(continued...)
You never really answered the question I posed in my opening post about how confident you are that God exists. You've made one statement saying that you theists refuse to put percentages on things, so I'm not expecting that you'll say "I'm 95% confident that God exists". But I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're very very confident that God exists. Who knows? Perhaps you have no doubt at all in your mind about this.
What I am still wondering is how you got to this level of confidence about your belief in God. That is, what makes you so sure that your "common sense" is a reliable guide when it comes to such weighty matters? Faith isn't part of the reason you have confidence that God exists, you say. So is it all just a matter of "common sense" and subjective experience for you? What's the most important reason why you believe in God?
I'd suggest that you may hope that you son will one day be a great footballer. You might expect that he will be a great footballer. You may have confidence in his ability to become a great footballer if he works hard at it. And I'd say that the expectation and the confidence are evidence-based, because he has mad skills. The hope is a separate thing - that's about you, not about him. I don't think the football example is really comparable to believing that God is real, unless the belief in God is evidence-based in a similar way.
Interestingly, you talk about "subjective evidence". What is that, exactly? Are you trying to import the term "evidence" into what you previously referred to as "common sense" or "personal experience"? Because I'd prefer to use the term "evidence" to refer to objective things that other people can agree about, and not just a personal perception.
The word "theist" is not usually used in a way that excludes believers in mainstream religions, but we can go with your redefinition of the term for now if you like.There are loads of different religions, and different types of people.
If you're going to bring religion into it, then that's a whole different bag.
Theism is purely about belief in God, whereas religion is about the religion. In religion there is more scope for leaps of faith because the institute encourages that.
Kids who are recruited by gangs may seriously harm or kill someone because they have been encouraged, but without that encouragement would not have acted in that way.
You never really answered the question I posed in my opening post about how confident you are that God exists. You've made one statement saying that you theists refuse to put percentages on things, so I'm not expecting that you'll say "I'm 95% confident that God exists". But I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're very very confident that God exists. Who knows? Perhaps you have no doubt at all in your mind about this.
What I am still wondering is how you got to this level of confidence about your belief in God. That is, what makes you so sure that your "common sense" is a reliable guide when it comes to such weighty matters? Faith isn't part of the reason you have confidence that God exists, you say. So is it all just a matter of "common sense" and subjective experience for you? What's the most important reason why you believe in God?
Do you think it is rational for the theist to rely mainly on his own common sense and personal experience as a source of reliable knowledge about God?A person who regards himself as a theist, not a Christian, or Muslim is more likely to have a more rational approach to the subject matter of God, than a person like you described, because they have made the choice, and is more likely to have given it a lot of thought.
What is God-consciousness? That sounds a bit like something Deepak Chopra would talk about. And what is self realisation?Not every theist is religious. I don't have any friends who are religious, but most believe in God. The current religions are kind of foolish to a lot of theists, because they're not interested in God-consciousness, or self realisation.
Wouldn't you agree that the major religions have all had some major philosophers? In fact, since religion is often about enlightenment and the good life, isn't it strongly connected to philosophy?[Religions] don't tend to a have a philosophical basis
They're like clubs where people congregate. That's how they come across to a lot of theists.
In some case they come across as atheistic, because the minute you seriously question the adherents, or the teachers about God, they avoid all the points contradict their teaching, and just call you a heathen or something (the equivalent to moron).![]()
What other information would you need?I wouldn't know what to say to that. There's not enough information.
Do you think "believe" is the best word to use in the context of the footballer son? I know that people say things like that in everyday speech, but in this thread we're trying to be careful about distinguishing shades of meaning, aren't we?[Believing that God is real is] like believing in anything else. You may believe thatyour son can be a great footballer one day, because he has mad skills. So you put effort into him based on that belief, which is based on subjective evidence.
It's no big deal, no bell, no whistles. Just live your life.
I'd suggest that you may hope that you son will one day be a great footballer. You might expect that he will be a great footballer. You may have confidence in his ability to become a great footballer if he works hard at it. And I'd say that the expectation and the confidence are evidence-based, because he has mad skills. The hope is a separate thing - that's about you, not about him. I don't think the football example is really comparable to believing that God is real, unless the belief in God is evidence-based in a similar way.
Interestingly, you talk about "subjective evidence". What is that, exactly? Are you trying to import the term "evidence" into what you previously referred to as "common sense" or "personal experience"? Because I'd prefer to use the term "evidence" to refer to objective things that other people can agree about, and not just a personal perception.
I try to base my plans for the future on a rational analysis of the available evidence regarding how things are now and how they are likely to change in the future. But you seem to be saying something like we should rely on wishful thinking. Cross your fingers, make a random choice and hope for the best. Maybe I'm unfairly exaggerating your position on this. But it seems more fatalistic than mine. And I wonder: do you assume God has a plan for you, and do you think it's ok to have faith (trust) in that plan?I'm saying we can't help but make decisions in which the outcome is out of our control.
Anytime we make plans for the future, we cannot know how it's going to turn out.
Some things are more probable than others, depending on what the plan is. But ultimately we don't know what our future holds.
Last edited: