4 ms·

At least in Christianity, doubt is a major component of the faith structure. Generally, the more thoughtful believers will recognise that the concept of God is

At least in Christianity, doubt is a major component of the faith structure. Generally, the more thoughtful believers will recognise that the concept of God is something that exists outside the realm of things humans can assign probabilities to - and likewise for thoughtful atheists, they generally refer to the overwhelming improbability of a god existing, not to any particular number, certainly not 100%. It seems to me that people willing to place probability numbers on such things (outside thought experiments) generally don't understand probabilities (or, frankly, religion or atheism, either) very well.

Jedd 9y ago
I'm having difficulty understanding your message here. Is doubt a positive feature of christianity in your view? Is 'more thoughtful believers' an oxymoron? Is probability, or indeed statistics, a sensible approach to people's belief in things they can't prove?
- mseebach 9y ago
  Whether it's positive is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. It's there, so not confidently stating a 100% certainty in the existence of God is not something Christians just do as a matter of being Christians. For the two latter questions, not sure what you're getting at, but, no and no.
  - Jedd 9y ago
    > It's there, so not confidently stating a 100% certainty in the existence of God is not something Christians just do as a matter of being Christians. Okay. I thought that 100% certainty in the existence of God (who is also Jesus Christ) is in fact something Christians do as a consequence of being Christians. For the latter two questions, I was getting at being thoughtful belies being a believer (in the sense of 'believing something without evidence') and questioning the reliance on statistical probability for any faith-based religious belief.
    - mseebach 9y ago
      Belief, even acceptance, isn't interchangeable with certainty. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". There are plenty of things you accept and believe without evidence. The world, and especially the inner lives of humans, isn't made up exclusively (in some aspects not even predominantly) of empirically observable facts. The idea that believing is incompatible with being thoughtful is not worthy of something who (presumably) considers themselves thoughtful. You can do better.
      - Jedd 9y ago
        > Belief, even acceptance, isn't interchangeable with certainty. Totally agree. I think. > There are plenty of things you accept and believe without evidence. Incorrect.
        mseebach 9y ago
        How do you know you love your spouse? (Or mother or whomever else you might say you love)?
        Jedd 9y ago
        My spouse that I've met? Ditto my mother? (there are also non-females that I love, btw.) Unless you're going the solipsistic route, actually knowing (not in in the biblical, but rather merely just the physical / actual sense) people is a major factor.
        mseebach 9y ago
        I am going the solipsistic route, because it's the relevant one in getting to the bottom of what these fundamental things actually mean. The point is, love is something that can only exist inside our individual minds (what is a mind, even?). Scientifically, we bare know what it is (something to do with dopamine), much less are we able to measure it. When you love your spouse, you take on faith that the feelings you have inside are what love really feels like. You tell the little voice in the back of your head that asks "Is this really it? Ohh, the model is that ad is really good looking, perhaps if..." to shut up. But you don't go to the love doctor and have your heartbeat or whatever measured to empirically confirm that your feelings are truly love, and not merely affection, an infatuation, or lust. And that's without getting into what "actually knowing" someone really means, and how you evaluate your spouse's claim that she loves you. At least you can feel your own feelings. I'm not saying that these feelings aren't true, I'm sure they are. I'm contesting your assertion that you take nothing on faith.
koonsolo 9y ago
So you are saying that the pope and priests consider a small chance that god doesn't exist? Sorry, I don't think so. None of the religious people I know would say there is a small chance god doesn't exist. That would be a betrayal of their belief.
- mseebach 9y ago
  >> Generally, the more thoughtful believers will recognise that the concept of God is something that exists outside the realm of things humans can assign probabilities to

Jedd 9y ago

I'm having difficulty understanding your message here. Is doubt a positive feature of christianity in your view? Is 'more thoughtful believers' an oxymoron? Is probability, or indeed statistics, a sensible approach to people's belief in things they can't prove?

mseebach 9y ago
Whether it's positive is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. It's there, so not confidently stating a 100% certainty in the existence of God is not something Christians just do as a matter of being Christians. For the two latter questions, not sure what you're getting at, but, no and no.
- Jedd 9y ago
  > It's there, so not confidently stating a 100% certainty in the existence of God is not something Christians just do as a matter of being Christians. Okay. I thought that 100% certainty in the existence of God (who is also Jesus Christ) is in fact something Christians do as a consequence of being Christians. For the latter two questions, I was getting at being thoughtful belies being a believer (in the sense of 'believing something without evidence') and questioning the reliance on statistical probability for any faith-based religious belief.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    Belief, even acceptance, isn't interchangeable with certainty. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". There are plenty of things you accept and believe without evidence. The world, and especially the inner lives of humans, isn't made up exclusively (in some aspects not even predominantly) of empirically observable facts. The idea that believing is incompatible with being thoughtful is not worthy of something who (presumably) considers themselves thoughtful. You can do better.
    - Jedd 9y ago
      > Belief, even acceptance, isn't interchangeable with certainty. Totally agree. I think. > There are plenty of things you accept and believe without evidence. Incorrect.
      - mseebach 9y ago
        How do you know you love your spouse? (Or mother or whomever else you might say you love)?
        Jedd 9y ago
        My spouse that I've met? Ditto my mother? (there are also non-females that I love, btw.) Unless you're going the solipsistic route, actually knowing (not in in the biblical, but rather merely just the physical / actual sense) people is a major factor.
        mseebach 9y ago
        I am going the solipsistic route, because it's the relevant one in getting to the bottom of what these fundamental things actually mean. The point is, love is something that can only exist inside our individual minds (what is a mind, even?). Scientifically, we bare know what it is (something to do with dopamine), much less are we able to measure it. When you love your spouse, you take on faith that the feelings you have inside are what love really feels like. You tell the little voice in the back of your head that asks "Is this really it? Ohh, the model is that ad is really good looking, perhaps if..." to shut up. But you don't go to the love doctor and have your heartbeat or whatever measured to empirically confirm that your feelings are truly love, and not merely affection, an infatuation, or lust. And that's without getting into what "actually knowing" someone really means, and how you evaluate your spouse's claim that she loves you. At least you can feel your own feelings. I'm not saying that these feelings aren't true, I'm sure they are. I'm contesting your assertion that you take nothing on faith.

koonsolo 9y ago

So you are saying that the pope and priests consider a small chance that god doesn't exist? Sorry, I don't think so. None of the religious people I know would say there is a small chance god doesn't exist. That would be a betrayal of their belief.

mseebach 9y ago
>> Generally, the more thoughtful believers will recognise that the concept of God is something that exists outside the realm of things humans can assign probabilities to