21–30 of 116 posts
"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They're objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good. If you think that the opinions in the box are 'who you are', then you'll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind."
.
However, I dislike this “act of faith” line of reasoning and find it disingenuous. In the Roman Catholic tradition, believing is an act of faith. There isn’t a “proof” so to speak for why one should believe in God, etc. That’s not to say there aren’t various reasons proposed by religious thinkers.
But to say that an atheist’s not believing in God is an act of faith in itself is strange to me. I think it’s sort of a mischaracterization of atheism. Not believing in God isn’t an act of faith. It’s declining to take that act of faith in the first place. Arguments about the influence science aren’t even necessary here.
As to my own beliefs, my position is to decline the leap of faith. I don’t believe in God, but neither do I rule out the possibility that there is a God, especially in a more pantheistic or possibilian sense (see David Eagleman).
I think it’s fair to say that science hasn’t explained everything about the universe yet. I think it’s presumptuous to argue otherwise.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s fair to say my lack of a leap is itself an act of faith.
...unless we want to go down the rabbit hole in which every thought or action is an act of faith...
.
It sounds like what you're talking about is Pascals Wager[0] The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. Therefore, any logical person ought to be a Christian, since the consequences of belief are net positive either way. Or so the thought goes. As a person of faith, I will say that this thought experiment is fairly f…
That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.
Good advice, albeit hard to accomplish. Identity is a core part of political party formation, at least in Europe (together with self-interest and ideology). No doubt it has an important role in marketing as well. I don't see these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems to gain importance if anything. However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and/or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like what you're talking about is Pascals Wager[0] The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. Therefore, any logical person ought to be a Christian, since the consequences of belief are net positive either way. Or so the thought goes. As a person of faith, I will say that this thought experiment is fairly f…
> The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.
.
I think when he talks about "identity" what he really means is unquestioning allegiances, preventing purely merit-based objective discussions on some issues. IOW when you have an angle in it, when you're in a discussion not to get to the truth of the matter, but to achieve certain goals you have, to influence others, to push them in a direction that is favorable to you (without being conscious of it, otherwise you're…
When someone self-identifies as a believer in religion X or political label Y, it is less easy to characterize their experience in the practice (usually harder than knowledge) of the community's exoteric and esoteric principles.
> As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums? Javascript has aged up I think!
Sadhguru a yogi, mystic, and visionary explains the problem of identity in a very profound way (for example in this google talks video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM ) he says our identity should be the whole universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.
.
I mean, obviously atheism is a pretty broad thing (just like "religion", or even "Christianity" encompasses many views).
But for a lot of people, the essence of atheism isn't about anything to do with final judgement. It's just... not believe that God exists. For lots of atheists, it's not a rebellion of anything like that. We don't believe in God in pretty much the same way you probably don't believe in Shiva.