wesmorris said:
Faith (assumption) is the foundation of reason. Without it, reason has no place to start - as I pointed out it water's thread somewhere. How can you believe in reason if you don't believe you exist? You must assume it to proceed. Logically, you cannot prove you exist. Thus, faith is the foundation... the boundary conditions for logic as well as reason.
This is, of course, an estimation made ex post. How do we know we have faith?
The main problem I have with theists is that the generalization of one's individual belief in god necessitates the insistence that one must presume god in order to proceed.
"Presume" is not the right word.
Crucial with gaining any (kind of) knowledge is that our prediction/expectation of something is not the same as our experience of it. That is, thought experiments do not render us a proper knowledge or understanding of something. We need the experience of the said thing, or our knowledge will be just something we memorized.
It simply isn't true. Perhaps you must, but that's your issue. I'd say if you're interested in the idea of god, the very worst thing you could possibly do is presume it exists, or that you know anything about it.
If you do, you're presuming "goddidit" and your investigation is inherently biased toward the outcome you favor.
That's fine if you're not interested in truth, but at least be honest to yourself that you've given up your pursuit of it in favor of the presumption that your perception of it justifies a belief.
EXACTLY.
But what you have said is just the first step.
Namely, the objections you raise (
"If you do, you're presuming "goddidit" and your investigation is inherently biased toward the outcome you favor.", "but at least be honest to yourself that you've given up your pursuit of it in favor of the presumption that your perception of it justifies a belief.") are valid if the god we are talking about is a *generic* god of philosophy, an objective philosophical construct, an "*any* god".
But if we speak about a *certain* god, say the Christian God, your objections don't apply anymore.
For there, the concept of god is VERY specific, with specific commandments, with a specific set of ethical values and preferences.
Presuming that the Christian God did it is NOT THE SAME as "goddidit" -- and one's investigation is not inherently biased toward the outcome one favors.
I can indeed say, "Oh, look, Christianity is all lovey-dovey, I'm gonna get a reward in heaven if I obey the rules. I want that reward, so I will be Christian." And indeed, not so few people are like that.
But, if we are to be true to a certain religion, we cannot simply take what we like, and reject what we don't like -- and still call ourselves adhering to that religion. One can't call oneself a Christian, but keep to only some directions, while openly rejecting some others.
What about all those verses that say to not take pride in our faith, to not talk about it lightly? What about all those verses that speak about the connection between works and faith? Considering them, one can't keep the position of "Oh, look, Christianity is all lovey-dovey, I'm gonna get a reward in heaven if I obey the rules. I want that reward, so I will be Christian."
What is more, for example, in Christianity, it is not yet known to people who in particular will be saved and who won't. An individual does not know the outcome of judgement yet. So acting as if one knew that one will surely be saved is an act of inconsistency.
One's investigation may be inherently biased toward the outcome one favors -- but with a *specific* religion, it is exactly this bias that is specifically addressed.
While in some generic religion, this bias remains unaddressed, as some generic religion does not have a specific set of values and preferences from the perspective of which ethical judgements could be made.
There are important differences between a generic religion, a generic God, and a specific religion, a specific God.
It is beyond a generic god to love, for example, but the Christian God loves.
