Science can't destroy Religion

[ThinkingSapien]

That’s what I’m saying, TS. There are a zillion folks, atheists included, who leap into marriage with lots of less evidence for any long lasting love than they demand for the evidence for God.

Why is there such a peculiar double standard?

Love isn’t necessarily a motivation for marriage. It may be a motivation for marriage. But there are other motivations (status, sex, producing children, living up to expectations of the ones community, loneliness, fear, desire for physical or financial security, encouragement from others, cultural conformance so on). I think your marriage example could be used to illustrate that people are capable of taking risk. But I’m afraid it doesn’t illustrate (at least to me) some one having conviction by volition.

You (a generalized “you” here) will take a leap in the dark with a “conviction” that you will remain committed to another person for the duration of your life, with not any empirical evidence, lab-tested demonstrable evidence for love…yet you demand exquisitely higher evidence for the existence of God.

This looks more like a description of “hope” than “conviction.” Some are not convinced that this is going to be the case but hope it is and may try to mitigate other possible outcomes through various practices, such a prenuptial agreements, not sharing accounts, so on if he or she feels that there are assets to be loss if things don’t go so well. Though some one approaching the situation with little assets may only stand to gain and not find cause to engage in any protective measures at all.

In fact, that atheists marry, contrary to the evidence that their marriage is going to fail 46% of the time, gives one pause about how much stock they actually put into “evidence”.

I’ll take your word for this.

 

[PRmerger]

Love isn’t necessarily a motivation for marriage. It may be a motivation for marriage. But there are other motivations (status, sex, producing children, living up to expectations of the ones community, loneliness, fear, desire for physical or financial security, encouragement from others, cultural conformance so on). I think your marriage example could be used to illustrate that people are capable of taking risk.

Sure. I have no problem with the veracity of the above.

But I’m afraid it doesn’t illustrate (at least to me) some one having conviction by volition.

Someone is convicted of a belief “My marriage will last” based on, essentially, a decision to do so.

That’s called conviction by volition.

This looks more like a description of “hope” than “conviction.”

While these concepts may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, one can indeed have “hope” while not having “conviction”.

For example, a man may hope in the chemotherapy that his doctor has prescribed, but he most likely will not have the conviction that it will work. Which is why he (ought to) will get a second opinion. Unless, of course, he has both hope AND conviction.

Some are not convinced that this is going to be the case but hope it is and may try to mitigate other possible outcomes through various practices, such a prenuptial agreements, not sharing accounts, so on if he or she feels that there are assets to be loss if things don’t go so well. Though some one approaching the situation with little assets may only stand to gain and not find cause to engage in any protective measures at all.

Ok.

But what about you, TS? Please excuse the cheekiness, and you are under no obligation to answer, but are you convicted of the belief that you and your spouse are going to be married for the duration of your lives? If so, do you deny that you have any volition in this decision?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Someone is convicted of a belief “My marriage will last” based on, essentially, a decision to do so.

It sounds like you are saying that a person wants their marriage to last and is convinced it is within the ability for him or her to do so through action. In other words it seems that before the volition there is the conviction “I am capable of making this last.” Without this initial conviction a significant motivator for attempting to try to make the marriage last is dead (see “expectancy theory” ). As mentioned in #530, some one can try to engage in activities to acquire or strengthen a conviction (with no guarantee of success). In this case some one can make an attempt to strengthen their relationship with their spouse and if he or she receives what is perceived to be positive feedback after the actions then he or she may become more convinced. If negative feedback is received he or she may become less convinced. This isn’t a function of just their actions, but also in the interpretation of the responses coming from the other person. To illustrate let me take the mother of an ex-coworker as an example. Let’s suppose that she wanted her marriage to last. Her husband one day told her that he was really gay and was using her to hide his homosexuality. I’d hazard a guess that would damage any conviction she had on the longevity of her marriage.

But what about you, TS? Please excuse the cheekiness, and you are under no obligation to answer, but are you convicted of the belief that you and your spouse are going to be married for the duration of your lives? If so, do you deny that you have any volition in this decision?

I’m not married. As to whether or not I think the closest relationship that I have will last for the rest of our natural lives sadly that time frame may not be very long as it involves a person that is terminally ill. She questions whether she’ll outlive her betta fish; and he’s already lived two of his expected three years. Signs indicate that she doesn’t plan on terminating our friendship prior to her end. Having already demonstrated remaining functional in times of extreme emotional distress I’m asked to take on the role of burring her and handling other matters that can’t be completed before her death.

 

[PRmerger]

It sounds like you are saying that a person wants their marriage to last and is convinced it is within the ability for him or her to do so through action. In other words it seems that before the volition there is the conviction “I am capable of making this last.” Without this initial conviction a significant motivator for attempting to try to make the marriage last is dead (see “expectancy theory” ). As mentioned in #530, some one can try to engage in activities to acquire or strengthen a conviction (with no guarantee of success). In this case some one can make an attempt to strengthen their relationship with their spouse and if he or she receives what is perceived to be positive feedback after the actions then he or she may become more convinced. If negative feedback is received he or she may become less convinced. This isn’t a function of just their actions, but also in the interpretation of the responses coming from the other person. To illustrate let me take the mother of an ex-coworker as an example. Let’s suppose that she wanted her marriage to last. Her husband one day told her that he was really gay and was using her to hide his homosexuality. I’d hazard a guess that would damage any conviction she had on the longevity of her marriage.

Exactly!

So apply that simply to Belief.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Exactly!

So apply that simply to Belief.

I did that back in #530.

 

[PRmerger]

As to whether or not I think the closest relationship that I have will last for the rest of our natural lives sadly that time frame may not be very long as it involves a person that is terminally ill.]/quote]

I am saddened to hear this; your friend is fortunate to have you by her side.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am saddened to hear this; your friend is fortunate to have you by her side.

Thanks. She expresses feeling this way too.

 

[PRmerger]

I did that back in #530.

Here’s what you said in #530:

While I can’t speak for her this is something on which I would like to comment. To me it appears that being convinced of something isn’t something that is purely volitional. I can provisionally act as though I think that something is true** but I can’t say that I’ve ever had the ability that I’ve heard some others describe of holding a belief by volition. **Belief from conviction seems to be influence by a variety of sources (depending on the belief in question and the experiences, memories, and other held beliefs of the person being examined). While I can by volition engage in activities to acquire or strengthen a belief whether or not that is the actual outcome of the actions isn’t guaranteed. I’ve tried this and have failed at it before.

I can see how some one would come to come to that conclusion about what another thinks. And there certainly are some that feel that way. Pondering over the consequences of finite and eternal existence certainly can influence one’s feelings about the outcome (and there are both potentially positive and negative consequences for both the propositions that one may never meet and end or will always exists) but feelings on those consequences don’t, at least as far as I can see, have any impact whether or not there is life after death in much the same way that me thinking about having a high or low balance in my checking account right now won’t impact the actual balance at this moment.

Supposing that one concludes that continuing to have consciousness after death is the most desirable outcome does that actually impact the outcome?

I think it’s been demonstrated that you can, and do, indeed, hold “a belief by volition.”

You make a choice to believe something, even without much evidence. You trust in the person, entity, school, airline, authority, etc etc etc, and then investigate from there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think it’s been demonstrated that you can, and do, indeed, hold “a belief by volition.”

It’s not been demonstrated. I’ve heard some in this forum describe it as something that is directly the result of volition. Almost as though some one could by volition decide that she will tomorrow from 12:31pm to 12:49pm believe that the sky is green.

You make a choice to believe something, even without much evidence. You trust in the person, entity, school, airline, authority, etc etc etc,

This depends on what you mean by trust and believe here. People engaging these entities could be said to both trust and not trust these entities. Here “trust in” and “believe” are almost polysemes and can have introduce a lot of fluidity in interpretations. That’s part of why I used the term “belief from conviction” since it restricts the possible meanings. I’ve got a friend that has a serious fear of planes and high bridges because she’s been on a plane that had a hydraulics failure in the landing gear (belly slide landing) and she loss some friends in the collapse of the original Tampa Skyway bridge. To get around she must still get on planes and occasionally cross high bridges. For her it is an emotionally fearful experience. She could both be said to trust bridges and planes (when trust is used to express dependence) and not trust them (when expressing confidence or expectation of reliability). I think the confidence/reliability definition may be the one that is more closely related to convicted belief, (especially since I see “trust in” used primarily to talk about one’s feelings or emotional disposition to something) in which case some one doesn’t need to trust these entities to engage them.

and then investigate from there.

I think we are both in agreement that some one can by volition engage in investigation with the hopes of convincing themselves of a certain desirable conclusion. But here one’s volition is motivating actions (the investigation). But their eventual conviction would be the result of the information acquired through the investigation (along with some other psychological reactions that I can’t describe breifly here) which may or may not be aligned with the conclusion the person may have hoped for.

 

[PRmerger]

I think we are both in agreement that some one can by volition engage in investigation with the hopes of convincing themselves of a certain desirable conclusion. But here one’s volition is motivating actions (the investigation). But their eventual conviction would be the result of the information acquired through the investigation (along with some other psychological reactions that I can’t describe breifly here) which may or may not be aligned with the conclusion the person may have hoped for.

Yes!

That’s exactly what’s been proposed.

One uses his volition to believe, and then investigates.

What you have proposed above, BTW, is nothing other than the Catholic paradigm that has been espoused for centuries: fides quaerens intellectum.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not been demonstrated. I’ve heard some in this forum describe it as something that is directly the result of volition. Almost as though some one could by volition decide that she will tomorrow from 12:31pm to 12:49pm believe that the sky is green.

Well, I don’t think that’s what been proposed. Faith is, however, (among other things) an act of the will.

So in that sense faith is an act of volition. But it’s not where our faith ends.

This depends on what you mean by trust and believe here. People engaging these entities could be said to both trust and not trust these entities.

Sure.

You trust, say, Mrs. Caltigarone, your 4th grade teacher, when she says “Manila is the capital of the Philippines.” That’s the main reason you believe that Manila is the capital–it’s not because you’ve actually gotten a chance to visit there and see the gov’t in action. It’s because you have faith and trust in her.

You trust, say, American Airlines, when you fly in their aircraft that they have seasoned pilots.

You have decided, as an act of volition, to have faith in these entities.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes!

That’s exactly what’s been proposed.

One uses his volition to believe, and then investigates.

What you have proposed above, BTW, is nothing other than the Catholic paradigm that has been espoused for centuries: fides quaerens intellectum.

Cool! We’ve achieved understanding! Now, referring back to the earlier suggestion made by the other poster I think it may be better to ask some one to look into and consider some volume/area of information instead of asking some one to choose to believe. Of course this is just my personal opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

Cool! We’ve achieved understanding! Now, referring back to the earlier suggestion made by the other poster I think it may be better to ask some one to look into and consider some volume/area of information instead of asking some one to choose to believe. Of course this is just my personal opinion.

Yes, we are agreed on much.

However, as it applies to “volition”, I suggest you read this, specifically where it addresses faith being, first, an act of the will.

kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis101.pdf

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, we are agreed on much.

However, as it applies to “volition”, I suggest you read this, specifically where it addresses faith being, first, an act of the will.

kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis101.pdf

Thanks, I’ll read through it. 34 pages large print should be an easy read once I complete my obligations for the day. I do like how it starts off.

I thought of calling this series Mere Catholicism, for it
attempts to present simply the essential data, rather than any
particular interpretation, of the Catholic Faith, as C. S. Lewis did
half a century ago in Mere Christianity for Christian faith in general.

Though from reading that I get the feeling I should probably catch up on my C.S. Lewis so that I can have a better appreciation for the article. I got as far as reading the book that he wrote about that lion the struggle in the wardrobe between the lion and the witch. But I would hazard a guess that one work isn’t sufficient for understanding what illumination he provides to Catholic theology.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks, I’ll read through it. 34 pages large print should be an easy read once I complete my obligations for the day. I do like how it starts off.

I am very familiar with Kreeft and his works and am happy to share him with you!

Though from reading that I get the feeling I should probably catch up on my C.S. Lewis so that I can have a better appreciation for the article. I got as far as reading the book that he wrote about that lion the struggle in the wardrobe between the lion and the witch. But I would hazard a guess that one work isn’t sufficient for understanding what illumination he provides to Catholic theology.

Well, 'tis a start!

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s not been demonstrated. I’ve heard some in this forum describe it as something that is directly the result of volition. Almost as though some one could by volition decide that she will tomorrow from 12:31pm to 12:49pm believe that the sky is green.

This depends on what you mean by trust and believe here. People engaging these entities could be said to both trust and not trust these entities. Here “trust in” and “believe” are almost polysemes and can have introduce a lot of fluidity in interpretations. That’s part of why I used the term “belief from conviction” since it restricts the possible meanings. I’ve got a friend that has a serious fear of planes and high bridges because she’s been on a plane that had a hydraulics failure in the landing gear (belly slide landing) and she loss some friends in the collapse of the original Tampa Skyway bridge. To get around she must still get on planes and occasionally cross high bridges. For her it is an emotionally fearful experience. She could both be said to trust bridges and planes (when trust is used to express dependence) and not trust them (when expressing confidence or expectation of reliability). I think the confidence/reliability definition may be the one that is more closely related to convicted belief, (especially since I see “trust in” used primarily to talk about one’s feelings or emotional disposition to something) in which case some one doesn’t need to trust these entities to engage them.

I think we are both in agreement that some one can by volition engage in investigation with the hopes of convincing themselves of a certain desirable conclusion. But here one’s volition is motivating actions (the investigation). But their eventual conviction would be the result of the information acquired through the investigation (along with some other psychological reactions that I can’t describe breifly here) which may or may not be aligned with the conclusion the person may have hoped for.

Sapien,

Often an investigation undertaken honestly leads to other than the desired conclusion.

Scott Hahn undertook a study as a Protestant to prove that the Catholic Church was wrong. That was his desireable conclusion. He is now Catholic.

I undertook a study of 12 steps/AA to learn as much as I could to help someone and discovered that what I learned was other than what my desired conclusion would have hoped to be.

The best you can do is try to be honest in your investigation and honestly accept what you cannot deny. You may or may not reach your desired conclusion and that is the beauty of investigation.

 

[buffalo]

Born Believers -The Science of Children’s Religious Belief

                       *“Born Believers* will challenge the  anti-religion camp with Barrett’s careful science. His analysis shows  that infants have a natural inclination to believe in a supreme being,  and that their subsequent beliefs cannot be explained as the sole result  of indoctrination or brainwashing by heavy-handed adults. This book  raises profound questions about the origins of theism and the place of  religious belief in human affairs.”


       -- Larry Dossey, M.D., author of *Healing Words* and *The Power of Premonitions*
     

                      “Dr. Barrett provides a provocative,  compelling, tender-hearted analysis of what young children believe, why  they believe it, and what the implications are for us as adults and  parents. A timely response to the New Atheists who argue that religious  belief is unnatural or that religious values are inappropriate to pass  on to the next generation.”


       -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chairman, Cordoba Initiative, and author of *Moving the Mountain*

The debate over nature vs. nurture has been around at least since the time of Shakespeare, and thrived under Charles Darwin and his sometimes controversial discussions of human evolution. Barrett (Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), senior researcher at Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, presents a masterful discussion of whether children are born with a natural ability to exercise faith in God. The author systematizes the phenomena accompanying the belief process, offering a fine overview of recent research and scholarly discussions on the subject of children and belief. His studies transcend national and religious boundaries, bringing together the commonalities among Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other believing communities in ways that support the idea that religious belief, while sometimes considered childish by some post-Freudian rationalists, is, in fact, “a fundamental and healthy part of human existence, springing from cognitive systems that if removed would remove our humanity.” Barrett’s analysis represents a major addition to the literature discussing the natural bent toward belief, and should be widely read. (Mar.)

 

[atheistgirl]

Born Believers -The Science of Children’s Religious Belief

Another perspective on this.

epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barret.html

Sarah x