Blimey ..go to church Even

(March 3, 2009 at 4:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Blimey ..go to church Even

No, thanks. If I want fairy tales, I'll read a book.


When I have ideas about myself and reality, I don't automatically think 'goddidit'. There are, of course, bits about my experience with reality that I don't understand. I admit this. Take me through the logical process that results in my having faith in a god.

Seriously: I'm interested.

No fairytales Even. Just serious rational challenges. Sorry, I did think it a good question.

Why would you think Goddidit? Why would I? I just did go through the logical process. You want detail??

Among the rational suppositions are descriptions made in the language of faith (as opposed to evidential). There's logic in the whole story with a deity at it's centre. It just works that way. To take on the study is an enriching experience to some.

With our deep secularism I think we find it more difficult as we're pretty much bankrupt in the language. Nevertheless the points it makes are none the less valid.

(March 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Kyu ..angry atheist indeed! Atheist without a cause perhaps too

Atheist with a cause actually ... my personal crusade is to keep religion out of science & government. Or did you mean without a cause (the way I came to be) in which case it all makes perfect sense (or rather the bollocks I was taught did not).

(March 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I take your point. Indeed, many people think an awful lot of different things. Personally I have a problem with people who believe despite evidence. I think theists owe a debt to those that point out contradictions. I'd disagree about logic. Faith is also very rational, and requires logic. Likewise from the opposing argument illogical statements are made.

Faith is by definition irrational ... as Dawkins puts it it is without evidence and often in spite of it.

(March 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Which point of view are you coming down on though? I'm making a clear logical point I thought? I'm not trashing anything evidential

The very first step you take into belief without evidence is against reason IMO.

Kyu

(March 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I respect the Pope as I respect other people in position. I don't respect his faith much and am opposed to most things he says. I don't have enough respect for ordinary people.

But of course, you do have respect for ordinary people. Wouldn't you shake a stranger's hand and treat him kindly?

While I respect the Pope as a man and would shake his hand, I despise his office, which seems to me to be uniquely destructive to human welfare. I do think that the Catholic Church has the potential to revolutionize itself, embracing "liberation theology." If that ever happened, and if the Church also stopped trying to advance a program whereby government would inflict the Church's moral tenets on everyone (e.g. birth control, abortion), I would probably become more respectful of the "Holy See".

The Pope had his way today, we'd all be living as if under Francisco Franco.

---

(March 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No fairytales Even. Just serious rational challenges. Sorry, I did think it a good question.

Among the rational suppositions are descriptions made in the language of faith (as opposed to evidential). There's logic in the whole story with a deity at it's centre. It just works that way. To take on the study is an enriching experience to some.

There's equal logic in the whole story with a deity not at its center. And since the supposed deity has never shown himself or caused any known effects, what is the point of entertaining the possiblility of his existence, let alone wallowing in his worship?

"Enriching?" Well, many people find reading the Bible every day "enriching," but after you've read the whole thing once, anything further is a waste of time. There are many books besides that one that are much more deserving to be read. And which among the world's many religions would be "enriching" to study? All of them? Or do you suggest a particular one?

Broadly, what is worth spending one's time on? I'm a USCF-rated chess master, and I find the study of the game, which is deep, to be enriching. But I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. Religion I would recommend to no one, since it's a waste time to study what is transparently false.

(March 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: my personal crusade is to keep religion out of science & government.

You have my support

(March 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Or did you mean without a cause (the way I came to be) in which case it all makes perfect sense (or rather the bollocks I was taught did not).

Both religious and scientific reasoning on the subject make sense to me.

(March 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Faith is by definition irrational ... as Dawkins puts it it is without evidence and often in spite of it.

A silly statement by my OP then??

(March 3, 2009 at 5:59 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The very first step you take into belief without evidence is against reason IMO.

The first step you take into belief with evidence, belief explodes in contradiction. Reason doesn't need evidence. You're doing it in your head all the time. Do you deny that too?

---

@ Mark:
I agree about the pope

Mark Wrote:There's equal logic in the whole story with a deity not at its center. And since the supposed deity has never shown himself or caused any known effects, what is the point of entertaining the possiblility of his existence, let alone wallowing in his worship?

Silly point. God cannot be provable or all religions are wrong. You're another that clings to this strange idea.

Mark Wrote:"Enriching?" Well, many people find reading the Bible every day "enriching," but after you've read the whole thing once, anything further is a waste of time. There are many books besides that one that are much more deserving to be read. And which among the world's many religions would be "enriching" to study? All of them? Or do you suggest a particular one?

The bible is incredibly complex. People have dedicated lifetimes to it and only uncovered a little. I think it's foolish to say that. There are also many many expressions of the phenomenon. All are valid IMHO.

Mark Wrote:Broadly, what is worth spending one's time on? I'm a USCF-rated chess master, and I find the study of the game, which is deep, to be enriching. But I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. Religion I would recommend to no one, since its a waste time to study what is transparently false.

You're entitled to your opinion. You condemn it without ever seeing the logic of it (from what you said on your intro post). Chess, I'd suggest, being a fan myself, is a much narrower discipline, perhaps suited to a certain type of mind. What is it other than purely a challenge of logic? Religion, on the other hand, offers a full life. Doesn't seem much contest.

(March 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Can you give an example of something I'd have to ignore because of faith?

I don't I could, I'm not sure? Because after all if there was something and I happened to find it how could I prove it anyway? And how could I be sure I've got it right?

I just mean that often because of their "faith" creationists often, for example, don't believe in evolution (because they believe it contradicts the bible).

But I couldn't absolutely prove even that of course!

And I don't know whether I could give an example for you personally because I don't fully understand your beliefs yet, and your "changeable" religious views (I don't know if the "changeable" bit is serious or not yet either).

After all you won't present them that much on this thread, because it would be OT.

EvF Wrote:I just understand faith as belief without evidence. So how is faith logical? What do you do if your faith doesn't fit with the evidence so you are out of touch with reality?

Quote:FIXED

Faith doesn't work with evidence. Faith has to be without evidence.

Thanks very much for noticing the mistake. I didn't notice it myself. It was a total typo and you corrected it totally accurately. I of course meant WITHOUT.

Quote:Faith doesn't require me to be out of touch with reality.

I guess not necessarily PERHAPS. Because I guess it's possible to believe in something despite the lack of evidence and then the evidence happens to come in later; and you can then realize you had been in touch with reality all along.

But while you are believing without evidence, despite the fact you might happen to correct - the problem is your reasons and irrational. To believe without evidence is not a very good way to believe because how are you deciding what belief without evidence to choose? How does it come about I mean?

With evidence its consistent because you believe something when there is evidence that helps show that that something probably is real after all, for example.

Without evidence, there are many many things that have no evidence, loads of things you can dream up, so how can you rationally believe in things without evidence? What other rational alternative REASON to believe is there?

I think it is genrerally a delusion to believe in something without evidence. Maybe that that belief might be in fact correct. But what good reason is there to believe without evidence? What stops you from being very often wrong and simply believing in nonsense?

Not to mention with RELIGIOUS faith in particular in a God who almost certainly doesn't exist, or gods that almost certainly don't exist.

How can you use the word 'evidence' when you claim that evidence conflicts with faith. Can you have faith in evidence? The answer... no, therefore you cannot use the word. Essentially, your argument is 'I have faith in my head that God exists, but becuase I and so many others believe it, I can refer to it as 'evidence' to everyone else' which is the wrong thing to do. If you were to say 'I know that a God might exist, and although it is unproven, I have faith that one exists', not 'evidence'! If you have 'evidence' like you claim to do, then why hasn't the whole world accepted God's existence and ditched all the 'logical' theories that we already have, for example, we have 'proof' of evolution and the big bang. There is no proof of a God, becuase in order for anyone to 'know', the God would have to reveal itself in material form, which is never going to happen.

(March 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Both religious and scientific reasoning on the subject make sense to me.

That’s' your privilege.

(March 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A silly statement by my OP then??

Maybe, I didn't know quite what to make of it. I'd agree that religion is faith position (no evidence required)

(March 3, 2009 at 6:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The first step you take into belief with evidence, belief explodes in contradiction. Reason doesn't need evidence. You're doing it in your head all the time. Do you deny that too?

To state something as fact (math excepted) requires evidence.

You have faith in something without evidence and you could argue that I have faith (not-religious) in something (the scientific method I suppose) ... the difference is that my "faith" in given explanations is supported by evidence and will vanish once that evidence dictates otherwise which makes it, clearly, a non-religious position ... not sure why you think it would explode in any way.

Kyu

Kyu, I don't think evidence is required to believe in God, as in I know it's possible to believe without evidence! I mean, actually I think duh, there is no evidence so every believer's belief in God is without evidence!

I mean whether it should be required is a different matter. Evidence is required for pretty much everything else, so why ISN'T it required for God? Or rather; why shouldn't it?

It's an odd exception, an odd undeserved exception. Belief without evidence, faith, in God is like faith (belief without evidence) in anything else I think: Very irrational. And a delusional (or at least potentially delusional) way to go about believing things.

About saying you could have faith in the scientific method; scientific evidence may be based on the scientific method. But doesn't the scientific method self-evidently kind of work itself? If so, then could you really have faith in it? (considering faith=belief without evidence).

If you're using a different definition of faith here like: "I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow", i.e "I have faith that the scientific method not only works but will continue to work"; in a more loose way; used for things that are already backed up by evidence - then I think I understand what you mean in that case.
But that would mean that there are two different kinds of definition of faith here being used: 1. Belief without evidence. 2. Kind of like trust, "I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow".

And I will just point out that if two definitions are being used; we need to be careful not to confuse them. And even more so if more than two definitions are being used!

EvF