To return to the OP:
I do believe in God, I am a Christian. I am agnostic about free will - I'm a universalist so I don't think anything important rides on it. Likewise I tend to not believe that the soul is a distinct part of a human being made of immaterial stuff - I tend to agree with Wittgenstein's saying that saying someone has a soul is an attitude towards them, or of describing their attitude. (If someone has a purely utilitarian attitude to everything in their life, in which they treat everything or everyone as there to maximise their utility, one might say they have no soul.)
As I say, if you do believe in God and you don't believe in eternal conscious damnation, then I don't think anything of importance hangs on either free will or an immaterial soul. It's all in God's hands either way and what God does is best.
I’m probably borderline deist. I am utterly convinced that God exists (I’d find it much harder to think that He didn’t), but when it comes to the received CofE faith of my family and I, then we’re into believe/hope/have faith. I can utterly empathise with the faith and doubt of John Betjeman, or David Cameron’s Magic FM quote (which was so perfect that I truly genuinely believe that was him speaking and not a focus group).
What was the quote?
He described (whilst Prime Minister) his faith as
"a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes",
Actually, he attributed this particular saying to Boris Johnson - which may put a slightly different spin on it. The full quote being:
"I believe, you know. I am a sort of typical member of the Church of England. As Boris Johnson once said, his religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes. That sums up a lot of people in the Church of England. We are racked with doubts, but sort of fundamentally believe, but don't sort of wear it on our sleeves or make too much of it. I think that is sort of where I am.""
This is it. Lots of the time I dismissed him as the slick PR man he basically is. But I know enough people almost exactly like him to have had a sharp intake of breath when he said that. Because that was the man.
A good PR man usually has an above average grasp of human nature, which leaves me wondering which side of the because/despite line he was operating in when he gave that particular answer to Patrick Wintour.
Well as someone else who has done it for a living…that was a mask slipping.
To return to the OP:
I do believe in God, I am a Christian. I am agnostic about free will - I'm a universalist so I don't think anything important rides on it. Likewise I tend to not believe that the soul is a distinct part of a human being made of immaterial stuff - I tend to agree with Wittgenstein's saying that saying someone has a soul is an attitude towards them, or of describing their attitude. (If someone has a purely utilitarian attitude to everything in their life, in which they treat everything or everyone as there to maximise their utility, one might say they have no soul.)
As I say, if you do believe in God and you don't believe in eternal conscious damnation, then I don't think anything of importance hangs on either free will or an immaterial soul. It's all in God's hands either way and what God does is best.
I’m probably borderline deist. I am utterly convinced that God exists (I’d find it much harder to think that He didn’t), but when it comes to the received CofE faith of my family and I, then we’re into believe/hope/have faith. I can utterly empathise with the faith and doubt of John Betjeman, or David Cameron’s Magic FM quote (which was so perfect that I truly genuinely believe that was him speaking and not a focus group).
What was the quote?
He described (whilst Prime Minister) his faith as
"a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes",
Actually, he attributed this particular saying to Boris Johnson - which may put a slightly different spin on it. The full quote being:
"I believe, you know. I am a sort of typical member of the Church of England. As Boris Johnson once said, his religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes. That sums up a lot of people in the Church of England. We are racked with doubts, but sort of fundamentally believe, but don't sort of wear it on our sleeves or make too much of it. I think that is sort of where I am.""
This is it. Lots of the time I dismissed him as the slick PR man he basically is. But I know enough people almost exactly like him to have had a sharp intake of breath when he said that. Because that was the man.
A good PR man usually has an above average grasp of human nature, which leaves me wondering which side of the because/despite line he was operating in when he gave that particular answer to Patrick Wintour.
Well as someone else who has done it for a living…that was a mask slipping.
Tbh I think the full quote only improves it.
There's a certain 'thinks God looks like WG Grace' about it.
I think the short version of what I'm saying is that, for the sake of my own well-being, I did come up with a different way of examining what you call religious truth claims, which involves treating them as a rather different category of thing.
I think the short version of what I'm saying is that, for the sake of my own well-being, I did come up with a different way of examining what you call religious truth claims, which involves treating them as a rather different category of thing.
Would you mind sharing that way?
Sorry for the wait - limited keyboard time.
And I've been giving the answer some thought - I've been trying to interpret my experiences (over the years) to reach a less subjective understanding of what was happening. I also suspect that how we experience this varies from person to person including, pertinently, whether the beliefs in question are ones we grew up with. For me, the process involved trial and error, intellectual curiosity, bloody-mindedness and what (in hindsight) could be a sense of emotional betrayal. And I was quite motivated to change - to make sense of what I believed and how I believed it, even if, at the time, I didn't really comprehend what that entailed.
Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that there are emotional aspects as well as intellectual, and that addressing the emotional is a necessary part of the process.
I think the intellectual side involves internally questioning our own worldview. As this is tricky to do in abstract, this could involve reading accounts of views contrary to our own. For example: regarding universalism, David Bentley Hart (not that I have read him, or about universalism extensively, it's just his name comes up here fairly often). But it's not just about reading with the aim of looking to be convinced (or not) by the arguments, it's trying to absorb the author's point of view, trying to stand in their shoes. (And if it doesn't work, try a different author or genre.)
The more emotional aspects involve re-evaluating our authorities (for want of a phrase). When we're young, these are usually the people who bring us up - parents and/or family, followed by teachers, doctors, ministers of religion, etc. The people from whom we get our first ideas about the world - worldviews, beliefs, maybe faith - which we typically internalise and which become our own. I think there are various aspects to this re-evaluation - one aspect is recognising that the sources or origins of our beliefs are external to us, even if they have subsequently become part of us in some way. Another aspect is deliberately distancing ourselves from these authorities in relation to particular beliefs, in conjunction with treating these beliefs more objectively, with the aim of examining them - and trying to more consciously evaluate what we want our relationship to these beliefs to be.
This is where the emotional side comes in - I think it can feel as though we are betraying our authorities and ourselves. (Other descriptions and interpretations are possible.) In any case, my experience is that re-evaluating our authorities and internalised beliefs involves a period of destabilisation. Something about the way we think is changing, and it's a bit weird and unpleasant while it's happening. It's possible that this is age-related - we're revisiting something that our rather younger selves did without blinking.
And at first, this can feel a bit alien. One thing that can help is having someone with whom you can talk it through. Just hearing yourself talking in a different way about your beliefs, and your attitude to your beliefs, can help them bed in. So much the better if it's in discussion with someone who's interested in how it works out. (Ideally over a pint or two.)
I'm far from certainty. What I mean is, for me "I believe that God might exist" = "I think it is true that God might exist".
It's "believe" and "think is true" which seem the same thing to me, but that doesn't mean they don't have degrees of confidence, from "very weak" to "seems effectively certain".
What I was getting at was that "I believe this but don't think it's true" or even "I believe this but don't care whether it's true or not" make no sense to me at all - not just in the "strange position to hold" sense but in the "square circles" actual logical nonsense sense.
For me, doubt is not specific to or special within religious truth claims any more or less than any others. Some things are more certain than other things, and doubt is just that margin between certainty and the confidence we have that a given claim is true.
Same 100%. "Believe" just means "think it's true." We're talking propositional belief, not belief in a person, which is a different kettle of paint.
I'm far from certainty. What I mean is, for me "I believe that God might exist" = "I think it is true that God might exist".
It's "believe" and "think is true" which seem the same thing to me, but that doesn't mean they don't have degrees of confidence, from "very weak" to "seems effectively certain".
What I was getting at was that "I believe this but don't think it's true" or even "I believe this but don't care whether it's true or not" make no sense to me at all - not just in the "strange position to hold" sense but in the "square circles" actual logical nonsense sense.
For me, doubt is not specific to or special within religious truth claims any more or less than any others. Some things are more certain than other things, and doubt is just that margin between certainty and the confidence we have that a given claim is true.
Same 100%. "Believe" just means "think it's true." We're talking propositional belief, not belief in a person, which is a different kettle of paint.
I find a lot of people get confused with that last point.
Take the commonplace phrase "to believe in God".
Now I've said here, and will say again, and on this hill I will die etc. etc. that for the vast majority of people, "to believe in God" means "to accept the proposition that God exists".
Some religious people, however, seem to parse this as "to put ones trust in God"
I maintain that that second meaning is secondary. For one thing, one cannot put ones trust in God to an extent greater than one believes that God actually exists at all (and please for the love of God let's not have that mind meltingly tedious fecking argument about whether "exist" is an appropriate verb for God because we all fecking know what we mean by it). Even to the extent I believe there is a God, I would not use "I believe in God" to mean "I put my trust in God" - I'd say, well, "I put my trust in God" if I wanted to express that thought.
People will raise "well, wouldn't you encourage someone by saying 'I believe in you'?"
To which I say, yes, possibly. But the thing is, it's be absolutely barking to interpret that as "I believe you exist", because the person in question is the one you're talking to. Of course they exist. So the secondary meaning has to be the intended one. This is not true of God,
...
Same 100%. "Believe" just means "think it's true." We're talking propositional belief, not belief in a person, which is a different kettle of paint.
It looks to me as though you're potentially using "belief in a person" in a different sense to KarlLB.
Believing in the existence of people is something that only applies to people whose existence is in question. So in relation to people whose existence isn't in question, the phrase "belief in a person" usually indicates some degree of trust in that person, which appears to be the general sense - the one that applies to most of the people with whom we were in contact as we were growing up, and through our lives.
In this regard, it seems unlikely that propositional belief and belief in a person are completely unrelated.
Our propositional beliefs are acquired - we are not born with them. For the first few years of life, all our ideas about the world are shaped by people - in the first instance by our primary caregivers. At the point when we each start reasoning about the world for ourselves, none of us is a blank slate, we all start with baggage, including a pile of beliefs about the world.
"I believe that God loves me" is a propositional belief.
Can you remember when you acquired your first belief? Do you know how old you were?
The cosmos is beautiful. No mystery there. It has wired us thus. It must be intentional! Nope. Which is linked to from here, with a few more links. New Scientist asked the question why 20 years ago. Same answer.
I still don't know about "liking" the cosmos we inhabit, but I do enjoy my beliefs about it, especially those that contrast with each other. I tend to regard its beauty as being skin-deep - a consequence of whatever perspective I happen to adopt at the time.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
Not at all.
I believe that Neptune is further away than Uranus but it has absolutely no influence on my actions at all.
Some beliefs will drive actions, but by no means all. My belief that the environmental crisis is more important than mainstream parties recognise might prompt me to vote Green, for example.
And it's quite possible to believe in God but it be of no interest to you and not drive any actions at all.
<snip>
And it's quite possible to believe in God but it be of no interest to you and not drive any actions at all.
Which reminds me of this
But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
I believe in equality of outcome. How will that influence my actions?
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
Not at all.
I believe that Neptune is further away than Uranus but it has absolutely no influence on my actions at all.
...
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
As in, "I believe I'll have another beer." But to believe (say) God loves us is to think the sentence "God loves us" is true, whether or not that influences your behavior.
On the earlier point, I was thinking more in the sense of "My wife says XXX and I believe her." Different from "My wife says XXX and I believe it." I can believe what someone I don't love or respect says, but I don't believe them. I believe the proposition they are saying.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
I believe in equality of outcome. How will that influence my actions?
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
Not at all.
I believe that Neptune is further away than Uranus but it has absolutely no influence on my actions at all.
...
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
"Know" is just a special case of "Believe" where the doubt is near or equal to zero.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
I believe in equality of outcome. How will that influence my actions?
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
Not at all.
I believe that Neptune is further away than Uranus but it has absolutely no influence on my actions at all.
...
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
"Know" is just a special case of "Believe" where the doubt is near or equal to zero.
Ah, the differential calculus of epistemology (where doubt>(dx)^2=0). Why are we afraid of knowing? And surely we can know by any degree of certainty. But we cannot believe incoherent unjustified untrue beliefs, items of religious faith, by the same criteria. Chalk and apples.
I know for certain that the cosmos we inhabit and like is natural. 100% I don't like that. So I keep busy: I'm a very superficial man, thank God.
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
As in, "I believe I'll have another beer." But to believe (say) God loves us is to think the sentence "God loves us" is true, whether or not that influences your behavior.
I find it hard to accept that this belief, one way or the other, wouldn't influence our behaviour at all, even if it's just how we'd answer the question "do you believe God loves you?". Non-trivially, I think the ways our beliefs combine to influence what we think and do and say and post on online forums, can be quite complex.
On the earlier point, I was thinking more in the sense of "My wife says XXX and I believe her." Different from "My wife says XXX and I believe it." I can believe what someone I don't love or respect says, but I don't believe them. I believe the proposition they are saying.
That makes sense. But in my experience, if I don't respect someone, I'm rather less likely to trust what they say. I'd suggest that believing someone in the sense of trusting them as an authority requires some level of emotional commitment, even if we're usually not very conscious of it.
Although I'd describe it more in terms of trust: when we say we believe someone, it an interesting mix of trusting them as a person (what they say about themselves) and/or trusting them as an authority (what they say about other things they know and believe). I'd say the two overlap when we're young, and gradually diverge as we get older.
...
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
"Know" is just a special case of "Believe" where the doubt is near or equal to zero.
As Martin points out (more often than any other man alive) a belief is commonly regarded as knowledge if it is both true and justified. In other words, when there is also a justification for the belief. The usual example is a coin toss - you can say that you believe it will turn up heads, and if does turn up heads, your belief was true, but it wasn't knowledge because it was just a guess. For it to be knowledge, there would have to be some justification - such as being aware that it was a double-headed coin.
(But referring to "justified true belief" as additionally being "coherent" is rather incoherent.)
I don't think Mousethief is entirely right about "think it's true". I think a more standard concept of "believe" is that my beliefs will influence my actions.
As in, "I believe I'll have another beer." But to believe (say) God loves us is to think the sentence "God loves us" is true, whether or not that influences your behavior.
I find it hard to accept that this belief, one way or the other, wouldn't influence our behaviour at all, even if it's just how we'd answer the question "do you believe God loves you?". Non-trivially, I think the ways our beliefs combine to influence what we think and do and say and post on online forums, can be quite complex.
On the earlier point, I was thinking more in the sense of "My wife says XXX and I believe her." Different from "My wife says XXX and I believe it." I can believe what someone I don't love or respect says, but I don't believe them. I believe the proposition they are saying.
That makes sense. But in my experience, if I don't respect someone, I'm rather less likely to trust what they say. I'd suggest that believing someone in the sense of trusting them as an authority requires some level of emotional commitment, even if we're usually not very conscious of it.
Although I'd describe it more in terms of trust: when we say we believe someone, it an interesting mix of trusting them as a person (what they say about themselves) and/or trusting them as an authority (what they say about other things they know and believe). I'd say the two overlap when we're young, and gradually diverge as we get older.
...
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
"Know" is just a special case of "Believe" where the doubt is near or equal to zero.
As Martin points out (more often than any other man alive) a belief is commonly regarded as knowledge if it is both true and justified. In other words, when there is also a justification for the belief. The usual example is a coin toss - you can say that you believe it will turn up heads, and if does turn up heads, your belief was true, but it wasn't knowledge because it was just a guess. For it to be knowledge, there would have to be some justification - such as being aware that it was a double-headed coin.
(But referring to "justified true belief" as additionally being "coherent" is rather incoherent.)
Coherence (see link) is something that is added to JTBs to reduce already lowest possible significance of Gettier problems in the context of science and rationality vs. religious beliefs.
Edited link to remove the appearce that it was posted by pease. BroJames, Purgatory Host
I dunno; I just see any proposition as having a level of doubt or certainty attached to it. If it appears there's no justification at all for a proposition what sense would it make to say I "believed" it? I could hope it was true but that's really all. So to me, "know" really does just meant "believe" where there's a negligible level of doubt that can be ignored for practical purposes.
I dunno; I just see any proposition as having a level of doubt or certainty attached to it. If it appears there's no justification at all for a proposition what sense would it make to say I "believed" it? I could hope it was true but that's really all. So to me, "know" really does just meant "believe" where there's a negligible level of doubt that can be ignored for practical purposes.
I don't think it's a big thing - it looks like the way you see it pretty much includes the concept of justification, anyway. From the link that Martin posted above:
"Justification" involves the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on one's current evidence. Justification is a property of beliefs insofar as they are held blamelessly. In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold.
Coherence has nothing to do with Gettier problems one way or the other.
(For those that don't know, a Gettier problem is a case where someone has a true belief that is justified but where we hesitate to say they know. The most elegant example I know of is if I look out my kitchen window and correctly identify the bird I see as a willow warbler. I believe correctly that chiffchaffs, which looks nearly identical to willow warblers, don't live in my part of the world. But by chance a vagrant flock of chiffchaffs have been blown off course into my garden, although it just so happens that the bird I can see is the only willow warbler in the garden. I would hesitate to say I know it's a willow warbler.)
Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs.
Justified True Beliefs have - theoretical - Gettier problems, due to unknowns; everything known is trues and justified, but through no fault of ones own, one is missing a vital piece of information, a truth. I can't make one up for materialism. Anyone care to try?
Nothing about any religious belief approaches a JTB. No unknown to materialism takes away its JTB status. Or could by as few sigmas as you like.
Someone's religious belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) materialistic beliefs.
I'm wrong I'm sure, but not in any way that I could possibly understand.
Coherence has nothing to do with Gettier problems one way or the other.
...
It does to me, in my abyssal risible unlearned invincible ignorance. Coherentism
Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs.
The context, as expressed in the sentence immediately before the bit you quoted is significant:
As a theory of truth, coherentism restricts true sentences to those that cohere with some specified set of sentences. Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs.
Because, as that wikipedia page begins:
In philosophical epistemology, there are two types of coherentism: the coherence theory of truth, and the coherence theory of justification (also known as epistemic coherentism).
According to the coherence theory of justification, also known as coherentism, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes. The coherence theory of justification should be distinguished from the coherence theory of truth. The former is a theory of what it means for a belief or a set of beliefs to be justified, or for a subject to be justified in holding the belief or set of beliefs. The latter is a theory of what it means for a belief or proposition to be true.
Coherence has nothing to do with Gettier problems one way or the other.
...
It does to me, in my abyssal risible unlearned invincible ignorance. Coherentism
Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs.
The context, as expressed in the sentence immediately before the bit you quoted is significant:
As a theory of truth, coherentism restricts true sentences to those that cohere with some specified set of sentences. Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs.
Because, as that wikipedia page begins:
In philosophical epistemology, there are two types of coherentism: the coherence theory of truth, and the coherence theory of justification (also known as epistemic coherentism).
According to the coherence theory of justification, also known as coherentism, a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes. The coherence theory of justification should be distinguished from the coherence theory of truth. The former is a theory of what it means for a belief or a set of beliefs to be justified, or for a subject to be justified in holding the belief or set of beliefs. The latter is a theory of what it means for a belief or proposition to be true.
Indeed.
I'm quite happy to discuss the Biblical texts assuming that they are all as true as can be.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things, though as has been posted, some who do believe in that kind of wish it wasn’t quite that way, and in my case I wish I could believe in Universalism—but I’m not convinced I can, alas. I’d love to be surprised by that!
(For me personally, if I didn’t believe in God, the supernatural, and such as mentioned above, I would not be happy. That is not why I believe those things—when I first became a Christian, I was paranoid about weighing the scales with hidden motives, so Reason had to be paramount, and thank God for Lewis—but I’m definitely grateful for the world I believe we live in.)
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things
Are you expecting answers from people who don't believe in any of those things? Because I'm not sure that more than one person qualifies from those who have answered so far.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things, though as has been posted, some who do believe in that kind of wish it wasn’t quite that way, and in my case I wish I could believe in Universalism—but I’m not convinced I can, alas. I’d love to be surprised by that!
(For me personally, if I didn’t believe in God, the supernatural, and such as mentioned above, I would not be happy. That is not why I believe those things—when I first became a Christian, I was paranoid about weighing the scales with hidden motives, so Reason had to be paramount, and thank God for Lewis—but I’m definitely grateful for the world I believe we live in.)
Part of my coming to terms with having lost all but the tiniest sliver of faith includes the idea that many people are in fact much happier suspending their disbelief about the supernatural than reckoning with a consciousness-less cosmos. What I'm most unhappy about is having wasted so much time on the religious supernatural. Oh, to have those years back.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
(Could people take the forming debate about whether or not it is supernatural to another thread, please?)
At the age of 12 I first went to the English Lake District and had my first 'grand mal' attack of Stendhal's Syndrome: It was so beautiful I couldn't breathe and just wanted to weep, but daren't, in the car with my parents. It took me 30 years to have it labelled. I embrace it
It's in my genes. They love mountains. For at least 70,000 years since they came out of Africa. Maybe before, in the East African Rift.
And they love stars, sunsets, vastness, hydrangeas, dogs.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
(Could people take the forming debate about whether or not it is supernatural to another thread, please?)
It's kind of like asking if we like air. Most of the time. I expect some of us have been in a situation where we didn't have air, which makes it pretty enjoyable when one can finally breathe again. Few of us have been in a situation where we didn't have the cosmos.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things
Are you expecting answers from people who don't believe in any of those things? Because I'm not sure that more than one person qualifies from those who have answered so far.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things, though as has been posted, some who do believe in that kind of wish it wasn’t quite that way, and in my case I wish I could believe in Universalism—but I’m not convinced I can, alas. I’d love to be surprised by that!
(For me personally, if I didn’t believe in God, the supernatural, and such as mentioned above, I would not be happy. That is not why I believe those things—when I first became a Christian, I was paranoid about weighing the scales with hidden motives, so Reason had to be paramount, and thank God for Lewis—but I’m definitely grateful for the world I believe we live in.)
Part of my coming to terms with having lost all but the tiniest sliver of faith includes the idea that many people are in fact much happier suspending their disbelief about the supernatural than reckoning with a consciousness-less cosmos. What I'm most unhappy about is having wasted so much time on the religious supernatural. Oh, to have those years back.
Sending hugs, regardless of our disagreement on the supernatural.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
(Could people take the forming debate about whether or not it is supernatural to another thread, please?)
It's kind of like asking if we like air. Most of the time. I expect some of us have been in a situation where we didn't have air, which makes it pretty enjoyable when one can finally breathe again. Few of us have been in a situation where we didn't have the cosmos.
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in. Do people think “I’m glad the world is supernatural/materialist,” or “I’m glad there is/is not a God”? I know what it’s like to believe in those things. It is the most extreme understatement to say that I myself would be unhappy if they were not (as I understand reality) true. For the people who don’t believe in these things here, is it a wistful “ah, those fairy tales were lovely, but one must grow up?” or “thank goodness all that awful God stuff isn’t true” or a combination or something else? Do people wish they could believe, or are they glad they don’t?
I'm not glad the world is materialist. I'm glad there is no God; He's a useless bastard on a good day. An evil bastard otherwise. I'm not glad there is no Love. I miss the evil bastard; I'm aware of the loss, the golden years, the blissful ignorance, making hate love. And I'm glad I've shaken Him off. Oblivion next stop. A combination.
...
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in. Do people think “I’m glad the world is supernatural/materialist,” or “I’m glad there is/is not a God”? I know what it’s like to believe in those things. It is the most extreme understatement to say that I myself would be unhappy if they were not (as I understand reality) true. For the people who don’t believe in these things here, is it a wistful “ah, those fairy tales were lovely, but one must grow up?” or “thank goodness all that awful God stuff isn’t true” or a combination or something else? Do people wish they could believe, or are they glad they don’t?
ChastMastr - by my reckoning, this is the 6th time you've asked the question on this thread (as well as several posts about not derailing the thread).
I know what it's like to believe in these things and I know what it's like not to believe in these things. However many times you ask, it's not a question of liking one or the other belief.
...
(For me personally, if I didn’t believe in God, the supernatural, and such as mentioned above, I would not be happy. That is not why I believe those things—when I first became a Christian, I was paranoid about weighing the scales with hidden motives, so Reason had to be paramount, and thank God for Lewis—but I’m definitely grateful for the world I believe we live in.)
This makes a bit more sense - it sounds like you were worried that you'd become a Christian because you liked the belief so much more than what you'd believed before. (And that this was somehow a bad motive.) I suppose it's not surprising that C S Lewis' distrust of emotionalism would appeal to you. Or the way he portrays his journey towards God as a gradual acceptance of God as the source of joy.
This makes a bit more sense - it sounds like you were worried that you'd become a Christian because you liked the belief so much more than what you'd believed before. (And that this was somehow a bad motive.)
Absolutely. I didn’t want to be lying to myself, even if it was a very attractive, pleasant lie. I didn’t want my Christian faith to be another escape, like my obsession very near to that time with D&D or other fantasy worlds.
I suppose it's not surprising that C S Lewis' distrust of emotionalism would appeal to you. Or the way he portrays his journey towards God as a gradual acceptance of God as the source of joy.
Whether those things appealed to me or not, the most crucial thing to me was (and is) that his arguments were (and remain) rationally convincing to me.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
(Could people take the forming debate about whether or not it is supernatural to another thread, please?)
It's kind of like asking if we like air. Most of the time. I expect some of us have been in a situation where we didn't have air, which makes it pretty enjoyable when one can finally breathe again. Few of us have been in a situation where we didn't have the cosmos.
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in.
I believe in the one there is. There is only one cosmos, and i believe (or rather perceive) it to be the cosmos.
As to your further questions, Am I glad there is is/is not a god, I'm not sure how that has to do with which cosmos we have, given that there's only one cosmos. If there is a god like the Christian god, is their existence part of the cosmos? Is "god exists" part of "the way the cosmos is"? It's not clear to me that that's the case. There is the cosmos we all live in, and there's the existence or lack thereof of gods, and it's two different kettle of fish, meseems. There might be something here I'm not seeing.
Am I unhappy there is no god? Well that's tricky because as an agnostic atheist I don't believe there is no god. Would it be nice to have some kind of convincing evidence either way? Yeah, that would be good. So I guess I'm unhappy there is no such evidence -- or rather, that I have not come across any such -- but that doesn't seem to be something intrinsic to the way the cosmos is.
Good point by mousethief about a God like the Christian god. Other gods are available, anyway off topic. A Zen teacher of mine used to say, there is only One.
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things
Are you expecting answers from people who don't believe in any of those things? Because I'm not sure that more than one person qualifies from those who have answered so far.
I’m genuinely surprised by that.
Is that just reflective of an unconscious assumption that all those things go together (you kind of flag that anyway with your 'and/or related things' -- as it turns out people differ on which things they consider related)
...
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in. Do people think “I’m glad the world is supernatural/materialist,” or “I’m glad there is/is not a God”? I know what it’s like to believe in those things. It is the most extreme understatement to say that I myself would be unhappy if they were not (as I understand reality) true. For the people who don’t believe in these things here, is it a wistful “ah, those fairy tales were lovely, but one must grow up?” or “thank goodness all that awful God stuff isn’t true” or a combination or something else? Do people wish they could believe, or are they glad they don’t?
ChastMastr - by my reckoning, this is the 6th time you've asked the question on this thread (as well as several posts about not derailing the thread).
Yes, but I think it’s the first time I’ve actually understood what @ChastMastr is asking. (Which is quite possibly my failure to understand.)
“Cosmos”was throwing me, because the cosmos—what I think of when I hear and use that word—simply is, as @mousethief says.
But the latest statement of the question strikes me as more “do you like or dislike the worldview you believe to be the correct worldview?”
So do people here like the cosmos, whether supernatural or not, they believe they inhabit?
I’m afraid I don’t really know how to answer the question. I simply don’t think in terms of “liking” the cosmos we inhabit. It simply is.
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things
Are you expecting answers from people who don't believe in any of those things? Because I'm not sure that more than one person qualifies from those who have answered so far.
I’m genuinely surprised by that.
Is that just reflective of an unconscious assumption that all those things go together (you kind of flag that anyway with your 'and/or related things' -- as it turns out people differ on which things they consider related)
No, it’s (in my view) a very conscious understanding of those things; your and others’ mileage may vary.
...
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in. Do people think “I’m glad the world is supernatural/materialist,” or “I’m glad there is/is not a God”? I know what it’s like to believe in those things. It is the most extreme understatement to say that I myself would be unhappy if they were not (as I understand reality) true. For the people who don’t believe in these things here, is it a wistful “ah, those fairy tales were lovely, but one must grow up?” or “thank goodness all that awful God stuff isn’t true” or a combination or something else? Do people wish they could believe, or are they glad they don’t?
ChastMastr - by my reckoning, this is the 6th time you've asked the question on this thread (as well as several posts about not derailing the thread).
Yes, but I think it’s the first time I’ve actually understood what @ChastMastr is asking. (Which is quite possibly my failure to understand.)
“Cosmos”was throwing me, because the cosmos—what I think of when I hear and use that word—simply is, as @mousethief says.
But the latest statement of the question strikes me as more “do you like or dislike the worldview you believe to be the correct worldview?”
Is that what you’re asking, ChastMastr?
Yes, exactly. I used the word “cosmos” because I was trying to get at “everything, including God/ gods/ spirits/ supernaturalism and/or the absence thereof,” rather than just “Universe” which doesn’t necessarily include things outside or transcending the universe, or multiverse, or however many worlds there may be in any and all possible dimensions.
Comments
Well as someone else who has done it for a living…that was a mask slipping.
Tbh I think the full quote only improves it.
There's a certain 'thinks God looks like WG Grace' about it.
@pease
And I've been giving the answer some thought - I've been trying to interpret my experiences (over the years) to reach a less subjective understanding of what was happening. I also suspect that how we experience this varies from person to person including, pertinently, whether the beliefs in question are ones we grew up with. For me, the process involved trial and error, intellectual curiosity, bloody-mindedness and what (in hindsight) could be a sense of emotional betrayal. And I was quite motivated to change - to make sense of what I believed and how I believed it, even if, at the time, I didn't really comprehend what that entailed.
Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that there are emotional aspects as well as intellectual, and that addressing the emotional is a necessary part of the process.
I think the intellectual side involves internally questioning our own worldview. As this is tricky to do in abstract, this could involve reading accounts of views contrary to our own. For example: regarding universalism, David Bentley Hart (not that I have read him, or about universalism extensively, it's just his name comes up here fairly often). But it's not just about reading with the aim of looking to be convinced (or not) by the arguments, it's trying to absorb the author's point of view, trying to stand in their shoes. (And if it doesn't work, try a different author or genre.)
The more emotional aspects involve re-evaluating our authorities (for want of a phrase). When we're young, these are usually the people who bring us up - parents and/or family, followed by teachers, doctors, ministers of religion, etc. The people from whom we get our first ideas about the world - worldviews, beliefs, maybe faith - which we typically internalise and which become our own. I think there are various aspects to this re-evaluation - one aspect is recognising that the sources or origins of our beliefs are external to us, even if they have subsequently become part of us in some way. Another aspect is deliberately distancing ourselves from these authorities in relation to particular beliefs, in conjunction with treating these beliefs more objectively, with the aim of examining them - and trying to more consciously evaluate what we want our relationship to these beliefs to be.
This is where the emotional side comes in - I think it can feel as though we are betraying our authorities and ourselves. (Other descriptions and interpretations are possible.) In any case, my experience is that re-evaluating our authorities and internalised beliefs involves a period of destabilisation. Something about the way we think is changing, and it's a bit weird and unpleasant while it's happening. It's possible that this is age-related - we're revisiting something that our rather younger selves did without blinking.
And at first, this can feel a bit alien. One thing that can help is having someone with whom you can talk it through. Just hearing yourself talking in a different way about your beliefs, and your attitude to your beliefs, can help them bed in. So much the better if it's in discussion with someone who's interested in how it works out. (Ideally over a pint or two.)
Same 100%. "Believe" just means "think it's true." We're talking propositional belief, not belief in a person, which is a different kettle of paint.
I find a lot of people get confused with that last point.
Take the commonplace phrase "to believe in God".
Now I've said here, and will say again, and on this hill I will die etc. etc. that for the vast majority of people, "to believe in God" means "to accept the proposition that God exists".
Some religious people, however, seem to parse this as "to put ones trust in God"
I maintain that that second meaning is secondary. For one thing, one cannot put ones trust in God to an extent greater than one believes that God actually exists at all (and please for the love of God let's not have that mind meltingly tedious fecking argument about whether "exist" is an appropriate verb for God because we all fecking know what we mean by it). Even to the extent I believe there is a God, I would not use "I believe in God" to mean "I put my trust in God" - I'd say, well, "I put my trust in God" if I wanted to express that thought.
People will raise "well, wouldn't you encourage someone by saying 'I believe in you'?"
To which I say, yes, possibly. But the thing is, it's be absolutely barking to interpret that as "I believe you exist", because the person in question is the one you're talking to. Of course they exist. So the secondary meaning has to be the intended one. This is not true of God,
/FedUpRant
Believing in the existence of people is something that only applies to people whose existence is in question. So in relation to people whose existence isn't in question, the phrase "belief in a person" usually indicates some degree of trust in that person, which appears to be the general sense - the one that applies to most of the people with whom we were in contact as we were growing up, and through our lives.
In this regard, it seems unlikely that propositional belief and belief in a person are completely unrelated.
Our propositional beliefs are acquired - we are not born with them. For the first few years of life, all our ideas about the world are shaped by people - in the first instance by our primary caregivers. At the point when we each start reasoning about the world for ourselves, none of us is a blank slate, we all start with baggage, including a pile of beliefs about the world.
"I believe that God loves me" is a propositional belief.
Can you remember when you acquired your first belief? Do you know how old you were?
Not at all.
I believe that Neptune is further away than Uranus but it has absolutely no influence on my actions at all.
Some beliefs will drive actions, but by no means all. My belief that the environmental crisis is more important than mainstream parties recognise might prompt me to vote Green, for example.
And it's quite possible to believe in God but it be of no interest to you and not drive any actions at all.
I believe in equality of outcome. How will that influence my actions?
Don't you know that about Neptune? It's not a matter of belief surely? Except as a coherent, justified true belief. I.e. knowledge.
As in, "I believe I'll have another beer." But to believe (say) God loves us is to think the sentence "God loves us" is true, whether or not that influences your behavior.
On the earlier point, I was thinking more in the sense of "My wife says XXX and I believe her." Different from "My wife says XXX and I believe it." I can believe what someone I don't love or respect says, but I don't believe them. I believe the proposition they are saying.
"Know" is just a special case of "Believe" where the doubt is near or equal to zero.
Ah, the differential calculus of epistemology (where doubt>(dx)^2=0). Why are we afraid of knowing? And surely we can know by any degree of certainty. But we cannot believe incoherent unjustified untrue beliefs, items of religious faith, by the same criteria. Chalk and apples.
I know for certain that the cosmos we inhabit and like is natural. 100% I don't like that. So I keep busy: I'm a very superficial man, thank God.
That makes sense. But in my experience, if I don't respect someone, I'm rather less likely to trust what they say. I'd suggest that believing someone in the sense of trusting them as an authority requires some level of emotional commitment, even if we're usually not very conscious of it.
Although I'd describe it more in terms of trust: when we say we believe someone, it an interesting mix of trusting them as a person (what they say about themselves) and/or trusting them as an authority (what they say about other things they know and believe). I'd say the two overlap when we're young, and gradually diverge as we get older.
As Martin points out (more often than any other man alive) a belief is commonly regarded as knowledge if it is both true and justified. In other words, when there is also a justification for the belief. The usual example is a coin toss - you can say that you believe it will turn up heads, and if does turn up heads, your belief was true, but it wasn't knowledge because it was just a guess. For it to be knowledge, there would have to be some justification - such as being aware that it was a double-headed coin.
(But referring to "justified true belief" as additionally being "coherent" is rather incoherent.)
Coherence (see link) is something that is added to JTBs to reduce already lowest possible significance of Gettier problems in the context of science and rationality vs. religious beliefs.
Edited link to remove the appearce that it was posted by pease. BroJames, Purgatory Host
BroJames, Purgatory Host
I beg his and your pardon. That wasn't my intention at all.
(For those that don't know, a Gettier problem is a case where someone has a true belief that is justified but where we hesitate to say they know. The most elegant example I know of is if I look out my kitchen window and correctly identify the bird I see as a willow warbler. I believe correctly that chiffchaffs, which looks nearly identical to willow warblers, don't live in my part of the world. But by chance a vagrant flock of chiffchaffs have been blown off course into my garden, although it just so happens that the bird I can see is the only willow warbler in the garden. I would hesitate to say I know it's a willow warbler.)
That doesn't look coherent to me.
It does to me, in my abyssal risible unlearned invincible ignorance.
Coherentism
Justified True Beliefs have - theoretical - Gettier problems, due to unknowns; everything known is trues and justified, but through no fault of ones own, one is missing a vital piece of information, a truth. I can't make one up for materialism. Anyone care to try?
Nothing about any religious belief approaches a JTB. No unknown to materialism takes away its JTB status. Or could by as few sigmas as you like.
Someone's religious belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) materialistic beliefs.
I'm wrong I'm sure, but not in any way that I could possibly understand.
Indeed.
I'm quite happy to discuss the Biblical texts assuming that they are all as true as can be.
The laws of physics are.
(Could people take the forming debate about whether or not it is supernatural to another thread, please?)
To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee about the Elves, it seems a bit above my likes and dislikes, so to speak. It doesn’t seem to matter what I think about it.
Oh, I agree about that—but I’m thinking mainly about the people who think there is no God, supernatural, free will, intrinsic meaning, and/or related things, though as has been posted, some who do believe in that kind of wish it wasn’t quite that way, and in my case I wish I could believe in Universalism—but I’m not convinced I can, alas. I’d love to be surprised by that!
(For me personally, if I didn’t believe in God, the supernatural, and such as mentioned above, I would not be happy. That is not why I believe those things—when I first became a Christian, I was paranoid about weighing the scales with hidden motives, so Reason had to be paramount, and thank God for Lewis—but I’m definitely grateful for the world I believe we live in.)
Are you expecting answers from people who don't believe in any of those things? Because I'm not sure that more than one person qualifies from those who have answered so far.
Part of my coming to terms with having lost all but the tiniest sliver of faith includes the idea that many people are in fact much happier suspending their disbelief about the supernatural than reckoning with a consciousness-less cosmos. What I'm most unhappy about is having wasted so much time on the religious supernatural. Oh, to have those years back.
At the age of 12 I first went to the English Lake District and had my first 'grand mal' attack of Stendhal's Syndrome: It was so beautiful I couldn't breathe and just wanted to weep, but daren't, in the car with my parents. It took me 30 years to have it labelled. I embrace it
It's in my genes. They love mountains. For at least 70,000 years since they came out of Africa. Maybe before, in the East African Rift.
And they love stars, sunsets, vastness, hydrangeas, dogs.
They are adapted to them all and more.
So I can't help but like it.
It's kind of like asking if we like air. Most of the time. I expect some of us have been in a situation where we didn't have air, which makes it pretty enjoyable when one can finally breathe again. Few of us have been in a situation where we didn't have the cosmos.
I’m genuinely surprised by that.
Sending hugs, regardless of our disagreement on the supernatural.
But I mean, not the cosmos, but the one people believe in. Do people think “I’m glad the world is supernatural/materialist,” or “I’m glad there is/is not a God”? I know what it’s like to believe in those things. It is the most extreme understatement to say that I myself would be unhappy if they were not (as I understand reality) true. For the people who don’t believe in these things here, is it a wistful “ah, those fairy tales were lovely, but one must grow up?” or “thank goodness all that awful God stuff isn’t true” or a combination or something else? Do people wish they could believe, or are they glad they don’t?
I know what it's like to believe in these things and I know what it's like not to believe in these things. However many times you ask, it's not a question of liking one or the other belief.
This makes a bit more sense - it sounds like you were worried that you'd become a Christian because you liked the belief so much more than what you'd believed before. (And that this was somehow a bad motive.) I suppose it's not surprising that C S Lewis' distrust of emotionalism would appeal to you. Or the way he portrays his journey towards God as a gradual acceptance of God as the source of joy.
@pease said:
Absolutely. I didn’t want to be lying to myself, even if it was a very attractive, pleasant lie. I didn’t want my Christian faith to be another escape, like my obsession very near to that time with D&D or other fantasy worlds.
Whether those things appealed to me or not, the most crucial thing to me was (and is) that his arguments were (and remain) rationally convincing to me.
(A big, strong, bear hug).
❤️❤️❤️
I believe in the one there is. There is only one cosmos, and i believe (or rather perceive) it to be the cosmos.
As to your further questions, Am I glad there is is/is not a god, I'm not sure how that has to do with which cosmos we have, given that there's only one cosmos. If there is a god like the Christian god, is their existence part of the cosmos? Is "god exists" part of "the way the cosmos is"? It's not clear to me that that's the case. There is the cosmos we all live in, and there's the existence or lack thereof of gods, and it's two different kettle of fish, meseems. There might be something here I'm not seeing.
Am I unhappy there is no god? Well that's tricky because as an agnostic atheist I don't believe there is no god. Would it be nice to have some kind of convincing evidence either way? Yeah, that would be good. So I guess I'm unhappy there is no such evidence -- or rather, that I have not come across any such -- but that doesn't seem to be something intrinsic to the way the cosmos is.
Is that just reflective of an unconscious assumption that all those things go together (you kind of flag that anyway with your 'and/or related things' -- as it turns out people differ on which things they consider related)
“Cosmos”was throwing me, because the cosmos—what I think of when I hear and use that word—simply is, as @mousethief says.
But the latest statement of the question strikes me as more “do you like or dislike the worldview you believe to be the correct worldview?”
Is that what you’re asking, ChastMastr?
No, it’s (in my view) a very conscious understanding of those things; your and others’ mileage may vary.
Yes, exactly. I used the word “cosmos” because I was trying to get at “everything, including God/ gods/ spirits/ supernaturalism and/or the absence thereof,” rather than just “Universe” which doesn’t necessarily include things outside or transcending the universe, or multiverse, or however many worlds there may be in any and all possible dimensions.