You Don't Have to Put "Faith" in Anything

[David Sklansky]

Even the atheists are getting confused here. You put a probability estimate on things. And if that probability is high enough (depending on the exact subject in question) so that your actions are the same as if it was 100%, then fine. But you should still be well aware that you are not certain.

As for theists, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that if there is a God, he will be at least as nice to those who assume he exists than those who are sure he exists. As long as they are assuming it because they want it to be true.

Suppose your plane went down over Siberia and you fended for yourself for three years in the wilderness and then finally make it home to Arkansas. Most people think you are dead. But your beautiful wife remained true to you. Would you like it better if she said her faithfulness was because she had great faith in your ability to survive or because she said that in spite of her doubts there was no way she would let another, lesser, man touch her as long as there was some chance you were alive?

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, now, David, that's loyalty.

But I'd feel happier knowin' she'd be able to move on and tryin' to find love again.

But if that's not her nature and she'd rather carry the flame forever...

Reckon I'd be right okay with that too.

[David Sklansky]

"Well, now, David, that's loyalty."

Actually you may have hit on something. You may have found a better word than "assuming". God wants "loyalty" (which is shown by good works). And will accept that regardless of whether someone has unswavering belief in his existence. This is good news for RJT and bunny.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, now, David, that's loyalty."

Actually you may have hit on something. You may have found a better word than "assuming". God wants "loyalty" (which is shown by good works). And will accept that regardless of whether someone has unswavering belief in his existence. This is good news for RJT and bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]
and if its shown by good works then its good news for atheists as well.

and bad news for theists who do bad deeds like ...

Can we comnclude that belief in god is totally unimportant unless god's some type of nutter.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

Know all the probabilities and go with the flow, I guess.

chez, yes, pretty much, but there's value in a shifting flux. Keeps things debatable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Know all the probabilities and go with the flow, I guess.

chez, yes, pretty much, but there's value in a shifting flux. Keeps things debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]
By atheist I just mean no belief in god, not belief in no god.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
But I'd feel happier knowin' she'd be able to move on and tryin' to find love again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hear, hear. I mean, believe me, in an ideal relationship I'd expect a level of loyalty most people would consider pathological. But, you have to know where the fantasy ends. Pick up, move on, I wouldn't want her to hurt for that long anyhow.

[luckyme]

1st case - thinks it's highly likely I'm alive, so stays faithful.
2nd case - thinks it very likely I am dead but the reward for waiting is higher than not waiting.
3rd case - same as 2 but there are some great guys out there that are interested, but she doesn't want to 'break faith' with me.
4rd case - Is only faithful because my brother threatened to kill her kids if she screwed around.
5th case - is only faithful because my brother promised her 100K a year to wait it out.

In all 5 cases she remained faithful, so we know the action can never be the test.

I'm not that thrilled with any of the 1st 3, 3 years I can deal with, but if she kept it covered for 30 , I'd be thinking it's off the deep end and be a bit leary of spending any time with her when I got back.

luckyme

[BluffTHIS!]

David,

I am sure you have heard the phrase "put the fear of God into someone". Fear of God is discussed in the Bible in many places. Most non-believers assume it only means the wrath of God punishing type of stuff, but that's not so. The first meaning is indeed to fear the punishment of God for a transgression, and to be sorry for that reason. This is known in Catholic theology as imperfect contrition. Then there is the fear of God which means to fear committing a transgression because you will have wounded someone you love and who loves you. To be sorry (repent) for that reason is known as perfect contrition.

God of course prefers us to be sorry for our sins because we have acted poorly as sons and daughters to a loving Father. But He will indeed accept our being sorry for reason of fear of punishment as a lesser good alternative providing that one attempts to do better in the future and has an intention of doing so, even if one fails again.

Similarly as you posit, a less certain faith, providing it is coupled with trying to live as a believer despite doubts, is accepted the same as the certain faith of a true believer. And the reason for this is that the Divine Mercy of God is greater than His judgement and because He views us as His sons, and hopes that we come to view Him as our loving Father, just as we do our earthly fathers.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the atheists are getting confused here. You put a probability estimate on things.

[/ QUOTE ]

shocking!!


as for the marriage hypo, guess i'd prefer the latter. love the line about a 'lesser' man!! DS never fails to amuse! i actually prefer him to hemingway, lol!

in all seriousness, i have not followed your posts too carefully over the past few months - but i do remember you posting another post awhile back that dealt with the same issue of doubt. personally, i used to struggle immensely with doubt. i was brought up Christian, and from age 15ish on I was plagued ('tormented' is a better word) with doubt for years. I still have plenty of 'doubt', yet at the same time am convinced that my world view makes much more sense than any other i have ever been exposed to. (to be honest, reading this forum actually strengthens my theistic beliefs, as i find many of the posters here incredibly and excessively convinced of many propositions that i know to be blatantly absurd - perhaps not stated well, but i am sure of the validity of what i am trying to say...). anyway, you say 'He will at least be as nice to those who assume He exists'... as for doubt within the Christian world view, it is definitely acceptable (and in my experience, commendable in a way, since it reveals an honesty and sincerity toward metaphysical issues that many simply completely lack). in mark (i think): 'Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.' ...i have more to say, but i am going to watch 'the office' now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Hope all is well, DS.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

This won't be a popular answer but if you truly desire to understand why God is the way he is then seek him rather than trying to figure out how you would do things if you were him. Note that I am not discounting the importance of widsom, only suggesting that this is not the way to attain it.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Know all the probabilities and go with the flow, I guess.

chez, yes, pretty much, but there's value in a shifting flux. Keeps things debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]
By atheist I just mean no belief in god, not belief in no god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a semantic quibble. Just reread that.

At which point do you consider that non-zero probability turns a person into an agnostic?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Know all the probabilities and go with the flow, I guess.

chez, yes, pretty much, but there's value in a shifting flux. Keeps things debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]
By atheist I just mean no belief in god, not belief in no god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a semantic quibble. Just reread that.

At which point do you consider that non-zero probability turns a person into an agnostic?

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone who assigns probabilities is operating on faith (or under an assumption).

I don't wish to revisit the atheist/agnostic debate which is just a debachle of people using the same words to mean different things and different words to mean the same things. The rational position is:

1) There's no reason to believe in god
2) Can't prove there's no god

You are then theist or atheist depending on whether you believe in (operate under the assumption of) a god or not.

chez

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]

You are then theist or atheist depending on whether you believe in (operate under the assumption of) a god or not.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the existence or otherwise of a god would have no bearing on my actions?

In other words I might believe that if there were a god it would be in my interests to behave in a certain way; and yet if there weren't a god it would still be in my interests to behave in the exact same way, but for different reasons?

I don't think this is an unrealistic state of affairs: a god would apparently wish us to act in a way that was in some way "optimal" for the good of the species. An atheist could construct an argument that we would be most fulfilled (by a combination of internal and external rewards) by acting in the same optimal way.

[FortunaMaximus]

Makes me an atheist then. Me either.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are then theist or atheist depending on whether you believe in (operate under the assumption of) a god or not.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the existence or otherwise of a god would have no bearing on my actions?

In other words I might believe that if there were a god it would be in my interests to behave in a certain way; and yet if there weren't a god it would still be in my interests to behave in the exact same way, but for different reasons?

I don't think this is an unrealistic state of affairs: a god would apparently wish us to act in a way that was in some way "optimal" for the good of the species. An atheist could construct an argument that we would be most fulfilled (by a combination of internal and external rewards) by acting in the same optimal way.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you and I do the same thing but you operate under the asumption that god exists then you are theist and I'm not.

In general I agree it makes absolutely no difference but judging by your avatar, praying is a good plan /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[CityFan]

I should learn to read the whole thread, not just individual posts.

In other words, I agree with chezlaw that belief in God ought to be unimportant, but I don't think I fit into his categories because I don't make an assumption either way.