"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[smac97]

Wow:

This fits pretty much perfectly into my worldview.

Yet another reason to admire those wonderful Catholics.  Any faith that produces people like Peter Kreeft is worthy of respect.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow:

This fits pretty much perfectly into my worldview.

Yet another reason to admire those wonderful Catholics.  Any faith that produces people like Peter Kreeft is worthy of respect.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Great stuff, pure Pragmatism.

That's what I did and it works

I am here because of that way of thinking.

[stemelbow]

Not a fan of Pascal's wager on this.  It assumes that if there is a God he is more willing to bless those who disingenuously believe over those who genuinely disbelieve.  But if God, then he knows our heart.  It may be that he/she who doesn't believe will have a more full heart than he/she who does.  It's a wager that assumes that an individual is going to be better if that individual believes or pretends to believe. but fails to acknowledge that it is quite possible a person could be better off being genuine in their unbelief than trying to life as if he/she believes.  

It's a whole lot of assumption.  

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not a fan of Pascal's wager on this.  It assumes that if there is a God he is more willing to bless those who disingenuously believe over those who genuinely disbelieve. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  I don't think it has any such assumption.

Quote

But if God, then he knows our heart.  It may be that he/she who doesn't believe will have a more full heart than he/she who does.  It's a wager that assumes that an individual is going to be better if that individual believes or pretends to believe.

I'm not sure "pretends to believe" is apt.  "Acts as if God does exist, even if there are doubts" is more accurate.

Quote

but fails to acknowledge that it is quite possible a person could be better off being genuine in their unbelief than trying to life as if he/she believes.  

Possible, but apparently not probable.  The video provides some sociological data to who that people are generally better off in having believe than in not having it.

Quote

It's a whole lot of assumption.  

But it's a smart assumption.  That's the point of the wager.

And to add a gloss to it: We believe that we don't need to "assume" the existence of God.  We can conclude it.  Through faith, study, effort, and seeking out and feeling the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2018 by smac97

[The Nehor]

I am okay with it. It starts from Alma’s “no more then desire to believe”. Believing something is true because you want it to be true is messed up. Experimenting on a belief to test it is not.

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am okay with it. It starts from Alma’s “no more then desire to believe”. Believing something is true because you want it to be true is messed up. Experimenting on a belief to test it is not.

I’ve always liked this scripture. But in my experience, Mormons have told me that I shouldn’t apply this ‘test’ to beliefs outside Mormonism.

Doesn’t make sense to me. The test works to find truth, or it doesn’t...

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ve always liked this scripture. But in my experience, Mormons have told me that I shouldn’t apply this ‘test’ to beliefs outside Mormonism.

Doesn’t make sense to me. The test works to find truth, or it doesn’t...

Well, This form of testing is not effective in all situations. It works in some.

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.  I don't think it has any such assumption.

  Sure it is.  Is it not assumed in the wager that those who believe will have eternal reward while those who do not will not?   

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure "pretends to believe" is apt.  "Acts as if God does exist, even if there are doubts" is more accurate.

A couple of things.  1.  It is quite possible a person who doesn't believe in God can act better in life than another person who does believe in God.  

2.  Does God not decide one's eternity in Christendom based on the heart of that one?  If one simply can't believe in God, as per his/her own conclusion, to take on Pascal's wager would, for that person, be to pretend to believe.   

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Possible, but apparently not probable.  The video provides some sociological data to who that people are generally better off in having believe than in not having it.

The video flashes a couple of charts.  But even still in stats it could be that believers are happier or generally better off.  BUt it also could be that any individual non-believer could be happier and generally better off as an non believer than he/she would be as a believer.  Or, it could also be that any non-believer could be better off and happier than any believer.  You could go with general trends, I suppose but that would be ignoring the uniqueness of individual.  

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's a smart assumption.  That's the point of the wager.

And to add a gloss to it: We believe that we don't need to "assume" the existence of God.  We can conclude it.  Through faith, study, effort, and seeking out and feeling the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, anyone can conclude belief in God, just as anyone can conclude no belief in God.  

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, This form of testing is not effective in all situations. It works in some.

Explain what you mean. If I wanted to know if Catholicism is true, can I apply the principles in Alma 32?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Explain what you mean. If I wanted to know if Catholicism is true, can I apply the principles in Alma 32?

Sure. Buy some indulgences and see what happens.

[SouthernMo]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Sure. Buy some indulgences and see what happens.

Maybe I’ll start with some of those cheaper indulgences for sins like cussing as a test.

I don’t have the faith yet to try to indulge my way out of adultery...

[Glenn101]

The one phrase that struck me the most forcefully was, "I want to believe whatever is true." And that is the bottom line. there is an objective truth somewhere out there  not obscured, not obfuscated by words and semantics that at some  point in time will be the reality that we will have to deal with. If there is no God, no life after life, then we will never know it. But if there be a life after this life, it will become everyone's new reality and whether anyone wants to or not, that is what they will have to deal with.. By my glass is still rather opaque.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow:

This fits pretty much perfectly into my worldview.

Yet another reason to admire those wonderful Catholics.  Any faith that produces people like Peter Kreeft is worthy of respect.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Another reminder of how far I've changed in the past few years.  I used to resonate with these kinds of people.  This video is one inaccurate strawman argument after another, an incredibly simplified waste of time.  

If someone wants to know more about the effects of belief in God on a person's brain, I highly recommend this book, it is not antagonistic towards faith.  Its all about the science around belief in God and its benefits from a scientific perspective.  There are real benefits, but its not at all the way this video explains.   

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536258678&sr=8-1&keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe I’ll start with some of those cheaper indulgences for sins like cussing as a test.

I don’t have the faith yet to try to indulge my way out of adultery...

You are missing out. I found the fornication indulgences surprisingly affordable.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Sure it is.  Is it not assumed in the wager that those who believe will have eternal reward while those who do not will not?   

First, the Latter-day Saints don't subscribe to the binary "heaven/hell" eschatology you reference here.

Second, the wager as espoused by Mr. Kreeft encourages behavior congruent with faith as a starting point, with the idea that such efforts may bloom into having actual faith.

Third, those who engage in righteous behavior while still harboring some doubts are, in my view, in a very good place.  Isn't that a description of most of us?

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A couple of things.  1.  It is quite possible a person who doesn't believe in God can act better in life than another person who does believe in God.  

Again, possible, but not probable.  Sociological data seems to bear that out.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

2.  Does God not decide one's eternity in Christendom based on the heart of that one?  If one simply can't believe in God, as per his/her own conclusion, to take on Pascal's wager would, for that person, be to pretend to believe.   

Not "pretend."  Nobody is suggesting deception or fakery.  Prof. Kreeft is proposing that we act based on hope.  Faith.  Even in the presence of doubts/concerns.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The video flashes a couple of charts.  But even still in stats it could be that believers are happier or generally better off. 

Yes, I think that is generally the case.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

BUt it also could be that any individual non-believer could be happier and generally better off as an non believer than he/she would be as a believer.  Or, it could also be that any non-believer could be better off and happier than any believer. 

Yes, there are no doubt some exceptions or limitations to the rule.  But otherwise, as a generalization, people who have religious faith in their lives appear to lead happier, better lives than those who do not.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You could go with general trends, I suppose but that would be ignoring the uniqueness of individual.  

No need to ignore such uniqueness.  The wager is readily applicable to anyone who wants to give it a try.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes, anyone can conclude belief in God, just as anyone can conclude no belief in God.  

But the wager posits that the first option is the better way to go.  Sociologically.  Eschatalogically.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

This video seems to point to the inevitable conclusion that I too come to - If there is no God, then atheism, if followed to it's logical end, leads unavoidable to a nihilistic conclusion.  And if nihilism is followed to it's logical end, then say farewell to emotional well-being.  

I am not well versed in philosophy, so I would like to hear what other's think about this (especially Mark and Clark).  Is nihilism the only possible philosophical conclusion in a world without God?  I personally can't see anyway around it.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Another reminder of how far I've changed in the past few years.  I used to resonate with these kinds of people.  This video is one inaccurate strawman argument after another, an incredibly simplified waste of time.  

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If someone wants to know more about the effects of belief in God on a person's brain, I highly recommend this book, it is not antagonistic towards faith.  Its all about the science around belief in God and its benefits from a scientific perspective.  There are real benefits, but its not at all the way this video explains.   

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536258678&sr=8-1&keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman

Hmm.  Here's  a summary of that book (emphasis added):

Quote

God is great--for your mental, physical, and spiritual health. That's the finding of this startling, authoritative, and controversial book. Based on new evidence culled from their brain-scan studies on memory patients and meditators, their Web-based survey of people's religious and spiritual experiences, and their analyses of adult drawings of God, this research team has concluded that active and positive spiritual belief changes the human brain for the better. What's more, actual faith isn't always necessary: atheists who meditate on positive imagery can obtain similar neurological benefits. This is both a revelatory work of modern science and a practical guide for readers to enhance their physical and emotional health and to avoid mental decline. Newberg and Waldman explain the eight best ways to "exercise" your brain and guide readers through specific routines derived from a wide variety of Eastern and Western spiritual practices that improve personal awareness and empathy.--From publisher description.

That seems pretty close to what Prof. Kreeft is saying (he's saying that belief triggers both personal and sociological benefits).

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

This video seems to point to the inevitable conclusion that I too come to - If there is no God, then atheism, if followed to it's logical end, leads unavoidable to a nihilistic conclusion.  And if nihilism is followed to it's logical end, then say farewell to emotional well-being.  

I am not well versed in philosophy, so I would like to hear what other's think about this (especially Mark and Clark).  Is nihilism the only possible philosophical conclusion in a world without God?  I personally can't see anyway around it.  

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Another reminder of how far I've changed in the past few years.  I used to resonate with these kinds of people.  This video is one inaccurate strawman argument after another, an incredibly simplified waste of time.  

If someone wants to know more about the effects of belief in God on a person's brain, I highly recommend this book, it is not antagonistic towards faith.  Its all about the science around belief in God and its benefits from a scientific perspective.  There are real benefits, but its not at all the way this video explains.   

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536258678&sr=8-1&keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman

Give me an example of an inaccurate strawman argument he makes.  

The book you recommend does not study ALL possible ways a person may be benefited from a belief in God.  If the book you link to does not address what is meantioned in this video, it does not mean that this video is wrong, it simply means that those aspects were not studied or addressed in this book.  To say that faith has been demonstrated to benefit us in some ways, is not to say that it doesn't or can't benefit us in other ways too. 

Either way, the approach he is taking to belief is a pragmatic one.  Belief has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the well-being of man. Even your book agrees.  From the description:

Quote

God is great—for your mental, physical, and spiritual health.

Now, what are the inevitable results of atheism on well-being when taken to their logical ends? 

I think it is fairly easy to argue that belief in God is pragmatically the better for our overall well-being.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is an example of someone who has not logically followed nihilism to its inevitable end.  Is is possible to be an atheist and find meaning and well-being...sure, but that to me just means they haven't really followed the trail to the logical end.  They are blissfully ignorant of what they really believe and what it means (or should I say - doesn't mean),

Edited September 6, 2018 by pogi

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is an example of someone who has not logically followed nihilism to its inevitable end.  Is is possible to be an atheist and find meaning and well-being...sure, but that to me just means they haven't really followed the trail to the logical end.  They are blissfully ignorant of what they really believe and what it means (or should I say - doesn't mean),

I think it depends on how much you need meaning.

 

Nihilism can be incredibly freeing.

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, the Latter-day Saints don't subscribe to the binary "heaven/hell" eschatology you reference here.

The video you started with here very binary.  I didn't say LDS anything.  

Quote

Second, the wager as espoused by Mr. Kreeft encourages behavior congruent with faith as a starting point, with the idea that such efforts may bloom into having actual faith.

Sure it may.  And it may not.  But, that's not really related to my point.  

Quote

Third, those who engage in righteous behavior while still harboring some doubts are, in my view, in a very good place.  Isn't that a description of most of us?

Sure...why not.  Thus the wager feel useless and Kreeft's argument seems to fall with it.  Any who doubts the existence of God is also in a very good place and may not in any sense serve eternity in hell.  Thus it may not at all be a better wager to just believe.  

Quote

Again, possible, but not probable.  Sociological data seems to bear that out.

It doesn't matter.  The point is its possible therefore dooming the whole wager.  

Quote

Not "pretend."  Nobody is suggesting deception or fakery.  Prof. Kreeft is proposing that we act based on hope.  Faith.  Even in the presence of doubts/concerns.

Yes, I think that is generally the case.

Yes, there are no doubt some exceptions or limitations to the rule.  But otherwise, as a generalization, people who have religious faith in their lives appear to lead happier, better lives than those who do not.

No need to ignore such uniqueness.  The wager is readily applicable to anyone who wants to give it a try.

But the wager posits that the first option is the better way to go.  Sociologically.  Eschatalogically.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know that you are necessarily correct on some of this, but then again, I don't think it matters.  Kreeft is pleading for people to give belief in God a try.  But some have and have concluded non belief.  That tells me there are plenty of categories in all of this beyond belief in God and not belief to compare.  It is too binary to suggest belief in God makes me happier therefore believe in God.  Some appear to be happier and better off without belief in God.  

Edited September 6, 2018 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Another reminder of how far I've changed in the past few years.  I used to resonate with these kinds of people.  This video is one inaccurate strawman argument after another, an incredibly simplified waste of time.  

If someone wants to know more about the effects of belief in God on a person's brain, I highly recommend this book, it is not antagonistic towards faith.  Its all about the science around belief in God and its benefits from a scientific perspective.  There are real benefits, but its not at all the way this video explains.   

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536258678&sr=8-1&keywords=how+god+changes+your+brain+by+andrew+newberg+and+mark+waldman

Thanks for the recommendation.  I too have changed in the past few years and agree with your assessment fo the video--"an incredibly simplified waste of time".

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The video you started here and that I'm commenting on is very binary.

Not really.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Second, the wager as espoused by Mr. Kreeft encourages behavior congruent with faith as a starting point, with the idea that such efforts may bloom into having actual faith.

Sure it may.  And it may not.  But, that's not really related to my point.  

But it's related to the video's point.  Generally speaking, people with religious faith in their lives are better off than those without.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Third, those who engage in righteous behavior while still harboring some doubts are, in my view, in a very good place.  Isn't that a description of most of us?

Sure...why not.  Thus the wager feel useless and Kreeft's argument seems to fall with it.  Any who doubts the existence of God is also in a very good place and may not in any sense serve eternity in hell.  Thus it may not at all be a better wager to just believe.  

Except that it is.  Planning for "the future" necessarily affects day-to-day decisions.  For example, a person who plans for his retirement 40 years from now will likely make different decisions during those intervening 40 years than a person who has no plan for his retirement.

The wager posits that we should plan for life after death.  This will have a pronounced, and generally positive, benefit on the individual and those around him.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It doesn't matter.  The point is its possible therefore dooming the whole wager.  

I don't understand your point here.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know that you are necessarily correct on some of this, but then again, I don't think it matters.  Kreeft is pleading for people to give belief in God a try. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

But some have and have concluded non belief.  That tells me there are plenty of categories in all of this beyond belief in God and not belief to compare.  It is too binary to suggest belief in God makes me happier therefore believe in God.  Some appear to be happier and better off without belief in God.  

Again, I encourage you to look at the data.  Sociologically speaking, people with religious faith in their lives are better off than those who lack religious faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

I found a lot of his conclusions did not seem to follow from his premises. Nevertheless, I do believe religious practice/belief is beneficial.