My Problem With Faith

[Margim]

But why? That which we can't discover or describe could be *anything*.

Why pick God? I mean, I understand certain reasons for believing that God exists, and I accept them as rational, but going from "Science can't answer all of my questionss" to "That void must obviously be filled by a super-powerful entity which created the Universe" seems like a huge random leap to me.

It could indeed be anything. 'God' is just a label for the infinite possibility. God is not what you think God is, and its not going to be what I think God is. But I accept the notion of a supreme intelligence, versus a supreme non-intelligence, and that leads me in the journey of faith, exploration, and hopeful doubt.

 

[Greizer85]

In the end it's a personal thing and not up for me to decide: I'm not going to tell anyone why they shouldn't believe what they believe. I might argue with them about their beliefs, but I'm never gonna say: "No dude, you can't believe in God, you haven't seen a burning bush, you're coming with me to the crazy party where crap's going down"

Call people stupid and cowardly if you want, but that's totally not what I'm doing here.

I should learn to add "imo" after every opinion. I do not claim the right or authority to tell you what to say. At least you're being polite instead of politically correct. And I'd be interested to hear Margim's answer; it may be that he has some reason that we haven't considered.

Anyway, even wise men may be stupid about some things. Even brave men may still have some fears. I'm neither wise nor brave (modest I am though ), and there have been many times I've been tempted to pretend belief out of fear and ignorance; if the religions weren't so demanding and/or offensive, I'd have fallen by now. "Fake it till you make it", some say. I'm not so sure.

Edit: @Margim. Hopeful doubt, I see. I like that, very poetic. In a way it's close to the romantic position; the existence of God is way more interesting than His/its non-existence, yet not committing to any particular religion leaves open the doors of logic and other systems. Thanks for the answer and good luck on your journey.

 

[warpus]

It could indeed be anything. 'God' is just a label for the infinite possibility. God is not what you think God is, and its not going to be what I think God is. But I accept the notion of a supreme intelligence, versus a supreme non-intelligence, and that leads me in the journey of faith, exploration, and hopeful doubt.

Okay, but just so that we're clear, when most people around here say God, they imply some sort of deity, usually monotheistic, also usually described in some detail in holy books of some sort, also usually pertaining to some popular world-wide movement involving hundreds of millions of people.

So like, if you're not talking about one of THOSE Gods, just say "stuff", as shorthand for "Stuff I don't understand", so that there's less confusion and chance for a more meaningful conversation.

 

[Margim]

Okay, but just so that we're clear, when most people around here say God, they imply some sort of deity, usually monotheistic, also usually described in some detail in holy books of some sort, also usually pertaining to some popular world-wide movement involving hundreds of millions of people.

So like, if you're not talking about one of THOSE Gods, just say "stuff", as shorthand for "Stuff I don't understand", so that there's less confusion and chance for a more meaningful conversation.

I guess just to make things clear, I'll say I am a Christian, a pastor and a theologian...so apologies if this gets too rambly and technical - I've rarely seen religious threads on this forum that remain polite discussions long enough to put time into a lengthy response. I apologise if this is too religious for the sensibilities of some. I personally do sit with the notion of a singular 'deity' as God, while recognising the paradoxical nature of giving a name to something that is meant to be infinite. Its one thing I think the ancient Israelites hit upon quite well: to name God is to make God less than what God is.

I don't talk about God as 'stuff' because I still think its closer to a 'who'. However logically we try and approach it, we cannot fully explain the concept of something from nothing. Ascribing intelligence or not is ultimately a matter of personal preference.

However, I don't think there is particular detail we can attach to the 'who', except what the 'who' has let us know about itself. Therefore, our curiosity calls us to search for the nature of that 'who'.

Then begins the exploration of all the ways that 'who' might reveal itself to us. People with great insight give us glimpses of the divine... yet people are also bound by context. Whatever glimpses they have: teachings, prophesies, scripture and even science is all affected and shaped by our personal experiences and limitations. Religion is likewise another potential point of revelation, but religion is flawed--shaped and influenced by human ambition, plays for power and culture.

This is where our ability as humans to think and feel come in; the need and search to push past our preconceptions in search for the ultimate truth. This is the journey of faith: to acknowledge what we hope for, what we are fearful of, what we assume and the power we want to claim for ourselves, search through it all and see what we can find on the other side.

I don't deny that there is a leap in conviction in seeking who and what God is. If it is to be called irrational, that can only be because faith is, by nature, not reliant on the foundationalist systems of modernity that we have built for ourselves. I'd suggest that there is also a leap of conviction in 'not seeking' - the potential loss of encounter with the very source and sustainer of our existance.

I personally go with the image of God as taught by Jesus because that's the best image I've found so far. The image of a self-sacrificing God, who challenges unjust political and social systems, who demonstrates leadership as humility and prioritises all people who are oppressed, sick and struggling. It identifies the fundamental cause of the universe as a being who cares compassionately and freely. I can thus affirm other faiths (and non-faiths) where this 'way of Jesus' is followed, and call into question any activity that is inherently violent or oppressive (yes, this includes parts of the Bible and definitely the length of Christian history).

I'll conclude my rambling by again stating: we are all finite beings in search for something we can't understand. However, not understanding doesn't mean we sit still: I think we are called as human beings to help restore the world, environmentally, socially, while challenging systems that are 'convenient' but based on behaviours that ultimately damage innocents - hyper-capitalism, militarism, fundamentalism and religion. I think if we as a human race can begin to get that right, we'll begin to see with more clarity the God who created--and recreates us--over and over again.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Who said anything about 'deliberate', as such?

If this power wouldn't be deliberate it would be simply called causality IMO.

If you take God as being the explanation for that which we do not and can not understand (whatever that explanation may be), then saying 'I believe there is a God' is perfectly interchangeable with 'I believe we do not and can not know or understand everything'. Both are saying the same things, taking that definition of 'God'.

Well just think of the Christian faith, where you are supposed to be enlightened in heaven and than might know everything.
In context of religion "I believe there is a God" can even mean that some day if you are faithful you will definitely know everything.

"I believe there is a God" can mean both things. For you personal it may mean "Some things remain uncertain" for others than again not or even the contrary. That is why I said "It does not conclude so".

 

[Merkinball]

This thread is useless without MobBoss...

 

[Kerozine]

Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.

Faith in something is essentially belief in bullcrap. (?)

 

[Atticus]

I see what you're getting at. But there is a difference.

Well, you probably misunderstood little bit, but explained my point in your post:
Believing in god because somebody in the internet tells you so requires huge amount of faith from you. That other one on the other hand may have some evidence for his belief, and it requires much less faith for him to believe.

You'll have to forget all the missionary aspect of religion here. Here's the only point I was trying to make at that part of the post: There is evidence that some people have access to and others don't have. That evidence is no good at persuading others, but it's perfectly good for those who do have that access.

So it's different thing to be justified in some belief, and to be able to justify that belief to others. People who have had religious experiences aren't able to use them as justification for the others, but it's justification for themselves. Therefore they don't require same amount of faith to believe that you for example do.

Given that all beliefs are to some extent matters of faith, the difference in religious beliefs isn't about existense of the faith, but rather the amount or quality of it.

I think you may have made error in thinking that religious beliefs are the same for you as to the religious people, that is: they require same kind of leap of faith.

Each of these parts is some kind of leap of faith. Sure, there's no fundamental one first principle. But the principle (excuse the wording) is still there: these beliefs are based on certain things, of which there's no evidence for their divinity.

Let me clarify. I've not experienced this on religion, but on some psychological things or view of life-things.

First you read a text, and don't necessarily find anything woth of your time there. Then something happens, and you suddenly realize: this is what the text was all about. Then you go back to the text, thinking that it might have been correct in other matters too. You try to see things from the viewpoint of that text. Then you might forget it and later experience something that makes you think of the text in a new light. Or you could read some other text and go through same kind of processes there.

The key thing is that the text isn't primary, you just hope to find answers there, because it has succesfully explained one thing you found no better explanations to. However the experience isn't necessarily primary either, since it gains it's signifigance only through the text you've read.

Instead of thinking things through once and for all, you have to re-evaluate them all the time. No single belief is primary in this process. You could compare this to a dictionary: all the words are defined with other words, and thus you don't have hierarchy of words, but instead some kind of net of them.

Sure in order to believe in god you'll have to apply some faith, but if your problem is that the faith is faith in the bible, not in the god (as I understood the OP), I think you're mistaken, because the faith isn't applied in any singular point of forming those beliefs. They are built gradually from experience and interpretation.

As a cautionary remark, I'm not of course speaking about those people who claim that the Bible holds no contradictions and has to be interpreted literally. And although I'm not (probably) religious myself, I've noticed this kind of pattern in formation of my other beliefs about life in general. I suppose religious beliefs behave approximately the same way.

 

[Camikaze]

If this power wouldn't be deliberate it would be simply called causality IMO.

God doesn't have to be a deliberate force. If we're still comparing God to laws of science, then it simply follows that God isn't deliberate, but an everpresent 'force'.

Well just think of the Christian faith, where you are supposed to be enlightened in heaven and than might know everything.
In context of religion "I believe there is a God" can even mean that some day if you are faithful you will definitely know everything.

"I believe there is a God" can mean both things. For you personal it may mean "Some things remain uncertain" for others than again not or even the contrary. That is why I said "It does not conclude so".

Well, okay, given. It does not conclusively follow that those two statements are synonymous, but, I would say for the majority, it does. I wouldn't think that believing that you gain all knowledge when you enter into what you define as heaven is a particularly widespread Christian belief.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

God doesn't have to be a deliberate force. If we're still comparing God to laws of science, then it simply follows that God isn't deliberate, but an everpresent 'force'.

Still I don't understand how the concept of God would be necessary in that case.
If his power is not deliberate you describe it as ever present. Time is a force ever present as well but has nothing divine to it all by itself.
And if God's power is not deliberate it means his power does not aim for anything and humans are just as important to him like a stone in my front yard.

Maybe my logic is flawed but I don't see where right now. As I see it something divine requires purpose and therefor deliberation. Otherwise it is nothing else but a law of nature lacking any kind of spiritual meaning.

 

[Camikaze]

Still I don't understand how the concept of God would be necessary in that case.
If his power is not deliberate you describe it as ever present. Time is a force ever present as well but has nothing divine to it all by itself.
And if God's power is not deliberate it means his power does not aim for anything and humans are just as important to him like a stone in my front yard.

Maybe my logic is flawed but I don't see where right now. As I see it something divine requires purpose and therefor deliberation. Otherwise it is nothing else but a law of nature lacking any kind of spiritual meaning.

Well, the concept of God is required in the same way that time is required, for starters. That doesn't give 'God' any divine properties in itself, but that's the reason for labelling it and attempting to learn about it. The bit where it does become religious (and where it does invariably become labelled 'God') involves the leap of faith to believing that this force has more than just physical aspects, but more existential and philosophical attributes.

 

[Winner]

My problems with it can be summed up as follows:

• Religious faith (from now on simply "faith") is irrational; it is not based on reason but emotional needs and experiences.
• Faith makes people act foolish and do irrational things, thus it is generally a negative force even though in some individuals it may yield a positive effect.
• Faith promotes ignorance: people are being led to sidetrack reason and act on irrational beliefs instead.
• Faith is the basis of religion, the most evil of all things mankind has ever invented. Religion is by definition authoritarian or even totalitarian. Religion is a parasite that has been consuming large portion of mankind's energy throughout its history.

If someone gave me the power to somehow erase religious faith from the minds of all humans, I'd do it without hesitation and the world would suddenly become a much better place.

 

[Camikaze]

• Religious faith (from now on simply "faith") is irrational; it is not based on reason but emotional needs and experiences.

Which part of thinking that we cannot know or understand everything, and calling the lack of knowledge that must therefore exist, 'God', is not based on reason? Would you rather religious people choose a different word? Sure, it is irrational to a degree, but based on reason nonetheless. Saying that it is not based on reason is saying that it is blindly taken in all cases, without thought. Admittedly, that is the case for many, but is nowhere near a defining characteristic of religious faith.

Personally, I think it's irrational not to allow anything irrational in your life and/or belief system. Rationality is, to a degree, subjective. You seem to be vehemently opposed to anything that you think is irrational. Why? Sure, when that irrationality leads to other more detrimental things, that is understandable, but what is the problem with irrationality in itself?

 

[Winner]

Which part of thinking that we cannot know or understand everything, and calling the lack of knowledge that must therefore exist, 'God', is not based on reason?

Are you serious? Your God isn't simply a name for you lack of knowledge, religious people have certain beliefs about God - beliefs not based on anything but their imagination and gut feeling. That's irrational.

In other words, lack of knowledge about something doesn't give you a license to fill the gap with imaginary things.

"Oh I don't know what's in the box, therefore I assert that there is the Holy Grail with miraculous power to heal."

Sorry, it doesn't work like that, not in the world of reason.

Would you rather religious people choose a different word? Sure, it is irrational to a degree, but based on reason nonetheless. Saying that it is not based on reason is saying that it is blindly taken in all cases, without thought. Admittedly, that is the case for many, but is nowhere near a defining characteristic of religious faith.

Unfortunately it is. Religious faith is always blind. It is a primitive reaction to a lack of knowledge in certain area. For example, some primitive peoples didn't understand lightning, so they filled the gap in their knowledge with a Thunder God - you know, some supernatural being that causes it.

Today's more refined brands of religious faith ARE NOT ANY DIFFERENT from that. You're still imagining things because you're not comfortable with the fact that we (humanity) still don't know everything about the Universe.

Personally, I think it's irrational not to allow anything irrational in your life and/or belief system. Rationality is, to a degree, subjective. You seem to be vehemently opposed to anything that you think is irrational. Why? Sure, when that irrationality leads to other more detrimental things, that is understandable, but what is the problem with irrationality in itself?

Oh, that's not true. People can indulge in all things irrational if they want - you know, movies, love, hobbies, pat animals etc. I just think they should realize that these things are irrational and they can't form the basis of your life. Unfortunately, religious people usually don't realize that their faith is irrational and they often do base important life decisions on it - which is one of the reasons why the world is in such a mess right now.

 

[Camikaze]

Are you serious? Your God isn't simply a name for you lack of knowledge, religious people have certain beliefs about God - beliefs not based on anything but their imagination and gut feeling. That's irrational.

In other words, lack of knowledge about something doesn't give you a license to fill the gap with imaginary things.

"Oh I don't know what's in the box, therefore I assert that there is the Holy Grail with miraculous power to heal."

Sorry, it doesn't work like that, not in the world of reason.

Sure, various interpretation are imposed onto what is called 'God', but the idea of 'God' itself follows from reason. We do not and cannot know everything --> we have a lack of knowledge and there will always be a lack of knowledge --> let's call this eternal lack of knowledge 'God'. That is a reasonable conclusion, if you can even call it a conclusion so much as a decided upon end point from the premise. This is the fundamental basis of religious belief. Therefore, religious belief is based upon reason. Is that so hard to understand?

Now, there are things that go with it that make not be viewed as being quite as reasonable (i.e. derived from reason), and admittedly aren't. However, they are still derived to a large extent from reason, that reason being that people's religious beliefs have to be (or seem to have to be) manifested in some form, with the form chosen being reached through bits and pieces of subjective logic, such as perceived personal experiences, familial belief and familiarity with a particular religious form. Even if these reasons for being of a certain religion are not something you agree upon, or can even experience, they do represent a degree of reasoning behind a person's particular religious belief, on top of their broader religious one. So clearly, even if you do agree that this reasoning is flawed, it is reasoning nonetheless. A person's religious belief's are not devoid of reasoning.

Unfortunately it is. Religious faith is always blind. It is a primitive reaction to a lack of knowledge in certain area. For example, some primitive peoples didn't understand lightning, so they filled the gap in their knowledge with a Thunder God - you know, some supernatural being that causes it.

Today's more refined brands of religious faith ARE NOT ANY DIFFERENT from that. You're still imagining things because you're not comfortable with the fact that we (humanity) still don't know everything about the Universe.

As said, there are a multitude of reasons why someone may follow a certain religion (that is, people's beliefs are based on a number of reasons, and hence are reached through reason), so it isn't blind. What you call that primitive reaction to lightning as an example is reasoning, even if it is wrong. The people that believe that there is a Thunder God base that off the reasoning that light and sound come from the sky, so something must be creating them. Flawed reasoning, yes, but reasoning all the same.

What I'm trying to say is that even if you don't agree with religion or a religious belief itself, you can still acknowledge that it is based upon reasoning. There is some form of logical connection between experience and explanation, not just a giant leap.

Oh, that's not true. People can indulge in all things irrational if they want - you know, movies, love, hobbies, pat animals etc. I just think they should realize that these things are irrational and they can't form the basis of your life. Unfortunately, religious people usually don't realize that their faith is irrational and they often do base important life decisions on it - which is one of the reasons why the world is in such a mess right now.

My question was more why does this religious irrationality preclude positive benefits? Charity, for instance, is a fundamental religious principle (not saying that it isn't a principle of those that aren't religious), and many people decide to lead charitable lives based upon their irrational beliefs (which, by the way, are acknowledged as irrational by a large number, if not most). How is this an evil and detrimental exhibition of religious fervour? Sure, religious belief and irrationality associated with it can and has led to disastrous consequences but the sheer irrationality of religion doesn't cause this. It is the individuals who manipulate religion for their own ends that do. You may say that religion is therefore negative because it allows for mass manipulation, and this to some extent is a true flaw of religion. However, that's like saying democracy is abhorrent because some demagogues can fool populations into voting for them.

And just to clarify a little with my previous statement of belief for the need for irrationality. I would think it rational to accept a degree of irrationality, if you get what I mean, despite the contradiction of terms.

 

[Winner]

Sure, various interpretation are imposed onto what is called 'God', but the idea of 'God' itself follows from reason.

No, it doesn't. It follows from many things - ignorance, fear or hope, for instance - but certainly not reason. It is not reasonable to fill gaps in knowledge or perception with imaginary things.

We do not and cannot know everything --> we have a lack of knowledge and there will always be a lack of knowledge --> let's call this eternal lack of knowledge 'God'. That is a reasonable conclusion, if you can even call it a conclusion so much as a decided upon end point from the premise. This is the fundamental basis of religious belief. Therefore, religious belief is based upon reason. Is that so hard to understand?

I understand what you mean, I am just telling you you are wrong. Focus: Christians (and other religious people) do not simply believe in the lack of knowledge and call it a God, without making any other conclusions concerning its nature. They assert that their God has certain characteristics, that he wants this and that, that he did this and that, that he likes this and that etc. etc. etc. That's about as reasonable as a belief in an invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus or whatever other fairy-tale you might choose. Is it so hard to understand?

Plus, even if we choose to ignore all the religious nonsense that goes with the faith, the faith itself is still unreasonable. Not knowing is not a valid reason for imaging things. If I don't know what caused the Big Bang, I am free to come up with a hypothesis, but I need to be able to present a logical, coherent and scientific argument supporting it, otherwise I have no reason to believe that this particular hypothesis is true.

What religious people do is that they come up with a hypothesis, then refuse to back it up, test it or even discuss it in a reasonable way and worse, they expect others to respect it or even believe in it.

That's once again UNREASONABLE.

Now, there are things that go with it that make not be viewed as being quite as reasonable (i.e. derived from reason), and admittedly aren't. However, they are still derived to a large extent from reason, that reason being that people's religious beliefs have to be (or seem to have to be) manifested in some form, with the form chosen being reached through bits and pieces of subjective logic, such as perceived personal experiences, familial belief and familiarity with a particular religious form. Even if these reasons for being of a certain religion are not something you agree upon, or can even experience, they do represent a degree of reasoning behind a person's particular religious belief, on top of their broader religious one. So clearly, even if you do agree that this reasoning is flawed, it is reasoning nonetheless. A person's religious belief's are not devoid of reasoning.

Things you describe are not reasoning, it's a gut feeling. There is a huuuuuge difference.

As said, there are a multitude of reasons why someone may follow a certain religion (that is, people's beliefs are based on a number of reasons, and hence are reached through reason), so it isn't blind. What you call that primitive reaction to lightning as an example is reasoning, even if it is wrong. The people that believe that there is a Thunder God base that off the reasoning that light and sound come from the sky, so something must be creating them. Flawed reasoning, yes, but reasoning all the same.

My mistake, I thought we were talking about serious, logical and sceptical reasoning. Otherwise everything could be called reasonable. "Look, I had to kill my wife, she was possessed by a demon and an angel who talks to me in my dreams told me I had to kill her." - Is that also an acceptable reasoning? It is, by your standards. By my standards, it's delusional drivel.

What I'm trying to say is that even if you don't agree with religion or a religious belief itself, you can still acknowledge that it is based upon reasoning. There is some form of logical connection between experience and explanation, not just a giant leap.

I concede here - it is based on utterly illogical, false and laughable reasoning, which in a reasonable world wouldn't be called reasoning at all.

My question was more why does this religious irrationality preclude positive benefits? Charity, for instance, is a fundamental religious principle (not saying that it isn't a principle of those that aren't religious), and many people decide to lead charitable lives based upon their irrational beliefs (which, by the way, are acknowledged as irrational by a large number, if not most). How is this an evil and detrimental exhibition of religious fervour? Sure, religious belief and irrationality associated with it can and has led to disastrous consequences but the sheer irrationality of religion doesn't cause this. It is the individuals who manipulate religion for their own ends that do. You may say that religion is therefore negative because it allows for mass manipulation, and this to some extent is a true flaw of religion. However, that's like saying democracy is abhorrent because some demagogues can fool populations into voting for them.

And just to clarify a little with my previous statement of belief for the need for irrationality. I would think it rational to accept a degree of irrationality, if you get what I mean, despite the contradiction of terms.

Well, I believe people should strive to understand the world to the best of their ability and they should try to live meaningful life based on this understanding. Living a life based on faith, even though it isn't harmful to you, is tantamount to being on drugs. Sure, you may feel better, you may even be a nicer person, but you're dependent on something else, it is not coming from you, it is being imposed on you.

In my experience, the usual reasons why people believe in God are:

a) they're scared - what if God does exist? I'd go to Hell! No!
b) they want the Universe to make sense - what's the point in all this? Why am I here? It must have some deeper meaning, otherwise my whole life would be pointless!
c) they're afraid of death and can't accept the fact that when they die, they die and there is no "after". So, they create this safety net in their mind - when I die, there will be afterlife and provided that I don't do bad things in this life, I'll get eternal happiness as a reward.

Simply put, I don't think that a life under delusion is a well-spent life.

 

[Greizer85]

If everything makes sense, nothing does.

"The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane.

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus, he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus, he believes that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it;
for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things
that go with good judgement. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity,
or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane
affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one.
The madman is not the man who has lost his reason.
The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

@Winner: Logic is a tool, not an end in itself. Though we have a better world because of it, it cannot and shouldn't be applied to everything. Reason? A totally logical world is boring. If everyone had always been atheist, there would've been no great art throughout history. Tell me, what shall we sculpt and paint without myths and legends? These things give dignity to ordinary things and events; if the artist believes in them, he will hone his skills to a greater degree and be better inspired (you may call it trance or self-suggestion instead of receiving or possession). You may say, if things aren't glorious then they don't need glorifying; that is fine. I have no taste for the mundane nor for the people who like it. I am a romantic and hope someday to make a living out of embellishing things.

Simply put, I don't think that a life under delusion is a well-spent life.

Why not? I think drug hallucinations, dreams and imagined things are all quite nice. Better many times than real life. Ofc I understand that we don't believe in them the same way as in God, but as long as someone believing in God doesn't harm anybody, what business it is of ours what they believe in - even if it is delusional? Is an uncertain truth a higher value than true happiness? Even if it is, we cannot make that decision for someone else. At any rate these kinds of discussions are pointless since religious beliefs are so deeply rooted, perhaps even on the biological level, that rooting them out of the human race is a ridiculously futile operation. Now, I'm all for secularity, but otherwise we might as well just live and let live; reason and let believe.

 

[Winner]

@Winner: Logic is a tool, not an end in itself. Though we have a better world because of it, it cannot and shouldn't be applied to everything. Reason? A totally logical world is boring. If everyone had always been atheist, there would've been no great art throughout history. Tell me, what shall we sculpt and paint without myths and legends? These things give dignity to ordinary things and events; if the artist believes in them, he will hone his skills to a greater degree and be better inspired (you may call it trance or self-suggestion instead of receiving or possession). You may say, if things aren't glorious then they don't need glorifying; that is fine. I have no taste for the mundane nor for the people who like it. I am a romantic and hope someday to make a living out of embellishing things.

Because arts REQUIRES religion, right?

You can do art regardless whether you do or don't believe in fairy-tales. You can make a painting of Zeus knowing he is imaginary.

Religion played a role in the past, when people didn't have an alternative. We do have it now, so I see no reason for religion to continue playing a role in our life.

Why not? I think drug hallucinations, dreams and imagined things are all quite nice. Better many times than real life. Ofc I understand that we don't believe in them the same way as in God, but as long as someone believing in God doesn't harm anybody, what business it is of ours what they believe in - even if it is delusional? Is an uncertain truth a higher value than true happiness? Even if it is, we cannot make that decision for someone else. At any rate these kinds of discussions are pointless since religious beliefs are so deeply rooted, perhaps even on the biological level, that rooting them out of the human race is a ridiculously futile operation. Now, I'm all for secularity, but otherwise we might as well just live and let live; reason and let believe.

Sadly, religion is an anti-thesis of the live and let live principle. It is by definition meddlesome. When practiced by large groups of people, it becomes very dangerous.

 

[classical_hero]

Watching Atheists trying to explain what faith is, is very painful to watch. That is all I am going to say, since I would be wasting my by looking at the contributions so far. I certainly understand why Plotinus does not "debate" many religius threads, since there is no point at time in "debating" in them.

 

[Greizer85]

Because arts REQUIRES religion, right?

You can do art regardless whether you do or don't believe in fairy-tales. You can make a painting of Zeus knowing he is imaginary.

Religion played a role in the past, when people didn't have an alternative. We do have it now, so I see no reason for religion to continue playing a role in our life.

But can you invent Zeus without being religious? Do you see any Mozarts or Michelangelos around? Ofc you may argue that we cannot recognize them until later, or that artistic genius is simply no longer appreciated by the masses (perhaps in part due to the demise of religion...). Even so, it is a powerful tool for inspiration; the more tools the better. The idea of dignity is hard to grasp for rationalists; it means that certain works have an aura of inspiration so long as they are revered. Especially the old Greek myths were, and still are to an extent, more than simple fairy tales that someone has invented - for artists. Because they were once worshipped. It's a minor point maybe; as you say, art can be made without religious influences. It's just that other than music I don't appreciate modern art that highly. If Pollock could first learn to paint the Mona Lisa, maybe he could add some balls then just for novelty and amusement.

I do say that if you don't believe in God, on some level, you cannot paint the Mona Lisa. You cannot make classical music that will last through the ages. You will need to have some sort of God in your heart for these types of works; no human's arrogance can carry him that far on its own.

Sadly, religion is an anti-thesis of the live and let live principle. It is by definition meddlesome. When practiced by large groups of people, it becomes very dangerous.

I agree, although that depends on the religion. I don't hear about Buddhist terrorist attacks that often. Then again not all of them believe in a god so that may be a bad example. Just prohibit religious parties then. You and I both know from that old communist thread that prohibition solves everything.

Watching Atheists trying to explain what faith is, is very painful to watch. That is all I am going to say, since I would be wasting my by looking at the contributions so far. I certainly understand why Plotinus does not "debate" many religius threads, since there is no point at time in "debating" in them.

But the more wrong someone is, the more he needs an explanation. Lost lambs and all that. Don't you think it's your duty, even, to make people understand faith so that they may turn to the Lord eventually? I agree though that faith cannot really be debated since it is such a personal thing. I'd like to see you try anyway.