...so long as they aren't horrifying ones, anyway.Goals are good things!
My Problem With Faith
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
I don't expect to convince you that Christianity or religion in general is right or logical. I'm not a miracle worker. I was just showing you that your premise that it wasn't based on reason is completely wrong. You may not agree with the reasoning itself, but it is reasoning nonetheless. Not just a giant leap without any sort of connection between experience and explanation.
That's of course partially true: If angel appeared to me, it would be very reasonable to assume that I'm hallucinating, but that isn't the end of it:
I think word "rationality" is often misused, in a similar vay that word "sceptic" is: it is often thought to be rational thought combined with the scientific knowledge. But scientific knowledge can be also prejudice, even more so for those of us who aren't scientists.
There's plenty of "good" sceptics, but also many of those for whom scepticism means only refusal to think that there would be anything science can't explain. Let's take telepathy for an example: science doesn't currently acknowledge it's existence, and thus has no explanation of it, but on the other hand there's nothing in science itself that would contradict telepathy. So if someone claimed to have ability to read other's thoughts (with some inaccuracy perhaps), the bad sceptic would say that he's a quack, whereas the good sceptic would pick up pen and paper and start a test with this person: "What am I thinking right now?"
Similarly rationality doesn't per se say that angel appearing to me should be hallucination. To me it's the opposite of being rational to deny that your senses might be right. Rational person doesn't throw away all his beliefs when confronted with anomaly, but he neither excludes the possibility that observations might refute some of his beliefs. (Notice also how this relates to science: those "bad sceptics" justify belief in science with observation, but at the same time they are denying individual's own observation when it contradicts science. They think science fights dogmatic thinking, but for them science is the dogma).
I once met a person, who was so odd, and with whom my interaction was so strange, that I seriously considered the possibility of me being in psychosis (I was fully sober at the time). Later these thoughts vanished when I saw her again, heard that other people had seen her too, and that they thought she was strange too. I have also seen maybe three dreams in which I considered the possibilty that they were dreams, and became 100% assured that they aren't
The real sceptic attitude is towards all things around us. And I admit it's in some manner a neurosis.
If we think religious experiences paricularly, they probably are rarely seeing angles or something like that, but maybe of whole another sort of experience that is hard to describe to others. There may be also many of these experiences so the person might first think they are delusions, but after time change his mind. Bottom line is, I think, that we all have to make our own mind of them, and there's no clear rules to apply.
(This isn't so much addresed to you - you seem to think the same way, it's just general babbling about the subjecct).
My take on religion is that if god exists and is good, he doesn't care what I believe in, and had no beef with me, since I'm generally trying to do the right thing. If he on the other hand exists and makes my belief criterion for eternal torment, he's so arbitrary that he could send me to hell anyway, and even the belief wouldn't gurarantee not going there. Therefore my beliefs are irrelevant.
(This seems to be argument only for the christian God, but I think others are covered also in the fact that I have to come to conclusion of what's right by myself. I can't see how any religion could change that fact).
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Fair enough, I wouldn't be able to contradict any of this, since this is just as possible as what I said or what anyone else says. We as limited human beings, by definition not able to understand God are all equally capable of making statements about it/her/him.
What you assume is that he reasons like humans. Could be. Maybe not. Who knows? No one! That's the beauty!
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Too bad you are arguing against a part of my post put entirely out of context...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Illogical and flawed reasoning is simply not something that makes your faith an better. Instead of one giant leap to a delusion, you made a hundred smaller steps towards the same end.
How does it make faith any less irrational?
I have a slightly different view of God to normal people, so I probably have a completely wierd view on this subject. I think of God as something that you can't ever pin down; you can only ever see aspects of him/her/it. For me, that is my belief that certain actions and thoughts are wrong regardless of the situation, and that you are somehow accountable for what you do even when there's no chance of being punished (some people call that wishful thinking 
) Whether said God is a literal entity who will literally ask you to account for your actions when you die or not isn't important for me. I don't think that's too irrational; I would challenge any of you to find a situation where things like treason or what that son of a 'gun' at Fort Hood did are right or even acceptable.
) Whether said God is a literal entity who will literally ask you to account for your actions when you die or not isn't important for me. I don't think that's too irrational; I would challenge any of you to find a situation where things like treason or what that son of a 'gun' at Fort Hood did are right or even acceptable.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Sorry for the late reply - but I respect this post so much.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Country A wants to nuke Country B back to the stone age.
What have I won?
notyetsuperman
Chieftain
Quoted from ZiggyStarDust - "This rather condescending notion that atheist are taking the easy way out is ridiculous."
Theist and Atheist have the greater challenge both with great burdens to bear It's the poor fellow named Agnostic who has the simpler life style.
Agnostic lives without a care. Claiming to be a truth seeker, yet when presented with truth (x) simply develops an irrational - "(x) was never there".
Todays challenge:
Were you ....
1) brought into this world by some Creator? Call Him "Perfect Watchmaker" it may be easier for those who would prefer a God detached from the ongoing world whom: Having once created the perfect watch it needs no further attention.
2) birthed as a product of chance? Just simple biology, as random as the Big Bang (quite literally)!
3) able to will yourself into existence? Perhaps as a sperm cell willing yourself toward the egg. Having penetrated through the walls, know the fight is not over rapidly begin to will your cells to divide. Then climatically pushing through your mothers womb your first breathe. But it wouldn't be mom who birthed you - it would be you!
I love these exercises. They are so much more challenging then push ups. The exercise is most challenging when you try to answer all three questions.
I've enjoyed these posts so much.
Theist and Atheist have the greater challenge both with great burdens to bear It's the poor fellow named Agnostic who has the simpler life style.
Agnostic lives without a care. Claiming to be a truth seeker, yet when presented with truth (x) simply develops an irrational - "(x) was never there".
Todays challenge:
Were you ....
1) brought into this world by some Creator? Call Him "Perfect Watchmaker" it may be easier for those who would prefer a God detached from the ongoing world whom: Having once created the perfect watch it needs no further attention.
2) birthed as a product of chance? Just simple biology, as random as the Big Bang (quite literally)!
3) able to will yourself into existence? Perhaps as a sperm cell willing yourself toward the egg. Having penetrated through the walls, know the fight is not over rapidly begin to will your cells to divide. Then climatically pushing through your mothers womb your first breathe. But it wouldn't be mom who birthed you - it would be you!
I love these exercises. They are so much more challenging then push ups. The exercise is most challenging when you try to answer all three questions.
I've enjoyed these posts so much.
What I was saying is that I don't expect you to think it isn't irrational or flawed, I was just showing you that those smaller steps exist. It's just like I know that your illogical and flawed views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are founded from reasoning, however delusional that reasoning may be. So to do you now know that my illogical and flawed views of a religious nature are founded from reasoning, however delusional that reasoning may be. It would be rather ignorant of me to think that no reasoning was involved in your views, even if I don't agree with them. So I'm not trying to make you think that it is any better, rather I was just correcting a point.
I don't know what answer you want to here from me on this question, but I would think that anything based on reason is by definition more rational than something based on one giant leap of nothingness.
Seriously, you guys from the Tom Petty boards aren't doing a good job of invading/raiding our forum, we're already onto you.
And when I can recognize something amiss as just a lone poster, I'm sure various underhanded CFC collectives like fiftychat have gathered even more intel. 
Anyway, the first thing that really and most importantly bears repeating is that people just don't use "agnostic," "atheist," and "theist" by some philosophy dictionary definition. Your point appears to be something about how agnostics are different(better?) from the others for not assuming something unproveable or whatnot - well, this is debated like every other day here and you just have to recognize that people calling themselves "atheists" or "agnostics" (or for that matter, many theists) aren't trying to make some ridiculous unproveable claim, they're just using the words differently. Lastly, your "scenarios" 1-3 seem mutually contradictory so I don't see how you'd want anyone to address all three, maybe again you're just saying "agnostics don't take things on faith, HA."
notyetsuperman
Chieftain
All three questions are not intended to be in contradiction (or over lap for that matter). All three questions are intended to get the mind to think. If in conclusion, the thinking mind draws contradictions... so be it. If overlap... so be it. Just think it through.
And this is when I realize that perhaps this thread belongs on another forum.
And this is when I realize that perhaps this thread belongs on another forum.
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
My problem with faith is that it imposed on others through laws, is a vehicle of discrimination and hate, an excuse/pretext for many illegitimate actions, infringement on people's rights and freedoms, retards scientific progress, etc. If religion was indeed completely limited to individuals' personal sphere, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, that's far from the case.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
But there are very strict rationalists who make the claim that if your senses contradict rationality, you should go with rationality. What would you say to them?
You bulleted the point and made it separate from the rest of the post. I provided the entirety of the context for it.
I think so too. The keyword in the sentence you quoted is "might".
I doubt many experiences per se conflict rationality, but rather our knwoledge and assumptions. You have then two ways out: to deny the experience or to deny your knowledge. To me it seems irrational to think that only senses are to be suspected. Rationality plays it's part when you decide what part do you abandon, but it doesn't say anything before you do that decision.
(Although of course we have limited time, so it's often wise to not use all of it thinking about these things, and it that sense it's rational to take the generally accpeted things as truths)
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Well, senses can be easily deceived, so in all cases I would not completely trust the senses.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Which means you misunderstand what I mean when I am saying that faith/religion is irrational. I never said that believers don't have something they'd call a rational justification for it, it's just that their "rational justification" is in fact irrational and therefore useless.
About the second part - it is a rhetorical question. What's worse - making a wrong assertion without anything to back it up (example: "I hereby say that there is a God."), or making a series of wrong conclusions and logic errors that is eventually construed as a support for the ultimate wrong conclusion (example: "I won a lottery today, because I prayed to Jesus last night, and also my wife gave a birth to a healthy son the same day, ergo this is a proof to me that God exists.").
@Ziggy:
Not completly trust, but it's possible that senses are wrong.
Think for example how Galileo is often represented: that he's martyr of science who didn't trust the dogma of church, scholastics and ancient philosophers, buit instead made experiments. That's what this is about: you shouldn't take for granted what is the common agreement or knowledge in favour of your senses (unless for practical reasons). Galileo was also criticised on the ground that senses can be decieved (and partly this critique was justified).
If I wanted to be provocative, I'd say that the only thing separating Galileo's noble fight for rationality from religious person's naive refusal of it, is that Galieo's activity is now generally accepted. The matter isn't of course so simple, and I don't want to be provocative, but said that to illustrate the point: It's hard for us to even try thinking things from different perspective, often we don't even notice what dogmas we might have, because they are so deeply held, and effect our whole view of the world (or even constitute it).
Not completly trust, but it's possible that senses are wrong.
Think for example how Galileo is often represented: that he's martyr of science who didn't trust the dogma of church, scholastics and ancient philosophers, buit instead made experiments. That's what this is about: you shouldn't take for granted what is the common agreement or knowledge in favour of your senses (unless for practical reasons). Galileo was also criticised on the ground that senses can be decieved (and partly this critique was justified).
If I wanted to be provocative, I'd say that the only thing separating Galileo's noble fight for rationality from religious person's naive refusal of it, is that Galieo's activity is now generally accepted. The matter isn't of course so simple, and I don't want to be provocative, but said that to illustrate the point: It's hard for us to even try thinking things from different perspective, often we don't even notice what dogmas we might have, because they are so deeply held, and effect our whole view of the world (or even constitute it).
Well actually, I would've thought that quite clearly the first is worse. If you have made an attempt at rationality, then that is better then having made no attempt and just leapt to a conclusion. That's what's so good about reasoning in the first place. Even if the same conclusion is reached, the use of a degree of reasoning, following a fairly logical chain, still shows thought on the issue, rather than blind belief, which you before said (or implied, I can't remember) was worse.
Answer me this; do you regard someone who flatly disagrees with your points in a simplistic, 'Nah, you're wrong', way, without any additional argument higher or lower than someone that attempts to understand a situation and answer your views ona point by point basis? I would think the latter would be regarded more highly. For the same reason of using some sort of thought to reach the same conclusion, rather than just making the conclusion. It's like doing a maths problem without any working; you aren't going to get full marks for it.
Similar threads
