Faith, Reason and Truth

[Mortem Desino]

Help me out with one thing, Spring. What sect of Christianity did you belong to? You remind me of a Reformed or Calvinist, who believe that the teachings of Scripture "which transcend all understanding," must be subject to reason.

 

Reason is a gift corrupted by evil. As we come into the world, our reason does not see the need for a God. Our will is hostile to God's. Our spirituality is dead because of evil. Therefore, by our reason, we can never discover or believe God. Reason cannot serve as a source for Christian doctrine, nor can it serve as judge over the teachings of God's word. There is a common (yet doctrinally unsound) Reformed teaching saying that human beings have the capability to find or accept God by their own free will.

[jdude]

I think there's a gross way of thinking that is going on here. Spring, you say that one of the main reasons religion exists is because its taught to people as children. That's an ignorant way of perceiving the intelligence of those around you. Many people adopt religion later in their life or give it up, it isn't cemented in ones mind; this way of thinking is to assume that the majority of people are incapable of reasoning or reflecting with themselves which just isn't true and if you think it is I'd think you have a supremacy complex of some sort. And it's not like people don't see the evidences you bring forth, it's clearly in people's lives and they've still chosen a path you don't understand. Sotha assumes that people only cling to it to give some sort of superficial meaning to their life. There's no reason to believe this, people have families and jobs and lives outside of religion, it's just one aspect of people's lives which your grossly blanketing the rest of their lives with. If you want to know why people believe in God then open your heart up to him and give it a shot for a year or two as an educated adult, try to form a personal relationship with God, because putting into words is too hard to do as seen here, otherwise be content with understanding that you wont understand the feelings and experiences others have through religion. And since your never going to get 100% directly related tangible evidence which you can feel, touch, smell, hear or see of the existence of God don't bother asking for it; just like you don't have any evidence the people close to you in your life love you.

[Springheel]

Help me out with one thing, Spring. What sect of Christianity did you belong to? You remind me of a Reformed or Calvinist, who believe that the teachings of Scripture "which transcend all understanding," must be subject to reason.

 

I was a hard-core evangelical. I was a day-age creationist, and argued against evolution (even though I didn't understand it). I believed that the Bible was the word of God and that the only way to be "saved" was to accept Jesus as your saviour. I was a leader in my youth group, and even went away to Christian "leadership camps" where I went out and preached the "good word". Although I had lots of questions, I believed that faith was more important, and that the Devil would try to tempt me away from my faith by creating doubt in my mind. I prayed every night and thought I had a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

 

So I feel I can make comments about what it's like to be a believer with at least some claim to authenticity.

 

Therefore, by our reason, we can never discover or believe God. Reason cannot serve as a source for Christian doctrine,

 

As someone who believes (most of) the Bible literally, don't you feel bound by Peter 3:15? "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

 

Every time I ask you what reasons there are for believing what you claim to be true, you either dodge the question or fall back on saying that it's not rational.

 

If you want to just stick with "it's irrational", that's fine. We can leave it at that. But beliefs that cannot be defended rationally cannot claim any right to "respect".

 

@Jdude:

 

I thought you had decided to "stop posting" on this issue?

 

Spring, you say that one of the main reasons religion exists is because its taught to people as children. That's an ignorant way of perceiving the intelligence of those around you. Many people adopt religion later in their life or give it up,

 

There are plenty of studies to back up my claim. "Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since World War II" shows that 85% of people raised in either the Protestant, Catholic or Jewish faiths maintain their religion as adults. This chart, from a more recent 2007 study, shows that only 70% of Catholics who had "very strong" faith as children leave that faith for something significantly different (the study does not distinguish between joining a non-Christian faith and leaving religion altogether). Children who were protestants leave even less frequently--at least 82% remain Christians.

 

I'm aware that some people leave religion as they get older (I'm one of them) but the majority do not.

 

this way of thinking is to assume that the majority of people are incapable of reasoning or reflecting with themselves

 

I said that religion has many built-in reasons to keep people from "reflecting" on it. In other areas of their life, they may be perfectly rational and reasonable.

 

If you want to know why people believe in God then open your heart up to him and give it a shot for a year or two

 

Been there, done that. See above. (By the way, a Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu could make exactly the same claim...have you tried those for a year or two to make sure they're not right?)

 

just like you don't have any evidence the people close to you in your life love you.

 

I could have sworn I already dealt with that "evidence for love" argument the last time you brought it up.

 

Of course you have evidence that the people "close to you" love you. You have that belief because the people involved demonstrate love through their words and actions. If someone claims to love you, but consistently demonstrates through their behaviour that they do not (by cheating on you, disregarding your feelings, abusing you, etc), you'll change your belief. If you *don't* change your belief in the face of contradictory evidence, you'll be admonished by anyone who can see what you're doing, and rightly so.

 

And since your never going to get 100% directly related tangible evidence which you can feel, touch, smell, hear or see of the existence of God don't bother asking for it;

 

You've made this claim before, and I've already answered it. There are plenty of ways that one could theoretically demonstrate substantial, suggestive evidence for the existence of God. The fact that no one has speaks volumes.

[Mortem Desino]

Give me a microscope, some bacteria, HCl, 45 minutes, and I'll scientifically prove microevolution. And I'm even a confessional Lutheran, into difficult doctrines like real presence and single predestination.

 

Dodge the question? I'm doing my damnedest to answer it.

 

Maybe I wasn't at all clear. Yes. God himself is utterly worldly irrational. I just explained that in my previous post: sinful human nature and sinful human reason is hostile to God and God's will. But that is why I went into this doctrine of conversion. It is not by human choice that you can accept the God of "unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see". Human nature is hostile to God and will always try to reject Him.

 

Very well, if you believe that my beliefs are not worth your respect, then I concede. You already stated that you don't think you need a god. You'll find nothing in the world but atheism 'respectable'. You denied it earlier, but you still seem to want to eliminate irrational thinking. Too bad irrationality is what makes us all HUMAN. Irrationality makes us ETHICAL. I can't explain all of physical and metaphysical [human] nature rationally, and neither can you! What precisely is wrong claiming that something that is irrational is still true? Read the above statements again.

 

Concerning 1 Peter 3:15. Though I have fought very hard with all of you, I can arm myself with defenses and arguments, just to have the devil wrestle the sword out of my hand, and before I am aware thrusts it back into my stomach. There I stand disgraced, having equipped myself in vain.

[jdude]

Spring you can easily go about your life ignoring the fact that people accept religions for real personal and emotional reasons. You've asked for those reasons and I've told you but you obviously cannot comprehend what I've been trying to convey since religious experience is like a 6th sense which you seem to lack. Millions, even billions of people don't accept it based on nothing, for comfort or because it's somehow cemented in their mind from childhood; though ironically if this is true I guess you think your super human for rejecting God later in your life, perhaps you view yourself as a crusader for justice because of some nasty experience you had with it. You can back up your claims with pseudo-science or obviously false statistical nonsense like the 'chart' which has no information on where it's from, who funded it, who it's representing, where it's representing, the accuracy of it (No room for error); You can ignore the philosophy of it claiming philosophy doesn't belong in today's world or that Christian apologetic is just another way of justifying the Bible's accuracy. You seem to want a graph that would show the existence of God, and obviously God doesn't want to make it that simple. I don't need to try another religion because I've already felt God in my life which tells me I'm on the right track. The methods your using to justify your anti-religious doctrine is just as ridiculous as the methods religious extremists use to justify theirs and yes you are pushing your beliefs on others using the guise that atheism isn't a belief. Religion is not a danger to society, science or people. It's existed since the dawn of man and I think we're doing quite fine right now. You should take a step back and think about how your portraying religious groups in your mind find the stereotypes and false conceptions. Religion isn't evil nor is it responsible for 911 attacks which have sparked this growing anti-religious, anti-Muslim mini movement. Your obviously looking for perfection and you wont find perfection in any aspect of your life. And I'm sure you have thousands of words to respond to my post but nothing you say will change what I think or my opinions in what I've outlined here so why bother Spring? Is it to hear yourself speak and to enforce your own beliefs? I see no reason to continue this ridiculous discussion but you apparently do, why? It's easily possible to come up with a counter argument for anything. Would it not just be better if you had your belief and I had mine, no need for insulting the others beliefs or pushing your own ideology?

 

BTW I didn't say open your heart to religion I said to God, God and religion in my mind are separate entities and religion is the attempted to actualize what the desire of God is, some are more accurate than others.

[Springheel]

Dodge the question? I'm doing my damnedest to answer it.

 

Really? Every time I ask you, "How do you know that?" or "What reasons do you have to believe that?" you appear to avoid the question. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

 

I've been asking what reasons are there for thinking that a god exists. Saying, "You can't know God rationally" is not a reason.

 

I just explained that in my previous post: sinful human nature and sinful human reason is hostile to God and God's will.

 

Again, this answers nothing. You're simply making another assertion. What evidence do you have that reason is sinful? What reasons do you have for believing that you know "God's will"?

 

You're a reasonable guy, Mortem. Are you honestly saying you don't see the difference between making claims and providing evidence?

 

Maybe there's some legitimate confusion over what I'm asking. Perhaps an analogy will help.

 

Pretend there's a woman who is in a relationship with a guy that her friends have never met. She tells her friends, "he really loves me". They ask, "how do you know?"

 

There are several different kinds of answers she could give.

 

"He writes me love poems."

"He makes me breakfast in bed."

"He sacrifices time with his friends in order to spend time with me."

"He does the dishes because he knows it makes me happy."

 

All of the above are examples of reasonable evidence to support her claim. They aren't absolute proof (and some are better than others), but together they do suggest that there is a reason to believe her assertion that, "he really loves me".

 

Instead, she could answer:

 

"I'm nothing without him."

"I feel more secure when there is someone else around."

"Our love doesn't make sense."

"You can't possibly know what it's like to be in a relationship with him."

 

NONE of those statements actually support the claim that "he really loves me". All they do is make new claims, which may or may not be true. If the woman actually answered in this way, her friends would be justified in being concerned.

 

I'm asking you to provide answers like the first list--actual evidence to support your claim that a god exists. You're providing answers like the second list.

 

Does that help?

 

You denied it earlier, but you still seem to want to eliminate irrational thinking

 

No, I was quite clear on that. Irrational thinking has its place--my preference for the colour green is not rational. My enjoyment of medieval documentaries is not particularly rational. However, I most certainly want to eliminate *truth claims* that are based on irrational thinking. When it comes to determining what is actually true or not in the universe around us, irrational thought has no respectable place at all.

 

Very well, if you believe that my beliefs are not worth your respect, then I concede.

 

As I said once before, beliefs are not worthy of respect. Only our reasons for believing them are. Consider the following example:

 

Someone believes that abortion is wrong. You ask them why, and they respond:

 

"Well, I think human life is intrinsically valuable, and while I don't know for sure whether fetuses can suffer, I think that making it legal to abort them creates a slippery slope. Since it becomes difficult to know exactly where to draw the line after conception begins, I'd rather it just be avoided altogether."

 

In such a case, you would probably feel compelled to afford his belief some respect, even if you disagreed with him. But consider this possible answer:

 

"Every time someone aborts a fetus, the evil monkey in my closet gets stronger because he eats the souls of all the babies. If he gets too powerful then he'll be able to break out of my closet while I'm sleeping and get me."

 

In this case, how could any reasonable person possibly respect his belief, even if they actually agreed with him that abortion was wrong?

 

In both cases the actual belief is the same, but that's not really what matters.

 

@ Jdude:

 

I see no reason to continue this ridiculous discussion

 

Then why are you? Haven't we covered this already?

 

As I've said more than once, I enjoy these kinds of discussions. And in Mortem's case, I am genuinely curious to hear his point of view. (I suppose I should be flattered that you single me out, considering at least three or four other people have posted on exactly the same topics I have.)

 

You, on the other hand, have already said you didn't want to continue the discussion. Now you're back to say the same thing again. Is there someone there forcing you to read and respond to this thread?

 

You can back up your claims with pseudo-science or obviously false statistical nonsense like the 'chart' which has no information on where it's from, who funded it, who it's representing, where it's representing, the accuracy of it

 

I linked directly to the chart in question because it was one part of a 9 page study from the Pew Research Center that is largely irrelevant to our topic. If you want the entire link, it's here: http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/summary.pdf

 

You're well within your rights to ask for the source of a study if it isn't offered, but if you're going to throw around accusations about "obviously false statistics" and "pseudo-science", you'd better be able to back them up if you want to continue to be taken seriously. I'll await your specific examples of the "false statistics" I've used.

[nbohr1more]

I think that Mortem has sufficiently boiled this down to the "belief in magic is what it is". It's merely personally rewarding for him to see things that look like proof or vindication. I see no need to dissect further. He has essentially capitulated that religion cannot be framed by reason and is positing that "reason itself" is not the epitome that others claim it to be. This is the indivisible atom that defines that aspect of his life. I doubt further in-roads to his personal development will shake free any insight that will say "Ah..., now I know why I believe this stuff so much and it's actually kinda silly...".

 

This is the remaining path for these lines of inquiry as far as I can tell.

 

As such, the only possible way to unseat such a strong belief would be to show, for instance, a copy of all the neurological activity that happens when a religious awakening occurs... then prove it can be invoked or repeated in ways that make the belief itself seem to be a fabrication from our failable conscience. Until we can jack Mortem into the Matrix and playback a miraculous feeling over and over again (to show it's artifice) he would be unlikely to jump from his current stance (and I suspect he would hold this stance even in the face of such an exercise). Then we would get to the point of, how much mood induction would be sufficient to "help" show Mortem see the artifice verses what would be biasing and mind-control.

 

I suspect that there will be faithful religious folk even after we can jack people into VR worlds and make them think they are living in another reality. But that is where we will have to wait to see what the true devout do in the face of crushing logic. When feelings themselves can be conveyed in a concrete repeatable fashion. Conversely, at that point in our future, the religious may record their feelings of belief and transmit them to the Agnostics and Atheists of the world and some may "see the light" after trying out these recordings.

 

Those points are both biased in my belief that the brain has some resemblance to a computer. I have seen some preliminary stuff that shows that we know the physical place and mechanism of short-term memory in mice. I have snowballed my own personal stock in this concept from that preliminary evidence.

 

Sprinheel can comfortably believe that indoctrination is the reason anyone has religious notion as the statistics show a large correspondence. Since the science of psychology is not anywhere near as "hard" as the other scientific disciplines his take is the best that Occam we can cut.

 

I, again, would stress that Springheel is simply living up to his own personal moral stance. And (from my interpretation) all the Abrahamic faiths require you to live up to your own known moral guidelines. If you violate or back-down from your understanding of your moral requirements you are in trouble with God. In a strange way, if Springheel were to let this go he might be punished by God for his apathy.

 

These are slippery slope issues and I will again posit that Springheel probably doesn't mind religious folks "as long as they don't make real-world decisions based on advice from God".

 

I think we would all prefer that a Politician or CEO would simply choose to do the right thing rather than do the right thing because they were afraid of going against God. So I will suggest that this is a common desire for both the Atheist and the Theist. We both prefer that the decision to "do the right thing" comes from an intrinsic respect for our fellow species.

 

So here is our puzzle. If we are uncertain whether insanity has struck us with the notion that God is talking or if we are really being summoned by him, are we in trouble if we do not heed the call?

 

Are we in more trouble if we carry out a command that violates our common moral stance?

Abraham's example says "Yes, even if it seems crazy you must do it."

 

That is a scary idea for the Agnostics and Atheists of the world but I think they (we????) can take comfort that even the most religious out there would not live up to that requirement (if it even exists?).

 

And that is probably the thing that any Agnostic or Atheist would want to know about. They would want to know "If God told you to do something harmful would you do it?" Now the words of Jesus indicate that our active role is to pray and let God "do stuff" rather than to enact anything so that issue has been mostly skirted in Christianity. Unfortunately "dont do anything let God do it" is a hard rule to follow and brings up the problem of "I can see an immediate danger to someone else, should I help that person or follow the let God do it doctrine?" Which is a slippery slope towards "If I let unfaithful folk influence the faithful am I a bad person". The "let God do it" concept has never really been held-to very well in our history. So the Faithful and Atheist alike have reason to suspect anyone who suggests it. I doubt the US Military would "lay down all arms" and let God take care of things (for example).

 

A) So the Old Testament has us doing "anything" God asks of us.

The New Testament says "dont do anything, let God do it".

 

Neither is practical for our lives.

 

A) Leads to insanity and following weird whims.

Leads to people being pushover pacifists who will be eaten alive by real society.

 

Maybe the unrealistic goal of path is what is so inspiring about it. It reminds me of our "Commie" friend Aidakeeley's idealism. If all people lived up to either Communist or Christian ideals we could imagine a utopia as the result. But instead we have the foils to these approaches.

 

For Communism we have the Authority who do not resist the temptation to empower themselves and take more than their fair share.

 

For Christianity we have what I call "The Big Bruisers" people who want to uphold Christianity but cannot abide the "let God do it" doctrine and have to "help" (Holy Wars, Inquisitions, etc) God accomplish things.

 

I think that the ideals set forth by the Christian and Communist notions are both noble and may be part of our intrinsic moral structure (whether given to us by God or Evolution). But I realize that we must not wander so far into these ideals that we allow ourselves to be ensnared by their shortcomings. If Christianity, for example, must try to enact real-world changes then the art of reason could be an ally against full capitulation to the "Big Bruiser" effect (or simply being utterly devoured by "real-world" active people who don't follow the "let God do it" doctrine.)

 

I dont have anywhere near the faith to be a Christian Gandhi and let the world bowl me over so again I fail another requirement to keep me from burning...

 

(I'd better save my pennies for those Android body-part replacements...)

[Springheel]

Sprinheel can comfortably believe that indoctrination is the reason anyone has religious notion as the statistics show a large correspondence.

 

To be clear, that's not really what I said. I said childhood indoctrination was one of the ways that religion could become ingrained in otherwise reasonable people. I'll even go so far as to say that I suspect it's the main reason. But that doesn't mean there aren't lots of other reasons.

 

I, again, would stress that Springheel is simply living up to his own personal moral stance.

If you violate or back-down from your understanding of your moral requirements you are in trouble with God. In a strange way, if Springheel were to let this go he might be punished by God for his apathy

 

Hmm, thanks for the vote of confidence, () but I don't see this as a "moral" discussion at all. It's a discussion about what things people believe to be true and what reasons they have for believing them. I'm not sure what "moral requirements" have to do with it.

[nbohr1more]

OK...

 

That is an interesting context.

 

Some of your points seemed to indicate a general sense of concern for world at large but if your examples were all merely detached logical illustrations then any contrary parties should probably relax about the ultimate goal of your discourse.

 

A simple amusement for a complex fellow, eh?

 

Heck, you could be a devout "holy roller" testing out your devil's advocate to prepare yourself for a debate with some real-world Atheist

 

Somehow I think that you care about the consequences of what the lunatics like me cook up and are hoping that common sense comes through in the end. That is a moral imperative whether you recognize it as such or not...

[Springheel]

Somehow I think that you care about the consequences of what the lunatics like me cook up and are hoping that common sense comes through in the end. That is a moral imperative whether you recognize it as such or not...

 

Well, fair enough. I do care about the world at large, and I do like to promote common sense and critical thinking. I'm not sure I'd call that a moral imperative, but it's not worth quibbling over.

[Mortem Desino]

This thread has done nothing but force me into the shoes of Martin Luther in front of the Diet of Worms. Therefore I make the same request as he did.

 

Give me time. I'm partially refreshed to talk to a man who can speak like he's had philosophical debate experience, but it's extremely psychologically exhausting for me. And I'm supposed to be taking time off (as team members may have read.)

 

However, I most certainly want to eliminate *truth claims* that are based on irrational thinking. When it comes to determining what is actually true or not in the universe around us, irrational thought has no respectable place at all.

Reminds me of my Ecclesiastical Latin class, when we studied the Venerable Bede.

At ille, "O heu pro dolor!" inquit. "Quoniam Deus non de mundo est ."

At this he said, "O jeez, that's too bad. Because God is not of the universe..."

[Springheel]

Give me time. I'm partially refreshed to talk to a man who can speak like he's had philosophical debate experience, but it's extremely psychologically exhausting for me. And I'm supposed to be taking time off

 

Fair enough. The thread isn't going anywhere.

[LEGION]

Whoooo, I got stuck since a while on page 4, read up to the end this day and I must say that I learned many new words (most likely forget them actually due to the little sleep I had) and the discussions were sometimes interesting, amusing and irritating. Oh and that JW-story was scary! Here in Germany no religious fanatics come to my house, at least until now that is...

 

I think people believe in God or/and religion because they simply are hoping that they´re existing/true and therefore seem to get comfortability out of it so there are no reasonable reasons they could provide.

As long es they don´t try to convert others I´m fine with that. I´m not saying that someone here have tried that, I´m just posting my opinion that is not related to someone specific here in this forum.

 

As already was mentioned there is the same amount of good/bad people on both sides. It could be true (though I doubt that) that Christianity helped to form moral opinions as we have them today among most (non-religious)people (seem to based on the ten commandments). But reasonable people can come to that conclusions without religion and the way I see it, I don´t need religion. I live among the golden rule and if god exists and rejects me at the end because I simply didn´t worshiped him, he/she´s not worth a shit. But that view of god is really silly. It´s very likely there is sth outside out of this world that somehow influences this world, that is impossible for our silly minds to understand, but it doesn´t care for our worships or even perceives them. Human beings tend to see themselves more worthy as they really are. And if this being did cared for us, this caring should be long, long, long gone considering what mankind has did to each other in all this many centuries and where are we standing today? Well, it´s not getting better, that´s for sure. But that leads out of this topic...

 

Well, I never read the whole bible, only the parts where myself was mentioned (Mark 5:9) and the Revelation by Johannes. But this discussion made me more curious than ever and I finally come to the conclusion to read this story/history-book. (Damn, so much things I would like to do and so little time... )

 

Two questions are left in my mind that I wanted to ask (no offending stuff!):

 

@Springheel: (if you allow me this question)

As you clearly rejected your faith, how did your surroundings & friends reacted and have you still friendly contacts to those people(I assume they were as faithful as you have been)?

 

@Jdude:

You´ve said that you already felt god in your life, would you mind to talk about that?

 

edit: corrected some misspellings

Edited August 18, 2010 by LEGION

[Midnight]

It could be true (though I doubt that) that Christianity helped to form moral opinions as we have them today among most (non-religious)people (seem to based on the ten commandments). But reasonable people can come to that conclusions without religion and the way I see it, I don´t need religion.

I've been learning a little about medieval life recently (for FM research), and we shouldn't underestimate just how important religion was to society as a whole back then. We tend to project our own morals onto other people, and I'm guilty of having done this when thinking about people who lived hundreds of years ago, but boy were they different to us. Think of public executions, crime and punishment, torture, how women and different classes were treated. Now granted, religion has often been the cause of these things throughout history as I pointed out previously, but there are many cases where society has progressed because of religious sentiments.

 

 

It would be naive to think religion had no part to play in shaping the shared morals of a society so deeply rooted in that religion, and up until a few days ago I would have argued just this. Maybe we can conclude from this that the Bible (or any religious book) is a poor source for morals since our morals are always changing. I understand that many Muslims refer to a version of Islam that gets updated to suit the moral view of the present time (see this article). I don't know much about Islam unfortunately, but if you must rely on a religious text for moral guidance, being able to revise the text certainly seems like a good idea to me (although a flexible book of authority could of course be subject to abuse).

[LEGION]

I understand that many Muslims refer to a version of Islam that gets updated to suit the moral view of the present time (see this article).

That was an interesting article. But what did I just saw there at the end? "New 9/11 photos released!" I can´t believe it...

[Springheel]

@Springheel: (if you allow me this question)

As you clearly rejected your faith, how did your surroundings & friends reacted and have you still friendly contacts to those people(I assume they were as faithful as you have been)?

 

I have a number of people in my family who are still evangelical Christians. Most of them are aware that I'm not a believer anymore, but I don't discuss it with them unless someone else brings it up first (and they generally won't).

 

Maybe we can conclude from this that the Bible (or any religious book) is a poor source for morals since our morals are always changing.

 

The Bible can always be used to support whatever the morality of the time is. It's not like the torturers of the Inquisition hadn't read the Sermon on the Mount. But they chose instead to focus on verses like John 15:6: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned." Christians throughout time have 'cherry-picked' the Bible, quoting the verses that support their view of morality and making excuses for the ones that don't.

 

I understand that many Muslims refer to a version of Islam that gets updated to suit the moral view of the present time

 

I wouldn't go that far...the revision of the hadith (which is different from the Koran itself) is quite a revolutionary undertaking, which is no doubt going to opposed vigorously by conservative Muslims.

 

Still, I heartily applaud their efforts. Islam is basically where Christianity was in the 1400s, except with access to modern technology. If civilization is going to survive, Islam needs to reform itself from the inside out.

[Tudor]

Ha! I love it! I just like to think of the religious this way: the religious man goes the next step from agnostacism by saying that he/she believes that there is a higher being(s) that does not remain silent, but wants to reveal himself.

 

Don't you think Uber-beings do what they do for reasons beyond puny human minds? That's the comfort behind my faith. If we could understand God, then we could find 'fallabilities'. Since He is obviously far beyond my understanding, he's got to be a really powerful guy.

 

I don't quite understand y'all. Eliminate irrational thinking? Are you insane? Irrationality makes us ethical. It makes us HUMAN. Purely for example, emotions are beyond reasoning. I can't explain every thing rationally, and neither can you. Knowledge isn't purely based on logic. We also base it off of experience, even though it might go against logic. Ever read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?

 

Religion, while I don't think it's Opium of the People, I believe it's quite important to man finding his purpose and meaning for life (which has been lost in modern materialism.) Isn't that a human's duty to himself?

 

Can I kiss you?

 

Oh I so wish I could. I agree so much with this.

 

 

I might like to add that I am so far quite atheistic. I of course, oftne fall into some really strong superstition, but have never ever been religious in any way. However I believe there is a joy in being religious, that religion is good and that people that are religious have found something I haven't, but wish I had.

 

I know some simpler things about elementary particles and whatnot. But science is so far from human it is inapplicable to our day to day lives.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Tudor

[Sotha]

I know some simpler things about elementary particles and whatnot. But science is so far from human it is inapplicable to our day to day lives.

 

Eh? Whazzat?

 

 

Science has revolutionized everyones day to day life.

[HappyCheeze]

But science is so far from human it is inapplicable to our day to day lives.

 

Says the person typing on a computer, who (I'm assuming) lives in a house designed by modern architecture and drives a car.

 

Unless you mean something else by inapplicable?

[Tudor]

Oh yes, it was probably the wrong word to use, scientific method is a very non human-like process. That's essentially what I was trying to say, it is hard to grasp, and we are not logical beings, so to me it's something that's hard to apply to your surroundings in every day life, even though I occasionally wonder what the wood in a tree would look like on a microscopic level, why the winds change like they do and things like it, I still think it's a way of thinking that's simply hard to apply to a normal life unless you have some crazy strong autism.

 

 

Maybe I just complicated things further now, what I'm trying to say is science is not for everyone, far from it. And that's a pretty bad thing to me.

 

You know, essentially we are not being scientific in our day to day lives, what science has led to is of course good on many levels.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Tudor

[SneaksieDave]

scientific method is a very non human-like process... we are not logical beings

science is not for everyone, far from it.

 

These are two very different statements, and only the second one is true.

[Mortem Desino]

Sorry that I cannot agree entirely with you, Tudor. We are very scientifically-minded creatures. I think I do understand what you're trying to get at, but it's rather misled. I loved reading science books when I was a young child. The world is fascinating to learn about and perceive from the scientific perspective. Even at the end of high school, I conducted 2 months of experiments, and wrote 20 pages on 'acid rain's effects on wetland microbiology'.

 

No other creatures on earth practice animal husbandry. Simply understanding the germ theory makes you an amazing scientifically-minded creature. Suppose you walk down the street and see a baby grand piano dangling above you, suspended by nothing but a thin rope. Your brilliant scientific mind deduces that you are in danger: that rope cannot possibly hold that piano for very long! Place any other creature in the same position, and they will not determine that they are in grave danger of "piano-fall-on-head."

[Tudor]

Well, yes, I'm terrible at picking the right words sometimes, English is not my first language. But what I'm trying to say is the way we treat ethics and the way we feel towards things does not operate on logic and reason. That is all, I suppose I slipped around a lot there.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Tudor

[Mortem Desino]

Ah. That I can agree with. And while that may be true, logic is a very necessary thing when looking at the world around us. Just don't become a robot to it. Ethics is a very fun subject -- one we can spend 6 months on arguing until we're all red-and-blue-faced.

[Springheel]

But what I'm trying to say is the way we treat ethics and the way we feel towards things does not operate on logic and reason

 

Feelings are certainly not logical. That's why we tend to discourage people from using feelings to determine what is true or false.

 

I'm curious about the comment about ethics, however. You're the second person (at least) in this thread to say that ethics are not rational. What do you mean by that? I think they're much more reasonable than people generally assume.