This is quite helpful. If you the “current you” could go and tell the “past you” something in the midst of your “questing,” what would it be?
Eventually though, I came to realize that I had no reason to commit to further searching, that I had more than enough evidence to treat the question as settled, and that my probability estimate of being wrong wasn’t remotely enough to justify expending further effort.
I think I could roughly define my view of the matter like this, but it doesn’t feel like that. Where Catholicism of theism in general to be true, I have so many objections and things that remain unexplained about how that works, that I, also, would say that my current estimate of all of them being wrong (and, thus, theism actually being true) is extremely low.
It’s also possible that it’s true but just not discernible as such. In that case, I’m not sure whether it matters—one lives life as if it’s not true until it does become discernible. Though the Pascal’s wager advocates would say otherwise.
Re. the doubt/humility points, I’ll definitely think on this further. And, yes, it’s quite possible that there’s some doubting-as-virtuous going on. There might be some genuine uncertainty, but like I said in the post, it’s probably irrational that I give sooo much weight to this one uncertain area and so little to all the other topics I’m also uncertain about.
but hopefully with a faster turnaround time than I had when I thought it was more respectable to be trying to answer the question than to be decided.
Are you distinguishing between “answered” and “decided about”? That’s how I’m reading this and it would be great if you could add a bit more about it.
This is quite helpful. If you the “current you” could go and tell the “past you” something in the midst of your “questing,” what would it be?
There are a lot of things I think I could teach my past self, but for the purposes of religious investigation, I think I would simply have reminded myself that while it might be more socially acceptable to take an attitude of uncertainty, the ″goal″ is not an eternal quest for truth, but a conclusion that I can be confident enough in for practical purposes.
I certainly wouldn’t take back the entirety of my “quest,” I learned a lot about various cultures and how different people think, but I continued far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Keep track of your expectations of learning new things.
Are you distinguishing between “answered” and “decided about”? That’s how I’m reading this and it would be great if you could add a bit more about it.
We can never be absolutely certain about anything, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to make significant concessions to the possibility of our being wrong when it’s overwhelmingly unlikely. When it comes to the existence of God, it might be seen as arrogant to be convinced that one does not exist, as opposed to attempting to find out whether one exists, but that doesn’t mean you should hold yourself back from becoming satisfied in your conclusion. Don’t let social norms control your perception of the question; nobody’s likely to call you arrogant for being satisfied with the conclusion that unicorns don’t exist.
...the ″goal″ is not an eternal quest for truth, but a conclusion that I can be confident enough in for practical purposes.
I agree, though it’s a great reminder to hear again.
I certainly wouldn’t take back the entirety of my “quest,” I learned a lot about various cultures and how different people think, but I continued far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Keep track of your expectations of learning new things.
Good point as well. I’ve also learned quite a bit, particularly about cosmology and how we know what we know in that area. I’ll have to think hard about what it would take to convince me even if I learn new things. Solutions to the problem of evil, for example, seems like it will always rest in speculation or what is possible; without god confirming a hypothesis or showing what, exactly, the greater good of little Johnny’s suffering is… we’ll never know what speculation is accurate.
Without a time machine, we’ll never confirm what really happened at the hypothetical tomb, either. And what we have of the Bible will also pretty much remain the same and continue to be reinterpreted to attempt to explain various issues away.
So… even with reading someone else’s take on these things… I’m always left puzzled and unconvinced because they seem to be based on vague speculation and there’s never anyway to verify the answers.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps that’s the “decidedness” I should focus on, anyway. Proceed with a practical stance until something comes along that can be shown to have merit from apologists?
This is quite helpful. If you the “current you” could go and tell the “past you” something in the midst of your “questing,” what would it be?
I think I could roughly define my view of the matter like this, but it doesn’t feel like that. Where Catholicism of theism in general to be true, I have so many objections and things that remain unexplained about how that works, that I, also, would say that my current estimate of all of them being wrong (and, thus, theism actually being true) is extremely low.
It’s also possible that it’s true but just not discernible as such. In that case, I’m not sure whether it matters—one lives life as if it’s not true until it does become discernible. Though the Pascal’s wager advocates would say otherwise.
Re. the doubt/humility points, I’ll definitely think on this further. And, yes, it’s quite possible that there’s some doubting-as-virtuous going on. There might be some genuine uncertainty, but like I said in the post, it’s probably irrational that I give sooo much weight to this one uncertain area and so little to all the other topics I’m also uncertain about.
Are you distinguishing between “answered” and “decided about”? That’s how I’m reading this and it would be great if you could add a bit more about it.
There are a lot of things I think I could teach my past self, but for the purposes of religious investigation, I think I would simply have reminded myself that while it might be more socially acceptable to take an attitude of uncertainty, the ″goal″ is not an eternal quest for truth, but a conclusion that I can be confident enough in for practical purposes.
I certainly wouldn’t take back the entirety of my “quest,” I learned a lot about various cultures and how different people think, but I continued far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Keep track of your expectations of learning new things.
We can never be absolutely certain about anything, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to make significant concessions to the possibility of our being wrong when it’s overwhelmingly unlikely. When it comes to the existence of God, it might be seen as arrogant to be convinced that one does not exist, as opposed to attempting to find out whether one exists, but that doesn’t mean you should hold yourself back from becoming satisfied in your conclusion. Don’t let social norms control your perception of the question; nobody’s likely to call you arrogant for being satisfied with the conclusion that unicorns don’t exist.
I agree, though it’s a great reminder to hear again.
Good point as well. I’ve also learned quite a bit, particularly about cosmology and how we know what we know in that area. I’ll have to think hard about what it would take to convince me even if I learn new things. Solutions to the problem of evil, for example, seems like it will always rest in speculation or what is possible; without god confirming a hypothesis or showing what, exactly, the greater good of little Johnny’s suffering is… we’ll never know what speculation is accurate.
Without a time machine, we’ll never confirm what really happened at the hypothetical tomb, either. And what we have of the Bible will also pretty much remain the same and continue to be reinterpreted to attempt to explain various issues away.
So… even with reading someone else’s take on these things… I’m always left puzzled and unconvinced because they seem to be based on vague speculation and there’s never anyway to verify the answers.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps that’s the “decidedness” I should focus on, anyway. Proceed with a practical stance until something comes along that can be shown to have merit from apologists?