Making rules and definitions is hard.  You have to make them broad enough to given them proper meaning, but narrow enough scope to have a use.  For example, what is an airplane?  Well, saying something that has two wings, a rudder a pilot and co-pilot and a rudder would be too inclusive and disqualify biplanes.  If we say, a flying machine to carry humans, that would include blimps.  You have to get it just right.

Words are also often shaped by our use of them, even if we don't mean to specifically redefine the word.  For example, if we say that a movie is entertaining because it makes us cry, it blurs the line of what entertainment is to the point that it's hard to use it for anything.  Another example would be if we were to say that Superman 64 is not a bad game.  If that's not bad, well, what exactly is?

So, I now pose my question: If believing in a religion--at least the abrahamic religions--does not qualify as insane or at least ridiculous, what does?  This is not a mockery, it's a serious question for evaluation.  By all means, the claims made about miracles in any other scope other than religious would immediately be regarded as delusional behaviour.

There is a fair option, though.  Extraordinary claims are not absolutely always false, but we most certainly cannot accept them on faith.  What is required is justification -- evidence.  All a religion need do is provide adaquate evidence of the claims made.  By all means, that's not an unfair request.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

If you are willing to accept that statement, most certainly you can accept mine.

Posted by Ellyoda Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:53:33 (comments: 46)
<< prevnext >>
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:13:28
"We all need some measure of faith because we aren't omniscient"

Here, angry_beaver, I think we're using different definitions for "faith."  As I mentioned earlier, I take the word faith as meaning "belief without reason," which I think is the typical usage (though it certainly varies).  There are levels of reason for belief, yes, but I don't agree we all have faith by my definition.

"in the holy books' stories, we see plenty of convincing reasons for belief given"

If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely.  If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it.

The Islamic progression in Europe is certainly a bothersome one, spurred, I think, by prior ethnic and gender based discrimination causing a guilt complex.  We don't want to be considered "intolerant" because that's tantamount to being racist.  Oh, and we can't forget about this incident.  Ugh.

Foolz, faith for manipulation is a use of the implications of faith, but not the result of the manipulator's faith.  Faith as a coping mechanism works in terms of it limits the fear or sadness, but I was trying to get across a desired result, in which faith that you'll for example, go to heaven, could in practical application get you killed.  Outside of religion, faith in everyone's word as truth is going to be far less effective than scrutiny.  Also, I don't think you can choose to have faith as a coping mechanism since it wouldn't be convincing.  In a sense, though, you can have faith practically by accepting what you're told without question and acting in accordance, whether or not you fully believe it's true or not.

The coping mechanism concept, however, was a primary reason for my reservedness on discussing religiosity (and the lackthereof) for a long time--I've had an astounding fear of death since I was very young and didn't wish that on anybody.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:44:11
"As I mentioned earlier, I take the word faith as meaning 'belief without reason,' which I think is the typical usage (though it certainly varies)."

I take it to indicate belief without sufficient reason for belief, not belief entirely without reason. By this interpretation, we have faith in many things--this most likely usually relies on some form of induction rather than logic. For instance, while at first it may sound like an unreasonable concession to say that I trust my closest friends not to betray me, that trust is based on induction on my past encounters with those friends and on my evaluations of the parts of their personalities that I know about. I can never have justifiable certainty that they won't betray me, but I still make the induction, the leap (or step, depending on how much evidence has been gathered).

Do you think I've drawn the line too far in one direction for the defining quality of faith? I'm open to changing my interpretation. The way I've explained it above certainly makes your explanation sound more reasonable, I must admit.

"If I could see someone resurrect the dead repeatedly and testedly so, and see them rise up into heaven, I'd believe, definitely.  If I had a book from an actual historian that actually accounts for those events I'd at least have some reason to consider it."

I thought my statement might get me into trouble. What I meant is that there are occurrences in holy books' stories that, if witnessed, and if the supposed causal agent were present, might be grounds for belief (such as the dead rising and walking the streets during the crucifiction, e.g.). These days we get nothing. That's no mystery to me, but it's because I'm not a believer. Haven't been for 6-8 years now.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:08:46
You said it yourself, we all need some measure of faith...The laws of science itself, are neither absolute nor are they ends, and really they are not wholly truths but parts of truths or ideas that get us closer to the truth. Furthermore, God can really be thought of simply as the ultimate absolute truth. Why do you think Socrates said."all I know is that I know nothing?" Trying to take what we know from our experience on earth and apply that to a completely different realm is irrational, it would be like trying to fit a square in a circle. Getting back to faith, every action that we take requires a measure of faith, in a sense. Therefore, without faith human beings are rendered into rocks. And Yoda is wrong about faith in general, having faith in one's self is indeed a good thing, that is a good example.

BTW, I do not lack philosophical sophistication, and I am a Christian (though rather apathetic). I think you have the wrong idea about religion in general, you think Buddhists aren't philosophically sophisticated? How shortsighted of you. Not every religion is based on some rampid fanatisicm, we are not all Evangelicals nor are all Muslims are so "orthodox".
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:55
Faith is never referred to as being a "belief without reason", but rather belief in an idea that is not proven. True faith in a religion requires a conscious decision, and human reasoning (whether wrong or right) always plays a part in every conscious decision we make. Who are you to say what is irrational or rational? Who are you to say what is good decision or a bad decision? Human reasoning lies in the hands of each individual, and because we are fallible may or not be correct. Therefore, in a way human reasoning also is based on faith. (see there was a point, you just had to wait a little bit).
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:40:47
Religion in of itself isn't bad, its corrupt churches, and crazed extremists and fundamentalist that try to use it in order to justify their own means. Religion has changed a lot of peoples lives for the better, churches that give people community, and give the hopeless hope. What I'm trying to say is that although religion may not have the physical evidence to back up its dogma, their are plenty of events that happen to individuals that strengthen their faith.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:48:05
@Angry Beaver, don't take the bible so literally, most people that things in the bible are only meant to serve as a sort of symbolic tool to guide us along the right path morally...Only evangelists take much of what is in the bible literally, the most important parts of the bible are not the miracles which supposedly took place, but rather the parables that Jesus made and its theme of agape, or God's unconditional love for humankind. Sorry for making four posts, but I felt I need to add my full two cents, and was rather unsatisfied with each successive post.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:07:23
You are such a thinker Yo. I think about food, games and sex. That's about it.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:33:53
Hires, God had commanded you to read my blog and leave a comment.

Angry Beaver man, same thing applies to you.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:46:37
"Faith is ... belief in an idea that is not proven"

No, there's no such thing as "proof" outside of mathematics.  There are degrees of evidence -- religious claims such as a god have none.

You go on, HiRes, to essentially argue Solipsism, which brings us back to my original point -- if you are going to argue that something with no evidence is an equal idea to something with significant evidence, what then is the criterion for interpreting what is likely true?

"their are plenty of events that happen to individuals that strengthen their faith"

This happens to people of all faiths, contradictory as they may be.  And again to the original point, how then do you separate this from the insane?

Here's a real-world application of that point, George W Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.  If that's your decision process, you are unfit to hold office.

"Who are you to say what is irrational or rational? Who are you to say what is good decision or a bad decision? Human reasoning lies in the hands of each individual, and because we are fallible may or not be correct."

Here's the difference between religion and science -- science is not one man.  You observe, make a hypothesis, test it, then get it peer reviewed.  Then it still has to be supported by every new piece of evidence that is found.  Individual perception is shaped by confirming results of other people.

To get back to the point one more time, if your justification for religion is lack of absolute knowledge, then you are in no place to call any other entirely unsubstantiated idea, however absurd, wrong, unlikely, or crazy.

I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible. - Matt Dillahunty

If you don't think there's a difference between true and false, I both have to question your judgment and show you the magic beans I have for sale.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:55:16
"you think Buddhists aren't philosophically sophisticated"

I think they're completely wrong in their spiritual beliefs, if that's what you mean.  Gotta like a religion with no god, though Nyaa

"having faith in one's self is indeed a good thing"

Again, changing the definition of a word I use (and specifically describe my usage thereof multiple times) doesn't make me wrong--by that token I could say religion means "I am wrong" therefore you're wrong.  Believing you can do something with which you have no justification for beliving is a terrible idea.  I believe I can literally fly?

angry_beaver, I understood your point about the people described in the Bible perfectly.  I was just adding in addition that such things would be good reason to believe now.
<< prevnext >>
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?