Is Faith logical?

[timotheos]

Wouldn’t that depend on what you’ve experienced and how? Logic is simply using the evidence you have to come to the best conclusion possible. There is no logical reason for me to believe in god. Despite years upon years of trying, reading, etc I was never able to. Its not a choice. I have never seen evidence of a god. I have never read anything convincing, I have never felt the presence of a god. For me to suddenly believe would be illogical.

For someone who has had strong religious experiences for which they could find no other reasonable explanation it would be logical for them to believe. Or at the very least logical for them to not rule it out. In fact, having religious experiences and insisting that you don’t believe would be illogical.

There have been several studies done showing that the brains of atheists and theists work differently and respond to stimuli differently. As someone who spent so much time trying it doesn’t surprise me.

Oh, and the people who are using this thread as an excuse to atheist bash need to take a good, hard look at their own behavior and attitudes.

Blue eyed,

No bashing from me. I appreciate your honesty. Many people, unbelievers and believers alike, have not put in the kind of energy you have spent on this subject. I would rather spend time talking with an inquisitive atheist than a nominal “believer” whose actions betray their actual disinterest in the subject.

I’ve never had a religious experience either. My faith is not based on logic or reason or evidence, which is not to say it is illogical or unreasonable or lacking in evidence. I just believe in a metaphysical reality above that of human logic and reason; not subject to them but not contradictory to them either. The question is, why do I believe? I certainly haven’t always. But my belief began by simply considering the possibility, as an honest alternative to my belief that there was no God. And I only began to consider this possibility when I was faced with a situation in which I could not escape an entirely illogical call to moral action requiring great personal sacrifice. This, together with a growing doubt that the genetic code and simple Darwinian principles were sufficient to provide satisfactory explanations, led to at least postulating that God might be real. Again, just a beginning.

One thing is for sure, the pursuit of this question is not, for me anyway, lined by warm fuzzy feelings or ecstacies. It is rather quite the opposite. I don’t recommend it to those seeking to improve their self esteem, or financial state, or movie-style romantic love life, or general sense of material well-being.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It seems to me Craig thinks atheism can be proved, even though he thinks he it is false:

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5817

youtube.com/watch?v=cpNYIbSJFPQ

There are many arguments for atheism, most notably the arguments from suffering and evil. But, you also have stuff like Divine Hiddenness. Regardless of whether these succeed, atheism has a number of arguments for its position.

Well, even in those two sources, he’s actually refuting another atheist argument, wherein the atheist suggests that atheism can’t be proven because it is a negative statement, i.e. you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. As Craig clearly illustrates, you can prove that plenty of things don’t exist. So, really, this is just exposing this common atheist pleading for the cop-out that it is. As I think he amply demonstrates through the course of his debates, the problem isn’t that atheism can’t, if true, be proven, but that most atheists just don’t have any good arguments.

Also, yes, I think the arguments from evil and suffering fall pretty flat in the face of Christian theism. Some of the more traditional arguments are “good” in the sense that they’re actually logically rigorous, but I am of the opinion that they are, even still, terribly shortsighted.

 

[timotheos]

Well, I agree in large part with you here. I entirely accept that many of the Bible stories were recorded (orally or in writing) by people who believed them to be true in at east the sense they intended. But this was also true of the gnostic and other writings rejected by the compilers of the canon, and the rejection was accepted on the basis of authority. Catholicism also depends on authority for interpretation of not-obvious texts and the establishment of things like popes, bishops, priests, sacraments etc. This does not make those things wrong. But I also look for reasons why people believe (as indeed I once did myself).

I think the canon was complied based on evidence that the writings were divinely inspired, not just based arbitrarily on authority. I’m not sure the gnostic writings were rejected for any reason other than that. The protoevangelium of James, for example, has potentially great historical information about Mary and the birth of Jesus, but lacked evidence of divine inspiration. Many mistake the “authority” in the Church to be synonymous with heavy-handed use of power (in fairness, there may have been historical instances), but ideally it represents the best effort to humbly interpret what Jesus established, with the greatest accuracy and fidelity possible.

 

[grannymh]

Wouldn’t that depend on what you’ve experienced and how? Logic is simply using the evidence you have to come to the best conclusion possible. There is no logical reason for me to believe in god.

Emphasis mine.

Based on the evidence of human nature, logic should be able to posit the possibility of a supernatural being. In brief, the rational mind not only makes human nature peerless, it is also immaterial even though it expresses concepts, conclusions, etc., via the anatomical brain. The locations of some volition “activities” like moving limbs can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed to certain areas of the brain. Here the brain is reacting to electrical stimuli. Areas of the brain also react to visual stimulation. Yet the mind can create amazing thoughts in a dark room without a bipolar electrode.

I believe it is common that people who do not believe in free will, will say that they experience free will as part of their anatomy. This “experience” can have effects, but itself does not exist in time and space. One can romantically say that she wants to bottle the evening’s experience; yet it is understood that the experience is not something one can pour into a pretty container.

Once a person recognizes the immaterial, non-physical marvels (evidence) of human nature, then logic can take over to reach the conclusion that there has to be some kind of supernatural being. Logic first approaches the issue of a supernatural being from the objective fact that since the beginning of human history, there has been a consistent human awareness of the supernatural. This is known by exploring the myths and traditions of early tribes. I am not implying that myths and traditions correctly identify the supernatural as taught by Catholicism. What I am implying is that people have the capability of seeking and understanding the supernatural in relationship to their natural environment and possibly in relationship to themselves.

The leap to God is a free choice made by the non-theist. My position is to present some logical evidence (human nature) for the possibility of that leap.

 

[Perplexity]

Well, even in those two sources, he’s actually refuting another atheist argument, wherein the atheist suggests that atheism can’t be proven because it is a negative statement, i.e. you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. As Craig clearly illustrates, you can prove that plenty of things don’t exist. So, really, this is just exposing this common atheist pleading for the cop-out that it is. As I think he amply demonstrates through the course of his debates, the problem isn’t that atheism can’t, if true, be proven, but that most atheists just don’t have any good arguments.

Also, yes, I think the arguments from evil and suffering fall pretty flat in the face of Christian theism. Some of the more traditional arguments are “good” in the sense that they’re actually logically rigorous, but I am of the opinion that they are, even still, terribly shortsighted.

Ah, okay, my bad. I misunderstood your claim. I thought you were saying unbeknownst to atheists, there actually weren’t even arguments for atheism. Yeah, if we’re dealing with the definition of ‘good argument’ WLC works with (as opposed to say Graham Oppy), I think the claim goes both way. I think Kalam, the Fine-Tuning arguments, the Moral arguments, the Leibnizian arguments, the Resurrection argument (etc.) fall pretty flat, even though they can definitely be logically rigorous.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Ah, okay, my bad. I misunderstood your claim. I thought you were saying unbeknownst to atheists, there actually weren’t even arguments for atheism. Yeah, if we’re dealing with the definition of ‘good argument’ WLC works with (as opposed to say Graham Oppy), I think the claim goes both way. I think Kalam, the Fine-Tuning arguments, the Moral arguments, the Leibnizian arguments, the Resurrection argument (etc.) fall pretty flat, even though they can definitely be logically rigorous.

I would be interested in hearing your qualms with some of these. As for the Kalam cosmological argument, the most common objections with which I am familiar are those that attempt to say that, due to recent discoveries in quantum physics, we now know that the something can come from nothing. The problem is, the quantum fluctuations and physical laws posited in these explanations are still something. A physicist, Lawrence Krauss, wrote an entire book on this subject recently (which was praised like the second coming by Richard Dawkins, of course) called “A Universe from Nothing.” His more astute critics quickly picked up on the inconsistency of the argument though.

On to the fine-tuning argument, the only objection I’ve heard that holds any water, in my opinion, is that of “carbon-chauvinism,” but even that I find to be incredibly weak. The rest demonstrate that there is a wide parameter of variables of the different constants that would permit stars to be long lived, but, to my knowledge, none of these variables are life permitting. If you’d care to elaborate on any of these or other points I haven’t considered, I would be all ears. Also, I’m not familiar with the Leibnizian arguments. Of course, this might be better for another thread…

 

[Perplexity]

I would be interested in hearing your qualms with some of these. As for the Kalam cosmological argument, the most common objections with which I am familiar are those that attempt to say that, due to recent discoveries in quantum physics, we now know that the something can come from nothing. The problem is, the quantum fluctuations and physical laws posited in these explanations are still something. A physicist, Lawrence Krauss, wrote an entire book on this subject recently (which was praised like the second coming by Richard Dawkins, of course) called “A Universe from Nothing.” His more astute critics quickly picked up on the inconsistency of the argument though.

On to the fine-tuning argument, the only objection I’ve heard that holds any water, in my opinion, is that of “carbon-chauvinism,” but even that I find to be incredibly weak. The rest demonstrate that there is a wide parameter of variables of the different constants that would permit stars to be long lived, but, to my knowledge, none of these variables are life permitting. If you’d care to elaborate on any of these or other points I haven’t considered, I would be all ears. Also, I’m not familiar with the Leibnizian arguments. Of course, this might be better for another thread…

Ah yeah, I’d agree that those are pretty weak sauce objections I’ll try and start a thread on these later. The Leibnizian arguments are those involving principles of sufficient reason. Craig favors one made by Davis:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in its own necessity or in some external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, God is the explanation of the universes existence.

 

[jmvizanko]

LaramieHirsch:

1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?

I guess if you find the supposedly logical arguments for god’s existence logical, then sure? I don’t, so I don’t think its logical.

And if you want to look for logical reason to believe there is a god outside of the arguments, what reason is there? He is invisible and gives no direct way through experience to know he exists, at least not in my opinion.

LaramieHirsch:

2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?

Once again as above, if you find the arguments logical. And once again I don’t, mostly due to the inability for any Christian to successfully tackle to problem of hell and the problem of unbelief.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Original poster (OP) here.

What I find interesting about this thread is how it compares to the last one I participated in.

 In the last thread, the discussion was about a justification of Hell.  Toward the end of that thread, there were many responses from atheists.  
 Yet, with this thread--which talks about Logic--I find that there is not as much atheist participation.

Moving on…

---

Before I get technical with the idea of using Logic (again, I’m an amateur in this type of discussion), I have a basic question for the atheists. Now, I realize that many many atheists do not come from a godless background. Many come from religious families or backgrounds, and so they are not ignorant to what a Christian is talking about. So for you faithless out there, realize that I know you are not ignorant. I would like to try an honest exploratory discussion here. My intent is not to convert, though that is always my hope.

One question for the faithless. It is established you do not believe in the Christian God. However, do you believe in a Deity of some sort, who created the cosmos as we know it?

---

Perhaps this question was an interruption in where I was going, but I think it is an interesting question to ask at this point. Surely the atheists do not believe we came from nothingness.

Honest answers please. Again, I am exploring the use of Logic in these discussions.

 

[jmvizanko]

One question for the faithless. It is established you do not believe in the Christian God. However, do you believe in a Deity of some sort, who created the cosmos as we know it?

No I do not believe in a deity of some sort, but I do not rule out some form of deity as a possibility. Some might say that makes me an agnostic, but agnosticism is not a position relative to whether or not one believes in a god, and you can be an agnostic theist (which is what I would call any Christian that says you have to have faith that god exists, and you cannot know). You either have a belief in a god or you don’t, which either means you are a theist or you are an atheist. I fall into the latter camp, even though I am not a strong atheist in the sense that I do not believe with any large probability that there is no god.

That being said, I lean towards there being no god, mainly due to the problem of evil. Either there is, in my opinion a lazy, uncaring god, or a god that is either separated from the universe or unable to control it in any way. I don’t see why the former would exist; if an omnipotent being that created us to begin with had the power to save us from a lot of random and undeserved evil, say torturous diseases, I don’t see why it wouldn’t do something about it. So the only god that I could realistically see existing is that of the deist formulation; a god that is separated from the universe.

 

[clmowry]

“the problem of unbelief.”

Care to further explain this one?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

That being said, I lean towards there being no god, mainly due to the problem of evil. Either there is, in my opinion a lazy, uncaring god, or a god that is either separated from the universe or unable to control it in any way. I don’t see why the former would exist; if an omnipotent being that created us to begin with had the power to save us from a lot of random and undeserved evil, say torturous diseases, I don’t see why it wouldn’t do something about it. So the only god that I could realistically see existing is that of the deist formulation; a god that is separated from the universe.

How do we know that suffering is evil? When a lion kills a gazelle is that evil?

Suffering is certianly unpleasant, but why is it evil?

Chuck

 

[jmvizanko]

Care to further explain this one?

Chuck

Sure. The problem of unbelief is the question of why, if believing in god, and especially a specific god, is so important to a god, would god not conduct himself in a way that more, most, or even all, people would believe in him. If a reasonable person can find no reason to believe in the specific god that exists, then it is unreasonable for that god to expect that person to believe, and punish him for his unbelief.

For instance, me. I do not believe not out of rebellion or a want to do whatever I feel like. I find the arguments against and non-presence of a god to be compelling enough that I do not believe in one. Why wouldn’t god make his existence or the arguments compelling enough for me to believe he exists, if he truly does?

There’s also a wikipedia entry on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

 

[jmvizanko]

How do we know that suffering is evil?

Because except for the extreme minority of what I would label strange masochists, nobody wants to suffer. And if I had to define evil it is anything that detracts from happiness unnecessarily.

When a lion kills a gazelle is that evil?

I would argue no, because that is what a lion does to survive, and it doesn’t have any alternative, and it doesn’t even have the mental capacity to think of an alternative anyway. Its just following instinct. In other words, you can’t blame the lion, even though it does suck for the gazelle.

Of course, if a person kills another person, all of those incapacities that the lion has no longer imply, as long as we are talking about a normal sane person.

 

[clmowry]

Obviously, the vast majority of people do believe in god in general (and one specific God in particular.)

How many honest atheists does it take to make this a valid argument? i.e. Is the opposite true, isn’t there “the problem of belief” that an atheists would need to answer?

Chuck

Sure. The problem of unbelief is the question of why, if believing in god, and especially a specific god, is so important to a god, would god not conduct himself in a way that more, most, or even all, people would believe in him. If a reasonable person can find no reason to believe in the specific god that exists, then it is unreasonable for that god to expect that person to believe, and punish him for his unbelief.

For instance, me. I do not believe not out of rebellion or a want to do whatever I feel like. I find the arguments against and non-presence of a god to be compelling enough that I do not believe in one. Why wouldn’t god make his existence or the arguments compelling enough for me to believe he exists, if he truly does?

There’s also a wikipedia entry on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

 

[jmvizanko]

Obviously, the vast majority of people do believe in god in general (and one specific God in particular.)

How many honest atheists does it take to make this a valid argument? i.e. Is the opposite true, isn’t there “the problem of belief” that an atheists would need to answer?

Chuck

Well it doesn’t just take atheists. A majority of the world does not believe that your specific god exists, and you believe they are going to be punished for that, just as much as an atheist.

And I don’t see why the opposite would exist. You can conceive of many reasons why somebody would believe in a god even if one does not exist. Its the same arguments, its just the theists find the other side more convincing. Or they just never left what they were raised in. But if there is no god, then people aren’t expected to believe anything by a god, so there is no problem of belief.

 

[clmowry]

You can conceive of many reasons why somebody would believe in a god even if one does not exist.

And I can concieve of many reasons why one wouldn’t.

Its the same arguments, its just the theists find the other side more convincing. Or they just never left what they were raised in.

I’m not real sure why aethist put so much faith in children being brainwashed as the reason for the perponderance of theist? Seem a pretty week argument to me but it sure comes up a lot.

But if there is no god, then people aren’t expected to believe anything by a god, so there is no problem of belief.

So this presume that “If there is a God He will force me to believe” does it not?

Not an argument I’ve ever heard before. Seems prett weak to me.

Chuck

 

[meltzerboy]

Sure. The problem of unbelief is the question of why, if believing in god, and especially a specific god, is so important to a god, would god not conduct himself in a way that more, most, or even all, people would believe in him. If a reasonable person can find no reason to believe in the specific god that exists, then it is unreasonable for that god to expect that person to believe, and punish him for his unbelief.

For instance, me. I do not believe not out of rebellion or a want to do whatever I feel like. I find the arguments against and non-presence of a god to be compelling enough that I do not believe in one. Why wouldn’t god make his existence or the arguments compelling enough for me to believe he exists, if he truly does?

There’s also a wikipedia entry on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

I think in the same way that we would not want other people or pets who are important in our lives to be forced to love us, G-d does not want us to love Him by feeling compelled to do so. Instead, He wishes us to come to Him by our own free will and our faith. As I stated in my earlier post, faith in most things surpasses pure logic, and to have faith in G-d, in particular, one must be able to take the leap of faith that is required. Logic and reason (not always the same) can bring us only part of the way toward belief, and emotion and motivation can take us further, but ultimately only faith can bridge the final gap that separates us from G-d. With respect to punishing us for a lack of belief, I do not think that is necessarily the case. However, that is the topic of another thread.

 

[jmvizanko]

I’m not real sure why aethist put so much faith in children being brainwashed as the reason for the perponderance of theist? Seem a pretty week argument to me but it sure comes up a lot.

I never called it brainwashing for the record. But I do think you are wrong. And the proof is in the geographic distribution of specific faiths. If people don’t just mostly end up believing what their parents taught them, then why are there geographic regions of the world that are this or that religion? And some of them are not theistic, such as Buddhism.

So this presume that “If there is a God He will force me to believe” does it not?

Not an argument I’ve ever heard before. Seems prett weak to me.

Well if god punishes those that do not believe, yet you can reasonably not believe, then yes its still a problem. I cannot imagine a god that does actually care about what one believes if he leaves so much reason to doubt that he does, that most of the world does doubt that he does. I can only imagine a god that cares only about who you are as a person. I would much rather be forced to believe by undeniable evidence and arguments, and still be free to do what I want otherwise, than be able to reasonably not think a god exists and be sent to hell for it, regardless of who I am.

 

[jmvizanko]

I think in the same way that we would not want other people or pets who are important in our lives to be forced to love us, G-d does not want us to love Him by feeling compelled to do so. Instead, He wishes us to come to Him by our own free will and our faith. As I stated in my earlier post, faith in most things surpasses pure logic, and to have faith in G-d, in particular, one must be able to take the leap of faith that is required. Logic and reason (not always the same) can bring us only part of the way toward belief, and emotion and motivation can take us further, but ultimately only faith can bridge the final gap that separates us from G-d. With respect to punishing us for a lack of belief, I do not think that is necessarily the case. However, that is the topic of another thread.

But the leap of faith is not something necessarily in my opinion has the choice to make. I cannot make that “leap” because I see no reason to do so. And loving god versus believing he exists are two different things. I cannot love a god unless I know he exists, and even then, I would make the argument that you cannot love something you have no interaction with.

Of course, whether or not interaction with god is a different debate, but I see no reason to think it exists personally. I see prayer or “speaking” with god as nothing more than placebo, affirmation bias, and mind over matter. A shaman from some unheard of country’s direct experience with their god is no more real than anyone else’s with theirs.