may not. Unless you know the other person has a similar god-concept in mind you may already start in a diverging path by using it.

Also the phrase “believe in” has uses ranging from an emotional disposition to a stoic truth evaluation. It’s another phrase whose intended meaning can be clear to a speaker while allowing ambiguity to creep in.

Whether religious or non-religious if you are attempting to change an attribute attached to one’s sense of identity (which may include religious disposition) then you might trigger defensive reactions. Try not to come across as showing the other person he might be wrong. Keep things hypothetical so he doesn’t feel his self identity is on the line.

 

[someperson555]

I always thought we believe what we believe due to psychological conditioning we are subjected to throughout our lives . It can be from upbringing, peers, media, or a combination. I think only very few people are gifted with the ability to think freely. Usually you are either born that way or go through some sort of life changing event which forces you to start questioning the things youve been taught. So you could say the basis of beliefs are emotions first and then logical reasoning.

 

[John_Martin]

Interesting.

I’ve been speaking to atheists this year. It hasn’t really gone anywhere, save an education for myself in dealing with New Atheism. Most, if not all, do not know how to give the benefit of the doubt–as I did once or twice–in order to even have an ordered polite conversation.

So, would you say that these people lack something that God must give them?

They are missing a “messenger” bringing “official good news from the Knower of the known” (Gospel).
(“blessed are the feet of the bearer of good tidings”)

Paul, in Athens, noted the shrine to the Unknown God. Instead of trying logical arguments to prove God, which would depend on reason to find the truth on its own without revelation, Paul saw what they did know (an Unknown God) and brought them news, official news as a messenger from his King, of the identity of that God.

He did not try to reason the agreement out of his listeners, but he came with an announcement apart from reason (which then can be reasoned about as to meaning). But an announcement by an official of the message’s sender.

Now it becomes a matter of “who is this Paul in front of us?, and who is this Jesus?” It is a matter of taking the messenger at his word if you are to have the content of the message, and be baptized into citizenship in this Kingdom which this official of this King is announcing to you, or not take him at his word and continue with liking your unknown god.

Who are you when talking with your atheist friends? an official messenger of the news you know, or are you an alternate argument among many?

The news is, “Christ is risen; I am a citizen of his Kingdom, I know the God you cannot find. I can tell you of him.” What they lack is a messenger who knows he is a messenger sent to them. Then they will face the mystery of the Messenger with his Message which is where grace and faith are introduced and granted.

 

[clementVII]

Try a different presentation…then you might trigger defensive reactions. Try not to come across as showing the other person he might be wrong. Keep things hypothetical so he doesn’t feel his self identity is on the line.

Although I agree with the idea of trying various angles with people, and also that certain approaches could be counterproductive or backfire, we also have to keep in mind that Jesus Himself “triggered defensive reactions,” right down to the point of His being crucified. He says, “Blessed is he who takes no offense at Me,” which jibes with Paul’s “Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” The Gospel is salt on a wound, and salt stings.

forces you to start questioning the things youve been taught.

Or the things you’ve NOT been taught.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Although I agree with the idea of trying various angles with people, and also that certain approaches could be counterproductive or backfire, we also have to keep in mind that Jesus Himself “triggered defensive reactions,” right down to the point of His being crucified.

I’m thinking of reactions that can be both polarizing and close the person to consideration of what is being said. If it becomes a verbal fight between people instead of coming across as an innocuous exchange of ideas this type of reaction could occur. I am not arguing against different approaches , but want it to be known that certain styles of arguing against something can result in this consequence. It may be necessary to take a few moments to consider someone’s reactions during the discussion to know if the current approach is an effective strategy with the person. If the current approach is starting to result in “attitude polarization” then it won’t be the best one for convincing someone, if convincing the person is the goal.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I have come to believe what I believe by a combination of different routes, including the spoken and written word, and in personal ‘visions and profound feelings’ - all tested to my utmost regarding logic and rationality, and my perception of the limits of physical and temporal science.

When I took the ‘Sheep and Goats’ test some while back with a large group of fellow university undergrads., I was the only one to score exactly 50:50. Which means I am not a push over either way, that I test things in a ‘balanced’ way before coming to any conclusion, and that I stay open to the possibility of new information altering belief - but only after that had been given a thorough grilling.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Sounds like what you’re talking about is the whole epistemological question. You spend too much time in that place, you’ll start getting all tangled up and maybe even cease believing.

Thinking out a position will risk that you could cease to believe?