| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2007 12:48:45 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Knowledge should not be a threat to truth, but a willingness to operate without reason endangers all.
|
Operating with faith is hardly operating without reason.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, faith is EXACTLY "assuming the outcome based on your beliefs," even in the face of common sense. A good analogy would be a child's belief in Santa Claus, and I'm sure many of us had complete, unwavering faith in his existence when we were 4 years old. Was it not true faith? Just imagine how much longer we'd believe in Santa if we were actively taught to not question that belief every day, under threat of eternal damnation, social stigma, and/or physical force, by all those we know and trust, at the direction of people whose income and power depended upon your continuing belief, and who actively attacked anything that could threaten that position. Any physics that might demonstrate the inherent impossibility of levitating reindeer MUST be faulty!
|
A good analogy? Comparing the mind of a 4 year old believing in Santa to that of an adult believing in a God is not only a poor analogy, it is simply another insult that Louis denies is happening here. (I'm not insulted btw.)
You cannot prove that life began in any way. I cannot prove that life began in any way. You choose to believe a theory made by men. I choose to believe otherwise. Nothing else really matters nor applies to me. I'm not bombing abortion clinics or denouncing homosexuality. I'm not telling people to stop taking their medication because God said so. In fact, I'm not one who is unrealistic enough to believe that parts of the Bible were written by man for his own satisfaction - his own personal beliefs, if you will - rather than those sent from God. Taking words that you typed only a few lines ago about all of mankind being sinners; why would I trust man ESPECIALLY after God tells me we're sinners (which I do believe by the way. Sorry.)? My faith has nothing to do with man or the words of man. It goes much deeper and more powerful than that.
Not really much more I can say. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:51:36 PM · #452 |
| You take things far too personally. There's nothing at stake for you. Why take such high umbrage, particularly since you're so secure in what you believe? Plus it's no fun talking to someone who gets POed at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:53:50 PM · #453 |
...
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 15:31:35.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:56:05 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by Phil:
You seriously think the road of faith is an easier one than being a non believer? |
Following the crowd is always easier than independent thought.
Originally posted by Phil:
Did you really put that up there to say that even though believers are not idiots they all have "lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstitions and darkness."? |
There's a huge difference between idiocy and ignorance of the world around you. Sagan's quote references the latter. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:02:13 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Following the crowd is always easier than independent thought. |
Exactly! Thanks.
Originally posted by scalvert:
There's a huge difference between idiocy and ignorance of the world around you. Sagan's quote references the latter. |
Mmmm, okay.
Originally posted by Louis:
You take things far too personally. There's nothing at stake for you. Why take such high umbrage, particularly since you're so secure in what you believe? Plus it's no fun talking to someone who gets POed at the drop of a hat. |
Louis, I am hardly POed. In fact, I said that I wasn't insulted. Once again you're doing nothing but making assumptions as to how I feel. I explained myself earlier and if you don't think this is "fun" then there is a simple remedy don't you think? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:05:13 PM · #456 |
| It's hard not to make certain assumptions with all the self-deprecating edgey language flying around here. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:06:00 PM · #457 |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:28:55 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Operating with faith is hardly operating without reason. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
Acceptance of a belief over physical evidence, whether faith or superstition, IS an operation in the face of reason. Acts of faith against another often directly contradict reason, too (suicide bombers, inquisitions, witch hunts, exorcisms, cults, etc.).
Originally posted by Phil:
Comparing the mind of a 4 year old believing in Santa to that of an adult believing in a God is not only a poor analogy, it is simply another insult that Louis denies is happening here. |
I was comparing a disproven belief that most of us once held as absolute truth to one that continues to be held. Were the former believers stupid, naive, misled... or what?
Originally posted by Phil:
My faith has nothing to do with man or the words of man. It goes much deeper and more powerful than that. |
Believe in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 13:30:06. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:58:29 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by Scalvert:
Acceptance of a belief over physical evidence, whether faith or superstition, IS an operation in the face of reason. Acts of faith against another often directly contradict reason, too (suicide bombers, inquisitions, witch hunts, exorcisms, cults, etc.) |
We are talking about different "definitions" of faith. As I have stated earlier, blind adherence to religious doctrines is not a necessary component of faith. The fanatical Muslim who becomes a suicide bomber, or the born-again Christian who preaches hellfire and damnation, are no more representative of what it means to have Faith than, say, a McDonalds fry operator is representative of what it means to be a chef.
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense; but there is not. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, it is possible to accept such science as the theory of evolution as being fact-based and *still* have faith in the existence of a Supreme Being. There are myriads of such Believers in the world, and there always have been.
Only when I claim that the Word as expressed through the Bible is the whole truth or the only truth does Christian faith come into conflict with reason. And most educated Christians do not take that position. Granted, there are large numbers of them who DO, and this extreme "faith" does fly in the face of reason.
But do not make the mistake of thinking that people like me, and many others in this thread, who have a deep-seated belief in the existence of God, are ipso facto incapable of "reason".
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:02:16 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But do not make the mistake of thinking that people like me, and many others in this thread, who have a deep-seated belief in the existence of God, are ipso facto incapable of "reason".
|
Not incapable of reason, but willfully resistant to it:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:22:29 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But do not make the mistake of thinking that people like me, and many others in this thread, who have a deep-seated belief in the existence of God, are ipso facto incapable of "reason".
|
Not incapable of reason, but willfully resistant to it:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
|
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. By your standard, expressed above, I can make the argument that if you believe in "love" you are willfully resistant to reason. And yet it seems like a heck of a lot of people believe that "love makes the world go around"
I realize this is an imperfect parallel, but nevertheless the world is chock full of people who undertake actions in the name of "love" that seem to fly in the face of reason. I have in mind, for one example, a certain famous king of England who abdicated his throne for the "love" of an American divorcee named Wallis Simpson.
I think you can find all SORTS of examples outside the realm of religion where peoples' convictions and/or beliefs cause them to act in apparent contradiction to what most enlightened individuals would consider the dictates of "reason".
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:27:49 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense... |
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:40:31 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense... |
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
Shannon, without exception those who have a deep and abiding Faith have felt the evidence of His presence within themselves. Not all things are explainable by science, and we should not require that they be. Isn't it sufficient to accept that these people have a sincere faith and let it go at that?
I understand that if someone's faith causes him to act in an appalling or destructive (or even annoying) manner, then it's worth speaking out against it. But some of the great minds of our earth, of our civilizations, have believed in the existence of God and it has hindered neither their gifts nor their contributions to the rest of us.
I don't understand why you persist in painting all "faith" with such a black brush.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:46:08 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think you can find all SORTS of examples outside the realm of religion where peoples' convictions and/or beliefs cause them to act in apparent contradiction to what most enlightened individuals would consider the dictates of "reason". |
Religious faith is one area, it seems to me, where people are capable not only of unreasonable behaviour, but of willful blindness to the evidence of their senses, of having a strange ability to denounce otherwise perfectly acceptable notions (such as science), and of a proclivity to excoriate those who raise the merest hint of objection to what they believe.
There aren't a lot of lovers around who'll carry signs at funerals berating the recently deceased, or who'll joyfully kill those who don't have a high opinion of their love.
And I've always thought "Wallis" was a weird name for a woman. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:48:35 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Not incapable of reason, but willfully resistant to it:
|
An interesting facet of western thought is the prevalence of exclusivity.
Edit - that was all I had to add, but I changed my mind:
Originally posted by Louis:
Religious faith is one area, it seems to me, where people are capable not only of unreasonable behaviour, but of willful blindness to the evidence of their senses, of having a strange ability to denounce otherwise perfectly acceptable notions (such as science), and of a proclivity to excoriate those who raise the merest hint of objection to what they believe. |
Again, the exclusivity. Just because there are religious nutballs doesn't mean there aren't scientific ones. Religion and science have little relevence in regards to whether one acts counter to popularly accepted norms.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 14:51:58. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:52:45 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Faith comes from within, or at least the kind of faith I am talking about; it's a matter of complete acceptance that there *is* a Creator, and that our presence here and now is not without meaning. |
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that if tomorrow it could be proved beyond doubt that God/a Creator did not exist, that your life would suddenly lose its meaning, or that those things from which you now derive meaning would suddenly be meaningless to you? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:58:10 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. |
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:00:08 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, without exception those who have a deep and abiding Faith have felt the evidence of His presence within themselves. |
Mother Theresa's letters "reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever." Regardless, "I believe it because I believe I feel it" is not physical evidence. That's why it's called a leap of faith rather than a step of reason.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But some of the great minds of our earth, of our civilizations, have believed in the existence of God and it has hindered neither their gifts nor their contributions to the rest of us. |
I have never stated otherwise, nor do I harbor any ill will toward people who believe in whatever they want to. I simply agreed with you that, "faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate." There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever... until such faith is used to justify actions that should call for reason. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:04:26 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Faith comes from within, or at least the kind of faith I am talking about; it's a matter of complete acceptance that there *is* a Creator, and that our presence here and now is not without meaning. |
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that if tomorrow it could be proved beyond doubt that God/a Creator did not exist, that your life would suddenly lose its meaning, or that those things from which you now derive meaning would suddenly be meaningless to you? |
No, because you can't prove that. I have no problem with, say, the Big Bang, or with evolution, to name two examples. I have no problem with science at all. I just think there's something beyond all that, and it is inconceivable (on purely logical grounds) that it can be proven that there is not. That's where the "faith" comes in; by definition "faith" is belief in the unprovable.
Actually, the real problem would be if the existence of God were proven, because then faith in Him would cease to have meaning. But it isn't going to happen :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:05:42 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. |
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Well, yeah, that's easy to say, but people BELIEVE in love. Some of them do anyway :-) They will deny that it is just biology, they will attach higher levels of meaning to it. And THAT is "faith".
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:06:48 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But some of the great minds of our earth, of our civilizations, have believed in the existence of God and it has hindered neither their gifts nor their contributions to the rest of us. |
I have never stated otherwise, nor do I harbor any ill will toward people who believe in whatever they want to. I simply agreed with you that, "faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate." There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever... until such faith is used to justify actions that should call for reason. |
Fine. I'll accept that at face value. We are in complete agreement there.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:07:01 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense; but there is not.
|
This is not a good argument. Tomorrow if I start to believe in something and claim that since you guys can not provide any proof that what i am imagining does not exist , i am right.
The burden of proving should be on believer not on the one who questions it.
It is not a duty of scientist to provide physical evidence of non-existence of anything you or someone wants to believe. If you or someone claims that God exists, then please prove it, by providing some physical evidence. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:18:26 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Just because there are religious nutballs doesn't mean there aren't scientific ones. |
Of course there are lunatics in every group, but I've never heard of a scientist claiming he committed a crime because a science textbook told him he must. Scientists don't demand that evolution be taught in church, kill people just because they believe in an opposing theory or blow themselves and 40 innocent bystanders up at their professor's request. Of course, most believers aren't that extreme, and atrocities have certainly been committed in the name of science, but even then, they're generally at the expense of people considered inferior by scientists' culture or belief system rather than any scientific principle.
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Religion and science have little relevence in regards to whether one acts counter to popularly accepted norms. |
Popularly accepted norms are often defined by the prevailing religion. Don't think so? Try renting a car in Saudi Arabia. Oh, and wear shorts because it's really hot there. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:18:53 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense; but there is not.
|
This is not a good argument. Tomorrow if I start to believe in something and claim that since you guys can not provide any proof that what i am imagining does not exist , i am right.
The burden of proving should be on believer not on the one who questions it.
It is not a duty of scientist to provide physical evidence of non-existence of anything you or someone wants to believe. If you or someone claims that God exists, then please prove it, by providing some physical evidence. |
You are correct that it is not science's job to disprove what I believe. And indeed, science cannot possibly do that. Elementary logic (pure reason) tells us we *cannot* prove a negative. We cannot "prove" that there are no pink cows in nature; all we can prove is that science has never studied one.
Nevertheless, it is likewise not *required* that I prove my beliefs to you, unless and until they create a measurable and meaningful conflict between us.
In other words, that I believe in God is not an actionable thing, I am free to believe whatever I want and you are free to *not* believe it, and that is as it should be. If it gets to the point where I believe that MY God is denying YOU the right to believe whatever you do, and if I act in His name to deny you that right, THEN we have a problem.
Admittedly, this situation does arise, and with appalling frequency. But that's not an indictment of belief per se, it's an indictment of an individual, or many individuals, or a group of believers who share that attitude, whatever. Plenty of atrocities have been committed on this earth by those who felt they were acting dispassionately and rationally, and religion played no part in them.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:23:24 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Faith comes from within, or at least the kind of faith I am talking about; it's a matter of complete acceptance that there *is* a Creator, and that our presence here and now is not without meaning. |
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that if tomorrow it could be proved beyond doubt that God/a Creator did not exist, that your life would suddenly lose its meaning, or that those things from which you now derive meaning would suddenly be meaningless to you? |
No, because you can't prove that. I have no problem with, say, the Big Bang, or with evolution, to name two examples. I have no problem with science at all. I just think there's something beyond all that, and it is inconceivable (on purely logical grounds) that it can be proven that there is not. That's where the "faith" comes in; by definition "faith" is belief in the unprovable.
Actually, the real problem would be if the existence of God were proven, because then faith in Him would cease to have meaning. But it isn't going to happen :-)
R. |
Okay. I understand what you're saying here, but I was hoping that you would play along for the sake of argument. :) Then let's say that your faith in the existence of a Creator was shaken and tomorrow you awoke an atheist. :) What effect would that have on the meaning of your life? Other than perhaps an increased fear of dying, how would it change your life? |
|
