| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2008 01:12:14 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
When you say that "faith is that condition that necessitates the ultimate abandonment of reason" you are implying, even if not so stating, that people of faith are, ipso facto, incapable of reason. ....It is absolutely possible to believe in God and still be a rational person. |
Correct, I wasn't saying that. If you read it again, I say nothing about the condition of reason within indivduals, but rather, that the reason they do have must be suspended in order to accept things on faith:
"...Faith is that condition that necessitates the ultimate abandonment of reason."
Nothing about those having faith being inherently without reason. I accept all the fine work Catholics have contributed to scientific study, for example (Mendel, Lemaître, etc.).
I don't think it needs restating that faith exists because people are able to suspend elements of reason. It may be putting it bluntly, but the fact of the matter is, it is not reasonable to believe in an invisible deity, the evidence for which is palpably non-existent, or, it is not reasonable to believe that a human being was crucified and rose from the dead, then disappeared because he was assumed into heaven. Those are articles of faith that require you to lay your reasoning powers aside in order to vitally believe in them.
Atheists are, for the most part, simply those people who have stopped suspending elements of reason, and who have rejected faith as the bridge between the reasonable and the fantastic. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:13:52 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, this is only off the top of my head, so maybe I'm gonna step in it. |
I am not interested in trying to trip you up (though I will still ask questions).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Morality is fundamentally rooted in the character of the creator. In other words, "good" and "bad", at some level separate from human invention, exist. Moral codes, therefore, could be quantified in their conformation to these inherent qualities if they are truly known. |
So that requires a change in my mindset to assume that I will be judged upon every action against a set of objective criteria (but not one that is entirely knowable)?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Not all processes can be explained by materialistic operations. |
So in terms of the effect on my life, does this have any consequence? I presume that you don't intend me to become less curious on the assumption that "we cannot know everything"? Does it mean that I would have to take more on trust - believe in things more easily without demanding substantiation?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) "Purpose" now takes on a more significant meaning than merely human invention. |
Does it? On an atheistic analysis, life has a biological imperative "to survive". In everyday terms, I presume that you do the mostly the same things as me for that same reason.
Maybe there is an additional "purpose" to living life - to do things that promote your chance of eternal life. I guess I always see it as a benefit that I don't have to worry about those things - I can lead a good living life without worrying about what I *should* be doing in order to secure eternal life.
Maybe you are looking for some "ultimate" purpose for life (living and eternal). But I wonder whether being God's pet project is really any kind of "purpose" as such? It might be viewed as a reason for existence, but it is not any more goal oriented and it does not have any immediacy.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:14:08 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christianity requires faith? *GASP* To be 1% wrong is not to be 100% wrong? *SHUDDER* Not every Christian has every answer for every question posed concerning his/her faith? *FAINTS* |
People just pick whatever parts they want to believe with only their personal feelings as a guide and rationalize away the rest as irrelevant? *SWOONS* You could just as readily use a pile of fortune cookies as your spiritual guide: if it fits your belief it's valid, otherwise it's parable, a moral story, or intended for someone else. No wonder Christians fight Christians and Muslims fight Muslims- there's no objective standard. |
Removed...would have probably offended.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 13:22:17.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:20:40 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I can lead a good living life without worrying about what I *should* be doing in order to secure eternal life. |
That's one of Julian Baggini's arguments. He sees a kind of immorality in the individual who is moral because he is trying to secure his place in the hereafter, rather than being moral because it is, in fact, the right thing to do. Instead of a love humankind, such an individual seems to be expressing a love of self, trying to save his skin rather than behaving morally because he actually wants to. Or, he has a paralyzing fear of the presumed consequences for not acting morally, instead of acting morally because of a supreme empathy for other human beings.
I once saw a daffy interview with some guy who donated his kidney because he felt his karmic debt in the universe was sparse, and offering his organ to an unknown recipient would guarantee him good karma. Probably one of the most selfish displays I'd seen. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:39:28 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think it needs restating that faith exists because people are able to suspend elements of reason. It may be putting it bluntly, but the fact of the matter is, it is not reasonable to believe in an invisible deity, the evidence for which is palpably non-existent... |
(Just for the record, you DO realize I said YOU weren't making the claim, but that others would read that conclusion into it, right?)
Re: the above â I, personally, think it's "unreasonable" to assume that all the amazing complexity of life on earth, indeed of the cosmos itself & entire, came together out of nothingness. I can't get my mind around that, and I'm an educated man (some would say over educated). It seems to me perfectly reasonable to believe there is a "prime mover" that exists outside our plane of reference, whatever he/she/it may be.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:47:53 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Atheists are, for the most part, simply those people who have stopped suspending elements of reason, and who have rejected faith as the bridge between the reasonable and the fantastic. |
I'm going to say this is incorrect. You guys are paying mere lip service to Robert's idea that the faithful can be rational by saying that the faithful can be rational in other parts of their life but are irrational about their faith.
To point out a simple example of how faith can remain rational I would contend that the average person does not understand electricity at a fundamental level. However, we generally walk around with the "faith" that someone out there knows what's going on. Call them "the experts". If we know enough about the experts we can have faith that electricity is understood without understanding it ourselves. The same can be said for many, many areas of knowledge. "I believe something to be true even though I do not have personal knowledge to back it up on a fundamental level. I rely on the knowledge that experts claim they understand it."
I'm not interested in knowing how that faith differs from a theistic faith, I merely want to point out that it does constitute "faith" and that at the same time such an idea also can be termed "rational". The first definition at answers.com is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:49:56 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think it needs restating that faith exists because people are able to suspend elements of reason. It may be putting it bluntly, but the fact of the matter is, it is not reasonable to believe in an invisible deity, the evidence for which is palpably non-existent... |
(Just for the record, you DO realize I said YOU weren't making the claim, but that others would read that conclusion into it, right?)
Re: the above â I, personally, think it's "unreasonable" to assume that all the amazing complexity of life on earth, indeed of the cosmos itself & entire, came together out of nothingness. I can't get my mind around that, and I'm an educated man (some would say over educated). It seems to me perfectly reasonable to believe there is a "prime mover" that exists outside our plane of reference, whatever he/she/it may be.
R. |
Good example. The "rationality" of either idea merely hinges on whether you a priori feel materialistic mechanisms are the only domain of possible answers. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:52:53 PM · #458 |
Concerning belief only in reasonable, rational ideas, let me just toss this into the ring for y'all to chew on for a while:
Tell me about "answered prayer".
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:53:29 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not interested in knowing how that faith differs from a theistic faith... |
Well, that's a problem then. It's convenient for you, but doesn't really address the fundamental issue. It's a pretty long shot to compare a layman's "faith" in the expertise of others to the faith displayed by someone who believes in the supernatural. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:53:33 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Also, it's helpful to remember that if you aren't absolutely clear on a particular fact, don't bother bringing it up at all, because there's likely to be an expert lurking who will handily make you look like a dilettante. |
Got this quote in an email recently:
"Many a good argument has been ruined by some jerk who knows what he's talking about." |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 01:58:53 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not interested in knowing how that faith differs from a theistic faith... |
Well, that's a problem then. It's convenient for you, but doesn't really address the fundamental issue. It's a pretty long shot to compare a layman's "faith" in the expertise of others to the faith displayed by someone who believes in the supernatural. |
My point was merely to show "faith" and "rational" are not mutually exclusive. I only need to show one example for the concept to be true. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:03:08 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I, personally, think it's "unreasonable" to assume that all the amazing complexity of life on earth, indeed of the cosmos itself & entire, came together out of nothingness. |
Yet you're OK with the idea that a magical, invisible being caused it to come together out of nothingness? You are left with exactly the same problem PLUS a supernatural element. FWIW, I don't assume there was nothingness to begin with. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:04:16 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not interested in knowing how that faith differs from a theistic faith... |
Well, that's a problem then. It's convenient for you, but doesn't really address the fundamental issue. It's a pretty long shot to compare a layman's "faith" in the expertise of others to the faith displayed by someone who believes in the supernatural. |
My point was merely to show "faith" and "rational" are not mutually exclusive. I only need to show one example for the concept to be true. |
I'd call that an argument from spurious similarity. Your example for comparison still requires that the individual having "faith" knows that there is ultimately a rational and scientific explanation for the workings of the mysterious black box. The individual with faith in God has no recourse to evidence-based expert opinion that withstands scientific enquiry. It's not an adequate analogy. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:04:50 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Concerning belief only in reasonable, rational ideas, let me just toss this into the ring for y'all to chew on for a while:
Tell me about "answered prayer". |
Suppose you tell us about it.
The last I heard, when subjected to scientific experimentation, it didn't work ... |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:06:48 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point out a simple example of how faith can remain rational I would contend that the average person does not understand electricity at a fundamental level. However, we generally walk around with the "faith" that someone out there knows what's going on. Call them "the experts". If we know enough about the experts we can have faith that electricity is understood without understanding it ourselves. The same can be said for many, many areas of knowledge. "I believe something to be true even though I do not have personal knowledge to back it up on a fundamental level. I rely on the knowledge that experts claim they understand it."
|
An "ex" is a has been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. Put them together and...
It's been my experience, many times over, that simply relying on "experts" is a recipe for failure, especially when it comes to matters electrical. The only experts worth a damn are the ones who can walk you through their reasoning and give you a solid, if very basic, understanding of their solution. The rest are simply operating beyond their capacity. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:23:34 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd call that an argument from spurious similarity. Your example for comparison still requires that the individual having "faith" knows that there is ultimately a rational and scientific explanation for the workings of the mysterious black box. The individual with faith in God has no recourse to evidence-based expert opinion that withstands scientific enquiry. It's not an adequate analogy. |
Please note that you are injecting the requirement for a "scientific explanation". I am not saying that because I do not a priori concede that materialistic explanations are the only rational options. The bottom line is we are BOTH using the term "rational" to say "things which fit my own worldview".
Around and around we go again. I'm likely to get off this debate soon because you already know where I stand and I already know where you stand.
Can you rationally believe you love your partner?
Can you rationally feel capital punishment is wrong?
Can you rationally say the Mona Lisa is beautiful?
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 14:30:29. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:34:00 PM · #467 |
Imagine if it did! Religious disputes would be quickly resolved as it became clear that one "right" group had an unusual level of success with health issues, natural disaster avoidance, protection from attack, etc. The need for doctors, Amber Alerts, national defense, and wilderness rescues would be greatly reduced as devoted prayer groups concentrated on the desired results.
âGod helps those who help themselves.â- Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:34:48 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Around and around we go again. I'm likely to get off this debate soon because you already know where I stand and I already know where you stand.
Can you rationally believe you love your partner?
Can you rationally feel capital punishment is wrong?
Can you rationally say the Mona Lisa is beautiful? |
These are emotional thoughts, not rational ones. The one exception might be capital punishment but only if one feels an appeal to morality is rational. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:38:55 PM · #469 |
Can you rationally believe that unicorns are real?
Can you rationally believe a talking snake tricked our human ancestors into eating a fruit that immediately transferred knowledge into their brains?
If there's a difference, can you rationally explain it? |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:41:03 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Around and around we go again. I'm likely to get off this debate soon because you already know where I stand and I already know where you stand.
Can you rationally believe you love your partner?
Can you rationally feel capital punishment is wrong?
Can you rationally say the Mona Lisa is beautiful? |
These are emotional thoughts, not rational ones. The one exception might be capital punishment but only if one feels an appeal to morality is rational. |
To be rational is to be agreeable to reason. When you reason, its usually back by emotion. Being rational is being sensible.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:43:28 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
âGod helps those who help themselves.â- Benjamin Franklin |
And if I am presented with a crisis in my life, and I pray to God to give me strength to cope with it, and this helps me attain the inner serenity I need to focus on the problem instead of running around crying that the sky is falling, is this not an answered prayer? Be clear on this; I'm not even saying God "heard" my prayer and looked down and handed me a dose of courage to help me along. No, I'm saying that the ACT of prayer can produce the desired result.
People get all screwed up about "prayer" anyway. It's complete BS to think that prayer is, say, the act of petitioning God for an edge over the competition. "Please God, give me a Ferrari and a million dollars and Selma Hayek's phone number!" Oh, puhleeze... There are plenty of selfish prayers out there, except they aren't prayers in any meaningful sense.
To pray is to open a dialogue with your God, and it can be extraordinarily helpful, if you but Believe.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:44:29 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Around and around we go again. I'm likely to get off this debate soon because you already know where I stand and I already know where you stand.
Can you rationally believe you love your partner?
Can you rationally feel capital punishment is wrong?
Can you rationally say the Mona Lisa is beautiful? |
These are emotional thoughts, not rational ones. The one exception might be capital punishment but only if one feels an appeal to morality is rational. |
To be rational is to be agreeable to reason. When you reason, its usually back by emotion. Being rational is being sensible. |
Reason is thought based on logic not on emotion. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:46:15 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Can you rationally believe that unicorns are real?
Can you rationally believe a talking snake tricked our human ancestors into eating a fruit that immediately transferred knowledge into their brains?
If there's a difference, can you rationally explain it? |
Well yeah, I can, actually. As long as you don't stick with your tidy path that requires me to take the entire Bible literally. To wit:
God gave man an earthly paradise and man screwed up. Result: paradise lost, welcome to reality. Take a good look around you; can you deny this is the case?
It's called "metaphor" and the Book is full of metaphors and parables, putting wisdom into a form unsophisticated people might be able to understand/appreciate.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 14:47:30.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:46:51 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Around and around we go again. I'm likely to get off this debate soon because you already know where I stand and I already know where you stand.
Can you rationally believe you love your partner?
Can you rationally feel capital punishment is wrong?
Can you rationally say the Mona Lisa is beautiful? |
These are emotional thoughts, not rational ones. The one exception might be capital punishment but only if one feels an appeal to morality is rational. |
To be rational is to be agreeable to reason. When you reason, its usually back by emotion. Being rational is being sensible. |
Reason is thought based on logic not on emotion. |
I'm of the school of thought that all reasoning is based not only on logic but emotion also. If someone is irrational, they are usually emotionally unstable and illogical. IMHO, I think it goes hand in hand.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 14:48:35.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 02:53:09 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Can you rationally believe that unicorns are real?
Can you rationally believe a talking snake tricked our human ancestors into eating a fruit that immediately transferred knowledge into their brains?
If there's a difference, can you rationally explain it? |
Well yeah, I can, actually. As long as you don't stick with your tidy path that requires me to take the entire Bible literally. To wit:
God gave man an earthly paradise and man screwed up. Result: paradise lost, welcome to reality. Take a good look around you; can you deny this is the case?
It's called "metaphor" and the Book is full of metaphors and parables, putting wisdom into a form unsophisticated people might be able to understand/appreciate.
R. |
... or a cleaver ploy by the powers to be to ensure adherence to prescribed rules and regulations. See what happened to those two schmucks who failed to listen... well if you do the same you will be damned for eternity.
Yep, I can see where one would be prone to listen.
Ray |
|
