Is Believing in God(s) a Choice?

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, you are a skeptic. So you know Rene Descartes and you know how to solve the problem of the evil Demon. Then do that.

You determining that something "works" means you are relying on evidence.
If something "works" then that's the evidence that you're on the right track. If it doesn't "work" then that's the evidence that you're on the wrong track. Something "working" is your evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You determining that something "works" means you are relying on evidence.
If something "works" then that's the evidence that you're on the right track. If it doesn't "work" then that's the evidence that you're on the wrong track. Something "working" is your evidence.

You are not me. I am not you. You claim evidence for how I think. I don't think like you. I am a general strong skeptic. You are apparently a variant of scientific skepticism. Those are not the same.

So answer to the problem of the evil demon. You are a skeptic, so you can do that. You know the history of skepticism and how that connects to methodological naturalism and how that is methodological naturalism and not something else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are not me. I am not you. You claim evidence for how I think. I don't think like you. I am a general strong skeptic. You are apparently a variant of scientific skepticism. Those are not the same.

I don't care about labels.
I'm going by the words you have typed here and responding to them.
Saying something "works" is a declaration that there is evidence for the thing working. It if doesn't work, then that's evidence against the thing working. This is how you've described to me how you determine fact from fiction. Whether you can see it or not, you do consider evidence. "It worked" is the evidence.

Like if I want to determine if walking in front of a moving car "works" for me or not.
I can walk in front of a moving car, get hit and injured and end up in the hospital. So, walking in front of a moving car didn't "work" for me. The evidence is that I ended up getting hurt.
Now, if my goal was to get hurt, then walking in front of a moving car "worked" for me. The evidence is that when I walked in front of a moving car, I got hurt, which was my goal. So it "worked."
All of this is evidence-based.

So answer to the problem of the evil demon. You are a skeptic, so you can do that. You know the history of skepticism and how that connects to methodological naturalism and how that is methodological naturalism and not something else.

I don't care about any of this. I care about what we're talking about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't care about labels.
I'm going by the words you have typed here and responding to them.
Saying something "works" is a declaration that there is evidence for the thing working. It if doesn't work, then that's evidence against the thing working. This is how you've described to me how you determine fact from fiction. Whether you can see it or not, you do consider evidence. "It worked" is the evidence.

Like if I want to determine if walking in front of a moving car "works" for me or not.
I can walk in front of a moving car, get hit and injured and end up in the hospital. So, walking in front of a moving car didn't "work" for me. The evidence is that I ended up getting hurt.
Now, if my goal was to get hurt, then walking in front of a moving car "worked" for me. The evidence is that when I walked in front of a moving car, I got hurt, which was my goal. So it "worked."
All of this is evidence-based.


I don't care about any of this. I care about what we're talking about.

There are no things out there. A thing is a conceptual abstract in you mind. You can point to a car, but you can't point to a thing.

And your examples are not all of the world.
You and I have different subcultures for how we understand.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

By the way. What are your evidence for your feelings?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are no things out there. A thing is a conceptual abstract in you mind. You can point to a car, but you can't point to a thing.

And your examples are not all of the world.
You and I have different subcultures for how we understand.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

By the way. What are your evidence for your feelings?

It would be cool if you address what I said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It would be cool if you address what I said.

And if you answer the problem of the evil demon.

You have a worldview that you consider universal as correct for all humans. But it is not. It is a case of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism just like all other humans including me.
You take your cognition and culture for granted as most people. So do I, I just know that I do it too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And if you answer the problem of the evil demon.

You have a worldview that you consider universal as correct for all humans. But it is not. It is a case of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism just like all other humans including me.
You take your cognition and culture for granted as most people. So do I, I just know that I do it too.

I don't know what you're going on about now. I asked you to address what I said in response to your post/claims.


Saying something "works" is a declaration that there is evidence for the thing working. It if doesn't work, then that's evidence against the thing working. This is how you've described to me how you determine fact from fiction. Whether you can see it or not, you do consider evidence. "It worked" is the evidence.

Like if I want to determine if walking in front of a moving car "works" for me or not.
I can walk in front of a moving car, get hit and injured and end up in the hospital. So, walking in front of a moving car didn't "work" for me. The evidence is that I ended up getting hurt.
Now, if my goal was to get hurt, then walking in front of a moving car "worked" for me. The evidence is that when I walked in front of a moving car, I got hurt, which was my goal. So it "worked."
All of this is evidence-based.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what you're going on about now. I asked you to address what I said in response to your post/claims.


Saying something "works" is a declaration that there is evidence for the thing working. It if doesn't work, then that's evidence against the thing working. This is how you've described to me how you determine fact from fiction. Whether you can see it or not, you do consider evidence. "It worked" is the evidence.

Like if I want to determine if walking in front of a moving car "works" for me or not.
I can walk in front of a moving car, get hit and injured and end up in the hospital. So, walking in front of a moving car didn't "work" for me. The evidence is that I ended up getting hurt.
Now, if my goal was to get hurt, then walking in front of a moving car "worked" for me. The evidence is that when I walked in front of a moving car, I got hurt, which was my goal. So it "worked."
All of this is evidence-based.

So answer the problem of the evil demon. I am countering you. I don't accept your hidden assumptions about what the world is. But you don't understand that you have hidden assumptions. Hence the evil demon.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@SkepticThinker @mikkel_the_dane
Are you two still at it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@SkepticThinker @mikkel_the_dane
Are you two still at it?

Yeah, we are fighting over the correct understanding of skepticism.

 

[Yerda]

So answer the problem of the evil demon. I am countering you. I don't accept your hidden assumptions about what the world is. But you don't understand that you have hidden assumptions. Hence the evil demon.

What about your hidden assumption that assumptions are a thing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about your hidden assumption that assumptions are a thing?

Good one.

We don't have good words for some worldviews in English, that are different than ordinary English.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, we are fighting over the correct understanding of skepticism.

No, we are not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So answer the problem of the evil demon. I am countering you. I don't accept your hidden assumptions about what the world is. But you don't understand that you have hidden assumptions. Hence the evil demon.

I am not making "hidden assumptions about what the world is."
I'm responding to your claims that you don't use evidence to determine what "works" for you. What "works" is the evidence.
"works" = evidence
I even gave an example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not making "hidden assumptions about what the world is."
I'm responding to your claims that you don't use evidence to determine what "works" for you. What "works" is the evidence.
"works" = evidence
I even gave an example.

Yeah, and you still avoid the problem of the evil demon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, and you still avoid the problem of the evil demon.

Okay then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay then.

It is in one of the works of the modern version of skepticism. Why do you answer with feelings?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is in one of the works of the modern version of skepticism. Why do you answer with feelings?

I answered with exasperation with my points to you about your worldview not being addressed multiple times.
You think you don't rely on evidence when you actually do. I gave an example. You have nothing to say about it?

 

[Alien826]

I think you're quite right and quite wrong.

You are quite right in pointing out the absurd degree of confusion and misunderstanding due to the inarticulate thought and speech, and the constant misuse of terms involved in this kind of discussion. You are quite wrong in assuming that most people are just professing a belief in God to assuage cultural expectations and peer pressure. Most people believe in God because they have been taught that God exists, they like believing that God exists, and have found no reason not to accept it as being so. They are not being pushed or pressured. They are quite willing and happy to accept the theology they've been given.

I'm not sure that isn't essentially the same thing, or can be.

Cultural pressures are powerful, and don't have to be overt. It's uncomfortable going against the beliefs of one's culture, and people do feel happy when they refrain from doing so.

One thing I've observed, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, is that many "believers" are not really sure what it is they believe in. What I mean is that when asked to explain, or even state, a particular tenet of their belief system are unable to do so. The Bible says that? Really? The posters here are far from typical believers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I answered with exasperation with my points to you about your worldview not being addressed multiple times.
You think you don't rely on evidence when you actually do. I gave an example. You have nothing to say about it?

I don't accept your framing of what the world is. Is that clear now? My counter is to ask you of the evil demon.