The Psychology of Belief (sort of)

[tonyrey]

That justification for not speaking only would make sense, but it was not the justification that was actually offered by Jesus: “all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”

Jesus did not say he needed to speak in terms that were difficult to understand to avoid perseculation. He says that he used parables deliberately so that people would not be converted and forgiven of their sins.

Incorrect! Jesus was quoting Isaiah who had predicted the coming of the Messiah five hundred years previously. The prophet had predicted the parables but misinterpreted their motive - which is hardly surprising. One does not expect foresight with 100% accuracy but he was remarkably accurate in other respects:

“He is despised and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

And you have omitted what Jesus had just said to the Apostles:

“The secret of the kingdom is given to you but to those outside everything comes in parables.”

He did not always speak openly in public because He foresaw it would eventually lead to His crucifixion and death - and could result in a premature end to His mission on earth. That is why His followers were entrusted with truths that could not be proclaimed from the
housetops: the truth, for example, that He would not lead the people to victory over the Romans. Even the Apostles could not accept that fact. Jesus lived in an apocalyptic era and came to a people ripe with messianic expectations that Roman domination would be overthrown. He had to contend with different Jewish sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Ebionites, Sicarii, Theraputae and others. In the face of fierce opposition He had to make difficult decisions which were literally crucial to the success of His small community. If He had been executed while still a carpenter from Nazareth it would have been far more difficult for them to establish a worldwide organization. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem - which we celebrate on Palm Sunday - would never have taken place. No wonder He had to weigh His words carefully but as the evil day approached He became more outspoken and denounced His enemies as a brood of vipers. It is difficult for us with hindsight to overestimate the magnitude of His task. The way in which St Paul was subsequently mocked by the Greeks gives us a glimpse of how many people regarded - and still regard - the account of the Resurrection. The wisdom of the world cannot comprehend the folly of the Cross…

At any rate, you still haven’t addressed my original question about why it is so absurd to wonder why amputees never get miraculously healed.

I have pointed out why the appearance of new limbs would be far more** coercive evidence** than other miraculous cures which can be attributed to the power of suggestion. It would be headline news if such events began to occur. If they have already occurred scientists would agree they are scientifically inexplicable, implying that an unknown benevolent power is at work - which of course everyone would identify with God. To pray would be far more important than brushing your teeth! Atheism would become a thing of the past in the face of such incontestable evidence. Life would be dominated by the thought that we are being constantly observed… What price freedom then?

 

[jmcrae]

Doesn’t this go back to the old “what is truth?” question? We could round and round with this ad infinitim but my guess is that we aren’t going to agree (and it’s a whole different topic).

Besides, there is a huge difference in admitting you don’t know (me) and claiming that you do (most religious people). I might come up with ideas, things that could be the answer - but I know that’s all they are - I don’t claim to “KNOW” and seek converts to my beliefs. Most religious people do just the opposite. Yet as you pointed out, we are all gap fillers. That’s sort of the point.

Science is the Latin for knowledge. Agnosticism is the Greek for ignorance.

It is not self-evident that ignorance is the goal of knowledge.

 

[Betterave]

Science is the Latin for knowledge. Agnosticism is the Greek for ignorance.

It is not self-evident that ignorance is the goal of knowledge.

lol! (some people apparently disagree!)

 

[Leela]

Incorrect! Jesus was quoting Isaiah who had predicted the coming of the Messiah five hundred years previously. The prophet had predicted the parables but misinterpreted their motive - which is hardly surprising. One does not expect foresight with 100% accuracy but he was remarkably accurate in other respects:

“He is despised and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

This is just a non sequitor. The question is, why did Jesus teach in parables, and Jesus gave a direct answer to that question.

Jesus: “all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”

In other words, he is saying that he taught in parables so that those listening would not understand. You say he didn’t want others to understand out of fear for persecution. That is not what Jesus said. Jesus said he did it, “lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” So you still need to answer why Jesus did not want people hearing to be converted and have their sins forgiven.

lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
And you have omitted what Jesus had just said to the Apostles:

“The secret of the kingdom is given to you but to those outside everything comes in parables.”

He did not always speak openly in public because He foresaw it would eventually lead to His crucifixion and death - and could result in a premature end to His mission on earth.

Again. While this is a plausble motive for not wanting his hearers to understand, this is simply not the explanation that Jesus actually is said to have given.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I have pointed out why the appearance of new limbs would be far more** coercive evidence** than other miraculous cures which can be attributed to the power of suggestion. It would be headline news if such events began to occur.

Evidence simply isn’t the sort of thing that we ever ascribe the word “coercive” to. How can evidence coerce?

Why would it be a bad thing for there to be headline news of experiences that are likely to help gain consensus on the existence of God? Why would God only perform miracles which suggest some alternative explanation besides divine intervention? You are contradicting the definition of “miracle” here since a miracle is supposed to have no plausible alternative natural explanation.

If they have already occurred scientists would agree they are scientifically inexplicable, implying that an unknown benevolent power is at work - which of course everyone would identify with God. To pray would be far more important than brushing your teeth! Atheism would become a thing of the past in the face of such incontestable evidence. Life would be dominated by the thought that we are being constantly observed… What price freedom then?

This is so confusing. Don’t you want people to think that praying is “far more important than brushing your teeth.” Don’t believers want “Atheism [to] become a thing of the past”? Why do you keep saying these things as though they would be bad???

Dave, anyone? Are you hearing this explanation of why God would not choose to heal an amputee?

Believers seem so reluctant to correct the bad ideas of other believers. Is it simply enough that he believes? No need to argue once you agree on that?

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

Evidence simply isn’t the sort of thing that we ever ascribe the word “coercive” to. How can evidence coerce?

Why would it be a bad thing for there to be headline news of experiences that are likely to help gain consensus on the existence of God? Why would God only perform miracles which suggest some alternative explanation besides divine intervention? You are contradicting the definition of “miracle” here since a miracle is supposed to have no plausible alternative natural explanation.

This is so confusing. Don’t you want people to think that praying is “far more important than brushing your teeth.” Don’t believers want “Atheism [to] become a thing of the past”? Why do you keep saying these things as though they would be bad???

Dave, anyone? Are you hearing this explanation of why God would not choose to heal an amputee?

Believers seem so reluctant to correct the bad ideas of other believers. Is it simply enough that he believes? No need to argue once you agree on that?

Best,
Leela

Why do you keep badgering him?

I gave you a perfectly good answer to your dilemma several pages ago - that the amount of faith on the part of the person being healed would need to be greater than what most people have - but you have just ignored it, and kept on going after the flaws in this person’s proposal.

Are you looking for answers, or are you just looking to argue?

 

[Leela]

I gave you a perfectly good answer to your dilemma several pages ago - that the amount of faith on the part of the person being healed would need to be greater than what most people have - but you have just ignored it, and kept on going after the flaws in this person’s proposal.
:

Your answer is quite different from his answer. Is it the accepted Catholic answer? Wjich one of you is correct here?

Why do you find it important to answer me but not respond to him? Why don’t believers call other believers on their bad ideas?

As for your answer, I can’t see why it would require any more faith to have a new limb grown than to have your cancer cured. Perhaps you can explain the difference.

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

Your answer is quite different from his answer. Is it the accepted Catholic answer? Which one of you is correct here?

Both of us are proposing theories. Obviously, I think mine has more merit.

Why do you find it important to answer me but not respond to him? Why don’t believers call other believers on their bad ideas?

I don’t see how it would be educational for him, or edifying for anyone else, for me to get into an argument with him.

As for your answer, I can’t see why it would require any more faith to have a new limb grown than to have your cancer cured.

Because (in my opinion) it’s easier to believe that something you can’t see, isn’t there. It’s just human nature.

 

[Leela]

Because (in my opinion) it’s easier to believe that something you can’t see, isn’t there. It’s just human nature.

So we should expect more miracles of the “I can’t find my keys” variety and fewer of the healing amputees variety because of the amount of faith involved?

I think your assertion cashes out to something like this: it is easier not to doubt (have faith) that a miracle can occur when there can be some doubt (lack of faith) as to whether or not it has occurred. It sounds self-contradictory.

You may be making a similar argument to tonyrey’s about miracles being more likely when there can be some alternative plausible natural explanation. But then this would contradict the definition of a miracle which is supposed to be something unexplainable other than by a supernatural event.

Also, why would anyone believe that curing cancer is easier for an omnipotent God to do than to do anything else? Everything is just as easy as everything else for God. Why would it take more faith to think that God could heal an amputee if it is believed that God is omnipotent? Believers believe that God created the entire universe for goodness sake.

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

So we should expect more miracles of the “I can’t find my keys” variety and fewer of the healing amputees variety because of the amount of faith involved?

I would expect so, yes.

Also, why would anyone believe that curing cancer is easier for an omnipotent God to do than to do anything else?

Everything is easy for God, but for our sake, He does not act without our faith. Also, He does not exist for the purpose of performing miracles for us - we exist for the purpose of glorifying Him, whether He happens to be sending us miracles, or not. Remember, He created us; we did not create Him.

 

[Swan]

Science is the Latin for knowledge. Agnosticism is the Greek for ignorance.

It is not self-evident that ignorance is the goal of knowledge.

I didn’t realize we were going to play a semantics game. Since theists so often decry science, that doesn’t exactly make them knowledge seekers, now does it (since they seem to think they already have all the answers). Agnostic is simply admitting you don’t know - I call that honesty.

 

[donsnow]

I accept two different definitions of truth because they do not contradict each other and they accurately describe truth.

The first is Jesus’ statement in his prayer in the garden, where he says to His Heavenly Father, “…your word is truth.”

The second is Prof. Mueller’s definition which I heard while sitting in on his Philosophy class at the St. Thomas Moore Institution, which is now an accredited college: “The truth is a statement which matches the condition it describes.”

I like these definitions because they are each elegant in its own way, and don’t go 'round and 'round the Sophist nor any other bush.

 

[donsnow]

Leela,

Why haven’t you responded to my post of what Jesus says about major crippling?

You can find it in context, at Matt. 5, 29 and 30.

 

[tonyrey]

I have pointed out why the appearance of new limbs would be far more coercive evidence than other miraculous cures which can be attributed to the power of suggestion. It would be headline news if such events began to occur.

Evidence simply isn’t the sort of thing that we ever ascribe the word “coercive” to.

Do you never use metaphors? BTW I am not the first…

How can evidence coerce?

Simple! If it is overwhelming evidence what choice do you have - if you are not demented?

Why would it be a bad thing for there to be headline news of experiences that are likely to help gain consensus on the existence of God?

More than consensus… universal compulsion to believe. Would you favour the imposition of truths by a benevolent Dictator who knows exactly what you thinking?

Why would God only perform miracles which **suggest **some alternative explanation besides divine intervention? You are contradicting the definition of “miracle” here since a miracle is supposed to have no plausible alternative natural explanation.

“suggest” does not mean “verify”. Your surmise is incorrect for the reason I have just given…

If they have already occurred scientists would agree they are scientifically inexplicable, implying that an unknown benevolent power is at work - which of course everyone would identify with God. To pray would be far more important than brushing your teeth! Atheism would become a thing of the past in the face of such incontestable evidence. Life would be dominated by the thought that we are being constantly observed… What price freedom then?

This is so confusing. Don’t you want people to think that praying is “far more important than brushing your teeth.”

No - not if they pray only because they are afraid or out of self-interest! Why do think people die fighting for freedom rather than living as slaves?

Don’t believers want “Atheism [to] become a thing of the past”?

No - not if atheists **sincerely **believe God doesn’t exist!

Why do you keep saying these things as though they would be bad???

They are not only bad but evil if they impinge on our power of self-determination.

Dave, anyone? Are you hearing this explanation of why God would not choose to heal an amputee?

Is the recovery of a limb more important than your freedom to choose what to believe?
You prefer your mind to be handicapped rather than your body?

Believers seem so reluctant to correct the bad ideas of other believers. Is it simply enough that he believes?

No, it certainly is not! God might as have well have created zombies who cannot think for themselves… Would you prefer to have your life mapped out for you? The fact that you have broken the “shackles” of the Church demonstrates how much importance you attach to your own judgment when it conflicts with authority, whether it be human or divine… What is the point of living if you cannot choose what to think and how to live? You would be one of the last to opt for such a fate… Or am I mistaken?

 

[Betterave]

Your answer is quite different from his answer. Is it the accepted Catholic answer? Wjich one of you is correct here?

Why do you find it important to answer me but not respond to him? Why don’t believers call other believers on their bad ideas?

As for your answer, I can’t see why it would require any more faith to have a new limb grown than to have your cancer cured. Perhaps you can explain the difference.

Best,
Leela

Since you asked…

Neither answer is Catholic and neither answer is correct (sorry to be blunt - if you want to know the why and wherefore, I can explain). They may not be entirely wrong, but that is different from being correct. They are essentially arational speculative theories which fill gaps that in this case (and certainly in this context) are probably better filled with “I don’t know.”

To your other point, I do call believers on bad points, but I think you were doing fine in this case.

 

[Betterave]

Doesn’t this go back to the old “what is truth?” question? We could round and round with this ad infinitim but my guess is that we aren’t going to agree (and it’s a whole different topic).

Besides, there is a huge difference in admitting you don’t know (me) and claiming that you do (most religious people). I might come up with ideas, things that could be the answer - but I know that’s all they are - I don’t claim to “KNOW” and seek converts to my beliefs. Most religious people do just the opposite. Yet as you pointed out, we are all gap fillers. That’s sort of the point.

I didn’t realize we were going to play a semantics game. Since theists so often decry science, that doesn’t exactly make them knowledge seekers, now does it (since they seem to think they already have all the answers). Agnostic is simply admitting you don’t know - I call that honesty.

Come let us reason together: Claiming that you don’t know *may *be honest. All that is required for this is a sincere belief on your part. If your belief is sincere, that is in itself good (though not necessarily very intelligent). Claiming that you don’t know *may *also be dishonest. Or it may be honestly naive or confused. You’ve heard the term ‘self-deception,’ I’m sure. Now your language of “admitting” that you don’t know seems to imply some self-deception: it implies that you *do *know, namely, you *know, *first, that *you *don’t know, and, second, that *we *don’t know, that you know that if *we *were honest, we too would admit that we do not know. So you are making some rather ambitious knowledge claims after all, and it is dishonest, if you were to get beyond your honest confusion, to characterize your position so simply as consisting in “admitting you don’t know.” And a further dishonest (or perhaps honestly naive) claim: that it is typical for theists to “decry science” [which implies that they are not knowledge seekers].