Posted by Matches on May 02, 1999 at 00:23:56:
In Reply to: In the abstract posted by Tal on May 01, 1999 at 20:33:51:
OK, Tal, it seems like we've gotten a bit mixed up in our definitions. You make some valid points, though I'd (could you guess?) have to disagree somewhat on your assessment of the Beleiver. A beleiver does not necessarily beleive in one single "door" or relgion, and does not have to shut himself out from every other door... Being a beleiver does not necessarilymean you close yourself to all other ideas of God. I for example beleive in a God, and have used my personal experiences to help me determine how I understand him. But if I were to find conflicting evidence, I wouldn't shrug it off... I'd change my idea of God.
One other thing, Tal. (Or anyone else) Are you familiar with the idea of Pascal's Wager?
4w5,
Matches
> A believer (we can dispense with the fatalist, let's consider only those believers who are positive in their faith) believes in what he cannot see. The problem is not that he has belief (this is no different from the agnostic). The problem is that he draws conclusions with no basis that lead to largely erroneous beliefs. Now, every believer stands the chance of being right. It's possible Christians are right; it's also possible the Heaven's Gate cult was rescued by aliens as they claimed. But by virtue of the dogmatic nature of the believer, he closes himself off to all other possibilities. This is like being in a room with 100 exits, 99 of which lead to death, 1 of which leads to salvation. The believer chooses his door and says "I'm sure this is the right one." Now it's possible that he is right, but generally chances are far better that he's deluding himself and greatly reducing his own chances at finding whatever meaning there is in life.
> An agnostic has belief. An agnostic can even believe in God. The difference between the agnostic and the theist is not that one believes and the other doesn't, it's that the theist jumps to irrational conclusions and the agnostic does not. An Agnostic can very much believe in the existence of God, but he does not believe God's nature can be known.
> I'm an agnostic, and I generally believe in the existence of God (in the sense of there being something higher.) I believe this for many reasons. On one level there is the matter of what seems reasonable to me (I personally find some form of creation more feasible than current scientific explanations), but on a far deeper level I believe in some form of God because I often have moments when I feel that everything is so beautiful and so perfect and so at one that what we see cannot be the limit of existence (a minor peak experience). But now, this doesn't mean I know what God is. It means I only accept that a higher being exists (though I am always open to the possibility my mind is playing tricks on me and we just become worm food). I cannot say what this being is like, and what its intentions are for me or anyone else. So I live my life with the goal of happiness in mind, taking *into* account that I believe there's something higher.
> Now, you could say to this "well the believer is no different; he experiences God to a greater degree so he knows what it is to a greater degree". But it's not the same, because the believer accepts dogma that is not his own. That is, no Christian has himself walked on water, and for some reason very few believers nowadays claim to speak to God (and those that do are almost invariably suffering from some psychological ailment). In other words, feeling at one with the universe and your fellow humans can lead you to say, "right, I think God exists and suffuses us all, and how wonderful that is, and I now find more meaning in life" but it does *not* logically follow that you think "right, this same being must have spoken to Jesus or Mohammed in the past and delivered his commandments through them, and so these actions are bad, and these actions are good, and this is heaven, and this is hell, and that's how it is". This is what the agnostic rebels against; not the rational interpretation of personal experience and consequent formation of non-dogmatic beliefs, but the irrational acceptance of dogma.
>
> Tal (4/5)