Do believers really believe?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I KNOW there is a God. It is a truth to which I am intrinsically bound. I have communed with God and I will not deny it because intellectually it is unfashionable. The only evidence I can offer to support my knowledge is my life and a sincere willingness to change my nature. To contend with my knowledge you must contend with my life. And I assume no person, even you, is so arrogant as to suggest that they could walk in my shoes and truly understand me … that role was reserved for deity; the son of God, Jesus Christ.

Amen

No one has to walk in your shoes to say that you don't know there is a God. It's not a matter of your perception. You can't know there is a God, unless you severely mangle the conventional notion of what constitutes knowledge. Why is it so important that you "know" there is a God?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

In the context of religious faith, isn't this a distinction without a difference?

He's arguing that the difference is in how the two manifest themselves outwardly. If one truly believes, one acts upon that belief; if one only hopes, one is content to live disregarding whatever actions are implicitly required by the stated beliefs.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

No one has to walk in your shoes to say that you don't know there is a God. It's not a matter of your perception. You can't know there is a God, unless you severely mangle the conventional notion of what constitutes knowledge. Why is it so important that you "know" there is a God?

Why is it so important for you to tell me what I can and cannot know? What compels you to even begin to suggest that you can understand my experience and render judgement on said experience with little or no exposure to said experience?

The conventional notions of knowledge are:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things
....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

The only person doing the mangling is you. How can you 'know' I don't know when you ARE NOT aquainted with the facts, truths or principles etc. I am? It is a matter of perception ... the perception you lack!

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Why is it so important for you to tell me what I can and cannot know? What compels you to even begin to suggest that you can understand my experience and render judgement on said experience with little or no exposure to said experience?

The conventional notions of knowledge are:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things
....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

The only person doing the mangling is you. How can you 'know' I don't know when you ARE NOT aquainted with the facts, truths or principles etc. I am? It is a matter of perception ... the perception you lack!

tb, I love you, but methinks thou dost protest too much. If you know the Church to be true, then rest assured in that fact...and who cares what a couple of apostates think.

[ERCougar]

If we go with what Joseph Smith defined as a perfect testimony of God, i.e. there have only been a few who are capable of denying the Holy Ghost as only a few truly have a knowledge of it, then I'd say you're in pretty distinct company, tooblue.

I guess that assumes that you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet.

You're right in that it's not essential to me to know if you know. I'm just observing what I see as conflicting ideas (so many members claiming to "know" while J.S. teaching that few people know).

[ERCougar]

Sorry for the threadjack, BG. That's why I deleted my original post right after I posted it.

I do think the article is interesting in that it highlights the difference between how we act and how we claim to believe. I wouldn't say that necessarily denies our actual belief, or even tooblue's knowledge. It just speaks to our weakness as individuals more than anything else. If we all acted according to what we know, we would have no smokers, no fat people, no high school dropouts, etc. We're often just weak in the moment, particularly when dealing with long-term consequences (and is there anything more long-term than heaven?). It is inspiring, however, to reevaluate our daily actions to see if they're in accord with what we claim to believe.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sorry for the threadjack, BG. That's why I deleted my original post right after I posted it.

I do think the article is interesting in that it highlights the difference between how we act and how we claim to believe. I wouldn't say that necessarily denies our actual belief, or even tooblue's knowledge. It just speaks to our weakness as individuals more than anything else. If we all acted according to what we know, we would have no smokers, no fat people, no high school dropouts, etc. We're often just weak in the moment, particularly when dealing with long-term consequences (and is there anything more long-term than heaven?). It is inspiring, however, to reevaluate our daily actions to see if they're in accord with what we claim to believe.

I think this is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said, "blessed are those who believe yet have not seen."

If you think about the few people in the testaments who actually came face to face with the glory of the Almighty, first they were scared out of their minds, then they were energized to foresake everything for the sake of the call. Sure there are a few people who have been able to duplicate that kind of belief and commitment without (so far as we know) having "seen," but there is maybe one of those individuals every one or two generations.

I think the author is correct that the truest belief -- ideal belief -- necessitates action. But that level of belief is a gift that's exceedingly rare.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sorry for the threadjack, BG. That's why I deleted my original post right after I posted it.

I do think the article is interesting in that it highlights the difference between how we act and how we claim to believe. I wouldn't say that necessarily denies our actual belief, or even tooblue's knowledge. It just speaks to our weakness as individuals more than anything else. If we all acted according to what we know, we would have no smokers, no fat people, no high school dropouts, etc. We're often just weak in the moment, particularly when dealing with long-term consequences (and is there anything more long-term than heaven?). It is inspiring, however, to reevaluate our daily actions to see if they're in accord with what we claim to believe.

I generally agree with this. I think, ironically, this atheist gives human nature, including peole who "believe" in a pre-Enlightenment Judeo-Christian God, too much credit. First, most people live unexamined lives. Most people don't think critically. They don't questoin the fundamental premises of their lives. It's just not in them, or it's just too costly to do so and act upon such self-examination.

Second, the example he uses--that if Christians really believed millions of babies were being exterminated they would lay down their lives if necessary to try to stop it--is contrary to what history has shown about human nature. Just today I read the following from an essay by Ian Kershaw, Hitler's foremost biographer:

"The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference.... The general passivity which marked the most pervasive reaction—or perhaps one should say non-reaction—to the persecution and extermination of the Jews reflected above all the low level in the ranking of priorities which the fate of the Jews occupied in German consciousness.

"So far in history no other advanced society has experienced a collapse of collective moral consciousness and individual civil morality approximating to the steepness of the decline in Germany after 1933. It was above all the absence of a choice against evil."

The indifferent masses of German people weren't evil. They were just too worried about getting enough to eat, about their children's futures in war torn Germany, about loved ones on the front, about heating their homes, to give much thought or sacrifice to save the millions they knew were being exterminated, including children. My sense is the same thing is true about Christians who truly believe abortion is murder. They aren't going to revolt against government to stop it because they're distracted by their own immediate problems. They're indiffernt, but not because they don't believe it's murder.

That being said, I think non-sequitor got it right in responding to tooblue's gibberish. Outside of Mormonism's "I know. . ." culture, belief and faith are considered the realistic end of a commitment to spirituality; purporting to "know" a supernatural element is considered a self-deluded immaturity, or, as Barabara says, an ironic expression of insecure faith. I don't think this atheist makes any more convincing argument against the legitimacy of belief or faith than tooblue makes one for "KNOWING" God lives.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

He's arguing that the difference is in how the two manifest themselves outwardly. If one truly believes, one acts upon that belief; if one only hopes, one is content to live disregarding whatever actions are implicitly required by the stated beliefs.

That sounds nice but in my opinion is incorrect. In a group of people who believe, some will act on that belief all or most of the time and some seldom or never, and in that same group the entire range of action is possible not just for the group, but for each individual in the group depending on the issue or other competing factors in their lives.

This is at least as true for those who "merely hope" and my experience teaches me that hope is actually a more powerful motivator that knowledge since we all hear what we want to hear and act in conformance with our desires. Of course many are more cynical and won't act on their hopes, but again the full range is possible.

The premise argued is one that I think would be easy to arrive at if you had never experienced the realities and paradoxes of a life of faith on some level. This is what he imagines belief, as opposed to hope, would cause everyone to do but, as I say, I just think the premise is flatly wrong.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That being said, I think non-sequitor got it right in responding to tooblue's gibberish. Outside of Mormonism's "I know. . ." culture, belief and faith are considered the realistic end of a commitment to spirituality; purporting to "know" a supernatural element is considered a self-deluded immaturity, or, as Barabara says, an ironic expression of insecure faith. I don't think this atheist makes any more convincing argument against the legitimacy of belief or faith than tooblue makes one for "KNOWING" God lives.

Remarkably well put.