dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Would it be true to say that faith is at its greatest when the belief is unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with all known natural laws? And faith is at is least when consistent with all known natural laws and supported by lots of evidence? If so, are faith and reason diametrical opposites? Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Faith is the spack filler between what somebody wants to believe and what can be proven or deduced logically. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Faith is the spack filler between what somebody wants to believe and what can be proven or deduced logically. Elegantly put, D! But why do some people find a huge space to be filled and others little or none? Link to post Share on other sites
knaveman Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Better yet, why do so many need to disprove or nullify others faith in anything? Why poke holes in something you don't believe in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 For me personally it depends on whether or not I perceive the belief to be harmful or somehow impacting on the way I live. When religious minority groups lobby governments to have their twisted morality legislated based on their faith, then it becomes an issue to me. If somebody I know wants to join a dangerous cult then I will try to talk them out of it because it's the right thing to do. And if nothing else, making somebody think about their own beliefs and how they act upon them is seldom a bad thing. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
wuggle Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 If so, are faith and reason diametrical opposites? Basically IMO, yep. Faith is, as D says, the complete absence of reason. Better yet, why do so many need to disprove or nullify others faith in anything? Why poke holes in something you don't believe in the first place? I think if you look objectively at people of faith and people of reason, you will find examples of people in both camps who without 'provokation' will try to 'poke holes' in the arguments or beliefs of the other camp. IMHO however, this is much more likely to come from 'faith' based camps. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Faith and doubt are opposites. Reason and raw emotion are opposities. What is the opposite of Spock? Anyone? Faith without reason is fanaticism. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I think it is fallacious to think that no person of reason can reject evidence. There are issues of creditability, and reliability with respect to your sources. Maybe from your viewpoint, people of faith have no creditabilty. With no creditability, there is no evidence to challenge your own evidence. But I don't think evidence was ever really an issue. Maybe religion never really fit into the framework forming your preception of reality, so you just discarded it like any other ill-fitting puzzle piece. I don't think reason is necessarily rooted in evidence or the truth. I guess Spock can lie if it is the best solution. If you are committed to finding the truth, then you have your work cut out for you. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Better yet, why do so many need to disprove or nullify others faith in anything? Why poke holes in something you don't believe in the first place? The next really important development in the world will be the secularization of the Western democracies. This means withdrawing public funding or tax breaks for religious organizations, faith schools, and other organizations and ending religious programming in public broadcasting. In the UK, the disestablishment of the Church of England is necessary. In some countries, laws relating to blasphemy and sacrilege will need to be repealed. Religion will then be unable to proselytize the young and will become a matter of personal belief. For atheists, a secularized society is a dream and for deeply religious people, it is anathema. Hence, there will always be debate - hole poking as you call it - because these are not private and personal matters but matters that affect the well being of society as a whole. When society is secularized, and religion is a private and personal affair, then there will be no more need for hole poking. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 I think if you look objectively at people of faith and people of reason, you will find examples of people in both camps who without 'provokation' will try to 'poke holes' in the arguments or beliefs of the other camp. IMHO however, this is much more likely to come from 'faith' based camps. I think that is because people in the non-faith camps tend to be more tolerant of other views. Tolerance is essential, but should not extend to promotion of faiths with public funding and tax breaks. Religious fundamentalism is so dangerous that we need to do what we can to decrease its influence, while respecting the right of every person to freedom of thought and speech. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The next really important development in the world will be the secularization of the Western democracies. This means withdrawing public funding or tax breaks for religious organizations, faith schools, and other organizations and ending religious programming in public broadcasting. In the UK, the disestablishment of the Church of England is necessary. In some countries, laws relating to blasphemy and sacrilege will need to be repealed. Religion will then be unable to proselytize the young and will become a matter of personal belief. For atheists, a secularized society is a dream and for deeply religious people, it is anathema. Hence, there will always be debate - hole poking as you call it - because these are not private and personal matters but matters that affect the well being of society as a whole. When society is secularized, and religion is a private and personal affair, then there will be no more need for hole poking.What happened to the original post? This is nothing more than a rhetorical dogmatic diatribe. In Christianity, it is all about a personal relationship with God. If you aren't careful, you may end up persecuting them in your zeal. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 What happened to the original post? This is nothing more than a rhetorical dogmatic diatribe. In Christianity, it is all about a personal relationship with God. If you aren't careful, you may end up persecuting them in your zeal. Christianity should be a personal relationship with God (as you say) but is currently more than that, namely a relationship between organized religion and government. Same with Judaism and Islam. Is it persecution to deny organized religion public funds and special privileges? I don't think so. My opinion is that separating church and state (as is supposed to be the case already in the USA but is not) would be a major advance in human civilization. Link to post Share on other sites
knaveman Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought your original question was about faith and reason, not religion and Christianity. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought your original question was about faith and reason, not religion and Christianity. Yes it was. Though personally, I don't mind if threads spin off at tangents. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought your original question was about faith and reason, not religion and Christianity.Originally yes. I think I took the wind out his sails sooner than he expected so he is giving us a lot of hot air. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Originally yes. I think I took the wind out his sails sooner than he expected so he is giving us a lot of hot air. I see, attack me personally rather than address my comments - argumentum ad hominem? Link to post Share on other sites
Eve Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Would it be true to say that faith is at its greatest when the belief is unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with all known natural laws? And faith is at is least when consistent with all known natural laws and supported by lots of evidence? If so, are faith and reason diametrical opposites? Do you think that faith only belongs to the religious? I think of faith and reasoning as a form of symbiotic relationship present for the religious and irreligious alike. I have chuckled when I have read a couple of your posts because really the greatest head **** is to think as you have expressed and to find that there is a God... and that He is an alright person. This has been my experience and it is beyond comprehension. Remember, even scientists have messed up lives and ways of thinking. We are all in this thing together. Still, believe what you want. As long as you acknowledge that it would be your responsibility to prove otherwise and not simply off the back of a person who has faith in God. I say this because I dont think that atheists realise just how judgemental they can come across as being. Take care, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 Do you think that faith only belongs to the religious? I think of faith and reasoning as a form of symbiotic relationship present for the religious and irreligious alike. I think I agree with the person who said words to the effect that faith fills the gap between what we want to believe and what reason dictates. I see this gap as very wide for the religious person and very narrow for the highly scientific person. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 I dont think that atheists realise just how judgemental they can come across as being. Does you mean one has to accept everyone's opinion as equally valid and not disagree with it, criticize it, or discuss it? Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I see, attack me personally rather than address my comments - argumentum ad hominem?:laugh: I haven't laughed like that in a while. My reaction to the first few posts "Okay, so they are half-baked". My reaction to the second set of posts "You have got to be kidding me". The last one was too good Thou shalt not blaspheme the great Spock. His logic is flawless. In Spock we trust. Live long and prosper..... Link to post Share on other sites
Author dunstable Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 :laugh: I haven't laughed like that in a while. My reaction to the first few posts "Okay, so they are half-baked". My reaction to the second set of posts "You have got to be kidding me". The last one was too good Thou shalt not blaspheme the great Spock. His logic is flawless. In Spock we trust. Live long and prosper..... Please could I have your reasoned critique of my views? Link to post Share on other sites
D-Lish Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I thought your original question was about faith and reason, not religion and Christianity. I think, as usual, people speak from perspective.... OP asked a question, a Christian audience answered initially and the conversation was subequently steered in a particular direction. I will say one thing, as an Atheist- I recognize that Christianity is just one religion of many in the world. If one has faith in a particular doctrine- there is reason behind that belief for them. You can manipulate reason to fit your needs and mood. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I see, attack me personally rather than address my comments - argumentum ad hominem? It's pretty much all he ever does. You learn to ignore it after a while. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
knaveman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 If one has faith in a particular doctrine- there is reason behind that belief for them. You can manipulate reason to fit your needs and mood. The problem is that Atheists don't usually think this way. Link to post Share on other sites
TaraMaiden Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It also boils down to semantics, and flogging the horse of 'define-Faith'-ism... There is but one religion on this planet that is practised worldwide, and has no God. Buddhism. Buddhism is founded on Logic and reason, but uses the word Faith also. Faith in Buddhism can be better defined as a Confidence, and assuredness in the teachings, rather than a hope in their promise.... Buddhism and science work closely together, and scientists specifically involved in the workings and machinations of the brain, are coming to terms with the fact that Mind is a separate issue.... Faith in Buddhism is only consistent with Reason, because of the intrinsic definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts