Belief. What exactly is it?

[alreadyGone]

On 7/20/2022 at 10:21 PM, duderonomy said:

One believes or one doesn't. Faith is a knowing.

 

Faith is believing that you know... belief driven by ego.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Faith is believing that you know... belief driven by ego.

 

Or, faith is believing that you know... belief driven by emotional need.

 

 

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Faith is believing that you know... belief driven by ego.

 

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Or, faith is believing that you know... belief driven by emotional need.

 

 

 

 

Ego? Emotion?  

[alreadyGone]

27 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

 

Ego? Emotion?  

 

In the absence of empirical knowledge based on provable, repeatable evidence and observation.

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

 

Ego? Emotion?  

 

Yes, emotional need Duderonomy.

 

I suspect that there are many and various ways in which people satisfy their emotional needs with religion, but perhaps the more common ones are these.  No doubt there are others not covered in this list.  I daresay that you can probably think of others to add to this handful.

 

1.  Emotional Terror Management. 

Some people find the thought of their non existence to be emotionally unacceptable and so they soothe their anxieties with the comforting idea of an eternal afterlife that is better in every way than this one. 

 

2.  The Emotional need for Purity.

Others are so unhappy with themselves that they look forward to a time when they can purged of their character flaws forever.

 

3.  The Emotional need for Justice. (1)

Some people have a strong emotional need to see justice served upon the wicked - a need which is not met in this life, where so many who are deserving of justice and punishment never receive it.  

 

4.  The Emotional need for Justice (2).

The people who harbour a profound sense of injustice in their own lives, hoping to receive the justice they believe they are due in the next one. 

 

5.  The Emotional need for Solace

Those who have suffered grievously in this life sometimes harbour a great need for the comfort and solace that only god can bring them.  The comfort and solace given to them by others in this life falling short of what they truly need.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, emotional need Duderonomy.

 

I suspect that there are many and various ways in which people satisfy their emotional needs with religion, but perhaps the more common ones are these.  No doubt there are others not covered in this list.  I daresay that you can probably think of others to add to this handful.

 

1.  Emotional Terror Management. 

Some people find the thought of their non existence to be emotionally unacceptable and so they soothe their anxieties with the comforting idea of an eternal afterlife that is better in every way than this one. 

 

2.  The Emotional need for Purity.

Others are so unhappy with themselves that they look forward to a time when they can purged of their character flaws forever.

 

3.  The Emotional need for Justice. (1)

Some people have a strong emotional need to see justice served upon the wicked - a need which is not met in this life, where so many who are deserving of justice and punishment never receive it.  

 

4.  The Emotional need for Justice (2).

The people who harbour a profound sense of injustice in their own lives, hoping to receive the justice they believe they are due in the next one. 

 

5.  The Emotional need for Solace

Those who have suffered grievously in this life sometimes harbour a great need for the comfort and solace that only god can bring them.  The comfort and solace given to them by others in this life falling short of what they truly need.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Walter, please.  What you said here is all speculation and probably someone else's talking points that you learned and dutifully repeated, but either way you have no proof for what you said.

 

Emotions have no relation to faith.   Faith is a knowing and emotions that stem from that truth make for an interesting study, but the emotions aren't faith and faith isn't emotions. 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Walter, please.  What you said here is all speculation and probably someone else's talking points that you learned and dutifully repeated, but either way you have no proof for what you said.

 

Emotions have no relation to faith.   Faith is a knowing and emotions that stem from that truth make for an interesting study, but the emotions aren't faith and faith isn't emotions. 

 

 

 

Oh boy!  As a retired behavioral scientist I'm going to get some popcorn, sit in my recliner, and watch this discussion.

 

[duderonomy]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

Oh boy!  As a retired behavioral scientist I'm going to get some popcorn, sit in my recliner, and watch this discussion.

 

 

 

Weezer! Good to see you.  How would science have either of us behave?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Weezer! Good to see you.  How would science have either of us behave?

 

 

I'm just here to watch the show.  But  right now I need to get to bed.  Good night.

[alreadyGone]

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Walter, please.  What you said here is all speculation and probably someone else's talking points that you learned and dutifully repeated, but either way you have no proof for what you said.

 

Emotions have no relation to faith.   Faith is a knowing and emotions that stem from that truth make for an interesting study, but the emotions aren't faith and faith isn't emotions. 

 

 

 

Knowing....  how?

 

You know there is a God, because you have faith?

 

No, you don't.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

19 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Walter, please.  What you said here is all speculation and probably someone else's talking points that you learned and dutifully repeated, but either way you have no proof for what you said.

 

That's absolutely correct Duderonomy.

I have no proof for what I wrote.  But not for the reasons you might be thinking of.  Proofs only exist in mathematics and in logic.  Therefore, you are mistaken in asking me for proof.  Proof plays no part in this thread unless there is mathematics and logic involved.

 

Having dealt with that, what I have presented here are not proofs, but evidence.  Evidence gathered by personal experience and by reading.  If you find these to be unacceptable or invalid, then please tell me what you consider to be acceptable and valid evidence in this context.

 

 

Silly me!  I forgot the most common way in which people derive emotional satisfaction from religion.

 

6.  The Emotional need for Community.

The community of a church can be very important in the lives of many religious people.  Regularly coming together with like-minded people in deeply meaningful activities (singing, prayer, healing, bible study, fasting, religious rituals and ceremonies, etc.) fosters strong bonds which are emotionally satisfying.

 

 

19 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Emotions have no relation to faith.   Faith is a knowing and emotions that stem from that truth make for an interesting study, but the emotions aren't faith and faith isn't emotions. 

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

As far as I can see emotions cause faith.  You can see this demonstrated when two people look at the wonders of the universe.  Both people are looking at the same images and the same data, yet they draw different conclusions.  The atheist does not see the hand of god at work and the theist does.  What is the difference between the two people that causes their two radically different takes on the same thing?  A worked example might throw some light on this question.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss 

Krauss is an astrophysicist and a cosmologist as well as a sceptic and an atheist. 

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

Polkinghorne was theoretical physicist and a mathematician as well as a theologian and an Anglican (Lutheran) priest.

 

Both of these people had more or less the same understanding of the math and the physics of the origin and workings of the universe, yet, they arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions about it.

 

Why?  The only reason I can think of is that one is emotionally disposed to see god in the equations and the other is not.  I say this because surely it is our emotions that make us who we are.  I'd make the same argument about music and the arts.  For some these things bring them closer to god and for others they don't.  Once again, the deciding factor is the emotions of the people concerned.  

 

 

But I'm also with alreadyGone about your use of the word, 'knowing'.  What do you mean by this Duderonomy and how does it work?  Please explain.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

Walter, proofs only exist in mathematics. Logic isn't absolute. 

 

As for your apparent obsession with emotions, I'm with Tina Turner on this one; what's love got to do with it?

 

You said:

 

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Silly me!  I forgot the most common way in which people derive emotional satisfaction from religion.

 

6.  The Emotional need for Community.

The community of a church can be very important in the lives of many religious people.  Regularly coming together with like-minded people in deeply meaningful activities (singing, prayer, healing, bible study, fasting, religious rituals and ceremonies, etc.) fosters strong bonds which are emotionally satisfying.

 

And you aren't doing exactly this type of stuff here? You are 761 posts in. Is Ex-C your new religion and you have an emotional need for it?

 

You admit you have no proof for what you claimed here in our exchange, so then may I assume you asserted it on faith?

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

@duderonomy,

The bible does not agree with your definition of faith:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." — Hebrews 11:1

 

Hoped for...

 

Conviction: (noun)

a firmly held belief or opinion.

"she takes pride in stating her political convictions"

(Definition from Oxford Languages)

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Walter, proofs only exist in mathematics. Logic isn't absolute. 

 

As for your apparent obsession with emotions, I'm with Tina Turner on this one; what's love got to do with it?

 

You said:

 

 

And you aren't doing exactly this type of stuff here? You are 761 posts in. Is Ex-C your new religion and you have an emotional need for it?

 

No.  By definition religions have holy books, the content of which is set down and never changes.  But there is no holy book or books for this community.  Each of us is a sceptic, an agnostic, an atheist and/or an Ex-Christian for our own secular reasons and not for any religious reasons. Therefore, your comparison is invalid, Duderonomy.

 

 

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

You admit you have no proof for what you claimed here in our exchange, so then may I assume you asserted it on faith?

 

 

 

You may assume that, but you'd be wrong to do so.  As I've already pointed out, I have no proof (because it cannot apply here) so instead I am citing evidence.  That is  different to asserting something on faith.  And I'm still waiting for you to inform me why you think my evidence is invalid or unacceptable.

 

I'm also waiting for you to answer alreadyGone and explain how and why faith is 'knowing'.

 

Please do so.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

Google dictionary.

 

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

The word proof is interchangeable with the word evidence.

 

Proof = evidence.

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

Google dictionary.

 

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

The word proof is interchangeable with the word evidence.

 

Proof = evidence.

 

 

 

If this is so, how does it help settle the issue between Duderonomy and myself?

 

He's asking me for proof, but unless he explains to me what evidence he would call proof, how can I proceed?

 

I've also asked him to tell me why my evidence is unacceptable to him.

 

Assuming he accepts your definition Midniterider, that'll be three things he needs to explain for our dialogue to continue.

 

1.  What evidence he would call proof.

 

2.  Why my evidence is unacceptable to him.

 

3.  How and why faith is 'knowing'.

 

I await his reply on these.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

If this is so, how does it help settle the issue between Duderonomy and myself?

 

He's asking me for proof, but unless he explains to me what evidence he would call proof, how can I proceed?

 

I've also asked him to tell me why my evidence is unacceptable to him.

 

Assuming he accepts your definition Midniterider, that'll be three things he needs to explain for our dialogue to continue.

 

1.  What evidence he would call proof.

 

2.  Why my evidence is unacceptable to him.

 

3.  How and why faith is 'knowing'.

 

I await his reply on these.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

It's not 'my' definition, it's the dictionary definition which the average person uses in everyday life. It appears to me that Duderonomy is already using the dictionary's primary definition of the word proof as a synonym for the word evidence. And you have demonstrated that you already know what he means when he uses the word proof in place of your preferred word 'evidence.' 

 

How does this help settle the issue with you and Dude? I suppose it gets you past the 'proofs are for math only' kind of debate paralysis so you can continue with other points. It looks to me like Dude is going to use the word proof regardless of your liking it or not.  

 

It's a good debate, Walter. I am pondering the difference in conclusions between Krauss and Polkinghorne that you mentioned previously. I think some ex-Christians may like to assume that if someone believes in God then their 'purely' scientific opinion must necessarily be tainted ... like Polkinhorne's religious bent. And his religious inclination could be based on emotion... but Krauss' non-religious conclusion could also be based on emotions from his atheism. Krauss is a skeptic, a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Isn't an 'inclination' an emotion? Or an emotional attitude? I would think skepticism has an emotional component to it. 

 

Dude: Emotions have no relation to faith.   Faith is a knowing and emotions that stem from that truth make for an interesting study, but the emotions aren't faith and faith isn't emotions. 

 

I hope Dude says more on this because I know some people here just call religion an emotional-based thing but I'm not sure they have provided any strong evidence for that other than personal opinion. 

 

My guess is that neither of you will agree with the other. If there's any questions I need to answer, I'll just say I dont know.

[walterpthefirst]

Your post is thought provoking and deserves my best effort in replying, midniterider.  Thank you.  

 

It's not 'my' definition, it's the dictionary definition which the average person uses in everyday life. It appears to me that Duderonomy is already using the dictionary's primary definition of the word proof as a synonym for the word evidence. And you have demonstrated that you already know what he means when he uses the word proof in place of your preferred word 'evidence.' 

 

How does this help settle the issue with you and Dude? I suppose it gets you past the 'proofs are for math only' kind of debate paralysis so you can continue with other points. It looks to me like Dude is going to use the word proof regardless of your liking it or not.

 

About that Google definition of proof.

Are the following words yours or Google's?  "The word proof is interchangeable with the word evidence."  I ask because if proof is evidence and evidence is proof, then I have already proved my point to Duderonomy about belief being driven by emotional need.  I did this when I cited five items of evidence on Wednesday and another one yesterday.  These are certainly evidence, but if the words evidence and proof are interchangeable, then they are also proof.  I can swap them about any way I like.  So, are you quite sure that the words proof and evidence are interchangeable?

 

 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that evidence should meet a certain threshold for it to become proof?

 

 

I accept what you say about debate paralysis and moving on to other points.  However, not all of the paralysis in this thread is down to me.  I would like it noted that Duderonomy is paralysing the debate by being slow to answer questions put to him by alreadyGone and myself.  Specifically about faith being a 'knowing' and why my evidence is unacceptable to him.  He skipped right over these questions and asked two more of his own...

 

And you aren't doing exactly this type of stuff here? You are 761 posts in. Is Ex-C your new religion and you have an emotional need for it?

You admit you have no proof for what you claimed here in our exchange, so then may I assume you asserted it on faith?

 

...which I answered asap.  So, right now neither alreadyGone nor I can move on the those other points you mention.  We're stuck, waiting for Duderonomy to furnish us with answers to our questions.  Then perhaps we can move on.

 

 

Krauss is a skeptic, a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Isn't an 'inclination' an emotion? Or an emotional attitude? I would think skepticism has an emotional component to it. 

 

I disagree, midniterider.

Both Krauss and Polkinghorne are scientists and it's a matter of professional integrity for scientists to be sceptical about everything and to take nothing on faith.   By definition science is agnostic about all religious, supernatural and theological matters.  So, scientific scepticism is not a matter of inclination or emotional attitude.  It's part and parcel of the job.  If you want to be a scientist and to do science then you must leave your emotional baggage at the door and be properly sceptical, taking nothing on faith.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Midniterider,

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86462-jesus-in-the-exam-room/#comment-1251427

 

Here is a perfect example of what I was just referring to. 

 

The medic in question violated the professional and ethical standards of their job by bringing their personal religious beliefs into it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[duderonomy]

16 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

@duderonomy,

The bible does not agree with your definition of faith:

 

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." — Hebrews 11:1

 

Hoped for...

 

Conviction: (noun)

a firmly held belief or opinion.

"she takes pride in stating her political convictions"

(Definition from Oxford Languages)

 

So you are saying that the Bible definition is authoritative?    Now that's interesting.   

[duderonomy]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I would like it noted that Duderonomy is paralysing the debate by being slow to answer questions put to him by alreadyGone and myself. 

 

Really?

 

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

..which I answered asap.  So, right now neither alreadyGone nor I can move on the those other points you mention.  We're stuck, waiting for Duderonomy to furnish us with answers to our questions.  Then perhaps we can move on.

 

 

 

Oh, I get it. Some ASAPs are more equal than other ASAPs.  

 

 

 

You want rabbit trails? I got your rabbit trails right here and mine are just as tempting as yours are.  You can move on with your discussion of what belief is anytime you want and so can aG.

I threw in my molehill and you are making a mountain out of it.

 

For the love of God Walter, don't be so serious!  If we are looking at death being the end our existence forever, why is any of this so important? Future generations? They will die too. So humans can explore the universe? It will die too, right?   If you agree, do you believe this or know this?

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

No.  By definition religions have holy books, the content of which is set down and never changes.  But there is no holy book or books for this community.  Each of us is a sceptic, an agnostic, an atheist and/or an Ex-Christian for our own secular reasons and not for any religious reasons. Therefore, your comparison is invalid, Duderonomy.

 

So if I look up the definition of "religions" I will find that they must have a holy book or they aren't real religions?   Wow, didn't know that.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Ahh.  I have a belief that the show is still on, and have faith it will continue.

[midniterider]

38 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Ahh.  I have a belief that the show is still on, and have faith it will continue.

 

Oh shush, you! (haha)

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

About that Google definition of proof.

Are the following words yours or Google's?  "The word proof is interchangeable with the word evidence."  I ask because if proof is evidence and evidence is proof, then I have already proved my point to Duderonomy about belief being driven by emotional need.  I did this when I cited five items of evidence on Wednesday and another one yesterday.  These are certainly evidence, but if the words evidence and proof are interchangeable, then they are also proof.  I can swap them about any way I like.  So, are you quite sure that the words proof and evidence are interchangeable?

 

Those are my words. Now if you already provided 5 items of evidence then I guess you win, Walter. Unless Duderonomy says he wins, then I'm not sure.

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that evidence should meet a certain threshold for it to become proof?

 

I think you're trying to groom the meaning of words to your own sciencey ends. For shame.  

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

I accept what you say about debate paralysis and moving on to other points.  However, not all of the paralysis in this thread is down to me.  I would like it noted that Duderonomy is paralysing the debate by being slow to answer questions put to him by alreadyGone and myself.  Specifically about faith being a 'knowing' and why my evidence is unacceptable to him.  He skipped right over these questions and asked two more of his own...

 

And you aren't doing exactly this type of stuff here? You are 761 posts in. Is Ex-C your new religion and you have an emotional need for it?

You admit you have no proof for what you claimed here in our exchange, so then may I assume you asserted it on faith?

 

...which I answered asap.  So, right now neither alreadyGone nor I can move on the those other points you mention.  We're stuck, waiting for Duderonomy to furnish us with answers to our questions.  Then perhaps we can move on.

 

I think he just posted something.

 

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Krauss is a skeptic, a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Isn't an 'inclination' an emotion? Or an emotional attitude? I would think skepticism has an emotional component to it. 

 

I disagree, midniterider.

Both Krauss and Polkinghorne are scientists and it's a matter of professional integrity for scientists to be sceptical about everything and to take nothing on faith.   By definition science is agnostic about all religious, supernatural and theological matters.  So, scientific scepticism is not a matter of inclination or emotional attitude.  It's part and parcel of the job.  If you want to be a scientist and to do science then you must leave your emotional baggage at the door and be properly sceptical, taking nothing on faith.

 

 

 

 

I'm too tired to find a petty point to disagree with atm. You win. lol.