B
BlackFriar
Guest
Your “belief” that it was actually “god” who said so is of a different variety than that you have in the things he spoke.
Last edited:
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Even this needs unpacking.
It is self evident that there are gaps in our knowledge of how things work in the world.
It is also tempting to think that regular inexplicable occurrences require an invisible causal hand or mind to explain the effect.
Recently at the Pont du Gard the French guide from the museum explained that ancient peoples in that land believed every spring was sacred and had a god for this very reason. Water goes down not up. If fresh water rises from the flat earth a god must be behind it otherwise cause and effect principles fall over.
So when we say belief in “God” is innate I do not believe it means what you are suggesting.
All it means is we know that by reason,we are logically certain, that hidden causes must exist to explain super - natural effects.
It gives us no information about what this is god is actually like other than that it is “spiritual” (ie hidden) and it can influence matter (in this case push up water). Nor does it tell us if this “god” is a person or an impersonal force. The ancients felt the same way about the circular motion of the planets. They should be at rest. Therefore each planet is moved by its own god.
Nowadays we know more about nature. We still agree there are hidden causes in play. But we now realise we do not need to posit “spiritual matter” beings/persons. In the case of planets it is the invisible property of matter called gravity. This is a material force not an angel or a god. Nor does it exist of itself, it exists in matter itself. We call it an impersonal “force”. With springs it is the force of water-table pressure - ultimately due to gravity again.
In short, this sort of “god” you speak of is really no more than a “0”, a place filler to make sense of the surrounding digits which don’t make sense if it is missing. More gap than god.
This truth we all accept as certain (ie there is a hidden reason/cause why this water goes up not down).
But is it belief, knowledge, evidence…what.
It is a matter of logic, its certainty is derived from the certainty we have that water should go down.
But it is a derived certainty, derived by logic from the evidence of water going up.
Therefore I suggest this innate belief in “god” that you speak of is not belief, not evidence, but derived from evidence.
Its usually called a truth of reason.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Our will and our intellect must be constantly reconciled in accordance with the will of God.
The intellect is designed to seek the truth.
The will is designed to pursue the good.
They need to converge.
and the passions or the appetites must be often dragged along
The intellect is designed to seek the truth.
The will is designed to pursue the good.
They need to converge.
and the passions or the appetites must be often dragged along
Last edited:
K
KevinK
Guest
On what basis do you call me an atheist?
M
MPat
Guest
Let’s note that you are not saying I am wrong.
Also let’s note that you are not saying I am wrong on any other point in my post.
C
chieft
Guest
There are also many who would argue God has never spoken or written anything.Takes faith to believe. Supernatural Grace. As a Catholic do you not believe in Real Presence in the Eucharist ? If so. Why ?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Not necessarily. Many peoples’ beliefs are based on faith. They have not seen evidence, they don’t go looking for evidence.
C
chieft
Guest
Interesting how many Children, namely the children of Fatima most recently, would not understand your scholarly worded post, but believe and were chosen by Mary as witnesses. Supernatural Grace…
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
The best mechanism for acquiring truth is proper use of reason.
You seem to conflate natural inclinations with conclusions reached based upon observations. One may be axiomatic vs the conclusions reached by the proper use of reason assuming proper axioms.
For instance, I have a belief that I exist. I can’t prove it. I can use observations to present greater evidence to this effect, but I ultimately believed that I existed prior to making any observations.
You seem to conflate natural inclinations with conclusions reached based upon observations. One may be axiomatic vs the conclusions reached by the proper use of reason assuming proper axioms.
For instance, I have a belief that I exist. I can’t prove it. I can use observations to present greater evidence to this effect, but I ultimately believed that I existed prior to making any observations.
K
Kei
Guest
No, what I am referring to is something different, the pancultiral belief in God and continuing implicit (though not explicit) belief in God among atheist/agnostics. For instance,
P
pocaracas
Guest
Sounds reasonable…
How can we tell “proper use of reason” from “improper (but seemingly proper) use of reason”?
We better make the axioms clear before we proceed with any conclusion, huh?
I think, therefore I am… According to some, your belief in your own existence came about from your thinking, turning that “belief” into a conclusion, not an axiom, like you wished to pass it as.
K
Kei
Guest
Proper vs improper use of reason:
We make sure our case holds not fallacious reasoning. Use our reasoning to check our reasoning. This is because our reasoning is reliable. How do I prove that? I can’t, except with evidence showing it is by all accounts of phenomena wherein reasoning successfully accounts for reality.
I am glad you agree with me that our reasoning is reliable.
Reasoning is either correct or incorrect. If it is seemingly correct but incorrect, careful reasoning should reveal it.
The problem with “I think therefore I am” is that it is based on the presupposition that to do one must be, which makes sense, and also that we truly do, ie, think, vs the mere appearance of thinking. I agree it is ridiculous, but the point of the exercise isn’t to argue for the position.
We make sure our case holds not fallacious reasoning. Use our reasoning to check our reasoning. This is because our reasoning is reliable. How do I prove that? I can’t, except with evidence showing it is by all accounts of phenomena wherein reasoning successfully accounts for reality.
I am glad you agree with me that our reasoning is reliable.
Reasoning is either correct or incorrect. If it is seemingly correct but incorrect, careful reasoning should reveal it.
The problem with “I think therefore I am” is that it is based on the presupposition that to do one must be, which makes sense, and also that we truly do, ie, think, vs the mere appearance of thinking. I agree it is ridiculous, but the point of the exercise isn’t to argue for the position.
K
KevinK
Guest
Let’s not that you did not support your accusation by answering my question. You are dismissed.
P
pocaracas
Guest
(my bold)
Sometimes a reality check is required to keep us from “reasoning” too much.
Sometimes, no matter how careful one is, mistakes seep in. These mistakes can be due to approximations in previous analyses, or wrong premises, or, or, or, or… many things, I guess.
I think the reality check is a useful tool to help steer our reasoning.
M
MPat
Guest
What “accusation”? The word “accusation” means “a charge of wrongdoing” (Accusation | Definition of Accusation by Merriam-Webster). What is supposed to be the “wrongdoing” in question? Being an atheist?
If that’s what you mean, I’d be happy to see you claim that being an atheist is a “wrongdoing”.
For that matter, if you do not want to be called an atheist (and all this talk of “accusation” is not just a distraction, provided because you have no answer to the actual arguments), you are free to give a better name for your religious views in your profile. Or, if you don’t like that for some reason, just here, in this thread.
K
Kei
Guest
Wrong premises are not a mistake in reasoning strictly speaking.
But I agree that reality is important in terms of reasoning. If one is fairly sure of his reasoning through a careful analysis, then he can have it reviewed by his peers to help him look for holes in his logic or argument. Hence we have the peer review system in academia.
But I agree that reality is important in terms of reasoning. If one is fairly sure of his reasoning through a careful analysis, then he can have it reviewed by his peers to help him look for holes in his logic or argument. Hence we have the peer review system in academia.
K
KevinK
Guest
By definition, in Christianity, being an atheist is certainly a “wrongdoing”. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that.
The burden of proof is on you since you are the one who called me an atheist with zero evidence. Zero.
The burden of proof is on you since you are the one who called me an atheist with zero evidence. Zero.
M
MPat
Guest
Now, of course, offering common atheist arguments and positions (as “Beliefs are based on evidence, not on the basis of desire.”, commonly deployed by atheists against Pascal’s Wager) is evidence for being an atheist, as is refusing to give any other name for one’s religious views.
But in this case it is more important that spending three consecutive posts to create this distraction (while ignoring any arguments concerning the topic, of which there were plenty) is evidence for not being all that interested in a serious discussion about the topic of the thread…
Oh, well… I hope you had fun.
- Status