Thiests Believe But What is the Level of Certainity?

[tariqkhwaja]

Believe it or not, yes. Sometimes desire can override reason or belief.

I agree with that. Neither reason nor belief are the same as 100% certainty and knowledge. Belief through reasoning is one thing, belief through seeing is another, and belief through experience is the strongest.

You can easily apply your poison anology to the case of a chronic alcoholic for instance; say this guy knows that if he takes one drink, he'll wind up going on a binge, just as he knows that at the end of the binge (if he survives it) he will have lost or destroyed everything that matters to him.
But in many cases, the alcoholic will take that drink anyway. Why? Because the drink is right in front of him and the consequences are in the future (and hey, maybe some miracle will intervene in the meantime).

"maybe some miracle will intervene" see that is my point. That doubt remains. His reasoning could be faulty, he thinks. Something might happen. But there is more to this.
The loss of everything might actually (and does actually) not matter to the alcoholic as much as the consequences. But in the case of the religion the loss is (supposed to be) so much more than the temporary gain that if one is certain of that loss then the gain cannot seduce.

Okay maybe if I put it this way you will agree.
Who has a greater chance of being seduced by binge?
1. The one who has never heard of its terrible consequences.
2. The one who has heard of its consequences.
3. The one who heard a doctor proclaim the blah blah person died as a result of excessive alcohol consumption.
4. The one who has studied alcohol and its scientific components and how they affect the body.
5. The one who examined the blah blah dead person and through his deep knowledge of science came to the conclusion that the death was by excessive consumption of alcohol.

The greater the certainity, the greater the temptation required to sin. Thats all I am saying.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

First off, tariq, you might want to credit people with their responses. The quotes you use in this post are from several different people, and you should make sure it's clear who said what.

Thanks but next time please PM such advice.

Now, There are many reasons. Love, as Willamena said. Desire, lust, greed... It depends on what you consider an overall loss. Some people would not consider some things losses that you would. As has been said, people might drink poison knowingly because they want to die, or because they want to build up an immunity to it, or because they are trying to save someone else from drinking it. Beyond that, people might cheat on their spouses because desire overcomes them or because they want to hurt their spouse or many other reasons. You give an example and I can provide more than one reason for the person to do the thing.

My argument is not specific but general. Person A would have lower chances of commiting sin the more certain he was that the act would constitute an overall loss (by a huge margin) for him in his view. Views might be different but whatever the holder of the view consider's an overall loss, acts that he/she is certain would lead to such a loss, he/she will refrain from doing any such acts.

No, those things don't only affect when there's a lack of certainty. You have not even given that example. I don't know how many times we need to debunk your example, but here's my example where despite 100% certainty and knowledge a human commits an act that he knows only means a huge loss and little gain: A person drinks poison, knowing it's poison, in an attempt to die.

Because, as I stated, him dying is not an overall loss for him. He just doesn't think so for whatever "higher" reason. Maybe he is sick of this world. Maybe something else. The case you point out is where one does not even believe suicide is bad. So the certainty issue doesn't even occur there.

So, what does this example of a burning house have to do with anything? You gave an example showing the different levels of certainty in belief. That doesn't show why people do something, though. In your examples, even if someone only saw the smoke, but not the fire, they would still go away from it, just like someone who actually touched the fire. Similarly, if someone only partially believes in God, they are just as likely to sin as someone who is completely certain of God's existence. The level of certainty is not even a factor.

Which would freak you out more?
1. Fire alarm
2. Smoke coming from the cupboard
3. You open the cupboard and there is fire
4. The fire is leaping towards you

Which would freak you out more? And which will really want make you want to run away? Which will get your blood boiling with fear?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

This is false. Punching my fist through my computer monitor would be a very bad idea and result in an overall loss. I would hurt my hand and break my computer, as well as possibly upset some other people. I know all of this, and yet, that wouldn't stop me if I got angry enough. (Personally, I can't see myself ever doing this, as I'm not a violent person at all)

Look ... err ... the certainty argument; it doesn't apply to when you lose your mind due to anger or to due to some other (god forbid) mental dysfunction.

There are plenty of people who commit "sins" who are certain that God exists. I would say that at least most of the Catholic priests who were found to be molesting altar boys a few years ago were 100% certain that God exists. That's why they're priests, I'm sure. And yet, they still committed their sins.

Their acts prove their complete lack of certainty in God or accountability for their sins. Your first line assumes "commit 'sins' who are certain that God exists". Just because someone has memorized the Bible or any other Holy Book and knows it inside out and has read many commentaries on it is no certificate of the said person's certainty (or is honesty for that matter).

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks but next time please PM such advice.

Nope. It's easier to just do it in my response, and it's not worth a PM.

My argument is not specific but general. Person A would have lower chances of commiting sin the more certain he was that the act would constitute an overall loss (by a huge margin) for him in his view. Views might be different but whatever the holder of the view consider's an overall loss, acts that he/she is certain would lead to such a loss, he/she will refrain from doing any such acts.

Yes, generally people will shy away from loss. However, if something is more important at a certain moment, even if the loss is guaranteed and they know it, person A might still perform the act that would cause the loss. The point is that people view things differently. You view loss of life as an overall loss. Another person might view it as a gain.

Because, as I stated, him dying is not an overall loss for him. He just doesn't think so for whatever "higher" reason. Maybe he is sick of this world. Maybe something else. The case you point out is where one does not even believe suicide is bad. So the certainty issue doesn't even occur there.

Then your point is moot. I explained the specific example of why someone would drink poison knowing it's poison. There's a reason. I'm not sure what you want, then.

Which would freak you out more?
1. Fire alarm
2. Smoke coming from the cupboard
3. You open the cupboard and there is fire
4. The fire is leaping towards you

Which would freak you out more? And which will really want make you want to run away? Which will get your blood boiling with fear?

Who cares?

 

[Magic Man]

Look ... err ... the certainty argument; it doesn't apply to when you lose your mind due to anger or to due to some other (god forbid) mental dysfunction.

Ah, I see. It only applies in certain cases. You control which cases it applies to, huh? It's not a very good theory if it only applies in certain cases.

Their acts prove their complete lack of certainty in God or accountability for their sins. Your first line assumes "commit 'sins' who are certain that God exists". Just because someone has memorized the Bible or any other Holy Book and knows it inside out and has read many commentaries on it is no certificate of the said person's certainty (or is honesty for that matter).

As I said before, I started another thread here. These are theists who are as sure that there's a computer in front of them as they are of God's existence. I guarantee you that every one of them "sins" at least occasionally. It's a classic, "People sin because they don't know God, so if people sin, they don't know God". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your premise is circular reasoning then. You can't assume the conclusion in trying to prove the premise.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/70481-how-sure-you.html

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Who cares?

The option that will freak you out more is the same option that will make you work harder towards avoiding the fire. That is why it matters. And that is my point.

But I am beginning to see we might have to agree to disagree here. I am going to continue on this thread to answer Heneni's question of long ago. And the answer will only be for those who have agreed with my previous posts.

 

[blackout]

You never responded to my post....

I am a theist, and I am %100 certain that there is no such thing as the christian/islamic hell.

%100. and my actions reflect that belief %100.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I am a theist, and I am %100 certain that there is no such thing as the christian/islamic hell.

%100. and my actions reflect that belief %100.

I don't know what to say. There are no questions here. Nor are you attempting to disprove my argument.

 

[blackout]

Sin and hell do not necessarily have anything at all to do with a person's belief in God.

Not every theist believes in "sin and hell".
Do you think perhaps your proposition over reaches & over generalizes just a bit?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Sin and hell do not necessarily have anything at all to do with a person's belief in God.

Not every theist believes in "sin and hell".
Do you think perhaps your proposition over reaches & over generalizes just a bit?

Oh yes you are right. I am speaking of both belief in God and knowledge of accountability by God.

 

[blackout]

Oh yes you are right. I am speaking of both belief in God and knowledge of accountability by God.

Assumption (or belief) of accountability by God
(in the form of punishment by hell).

 

[tariqkhwaja]

But I mentioned it in the OP. I said "Day of Judgement" and "God", both.

Punishment by hell. And reward of heaven. Or even better, merely that God exists and we strive to please him knowing that he is watching us always.

 

[Magic Man]

The option that will freak you out more is the same option that will make you work harder towards avoiding the fire. That is why it matters. And that is my point.

But I am beginning to see we might have to agree to disagree here. I am going to continue on this thread to answer Heneni's question of long ago. And the answer will only be for those who have agreed with my previous posts.

I understand that that's why you think it matters. The problem is in the analogy. Most theists are the equivalent of seeing the actual fire and almost being burned by it, and they still sin.

Why do we have to agree to disagree? You haven't really responded to my points yet, and this is a debate thread, right? Why would you post in a debate thread an answer only for people who agree with you? That kind of defeats the purpose of a debate, doesn't it? If you can't back up your claims or respond directly to my critiques of your argument, that's fine, but then why start the debate thread in the first place? You do know that by doing that, you're going to get responses opposing your view, right?

 

[Magic Man]

Or even better, merely that God exists and we strive to please him knowing that he is watching us always.

...unless, of course, you believe that a God exists that doesn't require you to strive to please him.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Why do we have to agree to disagree?

Because I thought I had exhausted my ability to make you understand. Until I read this:

I understand that that's why you think it matters. The problem is in the analogy. Most theists are the equivalent of seeing the actual fire and almost being burned by it, and they still sin.

So that is progress. You would agree, then, that the more evidence you see, the more certainty in your belief and the stronger your convictions. One believes smoke, fire alarms, seeing fire and the heat from fire are all evidences of the existance of fire. But some evidences are stronger than others. And some evidences cause more alarm within us humans than others. And some evidences ignite a greater effort on our part than others to stay away from fire. This is human nature. You agree to this I guess?

 

[Magic Man]

Because I thought I had exhausted my ability to make you understand. Until I read this:

So that is progress. You would agree, then, that the more evidence you see, the more certainty in your belief and the stronger your convictions. One believes smoke, fire alarms, seeing fire and the heat from fire are all evidences of the existance of fire. But some evidences are stronger than others. And some evidences cause more alarm within us humans than others. And some evidences ignite a greater effort on our part than others to stay away from fire. This is human nature. You agree to this I guess?

Sure, I'll agree to that. It's usually not because people are more convinced of something, though, as much as it is the danger is more imminent. If I see smoke, I might be able to do something about it still. If I see a fire raging through a room, it's too late, and the danger is extremely imminent, meaning I need to go immediately. It's more like when I see smoke, I assume there's fire, but it may not be out of control yet; the fire might not be that bad yet.

Again, though, the problem is that, in your analogy, most theists fall into the category of having seen the fire raging. They can feel the fire burning them, and yet they don't run away (to use your analogy). They are that sure of God's existence.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Sure, I'll agree to that. It's usually not because people are more convinced of something, though, as much as it is the danger is more imminent.

Fine you are a great guy. But which would get you more worried. The greater the evidence the more the worry, right?

Is logically coming to a conclusion the same as witnessing the conclusion? You can tell a child he can float on water ... he might believe it. You can show him floating on water and he might still have some doubt. But once he learns to float there is no doubt in his conviction that humans can float on water.

A detective can logically prove to you and convince you of the murderer. But it is not the same as you seeing the murderer with your own eyes. They are different levels of conviction.

I want to make sure you agree with all of this before I move on.

 

[Caladan]

tarick, you said:

No I was referring to those who claim to believe something is wrong and yet commit that wrong. They really are not completely honest with themselves are they?

I dare say that this applies to all human beings, what we may call believers or non believers. everyone 'sins', its in our biology.
as noted earlier 'sin' is one subjective way to look at human nature.
humans have needs, and urges, and no amount of dogma and theology concerning sin will change it (or the implications).
its meaningless to give it a dimension of not having a strong enough belief, if we still insist to give this a religious dimension, then a good example is the Bible, even the most noble of Biblical figures have succumbed to sin: King David, King Solomon.

 

[Magic Man]

Fine you are a great guy. But which would get you more worried. The greater the evidence the more the worry, right?

Is logically coming to a conclusion the same as witnessing the conclusion? You can tell a child he can float on water ... he might believe it. You can show him floating on water and he might still have some doubt. But once he learns to float there is no doubt in his conviction that humans can float on water.

A detective can logically prove to you and convince you of the murderer. But it is not the same as you seeing the murderer with your own eyes. They are different levels of conviction.

I want to make sure you agree with all of this before I move on.

Again, most theists are 100% sure of God's existence. They have "floated for themselves", so that they know for sure. They have "seen the murder with their own eyes". Any analogy you give, they fit into the 100% certain category. It's not necessarily the greater the evidence, the more the worry. That implies that there's reason for worry. It is true that the more evidence I find of a tumor on my body, the more worried I will be about having cancer. However, a whole lot of theists know God fully and are 100% about his existence, but find no reason to worry.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

It is true that the more evidence I find of a tumor on my body, the more worried I will be about having cancer.

So we agree. Good. Now, for the analogy.

Please tell me what exactly gives you this conviction that Thiests have 100% certainty in their belief.