in general

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

sorry about the bad subject line, couldn’t think of anything better to say than that…

anyway, to all you people out there who simply don’t believe because you doubt the validity of any number of aspects about God, Christendom, etc, I have a point to establish with you, or rather discuss.

what do you think about this idea of doubting things, whether reasonably or unreasonably? because believe me (lol), I have heard many things that sounded reasonable, to the point of awe, but later shown to have certain things that were crucially false. also, some things that seem preposterous may very well be full of good logic. just lend me your thoughts.

I personally think doubt will neither prove nor disprove anything. but first i would like to know anyone else’s thoughts on this matter. thanks, and God bless.

2

Mind clarifying the question?

I’m not quite sure what you are asking.

3

Well, let’s see. I have heard it said by many people that they doubt the validity of the Bible, plain and simple, for whatever reasons. I am not debating those reasons, but simply asking a question.

That question regards the general idea of doubting such things, the Bible as an example, in their validity. My question is: what are your personal views on this idea, as I feel it accomplishes nothing, good or bad? Simply doubting whether something is true or not doesn’t prove you right or the other wrong, all it does is say you don’t believe that that particular something is true. I want to know anyone else’s opinions on this idea of just doubting what contradicts you. This applies to both theists and atheists alike.

4

Having a general skepticism about claims of others, be they spiritual or infomercial, is a good approach to life. Otherwise one is open to exploitation.

5

Well, the foundation for my agnosticism is that I simply haven’t seen any sort of proof.

Now, most people here will agree that absence of proof does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist (negative results tell us very little, especially without controls); however, you have to apply common sense to the situation.

Now, common sense is tricky to define and can be wrong. That said, there has been nothing in my experience that suggests that there are any extra-sensory phenomena going on. While I cannot out-and-out deny their existence, I can say with some confidence that I don’t believe them.

For me, it is common sense to say that there is no God. I’ve never experienced Him, nor anything that would lead me to believe he exists.

For you, it is common sense to say that there is a God. You’ve experienced him in your way, and that is a valid belief.

For my Indian friend, it is common sense that all of creation is the expression of the conciousness and, yet, is not distinct from the conciousness of Siva.

For Bobby Joe in the mental ward, he is God.

For Bobby Henderson, it is common sense that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real divinity.

Now, the problem becomes that these world views cannot coexist with one another. For Bobby Henderson’s version of reality to be true, both your’s and my version of reality are false.

So, at some point you need to draw a line in the sand and say, “I am right and I believe this”. While it may or may not be correct, it at least gives you a foundation to stand on and base yourself off of.

6

so you mean even a general skepticism against your arguments, as I can question your validity? that’s simply what it comes down to in the Bible, is whether or not the authors were telling the truth. If you want to have a general skepticism about the beliefs of others, then shouldn’t that leave anyone open for doubt? all it does is make you a cynical fool, to mistrust what everyone says, because they are biased, etc. sorry to be so forward with it, but i’m putting it in the best terms i can - in other words, no offense, i’m just trying to communicate myself here. sorry.

7

Sure.

Being inherently distrustful doesn’t mean that you’ll necessarily miss out on anything. I really don’t see the downside to being cautious and not believing everything everyone says at first pass. Whereas I can see the foolishness of believing things too quickly.

8

so do you personally think that most theists (most, not all) believe things too readily? also, what makes you think the extreme opposite (believing nothing) is rational?

9

That’s a bit of an over generalization, but I’d say that Christians can sometimes be a little naive and are therefore open to exploitation. “God will be good to you if you just send me $50”, you know? A little scepticism would be better in this case.

Believing in “nothing” is rare, but it is entirely rational since there is “nothing” to conflict with my reasonal abilities. It’s only when you start believing in something, anything, that you have the possibility of a conflict with reason. Did I understand your question correctly?

10

I find that some of the finest things I’ve learned in life, like a pheonix, were born on the death of a notion I hadn’t yet questioned. Questioning the limits of anything you take for granted will give you a better understanding of it most of the time.

11

Ned’s got the right idea.

12

yeah Ned I do agree with your post.

umm… I guess that’s what I was trying to get at - you know who I was talking about right? how atheists believe in the absence of any deity, therefore in nothing (in that category I mean, not absolute nothing).

and NoHotDogBuns, I see your point, but there are two sides to that point as well. it would be also unwise to throw out a rational point, even if it seems irrational at first. but I see where you’re going with that. just making sure we understand that.

13

It isn’t that you should discard a rational point, but rather you should make sure it is correct. At some point in history it seemed rational that the Earth was the center of the universe, even though that condradicts everything we know now. You should believe anything entirely without thinking about it first, and making sure the facts add up, and you should still remain open to new facts, in the event that they become available.

14

well there’s also the example of finding out something that, at the time, sounds completely outrageous and ridiculous, but over time it makes sense. like I said before, there are two sides - all you are doing is looking at one side. I understand that side already, all I’m asking is that you recognize both.

15

If something makes zero sense at all, why should it be believed? It has to be backed up for it to be believable. But that would mean it made sense. There has to be real evidence.

16

ok apparently you missed the entire point of my last post. some things can SEEM to make zero sense at all, and sometimes later they make sense, because of a certain event that happens, or you realize something, whatever. evidence isn’t always immediately revealed.

17

Actually, I might disagree with people here. I don’t think skepticism for it’s own sake is healthy or necessary. If I have believed something all my life, I do not think it’s philosophically appropriate to be take a skeptical stance towards that thing unless and until something occurs (for example, I hear some argument or see some evidence) that throws my belief in question and makes skepticism the proper stance.

18

I agree with you. It’s contradictory to be an infinite skeptic, and even when your contradicting yourself as an infinite skeptic, rarely are you pleased with not knowing(I say rarely because maybe some actually find that pleasing…).