To believe or not to believe, that is my question

Remove all ads!

Sorry for a slight diversion.

Maybe this is just a difference between how Catholics and Protestants interpret their history, but that statement seems to really diminish Paul's contribution to the early Church. Paul made Jesus. He was the ultimate PR man, and is largely responsible for the spread of Christianity after Jesus's death. It can be argued that Paul is the most important Christian figure since the time of Jesus. I myself have always wondered why Paul is referred to as Paul the Apostle as it suggests he was one of the Jesus's 12 apostles from Jerusalem, which he certainly was not. In fact, there is no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus.

 

One can start to assume all sorts of things if one wants to.

Exactly. So it can be said that you are concerned with what "actually" does or does not exist. Those inverted commas in there, because something doesn't get more or less real no matter how much we'd say them to be "really real", "actually real". Saying so does not bring any additional value to the statement of something being real. There is no "fictitious real", but there is "hypothetically real". However, it'd be better just to say 'hypothetical' since 'real' does not bring any additional informational value in that case. (Rhetorical value, of course, is a completely different thing. )

What happens if someone is not concerned about the verity of some statements? Especially if there are no consequences? Someone says something is real, but it has no effect on how we live our lives. What is the difference then if it is real or not? But let's say that someone says something to be real and the consequences of people believing that statement are adverse. Then the question is that should this statement be propagated as truth, or should people be informed of those bad consequences, or even should this 'truth' be abandoned altogether.

If it makes them happy, let the masses have their masses. Let people think what they will, as long as there is no harm. To others or to themselves. (Unless they want to harm themselves, then there's not much that can be do about it...)

 

Aldeth, to say that Paul made Jesus is a vast overstatement. Yes, Paul may have been the most avid proponent and spreader of Christianity, but not by any major margins. We have more of his letters than anyone else, but plenty of history shows that Paul was hardly alone. Peter, James, John, Timothy, Bartholomew, Apollos, and many many others spread Christianity throughout the Roman world and beyond. Truth be told, it is often hard to distinguish what was Paul's work and what was someone else's, as Paul rarely traveled alone.

As to Hebrews, the author is certainly heavily influenced by Pauline thought and doctrine, and was probably a direct student of Paul, but also shows vast influence from John, Peter, and others, as well as a fundamental grounding in traditional Hebrew thought and doctrine. The critical point I'm trying to make about Hebrews is that this is the first time everything is brought together and actually defended with, and connected to, the Old Testament. Paul's letters are sort of like the Absent Minded Professor's research notes (Absent Minded Professor-ish only because we only see particular examples to particular cities), while Hebrews is essentially the Text Book.

As to Paul's apostlehood, Apostle means someone who was called by Christ himself. Paul gains that title through his vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, where he was called. There is a distinction between Disciple (refering to the original 12) and Apostle (which actually refers to many others of the time).

And, in fact, one has to. Without some fundamental assumptions, there is nothing that can be said, or known, or believed, or anything. It is important to define our fundamental assumptions, and to support them whenever possible. Science is constantly supporting the assumption that our world is constant regardless of our perceptions and beliefs, because we can perceive the effects of events which we didn't percieve, we can percieve unexpected consequences, and we can percieve that actions we expected did not happen. This is the fundamental flaw with the logic of relative truth extended beyond perspectives. If belief forms truth (and there are many who follow that crede), then there should be no poison, no disease, and no accidents, as no one would ever have believed such things to happen in the first place.

I believe that, whatever harm the truth may hold, it's ultimate benefit is much greater. At the same time, I believe that, whatever benefit a lie may produce, it's ultimate harm is much greater. If a thing is true, let it be taught and known, no matter the consequences. If a thing is false, let it be disproven and let this disproof be taught and known, no matter the consequences. At the same time, if something previously thought to be true were proven false, let the correction be taught and known, no matter the turmoil.

 

Perhaps I am overstating Paul's importance, but you say that Paul's letters only provided for some "foundational work" , and that is definitely an understatement.

Then again, it's possible that both statements are correct (I'm overstating and you're understating), and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I think everyone can agree that it is not the fundamental assumptions that make these things possible. You're saying this yourself, by stating

Which brings the whole thing to the point. If belief forms truth, then there is no information on poison, disease and accidents. They're categorized as something else. It is possible for a human to live a life, as a normal person living within the context of a society (but not our society), and indeed believe that there are no accidents and function as well, or even better and longer than a westerner in similar conditions.

For what? It might be a good strategy, but it is not important by itself and for itself. It can be useful, but the context defines whether it is important or not. Life is possible without defining fundamental assumptions or thinking about them at all.

A flaw which arises from trying to force the rules of formal binary logic into a field which it has very little in common.

Within the context of religious beliefs these statements might be held as true. In another context the statement is reckless, irresponsible and pretty much sums up why I don't have a very high regard about fundamentalism.

No matter the consequences indeed...

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. What I mean is that, without basic foundational assumptions, logic is nothing. It is the rules for a sport that no one plays, the laws of physics when there is neither matter nor energy for them to work on. Logic must work on, at least, the most fundamental assumption that our senses are reliable. Without that, you cannot even practically eat, because you cannot logically show that the meal is there, or that it isn't poisonous, or alive and ready to bite back.

My point is that, if belief formed truth, such things simply would not BE. You would never be caught off-guard. Poison would simply not be a word, there would not even be the concept of it.

Perhaps I worded that wrong. I believe it is important for any productive discussions on reality. Without doing so, you and the other person may be talking about two completely different things without realizing it, and neither understanding why the other thinks you're an idiot for holding your position.

On the contrary, the flaw is inherent in the belief. The idea that belief alters the universe by itself is contradictory to observable reality. Psychologists call this "magic thinking" and people usually grow out of it at a very early age (5 years old I think, not sure). To see so many people growing back into it worries me.

The question comes down to which has worse overall consequences: recognizing and facing a hard truth (your mother is going to die, and it will be painful), or avoiding that truth with lies (oh, no, your mother will die peacefully in her sleep, or worse, your mother's not going to die, don't worry). I believe there is much more opportunity to learn and grow through confronting truths than any arguable benefit from lies, and many more potential dangers to the lies than to the truth.

 

ROFLMAO! But I think I get your point. However, it's not the existence of logic that makes this possible. I don't have to "logically show" anything in order to function. In fact, doing so would consume time and energy too much for it to be advantageous.

If basic functions are under question, try breathing. You might want to say that "In order to breathe, you must logically show that breathing is possible." Yeah, you do that, but I'll not hold my breath until that happens.

Yes, exactly! That's why I'm putting the whole function of religious belief under question! In order for something to be "true", we don't have to have religious belief for it to be true. We don't even have to have a logical explanation for it! Isn't that great? What is, is. But how it functions, and what are the relations between things is something that can be studied, and the scientific method's just the best way to do it. What is relevant, is however something completely different.

I don't think someone as an idiot for holding one's position. That's a poor strategy. I think someone might be an idiot if the person's position causes harmful action. As an example "I believe I can fly by using the power of my will" Sure, why not. You do that, go jump from a cliff. But don't go telling others that they should do that, since they can fly as well if they follow you and just try hard enough.

Now you're talking about two different things. It was never about truth vs. lies. It's about how information is either useful or useless, or harmful. "The truth" has no inherent value, the context defines the value of the information. Even in the long run.

You wouldn't go and broadcast all of your personal information such as your bank account number (and how to access it) all over the net, just because it'd be based on the factual state of affairs and be 'the truth'? I dare you, you'll benefit from it in the long run. Just trust me, it's "the truth". Right?

 

I'm glad you got a kick out of that, and yes, it was a bit of an extreme, but it is a real lesson in the limitations of logic. As much as we may like to think of ourselves as logical beings, logic really is a foreign language to the human mind, one that must be carefully studied to be learned properly, and one that, like everything else, is readily subject to corruption by other aspects of the mind (which are definitely NOT logical).

Mmm, best, no. Most reliable, yes. Unfortunately, like logic, science also works only within a very thin field, especially when you're talking about experimental method. Religion, by it's very nature, tends to be well outside that field. As has been said before, science cannot prove or disprove God. Science cannot prove or disprove the Devil. Science cannot prove or disprove whether Jesus rose from the dead, or ever died in the first place, or even ever lived (though History does a pretty good job of those last two). Remember, not all interactions and relations between objects are readily subject to scientific study.

Sorry, I may have jumped ahead again. I have seen many 'logical' debates in which each debater genuinely thought the other was loosing their minds. From their perspective, with their assumptions, the other's position was blatantly illogical, self-contradictory, and idiotic. They just failed to realize that the other was working from a different set of assumptions that made that same statement all but a given. This is the danger in not defining assumptions. The statement, "Pie has changed the entire flow of human history and scientific development" would require an aweful lot of backing, at the least. On the other hand, the statement,"Pi has changed the entire flow of human history and scientific development", is one that would receive much less debate. That's a very simple example, but it shows what I mean.

Ah, but I believe that the greater value of the truth is a part of it's basic nature, that truth will always have more potential for gain and less for loss than lies, simply by the nature of the universe.

Ok, there is a huge difference between truth, lies, and simply not saying anything. I have no problem with people not telling the truth, so long as they don't tell lies or intentionally lead people to believe lies.

For example, telling you my bank account number is the first X digits of Pi, or even leading you to that conclusion without outright saying it, is wrong. Telling you my actual bank account number would be foolish (though not morally wrong). Simply not telling you anything about it (except that it's not Pi ) is both wise and moral.

No, I do not believe all truths should be told whenever possible, but I do believe that, when the choice comes to either truth or a lie, truth is always the superior choice.

 

Trying to prove or disprove God using science is like trying to use sociology to solve complex differential equations. If the debate were young earth creationism vs evolution, science naturally has a place, but when the debate is God vs No-God, that lies within the realm of philosophy. While science and philosophy do occasionally intersect, they don't intersect here.

Evolution is observable and testable. God is not.

 

I agree, but I would go even one step further: What special knowledge does a philosopher or theologan possess that gives them any more insight into whether or not God exists than does a scientist?

 

None, whatsoever...but at least philosophy is the right field. God, being neither observable nor testable, lies outside the purview of science. It most assuredly does not fall outside the field of philosophy.

 

And a scientist would disagree.

 

Really? Because the first guy that ever said this to me was Dr Russell Ciochon, an Anthropologist that you may have heard of. Or are you trying to say that God is observable and testable? Or that the inability to observe something is alone evidence that it doesn't exist?

 

I do not believe it lies outside the purview of science.

And an anthropologist is a social scientist....

 

Well, the story goes that he used to be observable and testable.

Much of current theoretical physics like string theory and until quite recently, the study of dark matter, currently lies outside of the range of observability (thats why its theoretical.) Richard Feynman would have agreed with you in that such things are not science, that researching something untestable cannot possible cannot be called scientific. This is the base of one of my favorite xkcd comics. However, I personally know some scientists that disagree with him and feel that his standpoint is too extreme. Even know, the boundaries of the term science are vague.
However, I have to agree in that some things are beyond the power of science and its theoretical fields. This is what Heisenberg, Gödel and Popper demonstrated in the previous century.

 

Bad Morgoth! There was no reason at all that you have to bring back bad memories from graduate school. I never want to have to think about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle again. (Well, I guess the concept is fine - I just hated the calculations.)

 

I doubt I need to tell you that there are plenty of sub-fields within anthropology. Ciochon, for example, spends most of his time studying the long-extinct Gigantopithecus -- their teeth, mostly.

That said, T2, how exactly do you observe or test the idea that there is something intelligent behind the creation of the universe? What about the statement "there is a God" is observable or testable using the scientific method? I'd really like to know.

 

Paris Hilton is proof enough that there is nothing intelligent behind the creation of the universe.

Lack of evidence, in spite of extensive testing (and anthropological studies), is quite damning. Just as you can "prove" the non-existance of a pink unicorn, so you can "prove" the non-existance of God. At least to a significant number of people.

 

Mmm, more observed and tested. From the scientific perspective, the Biblical God was never really "observable" or "testable" to the degree science would require. To the degree that He was, He still is today. There are still people that claim miracles, sometimes even with documentation to back it up. There are still people that claim visions and angelic appearances (not so many video records there).

Nah, Paris Hilton is just proof that, if there is something intelligent behind the creation of the universe, it has a sense of humor.

Reference one scientific study or experiment that sought evidence of God. What evidence would you even look for? Nothing in the Bible talks about giant glowing smiley-faces in the sky, so I doubt astronomy could tell you anything. Physics and chemistry don't really have any chance of showing anything. Anthropology, even, doesn't have any expectation of finding God anywhere. What "extensive testing", exactly, are you talking about?

 

I think you just inadvertently made T2Bruno's point. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, etc can find nothing that indicate the existence of a god. The complete lack of evidence speaks volumes.