Risk Analysis

Rav said:
In the end it does indeed mean that my faith wouldn't be genuine because I would need to sustain it artificially, and I would know that I was doing it.
Click to expand...

Or simply the time came for you where you were faced with the option to "upgrade" your faith, or stagnate (and eventually leave).

It seems you came somewhere to Stage 4 on the Fowler scala ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_stages_of_faith_development ), but didn't go into it fully, perhaps because your life was otherwise so comfortable so there seemed to be no impetus to move on.

I suppose you can wait for the sky to fall down, or make a concentrated effort ahead.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
I think Pascals Wager is not a proof of God per se. To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"
Click to expand...

What do I have to lose by doing... what? Willing myself to believe in Christianity?

I waver between two opinions on the possibility of doing that.

Sometimes I doubt whether it's possible for me to volutarily will myself to believe anything. My beliefs seem to be involuntary cognitive responses to my having been convinced somehow.

Other times I suspect that maybe I could make some mysterious inner movement and will myself to believe...anything at all. Perhaps I could start believing that space-aliens are inside my walls are talking to me with voices that only I can hear. That path scares me to death because it seems to lead direct to madness.

So that's one thing that I could possibly lose: my sanity.
 
Yazata said:
Other times I suspect that maybe I could make some mysterious inner movement and will myself to believe...anything at all. Perhaps I could start believing that space-aliens are inside my walls are talking to me with voices that only I can hear. That path scares me to death because it seems to lead direct to madness.

So that's one thing that I could possibly lose: my sanity.
Click to expand...

um..
this assume a 'once i believe it,it is set in stone' type thinking..
this couldn't be farther from the truth..

belief changes as more data comes in,
the immovability of a belief is just ones own conviction of how true the belief is.
(or an attempt to conform to a particular groups influence)(or results of an issue of worth)
either way, to believe in some thing, does not mean you will never 'not believe' it, it is a choice, not a feeling, and as such it is a choice we make everyday,
i choose to believe in God, everyday and every minute i make that choice, there is always a chance that someday i will choose NOT to believe in God, but i have learned, the more you choose him, the easier it is to choose him..
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy.
Click to expand...

As an atheist, I would not say that. Christianity is a religion whose theology includes eternal punishment for transgressors against God - the "something you have to lose" for not believing - so there is no real tension introduced by citing fear as a motivator to belief there. If someone believes that he will be horribly punished for disbelief, and wants to avoid that outcome, then pursuing some reglion to that end is exactly consistent.
 
mind/matter said:
Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy.
Click to expand...
I would say that real fear is evidence of some level of real belief - proof of a lack of hypocrisy.

As far as what a person has to lose: even a casual perusal of history can impress the inexperienced with the miseries inflicted upon societies, or supported in their infliction, by false beliefs. So the betrayal of my neighbors is one of the things I risk by joining or supporting a system of false beliefs. While ensuring the safety of my own imagined soul at the expense of my tribe and society may seem a good bet, it is not a very comfortable one.
 
Signal said:
I am strongly against the current anti-bullying trends because I think they actually weaken people. And as a matter of private outlook, I think being bullied (in any way) is ultimately good for a person. One has to learn to survive in a dog-eat-dog world and this won't happen with all the pampering of the anti-bullying campaigns.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are correct. Do you have the conviction to stand by your own words?

Signal said:
However, the danger of making such a view public is that many people tend to see it as a call to bullying, to saying "It's not that I hit him too much, it's that his bones are too soft."
And this is certainly not what I intend.
Click to expand...
Or shall you vacillate?

Signal said:
I certainly do not condone being harsh to people in the name of God.
Click to expand...
And ultimately capitulate?

Signal said:
But if someone is being harsh to one in the name of God, one needs to rise above that, for one's own sake, instead of enduring being a victim.
Click to expand...
Are there more than two sides of L. victor?

If neither victor nor victim, what alternative were you contemplating?
victor

Definition: winner
Antonyms: loser
Click to expand...
Perhaps you envision a "benevolent" winner?

Or maybe a "malevolent" loser?

Would either alternative sway your position on "being harsh to one in the name of God"?

What other choice is there? Innocent bystander?

Victory refers especially to the final defeat of an enemy or opponent: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be" (Winston S. Churchill). Conquest connotes subduing, subjugating, or achieving control over: "Conquest of illiteracy comes first" (John Kenneth Galbraith). Triumph denotes a victory or success that is especially noteworthy because it is decisive, significant, or spectacular: preaching the eventual triumph of good over evil.

:shrug:
 
Mind Over Matter said:
You're assuming that once you choose to wager that God exists, you would go through the rest of your life without genuine faith, without a growing, evolving faith. That position fails to recognize what the wager actually is. The wager doesn't infer that you have a solitary utterance or fleeting thought of believing, and that's it. The wager is to concede that God probably does exist, and then to live out the remainder of your life truly seeking Him. God takes care of the rest. It is your seeking that needs to be genuine. God rewards those who truly seek Him, and promises that you will find Him.
Click to expand...
Any citation from Pascal available here?
 
iceaura said:
As far as what a person has to lose: even a casual perusal of history can impress the inexperienced with the miseries inflicted upon societies, or supported in their infliction, by false beliefs. So the betrayal of my neighbors is one of the things I risk by joining or supporting a system of false beliefs. While ensuring the safety of my own imagined soul at the expense of my tribe and society may seem a good bet, it is not a very comfortable one.
Click to expand...

Even without going that far - just keeping it in the realm of purely personal gain and loss - the adherent loses time, energy, money, etc. by devoting such to the pursuit of a religion.

Given my estimates of the odds, I'd rather run the risk of eternal damnation, than wake up on Sunday mornings for the rest of my life, to put it concretely.
 
NMSquirrel said:
if God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time thinking about something that doesn't exist?:p
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Good point, and I would like to answer your question. It's not so much that I think about god per se, but I give more thought to the people who believe in god, and why.
 
NMSquirrel said:
um..
this assume a 'once i believe it,it is set in stone' type thinking..
this couldn't be farther from the truth..
Click to expand...

In my experience, the way many theists describe theistic beliefs, it seems precisely like "once and for all, set in stone, endure to the end" kind of thing.


i choose to believe in God, everyday and every minute i make that choice, there is always a chance that someday i will choose NOT to believe in God, but i have learned, the more you choose him, the easier it is to choose him
Click to expand...

I think it's like this with everything.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
When one does the "risk analysis" one must take into account the old adage sometimes refered to as Pascals Wager. While athiests discredit ro ignore it completely the fact is that God not only recognizes it but uses it to help many begin their journey.
Click to expand...

Phrasing the topic like this is a set-up. It presumes the Absolute Truth is known to the speaker and relatively easily knowable for everyone else.
This is patronizing, and it makes actual discussion impossible.
 
Signal said:
If one sets out to defeat others, one has already been defeated.
Click to expand...
While this sounds like Sun Tzu, I am totally unable to find the reference. Could you provide the citation please?

After all, it's an art...
 
Mind Over Matter said:
I think Pascals Wager is not a proof of God per se. To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"
Click to expand...

Gambling and sensibility are mutually exclusive.

If appealing to others, one ought to appeal to the best in them, not the worst.

Atheists often have plenty of interest in God, but theists don't seem to be all that good in building on that.
Which wouldn't be so much of a problem, were it not that theists are the ones claiming to be right and having the superior knowledge.
 
Randwolf said:
While this sounds like Sun Tzu, I am totally unable to find the reference. Could you provide the citation please?

After all, it's an art...
Click to expand...

I have only heard it as a "Chinese proverb" so far. But I don't think the reference is important here, as I think the point stands on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top