Shrunk wrote:What got Armageddo banned?

DanDare wrote:Seeing is believing - I withhold belief until I see evidence, at which point I accept the evidence.
Believing is seeing - I believe, and therefore only see evidence for my belief and do not see evidence that contradicts my belief.
Strawman - Setting up a weak caricature of a proposition and then arguing against that weak caricature, claiming victory as victory over the original proposition.

maynard wrote: If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

maynard wrote:
Faith, however, is consciously and knowingly making the choice to believe, in the absence of what would be regarded by most people as evidence. For example I believe that there's a creator, and I justify that by saying that what I see is the symptom of a creator. It can't be proven and it can't be disproven.

If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

Nocterro wrote:

"Faith" as it is understood in Christianity comes from the greek pistis, which is translated as "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure[1]". One can place value on evidence and still have faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

I think what you mean to critique is Fideism; which is "the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason.[2] " Note that fideism is not exclusive to religion.


[1] Thomas, Robert L.; Editor, General (1981). New American standard exhaustive concordance of the Bible :. Nashville, Tenn.: A.J. Holman. pp. 1674–75.
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/

Shrunk wrote:

maynard wrote: If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

The difference being one of consistency. The atheist can withold belief in the existence of all entities for which there is no evidence, not just God. The theist, OTOH, will specially privilege the idea of God by believing in it without evidence, while failing to do so for any of the other entities which also have no evidence to support their existence.

maynard wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

maynard wrote: If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

The difference being one of consistency. The atheist can withold belief in the existence of all entities for which there is no evidence, not just God. The theist, OTOH, will specially privilege the idea of God by believing in it without evidence, while failing to do so for any of the other entities which also have no evidence to support their existence.

I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

z8000783 wrote:Do you have a way of deciding what things to believe in and what not to?

z8000783 wrote:

maynard wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

maynard wrote: If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

The difference being one of consistency. The atheist can withold belief in the existence of all entities for which there is no evidence, not just God. The theist, OTOH, will specially privilege the idea of God by believing in it without evidence, while failing to do so for any of the other entities which also have no evidence to support their existence.

I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

That's interesting.

What stops you following the same process for the other 7356 things it would also be nice to believe in but you have no evidence for?

Do you have a way of deciding what things to believe in and what not to?

John

manyard wrote:I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

Richard Swinburne wrote:Belief is a passive state; believing is a state in which you are, it is not a matter of you doing something. And it is an involuntary state, a state in which you find yourself and which you cannot change at will at an instant.[...]We believe our beliefs because we know that we do not choose them but because (if we think about it) we believe that they are forced upon us by the outside world. But, although we cannot alter our beliefs just like that, what we can do is to take steps to alter them over a period of time...
[Swinburne, Epistemic Justification, pg. 39-40]

Nocterro wrote:

manyard wrote:I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

Belief isn't really a choice. To quote Swinburne:

Richard Swinburne wrote:Belief is a passive state; believing is a state in which you are, it is not a matter of you doing something. And it is an involuntary state, a state in which you find yourself and which you cannot change at will at an instant.[...]We believe our beliefs because we know that we do not choose them but because (if we think about it) we believe that they are forced upon us by the outside world. But, although we cannot alter our beliefs just like that, what we can do is to take steps to alter them over a period of time...
[Swinburne, Epistemic Justification, pg. 39-40]

maynard wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

maynard wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

maynard wrote: If it were ever disproven, I'd immediate stop believing and have a rethink. But unless that happens I'll continue believing. An atheist witholds belief in the absence of evidence, and a theist witholds disbelief in the absence of god being disproven.

The difference being one of consistency. The atheist can withold belief in the existence of all entities for which there is no evidence, not just God. The theist, OTOH, will specially privilege the idea of God by believing in it without evidence, while failing to do so for any of the other entities which also have no evidence to support their existence.

I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

That's interesting.

What stops you following the same process for the other 7356 things it would also be nice to believe in but you have no evidence for?

Do you have a way of deciding what things to believe in and what not to?

John

Yes, I do have a way. I want there to be god, so I believe in god. I don't want there to be flying spaghetti monsters, so I don't believe in them. But I'd never rule out completely something that hasn't been disproved. I would just act as though it doesn't, and disregard it. With god, I act as though he exists.

Nocterro wrote:

manyard wrote:I agree. That's what we do. It's because we want to specifically believe in god. You may not want to do that so you don't justify god, but I do. I want there to be a god. But god can't be disproven. If god is ever disproven, I'll have a rethink, but that will (probably) never ever happen. In theory, god can exist, and seeing as I want there to be a god, that's more than good enough for me. It's a question of choice, and faith.

Belief isn't really a choice. To quote Swinburne:

Richard Swinburne wrote:Belief is a passive state; believing is a state in which you are, it is not a matter of you doing something. And it is an involuntary state, a state in which you find yourself and which you cannot change at will at an instant.[...]We believe our beliefs because we know that we do not choose them but because (if we think about it) we believe that they are forced upon us by the outside world. But, although we cannot alter our beliefs just like that, what we can do is to take steps to alter them over a period of time...
[Swinburne, Epistemic Justification, pg. 39-40]

maynard wrote:Nothing that comes to mind.

z8000783 wrote:
What does he suggest is the shortest time in which someone could change their beliefs?
John

Nocterro wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
What does he suggest is the shortest time in which someone could change their beliefs?
John

That would most likely vary greatly depending on:
1) The belief in question, and how strongly it is held
2) The person holding the belief(and the general situation he is in)
3) What information is available

Richard Swinburne wrote:...we cannot alter our beliefs just like that...

Richard Swinburne wrote:...alter them over a period of time...

Nocterro wrote:Again, it would vary greatly depending on the criteria I listed above.

You might change your belief that "My mother had salad for lunch" in a few seconds, upon seeing a McDonald's cheeseburger wrapper in her trash.

Might take months, or even years (and quite a bit of study), for you to change a belief such as "God exists".

z8000783 wrote:

maynard wrote:Nothing that comes to mind.

So in all other aspects of your life you believe the things you believe because there is some basis for it and you don't believe things when there is no basis for it, but in the case of probably one of the most important things that affects our lives in significant ways, you believe that purely on the basis of wanting to?

I don't mean to put words in your mouth so if that is inaccurate then please do correct it.

John