BELIEF is not complicated. (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 18:20 (5812 days ago) @ Cary Cook

Cary defines belief in terms of two "completely different concepts": 1) judgment of probability, and 2) trust, and "anyone who claims to believe 1) something which he considers improbable is either confused or lying, possibly to himself." - George (under 'Atheism') requires "overwhelming evidence, reinforced by personal experience" in order to "believe in" something ("i.e. with an emotional motivational commitment"). - Curtis (under 'Starting in the wrong place') asks "what is the minimum amount of uncertainty that would cause you to choose?" (i.e. for or against God). - In relation to whether God exists or not, I think belief is extremely complicated, and I think it would be helpful if our theists and atheists could explain the basis of their beliefs/disbeliefs. To be specific: Cary (under 'Introduction expanded') writes: "What are the odds that a just God is out there, given what we've seen of this planet? Close to zero ... unless there is an afterlife in which everybody gets exactly what he deserves...Since there is no demonstrably reliable evidence for or against an afterlife, there is absolutely no way to judge those odds. Therefore I assert that an afterlife with just rewards & punishments is a reasonable bet....A necessary prerequisite of a just afterlife is to have a just Being in charge of it. Therefore, I bet my money, my ass, and my assumed soul on a just God." - If the only concrete evidence we have concerning God's justice is close to zero, and if the odds for/against an afterlife can't be judged, how can there be a degree of probability to justify belief type 1)? If it is a matter of belief type 2), then that is clearly in conflict with belief type 1). So where does the "commitment" come from? I don't see how you can bet everything you have on a scenario that you yourself find improbable. I'm not questioning your belief ... I'm trying to understand it, and your categories make it more confusing than enlightening. - Similarly with George's atheistic tendencies. I apologize for going over old ground (George and I have had many discussions on this), but we have new contributors offering us new arguments, and again I think an explanation would be helpful. George requires overwhelming evidence to believe/believe in something. If ... more apologies here, this time to Curtis ... we start with the question of how life originated, I do not see how anyone can discount the possibility of a conscious designer. I'm talking here of disbelief ... definite rejection, an inner conviction that there is nothing out there. We do not have one jot of evidence that life can formulate itself spontaneously out of inanimate matter, and yet you reject the possibility of a conscious designer, which is the only alternative to chance (regardless of the natural laws that will operate once chance has done its bit). Once again, where does the "commitment" come from? - David Turell has examined the scientific evidence for and against the spontaneous/ designed origin of life, and has concluded that life is too complex to be the result of chance combinations, but although he therefore believes (= trust based on probability) that there is a superior form of intelligence out there, he does not go beyond that, as Cary does, in attributing qualities to that power. Curtis clearly does attribute qualities to it, but we don't yet know the basis of his beliefs.
 
 All this is in response to Cary's claim that belief is not complicated. I have no problem with the mundane examples of car and home, because I have all the concrete evidence I need to make my choices. When it comes to religion, I am confronted with a huge array of imponderables and conflicting evidence and interpretations of evidence. So where does the theists' and the atheists' "emotional, motivational commitment" come from?