The Dilemma of the Believer

@rosborne979,

It seems to me that you did limit your interpretation to the strict meaning of hiw words. My response and Fresco's response were both based on the issue of a predisposition to believe a god is possible, and i think it fair to say that Snood either misses the point, or chooses to ignore it. What one is prepared to believe, or not prepared to believe, is germane here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hmmm, possibly. I'll have to think about it more. But at the moment I have my three year old daughter pulling on my foot and needing attention Smile

1 Reply

I know the feeling. I have a 14 year old dog treading on my feet.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Imagine yourself as secure in the knowledge of the reality of that visitation. What do you think you would do? I see that as sort of the dilemma of the believer.

Even if I was emotionally secure in the knowledge that the visitation was real, I would intellectually know that this sense of security cannot be trusted. (I have been secure in the knowledge of other things, too, only to be proven wrong later anyway.)

But I don't want to dodge your question. If I did have clear and persuasive evidence, then of course I would share that story with other, along with the evidence supporting it. But clear and persuasive evidence requires more than just a feeling. Someone turning water into blood like Moses (under laboratory conditions), or someone reviving a corpse that already smelled, like Jesus, would do it.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Seems to me Rosborne, your use of the word “believe” in the post Snood thanked you for--seems a bit misplaced. So do the several other uses of the word...considering the context of Snood's hypothetical.

If someone punches you in the nose…you do not have to “believe” you were punched in the nose…you KNOW you were punched in the nose. If you are sitting at your keyboard typing…you do not have to “believe” you are sitting at your keyboard typing…you KNOW you are at your keyboard typing.

If a GOD exists…and if that GOD decided to reveal ITSELF to you in an unambiguous and absolutely certain way (as Snood’s hypothetical suggests)…you would not have to “believe” the GOD exists…you would know with dead certainty that the GOD exists. You really wouldn't have to be dealing with talking about "beliefs" at all.

I realize that some people think I make that “believe” distinction too often and that it is of no consequences, but as soon as your daughter lets go of your foot, perhaps you could consider my observation and see if you can see any significance to it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

snood wrote:
Imagine yourself as secure in the knowledge of the reality of that visitation. What do you think you would do? I see that as sort of the dilemma of the believer.

Even if I was emotionally secure in the reality of the visitation, I would intellectually know that this sense of security cannot be trusted. (I have been secure in the knowledge of other things, too, only to be proven wrong later.)

But I don't want to dodge your question. If I did have clear and persuasive evidence --- someone turning water into blood like Moses (under laboratory conditions), or someone reviving a corpse that already smelled, like Jesus --- of course I would share that story with others. And the evidence supporting it.

Thanks, Thomas.

But I have to point out that my scenario necessarily excludes any aspects of hard empirical evidence, and centers instead on a personal conviction that the tremendous experience had indeed occured.

In any case, since you were generous enough to accomodate the parts of my hypothetical that violate strict intellectual interpretation, can I impose further on you, to speculate about what your motives would be to share your experience?

Do you think you would feel obligated to talk about it, out of some sort of altruism?

1 Reply

I didn't answer the question? I guess answers are in the eyes of the beholder, then.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I believe the experience is real. We would disagree as to interpretation, so it depends how he lives with the experience. If it is important to the person to never be contradicted, said person would be wise to avoid gatherings where doubters and unbelievers discuss/argue such things. I for one can let him have his belief, uncontested, so long as it is not insisted upon that I must share the belief. Looking at it from my side, I have one sister, whom I love. But, on facebook, she constantly posts articles insulting to atheists. Not arguments or calls for dialog. Hateful put-downs. I try to ignore it, but occasionally have to speak up, merely to remind her who one of those hated atheists happens to be.

You did answer the question ed. Sorry for overlooking. I think what happened was, since you didn't answer with what YOU would do if YOU had the 'God experience' YOURSELF, I sort of went on to the next reply.

1 Reply

@snood,

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

But I have to point out that my scenario necessarily excludes any aspects of hard empirical evidence, and centers instead on a personal conviction that the tremendous experience had indeed occured.

Well, as I read your hypothetical, there are two parts to it: One, a powerful experience has convinced me that god is for real. Two, given that I am convinced that god is for real, should I talk about it with other people?

My answer to the first part is that personal experiences are treacherous. No matter how powerful they were and how sincerely they were felt, they shouldn't convince anyone of anything.

My answer to the second part is that, sure, I would talk about it with other people. My motivation would be twofold: First, true or false, it's an interesting story, and people like to swap interesting stories. Second, if god really existed, that would be an enormously fascinating and important truth about the universe. And being a scientist by training, I find the truth about the universe very important.

That said, I would fully expect my conversation partners to question my standards of evidence and to suggest that my conclusions are honestly mistaken. And they would be right, at least about the first part.

Snood wrote:

Do you think you would feel obligated to talk about it, out of some sort of altruism?

No, not altruism. As I said, my motivation would be to swap interesting stories, which is win-win, not altruism.

0 Replies

If I actually met God or had a convincing experience I'd open my own church and get as rich as I could. Praise be.

0 Replies

@snood,

If I may ask you a question back: What's the big dilemma, and how is it specific to religion?

While I don't believe in deities, there are other beliefs I hold firmly. I haven't been shy about sharing them, on A2K or elsewhere. In return, some of my correspondents have liberally shared with me their belief that I'm nuts. I never felt there was any particular dilemma in engaging in these discussions, knowing there would be back-talk. These things just go that way. Why should religious convictions be different from any other kind?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If I may ask you a question back: What's the big dilemma, and how is it specific to religion?

To be fair, I haven't tried to characterize the dilemma as relatively bigger or smaller than another dilemma. Nor have I refered or alluded to any specificity about dilemmas. A dilemma is simply a situation in which a person has to make a difficult decision between two or more alternatives. The dilemma of the person in my scenario is (IMO) whether or not to repattern his whole life based on the visitation he experienced.

Quote:

While I don't believe in deities, there are other beliefs I hold firmly. I haven't been shy about sharing them, on A2K or elsewhere. In return, some of my correspondents have liberally shared with me their belief that I'm nuts. I never felt there was any particular dilemma in engaging in these discussions, knowing there would be back-talk. These things just go that way. Why should religious convictions be different from any other kind?

Mind you its just an opinion. I think that belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God (however one chooses to understand God) is the most basic and central of convictions; one that arguably connects to every other aspect of life.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Mind you its just an opinion. I think that belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God (however one chooses to understand God) is the most basic and central of convictions; one that arguably connects to every other aspect of life.

Fair enough. Since your answer included disbelief, I will say that I don't usually talk about my absence of beliefs in any gods unless somebody else brings it up first. (Usually this somebody is Christians talking about their beliefs. Littlek's Atheism thread is an exception to this rule.) The reason isn't one of etiquette or of avoiding a fight; it's just that my lack of belief in any gods isn't terribly important to me. There are many things that I'm not, and "a believer in god" is just one of them. I'm busy enough taking a stand for the relatively few things that I am; taking a stand for the myriad things I am not would amount to a colossal waste of my time.

I am, however, quite vocal about my convictions on ethics and on the nature of knowledge. Although these convictions are fundamental to my worldview, I consider push-backs from people who think differently to be par for the course. They don't rise to the level of a dilemma for me.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

snood wrote:
Mind you its just an opinion. I think that belief (or disbelief) in the existence of God (however one chooses to understand God) is the most basic and central of convictions; one that arguably connects to every other aspect of life.

Fair enough. Since your answer included disbelief, I will say that I don't usually talk about my absence of beliefs in any gods unless somebody else brings it up first. (Usually this somebody is Christians talking about their beliefs. Littlek's Atheism thread is an exception to this rule.) The reason isn't one of etiquette or of avoiding a fight; it's just that my lack of belief in any gods isn't terribly important to me. There are many things that I'm not, and "a believer in god" is just one of them. I'm busy enough taking a stand for the relatively few things that I am; taking a stand for the myriad things I am not would amount to a colossal waste of my time.

I am, however, quite vocal about my convictions on ethics and on the nature of knowledge. Although these convictions are fundamental to my worldview, I consider push-backs from people who think differently to be par for the course. They don't rise to the level of a dilemma for me.

I understand what you are saying. The "dilemma" I'm referring to is not defined by the existence of opposition, or by the strength thereof. I see the "dilemma" as more of an internal phenomenon. To wit: do I now (after the visitation in my hypothetical) fashion the rest of my life as an acknowledgement of the magnitude of the visit (spreading the news, battling the falsehood of unbelief, endeavoring to seek the lasting meaning of the visit...)?

3 Replies

@snood,

It depends on one's character, but, I imagine it would become a focal point to some, in the sense it would transcend or replace other aspects of character. Maybe make one over into a saint-like person.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

The "dilemma" I'm referring to is not defined by the existence of opposition, or by the strength thereof. I see the "dilemma" as more of an internal phenomenon. To wit: do I now (after the visitation in my hypothetical) fashion the rest of my life as an acknowledgement of the magnitude of the visit (spreading the news, battling the falsehood of unbelief, endeavoring to seek the lasting meaning of the visit...)?

Part of your dilemma, I think, is how you've defined a "Believer". Traditionally, in Abrahamic religions God is defined in a certain way in a particular codification or scripture. In other traditions, God is defined in other ways and codified in different scripture. So, part of your dilemma is that you have a definition of God prior to your experience. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about your experience. Mystics the world over have had experiences with what they describe as The Divine, Divine Mystery, God, and many other names. If you were in India and said you had been in the presence of God you probably would receive a smile and slight bow while the person you said it to was thinking, "We're all in the presence of God and with practice you'll repeat your experience many times over."

I think your dilemma is only a dilemma in the construct of your own belief.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

So, part of your dilemma is that you have a definition of God prior to your experience.

This is what Snood completely fails to take on board--that someone has to have a predisposition to believe not just in the possibility of a god, but in the deity of which Snood thinks. It's the great flaw in his alleged hypothetical, and he just doesn't see it. So, for example, in his response to EB he writes:

Quote:

. . . spreading the news, battling the falsehood of unbelief, endeavoring to seek the lasting meaning of the visit . . .

Which means that no matter what the experience is, Snood is prepared to assert that an interpretation which posits a god is valid, that the person having the experience, and interpreting it as god, cannot possibly be mistaken--hence drivel like "the falsehood of unbelief." Snood is completely incapable of seeing this from anyone else's perspective. He wants to insist on his world view, and that those who don't espouse it are false.

1 Reply

snood wrote:

To wit: do I now (after the visitation in my hypothetical) fashion the rest of my life as an acknowledgement of the magnitude of the visit (spreading the news, battling the falsehood of unbelief, endeavoring to seek the lasting meaning of the visit...)?

I didn't answer this. If it was me I'd just embrace the experience and try to reproduce it. Why do you think the eastern religions have such an appeal to westerners who study them? It's because they encourage practices that result in the very experience of your hypothetical.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

JPB wrote:
So, part of your dilemma is that you have a definition of God prior to your experience.

This is what Snood completely fails to take on board--that someone has to have a predisposition to believe not just in the possibility of a god, but in the deity of which Snood thinks. It's the great flaw in his alleged hypothetical, and he just doesn't see it. So, for example, in his response to EB he writes:

Quote:
. . . spreading the news, battling the falsehood of unbelief, endeavoring to seek the lasting meaning of the visit . . .

Which means that no matter what the experience is, Snood is prepared to assert that an interpretation which posits a god is valid, that the person having the experience, and interpreting it as god, cannot possibly be mistaken--hence drivel like "the falsehood of unbelief." Snood is completely incapable of seeing this from anyone else's perspective. He wants to insist on his world view, and that those who don't espouse it are false.

What you're saying is not totally beyond me and does not totally escape me and I am not incapable of seeing things from another's perspective. To the substantive part of your critique - I would posit that a predisposition to accept the possibility of God is intrinsic to the construction of my hypothetical. I freely admit that it requires a small concession to that point just to discuss the hypothetical. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone.

0 Replies

The Dilemma of the Believer

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know