Is there an obligation for a faith believer

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no way to begin to calculate the existence of a God. We do not even know if a God is possible.

To know the odds of an event the first thing one must know is "Is it possible". We do not know that. Gods are a great unknown. I know that Christians like to try to claim that the odds are 100% and that gnostic atheists will say 0%. I am satisfied with "I don't have a clue". Though specific God are possible to eliminate, not all are.

Well, that is the same for this assumption:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I don't have a clue if it holds or not and what the probability is, but I believe in it. So if it is better to believe in it or a God, I don't know, because I have no clue how to know which one is better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that is the same for this assumption:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I don't have a clue if it holds or not and what the probability is, but I believe in it. So if it is better to believe in it or a God, I don't know, because I have no clue how to know which one is better.

One can believe in both. Just believe in a God that does not feel a need to break the laws of nature that it would have set up in the first place. That makes far more sense to me than the incompetent God of the Bible.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, because science rests on this:
1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

For the subset of gods claimed to be beyond the observed universe there is no way the likelihood of some god being existing is extremely low. The likelihood is unknown.
There is a reason it is called evidence and not truth or proof. Learn the history of science and how we came to the concept of evidence.

We've already discussed how the scientific method is the best method we've come up with for figuring out how the objective world that we all appear to share works. If you want to deny that there's an objective world that we all appear to share that's fine.

But if so, that's really kind of silly. Why are you even on this site attempting to communicate with others if you don't think there's a common objective reality that we all share? If we don't both share the objective reality of this website, have you been doing nothing more than having a conversation with yourself in your own little subjective reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We've already discussed how the scientific method is the best method we've come up with for figuring out how the objective world that we all appear to share works. If you want to deny that there's an objective world that we all appear to share that's fine.

But if so, that's really kind of silly. Why are you even on this site attempting to communicate with others if you don't think there's a common objective reality that we all share? If we don't both share the objective reality of this website, have you been doing nothing more than having a conversation with yourself in your own little subjective reality?

I don't deny the objective world. I deny that it is all of the world in the end. And that science is the best method for the world as such.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Not at all. Muhammad revealed scripture, in my opinion. Jesus revealed scripture, in my opinion. You got the name a little wrong for Joseph Smith, but that's all right. I don't know what to call him. The book of Mormon was fiction, in my opinion. An expounder would be those like Martin Luther, as an example. Another one further back would be Paul the Apostle. I don't think we should disregard all of those as you seem to suggest I said. We should listen and decide who to disregard. Those who we should completely disregard are a minority.

As a Baha'i I would also consider that the Bab and Baha'u'llah revealed scripture. They were not an expounder.

Joseph Smith, thank you. Apologies to LDS members.

I'm glad that your curated list of what is acceptable and not acceptable works for you. However, billions of people do not share your view. The advice in the OP was for non-believers. With billions in disagreement as to which writings have value, and the balkanization and conflict that arises over the different writings, as well as the lack of wisdom (in my view) shown by many who study these writings, I find the advice to be naïve and not very helpful from an non-believers standpoint.

 

[Bathos Logos]

You are doing an evaluation, which is not based on facts. You evaluate a human behaviour as irrational, but that is an evaluation in you. Learn the fact value distinction before claiming facts are all that matters, bécause that facts matter, is not a fact as you use fact.

Sure, "facts" aren't all that matters - this should be easily admitted as we go about the business of appraising art, enjoying works of fiction, loving our spouses, etc. So this is where you must admit that religious belief or spiritual practice lies - in a realm of "not fact".

I would posit that a nonbeliever fully understands this, but that it is the the believer who most often does not seem to understand this. They think grand wisdom or eventual practicality is in the offing for continued adherence to and practice of their religious beliefs, and they are very often found to be thinking that any other would also benefit from the same practices or adherence. It's like prescribing that appreciating the beauty of some particular painting that the believer personally enjoys will most definitely change the life, knowledge and happiness of the person who doesn't currently enjoy the painting. Now, if someone were actually claiming that, knowing what you know about paintings and the subjectivity involved in enjoyment of paintings in general, wouldn't you be apt to ask for justifications from the lovers of the painting before just jumping in feet first? If they are making claims that actual benefit comes from liking the painting, wouldn't you want to be sure how and whether or not that works so that you can judge whether or not it is worth the time and effort?

Finally, imagine instead that the lover of the painting simply says "People who don't love this painting are going to suffer when they leave this art museum." In my estimation, unless that statement can be demonstrated to be fact, that statement is an insult to a person's intelligence. Now... that's not me saying that you need to be insulted by dumb things like that that might be said. This is me saying that I, personally, will take such a statement as an insult to my intelligence. As such, I will be prone to react in a way that will likely prove to be uncomfortable for the fool who made the statement in the first place. This will likely come in the form of requesting proof, evidence, facts, justifications, etc. And would that kind of reaction be so shocking? Is there something "wrong" with that sort of reaction? With everything being subjective, I don't think you have a case against that type of reaction being "wrong" in the slightest. I think you have to live with it. And yet... I fee like you would definitely have something to say about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, "facts" aren't all that matters - this should be easily admitted as we go about the business of appraising art, enjoying works of fiction, loving our spouses, etc. So this is where you must admit that religious belief or spiritual practice lies - in a realm of "not fact".

I would posit that a nonbeliever fully understands this, but that it is the the believer who most often does not seem to understand this. They think grand wisdom or eventual practicality is in the offing for continued adherence to and practice of their religious beliefs, and they are very often found to be thinking that any other would also benefit from the same practices or adherence. It's like prescribing that appreciating the beauty of some particular painting that the believer personally enjoys will most definitely change the life, knowledge and happiness of the person who doesn't currently enjoy the painting. Now, if someone were actually claiming that, knowing what you know about paintings and the subjectivity involved in enjoyment of paintings in general, wouldn't you be apt to ask for justifications from the lovers of the painting before just jumping in feet first? If they are making claims that actual benefit comes from liking the painting, wouldn't you want to be sure how and whether or not that works so that you can judge whether or not it is worth the time and effort?

Finally, imagine instead that the lover of the painting simply says "People who don't love this painting are going to suffer when they leave this art museum." In my estimation, unless that statement can be demonstrated to be fact, that statement is an insult to a person's intelligence. Now... that's not me saying that you need to be insulted by dumb things like that that might be said. This is me saying that I, personally, will take such a statement as an insult to my intelligence. As such, I will be prone to react in a way that will likely prove to be uncomfortable for the fool who made the statement in the first place. This will likely come in the form of requesting proof, evidence, facts, justifications, etc. And would that kind of reaction be so shocking?

Well, we agree, but it is only a part of the world. There is more and yes, I am non-religious.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't deny the objective world. I deny that it is all of the world in the end. And that science is the best method for the world as such.

Cool... personally I couldn't care less about the subjective world that you and everyone else lives in, since I'll never know that world. All I care about is the objective world that we all share. And if I experience things in my subjective world that no else experiences in the objective world we all share then my first thought is that maybe my subjective view is wrong, since I'm quite aware of the human brain's ability to delude itself. That's how people convince themselves that they can jump off the top of a building and fly or buy into all sort of inane conspiracy theories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cool... personally I couldn't care less about the subjective world that you and everyone else lives in, since I'll never know that world. All I care about is the objective world that we all share. And if I experience things in my subjective world that no else experiences in the objective world we all share then my first thought is that maybe my subjective view is wrong, since I'm quite aware of the human brain's ability to delude itself. That's how people convince themselves that they can jump off the top of a building and fly or buy into all sort of inane conspiracy theories.

Those 2 are subjective. And there world is not just subjective and objective. It is also inter-subjective. I can know when you are subjective, because most humans have theory of mind.
So what are words? Subjective or objective as words in themselves? Consider that one and then explain Linear A and B.

And now a reductio ad absurdum. I could jump of a high enough building and then I would die. That is how all of the world works. Now I test it and say: No! And now I am dead, right? You know that is absurd, but that you know that as absurd, it is subjective and that I know it too, is what makes it inter-subjective.

Your theory of the world is too simple and you have more to learn.

 

[Truthseeker]

IMO



Joseph Smith, thank you. Apologies to LDS members.

I'm glad that your curated list of what is acceptable and not acceptable works for you. However, billions of people do not share your view. The advice in the OP was for non-believers. With billions in disagreement as to which writings have value, and the balkanization and conflict that arises over the different writings, as well as the lack of wisdom (in my view) shown by many who study these writings, I find the advice to be naïve and not very helpful from an non-believers standpoint.

Just giving my opinion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Those 2 are subjective. And there world is not just subjective and objective. It is also inter-subjective. I can know when you are subjective, because most humans have theory of mind.
So what are words? Subjective or objective as words in themselves? Consider that one and then explain Linear A and B.

And now a reductio ad absurdum. I could jump of a high enough building and then I would die. That is how all of the world works. Now I test it and say: No! And now I am dead, right? You know that is absurd, but that you know that as absurd, it is subjective and that I know it too, is what makes it inter-subjective.

Your theory of the world is too simple and you have more to learn.

The simplest explanation is usually the best. And unless we can devise a method for accurately understanding the reality of the subjective world akin to the method we've come up with for determining the reality of the objective world it's little more than mental masturbation. It can be fun to engage in now and again, but ultimately it accomplishes nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The simplest explanation is usually the best. And unless we can devise a method for accurately understanding the reality of the subjective world akin to the method we've come up with for determining the reality of the objective world it's little more than mental masturbation. It can be fun to engage in now and again, but ultimately it accomplishes nothing.

No, sometimes it is too simple. Reduction is not the same as over-reduction.
And you are not a we, unless you are in effect God. You subjectively use a we that this is not all humans, i.e. objective. Learn to spot your own subjectivity, before you claim you can remove it.
So you are subjective, but you don't know it, because you believe you are objective. Just like some religious believers.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Sure, "facts" aren't all that matters - this should be easily admitted as we go about the business of appraising art, enjoying works of fiction, loving our spouses, etc. So this is where you must admit that religious belief or spiritual practice lies - in a realm of "not fact".

I would posit that a nonbeliever fully understands this, but that it is the the believer who most often does not seem to understand this. They think grand wisdom or eventual practicality is in the offing for continued adherence to and practice of their religious beliefs, and they are very often found to be thinking that any other would also benefit from the same practices or adherence. It's like prescribing that appreciating the beauty of some particular painting that the believer personally enjoys will most definitely change the life, knowledge and happiness of the person who doesn't currently enjoy the painting. Now, if someone were actually claiming that, knowing what you know about paintings and the subjectivity involved in enjoyment of paintings in general, wouldn't you be apt to ask for justifications from the lovers of the painting before just jumping in feet first? If they are making claims that actual benefit comes from liking the painting, wouldn't you want to be sure how and whether or not that works so that you can judge whether or not it is worth the time and effort?

Finally, imagine instead that the lover of the painting simply says "People who don't love this painting are going to suffer when they leave this art museum." In my estimation, unless that statement can be demonstrated to be fact, that statement is an insult to a person's intelligence. Now... that's not me saying that you need to be insulted by dumb things like that that might be said. This is me saying that I, personally, will take such a statement as an insult to my intelligence. As such, I will be prone to react in a way that will likely prove to be uncomfortable for the fool who made the statement in the first place. This will likely come in the form of requesting proof, evidence, facts, justifications, etc. And would that kind of reaction be so shocking? Is there something "wrong" with that sort of reaction? With everything being subjective, I don't think you have a case against that type of reaction being "wrong" in the slightest. I think you have to live with it. And yet... I fee like you would definitely have something to say about it.

An art paint do not have doctrines, religions do.

Your whole analogy is practically invalid.

Try again.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Not an obligation, it just seems irrational to believe something entirely unevidenced, especially when it leads one to deny other, well-evidenced beliefs.
Just what is this wisdom based on?
So you have to believe it before you can understand it? Isn't that sort of putting effect before cause; the cart before the horse?
But, historically, when has this ever produced a consistent answers? People have been 'practicing' for thousands of years, yet today there are more religious differences, and more interpretations, than ever before.
No, I suppose not -- but a faith-based answer is unevidenced by definition, so does the believer have anything non-imaginary to impart to begin with?

Does majority of people really understand quantum mechanics?

If they don't, how it comes they believe the several claims such a theory publishes every day?

When you believe in something you don't need evidence. The wife of a dude claims she is faithful and the husband believes her for what she says. No need of evidence.

Religion works different than science. With religion first is belief, later is understanding. An example if the book of Acts, where the apostles found themselves in trouble. The converted Jews were saying that converted gentiles are not fully believers because their lack of circumcision.

The job of the apostles was just to announce the good news, the dead and resurrection of the messiah, his life and words. It was not their job to teach the law.

Then, they just make the agreement to tell the gentiles who became believer of their faith, to stop doing idolatry and other pagan practices. But, about the other teachings, including the law, gentiles can go to the synagogues on sabbaths.

Notice that first was to spread out the good news, and second the new believer going to learn the doctrine.

Receiving the good news is not enough. If you never knew about the Bible and someone announced you the life of the messiah, his teachings, the promise of another body which will last forever, and you like the idea and said you want to be part of it, then you must go to a place to learn and understand everything, everything from the very beginning.

Then, in that place you will learn the books that contain the doctrines, starting with Genesis.Many new believers from the apostles times didn't know anything about Genesis, exodus, etc. But, the words of the Messiah include the mention of events read in those former books.

Here is why, the new adepts were in need to learn more, so they can understand better the good news.

Today, in science you also find lots of beliefs. Multiverses, dilating time, black holes, the world coming from a microscopic particle that exploded, millions of years of life on earth, and so forth. Those are just beliefs. There is no solid evidence for those. Even for criminal law, circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

This is why imagination took control of the theories of science, when knowledge was set apart. Look at the theories, first is the belief written in a piece of paper, then is the observation based not in impartial conclusions but forced conclusions to make the numbers and symbols fit with what is observed.

And worst, relativity and quantum weren't compatible. Even Einstein died trying in vain to make them fit one with the another.

Why those theories are working together today? The answer is very simple, manipulating one symbol here and one equation there, the discordance problems gone. Just manipulation of numbers solved the problem. And people believe those because their lack of knowledge in physics.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

From discussion with some very few non believers of religion or spiritual practice, it seems like they see it as an obligation for the faith believers to explain in details "Why, How and in what way" the faith believers come to their personal belief.

But say its an obligation to explain to anyone who just going to refuse the answer as wishful thinking, falacy, or other negative intepretations done by the non believer.

The way a believer become more and more firm in their belief is to practice the teaching for years.

So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding.

If a faith believer just give you an answer, you yourself has not gained anything at all.

I was a believer for a long time and studied the scriptures and did my best to implement them. It was through intensive study that I found they had little wisdom or truth in them.

 

[Luchito Prays]

No, I do not think that you have an obligation to explain what you believe and why to anyone who asks.

I think our only obligation is to society as a whole. As long as you are doing your part to make your community a better place and to help those around you, and your beliefs do not impede this, then they do not matter.

There is an issue with some people who believe that they are helping others (due to some sort of religious belief) when they're actually hurting them, such as when Christians try to force their gay loved ones to undergo conversion therapy out of fear for their immortal soul, but I haven't seen you tread into territory like this in any of your posts that I've read.

That said, this is also a discussion forum, so people are probably going to ask.

Making a community a better place means to live in accord to nature.

And homosexuality is a sexual behavior that goes against nature.

You don't need religion to try making society a better place.

When religious people rebuke the ones who steal or practice sexual behavior other than heterosexuality, these religious people are doing their duty as believers. They are defending their husbands, their wives, their children from such a bad influence.

In a near past, just five decades ago, psychologists understood homosexuality and lesbianism were indeed cases to be treat by them.

And the treatment was way justified. As an example, how an adult man, without having any mental retardation was talking like a six years old girl? An adult man talking like a girl is a case of having mental delay. A normal adult talks as an adult. And definitively all homosexuals talking like six years old girls are faking, They can talk as adults but they prefer to talk like little girls. Definitively there is something wrong with them. Don't tell me that they talking like little girls is "normal", you know that such is not true. Come on.

Believers can rebuke not only the homosexual but also the effeminate men. Of course such is the duty, the obligation of the believer. The God of the Bible laws and teachings are not exclusive for the old times only but are for the entire generations until the end of the era.

Rebuking the ones who commit sin (drug addicts, alcoholic, thieves, etc) is not judging, but telling them what is right and what is wrong. When you send an alcoholic man to treatment, you are doing a good work. Then, do the same with the homosexual, you will be doing also a good work. It will be their decision to keep assisting to those places for recovery or changing of life, but you did your part.

And this is not voluntary for the believer but obligatory. The God will demand from every believer their fruits. The ones who didn't produce any will be judged according to that. The God expects the believer to be the example and the guider.

 

[Bathos Logos]

An art paint do not have doctrines, religions do.

Why is this pertinent? Please explain.

Your whole analogy is practically invalid.

Because "art paint do not have doctrines"? Why does that make it invalid?

Perhaps I should try to explain directly. Art is a thing that contains no truth value. It isn't "correct" or "incorrect." However, someone could get it in their head that a certain work of art is of the utmost importance, and attempt to relate to others that its beauty "must be" recognized. But with art, you either enjoy a piece of it, or you do not.

The way that religion fits this analogy is that it too does not necessarily contain a truth value. We know this must necessarily be correct to state for many multiple religions simply because there are so many, with competing/contradictory stories and attempted pronouncements of "truth." In other words, at least some of these religions must necessarily be exactly like the painting. It isn't about it being "correct" or "incorrect", and is only something you either enjoy or you don't - because they can't all possibly be "true" and yet people adhere to them anyway. They enjoy them.

As soon as you knew the "facts" told in the stories of your religion weren't true, then you still going about the business of following the religion would be exactly equivalent to someone liking and following a particular book series - maybe they even go to conventions and dress as their favorite character, or ritually meet with like-minded fans of the books to talk about it and ponder the deeper meanings of the stories. The point being that some of the religions have to be wrong in a fact-based sense, and the stories they tell have nothing to do with anything real, and therefore they become stories of fiction, and the wisdom they have to offer is no different from the "moral of the story" you get from reading something like "The Tortoise and the Hare".

Try again.

The above should clear things up. If you want your religion to be esteemed to contain a truth value like I talk about above, then you are going to have to produce evidence that brings that idea into the light for all of us. Minus that and you may as well just be a zealous fan of a work of fiction.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Why is this pertinent? Please explain.

Because "art paint do not have doctrines"? Why does that make it invalid?

Perhaps I should try to explain directly. Art is a thing that contains no truth value. It isn't "correct" or "incorrect." However, someone could get it in their head that a certain work of art is of the utmost importance, and attempt to relate to others that its beauty "must be" recognized. But with art, you either enjoy a piece of it, or you do not.

The way that religion fits this analogy is that it too does not necessarily contain a truth value. We know this must necessarily be correct to state for many multiple religions simply because there are so many, with competing/contradictory stories and attempted pronouncements of "truth." In other words, at least some of these religions must necessarily be exactly like the painting. It isn't about it being "correct" or "incorrect", and is only something you either enjoy or you don't - because they can't all possibly be "true" and yet people adhere to them anyway. They enjoy them.

As soon as you knew the "facts" told in the stories of your religion weren't true, then you still going about the business of following the religion would be exactly equivalent to someone liking and following a particular book series - maybe they even go to conventions and dress as their favorite character, or ritually meet with like-minded fans of the books to talk about it and ponder the deeper meanings of the stories. The point being that some of the religions have to be wrong in a fact-based sense, and the stories they tell have nothing to do with anything real, and therefore they become stories of fiction, and the wisdom they have to offer is no different from the "moral of the story" you get from reading something like "The Tortoise and the Hare".

The above should clear things up. If you want your religion to be esteemed to contain a truth value like I talk about above, then you are going to have to produce evidence that brings that idea into the light for all of us. Minus that and you may as well just be a zealous fan of a work of fiction.

OK. The painter makes an abstract work.

He called it, "The Machine"

There you go. You have The Machine in front of you.

You don't see it. You go away.

But, someone sees a machine when he looks at The Machine.

However, while the painter says his The Machine is a laser producer, the other one sees it as a car machine.

And many others don't see anything but lines here and there, and others see a sewing machine, a fish, a mountain, a naked woman, etc.

Then, as no regulations have been made to appreciate The Machine as laser producer, the appreciation from others will have way of views one different from the rest.

With religion is different. You just can't compare a religion with doctrines with abstract art or a painted image of something.

Your analogy is invalid.

 

[Bathos Logos]

OK. The painter makes an abstract work.

He called it, "The Machine"

There you go. You have The Machine in front of you.

You don't see it. You go away.

But, someone sees a machine when he looks at The Machine.

However, while the painter says his The Machine is a laser producer, the other one sees it as a car machine.

One person says "God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit form a unified trinity", another person says "This is not so."

And many others don't see anything but lines here and there, and others see a sewing machine, a fish, a mountain, a naked woman, etc.

One person looks at Quranic scripture, and decides the religion is not for them, another looks at it and sees poetic verse that they do not believe could be made by man's hand alone, and so believe it is inspired by God.

Then, as no regulations have been made to appreciate The Machine as laser producer, the appreciation from others will have way of views one different from the rest.

This exact same thing happens all the time in religion. Hence the reason there are so many different Christian denominations - including wildly different practices like Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS and Catholicism, various sects in Islam, The Baháʼí Faith said to have developed out of Babism, which emerged from Shia Islam, etc. etc. etc. There are very few hard-and-fast regulations in religion either. Belief in God is one thing you can point to as being a pre-requisite for many, among maybe a handful of others. But otherwise, whatever one wants to believe, it is up for grabs!

With religion is different. You just can't compare a religion with doctrines with abstract art or a painted image of something.

I think you're wrong here.

Your analogy is invalid.

You have not convinced me of this in the slightest.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, sometimes it is too simple. Reduction is not the same as over-reduction.
And you are not a we, unless you are in effect God. You subjectively use a we that this is not all humans, i.e. objective. Learn to spot your own subjectivity, before you claim you can remove it.
So you are subjective, but you don't know it, because you believe you are objective. Just like some religious believers.

Until you can devise a method for accurately understanding the reality of the subjective world akin to the method we've come up with for determining the reality of the objective world I really couldn't care less. I'll never know your subjective reality and you'll never know mine. All we can do is endlessly talk and never reach any definitive conclusions so it's really just a waste of time in my opinion. I prefer to focus on questions that we can establish reliable answers for and since we've found a method for doing that with objective reality that's what I care about.