cuchulain Posted April 8, 2017 Report Share Posted April 8, 2017 So I have explored the topic of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. I decided maybe a touch on levels of belief. Do different things require different levels of belief? Dan would say he is wholeheartedly Christian, and I would probably agree with that assessment even though it really isn't my place to tell him whether he is or not. It seems to me that that particular level of belief is very strong. If my kid came home from school and told me he had been in a fight that the other kid started entirely, I would investigate. Not that I would immediately disbelieve my kid, he's usually pretty honest with me so far as I can tell, but there are some things that it just seems like you investigate a little more. I guess that would be middling belief? Then there are claims that are just so far fetched as to be ludicrous on the face of it. I was in jail one time with a guy. He had a different story about everything. He was a ninja. Said so himself. Now that's one of those that I just straight out didn't believe. I guess with this topic I am looking into insights into what people might believe, and why, and what level of belief there is. I mean, some things just aren't worth pursuing for proof, like if I said I had a peanut butter sandwich I doubt many people would choose to quibble about it, although they might. But what general level of belief would there be in something like that, that wasn't investigated further to prove? Middling, low, strong? Non existent even? I hear occasionally that I just "need to believe"...but do I really? And what level of belief should I have? If someone tells me that Zeus sometimes wanders around Earth in disguise and he takes vengeance on those who displease him, but often grants a boon to those who he likes, why should I just believe that? I mean, it's well documented from ancient sources after all. It's written down, and it's not like anyone can come along and prove otherwise....on the same note, someone tells me I need to believe in Jesus, he's coming back and burning his enemies in hell and the only way to righteousness is by following him. Again, it's well documented, it's written down in ancient sources, and nobody can come along and prove otherwise, right? Both stories, they are along the same lines with the exception that one was believed while the other wasn't. What's the real difference though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.