Religious People: Please Answer Truthfully [Archive]

evolvedForm

02-21-2006, 01:21 AM

To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe? Or is it for some other reason...

If it's the latter (whatever reasons they may be), then you should have no problem whatsoever with people ignoring religion in reasonable debates, and also ignoring any talk of god. These people, most of the time, are arguing what they believe to be most reasonable.

So when posters, like the originator of that last post, claim we are throwing our atheism in your faces, realize that we are actually just searching for the most reasonable solutions. And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable.

Post-post disclaimer: please be honest when answering that first question. Otherwise this could get very silly, very fast.

Sharkey

02-21-2006, 01:32 AM

Anyone who thinks himself God obviously doesn’t have to pay bills every month.

godBoy

02-21-2006, 01:36 AM

I think it's the most reasonable explanation for all I have seen and tested. But, of course I have not seen and/or tested all. So yes my decision has been reasoned.

[ QUOTE ]
So when posters, like the originator of that last post, claim we are throwing our atheism in your faces, realize that we are actually just searching for the most reasonable solutions. And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious that there are truly hard-to-believe stories found in the bible. But if you open yourself up to the possibility of it being right, go to church and encounter God, it's very hard to reason away.

The reason why people believe is because they have encountered God.

Johnny Drama

02-21-2006, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the most reasonable explanation for all I have seen and tested. But, of course I have not seen and/or tested all. So yes my decision has been reasoned.

[ QUOTE ]
So when posters, like the originator of that last post, claim we are throwing our atheism in your faces, realize that we are actually just searching for the most reasonable solutions. And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious that there are truly hard-to-believe stories found in the bible. But if you open yourself up to the possibility of it being right, go to church and encounter God, it's very hard to reason away.

The reason why people believe is because they have encountered God.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think you still would be a Christian if you were born into a Hindu family in India?

Copernicus

02-21-2006, 01:37 AM

godBoy

02-21-2006, 01:38 AM

No. That's not to say that I would not find God.

evolvedForm

02-21-2006, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the most reasonable explanation for all I have seen and tested. But, of course I have not seen and/or tested all. So yes my decision has been reasoned.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking if your decision has been reasoned. All decisions include some form of reasoning. For example, something that is reasoned, but is not reasonable, would sound like this:

Some apples are green. Some apples are red. I have seen more red apples. Therefore, I must conclude that there are more red apples in existence then green ones.

If someone told you this, would you be compelled to agree with him? I would not. Anyway, hopefully that helped you understand. (Sorry if I sound condescending, I just want us to be clear).

[ QUOTE ]

The reason why people believe is because they have encountered God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I must admit, If I encountered God I would believe in Him too. But do you think people really encounter him? Or, maybe I should ask, what exactly do you mean by 'encountering God'?

BCPVP

02-21-2006, 02:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's the most reasonable explanation for all I have seen and tested. But, of course I have not seen and/or tested all. So yes my decision has been reasoned.

[ QUOTE ]
So when posters, like the originator of that last post, claim we are throwing our atheism in your faces, realize that we are actually just searching for the most reasonable solutions. And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious that there are truly hard-to-believe stories found in the bible. But if you open yourself up to the possibility of it being right, go to church and encounter God, it's very hard to reason away.

The reason why people believe is because they have encountered God.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think you still would be a Christian if you were born into a Hindu family in India?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's certainly possible. (http://rzim.org/ravi.php) In fact, IIRC, one of the apostles travelled to India to preach Christ's message.

godBoy

02-21-2006, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking if your decision has been reasoned. All decisions include some form of reasoning. For example, something that is reasoned, but is not reasonable, would sound like this:

Some apples are green. Some apples are red. I have seen more red apples. Therefore, I must conclude that there are more red apples in existence then green ones.

If someone told you this, would you be compelled to agree with him? I would not. Anyway, hopefully that helped you understand. (Sorry if I sound condescending, I just want us to be clear).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I would believe that I have seen more red apples... I wouldn't make conclusions like the one you mentioned.
It's about the numbers though, the vast majority of my experiences have strengthened my faith.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I must admit, If I encountered God I would believe in Him too. But do you think people really encounter him? Or, maybe I should ask, what exactly do you mean by 'encountering God'?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I truly believe people encounter God. encounter - God's spirit touching ours. This can be in many forms, but I have found what happens in worship to be the most compelling. People describe it like being on fire, having your spirit on fire, something deep inside, beyond our emotions, empowered...
The result of these 'encounters' is always positive change.

yukoncpa

02-21-2006, 02:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
People describe it like being on fire, having your spirit on fire, something deep inside, beyond our emotions, empowered...
The result of these 'encounters' is always positive change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this feeling. I've been to church services many times where people have expressed to me that they have these feelings. I am happy for them, but unfortunately, I've never attended a church service that has given me the same type of spiritual feeling that I feel when I f*uck a new girl for the first time, or when I do a fat line of coke.

godBoy

02-21-2006, 02:48 AM

Try visiting a contemporary church that believes in the bible and the holy spirit and you might find the ultimate high you're looking for. The great thing about this drug is you don't come down. I've smoked marijuana and been drunk - the effects are lame compared to that of God's spirit touching mine - and free.

godBoy

02-21-2006, 02:58 AM

Actually, the point you made about sex is a good one.
The bible teaches that sex is a spiritual act, where your spirit touches your partners. This is just like what I am describing, only God's spirit is so much more desirable than a humans.

yukoncpa

02-21-2006, 03:03 AM

Thanks, Godboy.
I've tried dude to feel the spirit, but it just hasn't happened. Maybe in the future.

NotReady

02-21-2006, 03:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe? Or is it for some other reason...

[/ QUOTE ]

This question really has two parts. The first is whether people become Christians through the exercise of reason. The second is whether Christianity can be reasonably defended. They are separate questions.

Very few become Christians through a philosophical effort. I know of no instances in the Bible where this is the case. The only possible exception I can think of is C.S. Lewis, and I think his reasoning process was only part of the story. God does not call us to think through His Word and use our own reasoning powers to decide if we will believe but becoming a Christian does not require us to abandon reason. As Christians, we believe in the relative validity of human reason, but we subject reason to the authority of God's Word, which is obviously reasonable if the Bible is the Word of God. It would be incredibly unreasonable not to do so.

The second part concerns whether Christianity is rationally defensible. I believe it is. I believe it's the only rational worldview. But I don't think it's possible to make the case with absolute certainty through human formulations. The main two reasons for this are our finite capacity and our sinful nature.

bunny

02-21-2006, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe? Or is it for some other reason...

[/ QUOTE ]

My theism seems like the most rational explanation of the world as I experience it. I wouldnt say I believe because of this though - I dont think we choose our beliefs. I certainly dont expect others to form the same views as I have - in fact I think someone basing their belief on my experiences would be behaving irrationally.

evolvedForm

02-21-2006, 12:41 PM

Most of the answers I have received so far seem to be a combination of the two choices. They seem to be saying:

"I believe my religion is the most reasonable story of the universe BECAUSE (for the most part) of personal experiences that have convinced me."

Therefore, we must conclude that these people cannot reasonably expect non-religious people to be convinced by any proselytizing. Also, they cannot logically expect their views to be taken seriously in a debate which rests purely on reasonable grounds; that is, since their views require some degree of personal experience. Furthermore, they must realize it would be unreasonable for someone who uses reason as his only guide, to find the 'revealed truth' of any religion to be a worthy argument.

In conclusion, I make a final plea to religious people to think about this assertment I am making. I am not mocking you. Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this? If not, please show me where my argument fails.

Kurn, son of Mogh

02-21-2006, 01:25 PM

if the Bible is the Word of God.

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it. The Bible we read here in 21st Century English speaking countries (regardless of which version) is a translation of a translation...of a translation of a language nobody speaks any more.

Leaving aside the question of divine inspiration of the original human scribe, that's a pretty long and diverse chain of custody to impact a) accuracy and b) continued divine inspiration.

NotReady

02-21-2006, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. See my original response.

NotReady

02-21-2006, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible we read here in 21st Century English speaking countries (regardless of which version) is a translation of a translation...of a translation of a language nobody speaks any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you think this. We have what are considered very accurate copies of the originals which were written primarily in Hebrew (which I think they still speak somewhere in the world) and a Greek dialect which isn't spoken, though it is closely related to modern Greek, which I think they still speak somewhere in the world. Also, there is no period in history when any of the languages of the Bible weren't known and studied by Bible scholars. There are very few real translation issues, none of which concern the major elements of the Gospel as far as I know. Where there are translation issues it's fairly easy for anyone to find material explaining the various positions by competent scholars and to make their own conclusion.

evolvedForm

02-21-2006, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe? Or is it for some other reason...

[/ QUOTE ]

This question really has two parts. The first is whether people become Christians through the exercise of reason. The second is whether Christianity can be reasonably defended. They are separate questions.

Very few become Christians through a philosophical effort. I know of no instances in the Bible where this is the case. The only possible exception I can think of is C.S. Lewis, and I think his reasoning process was only part of the story. God does not call us to think through His Word and use our own reasoning powers to decide if we will believe but becoming a Christian does not require us to abandon reason. As Christians, we believe in the relative validity of human reason, but we subject reason to the authority of God's Word, which is obviously reasonable if the Bible is the Word of God. It would be incredibly unreasonable not to do so.

The second part concerns whether Christianity is rationally defensible. I believe it is. I believe it's the only rational worldview. But I don't think it's possible to make the case with absolute certainty through human formulations. The main two reasons for this are our finite capacity and our sinful nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so you are admitting that Christians do not become Christians through philosophical effort. Then you say that God does not expect Christians to use reason except as something trivial compared to God's word, which answers all the tough questions already.

In conclusion, you affirm my statement that Christians cannot and should not include their views in a debate that assumes reason to be the only pathway to truth. Please explain to me again why we are not in agreement, if we still are not.

evolvedForm

02-21-2006, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. See my original response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. See my response to that.

NotReady

02-21-2006, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Then you say that God does not expect Christians to use reason except as something trivial compared to God's word, which answers all the tough questions already.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I said. Christianity is not unreasonable and one's reason is involved in the decision to become a Christian, but Christianity isn't based on human reason. God is the source of reason and is therefore ultimate reason. The difficulty is our understanding of reason due to our human limitations and sinfulness. Adam and Eve decided they would ignore the Word of God and invent their own philosophy. Since humanity has abandoned the very source of reason itself it isn't surprising that human reason is a weak and fallible instrument of knowledge. But God is gracious and has revealed His truth to us in spite of ourselves.

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, you affirm my statement that Christians cannot and should not include their views in a debate that assumes reason to be the only pathway to truth. Please explain to me again why we are not in agreement, if we still are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume human reason to be the only pathway to truth then that would be the subject of debate. If you assume that autonomous human reason is the pathway to ANY ultmate truth, that would be the subject of debate.

Kurn, son of Mogh

02-21-2006, 03:14 PM

Well, I'm no Hebrew scholar, but the English spoken even 500 years ago is close to unintelligible to most modern speakers. My point is still the same. there are always translational difficulties even between contemporary languages, as anyone who speaks more than one language can attest.

My argument is basically directed at Biblical literalists and this:

Where there are translation issues it's fairly easy for anyone to find material explaining the various positions by competent scholars and to make their own conclusion.

appears to suggest thast you are not a literalist.

NotReady

02-21-2006, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

but the English spoken even 500 years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of modern translations.

[ QUOTE ]

appears to suggest thast you are not a literalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of confusion over what literal means. Even the most basic, die hard, committed fundamentalist believes that there is figurative languange in the Bible. All language is literal to some extent. All language is figurative to some extent. Take the Bible statement that Jesus was the Lamb of God. This is both literal and figurative. The Lamb is a figure for a literal truth. Jesus was not a four footed animal that goes "baa". He was a sacrifice for human sins.

Kurn, son of Mogh

02-21-2006, 04:11 PM

OK. At least you've explained yourself. And let's be clear that I am not trying to demean your faith. I would never be so arrogant as to try to convince you that your outlook is wrong. Can I expect the same in return?

NotReady

02-21-2006, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would never be so arrogant as to try to convince you that your outlook is wrong. Can I expect the same in return?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's arrogant to explain what and why someone believes. Nor is it arrogant to carry on discussion and debate in a public venue.

I won't try to convince someone who says he has no interest and doesn't want to hear it. But I will defend Christianity when attacked and will try to persuade those who show an interest.

bunny

02-21-2006, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the answers I have received so far seem to be a combination of the two choices. They seem to be saying:

"I believe my religion is the most reasonable story of the universe BECAUSE (for the most part) of personal experiences that have convinced me."

Therefore, we must conclude that these people cannot reasonably expect non-religious people to be convinced by any proselytizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this completely. I have a (reasonably strong) belief in God but I think you would be foolish to alter your beliefs based on this fact. Even the reasons I have for believing (which are rational) shouldnt be particularly interesting to you IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they cannot logically expect their views to be taken seriously in a debate which rests purely on reasonable grounds; that is, since their views require some degree of personal experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should take my view seriously because I am an intelligent person who continually subjects his beliefs to criticism. Although there is no good reason for you to think I am right - I just might be. Given that I acknowledge my assumptions and engage in debate on rational grounds, you only benefit from having a further point of view to consider.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, they must realize it would be unreasonable for someone who uses reason as his only guide, to find the 'revealed truth' of any religion to be a worthy argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a restatement of your first point and I agree that revealed truth is not a rational basis for adopting a belief.

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, I make a final plea to religious people to think about this assertment I am making. I am not mocking you. Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this? If not, please show me where my argument fails.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope I have explained why I think your argument fails. I am a relative newcomer to this board and can see that a large part (even a majority?) of the posts degenerate into pointless slanging matches between two posters with diametrically opposed views. My approach to this is to just not respond if someone seems to be arguing outside the bounds of rationality. I am still glad people with such violently opposed views to mine post here - even if they dont always make sense. My reasons for posting here are purely selfish - I am not interested in persuading anyone of my views, it is a tool for questioning my assumptions and improving the accuracy of my beliefs.

pkr2k5

02-21-2006, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the answers I have received so far seem to be a combination of the two choices. They seem to be saying:

"I believe my religion is the most reasonable story of the universe BECAUSE (for the most part) of personal experiences that have convinced me."

Therefore, we must conclude that these people cannot reasonably expect non-religious people to be convinced by any proselytizing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this completely. I have a (reasonably strong) belief in God but I think you would be foolish to alter your beliefs based on this fact. Even the reasons I have for believing (which are rational) shouldnt be particularly interesting to you IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they cannot logically expect their views to be taken seriously in a debate which rests purely on reasonable grounds; that is, since their views require some degree of personal experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should take my view seriously because I am an intelligent person who continually subjects his beliefs to criticism. Although there is no good reason for you to think I am right - I just might be. Given that I acknowledge my assumptions and engage in debate on rational grounds, you only benefit from having a further point of view to consider.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, they must realize it would be unreasonable for someone who uses reason as his only guide, to find the 'revealed truth' of any religion to be a worthy argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a restatement of your first point and I agree that revealed truth is not a rational basis for adopting a belief.

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, I make a final plea to religious people to think about this assertment I am making. I am not mocking you. Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this? If not, please show me where my argument fails.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope I have explained why I think your argument fails. I am a relative newcomer to this board and can see that a large part (even a majority?) of the posts degenerate into pointless slanging matches between two posters with diametrically opposed views. My approach to this is to just not respond if someone seems to be arguing outside the bounds of rationality. I am still glad people with such violently opposed views to mine post here - even if they dont always make sense. My reasons for posting here are purely selfish - I am not interested in persuading anyone of my views, it is a tool for questioning my assumptions and improving the accuracy of my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to hear some of your rational reasons for believing in God.

Also, do you agree that it is very *difficult* for theists and atheists to argue on the existence of God? Generally(AFAIK), having felt the presence of God, or having faith in him, is not something quantitative that can be presented to those who have not experienced it (such as myself).

For what its worth, I grew up as a Catholic but have since *unofficially* spiritually departed from the religion. I have not necessarily lost the belief that there is a God, but I do feel, as do many others, that there are better ways of worship than through certain worldly religions.

PastorDavidDD

02-22-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe? Or is it for some other reason...

If it's the latter (whatever reasons they may be), then you should have no problem whatsoever with people ignoring religion in reasonable debates, and also ignoring any talk of god. These people, most of the time, are arguing what they believe to be most reasonable.

So when posters, like the originator of that last post, claim we are throwing our atheism in your faces, realize that we are actually just searching for the most reasonable solutions. And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable.

Post-post disclaimer: please be honest when answering that first question. Otherwise this could get very silly, very fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable."

I'm trying to understand your post and the mind behind it. For instance, what exactly does your quoted sentence above mean? Earth people? U.S. people? People you know personally? Have you seen a study I'm not aware of? I'm always trying to learn more about people who are atheists. Thanks in advance for any answers, direction, or additional facts you can provide about the reasoning behind your beliefs or lack thereof.

---

I've been a born again Christian for 70 years.

Your Question:
To all religious people: do you believe in your religion because you think it's the most reasonable story of the universe?

My Answer:
Yes, but my faith is not limited to that alone.

1. I believe with my spirit (my strongest seat of belief). God reinforced my spirit with the Holy Spirit, when I was twelve. My faith, in the spirit, after that event, has been to a degree approaching 100%. Since God has 100% belief in God - if I had perfect control over my human spirit - my belief would be 100% at all times. Notice I typed "approaching 100%".

2. I believe with my soul (not as strongly as with the spirit, due to the darker thoughts of the physical mind that sometimes creep in and cloud the inner skies...but still quite firmly and well reasoned through).

3. I believe with my body (quite strongly at 82 years of age, but the flesh is still weak - though not in control as often as when I was younger, and my faith...though strong even then...was sometimes placed on the back burner for short periods of time).

None of this is a surprise to any well read Christian, since the Bible clearly addresses (in many places) the fact that 100% perfect human faith has rarely been seen on the earth. I'm not one of those extremely rare ones.

bunny

02-22-2006, 01:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you agree that it is very *difficult* for theists and atheists to argue on the existence of God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is almost impossible. I am interested in discussing it with atheists as this challenges my beliefs and allows me to refine and confirm or chang them. I have no desire to change others - that is for them imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Generally(AFAIK), having felt the presence of God, or having faith in him, is not something quantitative that can be presented to those who have not experienced it (such as myself).

For what its worth, I grew up as a Catholic but have since *unofficially* spiritually departed from the religion. I have not necessarily lost the belief that there is a God, but I do feel, as do many others, that there are better ways of worship than through certain worldly religions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think discussions such as this fall within the category of theology rather than philosophy. I agree with you that here is not the place to have such discussions (at least I think that is your view).

booger

02-22-2006, 03:27 AM

There has to be a God looking at your massaging avatar

evolvedForm

02-22-2006, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is not unreasonable and one's reason is involved in the decision to become a Christian, but Christianity isn't based on human reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So in the context of a debate that uses human reason, Christianity has no claim, since it assumes 'God's reason.' Unfortunately for Christians, God doesn't come to earth to debate for them, so I guess you're kinda screwed.

All kidding aside, I think you are compelled to agree with me that in a debate using human reason (which was the topic of my original question) religion holds no water. Unless, that is, the religionist agrees to remove the 'sacred text' aspect and agrees to the same rules as everybody else, which is that if you make a claim, you must back it up.

On a related note, I would really like to see a 'philosophical' debate between a christian, a jew, a muslim, a hindu, a buddhist, a mormon, a scientologist, etc. Would it not resemble a group of squabbling children, saying "I'm right!" "NO, I'M RIGHT!"

Religion and philosophy do not mix. That said, NR, you may still have a future in sophistry /images/graemlins/grin.gif

evolvedForm

02-22-2006, 11:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable."

I'm trying to understand your post and the mind behind it. For instance, what exactly does your quoted sentence above mean? Earth people? U.S. people? People you know personally? Have you seen a study I'm not aware of? I'm always trying to learn more about people who are atheists. Thanks in advance for any answers, direction, or additional facts you can provide about the reasoning behind your beliefs or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PastorDavid, Most religionists I've known -- and I used to be one, so I've known many -- are not religious because they sought out the truth of the universe. Most had not studied any other religions or philosophies. They had almost all been born into religious families or seduced into their religion at weak points in their lives. Once again, I assert, it did not come from a quest for truth. I had such a quest, and it has led me to my current position. The quest hasn't ended, and I will almost certainly never know the 'truth' but on the way I can eliminate certain possiblities. Religion - in a specific form - is one of those possibilities. In fact, I am 99.99999% certain that no particular religion states the truth as it claims. And among religions, I find Christianity to be one of the least truthful, and thus most deleterious, religions. Buddhism and Hinduism are among those higher on my list - although as I said earlier, none rank too high.

Now, I said I am not religious. I am also an atheist, but the two are not equivalent. I am not nearly as sure that there is no super human being or spirit as I am that religion is false. I'd say I'm indifferent on that distinction, because I think thinking about it is a useless human endeavor. That's why it's easier to say I'm an atheist and go on my way, striving to live a healthy and productive life.

I hope you can do the same (the latter of course).

RJT

02-23-2006, 12:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the answers I have received so far seem to be a combination of the two choices. They seem to be saying:

"I believe my religion is the most reasonable story of the universe BECAUSE (for the most part) of personal experiences that have convinced me."

Therefore, we must conclude that these people cannot reasonably expect non-religious people to be convinced by any proselytizing. Also, they cannot logically expect their views to be taken seriously in a debate which rests purely on reasonable grounds; that is, since their views require some degree of personal experience. Furthermore, they must realize it would be unreasonable for someone who uses reason as his only guide, to find the 'revealed truth' of any religion to be a worthy argument.

In conclusion, I make a final plea to religious people to think about this assertment I am making. I am not mocking you. Rather, I wish you well in your own beliefs, so long as they do not take part in reasonable discussion. Can we agree on this? If not, please show me where my argument fails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you agree that anyone who believes (feels, thinks - however one wants to say it) that there is no God also falls into your same thoughts here, then I have no problem with these remarks.

Basically, I think we can all agree that we cannot be certain of these things. So when you talk about views being taken seriously, there isn’t a whole lot that really should be taken seriously by anyone. I mean this in the context of how you seem to be defining “reasonable discussion” (how I understand your words “reasonable discussion”). Not really positive what you have in mind when evaluating “reasonable discussion”, but no philosophy that I have read would meet your criteria either.

Bottom line - based on your (apparent) criteria, there really isn’t anything to talk about. Therefore “reasonable discussion” is moot or at least oxymoronic.

NotReady

02-23-2006, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So in the context of a debate that uses human reason, Christianity has no claim, since it assumes 'God's reason.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to back up here. You need to define what you mean by reason.

[ QUOTE ]

I think you are compelled to agree with me that in a debate using human reason (which was the topic of my original question) religion holds no water.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human reason assumes the non-existence of God. So you are formally correct. But human reason can't establish this most fundamental presupposition. And I can show that if human reason is the highest standard of knowledge then it's impossible to justify itself or to find ultimate meaning or purpose.

[ QUOTE ]

Religion and philosophy do not mix. That said, NR, you may still have a future in sophistry

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't distinguish religion (theology) and philosophy. Please explain where I have engaged in sophistry.

evolvedForm

02-23-2006, 12:34 AM

That's a nice straw man you've built. Now, let's tear him down.

By reasonable discussion, I mean that if you make a claim, you must back it up either with evidence or a sound argument. Religion utilizes neither of these; it relies on faith in a sacred text.

Also, you confused the term 'religion' with the term 'god.' I am not opposed to philosophically debating the existence of god (although I don't see that going anywhere).

My point is that if you have to say: "I can't offer a logical argument for my religion's veracity, other than the fact that I believe in it," you don't have a philosophical argument, and you hinder the progress of the debate. And that is what you must say, because all religions rely on a degree of faith.

If you disagree with me, don't try to play with the logic or beat up straw men. Just prove me wrong. Give me a rational, logical argument for the truth of your religion, and let's have a debate. Of course, just as you wouldn't let me say, "God is dead; Nietzsche said so," and get away with it, I won't let you say, "Jesus died for our sins; the bible said so."

evolvedForm

02-23-2006, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think we need to back up here. You need to define what you mean by reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

The normal everyday usage of reason is fine.

[ QUOTE ]

Human reason assumes the non-existence of God. So you are formally correct. But human reason can't establish this most fundamental presupposition. And I can show that if human reason is the highest standard of knowledge then it's impossible to justify itself or to find ultimate meaning or purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human reason is the only tool we have to argue with. Even if you believe God endowed us with it, you still must believe we are the only ones using it. So you are using human reason now, even if you are trying to prove God's existence. Thus it makes no assumption about the non-existence of God. Where did you come up with that idea?

RJT

02-23-2006, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's a nice straw man you've built. Now, let's tear him down.

By reasonable discussion, I mean that if you make a claim, you must back it up either with evidence or a sound argument. Religion utilizes neither of these; it relies on faith in a sacred text.

Also, you confused the term 'religion' with the term 'god.' I am not opposed to philosophically debating the existence of god (although I don't see that going anywhere).

My point is that if you have to say: "I can't offer a logical argument for my religion's veracity, other than the fact that I believe in it," you don't have a philosophical argument, and you hinder the progress of the debate. And that is what you must say, because all religions rely on a degree of faith.

If you disagree with me, don't try to play with the logic or beat up straw men. Just prove me wrong. Give me a rational, logical argument for the truth of your religion, and let's have a debate. Of course, just as you wouldn't let me say, "God is dead; Nietzsche said so," and get away with it, I won't let you say, "Jesus died for our sins; the bible said so."

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there was a basic misunderstanding on my part. With this post of yours, I take it that a theist is the one who wants to bring a discussion to the table. That being the case then there isn’t much I can disagree with you about.

I had assumed the opposite, since you are the one who started the discussion.

I guess if you are actually asking a non-rhetorical question my answer is (paraphrasing Thomas Merton) that faith takes over when reason can say no more. So I agree with you. This seems obvious to me. Not really sure the whole point, I guess.

NotReady

02-23-2006, 02:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The normal everyday usage of reason is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this assume anything?

[ QUOTE ]

Human reason is the only tool we have to argue with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is itself an assumption.

[ QUOTE ]

Thus it makes no assumption about the non-existence of God. Where did you come up with that idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

From your statement that human reason is all we have to work with.

evolvedForm

02-23-2006, 12:02 PM

Doesn't everything boil down to an assumption? I called you a sophist because you don't seem to be concerned with furthering the debate, but hindering it by being deliberately obstinate.

If you can give a good reason why my assumption is invalid, then do so. Don't just say it's an assumption and disregard it. Where is this 'other' reason you allude to? And if it is God's reason, how is it used in a debate?

Remember, we are talking about debates among humans.

NotReady

02-23-2006, 12:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't everything boil down to an assumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are required to make assumptions in order to use reason.

[ QUOTE ]

I called you a sophist because you don't seem to be concerned with furthering the debate, but hindering it by being deliberately obstinate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain where I did this.

[ QUOTE ]

If you can give a good reason why my assumption is invalid, then do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean that human reason has no validity. I mean the assumption that human reason is all we have is self-defeating. If the highest standard of truth is human reason then reason is the product of the impersonal and/or chance and thus fundamentally irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

Where is this 'other' reason you allude to? And if it is God's reason, how is it used in a debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe God is the source of reason. He created us in His image which includes the ability to reason analogous to but vastly inferior to His reason. That's why the Christian theistic worldview is the only rational worldview - it is based on ultimate rationality, all other worldviews are based on ultimate irrationality.

evolvedForm

02-24-2006, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe God is the source of reason. He created us in His image which includes the ability to reason analogous to but vastly inferior to His reason. That's why the Christian theistic worldview is the only rational worldview - it is based on ultimate rationality, all other worldviews are based on ultimate irrationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a worldview sees the world as ultimately irrational does not mean it was come to by an irrational method.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mean that human reason has no validity. I mean the assumption that human reason is all we have is self-defeating. If the highest standard of truth is human reason then reason is the product of the impersonal and/or chance and thus fundamentally irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to make the assumption that truth must be rational. In your philosophical quest it seems you excluded all possiblilities of truth that are irrational. Maybe what you look for is not Truth, but Rationality?

In any case, we finally have a debate.

One area for debate seems to be: What is the goal of philosophy? I say it is to find truth, without excluding any possible answers. You seem to say (according to your previous answers) that the ultimate goal of philosophy is to find the most rational of all possible answers. This is grounds for further discussion.

Second, we have before us the question of what should constitute the means of philosophical debate. I have stated my case that humans must give sufficient reasons for their beliefs, and they cannot rely on sacred texts or divine revelation. That would be a confusion with theology, which I (am not the first) to define as a discipline that assumes the truth of something before setting off for discussion.

You then countered by saying that, by making that assertion, I am assuming human reason as the only pathway to truth. This is a tough argument for me to counter, and it is certainly a harsh indictment of the entire history of philosophy.

Before either of us answer either question, I want to make sure both of us are clear that these are our respective positions. If I distorted something, or you want to clear something up, please do that now before we go further.

NotReady

02-25-2006, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Just because a worldview sees the world as ultimately irrational does not mean it was come to by an irrational method.

[/ QUOTE ]
`

If the irrational is ultimate then rationality itself is an illusion. All meaning and purpose are illusory and though you might call a method rational it would have no significance.

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to make the assumption that truth must be rational. In your philosophical quest it seems you excluded all possiblilities of truth that are irrational. Maybe what you look for is not Truth, but Rationality?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I look for is truth. I don't understand the concept of irrational truth so at this time I believe all truth is rational.

[ QUOTE ]

What is the goal of philosophy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that all goals should be to glorify God as the ultimate goal of all creation. Philosophy is just one branch of learning, one method of expressing truth.

[ QUOTE ]

I have stated my case that humans must give sufficient reasons for their beliefs, and they cannot rely on sacred texts or divine revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said in an earlier post that you assume the non-existence of God. If you exclude the Word of God, that is basically doing the same thing. If you want to make human reason the ultimate standard of truth then I think it's fair to ask you to justify that position. If you can't then we can discuss the consequences if that presupposition is true.

[ QUOTE ]

it is certainly a harsh indictment of the entire history of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is. The Bible makes that same indictment where it says "the world in its wisdom did not come to know God" and "the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God".

evolvedForm

02-27-2006, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the irrational is ultimate then rationality itself is an illusion. All meaning and purpose are illusory and though you might call a method rational it would have no significance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The method I used to come to the conclusion that the world is irrational was through observation of the natural world, thinking about the history of religion/philosophy, giving serious consideration to the philosophical method called Genealogy (not the scientific one), and closely examining my own psychology as it relates to my worldview.

Are you saying these things have no significance? Relying on sacred text is more rational?

[ QUOTE ]
What I look for is truth. I don't understand the concept of irrational truth so at this time I believe all truth is rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Life is often irrational. Does that make it false?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that all goals should be to glorify God as the ultimate goal of all creation. Philosophy is just one branch of learning, one method of expressing truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why Christians should not take part in philosophical debate. They never let it get off the ground.

[ QUOTE ]

I said in an earlier post that you assume the non-existence of God. If you exclude the Word of God, that is basically doing the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very wrong. Philosophical debate sets off with the intention of assuming nothing. If the existence of the Christian God becomes the most reasonable conculsion of a debate then it should be taken seriously.

[ QUOTE ]

If you want to make human reason the ultimate standard of truth then I think it's fair to ask you to justify that position. If you can't then we can discuss the consequences if that presupposition is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have some consequences in mind that I haven't already considered, I would be surprised. I would rather have it said that nothing by itself is an ultimate standard of truth. However, human reason is what we're left with, unless we choose to believe in dogma. If we choose the latter, the consequences for life on earth would be much more severe. Just look at the history of religion.

NotReady

02-28-2006, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The method I used to come to the conclusion that the world is irrational was through observation of the natural world ...
Are you saying these things have no significa nce? Relying on sacred text is more rational?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't derive ultimate truth through observation. Humans are finite and human reason is limited and flawed. All our reasoning must begin with assumptions about ultimate reality. The assumptions of a non-theistic worldview amount to the impersonal and chance. If there is no ultimate reason behind the universe, the universe is irrational. If the ultimate principle of interpretation is irrational there can be no ultimate meaning and thus no ultimate significance. The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate and that He is rational. It is only the Christian theistic worldview that produces any justification for believing in ultimate rationality.

[ QUOTE ]

Life is often irrational. Does that make it false?

[/ QUOTE ]

That life often appears irrational is both a true and a rational statement. But if the universe is ultimately irrational there could be no concept of ultimate truth. Any statement of relative truth would itself be meaningless. There is an inherent contradiction in saying the universe is ultimately irrational, because all of our truth statements assume rationality, but that statement denies rationality. It is basically saying that A is non-A. This schizophrenia exists at least incipiently in all non-theistic worldviews.

[ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why Christians should not take part in philosophical debate. They never let it get off the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I never let get off the ground is the assumption that the universe can be irrational while also assuming that human reasoning can still have meaning.

[ QUOTE ]

You're very wrong. Philosophical debate sets off with the intention of assuming nothing. If the existence of the Christian God becomes the most reasonable conculsion of a debate then it should be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible to assume nothing. How could the existence of the Christian God become the most reasonable conclusion unless you assume something about reason? The primary assumption made by human philosophy, which can never be demonstrated, is that human reason is competent to decide questions of ultimate truth, to decide whether or not God is reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]

If you have some consequences in mind that I haven't already considered, I would be surprised. I would rather have it said that nothing by itself is an ultimate standard of truth. However, human reason is what we're left with ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You make assumptions in this paragraph. You assume there is no ultimate standard of truth. You assume human reason is what we're left with. This is what I said earlier, you are basically saying the universe is irrational but somehow human reason has significance.

Bork

02-28-2006, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That life often appears irrational is both a true and a rational statement. But if the universe is ultimately irrational there could be no concept of ultimate truth. Any statement of relative truth would itself be meaningless. There is an inherent contradiction in saying the universe is ultimately irrational, because all of our truth statements assume rationality, but that statement denies rationality. It is basically saying that A is non-A. This schizophrenia exists at least incipiently in all non-theistic worldviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't human beings find some truth through reason even if there is no God?

I agree if there is no God human reasoning has no meaning in the cosmic sense, but meaning in that sense is not the kind of meaning that is necessary for truth or rationality to flourish. All that is necessary for that is mere linguistic meaning. There need not be some perfectly rational ultimate being for people to have their own imperfect system of reason which rests on some linguistically meaningful assumptions and hopefully leads to more true than false beliefs.

I worry that you are saying if no God then no rationality, is this a misunderstanding? If not why do you think God is necessary for any kind of rational truth seeking (and possibly acquiring) to take place? It is not clear to me how rational pursuits could depend on cosmic meaning.

NotReady

02-28-2006, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't human beings find some truth through reason even if there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before that all non-theistic worldviews reduce in the end to pragmatism. Thank God they do and people don't follow through on the logical consequences of ultimate irrationality.

[ QUOTE ]

I worry that you are saying if no God then no rationality, is this a misunderstanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I mean. In logic, morality and science, if there is no God then there is no justification for them, thus pragmatism.

[ QUOTE ]

It is not clear to me how rational pursuits could depend on cosmic meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't depend on it in a relative and pragmatic sense. But rationality as a concept requires ultimate rationality. Nietzsche said there are no absolutes, which by the way is itself an absolute. He then proceeded to lay out his opinion of what are the absolutes. The primary one was live Life. Pragmatism. The only answer to Hume's attack on induction is - "It works" - again, pragmatism.

The Book of Ecclesiates, written by the wisest man up until that point, Solomon, beautifully anticipates this. Throughout the book "The Preacher" obverves the futility and meaninglessness or vanity of everything "under the sun", which I belive means the world without God.

hmkpoker

02-28-2006, 02:56 PM

People believe in God because it makes life easier and ensures a favorable afterlife.

Thus, pragmatism.

NotReady

02-28-2006, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

People believe in God because it makes life easier and ensures a favorable afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is the case, and your statement is simplistic, it doesn't make it false. Christ said "Take my yoke upon you for My burden is easy and My yoke is light". There is a burden for "Whom the Lord loves He disciplines". And I don't claim purity of motive - God forgives us even if we come to Him with mixed motives. He didn't come to save the righteous, but sinners.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This schizophrenia exists at least incipiently in all non-theistic worldviews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that this incipient/latent schizoprenia is manifested thru the religious expression.

hmkpoker

02-28-2006, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People believe in God because it makes life easier and ensures a favorable afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is the case, and your statement is simplistic, it doesn't make it false. Christ said "Take my yoke upon you for My burden is easy and My yoke is light". There is a burden for "Whom the Lord loves He disciplines". And I don't claim purity of motive - God forgives us even if we come to Him with mixed motives. He didn't come to save the righteous, but sinners.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are overcomplicating things.

As it stands, faith in God gets you into Heaven. Lack of faith in God gets you into Hell.

If all human beings were to cease existing after death, would there be any reason for you to have faith in God?

bunny

02-28-2006, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If all human beings were to cease existing after death, would there be any reason for you to have faith in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how belief in an afterlife is a logical prerequisite for a belief in God. Can you explain this to me?

PastorDavidDD

02-28-2006, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable."

I'm trying to understand your post and the mind behind it. For instance, what exactly does your quoted sentence above mean? Earth people? U.S. people? People you know personally? Have you seen a study I'm not aware of? I'm always trying to learn more about people who are atheists. Thanks in advance for any answers, direction, or additional facts you can provide about the reasoning behind your beliefs or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PastorDavid, Most religionists I've known -- and I used to be one, so I've known many -- are not religious because they sought out the truth of the universe. Most had not studied any other religions or philosophies. They had almost all been born into religious families or seduced into their religion at weak points in their lives. Once again, I assert, it did not come from a quest for truth. I had such a quest, and it has led me to my current position. The quest hasn't ended, and I will almost certainly never know the 'truth' but on the way I can eliminate certain possiblities. Religion - in a specific form - is one of those possibilities. In fact, I am 99.99999% certain that no particular religion states the truth as it claims. And among religions, I find Christianity to be one of the least truthful, and thus most deleterious, religions. Buddhism and Hinduism are among those higher on my list - although as I said earlier, none rank too high.

Now, I said I am not religious. I am also an atheist, but the two are not equivalent. I am not nearly as sure that there is no super human being or spirit as I am that religion is false. I'd say I'm indifferent on that distinction, because I think thinking about it is a useless human endeavor. That's why it's easier to say I'm an atheist and go on my way, striving to live a healthy and productive life.

I hope you can do the same (the latter of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

------------

Thanks for your answers.

"...striving to live a healthy and productive life. I hope you can do the same..."
As for your concern. I believe I have and still am. Thanks again. Best wishes to you, also.

"And, it just so happens that most people don't find religion that reasonable."
Do you know of any studies that support that statement?

(Sorry I was late replying. Your thread had faded from the front page when I first returned and I totally missed your reply until someone bumped it back to page 1.)

hmkpoker

02-28-2006, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all human beings were to cease existing after death, would there be any reason for you to have faith in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how belief in an afterlife is a logical prerequisite for a belief in God. Can you explain this to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady was bashing pragmatism, despite the fact that religion is pragmatic. Most Christians do it because they believe they need to be saved, you've said that you do it because it is subjectively/spiritually fulfilling; the belief has a useful purpose no matter what way you slice it.

What religion tells people "ok, follow this religion, and you'll be no better, or even worse off for doing so"?

NotReady

02-28-2006, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady was bashing pragmatism

[/ QUOTE ]

I was bashing the idea that non-theistic worldviews are anything but pragmatic, the pretense that it's possible to justify ultimate rationality while assuming ultimate irrationality. Of course Christianity has a pragmatic side - believe and be saved. But theists also make a claim for objective, rational truth - i.,e., theism isn't pragmatic only. You can't reduce Christianity to mere pragmatism because God is bigger than Christianity - He is independent and uncaused, absolute truth and rationality.

hmkpoker

02-28-2006, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady was bashing pragmatism

[/ QUOTE ]

I was bashing the idea that non-theistic worldviews are anything but pragmatic, the pretense that it's possible to justify ultimate rationality while assuming ultimate irrationality. Of course Christianity has a pragmatic side - believe and be saved. But theists also make a claim for objective, rational truth - i.,e., theism isn't pragmatic only. You can't reduce Christianity to mere pragmatism because God is bigger than Christianity - He is independent and uncaused, absolute truth and rationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if all human beings were to simply cease to exist after they die, what motivation would you have to put faith in God?

NotReady

02-28-2006, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Again, if all human beings were to simply cease to exist after they die, what motivation would you have to put faith in God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. It would depend on whether He existed and what He told us. If Christ died so that instead of going to hell we would be annihilated, for instance, that would be relevant. If Christ died so that our lives would be better while they lasted, that would be relevant. It's difficult to answer a hypothetical when not all of the parameters have been delineated. And as I said, I don't claim my motives are pure. That has nothing to do with the truth or not of Christianity.

hmkpoker

02-28-2006, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If Christ died so that instead of going to hell we would be annihilated, for instance, that would be relevant. If Christ died so that our lives would be better while they lasted, that would be relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say yes to the former; in this situation, Christ was sent to earth to save people from hell (by enabling annihilation as the alternative). (I'd like to, for the purposes of isolating the degree of pragmatism, say no to the latter, because if faith in God makes your life better now, that becomes a pragmatic reason for faith)

So there. There's a God, he created the world, and Jesus died so no one goes to Hell. You're going to become dust either way. What is the point of having faith?

NotReady

02-28-2006, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There's a God, he created the world, and Jesus died so no one goes to Hell. You're going to become dust either way. What is the point of having faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

hmkpoker

03-01-2006, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's a God, he created the world, and Jesus died so no one goes to Hell. You're going to become dust either way. What is the point of having faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

oof, that is a bit screwed up, let me try again:

The Bible says that God created the world, that man sinned, and that Jesus saved man by giving all men annihilation instead of damnation.

The Bible also includes a bunch of other guidelines to live by (ten commandments, psalms, proverbs, beatitudes, etc.) And it tells you to love Jesus and love your Creator.

What motivation is there to do any of these things if there's no reward or punishment for it?

NotReady

03-01-2006, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible says that

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean "If the Bible says that"

[ QUOTE ]

What motivation is there to do any of these things if there's no reward or punishment for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one motivation would be it's better to be annihilated than suffer eternal punishment. I'm assuming faith is required to avoid the punishment. If not, then the motivation probably wouldn't exist for sinners.

The Bible says we are all sinners, none of us genuinely seek for God, none of us deserve to be saved. When someone is saved he doesn't come to God with a pure heart. On the contrary, his heart is evil, that's why he needs salvation. God requires faith, not a pure heart then faith. Paul said "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". He died for His enemies. That's part of the evidence for the unfathomable greatness of God.

hmkpoker

03-01-2006, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Bible says that

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean "If the Bible says that"

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made it explicitly clear that this is a hypothetical. The "if," at this point, should be implied.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What motivation is there to do any of these things if there's no reward or punishment for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one motivation would be it's better to be annihilated than suffer eternal punishment. I'm assuming faith is required to avoid the punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's see, so far I've said:

[ QUOTE ]
If all human beings were to cease existing after death, would there be any reason for you to have faith in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, if all human beings were to simply cease to exist after they die, what motivation would you have to put faith in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a God, he created the world, and Jesus died so no one goes to Hell. You're going to become dust either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please pay attention.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, then the motivation probably wouldn't exist for sinners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus, the reason you do all the stuff in the Bible is for personal reward, and, hence, pragmatism.

NotReady

03-01-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Please pay attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also said:

[ QUOTE ]

Christ was sent to earth to save people from hell (by enabling annihilation as the alternative)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was unclear what you meant.

That's why I said:

[ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming faith is required to avoid the punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Thus, the reason you do all the stuff in the Bible is for personal reward, and, hence, pragmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point about pragmatism had nothing to do with human motivation. I meant that non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism logically. There is no rational basis for the worldview. There is no rational basis to believe there is order in the universe. But theism provides a rational basis. God is absolute rationality, He created an ordered universe, the universe makes sense because God exists. Rewards, etc., are not the only reason why we OUGHT to obey God. It's rational to obey the Creator and irrational to disobey Him. The fact that we initially respond to God in part because of rewards or avoiding punishment doesn't make Christianity pragmatic in the philosophical sense. It affirms what the Bible says about humans and the evil nature of their heart.

hmkpoker

03-01-2006, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I meant that non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism logically. There is no rational basis to believe there is order in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you define order?

[ QUOTE ]
Rewards, etc., are not the only reason why we OUGHT to obey God. It's rational to obey the Creator and irrational to disobey Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absence of any reward or punishment, I fail to see why. If I enjoy premarital or even homosexual sex, listening to Marilyn Manson, sleeping in on Sunday, and I think abortions are useful, what reason do I have not to go through with any of these things?

NotReady

03-01-2006, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

How do you define order?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]

what reason do I have not to go through with any of these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know.

hmkpoker

03-01-2006, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant that non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism logically. There is no rational basis for the worldview. There is no rational basis to believe there is order in the universe. But theism provides a rational basis. God is absolute rationality, He created an ordered universe, the universe makes sense because God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you define order?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I declare myself the winner of this argument.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is not unreasonable and one's reason is involved in the decision to become a Christian, but Christianity isn't based on human reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady:

If Christianity is unreasonable, ie: it made claims that were directly falsifiable. Which what I would define as reason to determine truth. Then would it be false or simply based on "human" reason?

What would you define as "non human reason"? Can something be false and true at the same time, without changing the definition of the words involved?

NotReady

03-01-2006, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Then would it be false or simply based on "human" reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]

What would you define as "non human reason"?

[/ QUOTE ]

God's reason. I should clarify that I'm talkng about human ability to reason. Reason is one. God reasons perfectly, humans imperfectly.

[ QUOTE ]

Can something be false and true at the same time,

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 02:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I meant that non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism logically.
There is no rational basis for the worldview. There is no rational basis to believe there is order in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be right, perhaps I'm not understanding you fully. The rational basis in believing in order in the universe is simply that it has been tested time and time again. So it is rational to believe that gravity applies to me as well as to a rock in Kansas. Even though I have never been to Kansas. It is perfectly rational to believe that gravity applies everywhere (or order in the universe).
However believing that there is no gravity in Kansas, would not be rational because I (and others) have never found a situation where it did not apply.

In other words it is rational to think the same rules apply (order is everywhere) because we haven't found that they don't. When they don't the rules are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

But theism provides a rational basis. God is absolute rationality, He created an ordered universe, the universe makes sense because God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the universe makes sense because it exists.

NotReady

03-01-2006, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The rational basis in believing in order in the universe is simply that it has been tested time and time again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely Hume's point. You can't prove order based on experience. That you have seen the sun rise 1 billion times in a row doesn't prove that it will rise tomorrow. You assume order in the universe and then after many experiences of the same thing you conclude the future will be like the past. Given the assumption, it's rational to believe the law, but the assumption can't itself be demonstrated.

We had a long thread on Hume a while back, you might want to check it out. The difficulty he raised is well known in philosophy and the philosophy of science. Betrand Russell and others admitted he can't be answered. I believe it was Popper who said the only answer is that "It works" - which is true, I believe, because God created the universe to behave in a predictable way - but the fact that it works doesn't amount to a rational justification.