I'm basically an agnostic when it comes to the notion of god. I firmly believe that there are higher forms of consciousness in the universe, probably much higher. After billions of years of universal evolution, perhaps billions of iterations of billions of years, how could there not be? Even so, I doubt whether the characteristics of those higher forms rises to the level of plenipotence that is typically attributed to god. I think they might appear godlike. — Pantagruel

I'm an agnostic too. I don't think there is any reason to believe universes tend to give rise to life, let alone multiple spawns of life - we could well be completely alone.

But when I was riding a tiny motorcycle home from the city at 3 am in a late October sleet-storm on a six-lane highway, slush piling up six inches deep, nothing on the road but me and transport trucks, and me wearing a smoked helmet visor, let me tell you, I did some pretty hard-ass praying to a god that I sure hoped was listening. I guess you'd call that, "motivated belief." — Pantagruel

Pascal's wager comes to mind.

I did some pretty hard-ass praying to a god that I sure hoped was listening — Pantagruel

Sounds like the Kierkegaardian existential situation. A belief that might motivate the believer leaping into the abyss of faith ...

Pascal's wager comes to mind. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, I had never heard of Pascal's wager until I read it on here a while ago. It figures in my own philosophy as what I call "the ontological gamble"; we stake our very existence on the validity of our beliefs. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the being of consciousness is equivalent to its beliefs. That's why it's so critical to define what it means to truly believe something, versus just saying that you believe it.

Sounds like the Kierkegaardian existential situation. A belief that might motivate the believer leaping into the abyss of faith ... — Corvus

If accepting as true what you want so badly to believe is true is the definition of faith it seems a poor accomplishment....almost like signing a false confession under duress.

I think that it is possible to choose whether or not to believe in God on the basis of preference, according to one's state of mind and what works for each of us. I was an extreme believer in God as a child and as a teenager. It was only when I got into my twenties and was struggling with life, sexuality, and the way religious beliefs had impacted upon friends that I really began to question.

Now, I am able to see both sides of theism, and various other angles, and I definitely see them as choices. I don't have a clear answer to the question of God's existence, but I when I am in some kind of crisis I do pray. I feel that it helps, and does lead me forwards positively usually. I seem to get results, whether this is some higher power, my own subconscious or, it could be that I simply interpret it that way.

One other aspect though, is the question of whether we believe in God only motivated if we think about it in this way? I do feel that I can choose because I am consciously aware of alternative perspective and I try to be aware of my own conscious motivations. But, perhaps my choices aren't entirely free entirely because they are made in the light of a combination of being brought up in a religious context, and, at the same time having read books from all kinds of worldviews. Of course, my reading of certain books was based on choice, but it was partly based on seeing the cracks and holes in the religious ideas I was taught. So, I do wonder how much freedom we do have in coming to certain beliefs. It appears to me to be a mixture of cultural influence, alongside freedom to make choices based on our understanding of the philosophical arguments for and against belief in God.

but I when I am in some kind of crisis I do pray and I feel that it helps, and does lead me forwards positively usually. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I believe that there is some kind of strong underlying motivation which often relates to the consciousness or feeling of being faced with some kind of major problem along with doubts as to our ability to meet the challenge and fear about the outcome if we don't. Some people may even experience the entire modern world in this way.

If accepting as true what you want so badly to believe is true is the definition of faith it seems a poor accomplishment....almost like signing a false confession under duress. — Pantagruel

But you hear about many cases of confessions of those religious converts from diehard atheist, agnostic or no idea people due to some life changing moments of circumstance which occurred one funny day, and turned them religious ever since etc.

Isn't that what faith and religion are about? Irrational, blind, sudden and absurd just like life?

Yes, I had never heard of Pascal's wager until I read it on here a while ago. It figures in my own philosophy as what I call "the ontological gamble"; we stake our lives on the validity of our beliefs. — Pantagruel

Pascal's Wager is pretty creaky old thing. You are either convinced of something or you are not convinced. You can't choose what you believe.

The other problem with the wager is which version of God are you going to bet your life on? Even within Christianity there are a vast array of possible Jehovahs - some inclusive and liberal; some harsh and judgemental. Which one should you 'believe' in?

Or do you think a person can just say, 'I will now believe in a de-identified, generic God and that will protect me from damnation?'

I wonder what a God would think if it understood that the only reason you told yourself you believed in it was not from love or conviction, but for a wager.

Isn't that what faith and religion are about? Irrational, blind, sudden and absurd just like life? — Corvus

This I think says it all. We admire reason and logic and try to live up to them as standards, but they don't capture everything. I would say not just faith and religion, but life is not ultimately reasonable. Which is why I find a lot of contention over fine points of logic to be frustrating, especially when there are clearly extra-logical factors involved.

Which is why I find a lot of contention over fine points of logic to be frustrating, especially when there are clearly extra-logical factors involved. — Pantagruel

Critical thinking is vastly overrated anyway.

This I think says it all. We admire reason and logic and try to live up to them as standards, but they don't capture everything. I would say not just faith and religion, but life is not ultimately reasonable. Which is why I find a lot of contention over fine points of logic to be frustrating, especially when there are clearly extra-logical factors involved. — Pantagruel

Logic can be a little help at times, but its capability is limited for dealing with the real world and life problems in logical manner.

Perhaps and phenomenologically speaking, it could be the reason why Phenomenology has been born.

higher forms of consciousness in the universe — Pantagruel

You're talking about perception and intelligence not consciousness. Those are facets of and in consciousness not consciousness itself.

If a lifeform has 100X more senses and brains then it might be able to perceive and think about alot more then we can. But it's consciousness will be equal.

What good is perceiving and thinking about more if you don't need to? A rock is doing just fine without anything.

You're talking about perception and intelligence not consciousness. Those are facets of and in consciousness not consciousness itself. — hope

Pretty sure I'm not. Pretty sure that I was and am talking about consciousness. I'm "conscious" of the fact that I am.

Pretty sure that I was and am talking about consciousness. — Pantagruel

Perception, intelligence, mind, consciousness, conscience, senses, experience, beliefs, brain, are all different things. Don't mix them up.

Perception, intelligence, mind, consciousness, conscience, senses, experience, beliefs, brain, are all different things. Don't mix them up. — hope

I am quite certain that I understand the different descriptive contexts. To quote one of Anthony Trollope's characters, "I know my own mind well enough."

I am quite certain that I understand the different descriptive contexts. — Pantagruel

Then give a definition for each term that makes it unique from each other term.

hen give a definition for each term that makes it unique from each other term. — hope

If you need definitions then you could read a few books. Or start another thread. Has nothing to do with my post about motivated belief. I'm more interested in bad-faith versus authenticity as it relates to genuine versus feigned belief.

Has nothing to do with my post about motivated belief. — Pantagruel

Sure, but belief and consciousness are two different things.

Sure, but belief and consciousness are two different things. — hope

Maybe. Or maybe belief aligns with intentionality at a level that is fundamental to what consciousness is. Thinking is always thinking "about" and the about is essentially some kind of belief, it has a direction.

Thinking is always thinking "about" and the about is essentially some kind of belief — Pantagruel

Now your confusing belief and mind.

So again, I repeat, learn all the distinct definitions so you can separate all the terms properly.

Now your confusing belief and mind. — hope

I'm not confusing them, I'm providing a phenomenological description that I personally find consistent with the fundamental experience of consciousness. You seem unaware that consciousness is a very hotly debated topic. If you already know the true nature then you'd best share it with everyone quickly so they stop writing all those books about it.

If you already know the true nature then you'd best share it with everyone — Pantagruel

It was already shared by Lao Tzu 3000 years ago. Modern people are becoming more ignorant haha

It was already shared by Lao Tzu 3000 years ago. Modern people are becoming more ignorant haha — hope

No argument from me.

If you already know the true nature then you'd best share it with everyone — Pantagruel

Mind and matter are both made of consciousness.

Mind and matter are both made of consciousness. — hope

I don't think that's the best possible description though. Mind and matter are both elements of some overarching system maybe.

ind and matter are both elements of some overarching system maybe. — Pantagruel

That overarching system is consciousness itself.

That overarching system is consciousness itself. — hope

Well, that's not what I was suggesting.

That overarching system is consciousness itself. — hope

It seems like you enjoy giving the last word without making any effort to respond to your interlocutors in the terms they introduce. I get enough of that sort of thing at work.

effort to respond to your interlocutors — Valentinus

Ask more questions then, and I will elaborate. Why would I bother to do what when I don't know if you need it or not. I don't assume your ignorance.

Are you some kind of god that can advise and condemn as the situation requires?