Crisis of no faith?

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

It begins by pre-supposing that one can choose to believe something, which is not true.

I have just chosen that this belief must be false, just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence. Pascal's wager though..??? why not choose to believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships spying on us or go wild and make up whatever you want and then calculate the probablities....bollox!

JC 2K3

Death is just like going to sleep and not waking up, what's the big deal?

Ickle Magoo

JC 2K3 wrote:

Death is just like going to sleep and not waking up, what's the big deal?

How do you know that for certain? Do you ever contemplate any other possibilities? It's not a "big" deal, I was pondering & curious...:)

JC 2K3

Well, put it this way, I've reasoned that pondering about the issue of what happens when we die is possibly one of the most baseless and pointless bs wastes of our limited time.

No amount of discussion, pondering, contemplation, debate, spiritual revelation, perceived enlightenment or delusion can possibly detract from the fact that we haven't a fúcking clue, can never have, and that any opinion anyone has on this issue is, by it's very nature, baseless and probably false.

Ickle Magoo

I wasn't just pondering death but I appreciate what you're saying.

I would have to say in my defense that if all ponderings & discussions regarding things we cannot possibly know or prove are pointless bs wastes of our limited time, this forum & others like it would be obsolete.

lookinforpicnic

JC 2K3 wrote:

can possibly detract from the fact that we haven't a fúcking clue, can never have, and that any opinion anyone has on this issue is, by it's very nature, baseless and probably false.

Haven't a clue... what?? so this interpretation - that we meet shrek and live in a cartoon when we die - is on par with the idea that we vanish out of existence. Do you really think that these two interpretations are equally likely, equally baseless and both false?

We do have a clue, for instance science has shown us that there is no evidence of a soul, or of a lifeforce, or any intrinsic entity that is 'you' independent of your body and experiences, thus this renders any ideas of your soul floating of to heaven, some other life after death or reincarnation as all ridiculous, based on misunderstandings of what 'I' stands for. Knowing what 'I' refers to, which is a scientific investigation (neuroscience, cognitive science just two disciplines that investigate this scientifically) can tell us about the likely consequences of what happens to this 'I' when a body disintegrates (basically - it too disintegrates much more rapidly).

Dades

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I have just chosen that this belief must be false, just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence.

I'm with Zillah's opinion on Pascal's Wager.

Firstly I don't agree you can "choose" to believe without being untruthful to yourself. While it might seem there are "choices" in what to believe - ultimately one of these choices is the one you actually believe in. If that is God, then good for you, but if not - and you "choose" to believe in God anyway then you are deluding yourself. Similarly if you conclude there is not enough evidence either way, you can hardly believe in God, either.

Secondly, I doubt you could fool an omnipotent god into welcoming you to heaven by just turning up to mass once a week. You might be able to fool yourself but not the creator of life, the universe and everything?

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence.

I see...

As a thought experiment then, I would ask you to believe that there is a large predator in your kitchen. A tiger, perhaps it escaped from the zoo.


Don't be scared!!! Now, please go back to not believing there is a tiger in your kitchen, it wasn't true.

If that worked then you have nicely demonstrated the human ability to choose belief(and probably sprinted from your home screaming for help!). Then again, if that didn't work I'm afraid it kind of supports my position...

JC 2K3

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I wasn't just pondering death but I appreciate what you're saying.

I would have to say in my defense that if all ponderings & discussions regarding things we cannot possibly know or prove are pointless bs wastes of our limited time, this forum & others like it would be obsolete.

Not really, that just proves that many are wasting their time.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Haven't a clue... what?? so this interpretation - that we meet shrek and live in a cartoon when we die - is on par with the idea that we vanish out of existence. Do you really think that these two interpretations are equally likely, equally baseless and both false?

We do have a clue, for instance science has shown us that there is no evidence of a soul, or of a lifeforce, or any intrinsic entity that is 'you' independent of your body and experiences, thus this renders any ideas of your soul floating of to heaven, some other life after death or reincarnation as all ridiculous, based on misunderstandings of what 'I' stands for. Knowing what 'I' refers to, which is a scientific investigation (neuroscience, cognitive science just two disciplines that investigate this scientifically) can tell us about the likely consequences of what happens to this 'I' when a body disintegrates (basically - it too disintegrates much more rapidly).

Well, when I said we hadn't a clue, I meant that we have no records of first hand experiences.

The viewpoint you present is the most likely. My point is that even if there is something else, no one will know until they die and no amount of thinking about it and discussing it will or can enlighten us, so why bother?

MooseJam

lot's of people have been brought back from the dead so it's as good as first hand experience, people being submerged in freezing water for long periods is as close to dead if not actually dead

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

I see...

As a thought experiment then, I would ask you to believe that there is a large predator in your kitchen. A tiger, perhaps it escaped from the zoo.


Don't be scared!!! Now, please go back to not believing there is a tiger in your kitchen, it wasn't true.

If that worked then you have nicely demonstrated the human ability to choose belief(and probably sprinted from your home screaming for help!). Then again, if that didn't work I'm afraid it kind of supports my position...

You had me running out my apartment there; tigers scare the **** out of me!
No you can’t choose belief (whatever that could mean?) but you can choose between beliefs.

Ultimately you are arguing to choose a belief is not the same as believing, as choosing is a process over and above believing, believing is akin to something like perception – I can’t choose what I see when I open my eyes for example.

However, I can choose what I look at or what I explore with my eyes, also if I have multiple beliefs regarding say someones internal state…is that person going to mug me or walk past, will I run or keep walking, a choice has to me made about which of those competing beliefs is true (mugger or walker). When I make a choice regarding these beliefs I suppose someone could say that this is now what I believe in so there was no real choice making going on (The Atheist: “While it might seem there are "choices" in what to believe - ultimately one of these choices is the one you actually believe in” . But I would say the process of how you (your brain) “choose” between those belief alternatives is choice about belief.

Choosing between belief systems (Pascals wager) though is a bit more complicated, and can be seen as disingenuous more easily, but may be an extreme example.

Ickle Magoo

JC 2K3 wrote:

My point is that even if there is something else, no one will know until they die and no amount of thinking about it and discussing it will or can enlighten us, so why bother?

Because it interests me what others believe & what possibilities there may be for lots of things that cannot be proven one way or the other. I may not ever ultimately reach a definitive conclusion but to me that is part of the fascination, not a draw back.

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Choosing between belief systems (Pascals wager) though is a bit more complicated, and can be seen as disingenuous more easily, but may be an extreme example.

The crucial point here is that my tiger example is a perfect parallel. You can no more choose to believe that there is a God in heaven any more than you can choose to believe there is a tiger in your kitchen. The only other option is to pretend to believe in God, which is theologicaly bankrupt.

Hence Pascal's Wager is crap.

Ickle Magoo

I've just read that article re Pascal's Wager...it doesn't make much sense to me tho it is an interesting theory. It's the very fact I don't believe in God that prevents me from doing anything other than not believing in God...I can't "hedge my bets" as it were because even if I were to declare that God exists based on the expected value of believing it wouldn't change the fact that I actually don't believe...

Zillah

Exactly. I suspect that Pascal may have simply been hoping to convince people to obey the church and pretend to be good Christians. If nothing else it would keep them in line. And, who knows, maybe doing it long enough they'll start to truly believe.

A clever tool of manipulation, yes. A good argument, no.

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

Hence Pascal's Wager is crap.

I think its crap too, as i implied earlier where i said why doesn't Pascal not believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships that are going to take us away to a mushroom cloud when we die (or some other made up fantasy) and calculate probabilities of there existence, why give credence to a believe in an imaginery god at all. I suppose another neat religious trick that has a evolved is the cost of ignoring religious teaching..hell..eternal damnation, this gives an apparent umph to pay attention to religious dogma in the first place. Reading that article too it looks like Pascal was a religious man and was looking for some way to justify such an irrational belief.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Zillah wrote:

Exactly. I suspect that Pascal may have simply been hoping to convince people to obey the church and pretend to be good Christians. If nothing else it would keep them in line. And, who knows, maybe doing it long enough they'll start to truly believe.

A clever tool of manipulation, yes. A good argument, no.

I think Pascal may have been more reasoned than you give him credit. My own personal take on the theory is that rather than being an active proponent of its truth, Pascal is rather playing Devil's Advocate in admittedly quite a pessimistic and satirical way.

I would see the theory somewhat aligned with Voltaire's own take on religion ("If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him")

To say that Pascal is trying to manipulate is silly. If anything the theory is pseudo-scientific conjecture, a nerd's joke if you like, irrespective of whether or not Pascal was at the time in his Christian phase.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I think its crap too, as i implied earlier where i said why doesn't Pascal not believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships that are going to take us away to a mushroom cloud when we die (or some other made up fantasy) and calculate probabilities of there existence, why give credence to a believe in an imaginery god at all.

This is exactly what Pascal is trying to highlight, the triviality of religion because it can be sidelined, as you have done, with with other supernatural nonsense such as these intergalactic spaceships, which are just as probable as some supreme all-powerful wizard.

As I have said IMHO, the whole theory is something of an intellectual joke

joe_chicken

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I just am not as ressolute that I am absolutely right

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I'm not "going agnostic"...

Sounds like you already have

Dades

Sean_K wrote:

I think Pascal may have been more reasoned than you give him credit. My own personal take on the theory is that rather than being an active proponent of its truth, Pascal is rather playing Devil's Advocate in admittedly quite a pessimistic and satirical way.

That could well be the case.

I mean no matter how much we vehemently assert that you cannot "choose" to believe - it's hardly the case for large swathes of society. It must be said that an awful lot of people choose to believe in God simply because it is more palatable than the alternative. Perhaps this is the "choice" Pascal refers to.

Ickle Magoo

joe_chicken wrote:

Sounds like you already have

Oh Joe, it just wouldn't be boards without you popping in to take the p!ss out of me without reading the whole thread, lol.

joe_chicken

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Oh Joe, it just wouldn't be boards without you popping in to take the p!ss out of me without reading the whole thread, lol.

I'm not taking the piss... it's a compliment.

And I did read the whole thread, my point still stands.

Ickle Magoo

I thought I'd mentioned somewhere about realising the difference between wanting something to be true & believing it was, which put the old toe dipping to bed.

joe_chicken

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I thought I'd mentioned somewhere about realising the difference between wanting something to be true & believing it was, which put the old toe dipping to bed.

Agnostisicm is nothing about getting your toes wet, we like to sit on the fence.:)

Also, on the matter of wanting God to exist, just because you want him to exist, doesn't mean he DOESN'T exist. It's unlikely that he does, but hey, stranger things have happened.

Personally I take comfort in the fact I don't know.

Hivemind187

joe_chicken wrote:

Also, on the matter of wanting God to exist, just because you want him to exist, doesn't mean he DOESN'T exist. It's unlikely that he does, but hey, stranger things have happened.

Exactly what would you consider to be stranger than finding out there is an all powerful deity pulling the strings?

joe_chicken

Hivemind187 wrote:

Exactly what would you consider to be stranger than finding out there is an all powerful deity pulling the strings?

Ok - maybe that part was made up. But my general point is, if you can't prove or disprove either way, why not say "I don't know".

Hivemind187

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok - maybe that part was made up. But my general point is, if you can't prove or disprove either way, why not say "I don't know".

Two reasons, lat least for me.

1) Believing in God is not the default position.

2) The desire to believe in God, as well as religious inclinations, are evidenced to be caused by a particular part of the brain which can be stimulated to believe more or even have religious experiences. In essences, a biological halucination (see epilepsy).

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

But my general point is, if you can't prove or disprove either way, why not say "I don't know".

I don't know if there is a sky-god, but I don't believe there to be.

Anyone who claims to know, claims too much IMO.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

Do you think I'm deluding myself?

If you believe there is, yes.

estebancambias

My biggest fear is that, of just nothing. I have had this discussion on Vampirefreaks.com(trust me it actually is a good site) before. As some of you may know, I'm catholic, and in my opinion this is why many people hold onto their faith. Ok, some people might just want one life, but most would hate the thought of just nothing, or even worse isolation(as a sort of spiritual happiness). This is why people want to believe in ghosts. Ghosts+afterlife(of some sort)