Ship of Fools: If you could pop an anti-doubt pill...

Thread: If you could pop an anti-doubt pill... Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020202

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thought experiment. This is for the ones who regularly doubt that any of this religion, espeically Christianity, stuff is anything but wishful thinking. It's not for the ones with a deep-seated conviction that God is real and loves them. Sorry guys.

Suppose you could pop a pill, wave a wand, doesn't matter what, that would (a) give you a deep seated conviction that God was real and Christianity was true, and (b) would make you forget that you had this deep-seated conviction because you'd taken the pill, performed the ritual, whatever.

Would you do it?

This question came to me many years ago, and at the time I said no, I wouldn't. If I am to believe with certainty (or functional certainty) it must be because it is true - not because I've done something to make me believe it is. It must not be "I just do".

Anyone else?

[ 02. June 2017, 08:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

No, I wouldn't want to. It would make this world an even bigger living hell; a temporary stopping point where the disconnect between what is and what could be would be so great as to need an ocean of compassion I just don't have.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I wish I had the child-like joy of some around me, whose sure knowledge of God and His Love for them fills their every moment and their entire being. Where they have no doubt as to God's Love, let alone His Existence -- while the cry of, "I believe, help my unbelief" remains constantly on my lips.

But I'm not sure I'd want such a pill, given it would take away my beliefs, or rather take away my doubt. What does that mean? Would I truly be believing in God or would it be a side-effect of the pill, and thus overriding my free will and free thought? Would it truly transport me to a sense of bliss?

Taking endless anti-depressants and lithium and anti-anxiety pills makes me wonder enough if I am a different person to what I made to be (but given I can function with them I'll take this reality). The thought of a pill that changes something more important to me, faith, or even my lack thereof, is not somewhere I'd particularly want to go.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But I'm not sure I'd want such a pill, given it would take away my beliefs, or rather take away my doubt.

Well said.

KLB I think your mistake is to think that belief and doubt are antonyms; they aren't.

The opposite of belief is not doubt but unbelief.

And belief is not something static, as you seem to envisage, but something dynamic, constantly changing. That's the nature of the beast. It's a journey.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It reminds me of Greg Bear's horribly good Vitals, in which a good man is literally infected with viral anti-Semitism and KNOWS he's been but cannot be anything but a virulent ant-Semite despite it being anathema to him.

I'd KNOW the faith was only chemical.

So I'll carry on with the Eucharistic placebo thanks.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I would be very tempted to take a pill that could make my faith so strong that I could make the changes to my life that I know I need to make - break with the sins (well, one in particular) I keep committing and confessing to, then committing again. I tell myself that the reason I can't resist one particular temptation is that I *don't really believe*.

But... if taking the magic pill really were the answer to living a life of grace, then it would mean that my current life - the "thorn in my side" that makes me weak, my helplessness, my constant need of God's mercy and forgiveness - was meaningless. And I don't think that can be the case. Or maybe I just really hope not.

I think I'll have a little weep now.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Or, as a wise RC priest once put it, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt, but certainty ...'

So, no, I wouldn't pop that faith-pill.

A faith that isn't tested isn't worth having.

And as Eutychus says, there's a difference between doubt and unbelief, the two aren't coterminous.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
KLB I think your mistake is to think that belief and doubt are antonyms; they aren't.

The opposite of belief is not doubt but unbelief.

You hear this a lot but all I can say is it hasn't been my experience. When the doubts grow the faith diminishes, when the faith is strong the doubts fade. I think this is true of non-religious things too.

Would I take the pill? I'd be very very tempted.

I've just recently stopped going to church again, because I finally admitted that whilst I still believe in God, it's not the God that's presented in church. That church anyway, I may possibly try elsewhere. Anyway, I realised that what I've been trying to do for the past few years - when I came back to church after a long absence - was recapture some of the sense of community and connected-ness to a bigger purpose that I had with Christianity in my 20s. I can't tell you how many times I've wished that I never walked away back then, or wished I could recapture the kind of belief I once had. But I never quite could.

It's been odd because one of the things that I noticed specifically is the way I was affected by some of the standard "objections". So back in the day it's not like I'd never thought about the problem of suffering, or what to think about the truth/literalism of the Bible, or more evangelical-specific stuff like the place of women and gay people - I wasn't unaware but somehow I was untroubled by these things. I had a core conviction that this stuff was true, that God was real, and having answers for these questions was secondary. What I found in coming back was that that core conviction was much weaker and was affected by such things.

Also on a pragmatic, cynical level, not being able to fully sign up to some of the 'party lines' has made it hard to be more than a fringe person at church. So the community aspect wasn't what I'd hoped for. Just being honest.

So it would be so tempting. I hope I would be able to resist. I feel like I would be doing it for my own personal comfort whilst betraying gay people, women and others. Because if I took the pill I'd most likely end up back as an evangelical and even the 'soft' end of that ends up providing support for the more harmful end, I think.

So I used to have certainty, or thought I did, and now I don't and honestly it feels like it'll never come back. But I can't pretend I'm sure when I'm not, and I can't depend on even that core conviction any more.

[x-post]

[ 02. June 2017, 09:48: Message edited by: Paul. ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

No I wouldn't.

I see those who are full of certainly and they seem rather blinkered to me, lacking an open mind.

In politics and religion - and in how to rear kids, train dogs, brew beer - you name it. The certain ones are the pains in the arse.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

There are good reasons for my doubts. Evil in the world, prayers that go unanswered, the utter lack of anything I could even optimistically refer to as having "a relationship with God". All those reasons would still exist after I took the pill, and they would still be a source of angst.

I guess the question is whether it's better to be angsty about whether God exists at all or angsty about whether He gives a shit about evil in the world, answering prayer or having a "relationship" with me.

I'm not sure the latter would be better. A God that doesn't give a shit might throw me into Hell if I displeased Him, whereas if God doesn't exist that possibility doesn't either.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

He's impassible, so you can't displease Him. He immanently, locally feels everything of course, empathically yearns with our yearning. But obviously doesn't react beyond that. He's big minded.

Mind you He was well pleased with His beloved Son ...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Would this not be the exact equivalent of an exoskeleton? A real life Iron Man suit, there are YouTube videos of them. You wear it, and suddenly you can hoist the front end of a truck. You can run, tirelessly, for hours. (If it's the kind with rocket boosters you can leap tall buildings at a single bound.) But it's not your muscles and strength doing that. It's the mechanical device, supporting your limbs and adding the power to them.
Is not the whole point of our mortal life to build up our own sin-resisting muscles? You know, moral fiber. To be assisted by pharmacology (a pill) or tech (the exoskeleton) defeats the entire point.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The answers here all posit this as a philosophical question. Is it better for a Christian to have and to manage doubts or not?

But in practice I think it would be a marketing issue. A company would produce this pill, having ascertained that there'd be a market for it. They'd then have to promote the product. Firstly, I don't think an 'anti-doubt pill' would sell. People usually prefer products that claim to add something to their lives rather than taking something away. What could this pill add to our spiritual lives? Could it complement meditation, prayer, etc.? Could it help us to grow closer to God? Could it make us better people, more loving to our neighbours?

Some religions have willingly used 'stimulants' as a way to enhance their public or private rituals. It could be argued that Christianity's lack of such things is a sign of its reliance on intellectualism, on a dualistic attitude towards the body and spirit. But nowadays, many spiritually-inclined people are looking for something more. They want a heightened spiritual experience....

All this being the case, I think there would be some interest in an 'anti-doubt pill', if it had a less controlling, more liberating name. And as a liquid or powder it might feel less medicinal. Don't think I'd take it myself, but if it claimed to stimulate or guide to my spiritual experience not just extract 'doubt' I'd find it very interesting....

[ 02. June 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think the only circumstances under which I'd be confident that taking an anti-doubt pill was the right thing to do would be if I didn't have any doubts. In which case it would be pointless. If I were confident enough to take it I wouldn't need it.

That is of course because I think belief in God includes, though is not limited to, a cognitive intentional act. Either God exists in which case we should believe in God, or God doesn't exist in which case we shouldn't.
I'd be interested in the reactions of those who think belief in God is not a matter of truth or falsity, that it isn't cognitive.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Firstly, I don't think an 'anti-doubt pill' would sell. People usually prefer products that claim to add something to their lives rather than taking something away.

Anti-dandruff shampoo?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But these days do any popular (and not just specialist) brands of shampoos just claim to remove dandruff? Don't they also sell themselves on being able to give your hair body, shine, softness, etc.?

Advertising is also interesting because companies don't just sell a product but also offer a way of life. They sell youth, beauty, energy, popularity, etc. 'Because you're worth it' is about making you feel better about yourself, not just about removing your dandruff.

Christian books and products are also packaged with pictures of smiling, attractive people.

[ 02. June 2017, 14:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is of course because I think belief in God includes, though is not limited to, a cognitive intentional act. Either God exists in which case we should believe in God, or God doesn't exist in which case we shouldn't.
I'd be interested in the reactions of those who think belief in God is not a matter of truth or falsity, that it isn't cognitive.

Are you familiar with Puddleglum's Wager, from CS Lewis' The Silver Chair?

quote:
One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.

I can easily understand how those who agree with such a position might find the ability to eradicate any lingering doubts a good thing. Even if the doubts were the only "true" part of their faith. Even if they knew the doubts were the only "true" part of their faith.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think the only circumstances under which I'd be confident that taking an anti-doubt pill was the right thing to do would be if I didn't have any doubts. In which case it would be pointless. If I were confident enough to take it I wouldn't need it.

That is of course because I think belief in God includes, though is not limited to, a cognitive intentional act. Either God exists in which case we should believe in God, or God doesn't exist in which case we shouldn't.
I'd be interested in the reactions of those who think belief in God is not a matter of truth or falsity, that it isn't cognitive.

I was interested in your 'cognitive intentional act', as I gave up religious belief a few years ago, but it didn't seem intentional. It just stopped, or it wasn't there. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever intending to have it. But I know that some people talk about intending to fall in love, and I feel vaguely sympathetic to that idea.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christian books and products are also packaged with pictures of smiling, attractive people.

And that's how the pills would be sold. "Get rid of the doubts that are making you sad and you too can become a smiling, attractive Christian".

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If you had an anti-doubt pill wouldn't it make you extremely gullible about everything? Shroud of Turin, faith healing of thy neighbour's dog, God is on our side in war, buy an indulgence. I'll keep my doubts thanks. Which is a turn on the usual non-doubting group, they cannot help but tell everyone about their certainty. Which makes them annoying.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Would you do it?

Faith without question is worthless.

ETA: Worthless at best, harmful at worst.

[ 02. June 2017, 16:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Suppose you could pop a pill, wave a wand, doesn't matter what, that would (a) give you a deep seated conviction that God was real and Christianity was true, and (b) would make you forget that you had this deep-seated conviction because you'd taken the pill, performed the ritual, whatever.

Maybe it's just me, but the first thing that occurred to me is that a "Christianity pill" would have a tremendous scope for abuse. Think about it in the hands of someone particularly fanatical who considers saving souls to be more important than any other consideration of personal rights or autonomy. Think of how a similar "Islam pill" might be used by folks like the Saudi government.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I've been thinking more about this "doubt is a part of faith" thing and the idea that the pill if it existed would be a bad thing.

Let's try a different thought experiment:

Let's say that I believe in climate change but I'm only about 60% sure. I've looked at the data and studies and so on but a lot of it is over my head and the deniers have their own data and studies that look superficially plausible. On balance I'm leaning in the climate change true direction but every now and that an eloquent denier can make me doubt.

Now let's say there's a book out there that rebuts all the deniers' objections in simple layman's terms. It teaches me how to spot and refute false arguments deniers use. In other words if I read this book I'll be as close to 100% convinced as it's possible to be.

Anyone who believes climate change is real and that it requires urgent action is going to think reading the book is a good thing. So why is the pill bad? What makes religion different such that eliminating as much doubt as we can goes from being a virtue to a bad thing?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I could see the 'good' use for very short term (say an hour) anti disabling irrational doubt pills.
Though if you could create any that would let doubts based on new information through while stopping say wedding nerves based on it being a big day.

That said even there the obvious bad uses probably outweigh the practical good ones. In particular that it could be used to prevent reality intruding into a brainwashed state, just as easily as to prevent brainwashing entering.
And something that clearly had that power to overwrite 'me', I'd want some pretty strong reassurances. And then the risks of dependency.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I've been thinking more about this "doubt is a part of faith" thing and the idea that the pill if it existed would be a bad thing.

Let's try a different thought experiment:

Let's say that I believe in climate change but I'm only about 60% sure. I've looked at the data and studies and so on but a lot of it is over my head and the deniers have their own data and studies that look superficially plausible. On balance I'm leaning in the climate change true direction but every now and that an eloquent denier can make me doubt.

Now let's say there's a book out there that rebuts all the deniers' objections in simple layman's terms. It teaches me how to spot and refute false arguments deniers use. In other words if I read this book I'll be as close to 100% convinced as it's possible to be.

Anyone who believes climate change is real and that it requires urgent action is going to think reading the book is a good thing. So why is the pill bad? What makes religion different such that eliminating as much doubt as we can goes from being a virtue to a bad thing?

To quote a certain person, "by their fruits shall we know them". If there is proof of the reality of climate change, the people already behaving on the basis that it exists continue to do so and those who deny its existence (hopefully) stop their actions which are exacerbating it.

What if there is proof of the existence of God? Would it be possible to ensure that fanaticism was not the outcome? We know from overwhelming evidence that this a hugely destructive force, and if doubt is the necessary force to keep it a fringe activity, perhaps that is a price worth paying. If, on the other hand, the effect was an outbreak of mutual self-sacrificial love, then the proof is a very good idea. If both result, then a further judgement is required.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe it's just me, but the first thing that occurred to me is that a "Christianity pill" would have a tremendous scope for abuse. Think about it in the hands of someone particularly fanatical who considers saving souls to be more important than any other consideration of personal rights or autonomy. Think of how a similar "Islam pill" might be used by folks like the Saudi government.

I thought about such a pill in the hands of a cult leader.

But Saudi Arabia doesn't appear to have a problem with doubters. In any case, the authorities there can control such people by punishing them, so the use of chemical means to change their thinking doesn't seem to be especially necessary.

It's the Western 'Christian world' that seems to be particularly gripped by doubt. As much as we insist that doubt and faith go together, it seems clear that Western Christianity has been severely weakened by the loss of individuals whose doubts have led them away from church engagement and then away from the faith itself.

Maybe there's something in Christianity that makes it particularly vulnerable to this kind of outcome.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

Anyone who believes climate change is real and that it requires urgent action is going to think reading the book is a good thing. So why is the pill bad? What makes religion different such that eliminating as much doubt as we can goes from being a virtue to a bad thing?

One difference there is that the (hypothesised) pill works regardless of reality. Whereas the (hypothesized) book is (allegedly) just making reality clear.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Anyone who believes climate change is real and that it requires urgent action is going to think reading the book is a good thing. So why is the pill bad? What makes religion different such that eliminating as much doubt as we can goes from being a virtue to a bad thing?

The main difference between the cases isn't the matter but the method.
I assume that the book works by a method that tracks truth. That is, it presents accurate information and from that information by a process of rational argument it deduces that global warming is caused by human activities. So if it argued for a false conclusion it would fail to be convincing.
By contrast a pill that reduces doubt would presumably work just as well for any other religion or for Dawkins-style new atheism or Marxism or anything else. It doesn't track truth.
Now, if the pill works by granting a momentary boost to one's reasoning ability or awareness of reality so that one's briefly intellectually infallible then it would be more acceptable. (Although how one would test the insights gained by taking the pill so that one could be certain that was how the pill works I'm not sure.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Doubt is to faith as grit is to oyster - Barth, I think.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...
(Although how one would test the insights gained by taking the pill so that one could be certain that was how the pill works I'm not sure.)

Easy, you take advantage of the increased perception while under the influence of the pill [Big Grin]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is of course because I think belief in God includes, though is not limited to, a cognitive intentional act.
I was interested in your 'cognitive intentional act', as I gave up religious belief a few years ago, but it didn't seem intentional.

Sorry, I was using 'intentional' with the philosophical meaning. An intentional mental act or intentional mental state is one that is directed towards something. So believing is an intentional states or acts (a belief about Jeremy Corbyn is about Jeremy Corbyn), wanting is an intentional state (if I want Labour to win, that is directed towards Labour winning), as are hoping, wishing, supposing, and so on. Intentions (in the most common sense) are intentional acts.

The two important features of intentional states are that they're directed towards something, and that they're directed towards that something under a representation which may or may not be accurate.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

To convince by argumentation is to treat the other person as an intelligent human being and to show respect for their freedom and will. To do it by pill (or punishment, or any other irresistible force) is to devalue them. (Which is incidentally one argument for why God himself doesn't just "strike the world glorious" with faith by showing himself in some undeniable way.)

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

OK so I guess my analogy focused too much on method but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to look at the result. And I guess I was assuming that the pill reveals truth, otherwise it becomes a question about whether you'd rather ignore uncomfortable truths - which it may have been, perhaps Karl could clarify?

Anyhow, my point, or my question really is about this idea that lack of certainty in religious faith is almost a virtue. "faith without question is worthless". OK I can see that blind faith in the wrong things is unhelpful, dangerous even, but I still believe that it's better to be more certain than less, so long as you're trying to get closer to the truth.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Doubt is to faith as grit is to oyster - Barth, I think.

I like that.

Never quite sure if doubt equates to doubting that--
a) God exists.
b) God loves each individual .
c) God intervened on one occasion only by sending Jesus.

BTW I wouldn't take the pill. It isn't so much doubt of God but suspicion of human institutions that haunts me most of the time. Had the born again thing, the inner cynic was however never truly conquered.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
OK so I guess my analogy focused too much on method but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to look at the result. And I guess I was assuming that the pill reveals truth, otherwise it becomes a question about whether you'd rather ignore uncomfortable truths - which it may have been, perhaps Karl could clarify?

Anyhow, my point, or my question really is about this idea that lack of certainty in religious faith is almost a virtue. "faith without question is worthless". OK I can see that blind faith in the wrong things is unhelpful, dangerous even, but I still believe that it's better to be more certain than less, so long as you're trying to get closer to the truth.

If the pill was one that acted by revealing truth (rather than just imposing a state of mind), sure, I'd take it. I'm not particularly doubtful right now, but more truth is welcome.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe it's just me, but the first thing that occurred to me is that a "Christianity pill" would have a tremendous scope for abuse. Think about it in the hands of someone particularly fanatical who considers saving souls to be more important than any other consideration of personal rights or autonomy. Think of how a similar "Islam pill" might be used by folks like the Saudi government.
I thought about such a pill in the hands of a cult leader.

But Saudi Arabia doesn't appear to have a problem with doubters. In any case, the authorities there can control such people by punishing them, so the use of chemical means to change their thinking doesn't seem to be especially necessary.

Sure they do. You don't need a massive enforcement mechanism if doubt isn't a problem. The advantage of the pill is that there's no need to maintain a large and expensive Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice if a single pill, administered once, can provide the same result. Seems like a huge labor saver, preventing people from doubting Islam, or from following the wrong kind of Islam, or doubting your particular interpretation of Islam, etc.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't think we'll exactly agree on this one.

My sense is that the authorities there (and also with regards to the likes of the Taliban and Daesh, etc.) are more concerned with straightforward obedience rather than with the state of men's souls. The latter has been more of an obsession for Christian theocracies, ISTM.

And none of these Islamic extremists seem to be distressed at the amount of money they have to spend on weaponry and/or a police state. I mean, what else would they spend it on? The Saudis already have loads of shopping malls and the other trappings of a high standard of living. As for ISIS and co, militarism is their way of life. They're hardly looking to divert funds towards schools, hospitals and diversity training courses, are they?

But I'm sure it's the case that the extreme wealth that Saudi Arabia has happily gathered to itself could be a conduit for spiritual laziness and corruption. Wealth always risks taking you in that direction, as the gospels say. I don't know what Islam has to say about that.

[ 03. June 2017, 02:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I wish I had the child-like joy of some around me, whose sure knowledge of God and His Love for them fills their every moment and their entire being. Where they have no doubt as to God's Love, let alone His Existence -- while the cry of, "I believe, help my unbelief" remains constantly on my lips.

But I'm not sure I'd want such a pill, given it would take away my beliefs, or rather take away my doubt. What does that mean? Would I truly be believing in God or would it be a side-effect of the pill, and thus overriding my free will and free thought? Would it truly transport me to a sense of bliss?

Taking endless anti-depressants and lithium and anti-anxiety pills makes me wonder enough if I am a different person to what I made to be (but given I can function with them I'll take this reality). The thought of a pill that changes something more important to me, faith, or even my lack thereof, is not somewhere I'd particularly want to go.

An astonishingly accurate summation of my own situation and viewpoint. I frequently look at others and think, I wish I had your certainty; I wish I had your joy. Then I think, but if I did, I wouldn't actually be me. And even on a bad day, I don't want to not be me. So, no, I wouldn't take the pill.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
An astonishingly accurate summation of my own situation and viewpoint. I frequently look at others and think, I wish I had your certainty; I wish I had your joy. Then I think, but if I did, I wouldn't actually be me. And even on a bad day, I don't want to not be me. So, no, I wouldn't take the pill.

As I approach the first beginnings of the slight incline before the lowest foothills that are a harbinger of early middle age, I've come to the conclusion that this is simply what being grown-up is all about.

Questions of faith aside, I frequently find myself in professional or other settings under the impression that I'm a complete sham and everyone else around me clearly has their shit together in a way I don't. Then I resist the temptation to crawl into a corner and die, get on with what I have to do, and seem to still be in one piece after it's done.

I'm beginning to think that for all those other smiling, self-assured people in the room - it's exactly the same.

[ 03. June 2017, 07:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Questions of faith aside, I frequently find myself in professional or other settings under the impression that I'm a complete sham and everyone else around me clearly has their shit together in a way I don't. Then I resist the temptation to crawl into a corner and die, get on with what I have to do, and seem to still be in one piece after it's done.

I'm beginning to think that for all those other smiling, self-assured people in the room - it's exactly the same.

Most but not all probably do. Some are blessed/afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

But you've reminded me of an interesting thing. These days I'm a software engineer and I work on code far away from direct contact with actual customers. However a few years ago I used to work in Tech Support dealing with customer issues. I have a colleague Dino who also worked there (and still does). I'll be honest and say that most people would consider me a bit more knowledgeable about the software we supported. However if you'd asked the customers I'm sure Dino would have scored higher.

Now Dino was not a Dunner-Kruger type. He is willing to admit when he doesn't know something and very willing to ask for help. But the big difference is the way he would approach a problem. Imagine we both have the same type of issue, customer calls, describes a particular set of symptoms, asks what to do. Let's say based on this there's an 80% chance the problem is X to which the solution is Y. Dino would confidently tell the customer "The problem is X, do Y and call us back." I would tend to say, "Well, erm, sounds like X, you might want to try Y, but in case it's not let's prepare to do Z and also maybe look at gathering information A, B & C". 80% of the time Dino looks smart and efficient, he knew exactly what the problem was and how to fix it. 80% of the time I've also fixed the problem but I probably took longer on the initial call and gave off an air of being unsure.

Thing is even in the 20% case when the customer calls back and says "Y didn't work, what now?" Dino just moves on to the next most likely cause and offers the solution to that with just as much assurance. An mostly people seemed fine with this. Ultimately once a problem is fixed people rarely care if it took a couple tries to identify the real issue.

It's partly personality. Just because I could see several possible scenarios there's nothing to stop me offering the most likely first as if it was the only one. But somehow I could never stop myself from pondering aloud amongst the possibilities. Especially if you're asking someone to do something that has a big impact like shutting down their live system for a few hours while they restore from a backup.

And if I apply this to faith then I think it's perhaps easy to see why I long for more certainty. And let me be clear here. In terms of a faith analogy to this, it might sound like I'm arguing the opposite of what I did earlier, but it's not quite the same. Because actually the problem solving of tech issues is a process. As you gather more information, including insight from failed actions, you become more sure about what the truth of the situation is and it becomes more and more clear what needs doing. And the 80% eventually becomes 99%.

So when I imagine the pill I imagine something that moves me along the process.

Of course the problem in both scenarios is that there are problems where you never get a clear definitive idea of what the issue is. You have a certain amount of information and the rest is speculation and mystery. With computers at this point you usually turn if off and turn it on again not sure if faith has that option!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think your mistake is to think that belief and doubt are antonyms; they aren't.
The opposite of belief is not doubt but unbelief.

Hi Eutychus. Would you elaborate on the above please? Thanks

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Paul, to me, faith is a relationship, or possibly an infinite number of relationships. I would call it a relationship with God, but I'm aware (fitfully) that this actually, psychologically at least, involves and implicates a relationship with myself and with all the people I deal with, since I relate with God through my personhood and see God in others.

As such, it's a matter of quality and depth, which both increase with time and are subject to fitful and unpredictable variation.

So, from that point of view too, an anti-doubt pill would not, to my mind, create faith mostly because it would denature God and me.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amir Emrra:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think your mistake is to think that belief and doubt are antonyms; they aren't.
The opposite of belief is not doubt but unbelief.
Hi Eutychus. Would you elaborate on the above please? Thanks

I think unbelief is a wilful, deliberate, conscious refusal to place one's trust in the object of belief, whereas doubt is, well, doubt; a legitimate degree of self-questioning and uncertainty as you go along.

I thought about using the word "relationship" in my first post but I know some people don't find talk of a "relationship with God" helpful or meaningful - but ThunderBunk has now used the term so I'll add my agreement. A relationship involves a bit of to and fro between the parties ("what did you say?" "did you really mean...?"), otherwise it's not a relationship, it's assimilation.

There's an exposition of Romans 4:20, which is all about faith and the example of Abraham, that I find helpful too. In English it says something along the lines that Abraham "did not waver through unbelief"; in French it says he "did not doubt through unbelief".

The Greek says διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ. I'm not a Greek scholar but I can at least see the words for "doubted/wavered" and "unbelief" are completely different, suggesting two different concepts. The second one has an a- prefix which signifies the complete absence of something while the first one starts with "di-" which means two and seems to have the idea of wobbling between two directions.

If you look at Abraham's life there were quite a few "wobbles" (consider Hagar for one!) but they were errors along the way rather than a complete abandonment or turning away from what God had promised him.

In fact it occurs to me that faith is a bit like riding a bike. Unbelief is like having training wheels: you are assured of absolutely no wobbles, but you're not actually doing the riding. Doubt involves infinitely more wavers and wobbles and even the possibility of taking a tumble; but you're riding somewhere.

[ 03. June 2017, 21:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Thanks for your reply Thunderbunk.

I agree faith is like a relationship. Believe it or not, my relationship with God is still in tact, it just isn't in the context of a Christian church at the moment.

I'm really not trying to support the idea of the pill per se, I've already had to caveat it against a couple of interpretations of what the pill would do. I'm more reacting to the idea that not only is doubt inevitable (which I agree with) but that it is necessary and good. It's a little like saying suffering is good. No. God can bring good out of suffering but suffering itself is never good. Otherwise it would survive the second coming right? I mean "He will wipe every tear from their eye" sounds like an end to suffering to me. Similarly, "then we will know fully, even as we are fully known" sounds like an end to doubt to me.

So no I wouldn't take the pill, especially in its most simplistic form, because I'm not sure it could logically exist in a world where God allows suffering and doubt. But it's natural and normal to want an end to doubt, to be fully known, even as it's natural and normal to want an end to suffering.

[edited to get the quote right]

[ 03. June 2017, 22:17: Message edited by: Paul. ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Suppose you could pop a pill, wave a wand, doesn't matter what, that would (a) give you a deep seated conviction that God was real and Christianity was true, and (b) would make you forget that you had this deep-seated conviction because you'd taken the pill, performed the ritual, whatever.

Would you do it?

The second part is important.

How is taking the pill different from praying to God to increase one's faith ?

In both cases, the intended outcome is an increase in one's conviction of the trustworthiness of God-as-presented-by-this-particular-religious-tradition. (Where trustworthiness implies existence and more besides).

A conviction that just somehow arrives rather than being an impartial response to evidence ?

Seems that most of us are declining to take the pill. Because we care about Truth; we feel it's right to refuse a happy life of shared belief within a believing community if that belief is unwarranted.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think that is one thing that is wrong with religion in the United States: there are too many damn people who are so certain of their faith, that they have become blind to what is really happening.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I suspect that the pill would not so much be taken willingly as forced on others by those with the certainty it creates.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My son and a colleague lead worship as Sky Ranch in Colorado last summer. One of the more well-received services they used said it is okay to doubt. He had many pastors writing in, thanking him for addressing the topic with the kids. It certainly opened up a lot of discussions between the campers, the staff and local pastors.

They actually asked him to come back this summer.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Nope.
Taking the pill would also remove the whole free will thingy-m'jig. ...but that's a whole other wheelbarrow of carrots...

There have been times when i would however have quite liked a pill that would given me the strength of character required to make Big Changes in my life.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

No I wouldn't. But then I've always had an inner gut-feeling certainty, so it's probably easy for me. (Are you sure I wasn't given a pill as a baby??)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0