Sklansky has it backwards

[txag007]

David has said several times in the past that Christians believe what they do because facing the revelation that their beliefs are wrong would be too painful. I've been pondering this theory for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that he has it backwards. It's not the Christians who would suffer the most if their beliefs are wrong, but the non-believers.

I know this sounds very Pascal wager-ish, but please hear me out.

DS- (from a recent thread)
"It is a disease, similar to stoke victims who don't admit they are paralyzed or Multiple Personality sufferers (who were almost always horribly abused as children). It is cause by the brain's propensity to do whatever is necessary to prevent severe emotional pain."

Between those who believe in God and those who don't, who would suffer the most emotional pain if their beliefs were proven to be wrong? I think it's logical to assume that on average it would be the ones whose lifestyle would be affected the most.

What if Christians are proven wrong, and God is found to be nonexistent? What changes? Although it would undoubtedly be an emotionally trying time, many Christians lifestyles probably wouldn't change too much (in the way that we interact with others in society, etc.) They might even find new freedom in that many things they once considered wrong would not be so anymore.

If on the other hand the God of the Bible were proven to exist, many nonbelievers would have a problem. Suddenly, they are accountable to a higher being. Many of the actions that they once enjoyed are now considered wrong. On top of that, they have that Hell thing to worry about (since it now exists).

Which instance would cause the most "severe emotional pain"?

[m1illion]

If non believers are are wrong, it's their own fault. They weighed the evidence/arguments and made a decision.

If the believers are wrong then they have been lied to. What's more everything that they counted on as their security blanket is gone. Especially missing will be the meaning of their lives.
The believers will feel (rightfully) betrayed.

Emotionally, the believers are likelier to be shattered.

[txag007]

Which party lost their security blanket?

As a Christian, is my life now meaningless? Yes and no. I can continue to live my life in the same way I lived before, only now knowing that when it's over, it's over.

As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.

From an emotional standpoint, who is more likely to have a problem weighing the evidence objectively?

[ QUOTE ]


As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to assert that nonbelievers are somehow morally bankrupt? If God was proved to exist heres how my life would change, I would now believe in the Christian God. I would also be alot less concerned with the plight of my fellow man as its all just part of Gods plan and the meek shall inherant the earth. I stay in touch with alot of the people that I knew when I went to church and attempts to bring me back into the fold are inevitable consequences of this and its been made clear that my lack of belief is the only thing holding me back from going to heaven. One other change for a nonbeliever that doesnt apply to my broke ass but would apply to my father. All the money and time that he invests in helping other people would now be spent on building new churches and attending church services.

Using your logic that a belief in no God equals doing whatever you want, I dont see how you think that the average Christians life wouldnt change alot. Whats to stop him from now raping and murdering his sister?

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
Which party lost their security blanket?

As a Christian, is my life now meaningless? Yes and no. I can continue to live my life in the same way I lived before, only now knowing that when it's over, it's over.

As a non-Christian, will my life change forever? Yes. I can no longer live life the same way I lived it before because I now know that I will be held accountable for my actions. My security blanket (God's nonexistence) is now gone. If I don't change my life, I will go to Hell.

From an emotional standpoint, who is more likely to have a problem weighing the evidence objectively?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no security blanket for the non believer. In fact the non believer GAINS a shot at salvation. Never mind the fact that there is every chance that nothing changes for the majority of non believers who lead perfectly "righteous" lives, they just have to accept the validity of the bible.
And your life is irrevocably changed. No more "for the glory of god" mantra. No more " it is god's will".
Sorry, your argument is decidedly unconvincing.

[txag007]

"There's no security blanket for the non believer. In fact the non believer GAINS a shot at salvation. Never mind the fact that there is every chance that nothing changes for the majority of non believers who lead perfectly "righteous" lives, they just have to accept the validity of the bible."

1. In terms of eternal destination, the belief that God doesn't exist IS a security blanket. The nonbeliever has that shot at salvation right now and chooses to ignore it.

2. Christian or non-Christian, NOBODY lives a perfectly righteous life. So, the non-Christian now has to answer for his sins. The Christian drops the "glory of God" stuff of which you speak from his vocabulary and moves on. Which is tougher?

[txag007]

"Why do you continue to assert that nonbelievers are somehow morally bankrupt?"

"Using your logic that a belief in no God equals doing whatever you want, I dont see how you think that the average Christians life wouldnt change alot. Whats to stop him from now raping and murdering his sister?"


I never said that nonbelievers are morally bankrupt. We're all sinners, Christian and nonchristian alike. What is in question is whether or not we have to answer to those sins in the afterlife.

[spaminator101]

not necesarily
you see many people think/beleive that a God exists but dont practice any religion
no matter how stupid/crazy this may seem people still do it
and i beleive that a large portion of non-beleivers are this way

[BluffTHIS!]

I think it is logically correct though to say that both camps would suffer emotional pain if proven wrong. We Christians would suffer emotional pain because having placed our hopes in an eternal afterlife with God that makes our sufferings here insignificant in comparison, we now would be confronted with a reality in which what we get in this life is all we can hope for, and for a significant portion of humanity that is grim.

Non-believers as you pointed out would also suffer emotional pain because they would have to change their entire world view, plus would often have to make significant changes in their lifestyles to conform to relgious behaviour and moral standards. There is however a "kicker" here for them. If upon having been proved wrong, they now did not accept religious faith, since they could not sincerely maintain unbelief, they would then be subject to the consequences of knowlingly rejecting that proved faith, consequences that would attach in the afterlife.

[KeysrSoze]

Are you kidding? Have you SEEN how bitter a true believer gets when they "lose their faith?"

Me, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I long for the day when Odin reveals himself in all his glory. I'd pack up and go to Iraq on the next flight, to die a glorious death in battle and be carried to Valhalla by the valkyries.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Except that a lot of us are hoping that we will be proven wrong, and will rejoice when it happens.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]


1. In terms of eternal destination, the belief that God doesn't exist IS a security blanket. The nonbeliever has that shot at salvation right now and chooses to ignore it.

2. Christian or non-Christian, NOBODY lives a perfectly righteous life. So, the non-Christian now has to answer for his sins. The Christian drops the "glory of God" stuff of which you speak from his vocabulary and moves on. Which is tougher?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer. The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise.
The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?

As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life. I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris.

[txag007]

Taken point by point:

M1llion-
"You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer."

First of all, I didn't realize that point needed any more justification. Secondly, you've done the same thing. A "security blanket" by definition is "a usually familiar object whose presence dispels anxiety". Now, aside from the fact that we are speaking of a belief and not an object, the reliance on the "fact" that God does not exist allows many nonbelievers to justify their sinful acts (which we ALL commit by the way) whether they be of commission or of omission.


M1llion-
"The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise."

In that case, it's a good thing I never suggested otherwise. If you read my other posts in this thread, you will see that I said I do not think all nonbelievers are morally bankrupt. I said that we are ALL sinners. The only difference is that those who believe there is no God think that they will never be held accountable for their sins.


M1llion-
"The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?"

I made a point in my original post not to dismiss the emotional aspect of it. Of course there will be emotional trauma either way.


M1llion-
"As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life."

Yes, you did. Reread your post.


M1llion-
"I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine."

There are many reasons that people don't believe in God. It is important that we don't group all nonbelievers together and say, "This is what they are like."

Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread.

Others are mad at God. Others don't care, and don't want to bother with any potential evidence either way. Still others truly believe that their evidence proves God's nonexistence and refuse to consider any counter-evidence. It's these types of people to which I'm referring.

Also, something else should be clarified here. If God somehow revealed himself to everyone in the world using some type of "Road to Damascus" situation, it's not hard to imagine that everyone would believe.

But what if the proof was more subtle? If if was just a few calcuations on paper that proved God's existence or nonexistence, who would be more likely to refuse to acknowledge its truthfulness?

[txag007]

"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

[txag007]

"Are you kidding? Have you SEEN how bitter a true believer gets when they 'lose their faith?'"

To my knowledge, God has not been proven to be nonexistant. Therefore, that was not the reason for the loss of faith of which you speak. Furthermore, making a general argument based on one experience is a flaw in your reasoning.

Unless of course, you were just being sarcastic.

[txag007]

See my response to your other post.

[David Sklansky]

The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief. Serial sinners and anthropologists being two examples.

You don't seem to understand that the great majority of non believers got that way gradually and with no feelings of revelation as they read, studied, and thought about what makes the world tick. This is especially true if you include in the non believers camp those who are unsure about God in general, but simply believe strongly that any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God. That last statement requires an IQ of 45 to understand and even BluffThis reluctantly admits he can't refute it.

Bootom line: Non belief in a specific organized religion requires no psychological component, especially if the non belief is in the brain of someone versed in physics, logic and probability.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me.

[txag007]

Hey David! Glad to see you're back. Before I respond, I'd like to make sure I've got something correct:

"any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God."

Is this because you believe all religions to be diametrically opposed to one another, so the chances of one being correct is small? Or is there another reason?

[David Sklansky]

Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion.

[John Ho]

As someone unsure about the existence of God but leaning heavily against it I weigh in with this on the topic - I will be thrilled if I am wrong and there is a God. I live my life as morally as the vast majority of religious folks I know. Though I could always be a better person, I feel that if heavan isn't too exclusive I have a good shot at entrance. I would be thrilled if this happened.

Contrast this to folks who have spent many hours in church/synagogue/mosque worshipping a God that doesn't exist. Their purpose in life has been defined to a great extent by their religious views. I know because I grew up a devout Christian until I was a teenager and decided that not only religion but God logically didn't make sense and were inconsistent with much of what I saw in the world.

However, that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian is gone probably forever. And as I meander through life pondering the meaning of existence and why am I here? and all that other crap I envy those who still wrap their cold shoulders around that warm blanket of faith in God and take true comfort in it. It's nice to know God is waiting for you. I shudder to think what would happen to most people if that were taken away.

I would be thrilled if there was a God waiting - but I doubt I'm wrong and can't convince myself otherwise despite wanting to.

[PairTheBoard]

If you can't find god in the theologies of religions, maybe it's because that's not where god is. Maybe you are revealing god to us in your life. If so, thanks.

PairTheBoard

[txag007]

"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net (http://www.rationalchristianity.net)
www.apologetics.org (http://www.apologetics.org)
www.carm.org (http://www.carm.org)
www.godandscience.org (http://www.godandscience.org)

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian

[/ QUOTE ]

and then

[ QUOTE ]
that warm blanket of faith in God

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not Faith you are describing, it is Community. Community is nice. Community is socially helpful. It can be dangerously conformist, but sometimes that is useful. It is also utterly mindless.

Faith, on the other hand, is rife with doubt and fear and pain. Faith can make you sick, and (when you get it twisted) it can make you turn against your Community with violence, literally or figuratively. Faith has almost nothing to do with Church. It’s less like “Nearer My God To Thee” and more like the DMX song “Who We Be.” It is a big risk, to have true faith, because:
A. You must think about it, and doubt it, and therefore you may lose it and become a different (happier? unhappier?) person.
B. You may think you’ve found the voice of god, and he may ask you to do some crazy s**t.


Mt.10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." –J.C.


I’ve always interpreted this to mean: division and strife IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER. That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything.

Neither a thoughtful atheist nor a thoughtful religious person can sleep well at night. That’s the price of knowledge-seeking.

[ QUOTE ]
"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net (http://www.rationalchristianity.net)
www.apologetics.org (http://www.apologetics.org)
www.carm.org (http://www.carm.org)
www.godandscience.org (http://www.godandscience.org)

[/ QUOTE ]

From godandscience.com

Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer - Double blind, scientific studies validate the efficacy of Christian intercessory prayer.

[txag007]

"That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything."

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

[txag007]

Here's the link for anyone else reading this:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize it until this post, but I think we can count another "Agnostic who just doesn't know it yet" in the chat forum. If you ever want to become openly agnostic, we have cool jackets.

[txag007]

Lol. I believe I'll politely decline the offer. There is too much evidence to resort to that. :-)

[John Ho]

The term "blind faith" is redundant. All faith is blind as it is unsupported by evidence.

[txag007]

"The term "blind faith" is redundant. All faith is blind as it is unsupported by evidence."

I wouldn't say "unsupported by evidence". There is evidence that God exists, the Bible is true, etc. You probably won't find 100%, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof to that regard, but there is evidence.

Also, it depends on what definition of faith you use. Obviously, you mean "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", but faith can also be defined as "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" and "allegiance to a duty or person".

[John Ho]

Now we are getting into a discussion of what the word "faith" means. Give me a break. Is it so hard for you to admit that you believe in God and don't need/want evidence to support it? Is this your rational mind rebelling against the notion of believing in something unprovable?

[txag007]

"The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief."

Our disagreement occurs because of what each of us believes the makeup of nonbelievers to be. Here is a repost of something I said in another post within this thread:

[There are many reasons that people don't believe in God. It is important that we don't group all nonbelievers together and say, "This is what they are like."

Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread.

Others are mad at God. Others don't care, and don't want to bother with any potential evidence either way. Still others truly believe that their evidence proves God's nonexistence and refuse to consider any counter-evidence. It's these types of people to which I'm referring.]

As for the ones who say their non-belief is not a big deal to them, I think that is just a facade. You can't honestly tell me that such a person objectively faces the possibility of eternal damnation and says, "Ah, it's no big deal." Can you?

[txag007]

"Is it so hard for you to admit that you believe in God and don't need/want evidence to support it? Is this your rational mind rebelling against the notion of believing in something unprovable?"

I do need evidence to support my beliefs. In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul instructs us to "test everything". The evidence supporting Christianity is there. That is why I believe it.

[txag007]

"Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion."

Right, but if you trace the disagreements back to their origins it becomes much easier to make a decision about who is correct.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[quote
I do need evidence to support my beliefs. In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul instructs us to "test everything". The evidence supporting Christianity is there. That is why I believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it disagrees with many other passages in the Bible. For instance, in Genesis 22 when God tells Abraham to burn his son Isaac to prove his love. If Paul wants us to "test everything" shouldn't you test the notion that if God wants you to kill your son, that God is wrong?

Also, in this passage from Genesis God praises Abraham for being willing to sacrafice his son, but isn't the willingness to kill out of faith exactly the "Dangerous blind faith" you spoke of earlier?

[txag007]

Two things:

1. In context, Paul was specifically referring to the validity of false prophets. Easily, this can also be applied to the validity of false religions. It was in this context from which I posted.

2. Regarding Abraham, it didn't require a whole lot of faith to believe God's existence at this point in time as God was speaking verbally to him. So, he wasn't exactly killing out of faith, but rather just following instructions.

And by the way, for those reading this who have never read the Bible, Abraham didn't kill Isaac. God stopped him.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Regarding Abraham, it didn't require a whole lot of faith to believe God's existence at this point in time as God was speaking verbally to him. So, he wasn't exactly killing out of faith, but rather just following instructions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "blind faith" I was referring to here is the faith that God is just, and that following him is good, not the faith that he exists. If someone in a position of power to me would tell me "Kill your son to prove your allegiance to me" I would immediately question that person's integrity. Abraham does not question God's integrity at all, a course of action the Bible seems to promote.

[txag007]

As I mentioned in my last post, when I said "test everything" I was referring to the evidence of God and Christianity. I was not saying to test God himself. It says elsewhere in the Old Testament "do not put the Lord thy God to the test". In fact, the only place in the entire Bible where God instructs us to test Him personally concerns our tithe.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned in my last post, when I said "test everything" I was referring to the evidence of God and Christianity. I was not saying to test God himself. It says elsewhere in the Old Testament "do not put the Lord thy God to the test". In fact, the only place in the entire Bible where God instructs us to test Him personally concerns our tithe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is the message which the Bible promotes, that you should not question God. I don't think my second question to you was clear, what I meant to say was, "Isn't faith that God is good an example of blind faith?" As you have said before that blind faith is very dangerous, this is an important point.

[txag007]

"Isn't faith that God is good an example of blind faith?"

No. The Bible says He is good, so we have something upon which to base that faith.

[David Sklansky]

"Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread."

Evidence that makes their particular version of God to be more likely to be true than not? I don't even think Not Ready believes that. Peter 666 has stated that if you aren't given the gift of faith, logic forces you to be an atheist. BluffThis has admitted that it is so reasonable to disbelieve if you are using evidence only, that God is not going to automatically condemn such a person.

[ QUOTE ]


Evidence that makes their particular version of God to be more likely to be true than not? I don't even think Not Ready believes that. Peter 666 has stated that if you aren't given the gift of faith, logic forces you to be an atheist. BluffThis has admitted that it is so reasonable to disbelieve if you are using evidence only, that God is not going to automatically condemn such a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

No evidence? Have not read any of his links? From godandscience.com

"The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:

1. Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:3
2. Led an active Christian life on the basis of
a. daily devotional prayer
b. fellowship in a local Christian church"

In scientific double blind studies hospital patients who were prayed for by the preceding fared much better.

More gold from godandscience.com

"The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.

Sure Sklansky may have it backwards, but is it good?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky has it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is useless without a picture.

[txag007]

lol

[jester710]

The basic question here is whether "good" and "bad" lie outside of God, and can be applied to Him, or whether He is the source of morality, and therefore the ultimate arbiter of good and bad. In the case of the latter, anything God does is good, because it's up to Him to decide, regardless of what our moral code might say. In the former, He is fully capable of making morally reprehensible decisions, and relying on the Bible for proof of His goodness is circular reasoning.

Either way, if there is a God and He makes immoral choices sometimes, I don't really know what we're gonna do about it.

[txag007]

Everything comes back to absolute morality, doesn't it? As I've stated in other threads recently, God is good and is the source of our morality. All of us have an inherent sense or right and wrong that comes directly from Him.

[David Sklansky]

"God is good and is the source of our morality. All of us have an inherent sense or right and wrong that comes directly from Him."

Why didn't he give that to dolphins also?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
"God is good and is the source of our morality. All of us have an inherent sense or right and wrong that comes directly from Him."

Why didn't he give that to dolphins also?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did, haven't you seen Flipper before?

[txag007]

"He did, haven't you seen Flipper before?"

Lol. That's funny. David, are you asking me why animals don't have a soul?

[David Sklansky]

I asked what I asked.

[txag007]

"I asked what I asked."

Then the answer is: I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]

"I asked what I asked."

Then the answer is: I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is that when dolphins reach some level of intelligence God will send a dolphin Jesus to reveal it to them.

[Subfallen]

Hmm...I think I have an interesting take on this thread. Let's look at the very first paragraph in the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the Christians who would suffer the most if their beliefs are wrong, but the non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take this one step at a time.

If G_d really exists, and has defined all meaning in a Christian relationship with Himself, if all of life is richest when saturated with the Christian disciplines, if prayer is communion with our Creator...how would unbelievers SUFFER once these "essential truths" are made completely accessible?? There are only two options, after all:
- (1) Unbeliever becomes a Christian now that his doubts are alleviated, and enters into the fulness of life.
- (2) Unbeliever remains an unbeliever, and lives identically as before except with another layer of intellectual dishonesty. (Notice that only idiots and egomaniacs would choose to ignore absolute proof, so we can't really imagine much pain involved here.)

So here we have the probability of (1)---ultimate joy---dominating the probability of (2)---some suffering. Dunno about you, but this sounds ++EV to me...and txag007's position is starting to feel a bit unsteady.

But let me move in for the knockout. To the point, if txag007 is currently experiencing the power of these "essential truths" being proven out in his own life, how can he POSSIBLY suggest that anything would be more insufferable than having these "truths" falsified? After all, there are only two options:
- (1) txag007 becomes an athiest, and acknowledges all his joy, fulfillment, and meaning are self-delusions. Some pretty serious anguish and suffering I would say.
- (2) txag007 remains a Christian, compromising his sanity and either reducing him to an idiot or egomaniac. Not attractive, though in the long run probably not that bad.

So here we have the probability of (1)---ultimate anguish---dominating the probability of (2)---some anguish. Do the math...yeah, that's right, --EV. Bigtime.

Hmm, txag007, maybe Sklanksy was right after all, huh? (I'll assume you can see why at this point.)

But this little thought exercise wasn't hard at all! Why did txag007 fail so miserably in the OP? I think maybe, just maybe, txag007 isn't quite experiencing the "fulness of life." No, on the contrary, txag007 has a powerful subconcious desire to escape the bonds of Christian morality. He researches and debates the empirical evidence for his faith so vigorously because he is quite bereft of existential evidence.

[Tall Kitchen]

While I suppose it's true that believers believe and non-believers don't believe, it is not true that there isn't truth to the matter simply because the believers and non-believers don't agree on whether or not it's good to believe. In other words, the fact that two people might see things differently does not change what those things really are. Further, the fact that two people see things similarly does not guarantee that things are as they seem.

So to pragmatically view religion, I think it's best to take stock of how religion benefits the believer: he gets to dress up, hang out with friends, sing, go to fancy buildings, recognize authority, pursue an education, be part of a corporate structure, and depending on the format, participiate in mysticism. These are all good things in my opinion. The non-believer, of course, can get these things without religion. Both the believer and non-believer benefit similarly from these things however they get them, and probably feel pretty much the same way about them.

While in addition to the nice things, the believer claims to have certain knowledge of the existence of God, and the non-believer does not, it is not as though niether can change his mind. It is also not as though either would change his mind, even if he should. This is why we have believers and non-believers. To illustrate this, the old alagory of the blind guy touching the elephant applies. Except the point here is that the blind guy's perception of the elephant is not important. The elephant is not a wall, it is an elephant, and the blind guy is wrong. Further impirical evidence would probably convince him, but let's get one thing straight: the blind guy is wrong. And while his perception, considering his observation, is a good excuse, he is not bettered in any way by believing the elephant is a wall. Similarly, he would not be bettered in any way by disbelieving that the elephant is an elephant. He's just wrong. It's sad, but true.

Aside from the befefits of religion, which are significant to the believer, God either exists or he doesn't. Either the believer or the non-believer is wrong. Each has made his observations and come to some conclusion, but one is wrong. I stress this point because it is not as if they can both be right, one made more or less so on the merrits of his argument. If God exists, the non-believers are wrong, and if God doesn't exist, the believers are wrong.

I'm continually surprised at people's lack of curiosity in preference of entertaining platitudinous arguments, as if an argument could reveal the truth of matters.

[txag007]

"But this little thought exercise wasn't hard at all! Why did txag007 fail so miserably in the OP? I think maybe, just maybe, txag007 isn't quite experiencing the "fulness of life." No, on the contrary, txag007 has a powerful subconcious desire to escape the bonds of Christian morality. He researches and debates the empirical evidence for his faith so vigorously because he is quite bereft of existential evidence."


1.) This is just a rewording of many of the other arguments already discussed in this thread.

2.) You obviously haven't read many of my other posts. To an honest seeker, the evidence in favor of Christianity is substantial.

[Bez]

Born again Christians think life is wonderful.

Those who have lost faith are generally cynical about life.

Therefore Sklansky is correct.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
"But this little thought exercise wasn't hard at all! Why did txag007 fail so miserably in the OP? I think maybe, just maybe, txag007 isn't quite experiencing the "fulness of life." No, on the contrary, txag007 has a powerful subconcious desire to escape the bonds of Christian morality. He researches and debates the empirical evidence for his faith so vigorously because he is quite bereft of existential evidence."


1.) This is just a rewording of many of the other arguments already discussed in this thread.

2.) You obviously haven't read many of my other posts. To an honest seeker, the evidence in favor of Christianity is substantial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You retard, did you even read the first 3/4 of my post? The premise of this thread is so wrong it's ridiculous.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Born again Christians think life is wonderful.


[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest generalization I have seen today.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
"Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion."

Right, but if you trace the disagreements back to their origins it becomes much easier to make a decision about who is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree here-to "go back to the origins" you usually have to go back around 6,000 years- and several translations through different laguages (without the benefit of dictionaries to make sure you get the regional dialect correct) and tons of missing scrolls/writings- these are the reasons scholars who spend their entire lives studying these things still disagree.

There is one fact that is without question true here, and that is the fact that no one knows if there is really a GOD. You cannot prove that there is a GOD. If you could, we obviously wouldn't be having this discussion.

That said, to sit here and state that those who don't believe in a GOD, would be more negatively affected emotionally then those who believe in GOD, if each side were to experience a revelation of the truth, which would contradict their beliefs, is done so without warrant. I think that David spoke a little of this point before, but not in as much detail as this.

Most people who truly believe in GOD, dedicate their entire lives to this belief. They go to church routinely, they pray routinely, so on and so on. The people who do not believe in GOD, are not dedicating their lives to their non-belief. They don't spend a great deal of their time discussing their non-beliefs. They do not head to a building frequently to study their non-beliefs. They do not believe that their life is in existence, in order to satisfy their non-belief. However, those who do believe, think that their existence on this planet is to satisfy their GOD. Take that away, and they have nothing left. There whole reason for living has been essentially taken away.

Let us now examine the situation of the non-believers finding out that they were wrong. Will some non-believers have a hard time living in a world, which entails them to behave more "morally?" The answer to this question is obviously yes. More important, though, is this concept of existence. Undoubtedly, most of these people, simply, are of the thought process of not knowing why we are here. A lot of them may think we are here for no particular reason at all. Others probably just come to terms with the fact that they don't really know why. They can't tell you why or why not. Although, they will tell you that they do not believe we are here because of a GOD, they do not, on the other hand, have an answer as to why we are here. So, if these people are wrong, they are not going to be emotionally crushed to find out what their existence now is, because they never knew what their existence was in the first place.

It could actually be argued that they would be affected in a more positive way, because now their life has a finite meaning in an overall sense. Despite the fact that, there is now a hell, there is also now a heaven, which can be looked forward to, as nothing was looked forward to before.

Your point is just not logical. You are essentially arguing that it is emotionally easier to go from believing you were put on earth for a reason, to not having a reason, than it is to not have a belief as to why you were put on earth, to now knowing why you were put here.

[David Sklansky]

Welcome to 2+2. Your first post was terrifically written.
It should not be surprising though, that people who believe in precise religious ideas also usually tend to believe that non believers have at least as strong psychological reasons for their non belief as they do. Because, if they were to admit that people who think that specific religious ideas are nonsense, are in fact psychologically pretty unbiased, they would not be able to satisfactorly explain why these unbelievers increase in proportion as their IQ and scientific education increases.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to 2+2. Your first post was terrifically written.
It should not be surprising though, that people who believe in precise religious ideas also usually tend to believe that non believers have at least as strong psychological reasons for their non belief as they do. Because, if they were to admit that people who think that specific religious ideas are nonsense, are in fact psychologically pretty unbiased, they would not be able to satisfactorly explain why these unbelievers increase in proportion as their IQ and scientific education increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

And David likewise you are deluding yourself if you don't think a certain amount of "pride of unbelief" exists amongst academia.

This "pride" in itself is a stumbling block on the quest for the truth. Add some peer pressure and how many would actually accept the "truth" if it faced them?

[txag007]

Retard? Wow. That's a strong reply.

I just reread your post to make sure I didn't miss anything the first time. I didn't. It's just a verbose way of repeating the same arguments. Did you even read the other posts in this thread?

[txag007]

"And David likewise you are deluding yourself if you don't think a certain amount of "pride of unbelief" exists amongst academia.

This "pride" in itself is a stumbling block on the quest for the truth. Add some peer pressure and how many would actually accept the "truth" if it faced them?"

Exactly. Similar to the way that most of academia is politically liberal, belief in God is often seen as anti-intellectual.

[David Sklansky]

As I said you need to believe that. But the fact is that "pride in getting it right" is a far greater motivater to smart people than "pride in unbelief". (In my case there was never a pride of unbelief or a desire to escape moral commandments. It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true. It was no different than how I decided astrology or rushes were big underdogs to be true. I'm quite sure that most scientists reach their skepticism in about the same way.) And even a nine year old kid is capable of thinking "Wait a second, there are at least ten types of major religions with significant differences. And those who practice them are all sure that the evidence supports them. So even if there is a God, a randomly chosen religion is no more than ten percent to be right. Yet these religious people are all SURE they are right . What's wrong with them"?

[IronUnkind]

It is not "pride in unbelief" that is the motivating psychological factor, nor is it "pride in getting it right"; it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect, one confronts strong social pressure to conform to the community standard.

[txag007]

"It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true."

Is that where your research stopped, or did you compare each religion against one another?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said you need to believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe IronUnkind summed it up well when he said:

[ QUOTE ]

It is not "pride in unbelief" that is the motivating psychological factor, nor is it "pride in getting it right"; it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect, one confronts strong social pressure to conform to the community standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing ...

[ QUOTE ]

But the fact is that "pride in getting it right" is a far greater motivater to smart people than "pride in unbelief".

[/ QUOTE ]

So the truly smart people are the ones that keep an open mind and are willing to accept the truth if they meet it, regardless of the consequences?

Even if it means a sudden criticism of their reputation and the potential damaging of the long-standing friendships they have built up over the years with others in academic positions that shared their then belief?

See IronUnkind's quote above.

[ QUOTE ]

(In my case there was never a pride of unbelief or a desire to escape moral commandments. It was just as I learned more and more, it became more and more obvious that any religions specific precepts had to be a big underdog to be true. It was no different than how I decided astrology or rushes were big underdogs to be true. I'm quite sure that most scientists reach their skepticism in about the same way.) And even a nine year old kid is capable of thinking "Wait a second, there are at least ten types of major religions with significant differences. And those who practice them are all sure that the evidence supports them. So even if there is a God, a randomly chosen religion is no more than ten percent to be right. Yet these religious people are all SURE they are right . What's wrong with them"?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is:

Take a child's surface view, add up the numbers, it's not worth investigating each religion as you're probably still a big underdog to be right.

?

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

"it is more along the lines of "shame of being considered unintelligent."

Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves. But that is not the case when it comes to believing in a specific religion. The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe.

In any other subject but religion when the smartest people in the country strongly believe something, people grant that their smartness greatly increases the probability that it is true. Yet somehow this doesn't apply to specific religious beliefs or even to the belief that the evidence points against any specific religion?

"Existing in a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect,"

But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.

[txag007]

DS-
"Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves. But that is not the case when it comes to believing in a specific religion. The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe."

Can you tell me what studies/surveys compare the liklihood of a scientist believing in God to his IQ score? I'd like to see that as the only survey I've seen was just a general poll of the scientific community.


DS-
"In any other subject but religion when the smartest people in the country strongly believe something, people grant that their smartness greatly increases the probability that it is true. Yet somehow this doesn't apply to specific religious beliefs or even to the belief that the evidence points against any specific religion?"

This is true for scientific matters when the scientists have physical proof. Still, the scientists release their findings for evaluation by other smart minds. Somehow, religion is different. You mentioned recently that physicists have counter-arguments to my thoughts on the creation of the universe, but you didn't know what they were. You said that you just trusted the scientists. Have you ever evaluated these counter-arguments for yourself?


Concerning "a culture such as a university environment where religious belief is widely considered to represent an intellectual flaw or even a psychological defect":

DS-
"But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs."

Which is exactly why they aren't being objective about the issue.

[kidcolin]

My favorite point in any argument is when someone misses a point so badly that the only appropriate response is "you retard, .."

As for academia and it's non-belief front, there are two sides to that. A large portion of that comes from the actual student body, who aren't necessarily all that intelligent. They're just hopping on a college bandwagon, much like socialism and zen budhism. Non-belief does exist among many of the educators, but they don't carry it with that same sense of self-righteousness as the insecure students.

On the other side, as far as a belief in God, or a higher-being, a decent amount of astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, etc., come to believe in the existence of such a being. It doesn't mean they worship it, or think it is in charge of his or her destiny. Instead, since their studies have brought them to the boundaries of the universe and have unravelled many mysteries, and uncovered many new ones, they at least consider the possibility that something (or someone) started all of this. Something put these laws in place. i.e., they believe the existence of a greater being COULD be a logical explanation to WHY relativity (or gravity, etc. etc.) exist.

[David Sklansky]

"On the other side, as far as a belief in God, or a higher-being, a decent amount of astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, etc., come to believe in the existence of such a being. It doesn't mean they worship it, or think it is in charge of his or her destiny. Instead, since their studies have brought them to the boundaries of the universe and have unravelled many mysteries, and uncovered many new ones, they at least consider the possibility that something (or someone) started all of this. Something put these laws in place. i.e., they believe the existence of a greater being COULD be a logical explanation to WHY relativity (or gravity, etc. etc.) exist"

That type of belief is on MY side of this argument.

[kidcolin]

Agreed.. after I read that I meant to edit it to make that clear. i.e., non-belief usually pertains to religion, not blindly ruling out the existence of (a) God(s).

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes! That argument would mean that mediocre academics were more likely to disbelieve than world class minds who never have to worry about being considered unintelligent. Similar to how moderately famous or successful people dress nicer than those who don't have to prove themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

It only means that if one begins, as you have, with the flawed premise that the very smartest people have nothing to prove. It is true that mediocre academics tend to voice their opposition to religion more strongly than brilliant minds (Bertrand Russell being a notable exception).

[ QUOTE ]
The very smartest people, who have no need to protect their reputation are the least likely to believe

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that if Kip Thorne suddenly began telling his colleagues that he'd "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior," we'd quickly see an intervention at Caltech.

[ QUOTE ]
But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt that smarter people tend to think these things. But most of them think this way for non-smart reasons. You ask too much of science or mathematics when you begin using them to answer metaphysical questions.

It is correct that when very smart people think that something is false that it is more likely that it is false. But the relevance of this statistic diminishes as the topic departs from their areas of expertise.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]


But if this is true it suggests that the smarter people think these things about religious beliefs. And people who can think better are big favorites to be right when arguing with people who can't think as well.




[/ QUOTE ]



There is no doubt that smarter people tend to think these things. But most of them think this way for non-smart reasons. You ask too much of science or mathematics when you begin using them to answer metaphysical questions.

It is correct that when very smart people think that something is false that it is more likely that it is false. But the relevance of this statistic diminishes as the topic departs from their areas of expertise.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're dangerously close to mistaking knowledge possessed and thinking ability are one in the same. Also, saying "they think these things for non-smart reasons" isn't supporting any argument one way or the other. All it is saying is that the group of people David is talking about isn't actually smart.

i.e., David is implying that strong thinking minds have put some thought into this and reached this conclusion, not that people with reputations for being smart are just saying "religion is dumb" and not backing it up properly.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
You're dangerously close to mistaking knowledge possessed and thinking ability are one in the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they are, but I can see how you might draw that conclusion. Allow me to clarify. A very intelligent person may form an opinion on a subject which represents a flawless thought process; yet this opinion may still be false because there are some factors which he failed to take into account.

Smart people may believe or disbelieve in god for a lot of reasons which have little to do with "the evidence." Even Bertrand Russell agrees with me, saying:

You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee

[ QUOTE ]
Also, saying "they think these things for non-smart reasons" isn't supporting any argument one way or the other. All it is saying is that the group of people David is talking about isn't actually smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that anymore than Russell is saying that Kant was actually dull. Human beings, regardless of their IQ scores, are quite capable of inconsistency, especially in political and religious matters.

[ QUOTE ]
David is implying that strong thinking minds have put some thought into this and reached this conclusion, not that people with reputations for being smart are just saying "religion is dumb" and not backing it up properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not entirely clear what David is implying. The only thing he's said which is demonstrably true is that intelligence and religiousness tend to be negatively correlated. But the studies that present this evidence fail to demonstrate the degree of thought which has gone into the conclusions. I am suggesting that certain environments make it easier for one to uncritically reject religion -- university physics departments, for instance.