Belief Vs. Knowledge

[PeterMP]

I have knowledge about what causes rain and I made a statement based on that knowledge.

I did not mention any IFs because I assumed the knowledge of prayer-rain connection would turn out to be incorrect. Based on my knowledge about rain, that was a safe assumption.

 

What knowledge do you have of rain that makes it safe to assume that there will never be somebody that gets rain every time they pray?

[alexey]

I have evidence (and better evidence than Caesar and the Rubicon). My faith is not in the fact of what Jesus did physically on the cross or healing others. That's the evidence so that we might have faith to believe in who he is. Because of that faith in who he is, I have certainty that Jesus accomplished what nobody else could, that he made atonement for me with God for the forgiveness of sins. The biggest evidence is the resurrection.

Come now Alexey, stick your fingers in the nail holes and believe.

You make it sound like just one claim out of which other claims naturally follow... I see it as tons and tons of claims about history, reality, biology, life, death, book authorship, and so on.

How can I believe all that stuff?

I understand the desire to pretend believe, especially if I was invested in that... But to actually believe it? Come on now. I agree with David Silverman and Daniel Dennett on this one - many people know it's a myth but don't want to come out and say it.

[pjfootballer]

Damn Alexey, are you obsessed with religion or something?  I never see your name in here until one of these threads pop up.  Do you have any other interests besides religion?  Sorry to say this to you, but I just find it weird to see someone with that kind of obsession.

[alexey]

What knowledge do you have of rain that makes it safe to assume that there will never be somebody that gets rain every time they pray?

Think of it as Bertrand Russel's Tea pot. Are we assuming that the tea pot is not there? Should we even take the question seriously?

[Zguy28]

I understand the desire to pretend believe, especially if I was invested in that... But to actually believe it? Come on now. I agree with David Silverman and Daniel Dennett on this one - many people know it's a myth but don't want to come out and say it.

O how I wish some Christians had your zeal for apologetics. You might be the next Paul on the road to Damascus.

 In all likelihood, they've all got it wrong.

And you base your assumption on... ?

[alexey]

Damn Alexey, are you obsessed with religion or something? I never see your name in here until one of these threads pop up. Do you have any other interests besides religion? Sorry to say this to you, but I just find it weird to see someone with that kind of obsession.

I have no idea how you'd get that . I don't know if obsessed Is the right word but I'm certainly passionate about it. The reason for my passion is that so many things I care about come down to the way people determine what is true, make decisions, etc. The way we are treating other people, the environment, our policies, our government, our social safety nets, the kind of world we leave for our children - all depends on our ability to make good reality-based decisions. How can one not be passionate about that?

Plus, my friends don't care about this stuff, my wife does not want to talk to me about it (I wonder why?? ) and my kids are still too young...

I do have other interests - parenting, history, neurobiology, gardening, for example. Whenever such discussions come up, I happily participate.

[PeterMP]

Think of it as Bertrand Russel's Tea pot. Are we assuming that the tea pot is not there? Should we even take the question seriously?

 

I'm not asking anybody to assume or know anything.  And that's where your point is off with respect to Russel's tea pot.

 

Russel's point was in a discussion who does the burden of prove fall too.  I have no problem if you put the burden of convcing you of the exsistence of God of Zguy (or whoever else) to provide you evidence that you feel is suffecient (sufficient evidence in your opinion must be provided to convice you). 

 

If Zguy tells you must believe some god much less his god and if you are not going to believe that the burdern of proof is on you, I have no problem telling him I think he's wrong.  And when he talks like that (so I'll make some comments to Zguy here), I think he's wrong from a scientific stand point, but I also think he's wrong from Christian philosophical stand point.  God celebrates when we find/come home to him, given the variation in people, I doubt he really cares the path by which that happens.

 

Russel's point had nothing to do with the probability of anything.

 

Your invoking a point/philosophical argument that is disconnected from your own point.

 

In terms of should we take the question seriously, again, I'd leave that up to the individual.

 

In the tea pot case, considering it has no ramifications on us, I'd say no.

 

In terms of the exsistence of a god and the implications that has to what we are and the nature/structure of the universe, I'd argue that it is worth taking some time to explore it.

 

And again, even in a basis of science, a multi-world hypothesis of QM tells us that if something can happen it will happen (and a lot is possible in QM).  If it is possible for it to rain every time somebody prays for rain, it will happen in some universe at some point in time (not really different even in the absence of god of me winning every game of chance I've ever played in).

 

Now, if you have evidence that's not the case, I'd love to see it.

 

You don't have to assume that the tea pot is there, but even science tells us if it is possible for the tea pot to be there, there is some probability that it will be there.

[PeterMP]

And you base your assumption on... ?

 

I'll answer.

 

There's an infinite number of combinations by which we could believe ranging from no other intelligent life/beings/gods to other extremely intelligent/powerful life/beings/gods being in control to ompinipotent beings/gods being in control and all sorts of combinations/variations there in.

 

However, what we see practiced on Earth is a rather finite set of beliefs.   Given a possible infinite set of possibilities, any small finite set is likely to contain only false options if we assert there is only one true option (though, I don't like that assumption/assertion I understand that many others do)

 

In other words, I could make up religions/belief systems for the rest of my life that aren't currently practiced on Earth.  Given that, the probability that those actually being practiced on Earth being one of the true ones vs. one of the ones that I've made up is pretty small.

 

If I pick a number from 1 to infinity, the chances of anybody actually guessing the right number are small.

 

(Now, I'll admit the probabilities might not be evenly distributed if there is a god there is some probability that he'd interact with and want to know us thus increasing the chances that some religion on Earth is true.  However, you have to balance that against a non-omnipotent system being in "control" and tricking/lying to us through current religions for fear that we will discover weaknesses and wrest control from them.  I'd tend to argue that both possibilities will cancel out without any other information.)

[JMS]

knowledge requires understanding.   Belief requires trust and faith.   Oddly their can be no knowledge without belief.

[Zguy28]

(Now, I'll admit the probabilities might not be evenly distributed if there is a god there is some probability that he'd interact with and want to know us thus increasing the chances that some religion on Earth is true. 

Yet isn't that exactly the doctrine of the bible? God's self-revelation?

[PeterMP]

Yet isn't that exactly the doctrine of the bible? God's self-revelation?

 

It is, but how do you really know that the Bible isn't the result of something other than what you'd consider a Christian God (i.e. omnipotent) to prevent/slow people from asking certain questions and investigating.

 

One case:

 

1.  The Bible is true and it is God's way of telling us about him.

2.  The Bible is a lie designed to midirect us (e.g. the resurrection was faked by something that at least at the time was much more powerful/knowledgable than humans at the time). 

 

If you were #two, pretending to be #1 might be a reasonable thing to do.

 

Does one point of view really have more evidence than the other?

[Zguy28]

I'm not asking anybody to assume or know anything.  And that's where your point is off with respect to Russel's tea pot.

 

Russel's point was in a discussion who does the burden of prove fall too.  I have no problem if you put the burden of convcing you of the exsistence of God of Zguy (or whoever else) to provide you evidence that you feel is suffecient (sufficient evidence in your opinion must be provided to convice you). 

 

If Zguy tells you must believe some god much less his god and if you are not going to believe that the burdern of proof is on you, I have no problem telling him I think he's wrong.  And when he talks like that (so I'll make some comments to Zguy here), I think he's wrong from a scientific stand point, but I also think he's wrong from Christian philosophical stand point.  God celebrates when we find/come home to him, given the variation in people, I doubt he really cares the path by which that happens.

You can think I'm wrong. I think you are wrong and your point is incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

Namely:

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

 

 

Peter, do you not understand this? Of course you do.

 

"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:11-12

It is, but how do you really know that the Bible isn't the result of something other than what you'd consider a Christian God (i.e. omnipotent) to prevent/slow people from asking certain questions and investigating.

 

One case:

 

1.  The Bible is true and it is God's way of telling us about him.

2.  The Bible is a lie designed to midirect us (e.g. the resurrection was faked by something that at least at the time was much more powerful/knowledgable than humans at the time). 

 

If you were #two, pretending to be #1 might be a reasonable thing to do.

 

Does one point of view really have more evidence than the other?

We could all be brains in a jar or in the matrix. But we're not.

[PeterMP]

You can think I'm wrong. I think you are wrong and your point is incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

Namely:

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

 

 

Peter, do you not understand this? Of course you do.

 

"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:11-12

I'll channel Techboy for an instant. We could all be brains in a jar or in the matrix. But we're not.

 

1.  I understand that it isn't consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.  It doesn't it make any less right or wrong.  Once upon a time, owning slaves was considered to be consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine and the Earth being round was not.

 

2.  But who were the builders?  Even Jesus was clear that his ministry was meant for the Jews (i.e. No one other than those that I've said my ministry may come to the Father, but through me (and maybe other people are "saved", but don't go to the Father)).  Might a reasonable reading of that be with respect to the Jewish population?

 

That "salvation" of the gentiles (the rest of us) can come through Jesus (Matthew 15), but might not be exclusive to Jesus.

 

3.  I'm not sure we aren't all brains in a jar.  If you have proof we aren't, I'd love to see it.

[JMS]

You can think I'm wrong. I think you are wrong and your point is incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

Namely:

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

 

 

Peter, do you not understand this? Of course you do.

 

 

Actually their is no unified Christian doctrine about needing to accept Christ in order to achieve salvation.

 

The largest number of Christians are Catholics...   As Vatican Council II stated in 1963;  and as the Pope recently reaffirmed..   You do not need to accept Christ in order to achieve heaven by our beliefs.

 

So the majority of Christians do not subscribe to your proposition.

 

 

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!

 

The Holy Father is full of surprises, born of true and faithful humility. On Wednesday he declared that all people, not just Catholics, are redeemed through Jesus, even atheists.

 

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

 

 

Romans 2:14-16

 

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, 6 while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.

 

 

Or Jesus died for all of us,  including atheists,  Jews,  Mosley,  Hindu  etc... (Imagine their relief..)  If you lead a moral life god will judge you on that and not use subscription to faith as a litmus test as he did in the old testament.

[JMS]

1.  I understand that it isn't consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine.  It doesn't it make any less right or wrong.  Once upon a time, owning slaves was considered to be consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine and the Earth being round was not.

 

Your belief that you don't need to believe in God in order to obtain Heaven is consistent with the majority of Christians in the world.

It is not consistent with some evangelical protestant groups.

 

 

[alexey]

...

In terms of should we take the question seriously, again, I'd live that up to the individual.

In the tea pot case, considering it has no ramifications on us, I'd say no.

Agreed, but with additional thoughts to share.

Percieving a question to have important ramifications and wishing to take it seriously is not enough. Should we take seriously a question: "what is the purpose of mountains?" What about: "what is the purpose of the Universe?"

In terms of the exsistence of a god and the implications that has to what we are and the nature/structure of the universe, I'd argue that it is worth taking some time to explore it.

I agree.

Please note that for me (no religious upbringing) questions about "god" are questions of anthropology/history/mythology, while questions about nature/structure of the universe are questions of science, and metaphysical questions are questions of philosophy. All are important and interesting topics to explore...

And again, even in a basis of science, a multi-world hypothesis of QM tells us that if something can happen it will happen (and a lot is possible in QM). If it is possible for it to rain every time somebody prays for rain, it will happen in some universe at some point in time (not really different even in the absence of god of me winning every game of chance I've ever played in).

Now, if you have evidence that's not the case, I'd love to see it.

You don't have to assume that the tea pot is there, but even science tells us if it is possible for the tea pot to be there, there is some probability that it will be there.

I think you're equivocating on the word "possible" here. What is possible and where is the burden of proof? Can we say that something is "impossible," and if we cannot, is it "possible"? Is it impossible that I levitate off my chair right now? Is it possible?

I do not want to make any claims about possibility or impossibility of bringing about rain by praying for it. Claims about possibility require evidence and claims of impossibility are impossible to prove (just like claims about lack of existence, cannot prove there is no god, etc)

[JMS]

Please note that for me (no religious upbringing) questions about "god" are questions of anthropology/history/mythology, while questions about nature/structure of the universe are questions of science, and metaphysical questions are questions of philosophy. All are important and interesting topics to explore...

 

Both science and religion deal with anthropology / history / mythology....     You ever hear of  Aristotle, Plato,  or Euclid?

All were men who both religion and science claim today....

 

Both Science and Religion are searches for truth;  they just employ different methods in attempting to rationalize their pursuits.

[alexey]

Both science and religion deal with anthropology / history / mythology.... You ever hear of Aristotle, Plato, or Euclid?

All were men who both religion and science claim today....

Both Science and Religion are searches for truth; they just employ different methods in attempting to rationalize their pursuits.

I see no problem with religion illuminating some kinds of truths about something... But lets not confuse science on one hand with Aristotle on the other - sitting around and guessing about everything being made of earth water fire etc.

[757SeanTaylor21]

You make it sound like just one claim out of which other claims naturally follow... I see it as tons and tons of claims about history, reality, biology, life, death, book authorship, and so on.

How can I believe all that stuff?

I understand the desire to pretend believe, especially if I was invested in that... But to actually believe it? Come on now. I agree with David Silverman and Daniel Dennett on this one - many people know it's a myth but don't want to come out and say it.

Do you know that they are right or do you pretend to believe they are?

[alexey]

Do you know that they are right or do you pretend to believe they are?

I know that there are people who pretend, but I do not know whether anybody actually believes for real. Sincre religious belief is really hard for me to imagine. Maybe Dennett is right when he says people have "belief in belief", or maybe Sam Harris is right and people actually do believe the stuff.

[757SeanTaylor21]

You beating around the bush on my question sir. If you agree with their beliefs..is that you knowing that's it's true or you pretending to know.

[Zguy28]

Actually their is no unified Christian doctrine about needing to accept Christ in order to achieve salvation.

 

The largest number of Christians are Catholics...   As Vatican Council II stated in 1963;  and as the Pope recently reaffirmed..   You do not need to accept Christ in order to achieve heaven by our beliefs.

 

So the majority of Christians do not subscribe to your proposition.

 

 

 

 

Or Jesus died for all of us,  including atheists,  Jews,  Mosley,  Hindu  etc... (Imagine their relief..)  If you lead a moral life god will judge you on that and not use subscription to faith as a litmus test as he did in the old testament.

Thanks for that article. Even though I think you misrepresented what the Pope meant...somewhat. Then again, I'm not sure with regards to the Roman Catholic church.

[Zguy28]

I know that there are people who pretend, but I do not know whether anybody actually believes for real. Sincre religious belief is really hard for me to imagine. Maybe Dennett is right when he says people have "belief in belief", or maybe Sam Harris is right and people actually do believe the stuff.

I think the apostles believed for real. I know I do. I think there are also a lot that fall into Dennett's categorization though... just going through the motions or misplacing faith in an institution instead of the proper object of faith, which is our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

[alexey]

You beating around the bush on my question sir. If you agree with their beliefs..is that you knowing that's it's true or you pretending to know.

They do not hold beliefs and I do not claim knowledge of whether they are right or wrong.

[Botched]

 

And you base your assumption on... ?

 

That we don't know what happens after we die ('nothing' is at least as likely as anything else), so there's no way to know the what the "correct" path is, or if there even is one. I see no reason to believe that a modern religion would have it any more right than an extinct one, or a future religion. They're all based on belief of the unknowable and unprovable.

 

Since there are infinite possibilities for religious beliefs, and there is no way to actually know which is the one "true" belief system, every religion that has ever existed, or will ever exist, is likely to be wrong.