Nostr Web Client

Could it be that your skepticism is what is unwarranted? It's certainly a modern bias to be skeptical, which postmodernism takes to dogmatic extremes.

Belief is harder than skepticism because it means submitting yourself to an external authority, rather than holding yourself aloof and independent. It's interesting the extent to which secular humanism and empiricism have turned classical thinking around.

BTC_P2P 1y ago

Being skeptical ≠ not knowing

I know there is a lot I don’t know and can’t know. That’s honest and objectively true.

Ardent belief in a particular religion is a state where one conflates belief with certainty. It is a fallacious state of being. And it isn’t hard. It’s much easier to say “yes I have faith. Faith that the belief of my family / society / culture / religion is the RIGHT one. That there is eternal bliss beyond the difficult and scary and painful existence of a mortal human. And a belief the other religions and ways of life are the WRONG ones”. These ideas have been around in most human cultures (pre-Christianity) because they provide an easily-accessible way to cope with universal human difficulties. But it is fallacious and dishonest to conflate a belief with certainty.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

zeph 1y ago

in fact, people who are certain in their belief regularly kill/die fighting other people who are also certain of THEIR belief, all of them quite possibly sincere, and yet…

… are they all correct???

c.s. lewis has an interesting take on this in The Last Battle btw

(apologies for jumping in here with a non-sequitur)

hodlbod 1y ago

That's sort of my point — everyone has epistemological anchors that they work from. Starting from a position of skepticism doesn't exempt you from the very fallacy you're pointing out. The agnostic's claim of "God has not spoken" is no different than the believer's claim that he has. And an epistemology based on a concrete event like the life of Jesus is far more reliable than one based on an admission of ignorance. Agnosticism has the appearance of wisdom, but never reaches the truth. The question is, what if God spoke in a way you understood? Is there anything that could defeat your skepticism?

BTC_P2P 1y ago

You can find accounts from millions of people throughout history who genuinely believe they have talked to god. Many different gods with many different and often conflicting things to “say”. You’re singling out one person from the heap to “anchor” to. It’s completely arbitrary and dependent on the conditions you were born into.

Many schizophrenics are absolutely certain they talk to god, why don’t you “anchor” to them?

Millions of people believe they’ve seen ghosts, should I anchor my reality to one of their stories too?

This is the ultimate “trust me bro” nonsense argument. Makes feel sorry for the state of your mind seeing the depths of your mental gymnastics and how far you’ll go to protect your delusions.

hodlbod 1y ago

The solution to uncertainty is not to deny the existence of truth. There are resources at our disposal to evaluate the claims of schizophrenics and prophets. It's disingenuous to equivocate insanity and faith.

BTC_P2P 1y ago

I’ve never denied the existence of truth. You have no way to verify Jesus wasn’t a schizophrenic. He was an Arabic man alive 2000+ years ago. The records of what he said and did around today are dubious at best. Telephone game on steroids.

You’re picking what evidence you accept and don’t accept with your biases, which goes back to the exact point I made - you are letting your beliefs determine what evidence you accept as credible. Doing so exactly what the original post was highlighting. The irony isn’t lost on me.

hodlbod 1y ago

What makes your biases better than mine? How do you propose to access truth?

BTC_P2P 1y ago

Admit you don’t know. That’s it.

hodlbod 1y ago

Absolute epistemological certainty? No. But I am "convinced" of the God I've entrusted myself to, as Paul says. The thing is, if I'm wrong, I'm no worse than someone who can't commit themselves to anything.

hodlbod 1y ago

The thing is, the only options I see are nihilism and theism. Nihilism is incoherent, theism requires transcendence to work, which really narrows down your options. Agnosticism is lazy and pointless.

BTC_P2P 1y ago

Those are subjective takes and of course you’re entitled to think whatever you want.

To me, simply accepting the warped propaganda of your forefathers known as Christianity and assimilating into that narrow culture is the easy (or lazy) route - the clear path of least resistance.

Questioning the nature of reality and being open to all possibilities and accepting uncertainty with unflinching courage is stimulating, fulfilling and the far more difficult route.

To each their own. Though I will always question those who claim certainty on matters they can’t be certain about - and that’s where these conversations started. Thank you for admitting you’re not certain, I respect you for that.

freed0m 1y ago

What's lazy and pointless about being agnostic?

BTC_P2P 1y ago

It’s just a doo doo opinion heavily influenced by theistic biases.

BTC_P2P 1y ago

Btw I never made the claim my biases were “better” than yours or that I have “access” to the truth. Fallacious straw man argumentation.

hodlbod 1y ago

This answers my question at least. Your own position is that you have no argument against mine, it seems. You're just being stubborn by force of will, not reason.

Scott 1y ago

WILLIAM