Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
re: "I can't choose to believe that I am a parrot."
OK, thanks. I was hoping that you might be someone who COULD consciously CHOOSE to believe things.
I can consciously choose to believe some things, if the available evidence leaves a couple of likely options open. Generally, in such cases I choose to withhold judgment until more facts come to light, but in such cases, I do have the ability to choose to believe one scenario or another.
For instance, there is some testimony that suggests Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, may have had his friend Dr. John C. Bennett perform abortions on some of Joseph Smith's plural wives, but that evidence is not conclusive. So, I have the ability to choose to believe that Joseph Smith did encourage his secret wives to have abortions, and I have the ability to choose to believe he did not. I feel that there isn't enough solid info to persuade me either way and since this is an issue that I can afford to not have an opinion on, I simply reserve judgment for the time being and neither believe or not believe on this issue.
re: "Some people believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the evidence."
Is there any implication in that comment that you think that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist, or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?
Maybe I can provide an example. When I look at the "evidence," it appears as if 95% of it points towards evolution as being the way we got here today. Yet the 5% pointing towards creation 5772 years ago is so compelling to me, I disbelieve the 95% and go with the 5%. I'm not nuts - I too can see how much evidence stacks up to believe evolution is true. It's just that I don't think it's true. But if I were you and not me, I'd go with the 95%. Much easier.
This thread is simply confusing two very different aspects of human cognition. Wood referred to beliefs when he called them self-evident beliefs. Those are the only true beliefs . . . known or not. Everything else is intellectual acceptance or rejection. Self-evident or true beliefs are NOT a choice . . . only intellectual acceptance is a choice. We can only know what we truly believe by, as Wood said, having it challenged or by observing our attitudes and behaviors toward life. Religions and most institutions in life concern themselves with trying to gain intellectual acceptance . . . not belief. We cannot change what we actually believe only what we will accept as true or claim to accept or reject. God is only concerned with what we truly believe . . . not what we intellectually claim to accept.
Maybe I can provide an example. When I look at the "evidence," it appears as if 95% of it points towards evolution as being the way we got here today. Yet the 5% pointing towards creation 5772 years ago is so compelling to me, I disbelieve the 95% and go with the 5%. I'm not nuts - I too can see how much evidence stacks up to believe evolution is true. It's just that I don't think it's true. But if I were you and not me, I'd go with the 95%. Much easier.
That is certainly a good example of how such a choice works for a member of a religious tradition. I'm not so sure that the answer arrived at is effected by how "easy" or "hard" the choice is - in other words, I don't think that Occam's Razor is coming into play here at all - though perhaps it should.
Would you come to the same conclusion if you had begun your examination of the two propositions without 3000 years of Jewish Tradition behind and informing you, or without having been a member of that Faith Community?
Would a Christian examine the same evidence and come to a different conclusion? Well - I suppose it depends on how literally they treat their Christian Bible, which happens to include the Jewish Bible as it's base, it's foundation (even though it attempts to downplay it's importance, unfortunately). Since the same Creation Account is shared among the two Faith Communities, they both would tend to include that in their assessment of the "evidence" and arrive at the same conclusion (for argument's sake, let's say).
But would they come to this conclusion out of the blue? In other words - if the Bible was not available, and no Creation Accounts known from the ancient Near East - would they still reach the conclusion that the world was created 5772 years ago by God (or even the possibility, as an alternate choice to the traditional scientific view)? No, I don't think so - for there is no observable evidence in nature that would lead us to that conclusion (- to the contrary, it has led us to an entirely different conclusion). Such information has been "revealed" to us (or so the traditional religious view has of the Bible). It appears that such is the nature of "revealed" religion, and the "evidence" it is able to put on the table, that it depends on information gained - not from natural observation - but from a supernatural source. Since such evidence is believed (by the faithful) to have been revealed from on High (thus the term "Revealed Religion"), then it occupies a strange place on the table of evidence: it necessarily belongs to the realm of belief, by this very fact, one could say.
It makes it difficult to apply Occam's Razor in such situations, for the faithful - for if they accept the traditional faith claims that such information is revealed and thus true, then it takes on an importance that far surpasses the Razor in their mind. I suppose, FlipFlop, that if the evidence for something were 100%, but the Torah stated otherwise, you would have to accept what the Torah says - is this not so? Would you agree with this?
It makes it difficult to apply Occam's Razor in such situations, for the faithful - for if they accept the traditional faith claims that such information is revealed and thus true, then it takes on an importance that far surpasses the Razor in their mind. I suppose, FlipFlop, that if the evidence for something were 100%, but the Torah stated otherwise, you would have to accept what the Torah says - is this not so? Would you agree with this?
I recognize that I'm playing suicide with my (total lack of) credibility here in this forum, but for the sake of total honesty.. you've pegged this totally correctly, whoppers. Even if the evidence was 100% but the Torah stated otherwise, I would be deeply inclined to believe the Torah and mistrust some element of the evidence in order to discount it entirely.
I'm not sure where that places me in relation to our fellow "faithful" Chrstian posters here at C-D. On one level, I can totally relate with your view on these folks: that they've bought hook line and sinker a bunch of shtuss (sorry, this Yiddish word is the best description). And yet from your view, I bet you cannot differentiate their shtuss from mine. And all I have to stand by, is that my fairy tales are more credible than theirs, which is more credible (to me) than your science and academia. Actually, if i had to put it in order, I think your academia would stand ahead of their Jesus story (but I admit the clear bias I bring to the table when making that conclusion).
Have you ever "met" a faithful believer willing to admit any of that before? That what I believe is nearly 100% crazy, and I recognize that to be the case, and yet I firmly believe it anyways?
I recognize that I'm playing suicide with my (total lack of) credibility here in this forum, but for the sake of total honesty.. you've pegged this totally correctly, whoppers. Even if the evidence was 100% but the Torah stated otherwise, I would be deeply inclined to believe the Torah and mistrust some element of the evidence in order to discount it entirely.
I'm not sure where that places me in relation to our fellow "faithful" Chrstian posters here at C-D. On one level, I can totally relate with your view on these folks: that they've bought hook line and sinker a bunch of shtuss (sorry, this Yiddish word is the best description). And yet from your view, I bet you cannot differentiate their shtuss from mine. And all I have to stand by, is that my fairy tales are more credible than theirs, which is more credible (to me) than your science and academia. Actually, if i had to put it in order, I think your academia would stand ahead of their Jesus story (but I admit the clear bias I bring to the table when making that conclusion).
Have you ever "met" a faithful believer willing to admit any of that before? That what I believe is nearly 100% crazy, and I recognize that to be the case, and yet I firmly believe it anyways?
When I was a believer, if there was any conflict between my religion's doctrines and science, usually I could find some wiggle room such that the scientific evidence could not completely rule out the possibility that my religion's doctrines were true. And in that small opening that science could not completely seal, I'd insert my faith. In other words, I'd always give the benefit of every doubt to my religion being right.
I firmly felt that truth doesn't contradict truth, so God's revealed truth would be in harmony with truths discovered through other means, including science. And if there was apparent conflict, it was probably due to something we overlooked or did wrong in our scientific investigation.
All of that changed for me when I encountered a case that directed contradicted a core doctrine of my religion and was so strong that there was absolutely no wiggle room, no hole, no possible doubt (to give the benefit of). I searched and searched to find something that might have been overlooked in the case, but the case was truly bullet-proof; I had to admit that my religious belief could not be correct. The error had to be on the religious side of the equation. And it all unraveled from there. With my religion's perfection shattered, I had no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt anymore, and I started looking for what was most likely true, instead of just rigidly holding to my religion's doctrines.
To tie this post back directly to the thread title. I came to believe what I must, because the evidence demanded it of me, instead of believing what I had wanted to believe regardless of how much evidence stacked up against it.
All of that changed for me when I encountered a case that directed contradicted a core doctrine of my religion and was so strong that there was absolutely no wiggle room, no hole, no possible doubt (to give the benefit of). I searched and searched to find something that might have been overlooked in the case, but the case was truly bullet-proof; I had to admit that my religious belief could not be correct. The error had to be on the religious side of the equation. And it all unraveled from there. With my religion's perfection shattered, I had no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt anymore, and I started looking for what was most likely true, instead of just rigidly holding to my religion's doctrines.
To tie this post back directly to the thread title. I came to believe what I must, because the evidence demanded it of me, instead of believing what I had wanted to believe regardless of how much evidence stacked up against it.
So I've never encountered anything like you say you did. I'm not a dumb guy - I can read the science and the academia. But is there a single bullet-proof "proof" anyone can bring to discount anything in the Torah?
So I would say that I believe what I must, because the faith demands it of me. It just so happens to correspond with believing what I want as well.
So I've never encountered anything like you say you did. I'm not a dumb guy - I can read the science and the academia. But is there a single bullet-proof "proof" anyone can bring to discount anything in the Torah?
So I would say that I believe what I must, because the faith demands it of me. It just so happens to correspond with believing what I want as well.
Well, my situation is unique as the bullet-proof case for me undermined a scripture that is unique to my former religion. I can't go into the specifics in this thread because I'd be going off topic. But, bottom line is it would not apply directly to you.
I don't believe in the Torah, due to a separate investigation. I found no bullet-proof case against the Torah that completely seals out all possibility of at least some of it being true. But, I did find that in my evaluation it really looks to me that the doctrines and many of the stories in the Torah are most likely man-made and false. But, that is me making an estimation of what I believe is most likely true, as I don't give the benefit of the doubt to religious texts anymore. If you are still of the mind to give the benefit of the doubt to the Torah, I don't think I am aware of any case that is so strong that you could not find some hole in it to exploit and maintain faith. Although the evidence available might take a literal believer in the Torah and make him a little more of a figurative/inspirational believer in the Torah.
Although the evidence available might take a literal believer in the Torah and make him a little more of a figurative/inspirational believer in the Torah.
You've just described 85% of the Jews in America there. But alas, there are still some of us who carry the torch of Torah to the next generation. And this group tends to have LOTS of kids and rarely ever marries outside the faith.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Belief is not the same as intellectual acceptance
