3 ms·

You could suggest we have a confidence interval for various things (e.g. 99% for gravity, 55% for whether x/y/z will happen or a president gets a second term),

You could suggest we have a confidence interval for various things (e.g. 99% for gravity, 55% for whether x/y/z will happen or a president gets a second term), but in the capacity of Christianity the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. The institutions (and what is conveyed in the Bible) don't want you to kinda sorta believe, they want you to believe by willfully eschewing all doubt. It's an action as much as a descriptor for belief. I never felt as though I could "choose" to believe anything, or not easily at any rate. I could choose not to explore certain data and be satisfied with ignorance (though I try not to) but if something is incongruent with the facts as I understand them, then I can't "faith" my way to believing it.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something you express; you either have enough to achieve what you're trying to achieve, or you don't. And nobody demands it. But you're right, it's not an all-or-nothing deal. > necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. Indeed (although I'm not sure what "mild conviction" means; being convinced of something means you can see no room for doubt). For some kinds of meditation, e.g. some kinds of Tantric meditation, you need something that feels like certainty. It's not about falsifiable facts; it's about trusting, because you have to let go (like falling backwards). I don't know any evangelical Christians; I think that for them, expressing their faith is part of the deal, and it is expected (i.e. demanded). In that sort of context, I can imagine a pastor or community "demanding" that you hold beliefs that are false to fact, e.g. Young Earth. That's not what I understand by "confidence". Regarding trust and confidence, I just watched a two-part PBS documentary about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre; it was an eye-opener. A lot of testimony from people who totally trusted this guy for a long time, despite (what looked to me like) his total charlatanism. He just wanted to be admired, apparently.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something you express; you either have enough to achieve what you're trying to achieve, or you don't. And nobody demands it. But you're right, it's not an all-or-nothing deal. > necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. Indeed (although I'm not sure what "mild conviction" means; being convinced of something means you can see no room for doubt). For some kinds of meditation, e.g. some kinds of Tantric meditation, you need something that feels like certainty. It's not about falsifiable facts; it's about trusting, because you have to let go (like falling backwards). I don't know any evangelical Christians; I think that for them, expressing their faith is part of the deal, and it is expected (i.e. demanded). In that sort of context, I can imagine a pastor or community "demanding" that you hold beliefs that are false to fact, e.g. Young Earth. That's not what I understand by "confidence". Regarding trust and confidence, I just watched a two-part PBS documentary about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre; it was an eye-opener. A lot of testimony from people who totally trusted this guy for a long time, despite (what looked to me like) his total charlatanism. He just wanted to be admired, apparently.