Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 04 May 2016, 9:49 am

No harm done. I just wanted to make that clarification.

I was thinking about this thread and it dawned on me. I've left out an important point worth noting in my opinion.

I've said it before elsewhere here on Redscape but it bears repeating. I believe that many of the faith traditions and their truth claims are reasonable or rational. That will of course strike you as unacceptable but the point I should have included in the thread is this....

Let's take Christians, for example. The Christian truth claims are rational or better, reasonable. I can offer explanations to try and explain them and hopefully those reasons come across in such a way that another person who does not hold them to be true, at the very least, is able to listen to the rational put forward and hopefully be challenged to, at the very least, strengthen their own position, or, consider the points in an honest way that makes sense for them.

But let me be clear, at some point, the Christian must leap from the cliff of rationality. That's when experience takes over. Reduce that experience to emotions or sinaps firing off in the brain if you like, but an experience takes place that seems to merge the reasonableness of the truth claim with a euphoric encounter with the wholly other. It's at this point where explanation and justification drop off and the believer is simply in a free fall of acceptance. No argument, no use of logic, no "proof" as we've discussed here is possible.

In the end, the believer hangs his/her hat on faith. That's it. This faith, in the words of Anselm, is always seeking understanding but it is faith and reason does indeed drop off in order to make that leap.

I left this piece out and I really shouldn't have. It's absolutely central to the conversation. That's what makes faith, faith.

Now, I believe the relationship between faith and reason is a spectrum. When there is no balance between the two, we see very clear patterns emerge, at least from a believer's perspective.

On the one extreme, let's call it the right side of the spectrum, is faith without reason. This is a scary realm for me. This position on the spectrum could be characterized by blind faith or radical fundamentalism. My way or the highway. Either believe what I believe or I will eliminate you. Here, reason is absent.

As you move on the spectrum closer toward the fulcrum lets say, you come across all kinds of shades of fundamentalism. Again, these various flavors of fundamentalism can look very different but all share a suspicion of reason to some degree.

On the other extreme of the spectrum of the relationship, we find reason devoid of any semblance of faith. It's here we have pure atheism.

As you move again toward the center of the fulcrum [again, the fulcrum from a believers' perspective] you find agnosticism which we've already discussed. Not an agnostic that has embraced faith but someone who is open to the possibility that at some point in the future there may be sufficient evidence or an experience of some kind that would lead them to a kind of belief though doubting this possibility all the while perhaps.

A bit further and we find deists. At this stage you discover a class of folks who have adopted an element of faith into their word view. Yet, this group will always insist that the pursuit of science and knowledge is absolutely mandatory in attempting to explain what the universe or creator has accomplished.

Now there are many shades of these groups as you either move toward the center of the fulcrum, again, the fulcrum of a healthy balance between faith and reason, or away from it. Suffice it to say, an "honest" (Danivon's term which I really like) or healthy believer lets say, is one who attempts as best s/he can to keep the two phenomena in balance. One without the other does not work. The two are paired together, inform one another and complement each other, always challenging the other to bring out the best that both realities afford.

My faith must be rational or reasonable or I need to walk away from it. My faith needs to undergo the rigors of testing that science would demand from it. I can't be afraid of that testing or run from it or claim that scientific evidence is somehow flawed or rigged as a justification to continue holding on to my beliefs.

Faith must embrace all knowledge that comes to us through science. And science or reason, again, in my view, must remain open to mystery. When that can happen, I believe we end up with healthy or honest societies who reflect what's best about our human condition.

All of this takes honesty. I keep going back to this notion. And a respect and openness to the other.

Anyway Freeman, I've been thinking about this thread like I said and wanted to add this important bit about faith.

Faith is not reason and reason is not faith but faith can be reasonable up to a leaping off point and reason can always remain open to possibility of a wholly other, no matter the intensity of doubt.

Neither are obligated to do so, but when there is harmony in the relationship between the two, we seem to get the best results for all stakeholders.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 May 2016, 10:34 am

I thought this was interesting....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/university-of-miami-establishes-chair-for-study-of-atheism.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=4&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F05%2F21%2Fus%2Funiversity-of-miami-establishes-chair-for-study-of-atheism.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 20 May 2016, 12:55 pm

The study of this God or that God, these beliefs and those beliefs, etc can take a LOT of time and involves much study. But how much is involved in "we believe in nothing", No God, No belief structure and the associated rules. Hey, if you chose to be atheist and it works for you, good for you but damn,
Sign me up for this job!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 May 2016, 5:15 pm

We just study other things Tom. Why waste time on an untestable and extraordinarily improbable hypothesis when there's so much else out there we could discover ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 May 2016, 8:34 am

GMTom wrote:The study of this God or that God, these beliefs and those beliefs, etc can take a LOT of time and involves much study. But how much is involved in "we believe in nothing", No God, No belief structure and the associated rules. Hey, if you chose to be atheist and it works for you, good for you but damn,
Sign me up for this job!

Atheism is not the same as Nihilism, Tom. Not believing in God is different from believing nothing. And among atheists there is a wide variety of belief in other aspects of life.

And it's not a job. There are few who make a living out of atheism -and most of those have another career already, such as science. Of course there are loads of people who make a living from religion, and most of them have to have studied theology or at least one set of beliefs.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 21 May 2016, 10:16 am

There are different types of atheism.http://www.atheismresearch.com

Another interesting area of inquiry is the cognitive bias towards religious belief.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/ev ... 88461.html

And why are atheists more intelligent than deists. Is it that they see the lack of proof or it is an ego/personal control thing? I can never remember being religious and the whole idea of abasing myself before a superior being seemed utterly repugnant to me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 58046.html

I am fairly confident that eventually human beings will transition to a post-religious world and religion will become part of the history department. Why? Religions have no truth content and while we apparently have a cognitive bias towards religion, we also have a desire to get at the truth of the matter. If God exists then why doesn't he prove it? Why doesn't he do something so everyone would know he exists? It used to be that there were lots of things that people perceived as being miracles done by God. Now, in the modern world no religious person can point to one thing--anything--that they can prove was done by God.

Having said all that, there is no doubt that religion has helped people deal with the existential pain of existence and one wonders how people will deal without it. Marx famously wrote that religion is the opium of the people (or masses). Of course what he meant was that the illusions of religion were necessary because of the plight of the masses and that it should be gotten rid of so that people can have a society that does not need illusions. With the way our society is constructed--with the few benefiting and many struggling--it is hard to be optimistic about a post-religious world. Unless we construct a better society people will turn to drugs and alcohol. And we already have a severe opiate abuse problem in the US.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 May 2016, 1:34 pm

I can never remember being religious and the whole idea of abasing myself before a superior being seemed utterly repugnant to me.


I was fortunate growing up in that both of my parents were non-religious. To this day I have no idea whether either of them actually believe in God or not because in nearly 40 years of life I can't recall a single conversation about any religious subject with either of them. That alone tells me that they almost certainly are both atheists though, albeit of the most non-judgemental variety. They seem thoroughly uninterested in the subject. With that said, they did pack me off to sunday school when I was little. I assume that must have just been because it was what you did back then, and it got me out of the house for a couple of hours. They never got me christened though, or my sister. When we asked about it they just said that they preferred to leave it up to us to make an informed choice about whether we wanted to do it when we were old enough to understand what it meant. By the time I got to the point where I gave it a moment's thought I'd already come to the conclusion that I didn't believe in God, so it was never an issue. I don't recall at what age I came round to the realisation that I was an atheist, but it can't have been any later than 10 years old.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2016, 12:31 pm

so in the last two posts we learn that people who believe in God are stupid? (or at least not as smart as those who do not?)

and some are "Fortunate" that they were not raised religious.

Well, I happen to think I was fortunate to have been raised to believe in God and i happen to feel a bit sad that some were not. Hey, believe what you want, whatever floats your boat but please don't tell me and others how "fortunate" you are for being raised not to believe or do expect us to feel pity for you. (it does go both ways!)

and as far as intelligence?????
Thanks for painting us as stupid and yourself as superior. Once again, I feel pity for such an ignorant and arrogant claim. Thanks for being so kind to those who happen to think differently than yourself, yours truly can be the only way?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 May 2016, 12:43 pm

I do feel fortunate to have been raised to think for myself on these issues and given the freedom to make up my own mind without any parental steer. Not sure why you should feel offended by this, it's nothing to do with you.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2016, 12:53 pm

and a very good piece on how that study was skewed, I was thinking the exact same reasons but decided to see if it was just me, no, it really is flawed to say it mildly!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... usive.html

and honestly, when i went away to college it was much the same, I strayed very far from religion but "fortunate" for me, I found my way back again...an Intelligent decision on my part thank you (or did i suddenly get all stoopid in my hedd?)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2016, 12:59 pm

Sass, i do not take it personally in the least and I am happy you are happy. But to put it as though you were "fortunate" simply paints those who believe in something different than yourself as, well, unfortunate now doesn't it?

And if your parents steered you to thinking college was stupid, you would likely believe that as well? If they steered you to a nudist life, that too might be your "thing"?
I am glad they gave you at least some exposure to religion but that free will of yours to decide what you wanted was, as you said yourself, "steered" away from that belief and it's hardly a shock you do not believe yourself. You and they may want to think you had a choice but frankly, it was a slim chance if what was taught was not actually followed!?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 May 2016, 1:07 pm

They didn't try to steer me one way or the other, rather they just left me to come to my own conclusions. Things are a little different here in that children are exposed to religion in school. We don't have the strict separation thing going on in our schools. Both of the schools I attended were affiliated to local churches, had compulsory religious services in the morning assemblies and regular annual services in the local church where we all had to sing hymns and what have you. I had plenty of exposure to Christianity, I just wasn't required to attend church in my spare time. With that said though, I did used to go along to youth groups laid on by the church, so it's not like I was only getting any religion in my life via my school. My parents just left me to it without once trying to steer me in one direction or the other. Had I chosen to become religious (and both of my cousins went on to become fundamentalist Christians) then they'd have been perfectly supportive.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2016, 1:32 pm

given the freedom to make up my own mind without any parental steer.

so you have the choice to sit in a boring church sermon or stay home and sleep in and/or watch cartoons. Without that steering until you were an adult, (a child can not make such a decision to watch cartoons or to go to church) you had no real choice in the matter. Sorry, your free choice was never really there!

I do believe you and your parents think you had a real choice but not really!

My wife had the choice to go to college
But her parents were always talking about it being foolish, being expensive, how she would have to pay, talking down those who did go (like me when we were dating). Did she really have a choice being raised in that environment? Your choice was limited even further, they let a child make that decision.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2016, 1:34 pm

Neither of my girls go to church (now 25 and 27) but they were raised going to church and going to Sunday school, the whole 9 yards. While my wife is upset about it, I know they made a fully informed adult decision and am somewhat fine by it!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 May 2016, 1:39 pm

So what you're saying is that failure to impose a choice upon me constitutes err... imposing a choice upon me ? We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.

Either way, I'm glad that it's the approach they took.