TheThinkingMan wrote:Faith is intellectual suicide but it is not synonymous with self-delusion.

Faith isn't always intellectual suicide, it can be a rational choice. As example...

I have faith that everything will be ok when I die. I don't claim to know any of the details, but I have faith in the bottom line. I have no evidence for this belief. I know I have no evidence.

But, the feeling that everything will be ok arises, and I let it hang around. I encourage it a bit too. It's entirely rational to do so.

A belief that everything will be ok when we die brings some perspective to life. If we think everything will ultimately be ok, then it's easier to not sweat all the little things that aren't going as we might prefer. Not sweating the little things makes life easier and more fun.

Whether the premise "death will be ok" is actually true or not isn't that relevant. What's relevant is whether we believe it.

Faith can be entirely rational. If faith wasn't grounded in reason, if it didn't work in improving lives, it would have itself died out long ago.

Xris wrote:Sorry that is just excusing your inability to answer simple questions.

Are your questions about god(s) based on reason?

If yes, please demonstrate that human reason and logic is binding on all of reality.

Before you do that, please tell us how big reality actually is.

If we don't even know what reality actually is, how can we know that reason is an adequate and appropriate tool for evaluating all of reality?

Isn't any conclusion that reason would be capable of analyzing gods also an act of faith?

Groktruth wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/so-god-s-really-in-the-details.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Howdy Grok, thanks for the link, yes that's interesting.

As I guess you know, I find this topic fascinating. The religious attempting to prove their faith with reason. Reasonists using faith to come to their conclusions, without realizing it. It's quite the circus, isn't it?

Xris wrote: If we abide by your reasoning and consider reality as a mystery then nothing can be debated.

All of reality is not a mystery.

As example, we have tons of very well documented evidence that reason is the appropriate tool for designing bridges. Everybody agrees on this, and nobody wants to cross a bridge built using religion or faith.

The question of God is an entirely different matter, as now we are considering what is or isn't at the heart of all reality. There is no evidence that reason is the appropriate or adequate tool for a question of this scale. It might be, or maybe not, nobody has a clue.

God and religion can still be debated, but reason requires us to be clear that everybody involved in the debate is arguing from a position of faith.

This isn't a problem for the religious, as they generally already claim faith as their foundation.

If the non-religious wish to challenge religion on the basis of reason, they first have to demonstrate that human reason is binding on all of reality, a concept which can't be defined in any meaningful way, as we have no clue what "all of reality" actually includes.

Imho, theism and atheism are different flavors of the same thing.

Theism proposes that holy books are qualified to speak to issues of infinite scale (what lies at the heart of all reality etc) without providing any convincing evidence of this ability.

Atheism proposes that reason is qualified to speak to issues of infinite scale (what lies at the heart of all reality etc) without providing any convincing evidence of this ability.

Both theists and atheists believe in their chosen authority on the basis of faith. Theists typically realize they are using faith as their method, while atheists typically don't realize this.

That is, generally speaking, atheists are typically deeper in to self delusion. And I too am deep in to self delusion if I think atheist readers are going to buy this very unpopular theory. Hey, there's enough self delusion to go around for everybody, and I want my fair share.

Hi there!

Are you trying for the most unpopular poster of the year?

I am so trying, and predict I will succeed, as I have special talents in this area.

I may be called an atheist or a agnostic, I am not quite sure because originally they mean the same, without god.

Not quite sure is an excellent position, imho. Oh crap! Now you're going to like me and spoil the whole plan.

There is something to be said for you statement regarding the atheist working on a level of belief when they take it to the extreme.

I'm not really talking about extremes. All I'm saying is that it requires faith to use reason to analyze issues on the scale of the god proposal, as there is no evidence that human reason is capable of such a thing.

So by going from being a theist to atheism I have simplified my life.

Ok, whatever works for you is a good plan. I'm not arguing against atheism, just pointing out it is a faith based endeavor, just as theism is. It's entirely each person's business which flavor of faith they prefer.

Gadfly wrote: Atheism is simply a denial that god exists (full stop),

Upon what basis is this denial asserted? What reasons are given? This denial is based on something, right? What is that something?

Religious faith is a different faith than the faith one has in the reliability of a bridge or an airplane.

The most remarkable form of faith may be driving. We are in our metal coffin traveling 60mph down the road. In the other lane someone else is headed straight for us at 60mph. We know absolutely nothing about this other person. They will pass us at a distance of about 5 feet. And yet, we are relaxed, listening to the radio, confident that all will go well, despite the fact that it very often doesn't (about 100 people a day killed in car wrecks in the U.S.).

And there is not just one person, but perhaps hundreds of them, each and every day. We put our very lives on the line every day, using our faith in this game of Russian roulette. The power of faith is remarkable.

Religious faith is faith that can't be swayed by experience

Actually, many or most people claim their religious faith is a result of experience.

And it does no good to take a step back and say well yes, that person has religious faith in the scientific method itself.

Not a religious faith in science.

Just a faith that science is qualified to address questions of infinite scale, such as what is or isn't at the heart of all reality. It's only a religious faith in the sense we are discussing questions of infinite scale.

It's simple. Let's say I make a big claim about all of reality. And then you ask me to define "all of reality".

And I have no clue how to define it. Maybe all of reality is one universe, maybe 57 trillion universes, maybe it's something else entirely, I have no idea.

My big claim then goes out the window, right? It doesn't matter what the claim is.

This won't wash because the scientific method over hundreds of years has yielded countless concrete results that lend confidence (another sense of the word "faith") in the viability of the scientific method.

Holy books have a documented record of success at profoundly changing people's lives. This has been going on for thousands of years, in every culture on the planet. Should we leap from this fact to an assumption that therefore holy books know what is or isn't at the heart of all reality?

Science has a documented record of success at building bridges, calculating the orbits of planets, and many other things etc. Should we leap from this fact to an assumption that therefore science knows what is or isn't at the heart of all reality?

Please recall, we can't even begin to define what "all of reality" is.

Gadfly wrote:You obviously didn't read or understand my post.

I read it, understood it, and replied directly to it.

You believe that reason is qualified to analyze questions of infinite scale. There is no evidence of such an ability. Thus, the belief is faith.

It's the exact same test we reasonably apply to holy books. If someone believes in holy books, despite any evidence that holy books are qualified to address questions of infinite scale, their belief is faith.

To be clear, I'm not saying atheism is wrong. I have no way of knowing that. It could be true that reason will eventually prove to be an adequate tool for analyzing questions of infinite scale.

Which belief are you referring to?

Sounds like reason to me.

We have direct experience with mirrors and reflections. We can reproduce the condition, document it, analyze it etc.

Xris wrote: Have you not moved on from simple acceptance and ever questioned gods reasoning?

1) Why should someone move on from simple acceptance, if it works for them?

2) Upon what basis would someone question God's reasoning? Wouldn't that be sort of like a microbe questioning our reasoning?

Wooden shoe wrote:So you think it fine for someone to make points from ignorance. I thought this is a philosophy forum, not a religious one.

And I am doing philosophy with you.

Please show us the evidence that we are in a position to know that religious beliefs are ignorant.

Thinking critical wrote:I don’t believe Wooden Shoe was saying that religious beliefs were ignorant; he was referring to your comment "simple acceptance". This simply suggests IMO that you accept religion for no particular reason other than you want to.

Just so you know, I'm not religious. I realize this wouldn't necessarily be clear until now.

In philosophy we are urged to question information vigorously before referring to it as knowledge.

Agreed.

And so I am questioning the proposal that we are in a position to question religious beliefs, especially those about God, ie. questions of infinite scale.

Just as we question the ability of holy books to speak to issues of infinite scale, we can also question the ability of reason to speak to issues of infinite scale.

I am questioning, just as you rightly suggest is appropriate here.

Hi TC,

Thinking critical wrote:From my position as an Atheist and as a inquisitive person by nature I am curious in regards to the logic and reasoning that one needs in order to commit there life to a belief in God.

I'm not religious, don't speak for the religious, haven't really studied religious with any seriousness, and thus am surely not qualified to address this question. But it's such a great question, I'd like to give it a go anyway. You've asked for logic and reasoning, so that's what we'll do, not quoting from the Bible etc. Here we go...

-------------

POINT ONE:

Religion is the largest cultural event in human history. Billions of people, over thousands of years, in every culture of the world, have concluded that religion enhances their lives.

Given that we don't personally know the overwhelming vast majority of these people, it seems we must grant that they are the authority on what enhances their own lives.

Even after we set aside all those who are only nominally religious, those who have been forced to be religious and so forth, we are still left with a huge group of people who can authoritatively state that they have chosen religion, and it has enhanced their lives. These people could possibly form the largest single group in human history.

These facts don't in any way prove the cosmological assertions of any religion, but they do strongly suggest that approaching the subject with an open mind would be a logical act.

-------------

POINT TWO:

It's perhaps wise to recall that religion is thousands of years older than science. This is a simple fact which reason can easily accommodate.

Science is the sharp young 23 year old guy just graduating from college, whereas religion is his gray bearded grandfather. It's indisputable that ScienceGuy is one very clever young man, but his gray bearded religious grandfather has been around a very long time, and seen very many things.

Using only logic, we can reasonably propose that Grandpa Religion in his maturity may have insights in to human nature that young ScienceGuy can not reasonably be expected to yet grasp.

Well, like what?

Consider the M&M candy. A thin hard outer shell on the surface covers a much larger soft and squishy middle.

In his experienced wisdom, Grandpa Religion sees that the thin hard shell on the surface of our lives is tidy reason, while the much larger soft and squishy middle is chaotic emotion.

An emotion volcano. It has it's source deep deep underground in the subconscious, and most of it is hidden from view. We only see the small part of it that erupts on the surface. And this small part eruption is an awesome spectacle indeed!

At it's best, Grandpa Religion is realistic, unlike it's young grandson ScienceGuy who is still a bit naive, dreamy and idealistic. Please note the wonderful irony here.

Religion sees that the majority of what it is to be human is the soft inside of the M&M candy. Religion sees that deep in our subconscious, in places where we would dare not go, if we even knew those places were there, we are absolutely terrified of death.

Religion attempts to reach past the thin hard shell of reason on the surface, to the much larger hidden reality lying underneath.

At it's best, religion attempts to be the comforting mothering hand that speaks to this deep place in reassuring ways.

If we were literally in the hospital dying of cancer, our own real mother would do the same thing. She would tell us everything will be alright, even if she didn't know what will happen next.

We can question the logical validity of this operation. We are free to do that.

But again, the fact is that billions of people over thousands of year in every culture of the world have found this operation to be useful to them. Religion has a proven record of usefulness than can not be disputed.

In his ambitious inexperience, young ScienceGuy thinks he can plug the emotion volcano with a logic textbook. There is really very little evidence this is true.

Please watch, while young ScienceGuy works himself up in to an impatient fury arguing with his religious friends. The emotion volcano is still there, larger and more real than any logic textbook will ever be.

At the bottom of the emotion volcano, at it's source, is the very real fear of death. Grandpa Religion is realistic, and knows that this is where the real action is.

1) Theists believe in the ability of holy books to address questions of infinite scale.

2) Atheists believe in the ability of reason to address questions of infinite scale.

3) Both of these beliefs are faith, because neither are supported by evidence.

What is a delusion is any notion that theists and atheists are fundamentally different. The truth is, they are fundamentally the same. They differ only in the authority they choose to have blind faith in.