I find that the conventional notion of having some “middle ground” between belief and lack of belief makes no sense. SecretCatholic apparently thinks that saying he/she doesn’t believe they will win the lottery is somehow different than disbelief or non-belief in their ability to win the lottery. I agree that believing you won’t win is different, but certainly not expecting to win is a lack of belief in winning. Have fun with your semantics.
It’s not semantics. There really is a difference between believing that something is true, believing that something is untrue and simply not knowing. It is truly beyond me how you do not see that.
If God doesn’t like the Wager, then the issue raised by the OP is settled: Pascal’s Wager and its variants are bad arguments because God doesn’t want his creations to gamble.
God wants us to think and find truth. If Pascal’s Wager leads to that, then I figure God is fine with that.
Ah, speaking of dictionary definitions, you and PRmerger may be interested in a more representative definition of “fundamentalist”: “movement with strict view of doctrine: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles”
Fundamentalism is marked by strict, limited, literalistic interpretations and circular reasoning, such as you have shown in this thread. That is what is meant. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “fundamentalist-like”.
Anyway, I think it’s adorable that the religious have found a way to spin “fundamentalist” so they can use it as a weapon.
What I don’t think it adorable is the way that you have closed yourself off to other possibilities.
You are going to have to explain to the class why that isn’t a case of non-belief.
Again, conceding a small amount of uncertainty does nothing to change your overall status of non-belief. People who buy insurance in case their houses burn down don’t believe that their houses will burn. It is completely fair to classify that as non-belief.
If the only reason to buy insurance is to insure your home in case of a fire, and you do not believe that this can or will happen, you do not buy insurance. Buying insurance in this case means you really believe it does and can happen to you. This is a
far cry from non-belief.
Now, we can imagine a home owner who buys insurance “just because”, to “play it safe” even though he finds it highly unlikely (maybe the insurance is really cheap, or he is deathly afraid of the economic damage a fire might produce). You could argue that this is practically non-belief. It is an “I don’t know”, but with a “its probably not true.”
But on the other hand, another home owner buys insurance because it happened to his neighbor and a lot of houses have burned this summer and he thinks its a strong possibility it will happen to his home soon. This is also an “I don’t know” as above, but with an additional “but it is probably true”.
On the other hand, the non-believer in home fires will simply not get home insurance. He just doesn’t believe that home fires can happen. period. He’s heard some stories about them, but skeptically discounts them as myth. He doesn’t look up home insurance quotes or buy fire-retardant furniture. Because to him, it’s all non-sense.
Aside from this limited analogy, is it really so difficult to believe that a person can declare “I don’t know” and mean it honestly, regardless of what level of certainty he might or might not have day to day? Scientists do this all the time.
Once the Church puts its foot down and says, “People who don’t believe X, Y, and Z aren’t Catholics” then I will be thrilled. Until then, if the Church is going to say it has over a billion members then I take it that those members hold at least the necessary beliefs to be Catholic. Otherwise the Church would be (
le gasp) lying.
Then you’ll have to find your thrills elsewhere.
It doesn’t make a difference as to how many members the church says it has unless those people actually act according to Catholic beliefs. The same is true for just about any group. Most don’t make their members take a test to prove their membership.
The Church has compiled her core beliefs in a very readable, accessible work called the Catholic Catechism, which is available in any Catholic bookstore, church or free online. Adults that come into the church normally go through a process (RCIA) in which they are taught the Catholic beliefs and given the Catechism to read and study. Children are supposed to be instructed in the faith not only by their pastors but by their parents and Godparents.
As an adult, ultimately, it is your responsibility to make up your mind if you’re Catholic or not. If you’re baptized Catholic its assumed you are unless you say otherwise. This is not a lie or a deception, as you wish to make it out to be.
That doesn’t mean they have to close the doors on those people. You will just not be an official member until you hold the official stance. That’s only honest, no?
So you’re not Catholic or even religious, but you want to dictate how the church functions? In olden times the church did not in fact allow outsiders into mass, unless you were baptized (usually in the nude) and committed to the principles of the church.
While it certainly solved some issues, it had a few of its own, and ultimately the church decided to open its doors to everybody and count as Catholics those who proclaim to be so.
