"Belief " = What Probability?

[David Sklansky]

First a caveat. Some mathmeticians are not comfortable assigning probabilalties to something that already may or may not have happened. To ask what is the probability that George Washington ever drew a picture of an elephant, is not rigorously allowed. But us gamblers and other mathmeticians, allow this type of question, and from a practical standpoint, we all know what it means. Juries deal with it every day.

Using the general common sense probabilities, like juries basically do (or should do), I now ask this:

How sure must someone be about something religious to be said to "believe" in it? To avoid as much vagueness as possible, lets talk only about specfic things. Jesus died and was ressurected. The earth did not exist ten thousand years ago. There is a God who listens to and might act on my prayers. And so on.

Surely it is not neccessary that one be 100% positive of these things for it to be said that one "believes" in such things. 99.999999999% certainty should qualify. What about 99%? 90%? How far down before you are an unbeliever? Some may say anything over 50% is enough.

Obviously there is no right answer to this question. But it would be useful if we knew what most people think so we could have a better idea in future threads what people mean when they say they do or don't believe.

There is of course a second reason to more precisely define what strength of certainty qualifies as "belief". Because some religions make belief itself such a high priority. You can't just obey God's wishes while doubting his existence and expect no repercussions. Thus it is important (for those in that religion) to define the degree of certainty, probability wise, you must have to avoid God's wrath. (And I wonder what happens to those whose degree of certainty is just below the cutoff. But that's for another thread.)

[TStoneMBD]

as a race of poker players we have been taught to analyze things from a standpoint of probability. we have been taught that believing in something is foolish, but to calculate its likelyhood instead. most people do not look at things this way. many believers of something have never considered what the probability is that their belief is actual reality. therefore, this question is unanswerable when trying to relate to the general public. you like to define things for clarification purposes, but this word is not defineable. the term "belief" means different things to different people and is usually not based on a mathematical foundation. if you would like for people here to substitute the phrase "i believe in" with "i feel the likelyhood of x is p" then that is more reasonable.

[CashFlo]

This, Mr.Sklansky, is an issue of Faith.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
-Hebrews 11:1

[Cerril]

there are two answers that seem most likely, both much lower numbers than you give. The first is 'the most likely'. So if you have five choices and assign probabilities of 40%, 10%, 10%, 1%, and 39%, you could 'believe' the first. Or perhaps with two very close answers say that you believe one of the two and can't be certain.

The second is to choose the one which has a probability that weights with the repercussions to make it the most appealing. again, this is an organic issue. But say that I assign the value to me if I believe [and act on] 'God exists' as 50, and the value of 'God does not exist' as 5, then as long as I can assign a value of greater than 9% to 'God exists' I should believe that.

I should, however, mention that my definition of 'believe' has nothing to do with certainty. The way I tend to define practical belief is 'act as if'. If I believe something, I will act as if it is true. Many believers (in any number of things), therefore, do not truly believe according to my practical definition.

[bradha]

For me I use the word "Believe" when I think the probability is 75% or higher. Of course I am willing to admit that my beliefs may change as I get more information. Yesterday, I believed my full house would win the pot, but I knew it wasn't the nuts, so I had some doubts. I'm currently not religious - my estimate of the probability that there is an omnipotent supernatural being would be less than 10%, but even when I was religious I would have admitted to having significant doubts.
Probability Estimate My Description
< 1% Strong non-belief
1% to 25% Non-belief with some doubts
25% to 75% Fundamental Uncertainty
75% to 99% Belief with some doubts
> 99% Strong belief

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
How sure must someone be about something religious to be said to "believe" in it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think belief is an emotionally reaction.

It is often correlated with available evidence, where as the evidence mounts eventually some trigger flicks and suddenly you believe something new.

Might as well as ask how many chips do you need to eat before you stop feeling hungry?

However sometimes belief is independent of evidence. This is useful if is better for your emotional hygiene for you to believe something that is unlikely or even obviously false.

Clearly the question is inappropriate in this situation.

[PairTheBoard]

Sometimes probability statements are nonsense.

PairTheBoard

[Rev. Good Will]

[ QUOTE ]
This, Mr.Sklansky, is an issue of Faith.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
-Hebrews 11:1

[/ QUOTE ]

so what probability is having faith?

[AleoMagus]

It's a good thing that juries are never asked to decide questions like:

What is the probability that a "random" chord in a circle is longer than the circle's radius?

I guess what I am trying to say is that despite probability theory's immense power, and out daily use of it, there are some serious and unresolved difficulties that it often runs into. This pretty much has everything to do with the shoddy philosophical foundations of the subject.

It's easy to build probability paradoxes and attempting to define degrees or certainty by ascribing specific probability values is one of the best ways. I think that suggesting this is possible is problematic in numerous ways, and we will run into almost as many problems if we do this with respect to physical theories, as we will if we talk about religious viewpoints.

This is not to say that the question is not interesting. It is VERY interesting, but not because I want to answer it. It is interesting because it indicates that either belief is some kind of vague concept that cannot be quantified, or that something is wrong with saying 'I believe' altogether.

There is so much to say about this. I will say more, I promise.

Regards
Brad S

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes probability statements are nonsense.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

you blindly adhere to them more than you think. why is this situation different?

why wouldn't you jump off a bridge? It is "possible" that gravity won't send you to your death? Is probability non-sense in this situation?

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
-Hebrews 11:1

[/ QUOTE ]

... this sounds like 100% to me

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes probability statements are nonsense.

PairTheBoard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



you blindly adhere to them more than you think. why is this situation different?

why wouldn't you jump off a bridge? It is "possible" that gravity won't send you to your death? Is probability non-sense in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

because one is a direct evaluation of a probability, whereas the other (belief) is a kind of meta evaluation.

In other words, P(x)=99% is one thing, but we run into trouble when we start asking what our degree of certainty is that P(x)=99%

That's my first instinct anyways.

Regards
Brad S

[David Sklansky]

Let's not get too technical here to avoid the question. Some people think that Jesus was certainly resurrected. Some people think he was almost certainly resurrected. Some people think he was more likely than not resurrected. Some people think he might have been ressurrected.
Some people think he was almost certainly not resurrected. Some people think he was certainly not resurrected.

Which of these categories would encompass those who could be said to "believe" in Jesus's resurrection?

[Darryl_P]

I'd say something between 90% and 95% would be a rational cutoff point, not just in questions of religion but anything else in life.

Assuming something is 100% certain (ie. believing it or in it) when it isn't is of course incorrect but you must weigh the loss from being off on the probability against the gain in convenience.

When you assume 100% you are freed from the anxiety of occasional doubt. It is simply a more comfortable feeling and so just as we are willing to pay cash for a good feeling in many cases (as in most forms of entertainment, say), we should be willing to pay something in terms of accuracy of our probability for the good feeling of working with a probability that our psyche reacts well to for various biological reasons.

When you go below 90%, though, (but stay above 60%, say) you are fooling yourself too much to assume 100% and so it's probably better to just assume that it's "probably" true without calling it a belief.

[AleoMagus]

Well, then I think that when we talk about those who believe Jesus was resurrected, we have to be talking about the ones who think that Jesus was certainly resurrected.

This, of course, does not make it true.

The 'christians' out there who hold one of those lesser degrees of certainty, are either lacking the requisite amount of faith (according to their own definition), or are buying into a watered down version of christianity, where the consequences of this lesser degree of certainty are not as dire.

Regards
Brad S

[bighomage]

If it comes down to something like the belief of Christianity as a whole, with Jesus being a savior, the probability that it's right doesn't have to be very high. Pascal's wager basically states this. It could be argued pretty easily that even if there's only a very small probability of Christianity being true, one is playing in an infinitely big pot.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
How sure must someone be about something religious to be said to "believe" in it? To avoid as much vagueness as possible, lets talk only about specfic things. Jesus died and was ressurected. The earth did not exist ten thousand years ago. There is a God who listens to and might act on my prayers. And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answering as a Christian, I would first say, though perhaps I am being too literal for what your question really means, that you seem to be focusing on various individual doctrines that a believer in a particular religion might have, versus that entire religious belief system itself. In my own case, my belief as a whole is over 95% I would say, though it might be less on some particular doctrines. And just because in the course of some discussion over time a particular doctrine might be called into question, that does not mean that I have to suffer a crisis of faith in the whole. My point of course is that all the individual doctrines of a belief system act as parts of an integral whole that cannot be separated out for examination for the sole purpose of determining what the overall probability of belief in that system is. Of course this makes the matter all the more complex with all the different sects in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
There is of course a second reason to more precisely define what strength of certainty qualifies as "belief". Because some religions make belief itself such a high priority. You can't just obey God's wishes while doubting his existence and expect no repercussions. Thus it is important (for those in that religion) to define the degree of certainty, probability wise, you must have to avoid God's wrath. (And I wonder what happens to those whose degree of certainty is just below the cutoff. But that's for another thread.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a common theme of many of your posts regarding religion, i.e. the consequences if a belief system is true to those who do not believe, or believe with less than 100% certainty. I speak from my own Christian perspective and that of the specific demonination I belong to, and which does not represent other more fundamentalist sects. But I believe that the Lord's foremost quality, even over justice, is mercy. He is a father who longs for and patiently waits for his children to come to Him, to return as the prodigal son did. If He is a father unknown to them, as with tribesman in the wilds of New Guinea who have never heard the gospel preached, then He will deal with them according to the natural law that God gives every human soul (see Romans ch. 2), rather than the higher standards that one who has heard the word of Christ and believes will be held to. Only those who knowingly and unrepentently violate to the end the minimal prescriptions of the natural law, or who believe the gospel to be true but reject it nonetheless, can expect with certainty to be condemned. Each person's conscience, even if it is ill-formed, and how his actions relate to it, and whether he is sincerely sorry for the wrongs he knows he has committed, will be the standard upon which he will be judged.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says G-d. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

[/ QUOTE ]

-Douglas Adams

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
But it would be useful if we knew what most people think so we could have a better idea in future threads what people mean when they say they do or don't believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be great if a key term like this could be cleared up in a thread like some kind of mathematical terminology. If it works, I have a long list of terms that I'd love for you to clear up.

I think that the probability model is not the most helpful in getting a broad definition if it is so that we can then apply it to a discussion on religion and the like. It may be fundemental in how YOU or other posters primarily come to beliefs, but it is not necessarily how belief comes about.

And it is not the only valid method of coming to a belief. Certainly we have instincts that form beliefs. Raymer believed that it was best to fight in Bellagio hallway rather than go into room w/ attackers. I don't think it is important that he had assigned a sufficient probability before acting.

I think it is more fruitful to ask what a belief is.

If you asked my Mother what the probability that Jesus was delivered of a virgin...yada yada, she (and she is quite bright BTW) would say she doesn't know. If pressed to put factual probabilities on that event she might respond that it is 48-52%. But her beliefs are not shaken by this. In fact, her views would probably be the same if she knew for a fact in Mary's physical virtue.

It seems that whatever it is, it has something to do w/ a committment one makes to basic premises that will guide further thoughts and actions.

In my Mom's case, perhaps she is comfortable w/ the "path" of her belief in the virgin birth and that is sufficient. In DS's case, perhaps only that which can be verified by mathematics and the natural sciences (I conject). But as philosophy teaches us, we can not hold any beliefs w/out some leaps of FAITH. Any scientifically minded person who disagrees w/ this may be ignoring the history of science.

As Kant (essentially) said,

Belief w/ out reason is blind
Reason w/o belief is impotent

[Bodhi]

Here's how I think one can arrive at the notion that belief can be a function of the odds of being true:

When I say "I believe x" as an article of faith (though I am in fact faithless), my statement is transparent to "it is true that x."

When I say "he believes that x" as an article of faith, my statement is not transparent to "it is true that x." Rather, the scope of my statement is psychological.

When someone else believes something, someone who is a rational believer and the vast majority of their beliefs are trivially true, I can give odds on the truth of what they believe. If Jones is rational, and Jones believes there is a cat in a box, I might say it's 99.9% likely that there is indeed a cat in a box.

But how do we move from psychological inferences to giving odds on our own beliefs? How can I do that when for me to believe something is the same as to hold it as true?

So far as I know, truth is not a function of degree of likelihood. Truth is a zero sum game; no one has yet given an adequate definition of something like "approximate truth," though some philosophers have tried.

When someone says "I believe that x," (and forgoing some kind of cartesian skepticism) it means 100%.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Which of these categories would encompass those who could be said to "believe" in Jesus's resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first one.

[Timer]

The answer to Skansky's original question is 100%. You don't "kind of" believe it or "partially" believe it, and neither to you believe it to a probabilistic percentile. If the number you come up with is less than 100%, then you don't have faith--simple. And that's what it's all about.

That being said, I understand what is happening here on a deeper level. David is Jewish. That means he is harboring guilt tendencies about his ancestral brethren. They killed Jesus, and he feels badly about that. Therefore the need to quantify probabilistically the existence of Jesus, the resurrection or whatever.

It's OK, however, because a lot of Jews feel this way. Don't worry--there is no need to hide your shame.

[LaserJet4500]

First let me say that my post is only really applicable to Christianity, since I don't have much intimate experience with other religions.

"Belief" in the New Testament is defined very vaguely, certainly not quantitatively. The directives "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt saved," and "... that whosever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" definitely do not specify any required degree of certainty. But the CONSEQUENCES are clear. Unbelief leads to eternal damnation, while belief leads to eternal life.

In my personal experience, I therefore used to strive for 100% certainty of the Bible's veracity. If someone had asked me what the probability was that Christ had been resurrected, I would have said "100%" without hesitation most of the time. This is because in the absence of a clear definition of how much faith was required, 100% was the only acceptable answer with such infinite stakes. However, there were many times when I doubted, and would have given a lower number. But fear would kick in and I would manage to convince myself and bump my answer back to 100%.

The point that I'm trying to get to is this: whatever probability a person gives for their own certainty is very unlikely to be a good estimate of their actual degree of belief. That is, a person who has a vested interest in their own certainty is incapable of giving an accurate answer at any given time.

I think the only way to accurately assess belief in a person with such a vested interest is to find their time-averaged belief over the course of perhaps a month during which they have not had a major shift in belief system. So at the time when I was a strong believer who occasionally had doubts that I guiltily repressed, it might be fair to say that I believed that god was 100% probably 90% of the time, 50% probable 8% of the time, and 0% probable 2% of the time. So I believed that the probability that god existed, etc was 94%.

In retrospect, given the fact that there are many examples in the bible where people who doubted at one time or another were ultimately headed for eternal life rather than damnation, I think my 94% would have been good enough for the powers that be.

According to this definition, I think that the threshold for saying that someone "believes in" god would be 50%. That would mean that they thought it was more likely than not that god existed more than half the time, or at least that it would average out to this.

But the biblical standards for salvation-inducing belief might be much higher, say 90%. We could set a lower limit by finding the most doubtful personin the new testament who is still supposed to have been saved, and making an estimate of their "belief frequency."

[LaserJet4500]

In my last paragraph, I used the phrase "lower limit," but I meant "upper limit." We would be assigning an upper limit for the threshold.

Other comments:
1. Jesus' statement to the effect "you have seen and believed, blessed are those who have not seen and still believe" seems to imply that the salvation-threshold is a function of how much evidence an individual has seen. It would presumably be lower for one who had not witnessed a miracle as opposed to someone who had.

2. The fact that one's belief is probably assessed at the time of death leads to an important question -- if God used time-averaging, how far back would the time average extend? My feeling is that we could calculate a time average from the last local maximum of belief until the instant of death. This would seem to be in keeping with the leniency built into the system for repentence.

[MtDon]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's how I think one can arrive at the notion that belief can be a function of the odds of being true:

When I say "I believe x" as an article of faith (though I am in fact faithless), my statement is transparent to "it is true that x."

When I say "he believes that x" as an article of faith, my statement is not transparent to "it is true that x." Rather, the scope of my statement is psychological.

When someone else believes something, someone who is a rational believer and the vast majority of their beliefs are trivially true, I can give odds on the truth of what they believe. If Jones is rational, and Jones believes there is a cat in a box, I might say it's 99.9% likely that there is indeed a cat in a box.

But how do we move from psychological inferences to giving odds on our own beliefs? How can I do that when for me to believe something is the same as to hold it as true?

So far as I know, truth is not a function of degree of likelihood. Truth is a zero sum game; no one has yet given an adequate definition of something like "approximate truth," though some philosophers have tried.

When someone says "I believe that x," (and forgoing some kind of cartesian skepticism) it means 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have to disagree on the general usage of the phrase "I believe that x," as necessarily meaning %100 certainty.

First, the trivial case when from the context you can tell that what they mean by "I believe ..." is "I think that...," or "I guess that ..." For example if someone says, "I believe that the Lakers will win their first 3 games next season," It's not meant to be an expresion of %100 certainty and almost no one would take it to be such.

Second, with respect to someone talking seriuosly about their religous "beliefs." People who recognize they have doubts as to the truth of what they say they believe, will still use the phrase "I believe that x ..." indicating that they think it is probably true. What probability is necessary for a particular person to use the phrase "I beleive that x ..." is, of course, exactly what David asked.

The probability at which a person uses "I beleive that x ..." almost certainly (I'd say it's certain to at least 99.9999%) varies from person to person.

[NotReady]

The saving faith required in the Bible is not a question of probability, or bare intellectual assent. It isn't the same thing as believing London exists though I've never been there, or that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Intellectual assent based on 100% certain evidence:
"The demons believe and tremble".

Genuine faith though mixed with doubt:
"I believe, help thou my unbelief".

We are advised to examine ourselves to be sure of our calling, but this clearly doesn't mean calculating probability. Throughout the New Testament, from Jesus' own words to the book of James, it is repeated over and over that "A good tree brings forth good fruit", "you shall know them by their works", "faith without works is dead" and "work out your own salvation because it is God Who works within you".

None of this means anyone is saved by works. Justification is by faith. But genuine faith produces works. So doubt about your own salvation will begin to fade through an examination of your life, prayer, and other good works.

Bayes' theorem will not suffice.

EDIT:

I re-read your second post and felt I should comment on something else. Saving faith is not a matter of quantity ("If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, etc"), nor some amount you have when you die. When you genuinely accept Christ you are at that moment justified. If you live your life in an attempt to achieve some unstated and unknowable standard of belief you are simply relapsing into salvation by works. You are Luther before the 99 theses. It is proper to constantly examine yourself, but the goal is not to find more faith, but to find where your life needs changing. Faith means you believe God, and He says faith is enough. If you don't accept that, do you really have faith?

[DBowling]

>50%

[BluffTHIS!]

Not Ready, as a fellow Christian I am not making fun of anything you said, but at the moment I am reading your post your number of posts stands at . . . . . . 666! WOW!

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously there is no right answer to this question. But it would be useful if we knew what most people think so we could have a better idea in future threads what people mean when they say they do or don't believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Caro has said that there is a 30% chance he is god, and I believe in the physical existance and life of Mike Caro.

In my mind David, even a skeptic like you can beleive in the verifiable physical existance of Mike Caro and his claim that there is a 30% chance that he is god.

[David Sklansky]

"Only those who knowingly and unrepentently violate to the end the minimal prescriptions of the natural law, or who believe the gospel to be true but reject it nonetheless, can expect with certainty to be condemned."

You realize of course that many Christians (eg Not Ready and udontknowmickey) do not share that view. By your standards Jews and Muslims, for instance, are not necessarily condemned.

[David Sklansky]

I can see I have to make my question simpler still.

There are undoubtedly people who think that the New Testament is probably basically true. Can these people legitimately claim to "believe" in the New Testament?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize of course that many Christians (eg Not Ready and udontknowmickey) do not share that view. By your standards Jews and Muslims, for instance, are not necessarily condemned.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true David, but I can only defend/explain my own beliefs which are those of the denominatin I belong to and not that of other Christian sects who have more of a focus on their definitions of divine justice, predestination, and the whole calvinist derived theology set of beliefs than on God's mercy.

[David Sklansky]

Which denomination is that?

[BluffTHIS!]

Roman Catholic

[David Sklansky]

Now I understand why the born again Chritians that I know say the Pope is going to hell.

[thatpfunk]

Initially I though somewhere around 50%, perhaps even lower. But, the more I mull it over, I think it is around 80%, probably a little higher.

I could be convinced that it is extremely close to 100%, simply because I believe the majority of those that have "faith" don't bother to think that deeply about it, blindly accepting it because of "faith."

[NotReady]

Yikes! This post should fix it. Thanks.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I understand why the born again Chritians that I know say the Pope is going to hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

You must not know many Christians.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You realize of course that many Christians (eg Not Ready and udontknowmickey) do not share that view. By your standards Jews and Muslims, for instance, are not necessarily condemned.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I've stated several times that I make no judgment about who is or isn't saved. God is the judge, and He determines salvation, not me, not Calvin, not Rome.

The Bible clearly states that if someone rejects the Gospel, he is condemned. It doesn't state that someone who has never heard has rejected. What's important is what someone who has heard does in response.

[NotReady]

Actually, God does prove that He exists. See Romans 1.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes probability statements are nonsense.

PairTheBoard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



you blindly adhere to them more than you think. why is this situation different?

why wouldn't you jump off a bridge? It is "possible" that gravity won't send you to your death? Is probability non-sense in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

because one is a direct evaluation of a probability, whereas the other (belief) is a kind of meta evaluation.

In other words, P(x)=99% is one thing, but we run into trouble when we start asking what our degree of certainty is that P(x)=99%

That's my first instinct anyways.

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no unified theory of gravity and we have no idea about the effects of unknown dimensions. hence, gravity can be metaphysically evaluated.

we accept gravity because of observable evidence represented in theories that are plausible and hold true a profitable amount of the time. I fail to see how you can argue that the bible has anything near these merits. There are many theories of gravity, for example, some of which are much less likely to be true or useful versus general relativity. A theory may advocate that jumping off bridge will not kill you. How can one defend not going with the most plausible thoery people can concieve at a given time?

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I think for one to believe and "have faith" you have to assign a probabilty of 50.x% or higher. I don't think it's possible from a psychological standpoint to have faith in something that you think is more often wrong than not.

The only reasonable exception is if you rated something as a giant favorite compared to every other scenario, but not overall. It would have to be an odd person to have a deep belief here though.

I really think that all people who aren't a member of a religion due to social pressure believe that the probabilty is at least 50% or higher. If they had to write down an answer to that question. I think the nutjobs would put down 100%, the devout unthinking masses 98% or higher, and the more rational ones 90% or higher. I really doubt there is anyone in church for mass every sunday who sees the probability of them being right as less than 90%

People don't think in terms of odds like this becuase it leads to life being uncomfortable. People believe in specific religions out of comfort.

P.S. I find it interesting how people who survive some near death experience due to highly improbable circumstances seem incapable of believing in anything other than divine intervention. Has anyone ever met someone who said "It was just dumb luck, I should of died". I wonder if people who are not religious are more disposed toward "Survivor's Guilt". I think it would pretty painful to believe the only reason your alive is becuase you flipped heads 100 times in a row.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no unified theory of gravity and we have no idea about the effects of unknown dimensions. hence, gravity can be metaphysically evaluated.

we accept gravity because of observable evidence represented in theories that are plausible and hold true a profitable amount of the time. I fail to see how you can argue that the bible has anything near these merits. There are many theories of gravity, for example, some of which are much less likely to be true or useful versus general relativity. A theory may advocate that jumping off bridge will not kill you. How can one defend not going with the most plausible thoery people can concieve at a given time?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have misunderstood what I was getting at. Quite a bit actually.

I'm not saying anything about the bible or it's merits and I'm certainly not saying anything about not going with the most plausible theory in a set of alternatives.

What I am saying is that probability statements can start to become meaningless if we apply them incorrectly or do not establish a proper measurement function in the first place.

For example:

Consider the statement "there is roughly a 98% chance that a random card drawn from a normal 52 card deck will NOT be the ace of spades"

Starightforward enough. Much like the gravity case. We might not be certain but it's a safe bet. Betting my life, I'd bet the top card was not the ace of spades.

consider now my degree of certainty that "there is roughly a 98% chance that a random card drawn from a normal 52 card deck will NOT be the ace of spades". This is the meta-evaluation I was speaking of.

Well, assume I'm 99% certain that I remember probability theory correctly and that I am reading properly, etc...

This means now that I'm 99% certain of my original 98% assumption.

Take it one step higher. How certain am I of that 99% certainty of the 98% certainty?

99%?

Obviously, once I start asking these kinds of questions, as long as I don't conceed that ALL meta certainties are 100%, I quickly regress to an infinitesmally small certainty of the original statement.

This is just one of the kinds of nonsensical results I was talking about.

Another unrelated result, I alluded to earlier. Namely Bertrand's Paradox:

What is the probability that a randomly drawn chord on a circle will be longer than the circle's radius?

The answer, surprising as it seems, is that there is NO single probability that we can assign to this. A simple google search should pull up a few easy to follow explanations of this.

So yeah, Probability theory is powerful, and yeah, we should use it and not just dismiss it as nonsensical if we have no reason to. But we often have reason, and I think this might be one of those instances. In fact, I'm 99% certain. Moreover, I'm 99% certain of my 99% certainty. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Regards
Brad S

[David Sklansky]

"The Bible clearly states that if someone rejects the Gospel, he is condemned. It doesn't state that someone who has never heard has rejected. What's important is what someone who has heard does in response"

But Bluff This says something different. He says that he and Roman Catholics beLieve that you are condemned only if you BELEVE the Gospel and still ignore it. It is not enough that you have heard it.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, just to be clear, I also said you could be condemned for unrepented actions which are contrary to more minimal demands of the natural law even if such a person is not held to the higher standards that a believing Christian would be. You should also understand, that most likely these fundamentalists who post here believe in the doctrine of "once saved always saved" which means that if you have accepted Christ as your saviour then no matter how heinous of an action you might commit later immediately before death and before any opportunity for repentence, then you would still be saved. Of course they might use that action as proof you were not "truly saved" in the first place, which seems like an (il)logical loop to me. Those of us who do not believe that doctrine believe that you are not confirmed in grace until after death.

Also it should be noted, that NotReady seems to be implying that you suffer condemnation by not responding to the gospel merely because you have heard it and not done so, without making any distinction between those who hear, believe and reject, and those who hear and sincerely do not believe.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible clearly states that if someone rejects the Gospel, he is condemned. It doesn't state that someone who has never heard has rejected. What's important is what someone who has heard does in response"


But Bluff This says something different. He says that he and Roman Catholics beLieve that you are condemned only if you BELEVE the Gospel and still ignore it. It is not enough that you have heard it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this supports what I pointed out once before. What does the word "hear" mean? As Jesus said, there are those with eyes that do not see and those with ears who do not hear. Just because the bible is preached to someone doesn't mean they've "heard" the gospel. And if they haven't "heard" it they cannot have rejected it and therefore cannot be condemned on that score.

PairTheBoard

[Darryl_P]

I'd say that if you are open to new information which may change your beliefs (or probabilities) then you are not condemned. IMO only those are condemned who stubbornly refuse to accept the gospel without thinking it through and without giving a chance for new information to come along and change things.

If you're thinking in terms of probabilities (ie. not assigning zero to the existence of God and other important stuff) then I don't think you are condemned, based on my interpretation of the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

those who hear and sincerely do not believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible to not believe the Gospel, assuming it is understood, and be sincere. That's like saying if Adam had been sincere when he ate the fruit it wouldn't have been sin.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't possible to not believe the Gospel, assuming it is understood, and be sincere. That's like saying if Adam had been sincere when he ate the fruit it wouldn't have been sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the words and even the doctrines about Jesus, his ministry, life, death and resurrection that the gospel gives, is not the same as believing them to be true. If you think the gospel is so obviously true that anyone hearing them cannot but believe it to be true, whether or not he then accepts it's call or not, then you are denying free will, which maybe is what you mean anyway. And by this I do not mean free will to accept or reject, but rather that God does not force truth to the degree of 100% certainty upon us or our response of love to His love would not be sincere, but only that of a robot fed a program. If there is not even a smidgeon of doubt left then there is no leap of faith to be made, and you are thus forced to believe and trust. God does not force truth upon a soul that is at that time unready to receive it, which is why all that street corner "have you ever walked and talked with Jesus" stuff is a waste of time.

[NotReady]

The Bible makes it clear that no one has an excuse. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". To tell people they can hear the Gospel and not believe it, but don't worry it will all work out in the end, is simply contrary to Scripture.

As an aside, you seem to want to include some insult about other Christians in every post you make. As a Catholic you should understand that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[LaserJet4500]

[ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible to not believe the Gospel, assuming it is understood, and be sincere. That's like saying if Adam had been sincere when he ate the fruit it wouldn't have been sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I don't think your analogy is correct. I think what you mean is that it's sin not to believe. So then the analogy should be that "it is not possible for adam to eat the apple and be sincere." or something. I just don't think your analogy makes any sense.

Second, although I disagree with you, I believe that you are sincere. I encounter your attitude very often, and it drives me nuts. I don't believe in God or the Bible, I DO understand it, and I AM sincere. You don't know me so I'm sure you won't believe this, but it's true. It drives me crazy that people with your attitude won't afford me the same respect that I afford them.

[LaserJet4500]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. I find it interesting how people who survive some near death experience due to highly improbable circumstances seem incapable of believing in anything other than divine intervention. Has anyone ever met someone who said "It was just dumb luck, I should of died". I wonder if people who are not religious are more disposed toward "Survivor's Guilt". I think it would pretty painful to believe the only reason your alive is becuase you flipped heads 100 times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always find the "I'm only alive because of a miracle and therefore I know that god is watching out for me" line of thought particularly disturbing because it seems to imply that god WASN'T watching out for everybody else. That seems decidedly uncomfortable for the vast majority of people, who given hopeless situations will probably kick the bucket.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it is not possible for adam to eat the apple and be sincere.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is what I said. I don't believe it's possible for someone to hear and understand the Gospel and then reject it without sin. One's perception of his own sincerity won't cure that.

Which goes to the point you're making in the rest of your post. I don't claim to know what you are thinking or feeling, or what you understand about your own inner workings. I base my statements on what the Bible says about all humans. The human heart is deceitful beyond all measure - not just in deceiving others, but itself. One may even have a perception of sincerity at a certain level, but still be funamentally deceiving oneself. Romans 1 explains that all know God because God makes Himself evident to everyone, but then people suppress that knowledge. You may disagree that God has ever made Himself evident to you. I won't argue with you concerning your own inner state. But it isn't me you have to convince of your sincerity.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible makes it clear that no one has an excuse. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". To tell people they can hear the Gospel and not believe it, but don't worry it will all work out in the end, is simply contrary to Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not telling people that they cannot believe it, I am just telling you that many people hear and sincerely do not believe it. And you did not address my fuller point regarding free will.


[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, you seem to want to include some insult about other Christians in every post you make. As a Catholic you should understand that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in a house filled with human beings capable of sinning and setting a bad example and not living up to the demands of the gospel. And in a house whose leaders have not always done so either. But that will always be the case with men of any denomination because they are all still capable of sinning. And I don't really mean to insult the beliefs of other denominations, but feel it necessary to point out to others that your views do not reflect the views of all Christians, and to explain the basis of some of those differing views.

[David Sklansky]

"It isn't possible to not believe the Gospel, assuming it is understood, and be sincere."

And of course everything else you say stems fron this ridiculous notion.

[Bodhi]

Don't assume that "I believe" is the same statement in all contexts. Naturally, we sometimes use the expression to hedge our bets, to express doubt, to acknowledge less than 100% certainty. However, "I believe" in the religious context is in a different family of uses that are eqvuivalent to statements of truth, e.g. "I believe capital punishment is wrong," etc.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe it's possible for someone to hear and understand the Gospel and then reject it without sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding this and what David has just said, perhaps the problem is one of semantics. As long as you do not maintain that anyone of reasonable intelligence *has to* understand the gospel upon hearing it, then I will take that to equate hearing and sincerly not believing. If however you do maintain that such understanding necessarily follows from hearing it, then I would again direct you to the properly understood topic of free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And of course everything else you say stems fron this ridiculous notion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I intend for everything I say to stem from what the Bible says. If you claim you're sincere, then you're making a case that God MUST save you because you've done everything you can do and you have a good heart. God owes you something. Good luck with that.

[NotReady]

If you want a full discussion of free will I suggest starting a thread on the topic as it is likey to be a lengthy process.

Concerning what you have said so far about it, no Protestant theology I know of teaches that God forces the will, so in that sense the will is free, uncoerced by God.

[jwalla]

Yeah, judging by the recent Pope's funeral, I saw quite a few million Christians praising and applauding the life of the Pope and the good he's done.

[jwalla]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Bible clearly states that if someone rejects the Gospel, he is condemned. It doesn't state that someone who has never heard has rejected. What's important is what someone who has heard does in response"

But Bluff This says something different. He says that he and Roman Catholics beLieve that you are condemned only if you BELEVE the Gospel and still ignore it. It is not enough that you have heard it.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, You misunderstand both the Roman Catholic and Protestant takes on salvation/damnation. It is not the Vatican's teaching that ONLY those who believe will be damned, and I doubt this is what Bluff was trying to state. In fact you could say Protestants and RCs believe you not only have to believe but you have to follow as well. But the alternative is an either OR. Hearing the word of God and turning away from it is grounds for damnation as was quoted above, but equal to that is saying you believe and acting contrary. Both are critical offenses towards salvation which is more logical than anything. If you don't believe in God or heaven...why would you be rewarded if it exists. Secondly, if you know how your'e to live to attain heaven, and you act against it, why again would you be rewarded if it exists. The two statements above are two sides of the same coin, and while RCs and Protestants differ on a few principles, belief in the word of God and living a Christian life in order to attain heaven is not one of them. Sorry for the wordiness but people are asking to define the universe and give two examples.

[David Sklansky]

"If you don't believe in God or heaven...why would you be rewarded if it exists. Secondly, if you know how your'e to live to attain heaven, and you act against it, why again would you be rewarded if it exists. The two statements above are two sides of the same coin."

The two statements are totally different. How can you not see that?

[David Sklansky]

"If you claim you're sincere, then you're making a case that God MUST save you because you've done everything you can do and you have a good heart. God owes you something. Good luck with that."

NoT Ready, are you really that dense about what is in the minds of most scientifically, yet ethically, oriented people?

Sure there are some people who don't believe in God as a person, or in heaven or hell, for evil or selfish reasons. But there are also many people, including probably the majority of this forum, who think thusly:

"As nice as it would be if there was a God who might answer my prayers and send me to heaven, the scientific evidence leads me to believe that such a God's existence is unlikely. That is simply how I read the evidence whether I like it or not. I understand that there are some people like Not Ready who think the universe and its behavior is strong evidence FOR such a God. But the thinking techniques that I use and feel are valid, lead me to the opposite conclusion. That being said, nothing is certain. So I would think, or at least hope, that if I am wrong, God won't punish me for my legitimate doubt of his existence as long as I live my life the same way that those who believe in God, think God wants them to. But even if I am wrong about that, there is nothing I can do about it because, just like no one can make me believe OJ is innocent when I don't, and if I say otherwise I am simply lying, the same goes for what I believe about the existence of the Judeo-Christian god."

[Jake (The Snake)]

This is another reason why I don't think there can be any way that entrance to Heaven (or Heaven equivalent) can be contingent on belief unless it requires 100% absolute belief. It seems terribly unreasonable that God, being perfect, would decide on some strange number percentage for entrance to Heaven especially considering that belief is difficult to quantify.

Because we are human beings, 100% belief is pretty impossible to have since we take into account too many variables to try to determine likelihoods (probability). Furthermore, it would seem unreasonable that God would require 100% belief for entrance to Heaven.

Pluralism adds to this problem as humans have to end up weighing their options. This again is an exercise in probability and refrains us from having 100% belief.

If there is a Heaven, it would seem that there must be some different criteria for entrance. I'd like to also point out that simply "being good" can not be the answer either. Good and Evil changes from generation to generation. Think of all the "good" guys in history who owned slaves for example. At the time, this was fine and not considered evil. Surely some of out common practices will one day be considered evil.

My own belief is that either:

1. We all get into Heaven (or equivalent)
2. There is no Heaven.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NoT Ready, are you really that dense about what is in the minds of most scientifically, yet ethically, oriented people?


[/ QUOTE ]

What I said is from the Bible. But I have no doubt we are talking about two different things concerning goodness and ethics. I have no problem admitting that non-Christians are able to achieve a very high standard of good deeds according to the common definition of goodness. They often surpass the moral standards of many if not most Christians. But God's standard is much higher than the very highest standard of the "best" person who ever lived. Jesus said no one is good except God. Romans says no one does good, not even one. Not even one. NOT ONE PERSON. That's either true or false. There's no middle ground. Take the most moral person you know or have heard of, living or dead. If he is(was) not a true Christian, he is still in his sins. This is what God says, this doesn't come from me. The Old Testament says that all (please note, ALL) of our righeousness is as filthy rags to God. The absolute best we can do in our own strength is utterly abominable to God. I believe this is so because our most basic, fundamental motive is sinful. I'm not going to try to read someone else's mind and say why he does what he does. The Bible says all have evil motives for everything they do. And evil here does not mean the external evil such as Hitler or Stalin did. God's standard is absolute perfection, so even the slightest motivation that isn't perfectly pure is evil - meaning it doesn't reach God's standard. Jesus said you must be perfect to enter the Kingdom of God. Not OK, not pretty good, not keeping all man's commands, not doing your best, not pleasing everyone but yourself - perfect.

Of course, no one can do this. That's why God became man and lived a perfect life, kept all the law, then laid down His life as a sacrifice for our sin. So we don't have to keep the law to earn salvation.

If you want to bring your good works, good thoughts, good motivations, good will, to God and demand a reward from him, that's your decision. Run all the facts through Bayes' theorem, determine there's virtually no probability according to human judgment that God exists or that man is sinful or that God will judge you, then feel free to try to convince God you did all you could.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I understand you think it is ridiculous. The Bible says you think it is ridiculous. It also says the wisdom of man is ridiculous to God.

When you say

"But the thinking techniques that I use and feel are valid"

you are denying what God says about your thinking techniques.

When you say you have

" legitimate doubt"

you are denying what God says about your responsibility and guilt.

When you say

"as long as I live my life the same way that those who believe in God, think God wants them to."

you completely miss the message of the Gospel. NO ONE lives their life the way God wants them to, believer or unbeliever. NO ONE is saved because he lives his life the way Gods want him to.

When you say

" But even if I am wrong about that, there is nothing I can do about it "

you are partially correct. With you this is impossible. "With God all things are possible."

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to bring your good works, good thoughts, good motivations, good will, to God and demand a reward from him, that's your decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be objective here, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think DS or any other rationally minded skeptic here "demands a reward" from God. How can you demand a reward from someone who you think (probably) doesn't exist!?

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
If it comes down to something like the belief of Christianity as a whole, with Jesus being a savior, the probability that it's right doesn't have to be very high. Pascal's wager basically states this. It could be argued pretty easily that even if there's only a very small probability of Christianity being true, one is playing in an infinitely big pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wager is, 'If God exists, and the Bible is right that I'm damned if I don't believe, then I'd better believe because nothing will happen to me if God doesn't exist.' It's going all-in where if you lose, you're not playing poker. Or Catholic game theory.

Not that anyone cares, but I agree with NotReady, and all who have said that probability has nothing to do with belief. Those who suggest that belief could be a certain probability threshold clearly do not understand faith, religion, or theology.

[AthenianStranger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to bring your good works, good thoughts, good motivations, good will, to God and demand a reward from him, that's your decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be objective here, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think DS or any other rationally minded skeptic here "demands a reward" from God. How can you demand a reward from someone who you think (probably) doesn't exist!?

[/ QUOTE ]

DS: "So I would think, or at least hope, that if I am wrong, God won't punish me for my legitimate doubt of his existence as long as I live my life the same way that those who believe in God, think God wants them to."

[Darryl_P]

So are you saying that "thinking or hoping to not get punished" is the same as "demanding a reward"?

I see them as two very different things. The former shows that you recognize God's ultimate authority while the latter shows contempt IMO.

[David Sklansky]

Please don't evade my main point. It is that there are people who do not believe in the bible's God, solely because what they know of the way the universe works, and the results prayers seem to get, convinces their brains that his existence is an unlikely possibility. In other words their disbelief doesn't have a psychological component to it. In yet other words not all disbelievers have an agenda.

Some people think OJ is innocent because of some psychological bias. But at least a few others have no bias but are just poor at weighing evidence. Why can't you at least admit that some "dumb" non believers fall into this category?

[David Sklansky]

'But God's standard is much higher than the very highest standard of the "best" person who ever lived. Jesus said no one is good except God. Romans says no one does good, not even one. Not even one. NOT ONE PERSON. That's either true or false. There's no middle ground. Take the most moral person you know or have heard of, living or dead. If he is(was) not a true Christian, he is still in his sins. This is what God says, this doesn't come from me. The Old Testament says that all (please note, ALL) of our righeousness is as filthy rags to God. The absolute best we can do in our own strength is utterly abominable to God. I believe this is so because our most basic, fundamental motive is sinful. I'm not going to try to read someone else's mind and say why he does what he does. The Bible says all have evil motives for everything they do. And evil here does not mean the external evil such as Hitler or Stalin did. God's standard is absolute perfection, so even the slightest motivation that isn't perfectly pure is evil - meaning it doesn't reach God's standard. Jesus said you must be perfect to enter the Kingdom of God. Not OK, not pretty good, not keeping all man's commands, not doing your best, not pleasing everyone but yourself - perfect."

I hope everyone now sees why this stuff was also right for the Psychology forum. Notice that a corollary to the above is that there is little or no difference between being pretty good, very good or outright bad. Both Not Ready and udontknowmickey have made reference to doing bad things in their life. I presume they meant bad even by typical man's standards. They can correct me if I'm wrong. In any case almost all the born again Christians that I happen to know were once drug addicts, cheats, thiefs or felons (eg Chuck Colson). Even if it is done completely subconsciously, it certainly is a terrific psychological crutch to convince yourself that your bad sins are basically in the same category in God's eyes as the lesser sins of nicer people (and it is in the same category if the remedy for all levels of sin [by man's standards] is basically the same). I have little doubt that that has a lot to do with what is going on here.

[BluffTHIS!]

NotReady, perhaps you will answer a question regarding something I said in an early post in this thread. Question: Can a tribesman in remote New Guinea, who never has and never does hear the gospel preached be saved? And if you think this is unlikely then just take it back 500 years for someone who lived then. Now, if your answer is no, then what is God saying about the natural law in Romans 2:12-16?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And of course everything else you say stems fron this ridiculous notion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I intend for everything I say to stem from what the Bible says. If you claim you're sincere, then you're making a case that God MUST save you because you've done everything you can do and you have a good heart. God owes you something. Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not ever have moments of clarity when you realize your entire belief system and way of seeing the world and other people is derived entirely from a single book written two thousand years ago? I cannot imagine how intellectually limiting it must be to always don the same lens when analyzing anything this amazing thing called existence has to offer.

[BluffTHIS!]

Another thought for you NotReady, is that it might show a little of the humility that God expects of us, and also be more rigorous if you began your arguements by prefacing your comments with one of the following instead of "the Bible says . .":

1) "my interpretation of what the bible says is . . ";

2) "what I believe and my denomination teaches is . .";

or even,

3) "my literalist interpretation of this passage of of the bible taken out of context from the rest of scripture is . .".

[NotReady]

The question of people who have never heard the Gospel has always been a difficult one. I can't say for certain one way or the other. I believe that God is both just and loving. Since He hasn't told us the precise fate of those who haven't heard, I suspect it is because we don't need to know. But He has told us of His love and justice, and that's enough for me.

Romans 2 is NOT teaching salvation by works. In Romans Paul goes through several examples of types of unbelievers. The passage you mention is concerned with people who never received the Mosaic Law. The implied question is how can someone break the law if they never heard of it? Paul's answer is that God doesn't have to convict on the basis of the written Word. He can and will use one's own standard to convict, because everyone violates his own conscience. In other words, everyone is guilty according to his own standard.

[NotReady]

I see you still have a sackful of stones. Any glass left in that house?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

a single book written two thousand years ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible is not a single book. It wasn't written 2000 years ago. What does the age of the book have to do with anything?

[ QUOTE ]

don the same lens


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone has a lens. It's the only one they can ever don unless God gives them a new one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Please don't evade my main point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't you at least admit that some "dumb" non believers fall into this category?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've also answered this.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I presume they meant bad even by typical man's standards


[/ QUOTE ]

You presume too much.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if it is done completely subconsciously, it certainly is a terrific psychological crutch to convince yourself that your bad sins are basically in the same category in God's eyes as the lesser sins of nicer people (and it is in the same category if the remedy for all levels of sin [by man's standards] is basically the same). I have little doubt that that has a lot to do with what is going on here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since your presumption is wrong, so is your conclusion.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The second is to choose the one which has a probability that weights with the repercussions to make it the most appealing. again, this is an organic issue. But say that I assign the value to me if I believe [and act on] 'God exists' as 50, and the value of 'God does not exist' as 5, then as long as I can assign a value of greater than 9% to 'God exists' I should believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not what David was asking at all.

Just because you have correct pot odds to chase a flush draw does not mean you believe you will make a flush. The question isn't what you should do, but what level of certainty qualifies as a belief?

If I were 51% sure that X were true, and somebody asked me "Yes or no -- do you believe that X is true?", I'd probably answer 'yes,' but only because that'd be less misleading than 'no.' They would both be misleading, however. I'd prefer to explain that if I had to bet one one side or the other (at even money), I'd bet on X over not-X -- but it'd be only slightly better than a wild guess.

But anything over 50% qualifies as a belief, IMO, such that I'd answer yes to a yes-or-no question about whether I believe something. So that's my answer.

[Cerril]

Well the thing is, there's a big difference between 'acting as if I'll make the flush' and 'acting as if I have pot odds to chase.' Even if I'm raising it's with an entirely different attitude. But you're right, there are situations where actions can imply belief even when it's not there.

In poker, 51% is all that's needed though of course 'belief' changes. With many other things it takes a lot more (how about 'do you believe your SO is faithful to you?' If you put it at 90% that would still leave a terrible amount of doubt, too much to give any comfort of belief). I imagine there are situations where it would take less, too. "Do you believe in a God?" If I put the likelyhood at any measurable percentage, but let's say 10%, then I could probably say 'yes.'

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, everyone is guilty according to his own standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. So it logically follows that people who might have heard a Christian preacher but sincerely didn't believe can be saved.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

a single book written two thousand years ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible is not a single book. It wasn't written 2000 years ago. What does the age of the book have to do with anything?

[ QUOTE ]

don the same lens


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone has a lens. It's the only one they can ever don unless God gives them a new one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine you are saying here that the bible is not a book, but the word of god. Or perhaps you are just pointing out my oversimplification of stating the bible is a single book when it could be argued it is a collection of essays by different authors, or some other such view.

Regardless, my point is you have completely given over your entire intellect to one system of thought. Does your presumption that the bible is entirely true and is the word of god not lead to fanaticism?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

my point is you have completely given over your entire intellect to one system of thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who hasn't?

[ QUOTE ]

lead to fanaticism


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a fanatic about the truth. I want to be a fanatic about doing God's will,which is summed up by the command to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, but I fail miserably. Only an idiot would believe God requires us to love Him, and not be fanatical about it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So it logically follows that people who might have heard a Christian preacher but sincerely didn't believe can be saved.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't logically follow from the text you gave. But I'm not saying that someone who hears and rejects can't later be saved. All they have to do is accept.

[David Sklansky]

I missed your answer. Can you tell me again why it is impossible for someone to have studied the Gospel and disbelieve purely because thie brain and (not their heart) leads them that way?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The absolute best we can do in our own strength is utterly abominable to God. I believe this is so because our most basic, fundamental motive is sinful. I'm not going to try to read someone else's mind and say why he does what he does. The Bible says all have evil motives for everything they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[David Sklansky]

"Even if it is done completely subconsciously, it certainly is a terrific psychological crutch to convince yourself that your bad sins are basically in the same category in God's eyes as the lesser sins of nicer people (and it is in the same category if the remedy for all levels of sin [by man's standards] is basically the same). I have little doubt that that has a lot to do with what is going on here."



"Since your presumption is wrong, so is your conclusion."

My conclusion is right as regards many people. I wasn't talking about you specifically. I wonder if you would admit that at least some of those who espouse your view have subconscious selfish reasons just like some atheists do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about you specifically. I wonder if you would admit that at least some of those who espouse your view have subconscious selfish reasons just like some atheists do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've said this at least 10 million times - today alone.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

my point is you have completely given over your entire intellect to one system of thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who hasn't?

[ QUOTE ]

lead to fanaticism


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a fanatic about the truth. I want to be a fanatic about doing God's will,which is summed up by the command to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, but I fail miserably. Only an idiot would believe God requires us to love Him, and not be fanatical about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you happily admit to allowing yourself to be completely controlled by one religions system of beliefs. It's truly amazing to me that a person would so gleefully admit to allowing themselves to become programmed like a robot in one belief system.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So basically you happily admit to allowing yourself to be completely controlled by one religions system of beliefs. It's truly amazing to me that a person would so gleefully admit to allowing themselves to become programmed like a robot in one belief system.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have an amazing ability to twist words. No wonder you can never come to an understanding of truth.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So basically you happily admit to allowing yourself to be completely controlled by one religions system of beliefs. It's truly amazing to me that a person would so gleefully admit to allowing themselves to become programmed like a robot in one belief system.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have an amazing ability to twist words. No wonder you can never come to an understanding of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I twisted your words at all. You have completely given yourself over to what is written in the bible. I don't really see any room for original thought outside of the christian construct you have adopted. Is there any aspect of your life that is not determined by your blind faith?

I'm sure for you the word "truth" is equivalent to "god" in your post above, yet for me your definition of god is the antithesis of truth since it involves self-abnegation and the suspension of rational inquiry outside the realm of christian beliefs.

And please don't patronize me about never being able to understand truth. To quote Nietzsche, "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Your blind conviction to christian beliefs embodies this quote perfectly since you are completely incapable of thinking outside the box you have happily placed over yourself.

[NotReady]

You've abandonded all rational thought, honest questioning and sincere truth seeking. Your comments are now filled with spite if not downright hatred, and you willfully mischaracterize what I say. For some reason you no longer wish to engage in dialogue, but would rather cast aspersions and hurl insults.

By the way, no one had more blind convictions in the universe and was more unthinkingly dogmatic than Nietzsche.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
You've abandonded all rational thought, honest questioning and sincere truth seeking. Your comments are now filled with spite if not downright hatred, and you willfully mischaracterize what I say. For some reason you no longer wish to engage in dialogue, but would rather cast aspersions and hurl insults.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person whose belief system begins with the assumption that the bible is the word of god and is complete truth really has no place telling another person they have "abandonded all rational thought, honest questioning and sincere truth seeking."

Thank you for reawakening in me a strong disdain and physical aversion to religiously minded individuals.

[NotReady]

I didn't reawaken anything. Your disdain was never asleep. You were just waiting for an excuse, and my honesty concerning fanaticism gave you the excuse. You totally ignored the heart of my post and started regurgitating your secular mantra. It was obvious you couldn't wait to start spouting off about closed mindedness and robots. All of which you did in a perfect, Nietzschean, robotic way.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't reawaken anything. Your disdain was never asleep. You were just waiting for an excuse, and my honesty concerning fanaticism gave you the excuse. You totally ignored the heart of my post and started regurgitating your secular mantra. It was obvious you couldn't wait to start spouting off about closed mindedness and robots. All of which you did in a perfect, Nietzschean, robotic way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need a shower. Good day.

[NotReady]

I'm going to sum this up and then good day to you to.

Your question:

Don't you think that believing the Bible is the Word of God leads to fanaticism?

My answer:

I'm a fanatic about learning to love God and my neighbor as myself.

Your response:

You're a robot.

CYA

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So it logically follows that people who might have heard a Christian preacher but sincerely didn't believe can be saved.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't logically follow from the text you gave. But I'm not saying that someone who hears and rejects can't later be saved. All they have to do is accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you evade a point by not addressing a post directly by twisting it suit your limited understanding of how others might react to "hearing" the gospel. I said "hear and sincerely not believe" not "hear and reject". So let's really try to clarify your views by addressing the questions:

1) Can or cannot a person of reasonable intelligence hear but not understand? And by understand I mean believe the gospel to be both true and necessary for salvation.

2) Thus could they read all 4 gospels and understand *intellectually* what the text is saying, but not *believe* it to be true?

3) In order to *reject* a truth doesn't the true thing have to be believed in fact to be true in order for it to be rejected?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Once again you evade a point by not addressing a post directly by twisting it suit your limited understanding of how others might react to "hearing" the gospel.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stomach the insults anymore. It causes me to doubt your sincerity. It makes rational discourse difficult if not impossible. It's irritating.

DS should read this if he doubts whether I claim to be perfect. I no longer have the patience, though I should. Jesus would, but I'm woefully short of that mark.