Reason to believe

I disagree with your statements completely. It is from defining terms and then through experimentation using the scientific method, there is no belief or faith involved with the determination of flamability period, your argument is completely specious.

As expected. That's because you have a completely twisted concept about what science is about. Science is proven through its predictability and falsifiability. Science is not superficially characterized by the term "experiment". There's a deeper meaning behind scientific experimentation which you apparantly failed to grasp.

But if the father says " I believe in my son" to a third person and never to his son he is not supporting his son, the father is stating a fact about his own feelings; and the son may never know that his father felt so.

Presumably God is not interested in whether or not a person trusts God or not because God will do his thing whether or not someone trusts him. The person who says he believes in (read 'trusts' and 'has faith in') God is presumably saying something factual about his own state of mind, that is, he is not offering objective evidence.

I think that a father may love his son without trusting the son or having any faith in the son's ability to achieve. Love is more than a state of mind love is actions.In a similar way some person who says , not "I believe in God" but " I love God" if he is sincere he will be doing things for God, not having a state of mind about God, although he may trust and have faith in God as well. Not necessarily though; a person may have lost all faith and trust in God but carry on doing what he conceives to be God's will. I have heard a story about Jews in a concentration camp who did just that.

Belief in God as in belief that salt is water soluble is nonsense because there is not sufficient evidence for God in any shape or form, neither is God falsifiable. Trust in God, faith in God,and acting as if God, is entirely possible and logic has nothing to do with this.

The father who says to a third person that he believes in his son and never repeats this same mantra to his son verbally does not mean he is not supporting his son. He supports his son and/or shows his "belief in" his son with his actions - and his son would know this by these actions. Saying so to a third person doesn't extinguish any reality. It may not even be possible to show to a third person, by actions, that the father supports his son. The third person could be a stranger so that example is irrelevent and not logical.

Trust in god, faith in god is entirely possible for what? Is saying that logic has nothing to do with this simply just an excuse to be illogical?

There is reason to believe in imagination, if the imagination is the kingdom of the father Jesus talks about, which I believe so, him having said so much poverty within such wealth, then such a kingdom is righteous, for such a kingdom comes true. The imagination comes true, if there is a God, is such a God not the truth?

As expected. That's because you have a completely twisted concept about what science is about. Science is proven through its predictability and falsifiability. Science is not superficially characterized by the term "experiment". There's a deeper meaning behind scientific experimentation which you apparantly failed to grasp.

I am a scientist by trade and education sir, I do not have a twisted concept of it. There is nothing superficial about the word "experiment". You are the one who is misguided on what science is. You can attempt to usurp the accepted meanings of words like fact and science all you want, you have no basis in logic for your argument. Experimentation is critical, not superficial and saying that you still have to have faith and belief to a certain extent is just plain misuse of the words. There is no arguing with someone who does not recognize the accepted meanings of words.

This is not my definition, this is from wikipedia first and the oxford dictionary second.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

There is no mention of faith or belief or even falsifiability for that matter, as I stated in an early post, using such words is improper as it relates to science. Insisting otherwise is certainly your perogative but then so is trying to assert unicorns and vampires as fact because you believe in them. You are entitle to believe what you wish, I'll stick with the formally accepted meanings of words to support my position.

Here is the formal definition of science, notice that rationality and logic are the cornerstones of science, not belief and faith, I certainly hope you don't presume to debate Aristotle on what he meant by the word science?

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained

There is reason to believe in imagination, if the imagination is the kingdom of the father Jesus talks about, which I believe so, him having said so much poverty within such wealth, then such a kingdom is righteous, for such a kingdom comes true. The imagination comes true, if there is a God, is such a God not the truth?

Why believe in the imagination? There is just imagination. Not sure why the need to believe in it so I think you need to define what you mean by these words "believe in". What do they actually mean?

And, if there is a God? If, you say? How can a God right now be "the truth" when you have yet to decide if in fact he exists given that it is you who is using the words "if there is a God"? I won't be responding to you anymore about this subject if you cannot show me if you have thought these very basic questions through. Kindergarden teaching is just not my thing.

Stoic wrote,

“I am not a moral subjectivist. I do not have some arbitrary set of values in mind. I specifically have moral value in mind. It is an admittedly poorly understood and philosophical and philosophically vague notion, but it is nevertheless an objective matter of knowledge and not a subjective matter of personal preference. So, I cannot sit here and edify you all on all of moral philosophy before I mention it. There is neither the time nor the space.I am not a moral subjectivist. I do not have some arbitrary set of values in mind. I specifically have moral value in mind. It is an admittedly poorly understood and philosophical and philosophically vague notion, but it is nevertheless an objective matter of knowledge and not a subjective matter of personal preference. So, I cannot sit here and edify you all on all of moral philosophy before I mention it. There is neither the time nor the space.”

Hence no reason to choose your interpretation FOR this particular understanding of the ‘objective’ moral code as revealed in religious practice. After all, we can all conclude that lying is generally wrong ‘objectively’ but have very different premises for why it is wrong or even why it isn’t useful to use as a social means of communication.

No. Morality is not revealed by religion. It is understood rationally and religion follows from it not the other way around. What religion represents is a virtuous set of norms and way of living. I keep saying "community" and "tradition", but to put it in what may be more palatable terms, it is a social contract and a long case history in the application and preservation of that contract. Because virtue is based a lot on one's personal situation, being part of a religion with these elements means that one conforms to a way of life along with a community of fellow followers of the religion that enables all of them to live together in a peaceful and virtuous manner. What's less obvious is how not doing so has a strong tendency toward a vicious life filled with constant turmoil. And, by "turmoil" I don't just mean one filled with overt injustices and crime but also other things that can make life very hard on you and everyone around you.

Stoic wrote,

“My argument has nothing to do with justifying the belief, itself. It is about justifying having the belief. So, this last paragraph serves only to bolster my argument. Let us suppose it is the people and not the religion -- all the more reason that you cannot sit around relying on God alone to do something here. You have to actively participate in religion which is the way that good is disseminated through society by good people.”


This misses the force of the above criticism: If people are in fact capable of disseminating good, then why prefer only religion or mainly religion? The point being made is that if people are the ultimate source for good, then we would have several options for maximizing good here since the causal story for how good emerges belongs NOT to institutions or religious moral codes.

You are arguing for the mere possibility that people could just be good for goodness sake. My argument is based on the general virtue of being pious with a brief statement of why piety has been considered a virtue going all the way back to ancient times. And, conversely, why impiety is a vice. Now, I will admit that I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into detail on all of that, but I have said a fair amount. A lot of the reason I do not go very far on this point is because it is not really being attacked as is the case in your comments here. For, I have explained in this thread about the tradition and community of religion or, put another way, the social contract and case history of enforcing that contract. You cannot respond to that with "It is possible that we be moral without it". Of course, it is possible, but that's not the point. The question is how likely is it.

Stoic wrote,

“Goodness gracious! The argument is not justification for the belief, itself. It is justification for having the belief.”

I have addressed the non-foundationalist utilitarian mode of justification that you’ve posited.

My argument is teleological and pragmatic, but it isn't really utilitarian. A utilitarian argument would just be that religion produces all these outcomes that we all agree are "good". But, my agrument is that it is virtuous. That piety is a virtue is based on an end that it tends to produce, namely that of promoting justice. Whether we personally value that end is beside the point (of my argument).

"The belief is based on faith not reason. Now, there certainly would be Christians out there that would call me an atheist, questioning whether or not I really believed at all based on something like this. Again, I say, I believe but do not know. And, the whole question is how can doing such a thing be justified. How can faith be justified? In the West, we tend not to justify faith but to justify the beliefs we are supposed to have faith in. Faith is specifically believing without that justifica tion.”

This statement reveals the incoherence of your position. On the one hand you have some sort of religion or view of religion in mind when you argue that religion is socially useful. On the other hand ‘faith’ is different from the content that makes up religion per se. Yet, how are we to differentiate between religious faith-or ‘mystical’ faith and ‘faiths’ of more secular ideologies (or even secular religious views arguing for sensate bases of religious justification- like one finds in many Eastern traditions)-or secular ideologies that have moral codes that require only assent for validation? If dogmatic content is irrelevant to defining the structure of religious faith, then what seems to matter is faith NOT religion since faith is ONLY believing without justification-and we could right well have lots of belief systems and lifestyles that follow on just this sort of rationale. Yet, you want to say something further: namely that religion as a specific social phenomenon has particular moral and/or social value. There’s simply no way this reasoning seems the least bit coherent on any analysis. I’m unclear what I’m missing.

Well, my argument is for religion, in general. It specifically is not aimed at defending a particular one -- that is for another argument. There are some aspects of religion that are assumed in my argument, though. The religion must embrace tradition, for instance. So, just walking around with a bible talking about God isn't really a good example of what I am talking about. It must also address common moral dilemmas, have solutions for it, present a way of life, and so on. Essentially, I am talking about conventional religion, but one might offer up some alternatives that could have similar attributes.

Some things that do not really offer an alternative, though, would include just getting active in a cause. Something like that lacks the way of life and general account of vice and virtue and how to lead a virtuous and just life. It is too specific to the particular cause. Even if it gets generalized to a reasonably large set of norms, it still tends to leave too much unanswered about leading a righteous life. (The norms it specifies are just necessary not sufficient.) And, even if we really "complete" that into a full blown way of life, it still lacks tradition. It is not something that has been around for centuries dealing directly with all of the problems of society the way mainstream religions have.

And, anyway, that is really and has always been about overthrowing tradition. It is about authorizing or even embracing behavior that had always until recently been seen as at least undesirable if not out of the question entirely.

But, with all of that, Buddhism, for instance, does actually fit the bill of "religion" as I discuss it here. If you are a pious Buddhist, then you are pious. My whole argument was that one ought to be pious -- that's it! This post was not supposed to settle all questions once and for all!

Stoic wrote,

“This was never supposed to be justification for that which we were supposed to have faith in. Such a thing would undercut the very act of having faith. To any Christians that take exception to my posts: God will only ever allow you to approach Him through righteousness. You may never know Him some other way and be able to approach Him without righteousness which is exactly why He will always be obscured from reason -- from being able to deduce His existence somehow. That is part of the plan, and He has seen to that. If He somehow made a mistake and then became directly visible that way through the machinations of man, He would have to fix that mistake and obscure Himself once again. (Of course, that has not and will not happen.) You must believe in God because you are righteous and want to be righteous and therefore hope in Him, a champion of righteousness, and for no other reason.”

Yeah, well all this is nice and fine but it assumes a weighty number of things for which you’ve only asserted and never have yet explained and defended. These are beliefs you have-but we have no reason as of yet to give them any credence. You might say that this is but some sort of consistent outcome of your views—that you cannot explain or defend them. If so, then you’ve effectively said that we’d be wasting our time even thinking about your position. Instead, we must either confess the truth of these statements merely on your view of faith or simply go on unbelieving. Either way, there’s no point in thinking about it. I doubt this is your conclusion-but it is difficult to see how you can avoid the conclusion. If we have no defense or explanation of your thinking, it may then be best to move on to considering other points of view that promise some possible union between faith and reason.

To recap, then, my argument is that through reason we come to understand morality, including that it is objective and that a whole lot of tradition is, in fact, nothing more than man trying to promote virtue. The way we access all that is through religion. Yes, we religious will say that this is all due to the hand of God, but it is all nevertheless made to happen through men that God has chosen. Thus, one need not believe in God at all to "see it". They only need to understand that it is, in fact, virtuous.

Now, it is true that I am not going to engage anyone in a debate here over whether, say, homosexuality is a vice or not. In fact, for that matter, for the purposes of this post, let us assume that it's not. Then, it is a case of the imperfect nature of this business being worked through men rather than directly through something more perfect like God or angels. It is no different than having a bad law. One bad law doesn't justify lawlessness. You should still uphold and promote the law -- even the bad one -- for the sake of the law. And, the same is true for religion for the sake of the justice that it promotes.

On the other hand, if you have a decent argument that really shows that religion is more of a vice than a virtue (which will take a lot more than observing one bad thing about it and certainly more than misquoting scripture and misreprresenting religious doctrines), then you would be duty bound, even, to try to stamp it out. When I see something decent, here in this category of rebuttals, I will try harder to rebut it. But, if it is just the hackneyed invitation to get bogged down into some specific religion and some specific thing you objected to especially as "revealed" by blatant misrepresentation, then I am going to ignore that. (Mind you, I do not think that religion is above criticism. Rather, I think that it can withstand criticism, so have at it.)

Granth wrote:

Trust in god, faith in god is entirely possible for what? Is saying that logic has nothing to do with this simply just an excuse to be illogical?

I don't doubt that this is why some people believe in God. People who are better thinkers often believe in (as trust in, have faith in) God because such trust and faith makes this world less fearful. Psychologically such people may be optimists. I am implying that pessimists are more likely to be sceptical.

Granth wrote:


I don't doubt that this is why some people believe in God. People who are better thinkers often believe in (as trust in, have faith in) God because such trust and faith makes this world less fearful. Psychologically such people may be optimists. I am implying that pessimists are more likely to be sceptical.

What does "God fearing" mean to you?

A phrase from the past used by people who died many years ago.

A phrase from the past used by people who died many years ago.

I still hear alive people use it. However, what did it mean to either past people or currently alive people who use it, in your opinion?

On the other hand, if you have a decent argument that really shows that religion is more of a vice than a virtue (which will take a lot more than observing one bad thing about it and certainly more than misquoting scripture and misreprresenting religious doctrines), then you would be duty bound, even, to try to stamp it out. When I see something decent, here in this category of rebuttals, I will try harder to rebut it. But, if it is just the hackneyed invitation to get bogged down into some specific religion and some specific thing you objected to especially as "revealed" by blatant misrepresentation, then I am going to ignore that. (Mind you, I do not think that religion is above criticism. Rather, I think that it can withstand criticism, so have at it.)

Although I am an atheist I can appreciate your position here. I am generally against organized religions but I haven't done the research necessary to proclaim my opposition as completely supportable by logic. I have some evidence for my position and I will admitt I have some opinion that is based on my own take and experience which I know is limited. I gather from your position that you are saying a good reason to believe in something can be shown by the fact that the overall foundation of morality is based upon some positive belief? I'm not conceding that as a fact yet, merely asking the question, so am I understanding you correctly? I see you are maintaining your argument as not merely utilitarian, but for that to be true, doesn't virtuousness or goodness have to be something absolute? You have stated that you are not a moral subjectevist, doesn't it follow that somewhere, somehow there is an absolute moral or ethical code that we then just discover to one extent or another?

Why believe in the imagination? There is just imagination. Not sure why the need to believe in it so I think you need to define what you mean by these words "believe in". What do they actually mean?

And, if there is a God? If, you say? How can a God right now be "the truth" when you have yet to decide if in fact he exists given that it is you who is using the words "if there is a God"? I won't be responding to you anymore about this subject if you cannot show me if you have thought these very basic questions through. Kindergarden teaching is just not my thing.

Why believe? Well some people prefer to treat it as little to nothing, like when they say you are just imagining it, or it is a figment of your imagination, yet the imagination comes true, and therefore ought to be taken very serious. I am unable to imagine God, but if the imagination is within you and so is such a Gods kingdom, then if that kingdom is the imagination, it will come true. The problem is that without the imagination, one does not know the truth, for once the imagination comes true, the truth remains within the imagination where it came from, and if the truth is God, then only God is the truth. Ps..you can learn a lot from children's programs, studies, and books. Maybe you ought to start reading them, and who knows, you might actually get out of kindergarden, and then you too, could teach. In the night garden would be a great start. "Someone's not in bed, Iggle Piggle is not in bed, don't worry Iggle Piggle, it's time to go to sleep". Haahoo's are like the Dark Matter which surrounds us and watches over us, interestingly put in a childs program. Of course it's all in the imagination, but so is the truth. "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one". Einstein

Imagination is what you are experiencing right now. You only imagine that what you are seeing is real. No need to believe in an experience YOU ARE in.

Although I am an atheist I can appreciate your position here. I am generally against organized religions but I haven't done the research necessary to proclaim my opposition as completely supportable by logic. I have some evidence for my position and I will admitt I have some opinion that is based on my own take and experience which I know is limited. I gather from your position that you are saying a good reason to believe in something can be shown by the fact that the overall foundation of morality is based upon some positive belief? I'm not conceding that as a fact yet, merely asking the question, so am I understanding you correctly? I see you are maintaining your argument as not merely utilitarian, but for that to be true, doesn't virtuousness or goodness have to be something absolute? You have stated that you are not a moral subjectevist, doesn't it follow that somewhere, somehow there is an absolute moral or ethical code that we then just discover to one extent or another?

Yep. Let me not be shy at all, here. There is a concept of justice that we all refer to whether we like it or not when we broach moral issues. Virtue is derived from justice. The argument of this thread was that as a matter of virtue one ought to develop and promote faith both in themselves and those around them, even if having something like faith commits the cardinal philosophical crime of believing something without justification for why that belief is actually true.

My "belief in" justice and the virtue that is derived from it, though, is based on purely philosophical grounds. Moreover, while the virtue derived from justice is somewhat philosophically vague, highly dependent on context (both individual and social), and generally a lot more "up for grabs" as pursuits of knowledge go, justice is very likely a formal matter to such a degree that it can even be axiomatized similar to an area of mathematics. The reason it hasn't, yet, is because it is a lot more central to everyone's personal outcomes and ways of life and so is a lot more contentious. Areas of mathematics become adopted and studied based on widespread agreement to the assumptions that underpin them -- essentially, the axioms largely go uncontested except for usually minor technical problems that are (relatively) quickly resolved. Even then, though, it is worth noting that some mathematicians have worried over things like using the Axiom of Choice or tried to use only constructive proofs and so on. While such things may seem like technicalities, things like that can dramatically impact the careers of actual practicing mathematicians (if they have to start changing how they do their research). So, it isn't an entirely bloodless affair. The issue of justice, though, has an even more profound impact on people and not only on specialists in the field but everyone. So, the sort of disputes that started getting ignored by most mathematicians who got on with their lives and careers get sustained in moral philosophy blocking it from being axiomatized.

Yep. Let me not be shy at all, here. There is a concept of justice that we all refer to whether we like it or not when we broach moral issues. Virtue is derived from justice. The argument of this thread was that as a matter of virtue one ought to develop and promote faith both in themselves and those around them, even if having something like faith commits the cardinal philosophical crime of believing something without justification for why that belief is actually true.

My "belief in" justice and the virtue that is derived from it, though, is based on purely philosophical grounds. Moreover, while the virtue derived from justice is somewhat philosophically vague, highly dependent on context (both individual and social), and generally a lot more "up for grabs" as pursuits of knowledge go, justice is very likely a formal matter to such a degree that it can even be axiomatized similar to an area of mathematics. The reason it hasn't, yet, is because it is a lot more central to everyone's personal outcomes and ways of life and so is a lot more contentious. Areas of mathematics become adopted and studied based on widespread agreement to the assumptions that underpin them -- essentially, the axioms largely go uncontested except for usually minor technical problems that are (relatively) quickly resolved. Even then, though, it is worth noting that some mathematicians have worried over things like using the Axiom of Choice or tried to use only constructive proofs and so on. While such things may seem like technicalities, things like that can dramatically impact the careers of actual practicing mathematicians (if they have to start changing how they do their research). So, it isn't an entirely bloodless affair. The issue of justice, though, has an even more profound impact on people and not only on specialists in the field but everyone. So, the sort of disputes that started getting ignored by most mathematicians who got on with their lives and careers get sustained in moral philosophy blocking it from being axiomatized.

I'm not entirely convinced of your point but as I had indicted earlier, it's certainly possible and even interesting. Let's suppose it is true, what safe gaurds in terms of a doctrine can be put in place in a formal religion to keep it from running amuck and asserting itself through it's followers as being the one and only truth? In a personal faith there isn't so much danger to the society because one person asserting something can be handled. My favorite author (J Campbell) once said all religions are true in their deepest sense...."just bring your old religion forward into a new set of metaphors and you've got it". But any new set of metaphors once formalized, run the risk of it's followers forgetting the deep truth that is referenced therein and supposing the metaphor itself is fact and thus creating conflict with other points of view, how can this be safe guarded against doctrinally?

If something like justice is as you indicated, is a property of the universe that is not created but rather discovered, who should be given the authority to characterize it's true nature, scientists and philosophers or some other group? Philosophers and scientist would properly use mathmatics, logic and reason to do this but would society accept their findings?

I am an atheist but I can concede that having faith in something for some people is of benefit to that individual and in some cases to the society which that person belongs. In other cases faith is grossly misused for all sorts of torrid reasons. So should we measure the good it does verses the evil it does and see how the scale tips? I would like to say that a truly diverse and intelligent culture should welcome and encourage free thinking and many faiths and points of view but is it possible to remove the ability of the faithful to externally factualize their faith and thus remove the temptation to make the tennants of that faith into law or some kind of absolute truth?

I actually think it is necessary for the human consciousness to identify itself with something other then itself in order to psychologically come to terms with the existential dilemas that materialize from that very consciousness in the first place. I haven't proven it, it's more of an intuition based on my own experience and reading. So I think there is reason to believe afterall, but I also think the nature of that belief in the end should be kept personal. That wouldn't stop someone from sharing there beliefs with like minded others, but it would controll the damage that organized religions can loose upon society.