It's actually quite a refreshing viewpoint. They're aware that what they believe isn't particularly rational, but lots of stuff in our lives isn't rational. And there's lots of stuff in life that isn't well defined or explained and is open to people to interpret however they like.
If it makes them happy and doesn't adversely affect others, I say all the best. It's very hard to object to someone who says "I know that there's no particular reason to believe in God, but I do so because it makes me happy and I feel like I lead a better life".
This applies to all religions. They're not that common, but occasionally you meet people who are aware that their beliefs are a choice and are OK with that.
Nice commentary.
Everyone approaches these things from their own individual perspective.
This will certainly come as know surprise to anyone here.
My approach was somewhat different.
Call it "belief," call it "trust," call it whatever you want to... It's still completely unnecessary. Knowledge that is gained through, and can be verified by, objective means (mathematics, scientific observation and experimentation, etc.) only requires one to be aware of it.
In fact of reality, no, thats not the case.
An individual
always has the choice to accept or reject it.
Obviously, if it is truly objective evidence, it would be only rational and logical to choose to trust it, and as I elaborated on earlier, this can be done, skipping any evaluation and automatically trusting and embracing it as factually solid.
Exactly. No belief or trust required.
That statement is after the fact.
It's exactly 50/50. Normally, I wouldn't feel compelled to call out the careless use of the word "generally" here, but considering your penchant for redefining words whenever you please, I'm erring on the side of caution.
Well, yes and no.
Theoretically, it is 50/50.
In reality, it can be weighted to either side.
For example, if you have three coins and you toss each one once.
They may all come up heads, or all tales.
Granted, this is against the theoritical odds, but can and does happen.
If your call was what came up all three times, your outcome odds were 100/0.
Or of course, 0/100 if you chose the side that didn't come up.
Likewise if you toss a coin say, 50 times it will rarely come up 25/25.
However, it usually won't be extremely weighted either way, but can be sometimes.
This makes no sense at all. If he knows that there isn't a position to take that put the odds in his favor, he has every reason to not take the bet.
If he believes in the odds and won't take action until he has more favorable odds, thats true.
But again that is a decision he has to make.
The knowledge cannot make it for him, unless he believes and trusts in it.
In the last couple days there was a incident at the Apollo theater in London that illustrates my point.
A completely unexpected collapse of a balcony section took place.(correct me if I'm wrong on the details)
I'm sure many many people had sat in that section over the years never even giving a thought to the structural integrity of it. And by all objective evidence to date, there was no reason to think otherwise.
However, on this particular occasion, under apparently just the right conditions it gave away.
To the contrary, all but one of us in this thread is quite clear on the reality of how belief works.
I'm not so sure.
Just because a "belief" is logically, rationally and soundly based, does not mean it is still not a "belief".
In the last couple days there was a incident at the Apollo theater in London that illustrates my point.
A completely unexpected collapse of a balcony section took place.(correct me if I'm wrong on the details)
I'm sure many many people had sat in that section over the years never even giving a thought to the structural integrity of it. And by all objective evidence to date, there was no reason to think otherwise.
However, on this particular occasion, under apparently just the right conditions it gave away.
Assumptive belief, on that point by those involved was certainly misplaced.