Ain't gonna change?

[Furrowed Brow]

From Evidence in Favor of Christianity

I ain't gonna change what I believe

As an atheist I too am as certain as anything I can be certain of that I ain’t gonna change what I believe. Maybe I’ll posts some reasons later. So question:

• 1/ what beliefs do you hold regarding any god that are if you were honest not up for modification?
  2/ why ain’t you gonna change what you believe?

[bernee51]

From Evidence in Favor of Christianity

I ain't gonna change what I believe

As an atheist I too am as certain as anything I can be certain of that I ain’t gonna change what I believe. Maybe I’ll posts some reasons later. So question:

• 1/ what beliefs do you hold regarding any god that are if you were honest not up for modification?
  2/ why ain’t you gonna change what you believe?

God does not exist. There is no need, reason or evidence of for the existence of any god.

[realthinker]

Regarding what I believe and would not change, I like to think that there is nothing. I believe that wisdom goes hand-in-hand with a healthy dose of humility. Wisdom without it is arrogance.

If one clings to an idea so tightly that one cannot comprehend its invalidity I believe that humility is lost. One is celebrating one's own recognition of validity, not respecting the validity of the idea, or perhaps its invalidity. Isn't it better to accept and hold the truth than to be perceived as holding the truth when it is not?

A quest for truth starts with humility. If one cannot accept misconception or ignorance the truth will be hard to recognize, much less accept and hold.


What you are describing can be related in another fashion.

What belief do you hold regarding God that, if untrue, would invalidate so many of your other beliefs that you would be left without the a basis for reason?

Truth is our set of objective facts plus our ideas that are compatible with those facts. Some of those ideas are fabrications from other ideas that are greatly removed from objective facts, so much so that they need not be true. Still, the whole of the set allows us to reason. We keep ideas that are compatible with that set. We reject ideas that are not. For theists, the concept of God is compatible with their other ideas. For atheists, there is incompatibility. What you're asking is how is the concept of God related to other ideas that you hold to be true, and how tight is that relationship. Would invalidating that idea compromise your whole set of beliefs so much that you would question ideas that are closer to those that govern your perceptions and your behavior? Would you not know how to think and act?

[Zzyzx]

.
The basis of my position, what I am unwilling to change is: Each of us has the right and responsibility to learn about the world we inhabit, to make decisions based upon careful consideration of what we learn about the real world and its people, and to be totally responsible for our every decision, path, thought and emotion. I do not accept a default of our responsibilities to excuses or fanciful "explanations".

Regarding "gods": If any of the thousands of "gods" is discoverable and provable, my future decisions can reflect that knowledge. However, my thought processes require evidence beyond testimonials, opinions, conjecture and legends. In the absence of discovery and proof, reason requires utilizing alternative explanations. Ease and convenience of assuming "goddidit" to "explain" the unknown is not adequate reason to avoid seeking truthful, discoverable and provable explanations.

[OnceConvinced]

Funny that Onefaith should say something like this. She struck me as someone who is open minded and willing to look at other possibilities.
...........................

Words are cheap. It's one thing to say something, it's another thing to back them up. One of the bible's greatest characters, Peter lived with Christ and appeared to be one of the most faithful desciples. But yet he went down in infammy as the man who denied Christ. Thomas doubted him and Judas betrayed him. These men, Christ's chosen, failed, despite having known him and seen him in action first hand. So who is any Christian to say they will never do the same? That would make them even more faithful than Peter. (and we'd also expect to see them going around with God performing miracles through them like he did with Peter later on)

It's a very bold claim to say things like "I will never change my beliefs" or "I will never give up on Christ". As a Christian I believed I would never change my beliefs either. I was convinced it would never happen and I even made claims that "I could never give up Christianity", "I could never not believe". I stayed in the faith for over 30 years (the majority of my life so far). But now look where I am.

1/ what beliefs do you hold regarding any god that are if you were honest not up for modification?

One should never be so stubborn or self-righteous as to blindly accept they have the truth. No one should ever be that arrogant. One should be willing to question and challenge "truth", otherwise they could easily find themselves being decieved or misled. Imagine what trouble Christians will be in if Allah turns out to be the one true God!

2/ why ain’t you gonna change what you believe?

My beliefs are open to change. I have been in the situation where I adamently believed things and then found them not to be true. This is a humbling experience and makes one realise that no matter how much you believe something and are convinced it is true, there is always a possibility you might be wrong.

[cnorman18]

Core beliefs of my own that I cannot imagine will ever change:

I am a fallible, imperfect and often foolish human being who will never, ever be in possession of the whole or complete truth about anything, not even my own self.

If I ever do believe that I know everything about anything, I will have achieved prideful idiocy.

Words are not things, and there is no formulation of words that can ever wholly capture the true nature or essence of any aspect of reality.

Beliefs are expressed in words; therefore, any set of beliefs about anything must necessarily be incomplete and inaccurate.

That does not mean we can know nothing; but we should always be prepared to learn more and modify what we do think we know.

That process should not end till we stop breathing. If you are done learning, you might as well be buried that day.

How's that?

[Furrowed Brow]

God does not exist. There is no need, reason or evidence of for the existence of any god.

Yep. Few words but the rights ones. Some might read this and agree other will disagree, but maybe you have to be able to look at the world in a certain light to appreciate just how powerful they are. They form a holy trinity....

• No need
  No reason
  No evidence

That sums up the core of a certain kind of atheism to which I subscribe with about as much succinctness as is possible.

If one clings to an idea so tightly that one cannot comprehend its invalidity I believe that humility is lost.

Why strive for humility? Sure it is an admirable quality but what does it say about whether your beliefs are right or wrong. And what is intellectual humility…how do you recognize it? Is it possible to comprehend the possibility of an idea being false or invalid, yet find that possibility completely unacceptable to one’s sense of intellectual rigor and what counts as a meaningful claim.

I think the only test for humility is intellectual rigor...or rather acheiving a level of rigor which is your max. For long complicated arguments it is difficult to say where this is but for 2 + 2 = 4, or "P and Not P form a contradiction", it is quickly provable.

Hey maybe “God is love� really is a true claim, but I’ll guarantee that if it is then to my dying day I have no idea what it means. Some might see that as an arrogant claim, but when I put all that I have learnt about the nature of language and how it can be used, and apply myself with as much effort and rigor as I can muster…I really don’t know what it means and I am sure I never will. As I get older my powers shall fade. I ain’t quite as a bright as I once was, I am sure to become less bright…I just think I’ve given this my very best shot….and I dunno .....and I know how I dunno.

What you're asking is how is the concept of God related to other ideas that you hold to be true, and how tight is that relationship.

Yes this is a good way of putting it, except I’d make a slight change:

• What you're asking is how is the concept of God related to other ideas that you hold to be rigorous and how tight is that relationship.

I don’t get so hung up on questions of Truth. I’m convinced that I have never seen an idea or claim or sentence regarding a deity that when pushed does not fall apart; and whatever it is that is holding the belief together it is not what I’d count as uncompromising intellectual rigor.

Would invalidating that idea compromise your whole set of beliefs so much that you would question ideas that are closer to those that govern your perceptions and your behavior? Would you not know how to think and act?

I think moving off questions of what is true and on to what is rigorous sets this question in a different light. Yes showing how an invalid argument is valid or how a non sequitur is a legitimate form of argument would pretty much leave me not knowing how to think. (Mind you I don’t claim to prove my brand of atheism through argument.)

This is a humbling experience and makes one realize that no matter how much you believe something and are convinced it is true, there is always a possibility you might be wrong.

Some things I can accept the possibility I’m completely wrong on, because my coming to them is not through argument or evidence. However, on some of these I am also absolutely convinced that my stance feels utterly right. I am as fickle as the next guy, but on certin things I have zero expectation I shall be shifted…because they are me, my personality, what I am.

However, I am convinced that I’ve seen no evidence for, or legitimate argument in support of the claim that a man walked on water. I’m sure there are none. I’m also sure I have seen no theory of language that shows how we can form meaningful sentences regarding metaphysical objects or forces. For me these conclusions are a done deal that I do not need to return to pretty much because they fall into a class of beliefs along with 2 + 2 = 4. Of course I could have them wrongly categorized, but then I might start doubting 2 + 2 = 4. At some point you just have to say, on these points I stick....there is other stuff to learn.

I am a fallible, imperfect and often foolish human being who will never, ever be in possession of the whole or complete truth about anything, not even my own self.

I think the search for ultimate truth with any expectation that you will reach a terminus is pretty much a forlorn hope.

Words are not things, and there is no formulation of words that can ever wholly capture the true nature or essence of any aspect of reality.

Ah…anything that can be thought can be put into words. Anything else we cannot think. That “true nature…� is then - technically speaking - quite meaningless.

Beliefs are expressed in words; therefore, any set of beliefs about anything must necessarily be incomplete and inaccurate.

Well it depends what someone is trying to say. Some stuff is just too complex so we resort to statistically analysis. Thermodynamics and quantum theory for example. I don’t know and can never know with completely accuracy how many molecules I am made of. “John is jealous of Jim� is a vague claim, because the meaning is depending on context and an open set of possible circumstances to which it might apply, and “jealousy� is as you say a word. However, we can say stuff like “jealousy� is not a causal state and this can be a true or false claim. I think the key is having an accurate idea of when our sentences can be true or false, and when accuracy is itself a trivial pursuit. You don’t need to know how many molecules are in that anvil or even how much it weighs exactly, or the strength of Earth’s gravity to know if it drops on your toe it either will or will not hurt.

[cnorman18]

I am a fallible, imperfect and often foolish human being who will never, ever be in possession of the whole or complete truth about anything, not even my own self.

I think the search for ultimate truth with any expectation that you will reach a terminus is pretty much a forlorn hope.

Precisely.

Words are not things, and there is no formulation of words that can ever wholly capture the true nature or essence of any aspect of reality.

Ah…anything that can be thought can be put into words. Anything else we cannot think. That “true nature…� is then - technically speaking - quite meaningless.

Not quite. We can perceive and think things that are inexpressible in words except as abstract or synopsis or metaphor. I an not speaking of quantum physics here, but of ordinary reality.

Describe in words the taste and texture of a peach. Distinguish them from those of a nectarine. You may come within a mile or two, but the only way to truly explain the difference to another person is to hand him one of each and say, "Eat these." Words just aren't adequate, and the difference is not meaningless.

Beliefs are expressed in words; therefore, any set of beliefs about anything must necessarily be incomplete and inaccurate.

Well it depends what someone is trying to say. Some stuff is just too complex so we resort to statistically analysis. Thermodynamics and quantum theory for example. I don’t know and can never know with completely accuracy how many molecules I am made of. “John is jealous of Jim� is a vague claim, because the meaning is depending on context and an open set of possible circumstances to which it might apply, and “jealousy� is as you say a word. However, we can say stuff like “jealousy� is not a causal state and this can be a true or false claim. I think the key is having an accurate idea of when our sentences can be true or false, and when accuracy is itself a trivial pursuit. You don’t need to know how many molecules are in that anvil or even how much it weighs exactly, or the strength of Earth’s gravity to know if it drops on your toe it either will or will not hurt.

I am not speaking of scientific technicalities or ambiguous language, but of philosophical or theological beliefs, rather ordinary things that most people hold in one way or another. Reality - including the internal reality of the mind - is too complex and nuanced to be entirely and accurately captured in words.

"Do good" is a simple enough idea, but the wise of my adopted culture and community have expended more than 50 volumes in the Talmud trying to explain that concept in detail - and we aren't done yet.

[Furrowed Brow]

Words are not things, and there is no formulation of words that can ever wholly capture the true nature or essence of any aspect of reality.

Ah…anything that can be thought can be put into words. Anything else we cannot think. That “true nature…� is then - technically speaking - quite meaningless.

Not quite. We can perceive and think things that are inexpressible in words except as abstract or synopsis or metaphor. I am not speaking of quantum physics here, but of ordinary reality.

Language can work in several ways, and words may also be construed in different ways depending on context, double meanings etc. But all of those alternative meanings can be said clearly. Metaphors while not meant to be literally true suggest resemblances. If x resembles y then x can be described clearly. The metaphor understood if y can also be described clearly. The metaphor meaningless if y is an unknown.

Describe in words the taste and texture of a peach.

Juicy, tangy, sweet…

Distinguish them from those of a nectarine.

Juicy, tangy, sweet…

You may come within a mile or two, but the only way to truly explain the difference to another person is to hand him one of each and say, "Eat these."
Words just aren't adequate, and the difference is not meaningless.

Technically speaking an existential experience is not the meaning of a word. Words are social tools; their meanings inhabit a shared social space. While we all may have our own subjective tastes, these cannot be put into words:

Let’s say you like peach and hand me one to try, I eat and say that’s nice. And we both agree the peach is juicy, tangy, sweet, etc. Let’s say you also like nectarines, and handing me a nectarine I say yuk that’s disgusting. You ask me to describe the taste and I say well it’s juicy, tangy, and sweet. Doh! You say. But that’s the same as the Peach. Yeah I say, but it is not the same…the nectarine is like a bad peach. Not sure what I mean you take the nectarine back off me and take a bit and it tastes juicy, tangy, sweet…..and lovely. But that nectarine is lovely you say, nah it’s disgusting I say…it’s a bad peach.

You seem to have a completely different experience of the nectarine to me. But exactly what of my distinct experiences of a peach and a nectarine have I communicated to you? And the answer is nothing other than my disapproval. Trying to get to the heart of the difference you might try to elicit from me more information: I say the nectarine is like this or like that…but if our experiences of the nectarine are so far apart then how about all those other tastes we invoke as similes? And the answer is that personal experience is not the stuff that gives our words their meanings. When one of us says the peach is sweet, the word peach identifies a certain type of fruit, and that identification is dependent and only dependent on all the social contexts, from books, to the ability to identify different fruit trees, the way fruit sellers stack their fruit. The meaning of the word sweet given in list of sweet things that humans tend to agree are sweet ….and the meaning of sweet embedded in that social agreement.

It might be easier to think of a color say blue. For the moment imagine we live in universe A. In universe A half the population see the color blue in exactly the same way you see blue, and the other half of the population see something else. If you could see the world as they do you would say that’s not blue, it’s a color I’ve never experienced before, but it ain’t blue. However, reality plays the trick that both populations of blue and other blue always associate their version of blue with the same objects, length of light wave, the same part of the light spectrum etc. In this sense blue and other blue are exactly the same….the only difference is the personal experiences of the two groups. Now imagine universe B. where no one experiences the same blue. However again each individual experience still follows the consistent pattern of being associated with the same objects, light wave etc. In both universes A and B the public use of the word Blue is exactly the same. Though there are differences to who has Blue as their favorite color. If we then compare universe A and B with universe C a universe where everyone sees the same Blue: again the public use of the word blue is the same; universe A, B and C can all agree and point out the blue portion of the Red, White and Blue.

Moral of the three universes: blue ain’t in the head or the experience, the meaning of blue is out there in the world. If we can understand how to use the word blue in the way our social groups agree to use the word, then we know its meaning.

Reality - including the internal reality of the mind - is too complex and nuanced to be entirely and accurately captured in words.

Ah….there is no “internal reality of the mind�….I agree we all have our own subjectiveness…this is not literally “internal� because the word internal means within or inside etc. Literally speaking what the heck is the mind inside? Don’t answer that because if you did it would just compound the initial error….the mind ain’t inside anything. Neither is there a “reality of mind� if by mind you assocaite words like: intentions, wishes, wants, hopes, desires, loves, hates...etc, because the meanings of these words is found amongst us, not in us. The only means we have to convey reality is…..words…..that only have meanings shared between people. Strictly speaking the mind is amongst us in our social spaces….that’s its reality.

[cnorman18]

Technically speaking an existential experience is not the meaning of a word. Words are social tools; their meanings inhabit a shared social space. While we all may have our own subjective tastes, these cannot be put into words

That is precisely what I am saying, and I think that extends to unspoken or nonverbal thoughts, beliefs and feelings as well.

Ah….there is no “internal reality of the mind�….I agree we all have our own subjectiveness…this is not literally “internal� because the word internal means within or inside etc. Literally speaking what the heck is the mind inside? Don’t answer that because if you did it would just compound the initial error….the mind ain’t inside anything.

Oh, stop it. You know what I meant by "internal" as well as I do, and it has nothing to so with anything being "inside" anything. It has to do with our individual subjectiveness, which you admit we all have.

Neither is there a “reality of mind� if by mind you assocaite words like: intentions, wishes, wants, hopes, desires, loves, hates...etc, because the meanings of these words is found amongst us, not in us. The only means we have to convey reality is…..words…..that only have meanings shared between people. Strictly speaking the mind is amongst us in our social spaces….that’s its reality.

Your position does not seem to be that all thoughts can be expressed in words so much as that any thoughts which cannot be so expressed cannot be shared, and therefore do not exist.

Meanwhile, over here in MY head, there are all sorts of perceptions, thoughts, emotions and beliefs for which there are no words. That I cannot adequately share them is clear enough, but that they are therefore not there at all is just a bit too materialistic an idea for me to swallow. In short, I don't agree.

My point was simply that beliefs - that is, real beliefs of actual people, as opposed to the theoretical beliefs of hypothetical people who really don't exist - invariably contain such unverbalized and emotional subtexts, and so are, when stated in words, always and inevitably incomplete and inaccurate.

That's all. Seems reasonable and realistic to me.