Do you believe in God?

[Phanerothyme 12]

Ah well, I have reached the end of my devils advocacy there. Someone who actually believes in God might be better suited to carry this on.

 

To be honest, I just need to look at Cargo Cults to see that what Cyclone says is pretty much correct, regardless of any underlying philosophy. When the Duke of Edinburgh is worshipped as a God because he once appeared on a biscuit tin tells you all you need to know about the human psyche and its tendency to attribute the inexplicable to a higher authority. If you want to know what a Cargo Cult is, look up John Frum in google.

 

Whether you believe in God or not has very little to do with whether she exists or not; I don't believe in god any more than I believe in evil or absolutes of any kind.

 

So next question - if god exists how come so many people can't see it?

[Cyclone 10]

lol, these discussions are kinda fun, but ultimately pointless. I don't believe that i have ever converted someone away from their faith in god, nor is it possible that someone will ever convince me (through argument) to have faith.

If someone can demonstrate a miracle to me, i might consider it.

[Jamie 10]

Putting several (un-related) ideas in to the mix here ...

 

--@--

 

Isn't science about exploring and considering *ALL* avenues ... so in the interest of 'scientific completeness' you really should attend church and explore the possibility that science is a load of poo and that 'God' is actually real.

 

--@--

 

What is more important ... if your beliefs are 'right' (whatever 'right' is?) ... OR ... the effect that believing in your chosen beliefs has on your life!?

 

--@--

 

The title of this thread is 'Do you believe in God?' ... and as someone previously pointed out ... it is clearly a good idea to first define what 'God' is before taking the discussion further. But what about the 'believe' part of the question? ... What is 'believing'?

 

I would describe 'believing' as a human activity. Just like moving your arms / legs but on a more subtle level. Whatever you believe is the truth ... it's not ... it's just you exercising your 'believing muscles' and coming up with some fabrication / model of 'reality' in your own mind.

 

--@--

 

Another possibiliy is to abstain from the action of believing (and not believing) and to let yourself be (still). Although I am sure that is way to simple for most people ... hehe.

[Mattski 10]

Jamie,

 

This could get quite complicated but then this is a complex issue!

 

Building a set of definitions is certainly a good start. We also need to seperate out here belief (as in a set of beliefs, articles of faith) and believe (as in the conduit between an individual and the world)

 

For example, I believe that there is a computer in front of me because I can see and feel it.

 

And I hold the belief that some form of socialism could be a way of tackling world poverty even though this belief is untested.

 

And I believe that semantics may be the true barrier to understanding philosophical/metaphysical items (after reading early Wittgenstein and understanding his logic) but I still hold the belief that there are things yet to be learnt.

 

M

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by Jamie

Putting several (un-related) ideas in to the mix here ...

 

--@--

 

Isn't science about exploring and considering *ALL* avenues ... so in the interest of 'scientific completeness' you really should attend church and explore the possibility that science is a load of poo and that 'God' is actually real.

no, science is about making hypotheses based on the evidence we have, then using these to make predictions, then trying to prove the predictions wrong. If we consistenly fail to prove it wrong then we can call it a theory.

If there were something that science could measure (ie some evidence) for the existance of god, then i'm sure people would be designing measuring tools, making hypotheses and designing experiments to disprove them.

 

--@--

 

What is more important ... if your beliefs are 'right' (whatever 'right' is?) ... OR ... the effect that believing in your chosen beliefs has on your life!?

 

why does one have to be more important? Personally i'd rather know that my model of reality was the closest i could make, rather than it having comforting but huge errors in it.

 

--@--

 

The title of this thread is 'Do you believe in God?' ... and as someone previously pointed out ... it is clearly a good idea to first define what 'God' is before taking the discussion further. But what about the 'believe' part of the question? ... What is 'believing'?

according to the dictionary believing is "to accept as true or real".

So a belief in god means that (despite the lack of evidence) you have accepted as true the existance of god (however you personally define god).

 

I would describe 'believing' as a human activity. Just like moving your arms / legs but on a more subtle level. Whatever you believe is the truth ... it's not ... it's just you exercising your 'believing muscles' and coming up with some fabrication / model of 'reality' in your own mind.

well, yes, i suppose it's a function of language. Animals are incapable of lying (as far as i know) so they implicitly believe everything.

 

Actually that's not true. You can trick a dog into chasing a ball you didn't throw. The animal believes you threw it, by it anticipating you releasing the ball you've fooled it and it has accepted as true something that is incorrect. So of it goes like a fool looking for the ball (most amusing).

 

--@--

 

Another possibiliy is to abstain from the action of believing (and not believing) and to let yourself be (still). Although I am sure that is way to simple for most people ... hehe.

 

not accept it as true, nor decide that it is false. Not a natural state for humans to be in I'd think, we like to be clear on things one way or the other. But it's certainly possible to withhold judgement pending further evidence.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by Mattski

And I believe that semantics may be the true barrier to understanding philosophical/metaphysical items (after reading early Wittgenstein and understanding his logic) but I still hold the belief that there are things yet to be learnt.

 

M

 

Didn't Ludwig recant the whole "tractatus logico philosophicus"?

 

I think I've mentioned it to Jamie before, particularly the last statement in "Tractatus", which says "that which cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence" - which basically means its pointless to try and understand something that you cannot describe to yourself or someone else.

 

Kant first realised this too, earlier - that essentially talking about tables and chairs, algebra, the weather etc. is different to talking about the realm of thought and ideas. It's complex stuff, I never got to the bottom of it.

 

 

Phenomenological epistemology eh? You gotta larf aincha?

[Mattski 10]

Hey P,

 

Yep you're right, after 1945ish I think he moved beyond the idea of philosophy being just a set of linguistic puzzles.

 

What I was trying to demonstrate (obviously unsuccessfully!) is that we need to have clarity of meaning before we can embark upon such a difficult task as defining 'what is god' or more difficultly 'what is our perception of god'

 

Wittgenstein certainly developed interesting ideas on this theme but you're also right that these ideas are incredibly complex.

 

There are also some interesting points raised particularly by the likes of Russell about the nature of language and reality. A famous example is that of the golden mountain, the very mention of a non-existant object establishes its existence, in theory atleast.

 

Of course, this is utter nonsense and the mountain only exists because of our usage of language. I still believe that this is correct but doesn't cover the whole panoply of philosophical problems

 

But its an interesting case in view of religion, and perhaps this is why philosophy is the greatest threat to religion. It exposes the linguistic errors and semiotical tricks that are employed to further the cause of mysticism.

 

M

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by Mattski

There are also some interesting points raised particularly by the likes of Russell about the nature of language and reality. A famous example is that of the golden mountain, the very mention of a non-existant object establishes its existence, in theory atleast.

 

Of course, this is utter nonsense and the mountain only exists because of our usage of language.

 

That rings a bell. Even Russell found Wittgenstein impenetrable so I don't feel too bad about not reading most of tractatus (in fact I think most people, on being told it is a logical work from beginning to end, turn to the end to see what "the answer" is! lol)

 

And that is all tied in with the slippery ontological argument for the existence of god. There's another thread somewhere where all this has cropped up, now where is it?

[venger 10]

I have just watched `Raiders of the Lost Ark` and it turns out that Dr Jones found the `Ark of the Covenant`

 

God must be real!

[tots 10]

i don't. i think its all a pile of crap. if god didi excist then why does he let all the suffering go on. i beleive in guardian angels. they are more trustworthy

[raskel 10]

i believe in evolution!!! not all d god rubbish!!! please!!!

 

asif we came from adam n eve.....

[Cyclone 10]

don't start them of again, we'll get back to the literal scripture v's science explains everything except existance, therefore there must be a god.