Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


Would you do it?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                      

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

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                         

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.

---

Posted                          

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!

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                         

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

---

Posted                         

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?

---