Trying to understand your post, @Basketactortale . Are you suggesting that the the solution to the problem of 'hell' only arose with the earthly ministry of Jesus?
I apologise but I don't understand your question.
You said 'respect for your ancestors beyond 2000 years' -which I took to be the time since Jesus was on earth. If that's right then I was interested in clarifying what changed, with respect to hell, at that point in time.
In the first place, beliefs are subjective attitudes. That is, they're mental properties we, as individuals, have regarding things, rather than being qualities of the things we have beliefs about.
To address this again, subjective has more than one meaning.
I might talk about an objective judgement, by which I would mean a judgement based on beliefs about evidence as opposed to my personal inclination and preferences. From there, it's natural to talk about a subjective judgement, being one based more on personal factors rather than on neutrally evaluating the evidence.
But that is a different sense of subjective from the sense you're using 'subjective' in above. And it would be a fallacy of equivocation to move from 'beliefs are subjective attitudes, that is mental properties of individuals' to 'beliefs are subjective, that is based on personal inclination rather than neutral evidence'.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
Pardon me for wandering into the thread, but I was just again reminded...yet again...of how there are so many people I know who will never go near a fucking church in their lives because of the straight-up spiritual abuse they received from people who loudly and earnestly declared that they were True Christians...
...and of course soft spoken, gentle mainliners like me are frauds...
And it infuriates me to imagine God condemning such people even to the genteel first circle of eternal torment for crimes that were visited upon them.
Honestly, my God-given ethical sense simply will not tolerate it, so I'll just wave the wand of "Holy Mystery" and declare myself a soft universalist. Damning is God's job, not mine. But I have my suspicions.
[with apologies to anyone who may feel they resemble the people I'm angry at, I do not intend to attack anyone here, this is just a conversation I literally just had. I went to the ship to see if I could start a thread on it and voila! there was one!
I am aware there are conservatives with better sense, but I also am viscerally aware of the logical problem created by theological architecture.]
Trying to understand your post, @Basketactortale . Are you suggesting that the the solution to the problem of 'hell' only arose with the earthly ministry of Jesus?
I apologise but I don't understand your question.
You said 'respect for your ancestors beyond 2000 years' -which I took to be the time since Jesus was on earth. If that's right then I was interested in clarifying what changed, with respect to hell, at that point in time.
Are we not discussing the whole "believers go to heaven, the fallen go to hell" Christian theology?
Unless I'm missing something, this Christian idea is something from the Christian era.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
G'day! I'm currently 'down under' too and finding the Aboriginal art and artefacts fascinating.
I was in Madagascar last year and was struck by the veneration of ancestors there, not only among Animists either.
Not sure how to reconcile any of this save to borrow Abraham's phrase, 'Will not the God of all the earth do right?'
I learned much about the attempt to stamp out First Nation indigenous people, much of it in the name of Christianity. Did you know that people from many different language groups were rounded up and dumped into "missions" run by churches, where they were made to work for nothing? That there are clear legacies of this stuff with mothers having their children taken away for ridiculous reasons and people scratching a life in asbestos filled housing in former mission sites because they have nowhere else to go?
Today these groups have lost much of their languages and culture, many of their religious artifacts are in museums and their sacred places are built on.
In these contexts I don't see that the damage which cannot be undone was in any sense weighed against the value of spreading Christianity, including the doctrine of hell.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
So, to return to the topic of the thread, why do you believe it?
I'm not saying you must do anything, I'm saying that other Christians have taken other views on this topic whereas you appear to feel compelled to believe in something you seem to think is unpleasant.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
Not really. If Hell is real it's as real as Gaza, the White House and Kiiv. And choosing to believe otherwise wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to its reality.
In the first place, beliefs are subjective attitudes. That is, they're mental properties we, as individuals, have regarding things, rather than being qualities of the things we have beliefs about.
The problem here is that 'subjective' is polysemous, as is 'objective', and it is all too easy when not careful to move between attributing 'subjective' to the attitude and attributing 'subjective' to the object of the attitude.
To address this again, subjective has more than one meaning.
I might talk about an objective judgement, by which I would mean a judgement based on beliefs about evidence as opposed to my personal inclination and preferences. From there, it's natural to talk about a subjective judgement, being one based more on personal factors rather than on neutrally evaluating the evidence.
But that is a different sense of subjective from the sense you're using 'subjective' in above. And it would be a fallacy of equivocation to move from 'beliefs are subjective attitudes, that is mental properties of individuals' to 'beliefs are subjective, that is based on personal inclination rather than neutral evidence'.
Fair enough. Though I think these two uses are related (whether that's useful or not is another question), and I can think of different ways to take "based on".
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
Not really. If Hell is real it's as real as Gaza, the White House and Kiiv. And choosing to believe otherwise wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to its reality.
There are reasons to believe in physical locations. What reasons are there to believe in a hell? Why should one have to believe in the version of the doctrine you have in your head rather than another?
Hell is an idea. Gaza is a place. Do you really not see why those are different?
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
Not really. If Hell is real it's as real as Gaza, the White House and Kiiv. And choosing to believe otherwise wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to its reality.
There are reasons to believe in physical locations. What reasons are there to believe in a hell? Why should one have to believe in the version of the doctrine you have in your head rather than another?
Hell is an idea. Gaza is a place. Do you really not see why those are different?
If Hell is only an idea, then by definition you don't believe in it. The question is whether it is indeed just an idea or if it's real.
Trying to understand your post, @Basketactortale . Are you suggesting that the the solution to the problem of 'hell' only arose with the earthly ministry of Jesus?
I apologise but I don't understand your question.
You said 'respect for your ancestors beyond 2000 years' -which I took to be the time since Jesus was on earth. If that's right then I was interested in clarifying what changed, with respect to hell, at that point in time.
Are we not discussing the whole "believers go to heaven, the fallen go to hell" Christian theology?
Unless I'm missing something, this Christian idea is something from the Christian era.
No, if a sufficiently compelling line of reasoning were offered, that was more compelling than an existing one, and which led to a different conclusion, then it would logically need to a change in conclusion, or belief. That's what a belief is to me - a conclusion reached from a line of reasoning from available evidence.
But I'm not sure of the why implicit in your formulation. If I didn't already believe a proposition were true, why would I try to convince myself it was? If I did already think it was true, then I wouldn't need to convince myself. It seems to postulate a set of propositions which I think are true but which I don't currently believe, which is a logical contradiction. "Believe" and "Think to be true" are synonymous.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
KarlLB has said exactly what I would have. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider me self-deluded, but from the inside I can tell you that the process of changing one of my beliefs about God etc looks and feels precisely like the process of changing one of my beliefs about astronomy (and yes, I’ve done both). New evidence turns up, I look at it critically, I’m convinced (or not), and then I start incorporating the new understanding into my life. Very boring of me, really.
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
Not really. If Hell is real it's as real as Gaza, the White House and Kiiv. And choosing to believe otherwise wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to its reality.
There are reasons to believe in physical locations. What reasons are there to believe in a hell? Why should one have to believe in the version of the doctrine you have in your head rather than another?
Hell is an idea. Gaza is a place. Do you really not see why those are different?
I’d suggest that you’re placing your thumb on the scales a little bit here. Just because you believe Hell is an idea rather than a place doesn’t mean others do as well. If you want to understand why someone believes what they do, it’s best not to impose your own suppositions on them.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything.
I'm afraid that's not really the question I'm asking. I don't see the issue of corresponding to reality as being clear cut - I think all that any of us can say is whether something corresponds to our own current perception or understanding of reality. So the question might become something like "would you be willing to change your perception or understanding of reality?" But I suspect your answer wouldn't be any different, because I'm still asking a question that depends on a different understanding of what is possible from the one you have.
Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again.
Unless we ever get back to discussing General relativity…
But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
What about ceasing to believe in the importance of birthdays?
I assume LC believes in Hell because of what is written in the bible - if I get Pease's question correctly it would be something like - how do you end up believing in this particular interpretation of scripture (that you find so unpleasant).
So, if I might ask LC, is it your experience that God has told you about Hell directly and/or is it your experience that God has led you to this specific interpretation of scripture ? If not, how did you end up at this interpretation - is it something you came to from reading the bible, or from your theological education in a specific faith tradition ?
That's not a belief in the sense we're discussing things here. Among other reasons, the importance of birthdays (to whom or what? In what context? Producing what results or signs?) is a continuum, unlike the existence of hell.
The importance of birthdays is at base an opinion and therefore unprovable under any circumstances ever. The existence of hell is unprovable at the present time (and may it stay so for all of us, forever) but is in theory a thing that could be proven by experience.
I'm sure someone could phrase this better, and would be grateful to anyone who knows the name of the difference I'm fumbling to phrase.
That's not a belief in the sense we're discussing things here. Among other reasons, the importance of birthdays (to whom or what? In what context? Producing what results or signs?) is a continuum, unlike the existence of hell.
The importance of birthdays is at base an opinion and therefore unprovable under any circumstances ever. The existence of hell is unprovable at the present time (and may it stay so for all of us, forever) but is in theory a thing that could be proven by experience.
I'm sure someone could phrase this better, and would be grateful to anyone who knows the name of the difference I'm fumbling to phrase.
I think it's our old friends objective and subjective again.
The part I'm not understanding is why this conception of hell is necessary to believe. Clearly other Christians have believed other things about hell, but for some reason it seems that people believe in eternal damnation whilst also accepting that it is unpalatable.
I don't think it is like other geographical things.
I suggest that humanity has been aware of the moon for a long time. People came up with many stories about it, but how well those related to the physical composition was only revealed when we finally went there.
But hell is a whole other thing. It's like all the ancient stories about the moon - but without even having the ability to sit out on a dark night and look at it.
The part I'm not understanding is why this conception of hell is necessary to believe. Clearly other Christians have believed other things about hell, but for some reason it seems that people believe in eternal damnation whilst also accepting that it is unpalatable.
I don't think it is like other geographical things.
I suggest that humanity has been aware of the moon for a long time. People came up with many stories about it, but how well those related to the physical composition was only revealed when we finally went there.
But hell is a whole other thing. It's like all the ancient stories about the moon - but without even having the ability to sit out on a dark night and look at it.
Instead of the moon, consider a distant star. It's possible it may have a planet orbiting it. It may not. For the sake of argument, assume our ability to detect exoplanets is not up to ruling on the matter.
The planet, if it exists, which we cannot know, exists whether we believe it or not. Our beliefs have absolutely no bearing on its existence or otherwise.
I don't think it's like that. It's more like looking at the stars and seeing patterns that have some impact on human lives.
And then saying that it's just a true/false thing like whether cheese is or isn't made from goats milk.
I think you're begging the question. If Hell doesn't exist, then beliefs about it are arbitrary and matter only inasmuch as they affect the people holding them. But the existence of Hell is the question being asked, so a particular conclusion - it doesn't exist- can't be one of the premises.
Comments
You said 'respect for your ancestors beyond 2000 years' -which I took to be the time since Jesus was on earth. If that's right then I was interested in clarifying what changed, with respect to hell, at that point in time.
I might talk about an objective judgement, by which I would mean a judgement based on beliefs about evidence as opposed to my personal inclination and preferences. From there, it's natural to talk about a subjective judgement, being one based more on personal factors rather than on neutrally evaluating the evidence.
But that is a different sense of subjective from the sense you're using 'subjective' in above. And it would be a fallacy of equivocation to move from 'beliefs are subjective attitudes, that is mental properties of individuals' to 'beliefs are subjective, that is based on personal inclination rather than neutral evidence'.
As you've said before. And as I've said before, they might be synonymous for you, but they're not synonymous for me. There are a whole load of beliefs that I hold that have not come about as a result of a rational consideration of reasoned arguments. I suspect this is true for most of us. Why do we celebrate birthdays? What is it that we believe about birthdays that leads us to think that we should celebrate them?
I don't consider either of you to be deluded.
I suppose part of the question I'm trying to address is that both of you appear to have beliefs about Hell that seem to cause you a certain amount of anguish. Do you want to hold onto these beliefs? If it were possible for you to intentionally change your beliefs about Hell, would you want to do so?
My personal experience that it is possible to change one's beliefs. Taking the current topic, I think where I differ from what you both describe is that, rather than being presented with a reasoned argument (which I'm not planning to do), I believe it is possible for someone to set out to change their beliefs about Hell themself.
And in this, if anything, I suspect that I'm the one who sounds more deluded.
...and of course soft spoken, gentle mainliners like me are frauds...
And it infuriates me to imagine God condemning such people even to the genteel first circle of eternal torment for crimes that were visited upon them.
Honestly, my God-given ethical sense simply will not tolerate it, so I'll just wave the wand of "Holy Mystery" and declare myself a soft universalist. Damning is God's job, not mine. But I have my suspicions.
[with apologies to anyone who may feel they resemble the people I'm angry at, I do not intend to attack anyone here, this is just a conversation I literally just had. I went to the ship to see if I could start a thread on it and voila! there was one!
I am aware there are conservatives with better sense, but I also am viscerally aware of the logical problem created by theological architecture.]
Are we not discussing the whole "believers go to heaven, the fallen go to hell" Christian theology?
Unless I'm missing something, this Christian idea is something from the Christian era.
maybe, then, we should drop the whole "deluded" thing, since none of us appears to feel that way about the others!
Do I want to hold on to this belief? Dear God, no. If I could get rid of it, I would.
If it were possible for me to intentionally change my beliefs about hell,...
Well, here's the rub. "Possible" to me means one thing: That sufficient evidence has turned up to allow me to say, "Oh thank God, I was wrong." If that happened, I'd be incredibly glad.
But if you mean "Would you be willing to change your belief regardless of whether it corresponded to reality or not?" the answer is no. And that's because I can't tolerate error/falsehood/deception/lies of any sort in my personal understanding of the world. Not just on hell, but on pretty much everything. Heck, someone once convinced me I'd fucked up my understanding of Mercury's rotation and orbit, and I promptly spent some hours researching this and getting myself straightened out. I am not an astrophysicist and I am never likely to need that piece of data again. But I can't stand having errors in my mental database.
I learned much about the attempt to stamp out First Nation indigenous people, much of it in the name of Christianity. Did you know that people from many different language groups were rounded up and dumped into "missions" run by churches, where they were made to work for nothing? That there are clear legacies of this stuff with mothers having their children taken away for ridiculous reasons and people scratching a life in asbestos filled housing in former mission sites because they have nowhere else to go?
Today these groups have lost much of their languages and culture, many of their religious artifacts are in museums and their sacred places are built on.
In these contexts I don't see that the damage which cannot be undone was in any sense weighed against the value of spreading Christianity, including the doctrine of hell.
It seems to me that at some level belief is a choice. Whilst it might feel from within that these things are a "package deal" and that one isn't being invited to decide which aspects to believe, surely the history of Christian belief says this isn't the case.
If a belief about something or someone is causing mental anguish, one would think that the natural thing to do would be to stop believing it, stop thinking and stop worrying about it. That's a choice.
And the fact that other Christians have done X or Y doesn't mean I can or must do X or Y.
ETA that my unwilling belief in hell has nothing to do with any "package deal" nonsense.
I'm not saying you must do anything, I'm saying that other Christians have taken other views on this topic whereas you appear to feel compelled to believe in something you seem to think is unpleasant.
You can't just stop believing in things. I mean, I'd stop believing that Russia is invading Ukraine, that tens of thousands of Palestinian children weren't dead and that Trump was president of the USA if choosing to believe things changed reality.
I think you are comparing apples with rainbows in this example.
Not really. If Hell is real it's as real as Gaza, the White House and Kiiv. And choosing to believe otherwise wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to its reality.
There are reasons to believe in physical locations. What reasons are there to believe in a hell? Why should one have to believe in the version of the doctrine you have in your head rather than another?
Hell is an idea. Gaza is a place. Do you really not see why those are different?
If Hell is only an idea, then by definition you don't believe in it. The question is whether it is indeed just an idea or if it's real.
I’d suggest that you’re placing your thumb on the scales a little bit here. Just because you believe Hell is an idea rather than a place doesn’t mean others do as well. If you want to understand why someone believes what they do, it’s best not to impose your own suppositions on them.
What about ceasing to believe in the importance of birthdays?
So, if I might ask LC, is it your experience that God has told you about Hell directly and/or is it your experience that God has led you to this specific interpretation of scripture ? If not, how did you end up at this interpretation - is it something you came to from reading the bible, or from your theological education in a specific faith tradition ?
The importance of birthdays is at base an opinion and therefore unprovable under any circumstances ever. The existence of hell is unprovable at the present time (and may it stay so for all of us, forever) but is in theory a thing that could be proven by experience.
I'm sure someone could phrase this better, and would be grateful to anyone who knows the name of the difference I'm fumbling to phrase.
I think it's our old friends objective and subjective again.
I don't think it is like other geographical things.
I suggest that humanity has been aware of the moon for a long time. People came up with many stories about it, but how well those related to the physical composition was only revealed when we finally went there.
But hell is a whole other thing. It's like all the ancient stories about the moon - but without even having the ability to sit out on a dark night and look at it.
Instead of the moon, consider a distant star. It's possible it may have a planet orbiting it. It may not. For the sake of argument, assume our ability to detect exoplanets is not up to ruling on the matter.
The planet, if it exists, which we cannot know, exists whether we believe it or not. Our beliefs have absolutely no bearing on its existence or otherwise.
And then saying that it's just a true/false thing like whether cheese is or isn't made from goats milk.
I think you're begging the question. If Hell doesn't exist, then beliefs about it are arbitrary and matter only inasmuch as they affect the people holding them. But the existence of Hell is the question being asked, so a particular conclusion - it doesn't exist- can't be one of the premises.
I'm saying that they're essentially the same kind of thing: ideas.
Places, stars, other true/not-true statements about cheese and yogurt are clearly different.
To the extent that I really don't understand what you are driving at.
My point is that "Hell is just an idea" is a conclusion. It's another way of saying "not real". So the statement can't be one of our premises.