Nature of Belief

[yamatodamashii]

Some time ago on another thread I stated that I do not believe in forcing my religious views on others, since there is the possibility that they are correct rather than I. This was met with the following argument:
-----
1. If I believe something, then I must necessarily also believe that said belief is correct.
2. If I believe that my belief is correct, then I must also necessarily believe that all other other beliefs are incorrect.
3. If I believe that all other beliefs are incorrect, then it is my ethical responsibility to correct those who hold them.
4. Therefore, if I believe that God exists and has certain attributes, I must necessarily try to enforce my views on others.
-----
I would like to propose the following thought experiment, and I would appreciate any possible feedback. However, before responding, please bear in mind that this is about the nature of belief, and not the content--so statements regarding the belief in God specificically (that it would require extraordinary proof, or that He doesn't talk to people) are irrelevant.
My experiment:

Let us propose that I have a girlfriend (no comments from the cheap seats), and that she goes to visit a sick relative for an extended period in the Netherlands. Before she leaves, she promises that she will send me a box of Dutch chocolate when she gets a chance.
A few weeks later, Father's Day by coincidence, I recieve a package in the mail from my girlfriend. Thinking to share my treat with my co-workers, I take the box to work with me, unopened. Upon arriving at work, I immediately find co-workers A, B, and C, and tell them that I have received a box of Dutch chocolate from my girlfriend. All three immediately disagree.

Co-worker A states that it could not possibly be a box of Dutch chocolate, since it is Father's Day. She has read a book which states that neckties are the most commonly received gifts on Father's Day, and since the book was written by a high authority, I have no right to question it.

Co-worker B states that, since we have not opened the box, it is not reasonable to propose the contents thereof.

Co-worker C states that, since he sees only a box, there is no reason to believe in the existence of Dutch chocolate, nor even my girlfriend.

[Iain]

mmm... chocolate...

mmm... Jasons girlfriend...


I'm so lonely...

[yamatodamashii]

Indeed. Two great tastes that... well, I think we have another forum for that sort of thing.
:D

[elder999]

They're Shrodinger's Dutch Chocolates, and they'll melt away the minute you open the box.

[nicojo]

If they are there at all...

[Shitoryu Dude]

Is your coworker supposing that your girlfriend mailed her father chocolate by mistake? Otherwise HE would be receiving a tie.

It also supposes that your girlfriend is familiar with father's day - which I believe is just an American custom. If she was from (fill in location of your particular hot babe fetish here) she wouldn't know diddly about father's day. The dude yakking about a tie has head up his butt due to his own preconceptions.

Until the box is opened you don't know what you have on your hands.

:beer:

[Bill Gallant]

Maybe it's a chocolate neck tie? One that she may tie me up with when she gets back?:p Though being made of chocolate it wouldn't work too well.
Ahh well she can lick up the mess it makes....;)

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by elder999
They're Shrodinger's Dutch Chocolates, and they'll melt away the minute you open the box.

Probably why they don't use Dutch chocolate in M&M's...
:D

Of course, if they are Shrodinger's, I can only hope that they forgot the decay-activated poison pill in this box...

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Is your coworker supposing that your girlfriend mailed her father chocolate by mistake? Otherwise HE would be receiving a tie.

It also supposes that your girlfriend is familiar with father's day - which I believe is just an American custom. If she was from (fill in location of your particular hot babe fetish here) she wouldn't know diddly about father's day. The dude yakking about a tie has head up his butt due to his own preconceptions.


Hmmm... You may have missed the analogy of the person quoting a book whose authority cannot be questioned...

[Andrej Mantei]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
It also supposes that your girlfriend is familiar with father's day - which I believe is just an American custom.

At least in Germany we have father's day as well ... ;)

[Peter H.]

Only because we forced it upon you in the Treaty of Versailles. :D

[Exorcist_Fist]

I think there is a Father's day in Japan as well. It is marked by mass suicides...

[Cady Goldfield]

At least the girlfriend is "real" (at least in Jason's delusion :D) and has verbally promised him chocolates "when she is able to do so." So, there is a plausible chance of actually getting the chocolates.

Now, who has told him that there is a god? God him/herself? And did that god tell him that there would be a reward in heaven when he dies? If God told Jason that him/herself (and was it real or a deslusion?), then cool! He can reasonably expect afterlife, heaven and a reward. If he's taking the word of a piece of human writing from a couple thousand years ago, then I'm not sure he should have such a solid belief.

[David T Anderson]

Hi Jason -- All kidding aside, the problem isn't really addressed by your thought experiment. It breaks down between step 1 and step 2, in assuming that if your belief is correct, then all other differing beliefs must be incorrect. The fact is that points of view differ, and what seems obvious to you may not be obvious at all to others. Similarly, the mere fact of your belief doesn't preclude you from being wrong.

For example, Co-worker A and B both believe that the box contains something other than Dutch chocolates. _Could_ this be true? Well yes, of course. Maybe A can read Dutch and sees 'Happy Father's Day' written in decorative Dutch script on the wrapping paper. Maybe B thinks the size and weight of the box suggests something other than a gift of chocolates for less specific reasons. Maybe C had a psycho college roomate that used to invent imaginary girlfriends and mail himself gifts....C has never met your wonderful girlfriend and thinks you're doing the same thing. Also consider the possibility that you _all_ may be wrong...your girlfriend _has_ sent you chocolate, but it hasn't arrived yet. what has arrived is some other even more wonderful gift and token of her affection.

Of course you don't mention the ultimate solution....open the damn' box and pass around the chocolates! That may still not convince C, but you can introduce him to your girl at a later date, making his scepticism a less reasonable viewpoint.

All this takes us back to the nature of religious belief. Religious belief is by nature subjective. You _can't_ 'open the box' to determine the reality of the situation. [I suppose you can die and see what happens next, but that's a one-time experiment that can't really be published or peer-reviewed]. Perhaps people may be convinced by the strength or sincerity of your belief, but that's not very epistemologically sound.

The final argument, of course, is special revelation. If a person feels that God has revealed himself to them, that's pretty much inarguable from both sides. The thoughtful person will be aware that many things, drugs, hormone imbalances, mental illness or a simple knock on the head may induce the feeling of revelation...but the truth of the matter is unlikely to be determined. As for the reality of God's revelation...IMHO, God knows where we live, and if He sees fit to reveal himself [open the box from inside, so to speak] it will happen...assuming that God is what all the believers say He is.

[Gene Williams]

Originally posted by elder999
They're Shrodinger's Dutch Chocolates, and they'll melt away the minute you open the box.

Dammit! The cat ate all of Schrodinger's Dutch Chocolates. In Georgia and SC, we have Savannah River Plant Chocolates. You can read your book in the dark with them while you eat them.:p

[Cady Goldfield]

Oh good. I'm going to be in Atlanta tomorrow... Haven't been able to read a good novel in the dark in years. :D

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by David T Anderson
Hi Jason -- All kidding aside, the problem isn't really addressed by your thought experiment. It breaks down between step 1 and step 2, in assuming that if your belief is correct, then all other differing beliefs must be incorrect. The fact is that points of view differ, and what seems obvious to you may not be obvious at all to others. Similarly, the mere fact of your belief doesn't preclude you from being wrong.

For example, Co-worker A and B both believe that the box contains something other than Dutch chocolates. _Could_ this be true? Well yes, of course. Maybe A can read Dutch and sees 'Happy Father's Day' written in decorative Dutch script on the wrapping paper. Maybe B thinks the size and weight of the box suggests something other than a gift of chocolates for less specific reasons. Maybe C had a psycho college roomate that used to invent imaginary girlfriends and mail himself gifts....C has never met your wonderful girlfriend and thinks you're doing the same thing. Also consider the possibility that you _all_ may be wrong...your girlfriend _has_ sent you chocolate, but it hasn't arrived yet. what has arrived is some other even more wonderful gift and token of her affection.

Of course you don't mention the ultimate solution....open the damn' box and pass around the chocolates! That may still not convince C, but you can introduce him to your girl at a later date, making his scepticism a less reasonable viewpoint.

All this takes us back to the nature of religious belief. Religious belief is by nature subjective. You _can't_ 'open the box' to determine the reality of the situation. [I suppose you can die and see what happens next, but that's a one-time experiment that can't really be published or peer-reviewed]. Perhaps people may be convinced by the strength or sincerity of your belief, but that's not very epistemologically sound.

The final argument, of course, is special revelation. If a person feels that God has revealed himself to them, that's pretty much inarguable from both sides. The thoughtful person will be aware that many things, drugs, hormone imbalances, mental illness or a simple knock on the head may induce the feeling of revelation...but the truth of the matter is unlikely to be determined. As for the reality of God's revelation...IMHO, God knows where we live, and if He sees fit to reveal himself [open the box from inside, so to speak] it will happen...assuming that God is what all the believers say He is.

Congatulations. That was exactly my point.

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
At least the girlfriend is "real" (at least in Jason's delusion :D) and has verbally promised him chocolates "when she is able to do so." So, there is a plausible chance of actually getting the chocolates.

I should have made the condition that none of my coworkers have ever met my girlfriend. Once again, this conversation represents a subjective, unreproduceable experience. Yet, you admit that it is sufficient for belief, but not *knowledge*, just as I said in the original thread.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cady Goldfield

Now, who has told him that there is a god? God him/herself? And did that god tell him that there would be a reward in heaven when he dies? If God told Jason that him/herself (and was it real or a deslusion?), then cool! He can reasonably expect afterlife, heaven and a reward. If he's taking the word of a piece of human writing from a couple thousand years ago, then I'm not sure he should have such a solid belief.
I mentioned in the original post that this was about the nature of belief, not the content, and that these arguments should be addressed elsewhere. However, by extrapolation of the example, a belief in God may be founded on a subjective, unreproduceable experience--though this is once again belief, not knowledge.
The "piece of human writing from a couple of thousand years ago" was represented in my experiment by the coworker with the book whose authority could not be questioned.