Why to believe?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Morality Games Not to get psychoanalytical on everyone, but even 'searches for truth' can be interpreted as a way of getting comfortable -- you are looking for the strongest position so you can feel secure.

But I don't feel secure. I look around me at all the corruption and problems in the world that I have made myself aware of, and I think of all the people I know who just don't care - who are blissfully ignorant. Are not they the ones who feel secure?

I don't think we look for truth to feel secure. I'm not sure why we do it. Why I feel this overwhelming need to know. But i don't agree that looking to feel secure is the reason.

Quote by: Morality Games The term 'truth' is widely employed as a designation for ideas that help people make sense of the world. That an idea appears coherent and sensible is not a guarantee that it reflects features of objective reality, so if those are your only criteria, then you are not quite on the right path. Making predictions and confirming the reliability or unreliability of predictions through analysis of evidence is an important qualification for effective truth-seeking.

That an idea "appears coherent and sensible" are not my only criteria at all. I agree that analysis of evidence is important.

We may not agree on what constitutes evidence, I think the bible is evidence.

[Court463]

I would take the bible more seriously if i knew it hadn't been edited for the benefit of the church. Meaning that the bible has been altered and changed so much for the single purpose of controlling the masses. So I personally can't use the bible as evidence because it was written by corrupt clergy.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Court463 I would take the bible more seriously if i knew it hadn't been edited for the benefit of the church. Meaning that the bible has been altered and changed so much for the single purpose of controlling the masses. So I personally can't use the bible as evidence because it was written by corrupt clergy.

No doubt churches have interpreted it differently for the purpose of controlling the masses -- but I don't think the bible itself has been edited and altered and changed so much. The books that make up the bible were spread around thousands of years ago. If someone claimed it said something that it didn't, people would know -- It's not like there's a master copy that one can change and have all the other copies change to reflect that.

[LadiesMan217]

I would take the bible more seriously if i knew it hadn't been edited for the benefit of the church. Meaning that the bible has been altered and changed so much for the single purpose of controlling the masses. So I personally can't use the bible as evidence because it was written by corrupt clergy.

Actually, the written words in the Bible are the same as they were thousands of years ago. This was proven by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were copies of the biblical scriptures that were found to only have something like sixteen grammatical errors in them. No doubt people have tried to interpret its messages in ways that are beneficial to them, which is why it is important to just read it for yourself and draw you own conclusions on its meanings.

[Merge]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Actually, the written words in the Bible are the same as they were thousands of years ago. This was proven by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were copies of the biblical scriptures that were found to only have something like sixteen grammatical errors in them. No doubt people have tried to interpret its messages in ways that are beneficial to them, which is why it is important to just read it for yourself and draw you own conclusions on its meanings.

So then the bible hasn't been "edited" for the benefit of specific churches, but rather interpreted for the benefit of specific churches?

Doesn't this widespread variation in the interpretation of the bible still cast it in doubt as far as it being solid evidence is concerned? Or can a lot of this varied interpretation be blamed on people using the bible to push selfish agendas?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Merge So then the bible hasn't been "edited" for the benefit of specific churches, but rather interpreted for the benefit of specific churches? Doesn't this widespread variation in the interpretation of the bible still cast it in doubt as far as it being solid evidence is concerned? Or can a lot of this varied interpretation be blamed on people using the bible to push selfish agendas?

I think a lot of the varied interpretation can be blamed on people using the bible to push selfish agendas.

I believe that the bible is actually quite clear on what God wants from us. Jesus teachings couldn't be more plain. It's important for one to read it their self, instead of relying on others to dictate its meaning.

[Morality Games]

But I don't feel secure. I look around me at all the corruption and problems in the world that I have made myself aware of, and I think of all the people I know who just don't care - who are blissfully ignorant. Are not they the ones who feel secure? I don't think we look for truth to feel secure. I'm not sure why we do it. Why I feel this overwhelming need to know. But i don't agree that looking to feel secure is the reason.

I said 'can', not 'do' and:

People look for "truths" to feel secure. People who feel secure have already found a "truth" which is functional enough for them that they do not feel induced to keep straining themselves in the search.

Additionally, 'security' is contextual and relative -- you may not feel secure because you are a Christian, but it surely feels secure when you think of being (existing as) any of the alternatives. Certainly, to keep being Christian appears 'more secure' than simply turning aside and giving up.

After all, if you felt 'atheism' or 'Islam' was more secure (more right or correct) for a prolonged period of time, then you would be those instead.

Anyway, the desire to 'situate yourself in the best position' and become secure is wired-in -- however, being secure is not wired in. Even if you are motivated to acquire the feeling, you may not necessarily find it.

We may not agree on what constitutes evidence, I think the bible is evidence.

Much evidence in the Bible either cannot be verified or has been verified to be or probably be incorrect. Jesus' teachings are original and useful in some respects, but the overall message is not unqiue to his place and time.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: MG Much evidence in the Bible either cannot be verified or has been verified to be or probably be incorrect. Jesus' teachings are original and useful in some respects, but the overall message is not unqiue to his place and time.

What exactly is original in his teachings? And that which may be original, what is useful? Then in the same breath you say the overall message is not unique to his place and time?

[LadiesMan217]

So then the bible hasn't been "edited" for the benefit of specific churches, but rather interpreted for the benefit of specific churches? Doesn't this widespread variation in the interpretation of the bible still cast it in doubt as far as it being solid evidence is concerned? Or can a lot of this varied interpretation be blamed on people using the bible to push selfish agendas?

I was just making the point that we are all essentially reading the Bible the was it was written thousands of years and that the texts have not been "edited" or "rewritten", so rather peoples agendas could only be furthered by them persuading others to believe what they say the scriptures mean.