Let us understand...the objectivity thread

[aridite]

Raynd:

Look…do we really know anyone? Our perception of someone is solely based on our experiences with them…or maybe what they have told us…and what we observed. This could all be wrong…it may be right.

If you really believed this and followed out the implications, this conversation would be impossible. Maybe you think it is and cannot in principle know what the hell I am talking about. Good luck and God bless. Anything else I said would be futile. (C’mon, you don’t really believe that.)

Raynd:

Now onto ego. I was not trying to imply that god had an ego? Even though it is written in the bible that he is a “jealous” god…Whether or not you feel I think people are here to massage his ego is besides the point…What I said is the bottom line…God created everything…we have choices…if we make the wrong choices…off to hell. That is it in a nutshell. I don’t think that this can be disputed.

God made us to be air-breathers. You try to breath water, you die. You try to find ultimate fulfillment in something other that God, you find an eternity of misery. Trying to find ultimate fulfillment in something other than God is “making the wrong choice.” But when framed in terms of what is fitting to the nature with which God made us, it makes sense to me. Also, people can find fulfillment in God when they do not explicitly know or acknowledge that it is God they are finding fulfillment in. (This might cover other religions, atheists, I don’t know – God is more merciful than I can imagine. I’m just telling you what I do know.)

Raynd:

Now onto happiness. This is not objective…it is subjective. You stated “Final rejection of God brings ultimate misery, not because God zaps the infidels, but cut off from the only sourse of happiness, those without God condemn themselves to the misery of their own, miserable company. No one can escape themselves, but you can escape goodness”…no offense but this is ridiculous…people come to happiness a million and 1 ways. Buddists, Muslims, athletes, practioners of yoga…etc… What god are you talking about?..people who find strength and happiness in other gods are not really happy? They can’t be right? Because they are heading to hell?..There is no logic in your statement. I’ve never stepped foot in a church in my life (ok once for a wedding I think) …my parents were secular…my whole family was. I wasn’t told about god…I’m very far away from being unhappy…I can tell you that much.(at the risk of sounding defensive) Would you state that I am not truly happy because I don’t know the Christian God? …let’s be objective. Happiness is a completely subjective state of mind that may or may not correlate to anything…including rationality and reason…

Look, happiness is not the same as pleasure or content feelings or even the absence of pain and fear. It seems to me that the drug addict, even while in the midst of his most “satisfying” high, is really miserable. He has unfulfilled potential; he is not living a genuinely human life. Happiness is objective, ultimately. Humans are ultimately fulfilled, and truly happy, only in knowing infinite Truth and loving infinite Goodness. In this life, this never happens (or not for long, in the case of mystics), though we get intimations of it here below, and that is what Christians are preparing themselves for in this life, a relationship with God that will continue eternally.

Raynd:

but I’m not out to disprove god…I’m out to discover the relevance…this has yet to be answered. 3 men sit on a park bench…they have almost identical lives. Except one is of a religion other than Christianity…one is a Christian…one is a non theist.
They have loving children…happy marriages. They are law abiding citizens…morally stong. Help old people across the street. Give to charity. Engage in physical fitness…don’t use drugs…and are just generally happy people. BUT 2 of them are going to hell…

I wouldn’t know where any of them are going.

Raynd:

what is the relevance of religion in modern society…modern intellect…what does a god provide outside of the own power of our mind that is rooted in objective reality? …

God is the ultimate explanation of all there is, and only he will satisfy the human heart. I’m not sure if this answers your question, but it the truth. Hemoglobin moves oxygen around the body. This is true – does it have “relevance”? You would not be alive without the reality of hemoglobin. I’m not sure what you’re looking for. God, like objective reality, is not really “outside” the power of our mind. Objective reality, and God who is its source, is what gives the power of our minds relevance. But, honestly, I’m pretty confused by what you mean by “relevance.”

 

[Shibboleth]

Now in regards to fear and God with ego etc… Are Christians a God fearing people – you bet, but not in sense that you are conveying. Not that it matters, I fear the anger of my father and that does not mean that he does not exist. Just because people have fear does not mean that they create a God.

Do we follow God’s commandments out of fear of retribution? From a Evangelical Lutheran standpoint ‘no’ but I will step outside of that box. I do believe that some people are dreadfully fearful of death and this may turn them to God – but once again this is not proof that God does not exist. When I was a child in fear I went to my mother and as far as I know she exists.

It simply is a poor argument.

Now in reference to God and ego;

One culture and I forget which one – there name simply means ‘he that is without an anus’ – as strange as this name is it makes a certain amount of sense. God is self sufficient, he need not consume anything to exist – in fact he has no needs at all. He encourages us to prey, do good deeds, and live good lives because it helps us not him.

In reference to the three people,
God isn’t going to make people go to heaven that didn’t want to be there in the first place.

 

[Raynd]

Opinions are not objective…God cannot be proven or disproven through empiric means. This is not the goal of this thread.

Shibboleth:

The way that I see it there are three basic ontological viewpoints on how God is determined and discovered by humans.

The first I will call the Cartesian viewpoint for lack of a better word. This is the view that we have knowledge of God because we have had prior contact with him before coming to this realm. It comes from the very earliest stages of Empiricism.

In Rene Descartes’ famous meditation of “cogito ergo sum” or I think there for I am he needed to prove that the world existed outside of us and was not a huge lie created by our senses. The way that he went about doing this is to prove that God existed and that God is not capable of deception – hence the external world exists.

To prove that God exists Descartes held the belief that for someone to have knowledge of a thing they must have had prior contact with such a thing. So, since a person has a concept of the infinite, and God is the only infinite thing, he must ipso facto have had contact with God at some point, therefore God exists.

The Second Viewpoint I will call the Dialectic of Neo-Platonian viewpoint – once again for lack of knowledge or a better word.

It is the view that things in the external world are such that they direct us to an understanding of God. It is a combination of “Tabula Rosa” (blank slate) as described by John Locke (arguably the most prolific Empiricist) and the opposite as described by Plato (Mickey Mouse’s Dog.) We construct God from what we see around us but compile it with that which we are aware of due to our pre-existing soul.

We are separated from God at birth and the universe around us reminds us of his greatness and directs us back to him.

David Hume (my favorite empiricist) stated this best in a Series of Essays in which he presented the viewpoints of the Epicurean, Stoic, Platonist, and Skeptic through the eyes of an Empiricist. In the Platonist Hume wrote:

“Divinity is a boundless ocean of bliss and glory: Human minds are smaller streams, which, arising at first from this ocean, seek still, amid all their wanderings to return to it, and to lose themselves in that immensity of perfection…

Can we be so blind as not to discover an intelligence and a design in the exquisite and most stupendous contrivance of the universe? Can we be so stupid as not to feel the warmest raptures of worship and adoration, upon the contemplation of that intelligent being, so infinitely good and wise?..

But it our comfort, that, if we employ worthily the faculties here assigned us, they will be enlarged in another state of existence, so as to render us more suitable worshippers of our maker: And that the task, which can never be finished in time, ill be the business of an eternity.”

The third viewpoint I will call “post hoc, ergo proctor hoc” or “since this therefore because of this.” This is the belief by existentialists and skeptics that we have no actual knowledge of God but construct him out of what we see around us and our inability to explain things fully.

They believe that in our ignorance and desire to explain things beyond our grasp we create a Deity. The volcano explodes because God is angry at us, the Ocean is turbulent because we have upset God, etc.

 

[Raynd]

The fear point is not an argument to prove that their isn’t a god? You are off base on that one. Missing the point. My point is that it’s a motivator based on something that is subjective…therefore the premise is false…because god cannot be known…so why are we scared?..the bad places evolved in religion for this very purpose.

Look all of you guys have great posts, but you are really just strengthening objectivity. Everything that is being said is purely subjective…Aridite states that only true happines can be found through God…this absolutley doesn’t mean anything to me. This cannot be “quantified”…to make this statement you would in essence have to be god…or a particular god at least. Muslims are not truly happy because they don’t worship a christian deity? See you guys are forgetting that you’re christians, and that everyone else IS going to hell.

Relevance - relating to the matter under inspection…pertinent.

This is what I am trying to tell you. Believe in a god is not objectively relevant to happiness, correctness, or survival on planet earth…gods, demons, witches, ufo’s offer us nothing that we cannot achieve through our own personal intellect.

Shibboleth:

Now in regards to fear and God with ego etc… Are Christians a God fearing people – you bet, but not in sense that you are conveying. Not that it matters, I fear the anger of my father and that does not mean that he does not exist. Just because people have fear does not mean that they create a God.

Do we follow God’s commandments out of fear of retribution? From a Evangelical Lutheran standpoint ‘no’ but I will step outside of that box. I do believe that some people are dreadfully fearful of death and this may turn them to God – but once again this is not proof that God does not exist. When I was a child in fear I went to my mother and as far as I know she exists.

It simply is a poor argument.

Now in reference to God and ego;

One culture and I forget which one – there name simply means ‘he that is without an anus’ – as strange as this name is it makes a certain amount of sense. God is self sufficient, he need not consume anything to exist – in fact he has no needs at all. He encourages us to prey, do good deeds, and live good lives because it helps us not him.

In reference to the three people,
God isn’t going to make people go to heaven that didn’t want to be there in the first place.

 

[JimO]

3 men sit on a park bench…they have almost identical lives. Except one is of a religion other than Christianity…one is a Christian…one is a non theist.
They have loving children…happy marriages. They are law abiding citizens…morally stong. Help old people across the street. Give to charity. Engage in physical fitness…don’t use drugs…and are just generally happy people. BUT 2 of them are going to hell…what is the relevance of religion in modern society…modern intellect…what does a god provide outside of the own power of our mind that is rooted in objective reality? …

First, the Catholic Church recognizes a concept referred to as invincible ignorance. In summary, no one is “damned to hell” out of ingorance of the truth. One has to understand the truth and reject it to be responsible. We are judged on the basis of what we know. So, those 2 men may not go to hell. However, all their outward actions don’t necessarily give you and understanding of the condition of their hearts.

Second, we do not go to heaven because we are good. We go to heaven because of what Christ did on the cross. Your scenario presumes that the three men are judged on the basis of their church affiliation alone. If the Christian thinks that he is going to heaven because he is such a great guy, he may be the only one in hell.

Third, the relevence depends on your frame of reference. If God is not in your frame of reference, He is irrelevent because none of your actions are motivated in reference to God. And, because He has granted us free will, He will not force your actions in any way. You are “safe” from interference.

For a Christian, such as myself, God is my frame of reference. I have chosen to accept the teachings of Christ, the inerrance of the Bible and the infallability of the Catholic Church’s dogmatic teachings. Therefore, my daily life is imbued with this belief system and God is relevance itself. All my actions and my thoughts are measured against what my faith holds as good and true. I strive to conform myself to the ideal that I see taught by this belief system. I believe that because I choose this life, the Holy Spirit resides within me and guides me in this journey. It has served me well.

I’m certainly not perfect. I am a sinner and I fall daily in small (and sometimes big) ways. But, the loving God I serve is not an accountant who makes “good” and “bad” journal entries, thus He makes a way for me to learn from my mistakes if I am truly repentant. In fact, He has created me in a state of imperfection explicitly so that I see my need for Him. The more I grow in my faith, the more I see my need and the more I pursue Him.

One who does not see a need for God may still live a moral life based on some belief system, but they will never be truly fulfilled (I believe) and will continue to search places like this forum for answers.

True faith, like true love, is a choice. I choose to believe. In fact, I choose every day to believe. The result is the gift of faith wherein I have a knowing that what I believe is true. I used to think faith was some insight that I would suddenly wake up with one day amidst angelic singing and cloud bursts. I have learned better. If one simply chooses not to believe, the gift of faith may not come.

 

[Shibboleth]

People are not answering you correctly because your writing is discombobulated.

Christianity isn’t concerned with happiness or survival on this planet. Will those that achieve salvation in the afterlife be eternally happy – yes, can it be proven – not really, and who would want to – Christianity and all religion in general is based off faith. Faith does not require proof or disproof. Will we support our accusations in light of this; absolutely, but for the most part it is lost on those without faith.

In regards to happiness the Bible states that, “blessed are those that suffer in my name.” Being Christian on this realm does not presuppose happiness – quite the opposite really. If God was concerned with happiness on this Earth we would not have had The Passion.

Christians are said to be God fearing people not Hell fearing people.

If you are saying that we can create God, daemons, and the like in our minds, we sure can just as I can create a false Dad in my mind – but once again this does not mean that my real father does not exist.

Can God be known as you say? Well not fully but like I said in my first post – I cannot fully know what constitutes as rock and yet I gain knowledge from it as to its nature. Once again though, Christianity is founded on faith and without that most of our proofs will be lost to you. For instance, I could say that God revealed himself in the form of Profits, Apostles, and for a short time came to Earth himself and preached his Gospel. By way of that I know him to a degree – in what I should fear and what I should look forward to as a Christian. Catholic individuals can go even further by stating that they have the Church and Magisterium that can uncover and bind certain Godly things to this realm. Most importantly though, every Christian can claim that God is embodied in each of them and speaks to them directly by way of the Holy Spirit.

Once again, without faith all this is lost to the listener.

Of Muslims and Christianity…
First off I am sure that there are many very happy Muslims. Second, although I do think that they are in definite peril, I do not know for certain who and who will not be saved.

 

[Raynd]

JimO:

First, the Catholic Church recognizes a concept referred to as invincible ignorance. In summary, no one is “damned to hell” out of ingorance of the truth. One has to understand the truth and reject it to be responsible. We are judged on the basis of what we know. So, those 2 men may not go to hell.

So really even the fact that I’m a non theist human, and cannot possibly come to the conclusion that their is any truth in any of the god traditions that have passed down through the ages…I will not go to hell?.. kooky! Not only do I not understand the truth…I don’t think there is truth period. Is there anything in the world that is true…but cannot be proven?..Do we all here know the dictionary definition of truth? …or are we making definitions up?..either way is cool - I just want to know where this stands. I’m glad we at least made a little headway, and I feel that I got of you what I really wanted to hear…Faith. I understand faith…faith is acceptable…faith is not knowledge, faith is not truth…Faith is hope and belief…a bet if you will. See I contend that even religious people really don’t know if there are gods. They are just betting on it. They hope for it out of fear and longing. They want it. The derive their happines out of it whatever…but it is unkowable…therefore irrelevant to the proper governance and function of a modern society with intelligent laws and itelligent citizens.
Yes I understand faith…I have faith that every morning I will make it to work…but if someone hardassed me on it and really tried to pin me down…I would have to sigh, and say…of course I don’t really know if I will make it to work. It’s impossible to say…any religious person would agree with that until you bring their god into the mix…and then they revert back. They all of a sudden know for a fact that god exists…it is weird.

 

[Shibboleth]

Raynd:

So really even the fact that I’m a non theist human, and cannot possibly come to the conclusion that their is any truth in any of the god traditions that have passed down through the ages…I will not go to hell?.. kooky! Not only do I not understand the truth…I don’t think there is truth period. Is there anything in the world that is true…but cannot be proven?..Do we all here know the dictionary definition of truth? …or are we making definitions up?..either way is cool - I just want to know where this stands. I’m glad we at least made a little headway, and I feel that I got of you what I really wanted to hear…Faith. I understand faith…faith is acceptable…faith is not knowledge, faith is not truth…Faith is hope and belief…a bet if you will. See I contend that even religious people really don’t know if there are gods. They are just betting on it. They hope for it out of fear and longing. They want it. The derive their happines out of it whatever…but it is unkowable…therefore irrelevant to the proper governance and function of a modern society with intelligent laws and itelligent citizens.
Yes I understand faith…I have faith that every morning I will make it to work…but if someone hardassed me on it and really tried to pin me down…I would have to sigh, and say…of course I don’t really know if I will make it to work. It’s impossible to say…any religious person would agree with that until you bring their god into the mix…and then they revert back. They all of a sudden know for a fact that god exists…it is weird.

Do you know for a fact France exists? If so how and why…

 

[aridite]

Raynd:

The fear point is not an argument to prove that their isn’t a god? You are off base on that one. Missing the point. My point is that it’s a motivator based on something that is subjective…therefore the premise is false…because god cannot be known…so why are we scared?..the bad places evolved in religion for this very purpose.

You seem to be equating “subjective” with “false” (“not objective”). That is a false equasion. Subjective states may or may not be well founded. I fear criminals because some do exist, and may seek to harm me. IF people fear God, it does not follow that he does not exist, nor does it follow that he does exist. IF God exists, it may be reasonable to fear him or not, depending on what kind of God he is. Fears, as subjective, are neither true nor false – the may be justified or not depending on whether their object exists or not.

You start with an assumption: “because god cannot be known” and apparently draw some conclusion: we should not be scared. First, the assumption is unjustified. (Moreover, being known or unknown are subjective states, so clearly you believe conclusions can and should be drawn from what is “subjective”).

Raynd:

Look all of you guys have great posts, but you are really just strengthening objectivity. Everything that is being said is purely subjective…Aridite states that only true happines can be found through God…this absolutley doesn’t mean anything to me.

That’s too bad. It is meaningful. Perhaps you need to be open to the meaning of others.

Raynd:

This cannot be “quantified”…

Yeah, so. The belief that god is unknowable cannot be quantified, but you think that is true. The belief “beliefs need to be quanitified in order to be true” cannot be quantified. Whence your objectivity and need for quantification?

Raynd:

to make this statement you would in essence have to be god…or a particular god at least. Muslims are not truly happy because they don’t worship a christian deity? See you guys are forgetting that you’re christians, and that everyone else IS going to hell.

I haven’t forgotten that there are non-Christians in the world, and again, I don’t know who is going to hell. I do know that if a Muslim is going to be eternally happy, it could only be through knowing and loving the Infinite God as he really is. How the Muslim gets there is up to God. It would be best if the Muslim became Christian, but that may be pretty difficult.

Raynd:

Relevance - relating to the matter under inspection…pertinent.

Still, no help. I’m not at all clear what you think the “matter under inspection” is. God is eminently pertinent to life, the universe and everything. Without him, nothing exists. Without him, no one can be ultimately happy (happy in a limited way, maybe).

Raynd:

This is what I am trying to tell you. Believe in a god is not objectively relevant to happiness, correctness, or survival on planet earth…gods, demons, witches, ufo’s offer us nothing that we cannot achieve through our own personal intellect.

I still don’t think you know what happiness really is, so of course what I say to you won’t seem pertinent/relevant. I think we are talking past each other. I don’t know how to fit what is really true into your world view – it seems pretty narrowly constrained by a whole host of assumptions. Unless and untill those assumptions are critically evaluated, not much of what I say will make much sense.

 

[caroljm36]

Raynd:

Not only do I not understand the truth…I don’t think there is truth period. Is there anything in the world that is true…but cannot be proven?..Do we all here know the dictionary definition of truth? …or are we making definitions up?..either way is cool - I just want to know where this stands. QUOTE]

Boy, gotta love that 'ol dorm-room philosophizing! (Pass me a doobie will ya?)

 

[aridite]

caroljm36:

Boy, gotta love that 'ol dorm-room philosophizing! (Pass me a doobie will ya?)

Maybe it will lead to a real love of wisdom. God uses some pretty unlikely methods.

 

[Raynd]

Oh geez…that was a cheap shot…but funny! hahaha - I was merely replying to the “invincible ignorance” statement… I’m not writing a paper here - meaning I’m just firing off ideas…time is precious. I’m not really double checking my spelling, and I’m sure I “mis speak” occasionally … As everyone else is also. I’m trying to get the gist of of the ideas…I hope everyone is striving for the same.

Regarding relevance.
Everyone seems to agree that a belief in their particular god leads them to some special happiness that cannot be obtained otherwise…I guess I’m refuting that with an Epicurean sauce…seasoned with a little obectivity…but it’s “philosopically refuted” obviously …as emotions are personal. Everyone will most likely have a different take on what their happiness is…SO
When aridite states that we can only truly be happy through god…the only response to that would be there are many people that are living proof you are wrong? And then how would I prove it? But then, how can you know I am not truly happy? etc…etc… See it is irrelevant to the workings of our world…
A belief in the supernatural is simply irrelevant to modern society…it’s a personal wish. I could wake up every sunday…go to church…tell people about the “holy ghost” etc… or I could not -and it should have absolutely no objective bearing on society… Chesterton said that religion and politics were the only thing worth arguing over…but I don’t think he ever played chess.

I never really meant to start a fist fight. I just wanted to see if there was anyone out there that could provide me a plausible explanation to the relevance of a western god idea…in modern society…I don’t think it can be done. I don’t think it has been done.
You know now that I think about it…this whole thing started with an argument I had with a protestant…he wouldn’t believe me when I said the constitution was a secular document…hey I apologize… heheheeee

caroljm36:

Raynd:

Not only do I not understand the truth…I don’t think there is truth period. Is there anything in the world that is true…but cannot be proven?..Do we all here know the dictionary definition of truth? …or are we making definitions up?..either way is cool - I just want to know where this stands. QUOTE]

Boy, gotta love that 'ol dorm-room philosophizing! (Pass me a doobie will ya?)

 

[aridite]

Raynd:

See it is irrelevant to the workings of our world…
A belief in the supernatural is simply irrelevant to modern society…it’s a personal wish. I could wake up every sunday…go to church…tell people about the “holy ghost” etc… or I could not -and it should have absolutely no objective bearing on society… Chesterton said that religion and politics were the only thing worth arguing over…but I don’t think he ever played chess.

Belief in God is not going to build a better mouse trap, devise a better end game in chess, build bigger bicepts, improve your golf score, get you a better SUV. But it has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the imprisoned, sheltered the homeless. The appearance of belief has also led to war and pilliage, but I believe it has done more good than harm. Nor is religion the only thing in human history that has lead to such goods and caused as much (or worse) harm.

I think what you are looking for is a very narrow understanding of relevance. What about truth, objective reality. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Are you so much the pragmatist as to say what makes no practical (i.e., economic) difference is “subjective” and therefore false. Again, the fact that my belief in God makes me “feel good” (as you would describe it) has nothing to do with whether it is well founded. You’re all about “objectivism.” Well, that’s your subjective feelings for it. It apparently makes you ‘happy’ to be an objectivist. By your own principles, we should conclude that therefore it must be false. Doesn’t it seem rather silly with reference to what you hold dear?

Belief in God does give meaning to a lot of people’s lives now (and only God can give ULTIMATE, future, eternal, in the next world, after you’re dead!, true happiness). Belief in God is relevant in that it will indicate whether to trap the mice, whether and how (deceitfully or not) to play chess, whether to build those biceps, get that SUV, feed the hungry. Belief in God can tell you whether any of this is significant at all anyway.

 

[JimO]

Raynd:

So really even the fact that I’m a non theist human, and cannot possibly come to the conclusion that their is any truth in any of the god traditions that have passed down through the ages…I will not go to hell?.. kooky!

Faith. I understand faith…faith is acceptable…faith is not knowledge, faith is not truth…Faith is hope and belief…a bet if you will.

There is a difference between true ignorance and refusal to believe. I have an atheist friend who originally claimed that he did not believe in God because there is no scientific or mathematical evidence to support it. He made comments similar to yours regarding ignorance to the truth.

Yet, after many months of periodic discussions, he made a very revealing comment. He said that he refused to believe in a God who was supposedly all-powerful and yet allowed suffering (a common objection of atheists). He isn’t simply ignorant. He rejects a notion of God that does not fit some set of criteria in his own mind.

Also, my friend demands evidence. However, the only evidence he will consider as credible must be based on science and mathematics (he’s an engineer). So, he rejects “spiritual” evidence that proves the “spiritual”. That is like a blind man demanding evidence of light. He considers all “paranormal” evidence as not credible, by definition. He rejects all “miracles” and attributes all “religious experiences” to fantasy, chemical imbalances in the brain, or wishful thinking.

You are correct, I cannot prove to you or my friend that God exists; however, to those who have made the same choice as me no proof is necessary. As Jerry Lewis once said about his telethon, “For those who understand, no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none will suffice.”

Your definition of faith misses the mark somewhat based on my own understanding of faith. Faith is not simply hope, but different and distinct. Faith begins with a choice to believe. I have made that choice and with that choice I have entered into a sort of “dialogue” with God and have given Him permission to act in my life. God’s action in my life has resulted in personal experiences that I cannot simply attribute to chance or luck. These experiences would seem trivial to others, so they do not comprise acceptable “evidence” of God. But, these experiences do result in a deep conviction that God indeed does exist, that He cares for me and that He acts in my best interest in all things. Thus, I receive the “gift of faith” and accept whatever comes along as God’s will for me (at least I try, but I am still human).

As a simple example, I find that as I have grown in my faith, I don’t get as upset when things go wrong - like a traffic jam. I simply accept it as God’s will. Maybe the delay prevented an accident, who knows. But, it gives me peace and I am a better citizen. That is one concrete benefit to society, albeit small.

Faith may begin as belief or a choice to believe or even a mere hope that God exists, but, like love, it grows and matures and becomes something distinct and far more substantial. Otherwise, it is weak and can die.

Nearly every true atheist I have encountered wants “proof” in order to believe. The best answer I have is one that St. Augustine gave to summarize his conversion, “I used to think that I had to understand in order to believe, then I found that I had to believe in order to understand.” There is profound truth in that statement and it captures all that I attempted in babbling through several long posts. I should have quoted it at the outset and saved us both some time.

Blessings

 

[JimO]

Something strange happened and I’m not sure my last post made it on the thread.

 

[Raynd]

Look …I agree - I think we probably are talking past eachother at this point. As much as I hate the expression “agree to disagree”…we aren’t coming to an understanding. I stated that I understood faith…faith doesn’t just pertain to gods…or your god. I’m not totally sure you completely understand the tenets of your personal faith (no offense)…but when I talk about other religions…i.e. muslims - you seem to waffle as to whether or not these people are going to hell according to the christian faith. Maybe you are not catholic…i assumed you were or maybe you have your own version of catholicism…but to me this is all relevant to the human condition as a whole. My main interests are to lead a good life, and to be a PART of a good life…and a good society. If you cannot look up in the dictionary the words
Truth
objective
subjective
relevant
and try to understand the theme here, then we should just call it quits. Yes this is an “objectivity” thread, and my sarcastic answer to religion is “randian”…but I don’t hang every thought on Ayn …James the pragmatist had great insight…so did Nietzche, Epicurus etc… etc…Maybe we’ve just realized that you can’t even discuss the relevance of religion because it doesn’t rest within the realm of a universally known truth…which always brings us back to relevance. I contend that things that separate people…i.e religion - are inherently harmful to society unless they are kept as a completely personal idea. If there are certain people that know they are right with god, and everyone else is going to hell - then we enter an intolerant state of existence. …considering the recent election we had…the war…the hate of people with different sexual ideas, and the human rights problems we are encountering because of this…western christian ideas are completely built on intolerance and division…my favorite bible passage states that - you think i came upon earth to bring peace? but I come upon earth with the sword…I will divide you etc…(and yes I am paraphrasing)…religion is an obstacle to intellectual thought based on objective analysis regarding the problems of our society…

aridite:

Belief in God is not going to build a better mouse trap, devise a better end game in chess, build bigger bicepts, improve your golf score, get you a better SUV. But it has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the imprisoned, sheltered the homeless. The appearance of belief has also led to war and pilliage, but I believe it has done more good than harm. Nor is religion the only thing in human history that has lead to such goods and caused as much (or worse) harm.

I think what you are looking for is a very narrow understanding of relevance. What about truth, objective reality. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Are you so much the pragmatist as to say what makes no practical (i.e., economic) difference is “subjective” and therefore false. Again, the fact that my belief in God makes me “feel good” (as you would describe it) has nothing to do with whether it is well founded. You’re all about “objectivism.” Well, that’s your subjective feelings for it. It apparently makes you ‘happy’ to be an objectivist. By your own principles, we should conclude that therefore it must be false. Doesn’t it seem rather silly with reference to what you hold dear?

Belief in God does give meaning to a lot of people’s lives now (and only God can give ULTIMATE, future, eternal, in the next world, after you’re dead!, true happiness). Belief in God is relevant in that it will indicate whether to trap the mice, whether and how (deceitfully or not) to play chess, whether to build those biceps, get that SUV, feed the hungry. Belief in God can tell you whether any of this is significant at all anyway.

 

[Shibboleth]

caroljm36:

Boy, gotta love that 'ol dorm-room philosophizing! (Pass me a doobie will ya?)

I see this all too often and it is a constant annoyance of mine. A person reads a few lines of Nietche and all of the sudden they are wise in the ways of philosophy and society. - in the end though they usually lack the knowledge of the average Philosophy 101 student.

I don’t mind arguing about Philosophical content with an agnostic, deist, or the like but for goodness sakes do your homework. I was an agnostic for several years.

Relevance is a nebulous definition in itself. The author has failed to operationally define relevance to begin with. He claims that faith is a bet. No, it is not… I am not betting on anything - if after I died God told me that he wanted me in Hell, provided Hell is a place, I would go without question.

Faith is believing in something without question and without need of proof. Not that this is much of a jump from everyday life to a person that doesn’t believe in God. This is why I asked the question - Do you know that France exists? A Christian does know that France exists because God doesn’t deceive in that way.

To someone that does not believe in God they cannot know for certain that France does exist because they could be being deceived by their senses. They could be ghosts in a shell relying on interments that are giving them false readings. For all they know France might not exists - so they have to go on Faith that it does exists.

Everyone eventually must have Faith in something that cannot be proven. The idealist has faith that they exist but all else is an illusion, but they cannot prove that they exists anymore than they can prove that I do not. The positivist believes that the external world exists but he cannot prove it - all have to rely on faith at one level or another.

I rely on God as my faith - and by that I know that you and I do indeed exist. There is the relevance - we are all equal in necessity in this area no matter what you believe.

Now the argument has turned towards the impact of Religion on society. For this one does not want to read Nietche and Epicures - but Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Marx.

 

[aridite]

Raynd:

religion is an obstacle to intellectual thought based on objective analysis regarding the problems of our society…

I think this is a core assumption you came to this discussion with, along with the unsubstantiated assertion that God is unknowable. Mutual understanding is pretty difficult when you won’t see that I am challanging your assumptions. You can challange mine; I defend them.

BTW I am Catholic, and I believe I am asserting the Catholic position. I have a pretty good grasp of the tenets and implications of my faith. Do you have the same grast of the tenets and implications of your faith?

Intolerance is not a necessary by-product of Christian convictions (in fact it is precluded by the command “love your enemies”). Simply because I know I am right, does not mean I want to kill those who are wrong. You don’t want to kill those whom you know to be wrong, do you? Of course not. So, someone convinced of truth (yourself) does not necessarily become intolerant.

 

[JimO]

Raynd:

I contend that things that separate people…i.e religion - are inherently harmful to society unless they are kept as a completely personal idea.

…my favorite bible passage states that - you think i came upon earth to bring peace? but I come upon earth with the sword…I will divide you etc…(and yes I am paraphrasing)…religion is an obstacle to intellectual thought based on objective analysis regarding the problems of our society…

Now wait a minute Raynd, you’re not being intellectually honest. First, for the record, Jesus was speaking figuratively. Let’s not confuse the issue by misapplying Scripture passages out of context.

Let’s also not be naive. You cannot seriously believe that a society where all religious beliefs and their accompanying moral principals were kept strictly personal would be any less divided? Christianity (and most other religions) are used as an excuse to divide. The teachings of Christ do not promote violence or the imposition of one’s will on another, no matter how so-called Christians of ill intent might try to justify their actions.

We have laws and we make collective decisions as a nation based on some set of morals and ethics - right? For each person, their own morals/ethics come from something other than the collective “will” of others. You cannot expect that people will separate their morals/ethics from their “private” religious beliefs. Each person that contributes to the collective “will” bases his/her morals/ethics on something. If not religion, then something - what?

Also, if you are not a theist, then I presume that you believe that all morals and ethics have a human origin. If so, then they are subject to change with each new generation. There is no objective good or evil, right or wrong. Christians, and many other world religions, believe in absolute good and evil, right and wrong that are defined by God. This is the basis of our morals/ethics. These two world views will always clash. Not because theists are trying to impose their will on non-theist any more than the converse, but because this is not utopia or heaven and people want their own way.

Now an illustration. Suppose Action A is clearly evil in the site of God and most citizens (Group A) agree on this. Action A is unlawful and has been unlawful since the founding of the Country. Some people (Group B), for their own reasons, want to do Action A. As time goes on, Group B doesn’t see why Action A is wrong because they don’t believe in absolute right or wrong. This sentiment grows until Action A becomes lawful. Group A still believes it to be wrong, but now is faced with tolerating it even though it is seen as thoroughly evil. Group A can ignore Action A and simply not participate, or Group A can try to overturn the law making Action A legal. What would you have them do?

I bet you thought I was talking about abortion. I’m referring to the killing of Jews.

That is why God is relevent. Without objective good and evil, right and wrong, people will be people and things like the murder of Jews can become “legal”.

 

[Raynd]

Since you feel the need to attack me …I will simple highlight what you posted…this should suffice in shining the light on your idiocy.

“To someone that does not believe in God they cannot know for certain that France does exist” …that qualifies as the most retarded thing I have heard all day…and I am employed at a law firm if that means anything… hhaaaaa …yea philosophy 101 huh??? Tell me about it champ.

Shibboleth:

I see this all too often and it is a constant annoyance of mine. A person reads a few lines of Nietche and all of the sudden they are wise in the ways of philosophy and society. - in the end though they usually lack the knowledge of the average Philosophy 101 student.

Faith is believing in something without question and without need of proof. Not that this is much of a jump from everyday life to a person that doesn’t believe in God. This is why I asked the question - Do you know that France exists? A Christian does know that France exists because God doesn’t deceive in that way.

To someone that does not believe in God they cannot know for certain that France does exist because they could be being deceived by their senses. .