I still cannot understand you!

[Thales]

Of course. However, having faith that your car will start tomorrow so you can get to work is a lot different than having faith in a God that wants you to spend sundays worshiping it and giving money to a church or condemning people for being gay.

I don’t know what Church you are talking about. No church I know of, especially the Catholic Church, teaches the condemnation of people for being gay. The Church objects to the practice of homosexuality, and so do I, because it is destructive and hurts people. A unique and important thing religion has taught me, which seems to be lost to many, is the distinction between individual persons, their tendencies, and whether they act upon them. I hate stealing but I don’t necessarily hate thieves.

And that’s not even looking at a lot of the hypocrisy or anti-progress associated with religion… if religion made all it’s followers more moral and they were seen as truly better off I’d be interested. If religious leaders made great progress and developed cures for diseases or other things to help humanity, I would be interested. And don’t even try to say they do, even if a person is religious and makes a breakthrough, they didn’t do it because of their religion - they didn’t pray for it or study the bible hard enough to suddenly realize how to do thing X.

Is that the extent of helping humanity? If you had a better understanding of what helping humanity was maybe you would be more interested in looking into what Christianity offers humanity. I would argue what religion offers is much more beneficial to humanity than medicine. Religion offers a right way of living through morals and values. It’s unfortunate some people are not well formed in their religion, have misunderstandings, or choose to distort things for their own personal benefit. Humanity is what tends to ruin good things like Christianity, it is not the belief system itself.

What you are saying about the religious leaders producing medical cures is similar to saying, NASA engineers never produced any technology to help feed the hungry people in Africa, therefore NASA engineers are worthless. A non-sequiter.

 

[Spock]

Here is what the Church teaches on coming to know God (from the Catechism):

My dear friend, why do you think that quoting the Cathecism is a convincing argument to be used against an atheist? Of course I read what you quoted. But it noting more than an appeal to some authority (the Catholic Church) based upon some superficial ideas. Why would the beauty of nature point to God? Especially, since there are many things which are quite ugly, like leprosy. And please don’t say that those “ugly” things are the result of man’s fallible nature. That would be called cherry picking - emphasizing those features which seem to support your argument, and swiping the rest under the rug. It would be intellectual hypocrisy.

 

[liquidpele]

I don’t know what Church you are talking about. No church I know of, especially the Catholic Church, teaches the condemnation of people for being gay. The Church objects to the practice of homosexuality, and so do I, because it is destructive and hurts people. A unique and important thing religion has taught me, which seems to be lost to many, is the distinction between individual persons, their tendencies, and whether they act upon them. I hate stealing but I don’t necessarily hate thieves.

Is that the extent of helping humanity? If you had a better understanding of what helping humanity was maybe you would be more interested in looking into what Christianity offers humanity. I would argue what religion offers is much more beneficial to humanity than medicine. Religion offers a right way of living through morals and values. It’s unfortunate some people are not well formed in their religion, have misunderstandings, or choose to distort things for their own personal benefit. Humanity is what tends to ruin good things like Christianity, it is not the belief system itself.

What you are saying about the religious leaders producing medical cures is similar to saying, NASA engineers never produced any technology to help feed the hungry people in Africa, therefore NASA engineers are worthless. A non-sequiter.

Homosexuality “destructive and hurts people”? How utterly absurd. You say the church does not condemn them… fine, but you sure won’t even think about letting them marry will you? What about adopting kids? Saying the church is not against gays because you don’t want to see them burned at the stake (anymore) is not exactly the moral position I would expect from those following divine truth.

Religion offers a system of moral guidelines, but that’s all - and even those are confusing and debated upon. It does not define morality itself, and it never has. People showed morality long before Jesus and in many other places that didn’t even know what a Christian was for thousands of years. As I already stated though, if Christians actually were more moral than non-Christians I might think their moral system was on to something. I see very little correlation at all though.

My comment was not non-sequitor, because my point was not based entirely on medical cures. My point was that religion doesn’t bring anything to the table that would make me think they know something special. Now, that’s my own opinion, but that’s how I worded it before as well.

 

[Spock]

No one can know everything by personal experience or by reasoning it out for themselves, so EVERYONE has to have “faith” to a certain degree.

Faith simply means believing something to be true because it comes from a source you consider credible.

Even on a secular level there are a lot of things we have “faith” in. You have faith that people like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln existed and in their accomplishments, since you obviously were not there to see them in person. We go on their own recorded words and writings and those of the people who did know them personally. You have faith that places like London or Paris or Moscow exist, if you have not visited these cities yourself – your faith is based on the accounts of people who live there and visit there now and in the past. You have faith that your doctor knows what he’s talking about when he diagnoses you with a certain condition.

Well, religious faith works in a similar fashion. None of us ever met Jesus during his time on earth, but we have faith in what the Bible and sacred tradition says about him. Faith is not contrary to reason but simply relies on the reason and observation of others who have seen or experienced what we have not experienced for ourselves.

That is not the faith as defined in Hebrews 11:1.

However, relying on other people’s testimonials is at best a substitute for getting the information first hand. Obviously, we cannot go back into the past, and ascertain that certain events happened or certain persons existed. To get first hand information is impossible for the past. But that is not relevant here. God is not supposed to have existed only in the past, he is supposed to exist today, so your analogy is incorrect.

Whether the reliance of testimonials is reasonable or not, depends very much on the circumstances. The Mormons have the testimonials of the “golden book”, and cite several people who said that they have seen that book. Do you accept those testimonials as reliable? Are you ready to conduct your life based upon those testimonials? I would like to get an answer, if you are so inclined.

 

[Spock]

It’s absurd to say that reason alone can prove the existence of God, at least a God who possesses attributes described by Christianity-a God worth bothering with placing faith in.

Well said!

OTOH, it’s reasonable, if unprovable, to believe that a creator is necessary as a first cause, etc.

Now that is a different matter. Of course the “first cause” argument does not hold up under scrutiny. It was shown to be incorrect many times.

 

[Spock]

You are the only one who is saying this – this is not what I said.

Oh, come on. You did not say it outright, to be sure, but that was the implication of what you said. Referring to “fundamentialst hillbillies” can only be understood as a hyperbole suggesting stupidity.

 

[Thales]

I am always glad when you make your contribution. As usual, your point merits consideration. I use the word faith in the way as expressed in Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” How is that being rational?

If I would say that I have faith in winning the jackpot tomorrow - that is “I would be sure of what I hope for, and I would certain of what I cannot see” - and I would be acting on this faith - would that be rational? Spending the money ahead of time? I am trying very hard to conform to the Catholic definition of faith, so I cannot be accused of creating a strawman argument.

I think you are right to raise this question, and it leads into the role of reason in faith. We are taught to have a reasonable faith. It may be subjective as to how much reason it takes to convince someone to have make a leap of faith. I can say personally, the moral tenets and teachings, the Scriptures, eyewitness accounts, others testimony of personal experiences, that it is time tested, and that billions of people have adhered to the belief are reasonable elements that convince me to believe. It might not be scientific or logical, but is reasonable to believe a vast majority of people, teachings that do produce positive result (e.g. don’t kill, steal, commit adultery, love neighbor, be patient, help the poor, etc.), and the testimony of respectable people.

Having faith in winning the lottery is not reasonable faith. A worthy faith must be informed by reason.

 

[Spock]

It’s more reasonable to believe that something always existed rather than that something came from nothing but the observable universe appears to have required and indeed appears to have had a beginning, therefore necessitating a cause.

This proposition has a few errrors.

First, it implies that time is an independent variable, that there was a “time”, when the universe did not exist, then there was an act of creation, and then the universe started to exist (this is the old Newtonian worldview, which stipulated an absolute space and time). In the light of physics this model is obsolete, the concept of time is undefinable outside the universe. Therefore it is correct to say that the universe “always” existed - since time started when the singularity expanded.

Second it implies that the universe “needs” a cause. Since causation can only be defined within the universe, but cannot be defined for the universe, this proposition is meaningless.

If the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused it would also need to be designed, as laws (order) determining its behavior from the moment it ceased being a singularity would’ve already had to be in place, and a plan without a planner is less probable than a plan appearing spontaneously, especially one as complex as would’ve been necessitated by the big bang and all that followed.

This is another problem. The universe definitely exhibits order. But order does not need an “orderer”, while the design would definitely need a designer. From the order we see in the universe it is a huge leap to assume that the order was not “natural”, it needed to be designed.

 

[Spock]

I think you are right to raise this question, and it leads into the role of reason in faith. We are taught to have a reasonable faith. It may be subjective as to how much reason it takes to convince someone to have make a leap of faith. I can say personally, the moral tenets and teachings, the Scriptures, eyewitness accounts, others testimony of personal experiences, that it is time tested, and that billions of people have adhered to the belief are reasonable elements that convince me to believe. It might not be scientific or logical, but is reasonable to believe a vast majority of people, teachings that do produce positive result (e.g. don’t kill, steal, commit adultery, love neighbor, be patient, help the poor, etc.), and the testimony of respectable people.

Having faith in winning the lottery is not reasonable faith. A worthy faith must be informed by reason.

Well, that is something to ponder. What constitutes a reasonable evidence, when one cannot have a physical proof? Unfortunately there is no objective method here, everyone decides for himself what level of evidence will be considered “sufficient”, and where does one draw the line. I am sure you find those pieces of evidence you quoted as sufficient. But I do not. So what constitutes a reasonable foundation for your faith I will reject is insufficient. So far, so good. There is no need to have the same level of “sufficiency” for such a far reaching concept.

But there is a fly in the ointment. Vatican One declared in an authoritarian fashion that one is not allowed to doubt about the sufficiency of reason about God’s existence. The document declares that one who dares to doubt this dogma is an “anathema”. This smells like strong-arm tactics to me. (As one poster put it in another thread: “Do you think that the Catholic Church is a collection of free-thinkers, where people are allowed to form their own opinion?”)

 

[Thales]

Homosexuality “destructive and hurts people”? How utterly absurd. You say the church does not condemn them… fine, but you sure won’t even think about letting them marry will you? What about adopting kids? Saying the church is not against gays because you don’t want to see them burned at the stake (anymore) is not exactly the moral position I would expect from those following divine truth.

It’s not as absurd as you might think. Homosexual behavior vastly increases the participants likelihood of getting a variety of diseases, like STD’s and AIDS. People who partake in homosexual behavior have a much lower life expectancy, are more likely to be in domestic violence situations, and for women, make up 50% of their prison population. Like I said destructive and hurts people. The Church’s position against homosexual behavior is for the good of the person with those tenancies. We all have desires and tenancies, that despite being natural, are destructive. For some it is greed, some are hot tempered, and some have an inordinate sexual desire for children. The Church teaches us to fight against the baser animalistic parts of our nature.

I don’t have a problem with a gay man marrying a woman, or a husband and wife, should one or both be gay, adopting children. I desire for children to be raised by a loving mother and father so they have the best opportunity for healthy development into adulthood.

… As I already stated though, if Christians actually were more moral than non-Christians I might think their moral system was on to something. I see very little correlation at all though.

I think you’re right that there are moral atheists and non-Christians and that some Christians are not moral. The teachings of Christianity are more moral than any atheistic system I’ve ever heard of. In fact any secular system that claims to be moral probably just borrowed what it liked from what religions had been putting forth, and throwing out what it didn’t like.

You have to make the distinction between people and belief systems. People by nature are kind of neutral, tending towards evil, left to their own devices. It is ultimately up to the individual to accept the tenets of their belief system and practice them. If a person rejects parts or decides to act on their own personal desires, foregoing what is taught by the belief system, that is a condemnation of free will and human nature not Christianity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What constitutes a reasonable evidence, when one cannot have a physical proof? Unfortunately there is no objective method here, everyone decides for himself what level of evidence will be considered “sufficient”, and where does one draw the line.

This is the “reason” people are encouraged to simply have “faith”.

When the few validly smart people can see clearly what the much larger mass of validly stupid people cannot see clearly, the smart people encourage the stupid to, “Just take our word for it and have faith. You will see eventually what we have seen all along.”

How would you have them act instead? Many of them attempt to reason with the less intelligent to no avail. That is why they are the “stupid”. If they could see reason so easily, there would be no need to ask for faith.

But if they do nothing because the effort to reason with unreasoning people does not work, they leave the fate of humanity to the much larger mass of the stupid. Such a situation, objectively observed, leads to chaos, suffering, death, and potential the annihilation of all people entirely (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah).

You are a typical example of one who insists that he can reason (whether you can or not), yet your reasoning only leads to what far more intelligent and educated people can clearly see is a fallacy. If they try to point out your logical flaws, you dismiss them immediately and insist on your conclusion and thought of your perfect reasoning.

In such a state, refusing both faith and higher reasoning from those who can truly reason much better, you find yourself… exactly where you are - frustrated, yet insistent and claiming “I still don’t understand you”.

The “faithful” don’t understand “them” either. They have chosen to just accept that some people are a lot smarter than they are. The is an act of humility (and rationality).

You have pride and thus cannot submit to humility. So here you are… frustrated, insistent, and confused, yet endlessly complaining of the faults of others.

With no faith and also no talent for reasoning and yet a prideful belief that you can reason, you are in a “jam” (hence the frustration). You need the “hands on” approach, not the “speaking to you” approach.

What would you have “them” do? What would you have “us” do?

 

[Betterave]

This is the “reason” people are encouraged to simply have “faith”.

When the few validly smart people can see clearly what the much larger mass of validly stupid people cannot see clearly, the smart people encourage the stupid to, “Just take our word for it and have faith. You will see eventually what we have seen all along.”

How would you have them act instead? Many of them attempt to reason with the less intelligent to no avail. That is why they are the “stupid”. If they could see reason so easily, there would be no need to ask for faith.

But if they do nothing because the effort to reason with unreasoning people does not work, they leave the fate of humanity to the much larger mass of the stupid. Such a situation, objectively observed, leads to chaos, suffering, death, and potential the annihilation of all people entirely (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah).

You are a typical example of one who insists that he can reason (whether you can or not), yet your reasoning only leads to what far more intelligent and educated people can clearly see is a fallacy. If they try to point out your logical flaws, you dismiss them immediately and insist on your conclusion and thought of your perfect reasoning.

In such a state, refusing both faith and higher reasoning from those who can truly reason much better, you find yourself… exactly where you are - frustrated, yet insistent and claiming “I still don’t understand you”.

The “faithful” don’t understand “them” either. They have chosen to just accept that some people are a lot smarter than they are. The is an act of humility (and rationality).

You have pride and thus cannot submit to humility. So here you are… frustrated, insistent, and confused, yet endlessly complaining of the faults of others.

With no faith and also no talent for reasoning and yet a prideful belief that you can reason, you are in a “jam” (hence the frustration). You need the “hands on” approach, not the “speaking to you” approach.

What would you have “them” do? What would you have “us” do?

You of course raise some very good points here. But they are the same points that are raised by ‘liberal’ educators or revolutionary Marxists to justify their ideological leading-by-the-nose of the masses. It’s perhaps the same argument made by Spock, in fact: “why don’t you dumb religious listen to reason (i.e., to us “reasonable” atheists)?”; he just has evaluated who fills the roles of dumb and smart differently. Therefore, it’s true, but otiose; or rather destructive of the very possibility of dialogue.

 

[Betterave]

(As one poster put it in another thread: “Do you think that the Catholic Church is a collection of free-thinkers, where people are allowed to form their own opinion?”)

I believe you’re quoting me! Thanks, I feel famous now. Anyway, you’re also slightly misquoting me and missing the context of that discussion (it’s in the ‘Proof of God argument’ thread).

 

[James_S_Saint]

or rather destructive of the very possibility of dialogue.

Exactly. And thus;

“What would he propose we do?” The only tool available is dialog which obviously does not work in many cases.

The other option was named, “hands-on”.

 

[Thales]

But there is a fly in the ointment. Vatican One declared in an authoritarian fashion that one is not allowed to doubt about the sufficiency of reason about God’s existence. The document declares that one who dares to doubt this dogma is an “anathema”. This smells like strong-arm tactics to me. (As one poster put it in another thread: “Do you think that the Catholic Church is a collection of free-thinkers, where people are allowed to form their own opinion?”)

That’s close, but not exactly what Vatican One says. Not sure exactly what specific line you are referring to but I’m guessing it is this,

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

I know it seems like knit-picking but there is a difference between “doubt” and “deny”. To doubt is for the most part an internal struggle with faith, that might be expressed to another, a friend or confessor. Mother Theresa of Calcutta had a lot of doubt and darkness. To deny, on the other hand is a proclamation. To announce a position of disbelief and declare it to others. Why would anyone be a Christian or Catholic if they go around telling everyone that there is no reason to believe in God?

 

[liquidpele]

It’s not as absurd as you might think. Homosexual behavior vastly increases the participants likelihood of getting a variety of diseases, like STD’s and AIDS. People who partake in homosexual behavior have a much lower life expectancy, are more likely to be in domestic violence situations, and for women, make up 50% of their prison population.

[citations needed]

I think you’re right that there are moral atheists and non-Christians and that some Christians are not moral. The teachings of Christianity are more moral than any atheistic system I’ve ever heard of. In fact any secular system that claims to be moral probably just borrowed what it liked from what religions had been putting forth, and throwing out what it didn’t like.

You have to make the distinction between people and belief systems. People by nature are kind of neutral, tending towards evil, left to their own devices. It is ultimately up to the individual to accept the tenets of their belief system and practice them. If a person rejects parts or decides to act on their own personal desires, foregoing what is taught by the belief system, that is a condemnation of free will and human nature not Christianity.

Atheistic systems? Like for instance, the laws that govern you? Most western governments have secular government you know. I think your claim that Christian doctrine is more moral is simply wishful thinking. A quick look at leviticus is a pretty quick condemnation of such a claim. Even though it was superseded, the fact that those laws are even in the holy book is frightening.

Of course it’s up to the person to follow through with their beliefs and not by hypocritical, but that’s not my point. My point was that Christianity doesn’t appear miraculous to me in any way because it’s followers aren’t anything special when compared to non followers. The original comment I replied too noted that faith was just an aspect of human life - that’s true, but I replied that greater claims require greater burdens of proof. Christianity demands it’s believers believe so much that I can’t see how anyone can possibly accept it without taking to solely on faith.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s more reasonable to believe that something always existed rather than that something came from nothing but the observable universe appears to have required and indeed appears to have had a beginning, therefore necessitating a cause. If the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused it would also need to be designed, as laws (order) determining its behavior from the moment it ceased being a singularity would’ve already had to be in place, and a plan without a planner is less probable than a plan appearing spontaneously, especially one as complex as would’ve been necessitated by the big bang and all that followed. Everything we can observe is awesomely complex, inestimably more so than the most complex systems we can create. In general terms a “superiority” is missing in all this and while it may be a moot point for now as far as science is concerned since we can’t prove its existence by scientific method, it’s unreasonable to reject the idea as an untenable one.

If we’re to be consistent in the use of the very reason that has obviously caused us to be able to understand laws of physics and create complex systems ourselves that would be impossible without the ability to reason, then we should be able to use that same reason to deduce that reason should also be behind-and prior to-all that we observe. We simply ask, where-and what-is it?

Why is that more reasonable? Is it also reasonable that the earth orbits the sun when you see the sun clearly moving across the sky each day? Is it reasonable that time is relative - something that goes against everything our senses tell us? Have you ever *seen *an atom? Your entire post there depends on the universe being a way we think it should be - that is speculation.

The only real answer for where the universe came from is “We don’t know”… we can give evidence… for instance, from red shifts in galaxies it looks like everything is moving away from each other. There is background microwave radiation that fits in with some models of a big bang type scenario. But claiming that you somehow know X or Y happened and that it had to have been done for Z reason or to have purpose Q is naive and presumptuous.

 

[Spock]

This is the “reason” people are encouraged to simply have “faith”.

When the few validly smart people can see clearly what the much larger mass of validly stupid people cannot see clearly, the smart people encourage the stupid to, “Just take our word for it and have faith. You will see eventually what we have seen all along.”

How would you have them act instead? Many of them attempt to reason with the less intelligent to no avail. That is why they are the “stupid”. If they could see reason so easily, there would be no need to ask for faith.

But if they do nothing because the effort to reason with unreasoning people does not work, they leave the fate of humanity to the much larger mass of the stupid. Such a situation, objectively observed, leads to chaos, suffering, death, and potential the annihilation of all people entirely (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah).

You are a typical example of one who insists that he can reason (whether you can or not), yet your reasoning only leads to what far more intelligent and educated people can clearly see is a fallacy. If they try to point out your logical flaws, you dismiss them immediately and insist on your conclusion and thought of your perfect reasoning.

In such a state, refusing both faith and higher reasoning from those who can truly reason much better, you find yourself… exactly where you are - frustrated, yet insistent and claiming “I still don’t understand you”.

The “faithful” don’t understand “them” either. They have chosen to just accept that some people are a lot smarter than they are. The is an act of humility (and rationality).

You have pride and thus cannot submit to humility. So here you are… frustrated, insistent, and confused, yet endlessly complaining of the faults of others.

With no faith and also no talent for reasoning and yet a prideful belief that you can reason, you are in a “jam” (hence the frustration). You need the “hands on” approach, not the “speaking to you” approach.

What would you have “them” do? What would you have “us” do?

It is hard to reply in a civilized fashion to such a horrible rambling, but I will attempt. Your self-congratulating and “prideful” attitude (people are generally stupid - as you say) is simply disgusting. No, people are not stupid, and they don’t need to accept your “superior” knowledge (which is not supported by evidence). Your condescening attitude toward others is the penultimate “elitist” behavior - I am smart, you are stupid - so shut up and accept what I say. You say: don’t even try to think for yourself, you are not qualified to think. You say: be a nice, obedient sheep - swallow what I say. In my time in these boards (years now) I have never met with such an unadultarated self-righteous behavior which is so revolting that I am at a loss for words!

 

[Spock]

It’s perhaps the same argument made by Spock, in fact: “why don’t you dumb religious listen to reason (i.e., to us “reasonable” atheists)?”; he just has evaluated who fills the roles of dumb and smart differently.

I will summarily reject this and consider it an unpardonable insult! Never and nowhere have I said (or insinuate) that people who disagree with my propositions are “dumb or stupid”! I merely ask for the foundation of their assessment. At the bare minimum, a retraction and an apology is in order.

 

[fhansen]

I am always glad when you make your contribution. As usual, your point merits consideration. I use the word faith in the way as expressed in Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” How is that being rational?

The only reason this can be rational is if faith itself is not man-made. IOW faith would have to be a supernatural ability, enabling someone to know something that cannot be proven, given by a God who would have to happen to exist.