This thread isn't about God or religion, but something close to them - belief itself. Some people think belief is bad. They think it imprisons the mind. So here is something to think about. Life after death. Can we prove it exists? If we can't, it means believing in life after death is all we can do. So is it bad then to believe in life after death? The answer is no, and the reason is because if there is no life after death, nothing we do in this life matters. On the other hand, if there is a life after death, it's possible something we do in this life does matter, and directly affects what happens to us when we die. In this particular case, there's no reason not to believe. And just because you believe, it doesn't mean you have to close your mind to other possibilities. It also doesn't mean you have to change your life in any way. So what possible reason would anyone have not to believe in life after death? And what does that say about belief in general?
Wizdumb: Nothing in life matters? It matters subjectively to the self which experienced it. Simply because that self might one day disappear, never to return, does not mean that the experience cannot be subjectively valuable when one has experiencd it. There's no reason not to believe? What about the lack of proof -for- the belief? Should we now believe in pink rabbits that fly at mach 5 shooting eachother down with hellfire missiles every day at 3 pm Eastern Standard Time? Whilst yes, it may be possible that there is life after death, until it is proven, no one can know what that life after death would entail, nor how one would prepare for it in any meaningful way. It could be that evil people are given everything they could ever desire, and good people are tortured to death. Or it could be that everyone becomes a frog upon death and then an apple.
Wizdumb, Some time ago, in reviewing my stand with regard to belief in God, I thought of a similar question. What if I'm wrong in not believing, and there realy is a God? So consider two cases. The first, there is a God. Then, I'll have been wrong, and after my death, I'll have to answer for my disbelief. While those who believed will have no problem, if the had lived morally. The second case is, there is no God (and no life after death). Then, after my death I simply will cease to be, and won't find out that I was right. And what about those who did believe? They too, would know nothing, including the fact that they were wrong. So in both cases, tose who believed wan't suffer after their death, whereas there is a chance that I might. And so it was safer to believe. As in Game Theory, where you choose the option which will be the safest. Or so it seemed at first. But then there were lots of problems. What relegion shoud I follow? It is very well to say that all relegions are essentially the same and blah blah. But how could I know this for sure? And as Prince James pointed out, what if good people are torured and evil people are rewarded? Or in other words, how do you decide what is moral? Another problem is that you can't make yourself believe just because it seems safe. You could believe if: (1) There are good reasons to make you think it's true (2) Or, you have always belived it since your childhood, and you've <B>never come to question it</B>. But if you do question it at least once, then the first rule has to apply to make you believe. You can't point a gun at someone and say "Believe this, or you die". You could say "Always act as if you believe", but that's not the same thing.
Believing is not a matter of choice. Once enough information is presented to satisfy our criteria for what we consider true, we believe the proposed premise. However, if our criteria for truth are scientific, we will never arrive at truth, since every claim based on empirical evidence is inherently relativistic. As for religious belief: Both those who don't believe in God as well as some of those who believe in God tend to insist that one's belief in God is one's own choice and doing. However, as some older believers can tell, belief in God is up to God, not to the individual. Wondering about what comes after death reveals that the person who wonders about that is attempting to answer more than it is in their power and competence to do. We can only assume what happens after death. * * * Rosnet, "What if I'm wrong in not believing, and there realy is a God?" This isn't your problem. Your problem is only if you can identify that you do believe in God, but don't like to believe in God.
Can one just wake up one morning and decide to belief in life after death/god(s)? Isn't sorta' like waking up one morning and deciding to fall in love? I don't think "belief" is so simply as turning 'on' a little switch behind our ears. Baron Max
I think beliefs emerge, we can't follow them developing; we can, however, in retrospect infer how they developed. In this sense of emergence, we do "wake up one morning to find we believe X".
Why don't you just wake the fuck up and stand for something, now, while you have any influence. Whether god exists or not, just stand up and say You either like or dislike god. Stick to your guns, at least until you change your fucking mind.
By Water... "As for religious belief: Both those who don't believe in God as well as some of those who believe in God tend to insist that one's belief in God is one's own choice and doing. However, as some older believers can tell, belief in God is up to God, not to the individual." It is the difference between pure Western Theism, and Theistic Existentialism, both of which have influenced our modern understanding about belief and religion. It is the determinism, vs. free will argument, that boils down to 'Did God find me?' or 'Did I find God?'. The jury is still out for certain (for some), but dogmatically positioning oneself in either argument, tends to lead to a road of ludicrous hypotheticals. Still, it is an acceptable paradox that really, I think, merely proves that, if there is a God, He is wholly above complete human reason. (I have to add that the existences of such paradoxes themselves prove the existence of God by the nature of their very existence. In other words, since there seems to always be more to know than humanity can know, there is a greater being, but let’s not get hung up on that for a moment, there is a little more to ). That is to say, the paradox as we see it, may not be a paradox at all to an all knowing being, and it is worthy of discussion in seeking out the nature of an existent God, that intrinsically must know more than the created being. Is the universe open, or determined, and in either case.. is it open or closed by whom, or what? What would be moral, or right, or fair? That seems to matter to us greatly, because we tend to dislike, or like believing in God according to how he handles destiny, a life after death, or who comes out ahead at the onset of the unknowable reality of such a place (or places!) to move into after death. To believe in God, (I think) is to simultaneously agree that he is just, and the benchmark for reality and morality, otherwise if we then are the definers of good and evil, therefore; the supreme knowers, there is no need for him at all. I conclude that either: (1) We are gods… self-existent, supremely existent, supremely knowing, the creators of morality (either individually or as a collective). (2) Or… There is God, self-existent, supremely existent, the creator of the cosmos, supremely knowing, the creator of morality. (Else the created knows more than the creator) I prefer the later. Wizdumb mentioned that some people think that belief inprisons the mind. I can't see how, since it is usually also a belief that there will always be more to know... It is the inspiration for seeking the unknown, by my estimation. One writer put his perspective on the nature of God this way; “Should the thing made say to the one who made it, “Why have you made me this way?” When a man makes a jar out of clay, doesn’t he have the right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar beautiful, to be used for holding flowers, and another to throw garbage into?” Of belief then, one either accepts belief in God along with the apparent paradoxes of: pain and suffering vs. a loving God; or determinism vs. free will; as not entirely knowable or ‘reasonable’ by the created being… or one has accepted that reason, and knowing by one’s own determination, is all that there is to be known.
Scott Myers: "Dogmatically positioning yourself" is not the matter here, but what is philosophically more valid. If God is a conscious being, with perfect knowledge, omniscience, et cetera, then not even he is free, for he knows perfectly what he is going to do, and thus determinism must also stand to reason for human beings. Moreover, your notion that any paradoxes exist in God's nature, is most likely the fact that you are being exposed to piss-poor theology. When one actually takes God on a reasonable level, we see that there are no paradoxes, but we also come to realize some very interesting things about God, and the follies of many popular beliefs. Amongst these that God could be "above human reason", specifically if he has attributes which would require him as a necessary being/thing. The world refutes this silly notion of a just God. Epicurus' Riddle buried this notion two thousand years ago: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? The evil of the world, which is great according to all world religions, demonstrates that God cannot possibly be just or good. He is the very creator of evil itself. In what manner can be considered just or good at all? Accepting paradox and contradiction is the mark of the ignorant who believe simply to believe.
To pre-emptively deal with the tired "Free-Will" response, I have two arguments against that: 1. We are not necessarily free and in fact, likely not if God exists. 2. If God is said to be free-will and perfectly good, then why can't his creations be?
"Accepting paradox and contradiction is the mark of the ignorant who believe simply to believe." I accept no contradiction within a perfect God and will not entertain the word (personally) in describing Him, but freely use the word paradox. Let me explain my position as to why and the difference. Using the determined vs. free will example, it's always a good example; either position has decent claims at the onset of a reasonable discussion. But… If one chooses to be dogmatically committed to either, under all proposed circumstances and under all hypothetical situations (likely examples or pure imaginations), the opposition has been proven right by the sheer absurdity of a path completely imagined out to the fullest extent of either. Refresh… Two individuals have faith in God, assume with me. One knows for a fact that no one is a mere drone automaton-ing his or her way through the universe. Rival; the other believer knows for certain that actions have consequences; therefore God has rules and has put limitations on human power and actions and has ultimate rule over man. Both are right about what God is not; according to acceptable theology and even scriptural basis (and actually even themselves), but both may have trouble agreeing once the ridiculous have been introduced into the argument. They have created what is contradiction. So… the ‘What God is not’ may be the most important truth to be discovered. This is conventional, actually, with Existential Theism on one point, that makes claim to the wholly ‘otherness’ of God. You know… he is neither male nor female (even though he is described using gender), he is neither only material or only spirit, etc. We do not have to subject the full knowing, and understanding of what God is, by our objective universe, to know he exists. However, we may well be able to say what he is ‘not’, very easily using our objectivity. This is not a Yin and Yang argument by the way, I assure you. This may be similar to what great physicists of our day might theorize about dark matter, which I quite enjoy. Dark matter may well be the fabric that holds the space-time continuum in order and it might be the glue of the known universe. Physicists know some of the effects of the dark matter and they know it is not material as we have learned to understand it with present objective laws of physics, but they can easily tell us what it is certainly not! Granted this is not complete knowing, but it is an interesting way to approach the ‘is God’ question, before we write him off to ignorance. Prince; in the second point of your attempt to head off the free-willys, I think you have shown something that exposes the real quagmire with belief in general. You wrote: “2. If God is said to be free-will and perfectly good, then why can't his creations be?” An excellent question, but it most certainly is dependant upon one’s own presuppositions about what God should be, according to one’s own moral standards. In other words; not that free will is your personal gauge of value, but why would that be any better than being a robot? Why would being a robot be any better than being free? Asking why God is apparently not perfect automatically sets an individual in opposition with the possibility of God being true. One has already placed his or herself as the moral standard according to their own human experiences, cultural persuasions, or any number of things that influence the individual’s claim of knowing what moral is. Judging the morality of God is disbelief in a nutshell. Believing, is accepting the possibility of the existence of a being that will set the standard, of what is good and evil. How does one come to either position? Surely I cannot claim to know, but think it is His call ultimately; but read below. On your first point, “1. We are not necessarily free and in fact, likely not if God exists.”. I understand your "likely not" this way; since… if there is a God and all that entails, than it is most certainly up to Him what happens, right? But cannot God grant something like free will to His creations? In other words, even though it would be within His power to turn every crank, including our very thoughts, could he not release this power to humanity at His own discretion? There is much more to discuss obviously, but I sleep now!
I would say that it is the opposite. Unless you have no compassion at all for other livign beings, everything you do during this lifetime matters, because it affects everyone. If, however, there is a wonderful eternal paradise awaiting us, then this earth and existence is only temporary, and those that suffer will find pleasure in the afterlife. Therofre there is no impetus to relieve suffering of others in this lifetime. If you knew one suffering man was going to be suffering the rest of his days if he has no help and another was going to be just fine tomorrow, which would you be more likely to offer assistence?
Prince James, This is a great point that I failed to address at all; you wrote; ""Dogmatically positioning yourself" is not the matter here, but what is philosophically more valid. If God is a conscious being, with perfect knowledge, omniscience, et cetera, then not even he is free, for he knows perfectly what he is going to do, and thus determinism must also stand to reason for human beings." Since, as you grant, he would be all knowing; He could choose how He wished to write the book of determinism, choose (as I alluded to above) when to grant freedom, and also choose when the book is over, so to speak, to be completely free of His own determinism once again. Would he be right about what He thought He would desire to do under each pre-written circumstance? I think yes; therefore He would be free for the duration, even under His own determinism.
Scott Myers: Reality based paradoxes are always resolved through demonstrating that they are false or not really paradoxes at all. Are you so willing to accept God has them in his nature? What makes it utterly absurd to take anything to its extreme if it is valid to do so? If the truth is that neither are right to the fullest extreme, then there is no contradiction. That is, if one has freedom within a limited scope, but God has also set rules, this is not a contradiction. The method of "What God is not" is often used in various Oriental and Indian philosophies, as well as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I do not deny that this is useful. I do, however, deny that it is useful without also attributing positive aspects also, for indeed if one can know what God isn't, does not it stand that one can know what God is, atleast in a vague manner? I disagree. To know - that is, to have justified true belief - is to be one hundred precent certain, specifically in the case of -necessary- beings. Necessary beings either can be or cannot be, there is no happy medium. God, in fact, is the only being one could ever prove or disprove to exist. To not have one hundred precent basis is to be merely holding an opinion, which might or might not be true. Plato would elaborate on this concept in many of his dialogues, including "Meno" and "The Republic". But, due to no positive proof of Dark Matter's existence, science does not yet incorporate it into theory and/or law. If God is all good, but yet then creates his creations with the capacity to be evil, and indeed, knows they'll be evil, then he is the source of that evil, and has failed to create things as maximally best as he could, which also notes an imperfection in him, for to act outside of perfection would be to be imperfect oneself. I would disagree with this. If it is said that God loves goodness, and is perfectly good, then he cannot possibly love evil, or be perfectly evil, as well. Because free-will, or non-limited free-will, allows for evil, God cannot create it withotu being himself not perfeclty good, specifically if God can be free and perfectly good. Yes, it is in someways blasphemous to judge God in anyway, but if we do not judge God, how can one come to knowledge of him? Belief is mere opinion and cannot be rooted firmly, knowledge is the only path to firmness. I would say that faith, blind and without foundation, is thus an affront to God and the true blasphemy, as one cannot stake one's certainty on him, ultimately demonstrating that one is not perfectly faithful. Impossible by virtue of his omniscience and perfection. God can neither act against his perfection without ceasing to be perfect, nor can anything act upon against his omniscience without his omniscience ceasing to be perfect or omniscience at all, for omniscience requires perfection in order to be omniscience. It can admit no error or it is not omniscience. One Raven: I bow before the brilliance of your post. Scott Myers: An interesting argument but ultimately flawed, I assert. If God knows what he will desire to do, then God all ready knows the outcome of that desire, as he cannot be in anyway mistaken, hence God still is not free to do otherwise. Similarly, to "grant freedom" at all is ludicrous, because he knows, by virtue of his omniscience, what that person is going to do without error, and they cannot hope to go agianst his knowledge. What omniscience does is rob -anyone- of freedom, including God, and thus freedom is a myth stemming from ignorance if God is omniscient. If God is not omniscient and is still a thinking being, then God is not perfect, and one could argue, not even a necessary being, hence coming to disbelieve in God fully.
Some people think belief is bad. "Beliefs" are for those who need such things, for whatever reason. It may be a need for immortality, a need for purpose, a need to justify their own sloth or ignorance, the list goes on... Are beliefs good or bad? Well, good and bad are relative to the observer, so it's not really a question with a definitive answer. Are beliefs harmful or dangerous? Absolutely! That has been shown throughout the ages and continues today. So is it bad then to believe in life after death? No, but it can be harmful and dangerous as we see almost every day with suicide bombers seeking 70 virgins in the so-called afterlife. The answer is no, and the reason is because if there is no life after death, nothing we do in this life matters. Except of course, the murdering of innocent people on scales to huge to imagine. So what possible reason would anyone have not to believe in life after death? If one is to believe in the afterlife, then their time on Earth is merely an irrelevant phase of existence, only to serve the afterlife. People turn into walking corpses only to assume they will live once they're dead. They waste their lives preparing for their death. And what does that say about belief in general? They are choices in which one makes that defy reason and rationale, and ultimately deny reality.
one_raven, Only those who think that they will get to the afterlife paradise by the mere virtue of believing in it, will be so careless as to give up on this life. But religions which posit an afterlife also posit criteria to get to paradise -- and those criteria have to do with things we do in this life. * * * Prince James and Scott Myers, The problem of a particular Western theology that posits a rationalistic God bound by necessity. This issue is very well covered in this paper: http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm * * * Prince_James, The "What God is not" approach, an ex negativo approach thus, is useful esp. in the beginning. Namely, we have many preconceptions about God and ourselves, and they clash. So for starters, it is useful to clean away all the preconceptions about God which, upon scrutiny, turn out to have nothing to do with God, but only with a particular experience with some theists and some theology. Nothing can be proven or disproven; at best, we have some certainty which is always less than 100%. Common sense reasoning then turns 75% or 98% into 100% and makes us think that we we hold aren't merely opinions. Please look up the paper I've linked to. What knowledge? Quine says: The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole. From Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism" What god are you talking about? Krishna, Jehovah? The problem with theoretical wonderings about God is that they tend to drift into mere speculative philosophy, completely disregarding the actual source discourse about God: an individual religion. This has been dealt with at large in this thread, very eloquently: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45896 * * * (Q), Not true. Apart from some flowery hippie versions of Christianity, no actual historical religion posits uiversal salvation, at least not that I knew of any who would. I can understand though that with your particular negative bias against religion in general, you have prejudiced views as stated above. You have mere beliefs too. The fact that your "knowledge" changes with new "evidence" gives your mental contents away to be mere beliefs. Quine again: The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole. From Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism"
