|
Post by michelle on Apr 14, 2010 16:45:35 GMT -8
If you had indisputable, irrefutable proof that there was no God and you were the ONLY person that knew about it, would you tell anyone?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 14, 2010 17:46:27 GMT -8
Are you hiding something?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 14, 2010 17:48:59 GMT -8
Yeah, God told me He's not real.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 14, 2010 18:28:53 GMT -8
If you had indisputable, irrefutable proof that there was no God and you were the ONLY person that knew about it, would you tell anyone? Yes, I'd see it as my duty.
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 14, 2010 21:48:10 GMT -8
huh? michelle, are u just making up threads to win the april contest? ;D LOL j/k...sike!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 14, 2010 22:06:57 GMT -8
You got me, Carrie. Actually, it's something I thought of after reading one of Mo's posts. I was thinking that if someone came up with proof that God didn't exist, my worldview would be totally shaken and I'd have to find a new identity. I began wondering if I would WANT to know if someone could prove that God does not exist because believing in Him makes me want to be a better person and He makes me a better person. Apart from God, I'm not a nice person. It's through Him that I am able to be patient, empathetic, caring, etc. If I knew for sure He didn't exist, what kind of person would I be? Maybe it would be better to not know.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Apr 15, 2010 7:01:23 GMT -8
Nope, I would keep the sad truth to myself. For those who believe, their lives are made better by believing. Why take that from them?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 15, 2010 7:51:26 GMT -8
Nope, I would keep the sad truth to myself. For those who believe, their lives are made better by believing. Why take that from them? I have seen documented proof of influential Mormons using this same logic, which to me is very troublesome. Sarah, don't you think 1 Cor 15 teaches otherwise? 1 Cor. 15: 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."Isn't the truth more important than false comfort?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 15, 2010 8:43:34 GMT -8
My two cents:
Your life is made better because you believe, and you believe it to be truth. Thus, it would follow that truth is what brings comfort. If what you thought was truth suddenly became clear that it was NOT, you would no longer be comfortable. You would be comforted with the new truth, and that comfort would, I think, motivate you to share it with others so they could be comforted.
If you are patient, empathetic, caring, etc. and you found out God did not exist, you would still possess those qualities, and you would realize there was another impetus behind them, and thus find comfort. For the record, I know people that do not believe in God that possess those qualities in larger portion than tsome I know that do believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 15, 2010 13:50:22 GMT -8
If you had indisputable, irrefutable proof that there was no God and you were the ONLY person that knew about it, would you tell anyone? You've hit a nerve here, Michelle. I have ton's of thoughts on this. In all brevity my answer would be: I would tell it to those who would choose to know. Like the red and the blue pill in the movie "The Matrix", representing the choice between an inconvenient truth and going on as usual in a fake reality. I do believe that there are people who can't handle a world without God. I'm also convinced that a lot of people erroneously think they can't handle a world without God. I believed that when I was a Christian. After all: "There is hard psychological evidence to the effect that any perceived threats to the taken-for-granted reality of everyday life are met with acute anxiety and with the prompt erection of cognitive defenses." The prospect of a world without God seemed incredibly sad and dangerous and not at all desireable. I never would have expected it would turn out to be a liberation! But it took some time to figure that out. One thing I had to understand is, that me trying to be good is not depending in any way on the existence of God. Thus, I don't believe for a second you wouldn't try to be good if it wasn't for God. Such a statement is actually pretty sad because the motivation of being good should be intrinsic, that means stemming from your inner self instead of extrinsic, which means motivated by extarnal rewards such as God's approval. God has been a crutch for the wrecked since the beginning. A placebo, I would say, but we know that placebos do work. So yes, one should think carefully whether he takes this placebo away from other people. It's not our duty to do that*. I am currently struggling with myself whether my version of the truth will be benefitting some individuals who are struggleing right now. And for the time being, I didn't adress any of them. Then there are also thoughts of a very different nature: If I had irrefutable proof that Christianity was wrong (for example Jesus' corpse), wouldn't I be playing into the hands of Islam or other religions? And am I not much more comfortable with Christianity? *Josh: if a friend of yours tried to rescue a baby from a burning house and would fail and he would die badly burnt in your arms and with his last breath he would ask you if the Baby survived... would you really tell him "no" if that happened to be the truth? Come on!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 16, 2010 19:59:45 GMT -8
Mo: Obviously those who don't believe in God can be extremely moral individuals. Losing faith in God doesn't automatically equate to losing the ability to be generally moral. However, and we've debated this much elsewhere I do think without God there is no adequate rational ground to differentiate between good and evil. Okay. Yes, in a situation like that I'd grant you a boon. But I don't think comfort in general is a good criterion to hold on to a lie. This gives me an idea for a new thread: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=worldreligions&thread=2895kirby wrote: I think I've visited that 7-11 too!!! (inside joke)
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Apr 16, 2010 20:19:12 GMT -8
Nope, I would keep the sad truth to myself. For those who believe, their lives are made better by believing. Why take that from them? I have seen documented proof of influential Mormons using this same logic, which to me is very troublesome. Sarah, don't you think 1 Cor 15 teaches otherwise? 1 Cor. 15: 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."Isn't the truth more important than false comfort? Well I guess that if I discovered that God was not real, then I wouldn't have to be to concerned with what scripture had to say about it! That said, it is hard for me to imagine what type of proof it would take to convince me that there was in fact no God. I am not the sort of person that can be talked into or out of something. I think that if (as in Moe's example) I were presented with indisputable fact that Christianity was wrong, then it would more likely cause me to think that perhaps one of the other world faiths was then the correct one. My experience of God is much stronger than my understanding of him....
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 16, 2010 22:06:51 GMT -8
If you had indisputable, irrefutable proof that there was no God and you were the ONLY person that knew about it, would you tell anyone? You've hit a nerve here, Michelle. I thought I might. I was hoping to suck you in, Mo! I have ton's of thoughts on this. In all brevity my answer would be: I would tell it to those who would choose to know. Then you believe that proof beyond the shadow of a doubt would fall on some deaf ears and you know who those people would be? I guess I don't really understand this. How would you know who would choose to know? Like the red and the blue pill in the movie "The Matrix", representing the choice between an inconvenient truth and going on as usual in a fake reality. This reference is totally lost on me. I've never seen the movie. Thus, I don't believe for a second you wouldn't try to be good if it wasn't for God. Such a statement is actually pretty sad because the motivation of being good should be intrinsic, that means stemming from your inner self instead of extrinsic, which means motivated by extarnal rewards such as God's approval. Sure, I might try to be good. But what I know about myself and what I am willing to admit is that I have a very mean and nasty side. Man, I can be dirty and I can really shut off my feelings about it. And my being a good person because of God has nothing to do with seeking His approval. Rather, it feels like a natural overflow of His love pouring out of me. It's not that I am even necessarily trying to be a good person, I feel like it becomes my nature. Christ's love changes who I am. I am a new creation in Him. I don't do nice things for people and think, "Now God will love me." I know that my motivation is intrinsic, I just don't think it is in the way that you might think it is. I also know that it's not my nature because my nature is to be self-centered. God has been a crutch for the wrecked since the beginning. A placebo, I would say, but we know that placebos do work. So yes, one should think carefully whether he takes this placebo away from other people. It's not our duty to do that*. [\quote] While I disagree with you about the crutch and the placebo part (although in my "what if" scenario this would turn out to be true) should we take that crutch away? For those that do no harm with believing in God, it seems almost cruel to potentially cause an identity crisis for them. Why not just let them believe? But at the same time if it is a crutch, how can someone ever learn to walk on their own if nobody challenges them to walk without it? I am currently struggling with myself whether my version of the truth will be benefitting some individuals who are struggleing right now. And for the time being, I didn't adress any of them. If we all have our own versions of the truth, doesn't that mean that none of us have the truth? Don't we just have experiences? Sorry, it's late, I'm exhausted and I have to be up early, so now I'm just throwing questions out without thinking them all the way through. Good night!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 16, 2010 22:16:11 GMT -8
My two cents: If you are patient, empathetic, caring, etc. and you found out God did not exist, you would still possess those qualities, and you would realize there was another impetus behind them, and thus find comfort. For the record, I know people that do not believe in God that possess those qualities in larger portion than tsome I know that do believe in God. For the record ;D, I never said that people that don't believe in God could not or do not possess these qualities. I too know many non-Christians with very wonderful qualities like the ones I listed. Rather, I specifically stated that I am not those things without Him. I am not a patient, empathetic, caring person by nature. Ok, well maybe I'm a little empathetic by nature, but not very much. I might find another impetus, but there is no guarantee about that. At times I have not walked closely to God, I don't care that much about other people. I'm much more self-involved and self-centered and more concerned with taking care of #1 and "survival". Really, I'm a wretched person without Him.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 16:36:10 GMT -8
I'm not sure if I have anything to add, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your last post here, Michelle!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 21, 2010 10:21:48 GMT -8
Thanks, Josh!
|
|
|
Post by moritz on May 7, 2010 6:08:56 GMT -8
I thought I might. I was hoping to suck you in, Mo! ;D Then you believe that proof beyond the shadow of a doubt would fall on some deaf ears and you know who those people would be? I guess I don't really understand this. How would you know who would choose to know? Oh I’m sure that proof beyond the shadow of a doubt would fall on many deaf ears, as this is happening everyday, everywhere in all kinds of matters. People have a remarkable capability of neglecting inconveniences. I would know who chooses to know by giving them the choice, I guess. I would simply ask them. You gotta see The Matrix, btw. Sure, I might try to be good. But what I know about myself and what I am willing to admit is that I have a very mean and nasty side. Man, I can be dirty and I can really shut off my feelings about it. I’m convinced we all have a nasty side, Michelle. What I don’t believe is that it requires the belief in a God to keep the nasty side in check. I have presented my views on the nature of morality at lengths at this forum. I don’t see a correlation between atheism and letting the dark side roll. And the evidence is out there that faith in God doesn’t necessarily make people behave well either. I rather see very pragmatic and thisworldly reasons for why we are moral beings: Much of our self-perception and well-being depends on the reaction of our social environment towards us. If we are mean and nasty, we are likely to reap disapproval and rejection and to end up in isolation and depression. The reward center of our brain on the contrary recompenses behaviour that leads to the approval of the group with the distribution of endorphins which again make you feel fine. This doesn’t stand in conflict with a self-centred nature. Quite the contrary: Being altruistic is the best tactic for the own benefit. Evolutionary speaking, moral behaviour comes with an enormous survival advantage because it drastically improves your chances to be protected by the collective, which is usually stronger than the individual. The bottom line is: although you are convinced it isn’t so, I’m quite sure you could be just as happy and good without God. But I can totally relate why my words seem absolutely wrong to you. I’ve been there too. While I disagree with you about the crutch and the placebo part (although in my "what if" scenario this would turn out to be true) should we take that crutch away? For those that do no harm with believing in God, it seems almost cruel to potentially cause an identity crisis for them. Why not just let them believe? But at the same time if it is a crutch, how can someone ever learn to walk on their own if nobody challenges them to walk without it? Your question of whether we should take the crutch away brings us back to the original question and the crux of the problem, doesn't it? In my opinion, there are people using the crutch who could actually do without it and people who really couldn’t. If the latter don’t do any harm, I don’t see why one should take away their one and only beacon of hope. In the case of the former it isn’t that easy. With Josh I would argue, that we sould help to make them learn to walk and like Jack from Lost, I'd actually love to heal those people. But then again if John Locke wants to stay in his wheelchair, I guess I would accept that too. Unless it was a matter of preventing a war or something, I guess I wouldn’t shove the info down someone’s throat. As a side question: you are aware that the placebo-effect is empirically proven, right? Did you know about the nocebo-effect? It is the opposite effect and is as well empirically proven: if you take away what people perceive to be their medicine, the mere belief that they will get ill now can actually make them ill matter of factly. If you give them a placebo and tell that there is a high risk of side effects, the same side effects are likely to really appear. In one case, a man tried to commit suicide with an overdosis of pills. He had gathered the pills during a medical experiment. What he didn’t know was that he was in the placebo test group. So, the pills he swallowed contained no active ingredient whatsoever. Despite this fact, he was found in a life-threatening condition and needed immediate treatment. Isn’t that fascinating? Belief can move mountains. If we all have our own versions of the truth, doesn't that mean that none of us have the truth? Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that none of us has the truth but it certainly means that we can never be sure of whether we are the one’s who know the truth. We can be convinced 100% but there are millions who are 100% convinced of an opposite truth. So who is right? We can’t all be right, that’s for sure. To me, this is a reminder of “intellectual modesty” (to borrow from the philosopher Sir Karl Popper). Popper is a fallibilist arguing that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken and that it is hence impossible to know something with certainty. I subscribe to this view of the world. That’s why I’m ultimately an agnostic (read my very first post in my own journey on this forum). However, I certainly believe that the vast array of religions past and present is a strong indicator that none of them is correct. At best, it could point to deism, meaning that there is in fact some sort of God-power which people perceive but misinterpret. But unless this God-power, be it Yaweh, Ra, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an altogether unknown force, chooses to reveal itself to the entire world, intellectual modesty is the order of the day in my opinion. Don't we just have experiences? That is exactly right. And we interpret every event in the context of our experiences, constructing our own reality brick by brick. Almost always, the expectation dictates the perception (this can be proven with optical illusions, when our brains tell us that something is in a certain way although it demonstrably isn’t). And the expectation derives from earlier interpretations of experiences. Our brains consist of - and receive all information from - the nervous system. Every impulse is interpreted by your brain. The brain furthermore selects which information is relevant and which isn’t – prior to our awareness of the information. It is constantly receiving much more data than the consciousness could handle. That is why it automatically reduces the complexity of reality. The selection programs are again determined by experiences that influenced the formation of the nervous system (genetic dispositions also play a part). That is why two people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions. That is why two observers will never give an identical report of the same event. And that is why we can never be certain, no matter how real it feels. Get me straight, I’m not saying everything is illusion. And I know I could be the one who is wrong with everything too. But I’m with Nietzsche when he argues that all religions should agree upon ending their sermons with the following words: “This is what I believe, it could be different though.” (my translation). This would massively defuse interreligious conflict in my opinion.
|
|