AgnosticWeb.com - BELIEF is not complicated.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:18:19 +0000

Must be that fuzzy logic.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

George Jelliss — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:55:30 +0000

I applaud dhw's efforts in trying to make some sense of Cary Cook's arguments. I must admit defeat. - Cary, I've had several looks at your website, trying to get my mind round it, and cannot get anywhere with it. There are two reasons. - First, in your Essays the concept of God is too predominant. Evidently here you are wrestling with your early indoctrination in religious thought patterns. - Second, in your Concept Clarifier you seem to be trying to automate your thinking in the manner of logical positivism. But you are only succeeding in generating a sort of Orwellian Newspeak.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

dhw — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:50:32 +0000

I am happy with the argument that there are different kinds of belief, involving voluntary and involuntary processes, and that there is a distinction between thinking something exists, trusting that something has certain qualities, and holding opinions. The gap between us is therefore so narrow that I suggest we close the thread. I'm grateful for your patient explanations!

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:15:48 +0000

Or if the previous is not sufficient, then you tell me. What does the term, believe, mean in the following sentence? - Joe believes in carrying fire insurance, but does not believe he will ever use it.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:40:31 +0000

Concepts: You write: "I am trying to clarify existing concepts. Different interpretations of individual words is one of the things we must get beyond in the effort to clarify concepts. We're not talking about what a word is for me or for you or for anybody. We're talking about what a concept is." This implies that a concept has an objective meaning beyond our linguistic definition of it, - Correct. - >and it also begs the question of who you are trying to clarify concepts for. You can only use language to clarify, so if other people don't understand or misunderstand the individual words you are using, how can they understand what the concept is? - Good point. I must try to use words that mean the same to me and whoever I'm talking to. A concept has one denotative meaning which must be expressed in language in order to be communicated. The term we use to label a concept may have multiple denotative meanings and extraneous connotative meanings. All spoken languages have this problem. But in math and computer languages, one term stands for one thing. In identifying exiting concepts & categories we must do the same. We must ignore all connotative meanings, then agree on which denotative meaning we are talking about, then label it with whatever term is agreeable to both communicants. ------------------------------------------ >You "admit that the term belief is not often...thought of as a decision to act. But a decision to act is the basis of what's implied by the concept belief-2" ... which you define as a voluntary decision to act, and so a decision to act is the basis of what's implied by a voluntary decision to act, which takes us round in a circle. - Correct. It's not intended to prove anything. It's a statement of one term equaling another when they both refer to the same concept. If A = B, then B = A. - The example you go on to give (the decision to pull the trigger) is clear in itself, but I still don't know why you call the decision a belief. - The decision is the mental event where belief-2 is manifest. i.e. The decision is where & when belief-2 comes into existence. Both are mental events that happen simultaneously. If you want to call the decision a separate concept from belief-2, what is the difference? If there are two separate concepts, there must be some difference between them. Otherwise this is a single concept being called by two names. The fact that the words have different connotations is irrelevant. ---------------------------------------------- The rest of your post has a lot of different points, most of which I addressed above. But to explain why I call belief-2 belief at all, I'll expound on something I already said: - The term, believe, is often used in the imperative mood. E.g. "X is true. Believe me." Obviously it makes no sense to ask or command someone to do something involuntary. Any legitimate request or command is a request or command to do a voluntary act. I would prefer that this concept be labeled by some term other than believe, because it makes for confusion. But tradition has stuck us with it. Apostles Paul & James were confused by this same problem 2000 years ago. The same issue is evident in these two statements: ...1. Joe believes in fairies. ...2. Joe believes in the US dollar (or British pound). The first says Joe thinks a particular thing probably exists. The second says Joe trusts a particular thing. i.e. Joe acts as though a particular thing is true or reliable or worth something. - Does that clarify it?

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

dhw — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:55:56 +0000

There are two separate strands to our discussion ... one relating to personal beliefs, and the other to clarification of concepts. I shall only comment on those areas that remain unclear to me. - Personal: I wrote that I didn't understand why you thought a just God's ethics would be different from your own, and you asked where you said anything that would imply that. In your posting of May 29 at 02.11, you wrote: "If I knew that this life is all there is, then the most sensible course of action would be to spend my resources on immediate pleasures, and suicide out before the karma catches up. But I don't know that this life is all there is. A just afterlife may exist...[You decide to bet on a just afterlife.] If I lose, then I have wasted this life." I apologize if I have misinterpreted this, but to me it implies that God would disapprove of your pleasures. If you yourself consider them to be unethical, I would hope that your own conscience would hold you back (and thus spoil the fun), but if you consider them to be ethical yet think God would disapprove, then you must think he has a different code of ethics from yours. With the one proviso that they should not cause harm to others or to oneself, I see no reason why anyone should sacrifice earthly pleasures in case there is a "just afterlife" (whatever that may be). - Concepts: You write: "I am trying to clarify existing concepts. Different interpretations of individual words is one of the things we must get beyond in the effort to clarify concepts. We're not talking about what a word is for me or for you or for anybody. We're talking about what a concept is." This implies that a concept has an objective meaning beyond our linguistic definition of it, and it also begs the question of who you are trying to clarify concepts for. You can only use language to clarify, so if other people don't understand or misunderstand the individual words you are using, how can they understand what the concept is? - You "admit that the term belief is not often...thought of as a decision to act. But a decision to act is the basis of what's implied by the concept belief-2" ... which you define as a voluntary decision to act, and so a decision to act is the basis of what's implied by a voluntary decision to act, which takes us round in a circle. The example you go on to give (the decision to pull the trigger) is clear in itself, but I still don't know why you call the decision a belief. Whatever the reason for the decision to pull the trigger, it will almost certainly be based on probability judgments, and so surely there are three stages: the judgment, the decision, the action. Only the first of these seems to me to be a belief, but it is still your belief-1. I can believe that my intended victim is a bastard, I would be happier if he was dead, and I would also enjoy the Â£1 million he has left me in his will. But I don't like hurting people, and in any case I might get caught. I weigh up the probabilities as to which course of action (to shoot or not to shoot) is likely to bring me maximum pleasure (using your criterion) and I take my decision accordingly. Whether I shoot or don't shoot is not ... in my book ... a belief, but an action based on a decision based on a belief. - You ask why I think my attempt to clarify the concept of belief is satisfactory, and you (rightly) say that it does not correctly identify the right two concepts. I suggested that belief = "acceptance that something is true, real, or has other qualities, underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense and/or by a probability judgment. Lacks the certitude of knowledge, although the two concepts are sometimes confused, and the borders are indistinct." I have excluded your belief-2, for the reasons given above. My suggestion incorporates what I see as the possible mixture of conscious and subconscious influences, and also covers the inculcated acceptance that often underpins religion (not, as far as I can see, included in your own clarification). I have added the different concept of knowledge ... you yourself say that "all attempts to define this concept fail" ... because we need to know that belief and knowledge are not identical, even if we cannot define knowledge. - You say that if I want unclarity, there is no point in us talking. Let me say categorically that I do want clarity, but I have not found it in this particular part of your "concept clarifier". Perhaps we need the input of someone else to say whether this is due to my stupidity, to the complexity of your clarifications, or to a fault in the concept. I accept emotionally, spiritually and via a probability judgment that it may well be the first of these.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:00:34 +0000

>Firstly, although belief may be the basis of action, I don't see how it can be called a decision to act. - I admit that the term belief is not often called or thought of as a decision to act. But a decision to act is the basis of what's implied by the concept, belief-2. Suppose I say, "X is true. Believe me." Am I telling you to do something voluntary or involuntary? Obviously it makes no sense to ask or command someone to do something involuntary. Any request or command is a request or command to do a voluntary act. Before the act comes the decision to act. The decision is the act of trust, even if immediate circumstances prevent the act from being done. But it must be the decision immediately preceding the action. E.g. the decision to pull the trigger counts as attempted murder, even if external circumstances prevent the attempted murderer from pulling it. Therefore the decision is the basis, not the act. But if you decide to do something a minute from now, but then a minute from now you decide not to do it, that doesn't count as belief-2, because you reversed your own decision. ----------------------------------------- >Let me be tiresomely conventional and adapt a dictionary definition in order to clarify what I understand by belief: acceptance that something is true, real, or has other qualities, underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty and/or by a probability judgment. Lacks the certitude of knowledge, although the two concepts are sometimes confused, and the borders are indistinct. Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to say why this is unsatisfactory. - It's unsatisfactory because the two concepts are sometimes confused, and the borders are indistinct. Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to say why this is satisfactory. - In fact it didn't even correctly identify the right two concepts. But if you WANT unclarity, there's no point in us talking.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:56:47 +0000

I have to split this because it was too long. - >Point 1) Cary says that if there is a "just" afterlife, ethics will be the basis of our pleasure/displeasure ratio, and duration of life will depend on rewards and punishments. - You got the second part wrong. I said this: Duration of life will necessarily be sustained until all just payments are made ... both rewards & punishments. ------------------------------------------------- >I didn't know that there was limited "duration" in the Christian concept of a possible afterlife, but maybe you can expound on this later. - Christian concepts of an afterlife are irrelevant to anything we've said so far. ------------------------------------------------ >I still don't understand why you should think a just God's ethics will be different from your own, - Where did I say anything that would imply that? -------------------------------------------- >I find your use of "involuntary" misleading. (Misunderstandings so often come down to different interpretations of individual words.) For me, this does not simply entail independence from the will, but also a lack of consciousness and control, - I'm trying to clarify existing concepts. Different interpretations of individual words is one of the things we must get beyond in the effort to clarify concepts. We're not talking about what a word is for me or for you or for anybody. We're talking about what a concept is ... in this case, the concept "involuntary", which is different from the concept "subconscious". Involuntary means not controlled by the will. An involuntary act may be totally involuntary (e.g. heartbeat, digestion, reflex actions) or partially involuntary in the sense of being delayable, but not preventable (e.g. breathing, burping, farting). Some acts are sometimes involuntary and sometimes preventable (sneezing, coughing, vomiting). Yes, we may be unconscious of an involuntary act like heartbeat & digestion, but being unconscious of it is not what makes an act involuntary. Not controlling it is what makes it involuntary. Subconscious acts can be voluntary or involuntary. ------------------------------------------------- >Would it not be clearer to say that JUDGMENT OF PROBABILITY is independent of the will? - If that does it for you, you're welcome to it. But I wouldn't change my essay to match that, because I think it will cause more problems than it solves. Somebody might rightly ask me what judgment of probability is. If I take your advice, the conversation might go like this: ME: Judgment of probability is independent of the will. HIM: I didn't ask you what it's independent of; I asked you what it is. ME: It is a mental act. HIM: You mean like thinking, perceiving, and emoting? ME: Specifically it's a thought. HIM: You mean like adding numbers? ME: No. I said it's independent of the will. HIM: You mean it's an involuntary mental act? ME: Yeah. HIM: Would it not be clearer to say that?

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

dhw — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:18:25 +0000

This is a reply to Cary's posting on May 31 at 06.58, but takes into account the latest posting. - Point 1) Cary says that if there is a "just" afterlife, ethics will be the basis of our pleasure/displeasure ratio, and duration of life will depend on rewards and punishments. - I didn't know that there was limited "duration" in the Christian concept of a possible afterlife, but maybe you can expound on this later. I agree that there are problems in relation to masochism, but with the proviso that our pleasures should cause no harm to ourselves or others, I still don't understand why you should think a just God's ethics will be different from your own, and you therefore have to adapt your earthly way of life accordingly. - Point 2) "Judgment of probability is an involuntary act". "Your judgment at any point in time will be based on evidence & logic (and possibly intuition), but not on your will." Thank you, I get it now. But I find your use of "involuntary" misleading. (Misunderstandings so often come down to different interpretations of individual words.) For me, this does not simply entail independence from the will, but also a lack of consciousness and control, whereas in judging something to be probable, I am conscious and I at least have the impression that I am in control, not of the facts but of the process of interpretation that leads to my judgment. Would it not be clearer to say that JUDGMENT OF PROBABILITY is independent of the will? - Your second type of belief, which you call "trust" and equate with a "willful" decision to act, is also clear to me now in the context of your own definitions, but I will try to explain why I find it unsatisfactory. Firstly, although belief may be the basis of action, I don't see how it can be called a decision to act. Secondly, I believe (type 1) that many people follow religions not because of any probability judgment but because they have grown up with certain doctrines which have become part of their instinctive make-up. Call it trust, belief or faith (you also mark these as synonymous in your concept clarifier), but I see no exertion of will here. Your own decision to bet on a just afterlife is clear, but the only belief involved seems to be that this will give you a better chance of rewards, and that is another judgment of probability. The wilfulness lies in choosing to follow one probability judgment instead of another. - Let me be tiresomely conventional and adapt a dictionary definition in order to clarify what I understand by belief: acceptance that something is true, real, or has other qualities, underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty and/or by a probability judgment. Lacks the certitude of knowledge, although the two concepts are sometimes confused, and the borders are indistinct. Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to say why this is unsatisfactory.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:31:42 +0000

Your excellent input has provoked me to revise my belief essay. http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/belief.html - Notably these major changes: JUDGMENT OF PROBABILITY is an involuntary act. It happens in the mind without conscious effort or choice as soon as evidence and logic make a conclusion appear probable(more than 50% likely). We judge evidence and automatically believe(1) whatever appears probable at that time. Of course, deliberate cogitation may change our minds from that we first believed(1). And new evidence may change our minds. But at any point in time, we judge probability based on the evidence we have seen, and logic we have figured out at that time. We cannot willfully choose to believe(1) otherwise. Anyone who claims to believe(1) something which he considers improbable is either confused or lying, possibly to himself. - Plus a caveat at the end: However, two factors may possibly complicate the issue ... the combination of emotion and irrationality. If a person is irrational enough, he may try to believe(1) what he wants to believe(1) despite perceived evidence to the contrary. And for all I know, he might succeed. Actual self-deception may be possible.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:40:29 +0000

Fair enough. If that's where you are, I definitely don't want to even try to talk you out of it. - But I would like to point out the merits of splitting. If you take a machine apart, examine the parts, then put it back together, you have a greater understanding of it than you would have had otherwise. If you then see someone else having trouble with the same machine, you are more likely to be able to help him with it.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

David Turell — Sat, 31 May 2008 17:08:50 +0000

My life has been extremely fulfilling. With that said, that is probably why Cary and I do not see things at all the same way. I will accept only what I can prove to myself. My need is not for a 'just God', because I do not know that He fills that role. Other than creation I don't know what He does. Also I am a lumper not a splitter, and would define Cary's thinking as simply stating emotions get in the way of reason. However, Cary's definitions are very helpful in clarifying matters in this area of thought.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:58:50 +0000

>you define pleasure as "a part or subset of emotion or a category of mind in itself when stimulated sensually". (Why not intellectually as well?) - Good point! I'll make that correction. ------------------------------------- >On this general basis, I agree with you. However, I would say exactly the same if there IS an afterlife. - If there is an unjust afterlife, the only thing that would change is duration of existence. If there is a just afterlife, ethics become necessarily and highly relevant, because they not only affect, but are the basis of one's received pleasure/displeasure ratio. Duration of life will necessarily be sustained until all just payments are made ... both rewards & punishments. ------------------------------------------ >I would argue that harmful actions will only produce (subjectively) ethical pleasure if the person concerned is, at least to a degree, a masochist or sadist. - I agree on sadist. Masochist carries some implied paradoxes, and should probably be disregarded until we get the more general rules straight. The rules of the system must take all types into account and disburse a just pleasure/displeasure ratio accordingly. ---------------------------------------------- >I don't see why judgment of probability is involuntary. - Judgment of probability is involuntary in rational people, but possibly not in people who are sufficiently irrational. i.e. If you are rational and you think X is probable, you can't voluntarily choose to think otherwise. Your judgment at any point in time is based on your memory of the data that you have perceived up to that time. Deliberate cogitation on data + logic may change your mind. Any new piece of incoming data may change your mind. But no matter how long and strenuously you process the info you have, your judgment at any point in time will be based on evidence & logic (and possibly intuition), but not on your will. You may choose to act contrary to your probability judgment, but that is a subsequent and separate event. - Having said that, I will admit that irrational people often to try to think contrary to their natural probability judgment for emotional reasons. If they claim to think what they in fact don't think, they are simply liars. But maybe they actually succeed in fooling themselves. Your next question fits right in. - >Can you consciously will yourself to think something is true even though reason tells you it's not? - Maybe self-deception is possible. I can't claim to know either way. I only know that I was not successful at it when I tried to believe-1 what I was told about God & Scripture. ------------------------------------------------- >If belief 1) and 2) are in opposition, how do we separate them yet reach one conclusion? - I don't know how to say it any more clearly than this: Recognize belief-1 as an involuntary mental act of probability judgment. Recognize belief-2 as a voluntary decision to act with or against your judgment of probability. Belief-1 gives you your mental conclusion. i.e. X is probable or improbable. Belief-2 is a decision to act. If you want to call that decision a conclusion, then recognize it as a subsequent and separate conclusion. - If that doesn't do it for you, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. If you have more questions, I'll try to answer them, but my answers are likely to be repetitious. It may be helpful if you can identify what you find unsatisfactory about the answers I've given. - Or possibly some of you other guys can help one of us.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

dhw — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:54:28 +0000

Cary's point 1): "Assuming there is no afterlife, then the value of this life is purely a matter of emotional economics. Maximum pleasure is the only sensible value. Ethics are irrelevant unless they produce pleasure..." - In your very useful "concept clarifier" you define pleasure as "a part or subset of emotion or a category of mind in itself when stimulated sensually". (Why not intellectually as well?) It is also the "reason why good is good and bad is bad", and it is "that part of the self which causes desire to exist". Many of these concepts are cross-referenced. On this general basis, I agree with you. However, I would say exactly the same if there IS an afterlife. The proviso for me in both cases is that the pleasure should do no harm to oneself or other people. A just afterlife would only be a deterrent if one's pleasures were based on something harmful to oneself or to others. This brings in ethics, and I would argue that harmful actions will only produce (subjectively) ethical pleasure if the person concerned is, at least to a degree, a masochist or sadist. Otherwise, the pleasure principle applies whether there is or is not an afterlife. - Point 2: "What a person believes (1 or 2) may be complicated. The concept, belief, itself is not complicated once you recognize it as 2 separate concepts erroneously called by the same name." - The two concepts are judgment of probability (which you call an involuntary act) and trust (which you say is a voluntary act of will). You also say that "in practice, these concepts usually overlap." - I have to say that I am struggling with all of this, but I do want clarification, and to get it I have to explain to you why I am struggling. If this is frustrating for you, I can only apologize and hope that you will be patient. Here are my problems. - 1) I don't see why judgment of probability is involuntary. I agree with George Jelliss and David Turell that there has to be a conscious and ongoing study, which may even change one's views as new discoveries are made. Perhaps you are only referring to the point at which the individual's conscious research reaches its moment of (temporary) decision: George decides that a supreme power is improbable, and David decides that it is probable, so do you mean that there is an involuntary mechanism tipping the balance? That, of course, raises all kinds of questions about why we make our decisions. - 2) My argument against trust as a voluntary (you call it "willful" in the clarifier) act is almost the converse. Many people are brought up to believe in one god or another, and so regardless of the counter-arguments that are thrown at them they will stick to what it is inbred, i.e. there is a god; or their god is the right one. It has become a gut feeling, and may even go against judgment of probability. Can you consciously will yourself to think something is true even though reason tells you it's not? - 3) If the concepts usually overlap (and I certainly agree that they do), the degree of separateness is itself a problem. If I say that Mr X has researched the subject thoroughly, has concluded that the existence of God is probable, and therefore believes 1) and 2) that God exists, then I agree with you, belief is not complicated. But if 1) and 2) are in opposition, how do we separate them yet reach one conclusion? To be specific: you think it improbable that God is just and that there is an afterlife, and you say the Bible is irrelevant to you. But you claim to be a Christian and bet your money, ass and soul on there being an afterlife and a just God. I can see that the first = judgment of probability and the second = trust. What I can't see is how you can have both categories of belief at the same time ... unless your trust is an involuntary act overriding the voluntary judgment of probability as I've described it, which doesn't seem to be the case. - Once again, my apologies if I'm missing the point, but let me assure you that clarification would be very helpful, as the discussion is highly pertinent to my own situation: you have been able to take a decision, and I have not.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Fri, 30 May 2008 03:17:58 +0000

Your desires & preferences may be different from mine. But unless you claim a reason for those desires & preferences other than achieving maximum pleasure, I would conclude that you have no disagreement with anything I've said.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:58:41 +0000

I cannot accept an approach to the way I live life and conduct myself as predicated upon whether I think there is an afterlife. I hopefully think there may be an afterlife based on the findings I discussed in my book, but I will not act like a child afraid of reward or punishment as a guide to the way I will act. I want to look back on a productive life in which I pleased other people as well as myself in the process. In that way I let the issue of afterlife take care of itself. Again, as dhw has noted I carry myself only so far as I can prove to myself the issues of spirit and belief. I prefer the Kaballistic approach to afterlife in a wishing way. But who knows if they are correct even if they have been meditating for at least 1,500 years to find a universal truth.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:19:43 +0000

George & DHW - My thanks for the emotional support, but that's not why I'm here. I'm here to either clarify my thinking or help you clarify yours ... assuming that you want clarification. Addressing each of your points would only complicate the issue further. Therefore I'm sending you both the same post, and addressing only 2 issues. Do you disagree with either of the following? - 1. Assuming there is no afterlife, then the value of this life is purely a matter of emotional economics. Maximum pleasure is the only sensible value. Ethics are irrelevant unless they produce pleasure. Duration of life is irrelevant unless it consists of sustained pleasure. - 2. What a person believes(1 or 2) may be complicated. The concept, belief, itself is not complicated once you recognize it as 2 separate concepts erroneously called by the same name.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

Cary Cook — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:17:43 +0000

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

dhw — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:17:36 +0000

Cary's emotional, motivational commitment to belief in a just afterlife comes from his will, and is based mainly on fear of suicide. "Life sucks", and if his hope for a just afterlife is not fulfilled, he will have wasted his life, nihilism is true, and nothing matters. - I share George's concern at your depressed view of life and the universe, but am struggling to find a clear line of thought. To be honest, I've never known of anyone before who has embraced Christianity because he thought God had made a complete mess of the world. You seem to be forcing yourself to believe in a just afterlife against the evidence and because it is your only hope of making up for a lousy life. I find myself largely in agreement with George's response to you, and so I will try to cover ground that he does not cover. Firstly, from my neutral standpoint (there may or may not be an afterlife, it may or may not be just), there are three possibilities: - 1) No afterlife, and we attain perfect peace after "life's fitful fever". OK, so be it. 2) A happy afterlife. Great. 3) A miserable, unjust afterlife. No, thank you. I'd prefer 1). - In terms of this life, we all have our own criteria for what constitutes pleasure and for what constitutes pain. Provided the pleasure, whatever it may be, is not harmful to yourself or to others, I see no earthly reason why you should not indulge. If you think there is a heavenly reason, then sort out your priorities: if you think God would disapprove, then maybe it's not "kosher" and you won't enjoy it anyway, so it won't be a pleasure. I can't see that it makes any difference whether we're in for 1), 2) or 3). - "Nothing matters" (if there is no afterlife) seems pretty blinkered to me. Every moment matters, whether there is or isn't an afterlife. Which do you prefer: a) to eat a good meal, or b) to have your leg broken in ten different places? This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. If you are happier at this moment doing a) than doing b), how can you say nothing matters? If it matters to you, it matters. And the same applies to every human being you know of, regardless of beliefs. The fact that it won't matter in 100 years' time is irrelevant. I'd go further, though. If there's no afterlife, then the present matters even more. - Life is made up of present moments which become our personal reality. When I lie dying, I hope to look back on a life in which I have enjoyed the activities I like, have made people happier for knowing me, have fulfilled whatever talents I had, have left the world a better place for my having been here ... and all the other goodie-goodie platitudes you can think of. That doesn't make me impervious to the suffering I see around me. I don't know if it's God's fault, man's fault, or the fault of an impersonal universe, but whichever it is makes no difference to my way of life or to my certainty that I am happier doing things that make me happy than I would be doing things that make me unhappy. And so are other people. If those things square with my conscience, I see no reason why God ... if he's there ... should object, and I see no reason to behave differently according to whether there is or isn't an afterlife. - I am now more bewildered than ever by your claim that belief is not complicated. Yours is the most complicated belief I have ever come across.

BELIEF is not complicated. (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:34:03 +0000

Cary, I'm sorry to learn that, due to your own experiences, you have such a depressed view of life the universe and everything. My own experience is more mixed. - Since I can find no evidence for a creator, but think the universe is just the way it is because it can be no other way, I do not have anyone to blame or praise. I just have to put up with it. - I'm pretty certain that this life is all there is, and indeed perhaps I should spend more of my resources on immediate pleasures, though I find I get a lot of pleasure from intellectual activities (such as arguing on discussion forums and solving puzzles) and that delayed gratification is often worth waiting for. - I still have a lot of things I would like to get completed before I die, though it seems unlikely now that I will ever get many of them done. So I have plenty of incentives to go on living and do not feel the need contemplate suicide. Only very bad health and great pain I think would set me down that route. - I don't see why you think that indulging in pleasures would lead to "karma" catching up on you, unless you mean overindulging in smoking, eating, drinking and sex; but then overindulgence is not pleasure. - You propose gambling on the remote possibility of an afterlife. This is not a bet I would take. You say "a person may reasonably buy a lottery ticket if the jackpot appears high enough". I've never bought a lottery ticket, and as something of a mathematician would certainly not agree with your reasoning here. I would only go in for a competition where I had a reasonable chance of winning something. - For me this life that I have is probably the only one I'm going to have, so I'm certainly not going to throw it away for a remote and unlikely possibility. - In my experience if atheists commit suicide it is because they are in great pain and bad health or have got themselves into a impossible situation, emotionaly or financially. On the other hand one reads regularly of believers in an afterlife who commit suicide, often taking their children with them. This I find horrendous. Possibly even worse than suicide bombers.