What if you were wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

I often try to convince others that their religion doesn't make sense and that they should stop believing into it. I'm not very proud of it but I can't help it when someone starts this topic. Although my arguments are good even intelligent persons don't seem to react to it. I try to understand their behavior. Maybe it's just so fundamental for them that they don't question it. Maybe they even realize that they are wrong but can't accept it.

If someone would give you a good reason why the things you believed in are wrong, could you handle it? (Doesn't have to be your religion)

It depended on what I was proven wrong about.

On minor issues, I think I could change my mind.

On larger issues, I will often defer a decision until I come up with a rebuttal, and then change if I can't rebut without sacrificing a more fundamental belief.

On issues more fundamental, I will often try to rationalize myself around the matter, or even kind of ignore the criticism as I have no idea of how to deal with the issue in any positive manner. I will probably bite bullets until I recognize that the system has outright broken beyond my ability to improve it, and only then try to change as best I can by rejecting positions in the order of how unimportant they are.

I don't know how that answer works, and I don't know if my response is considered "handling it" to any great extent. I doubt I am worse than most individuals though, given that I have undertaken major shifts in belief, and likely have done so more frequently than most people.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 12 Aug 2010, 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We all make mistakes.

ruveyn

I meant fundamental issues.

Until I was 6 I believed that everything on earth was created, that dead people are just somewhere else and that a higher power would punish those who did bad things and help those who need help. But then my father told me about the sun and planets and that the sun will burn the earth one day. I concluded that I don't have a reason to live anymore because everything I do would be destroyed by the sun anyway. I cried for one week and then I accepted the world as it is: Without heaven, without fairness, without deeper meaning.

However I don't think I'm flexible enough to do this a second time. And how could I make fun of religious people with a clear conscience when I know that I'm not able to accept the truth myself if it would differ from what I'm used to.

I'm often presented with good reasons why the things I believe in are wrong. When I'm in that position I will usually start debating the individual. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. If their arguments are powerful enough I might change my beliefs.

.

Well, I think that questioning is good for someone who is well-grounded in their faith. I've come to understand that not everything I was taught as a child on spiritual matters are really accurate, so I'm given to deep Bible reading and study as of late. My approach in general of the more "solo scriptura" variety, reading the Bible from cover to cover. I'm not ready for deeper philosophical questioning yet, nor am I ready to confront more theological issues, but perhaps one day I'll go in that direction as well. What I HAVE enjoyed on the PPR forum are the kinds of challenges others, particularly atheists, have against the Christian faith, and I'm finding (in my opinion, anyway), that the real rejection of Christianity appears to fall within the authority that it claims to have as well as an overall displeasure with organized religion in general. At first glance, one is tempted with wholesale rejection of Christian faith, but deeper inquiry reveals other motives for misplaced sentiment justified with fallacious argument.

As far as being wrong goes, I'm not afraid of being wrong. I can admit that there are realms of my beliefs and background that are lacking, and this point in my life is a good time to try to cover all the bases and discover what and where those holes are. As to the greater picture of whether believing in Jesus is right or wrong, I like the "God Wager" of Blaise Pascal. If I believe in God and there IS no God, then I lose nothing. If I don't believe in God and there IS a God, I lose everything.

Is the "solo" intentional, or did you mean "sola"? Sola scriptura means "solely scripture". "Solo scriptura" seems to mean I study scripture alone, but it is just a combination of different terms.


Are you calling my arguments fallacious?


Does Pascal's Wager apply to Islam? Even further, what possible Gods are to be admitted? For instance, let's say that there is a God, and this God believes in intellectual honesty as the real value of high importance? Is this impossible? Is this less believable than the Christian God? If it is possible, and if it is also believable, then wouldn't this destroy the Pascal's wager simply by counter-balancing Christian theology with a "rationalist" theology? Thus, wouldn't this destroy Pascal's wager?

I've changed many of my beliefs - when I am presented with evidence that proves I am wrong, I have no trouble accepting it. It seems more rational to be right than to be stubborn and wrong.

Ditto.

I usually not adverse to changing my ideas.

This "good reason" would have to come in the form of actual evidence. I do not consider argument to be evidence, regardless of how logical it seems.

You're right, it is an interesting misspelling. Glad you caught it. What I meant was "sola," not "solo." But I guess "solo" works, too, because my study of the Bible is a purely independent, self-guided one. My position is that I'm not really going to be a very good study of theology/philosophy if I don't first understand the textual source. I think that some people make the mistake of studying extra-Biblical sources FIRST and make their criticisms of Christianity based on what one theologian or another said. I think we have to assume the inerrancy of the Bible while understanding a greater potential for error among scholars and "critics." As an example of what I'm talking about, take the concept of the Trinity. MOST Christians are trinitarian while a few are unitarian. Trinitarian beliefs are essential to the doctrine of most denominations, but somehow there are those trinitarians who will get hung up in irrelevant arguments concerning the Trinity. The plain fact is that the "Trinity" is never once mentioned in the New Testament. Some denominations are deeply offended by the idea of a "three-headed God" and will make a slick challenge to trinitarians to find mention of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is SUPPORTED by the Bible, but only as a general observation of the Three Persons of God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--that at once are separate entities and yet the same. I believe most sensible trinitarians accept that as a mystery that cannot be easily explained.

Your arguments fallacious? I don't recall naming names...

Your other questions: That's assuming that all religions are equal or that all gods are equal. I don't base all my thinking or faith on a single philosopher as you know, but Pascal's wager is something many of us hear about even as teenagers. Pity that it isn't persuasive for more people.

To be brief and plain, Christ/Christianity does not make the same claims as other religions. We all share the same basic ethical codes and wisdom. Christianity is the only one that emphasizes the need for atonement and the provision for that atonement in the person of Jesus. The focus within Islam is that of an impersonal god who will grant an eternity in his presence to those especially good Moslems, the ones who "measure up" or who were better than all the other Moslems. My experience as a musician has taught me that no matter how good I am (where I live, I'm the best at what I do), SOMEONE will always be better. So I have to say I reject the idea of a God who casually throws away all those who "didn't make callbacks."

Your argument was "If it is possible." Well, sure, IF it's possible, it destroys Pascal's wager. I don't believe that it IS possible, however. The problem of a God who believes in intellectual honesty as the real value of high importance is that it's contradictory to the qualifications for eternal life. God places human beings as the real value of high importance. It is only our nature that separates us from God, and God's desire is to reconcile Himself to us, which is accomplished in the blood of the Son. It is, therefore, faith and acceptance that "wins" the wager.

Just a quick note on intellectual honesty: Assuming there is a god who values "intellectual honesty," we have to ask "What IS 'intellectual honesty'?" Is it defined in human terms or in Divine terms? How are we to know exactly what that is? If God values "rationalism" above all else, how are we to know what is "rational"? Is it only what is arrived at through logic? Are we talking about inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning? Both? Objectivism or Subjectivism? Does intellectual honesty constitute the entire body of work of human wisdom or only certain specific areas? How are we to know? Does intellectual honesty encompass human intellect alone, Divine intellect alone, or both? Are human beings truly completely honest? Are we perfectly honest? I don't believe we are, even at our best. If God is intellectually honest, and perfectly so, then God sets the standard. So how knowable is that standard? Is it completely knowable or partially knowable? If it is completely knowable, then God, at some point, had to clue us into knowable truth in its entirety. If God held back some truth for our own safety and protection, then truth is NOT knowable in its completeness--ergo SOME truths are absolute and can be known with little or no doubt, while other truths appear hazy and require decisions and judgment on our part.

If we don't have a line to what God's intellectual honesty is, then we are a "little bit" in the dark and just enough to be in error ourselves. If so, none of us can possible enter the kingdom of heaven. So basing intellectual honesty on what God says it is fails.

What we have left is our own intellectual honesty. But here again, who's to say what that even is? Two people who are "intellectually honest," each by his own standards, can possibly disagree and debate. Each argument fails equally against the other because neither participant is willing to lower/raise or change that standard. A solution might be to find an impartial moderator. But even if a moderator's standards are agreed upon by the participants, how do we know that the moderator's standards are correct? You could have a moderating panel with an odd number of judges, but even then there's room for disagreement. You could appeal to majority, playing off the emotions of an audience prone to giving in to fallacious argumentation, personality, and other tactics, but that isn't really intellectually honest or objective, is it?

So human reasoning fails.

The ONLY way one may become reconciled with God is through God reconciling Himself to us. Only through faith can we take the one step required of us to make that reconciliation complete. There is no need for any kind of "academic" intellectual honesty, holding EVERYONE to some kind of standard that very few people beyond college professors actually understand and cling to. There is no need to question it or argue it (you CAN question it, I'm just saying it isn't necessary). It is accessible to any mind regardless of specific disciplines at any level.

And this is a feature you don't really find anywhere else. It requires some kind of decision. If Islam is correct, then I'm probably going to Hell anyway because no matter how good I try to be, I doubt it's even possible for me to measure up. On the other hand, if I AM good enough, regardless of whether my belief is correct or not, then Allah ought to accept me with the others. Imagine the outrage--an "infidel" walking among lifelong Moslems when they know good and well some of their friends didn't make it.

If Buddhism or Hinduism are correct, then I have nothing to worry about anyway because either 1) living a Christlike life and worshiping God will lead to enlightenment, casting off my karma and leaving the circle to become one with the cosmos, or 2) I'll just come back and start this whole thing over, MAYBE among people who believe differently and will help me find what is truly the path to enlightenment. There's a lot of wisdom in Buddha, even for the Christian.

Given those things and how much of them are either unknown or unknowable, Pascal's Wager is a safe, calculated risk, and one that is worth taking.

david-k,

I can't help feeling that you are stuck in a binary state where a person must either: a) buy into the entiry mythological belief structure of their religion; or b) give up their religious belief.

I think the spectrum of human belief, culture and behaviour allows for much more nuance.

I do not believe in a personified deity that is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. I do not believe in "intelligent design." I do not believe that the sun stopped in the sky at the seige of Jericho or that a woman named Eve was created from the rib of a man named Adam.

But even without the faith in the supernatural, my religion provides me with a real, cultural link to my coreligionists. Next month, everwhere in the world Jews will gather and hear the shofar. I don't believe that a deity created the world 5 771 years ago, but I do believe that our traditions of asking forgiveness from our neighbours, and giving forgiveness to others for the wrongs done to us is a very good thing. I don't believe that my fate will be sealed in a book on Yom Kippur but I do believe that it is a very good thing for me to reflect on what I have done over the past year and look for ways to improve myself.

Similarly, a Roman Catholic might not believe in transubstantiation, or any literal consequence of absolution; but that same person might feel that the act of confession, and the participation in a communal ritual provides a certain reinforcement to becoming a "better" person.

Perhaps it's a placebo effect, but it's no less valuable for that.

"At first glance, one is tempted with wholesale rejection of Christian faith, but deeper inquiry reveals other motives for misplaced sentiment justified with fallacious argument. "

Basically, you seem to suggest that all people who attack the faith have misplaced sentiment and fallacious argument.


Pascal's wager doesn't engage in a lot of claims about what is likely to be true so much as the consequences of being wrong. The issue is that there are a *lot* of possibilities for being wrong.


I know it doesn't make the same claims as other religions. I am not sure that you've shown the Islamic conception of faith to be a dead option, or even pragmatically a bad choice to believe in. In any case, I doubt that the issue is just comparison, but rather just works-based salvation, in which a person is saved by doing well, not by doing well compared to X individuals. Even further, the notion that actions can be meritorious or negative isn't such a strange idea that it disproves anything, but rather, most notions of justice rely on this idea. And, well, what about pre-Christian Jews? It seems that they didn't have an atoning sacrifice, but presumably their notion of God was valid, as it had to be valid for Christianity to emerge from it, so to say that a Jewish God is invalid is to say that the current Christian God also has to be invalid.


How is it contradictory? I mean, it seems to me that you are assuming Christianity to prove Christianity, but the problem is that this doesn't remove any possibility from the scheme of possible gods. Really, eternal life could logically be granted by any value, so arguing that value X fails seems problematic.


One, as terms go: intellectual honesty isn't one of the most confusing ones, at all.

To answer your objections though:
1) It doesn't actually matter whether it is divine terms or not(given that the thought experiment is about different possible gods, so we could assume *both*), however, the example would have clearly been "human terms", the reason being that human terminology is the only terminology that we know of and any "divine terminology" is at best only somewhat analogous to the human terms, but it isn't those things. Given that I was just using plain terminology, it is more reasonable to think that I am talking about what most people consider as "intellectual honesty", rather than making up a wholly new concept.
2) As I said before, this isn't one of the more confusing terms, so "how do we exactly know what it is", seems a bit silly. As such, I don't see the rest of your digression as particularly valuable. It's rather basic that "intellectual honesty" refers to good-natured efforts to find truth, and good-natured human efforts to deal with bias, and to be open to other ideas.
3) It wouldn't matter whether there is a given line or not. If something is virtuous, then it is good to do, and so those who are virtuous/act according to what is right might presumably naturally cross that line to be saved.


Um.... people do. Clearly. Because they use the word "intellectual honesty" and they understand what is meant by this. If they didn't understand what the word meant, then nobody could use it, and if nobody used it, the concept wouldn't even exist. The concept exists, ergo, there is a meaning for the word that can be used in interpersonal dialog.

Intellectual honesty doesn't mean full agreement on all details. It is arguable that the ideal would lead to this, but that is disputed anyway. The best idea I've heard that honest individuals cannot dispute is Aumann's agreement theorem, which argues that actors using bayesian reasoning have to agree. The issue is that the applicability seems a matter of some question. That being said.... I don't think you've actually refuted the concept of intellectual honesty, as it is usually considered more a matter of "virtue" than outcome. So, it makes no more sense to say that people who claim to be intellectually honest may disagree in practice, therefore intellectual honesty is indeterminate/non-existent, than it does to say that people who claim to be brave might not enter burning buildings to save lives, therefore bravery doesn't exist.


Ok, but if human reasoning fails, then how do you know that you've credibly dismissed a notion of god requiring intellectual honesty? Could it not be that your reasoning on the matter fails? In fact, if human reasoning fails about any notion of deity, then it still seems to me that you can't actually refute any other possible notion of a source of salvation, which means that Pascal's Wager fails, as you now have too many options to reasonably side with one due to the game-theoretic rationale.


You mean if Christianity is true. Besides, you know it couldn't have applied to pre-Christian beliefs, meaning that either Judaism is incoherent, which it can't be, as it had to be true at one point for Christianity to be true. Or that it is coherent, and that all of your efforts have been sophistry.


You don't know that it isn't possible. Even further, who is to say that Allah has to accept you if you are good but lack faith? It could be, and I think it is, that Allah requires both.(Note: I do think that he makes exceptions for Christians, but ONLY if they do not believe in the trinity)


Well, I have my doubts. It really just seems to me that you'll take any line of reasoning, and be skeptical towards anything so long as it justifies your current belief, even if the measures you go to seem outright absurd to anybody who doesn't hold to your position, and possibly even people who do.

The problem is that, well.... if intellectual honesty can't exist, then how do you come to the objective conclusion that Pascal's Wager, only if applied to Christianity, is valid? Either you have to say that you are intellectually honest, which refutes your earlier skepticism towards human reasoning, or you have to say that you are dishonest, which should lead us to be skeptical of the decisions you made to set up the game-theoretic model, and your rationales for excluding a lot of different notions of God that are logically possible.

Ok, but how is it a religion if there is nothing really religious about it. How is talking about your "real, cultural link" any different than the real cultural link that bonds people who enjoy football. I mean, the traditions of "team spirit", "mutual celebration", and so on and so forth lack any supernatural as well, but how do we distinguish between the two conditions if not by the presence of supernatural claims?

In it together topic

For some, religion is a cultural thing. I tried this approach years ago, and it became somewhat of aspecial interest, an offshoot of my interest in Victorian history. I still have the special interest but the foray into spiritual living and church going fell by the wayside. My sensible rational self just could no longer buy into it.