Faith, Objectivity, Belief, Rationality

[superluminal]

Wow.

I've just reread a bunch of waters' posts and... wow. She really is a piece of work.

water,

Are you really that confused and angry? Why? Aren't you a young college student? Or am I mistaken?

 

[water]

Why people believe, where is the rationality in that?

The reasons or motivations why a person believes change as the person grows.

Many people start out believing because of tradition, peer pressure, family conditioning, ignorance, fear, personal gain, for example.

As the person grows, their reasons or motivations for believing change also; the older ones can be overcome, and new ones emerge: hope for a better life, personal integrity, for example.

What is rational depends on the developmental stage the person is in. What is rational to a 5-year old child may be irrational to an adult and vice versa, but we must keep in mind that nobody is born knowledgeable, experienced and strong.
To an individual, rational is what is proportional to his present state of knowledge, experience and strength.

For example, to a young child, something like patience may be irrational as it is simply not within the child's scope to understand that a thing may take a while to be completed.
To an adult, on the other hand, who is experienced that things take time (like it takes time that the cream freezes into ice-cream), the child's impatience may seem irrational though.

As far as I can tell, similar is true for other concepts. Whether we think them rational or irrational, depends on our understanding of them, and this depends on our overall knowledge, experience and strength.

 

[Light Travelling]

Misty - wrong on every count;

intelligence is proven via your education, your IQ.

Wrong - some very unintelligent people make it all the way through to the higher echelons of the education system, through hard work and a good memory, not high intelligence. Other very intelligent people never progress very far at all.

In fact acedemic intelligence is not the only intelligence man may possess. There are many types of intelligence defined by phsycologists such as; linguistic, musical, logical, spatial, kinesthetic, intrapersonal.

rationality is proven by your peers, or/and a psychiatrist.

Wrong - rationality is the ability to use reason. Reason is the ability to follow through a thought process and draw a conclusion. The outcome or conclusion drawn (and whether it is in agreement with peers) does not determine whether a reasoned argument has been used. The fact that a person disagrees with his peers does not mean they are not rational.

Phsychiatrists seek to bring all within the realms of an accepted 'norm'. Normal is not synonymous with rational or reasonable.

objectivity by your five sense and all who view reality.
.

Wrong again - the five senses are not objective, why;

The five senses sense but the results are interpreted by the mind - this makes them subjective. The mind paints a picture for you based on what it interprets the senses are telling you.
Not everyones senses are of the same quality - this also makes them subjective.
You taste and apple. I taste an apple. Do we taste the same thing - impossible to tell. Subjective.

In fact the best way to try and be objective is to retreat from the realms of the senses and emotions to that of the intellect.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Wrong - some very unintelligent people make it all the way through to the higher echelons of the education system, through hard work and a good memory, not high intelligence.

of course they do we would'nt have preachers and politicians other wise

Other very intelligent people never progress very far at all.

what complete and utter bollocks. in the first part I mentioned IQ as well,.
or did you forget that.
in the second can you, if a Phsychiatrist cant do it, define normal. normality to a Phsychiatrist is what we all define as normal. what irrational or unreasonable person is acting normal.
and the third if your refering to just our own miinds then it would be subjective, but we're not, reallity is what we all see, hear, feel, taste, smell. (objective)
you are certainly confused.

 

[wesmorris]

Okay.
You cannot prove anything.
And all you can do is assert.

IMO, this is silly.

Of course you can prove whatever you want.

To whom is the issue.

To prove something, you simply have to create criteria for acceptance, and see that they are met. Voila, it's proven. Ultimately, what is proven is whatever I deem as such. Take MacM for example. To him, it's proven beyond doubt that GR and SR are useless pieces of shit. *shrug*

No, I can't prove anything to you, but I have no necessity or particular desire to do so at this time.

I cannot prove anything to someone who does not concur that it has been proven.

I CAN prove something to someone who concurs that it has been proven.

End of story.

 

[jayleew]

I have a simple proposition based on the definitions that follow.

Religion is not rational or objective and in fact, cannot stand to scrutiny by the intellect.

So I would like to discuss the perceived reasons why certain people who are otherwise <strike>supposedly</strike> intelligent and rational, follow a religion.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther that epitomize religious thinking for me:

*******************************

"It is the most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God"

"If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, Who shows so much anger and iniquity, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith"

"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."

"Reason is the enemy of faith"

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God"

*******************************
Definitions:

Objective:

Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

A term used to describe information which is without bias or prejudice and attempts to present all sides of an issue.

Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether.

Unbiased (not influenced by personal opinions).

------------------------
Rational:

consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion);

Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem. (Rationality, rationalism).

------------------------
Belief:

Belief is assent to a proposition.

An unproven assertion based on one or more fundamental assumptions. The assertion may be unprovable.

The willing acceptance of the fiction created within dramatic situations and plays, and the student's commitment to it.

An attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required guaranteeing its truth.

The subjective assessment of uncertainty. In the Bayesian paradigm, quantified by probability. In the statistical domain.

--------------------------
Faith:

Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

n a) belief and trust in and loyalty to God; belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust

Belief without evidence

The confusion of premises for conclusions.

Strong belief in something without proof or evidence

To trust. Confidence, belief. Confidence, reliance, belief esp. without evidence or proof. Belief based on testimony or authority. What is or should be believed; a system of firmly-held beliefs or principles; a religion.

What makes us have faith in God, even in the face of logic and unbelief? I don't know. I have lived without God as a vital part of my life for the past two weeks. I struggle against myself in order to keep the faith. Why do I have faith when I don't believe? My distance from God is caused by my lack of time spent with him, which stems from my unbelief.

It is like when you are seperated for years from your best friend, your life does not easily center around the friend. Instead you find other people to fill the hole.

I remember the times of peace I had when I was focused on God and spent enough time with him. Today, I get by just fine, but there is a hole in my heart that all the pleasures of the world doesn't satisfy permanently. I know that God can fill me, so why don't I run to him? My unbelief will destroy my faith eventually, so come quickly! When will I make the choice to not be of this world for all time?

I have faith in God because I can see the little "appointments" that were made in just the right way that brought me to God. Every Christian has a testimony of how they came to know God. These coincidences defy logical reasoning there is against God's existence by statistical analysis. So, I have faith, but how do I believe? It is a war in my head to lay down my logical doubts. I pray that God will prove me wrong and encourage me of his existence.

When I think back to the time when I first decided to have faith, it was a deliberate choice that I made to ignore the lack of evidence of God. My logic was that if there is a God, then I want to live in heaven and I will do, by deliberate unnatural action, anything that is told in the Bible. If there isn't a God, then I have changed the world by affecting the people around me in their attitudes and morals of peace and love; thereby making the world a better place. To me, I have nothing to lose by having faith and following Christ. In the unfortunate event that there is a God and I did not follow him, it would not be good thing.

This was enough motivation for me to force myself to follow Christ and learn about him. After some time of living a lie, I found God. I felt him like you feel the wind. The Christian walk is a series of baby-step choices that bring you closer to God if you stay the course. Christian faith begins with fear of God first. If you do not fear God, then you cannot become a Christian.

After finding God, and experiencing his faithfullness to me every day, I have no choice but to have faith that he is there. But still, my doubts are head-strong.

I hope this helps you understand why theists with a logical mind have faith in God.

 

[Mephura]

After some quick debate, I have come to the conclusion that I am indeed a theist, or at the very least something close to one. This being the case, I'd be willing to play the part of the "rational theist", or at least give it my best shot.

My first question to you would be this:
While religion might not be objective or rational, what example can you give in this life of any activity that is totally objective, and based entirely on fact/truth?

Give me an area, field or branch of science that contains no assumptions.
Or one self contained branch of logic that does the same.

 

[water]

IMO, this is silly.

Of course you can prove whatever you want.

To whom is the issue.

This is awfully convenient, you know.

To prove something, you simply have to create criteria for acceptance, and see that they are met. Voila, it's proven. Ultimately, what is proven is whatever I deem as such.

Thus, anything goes.

No, I can't prove anything to you, but I have no necessity or particular desire to do so at this time.

What would motivate you to prove something to a particular person?

End of story.

And the beginning of all problems.

 

[superluminal]

Jayleew:

It is like when you are seperated for years from your best friend, your life does not easily center around the friend. Instead you find other people to fill the hole.

Yes, but you can sit down and share a drink and a good conversation with your best friend, because he is real.

Thanks for your input.

"A man without god is like a fish without a bicycle"

 

[water]

Give me an area, field or branch of science that contains no assumptions.
Or one self contained branch of logic that does the same.

_~_

 

[glaucon]

Misty - wrong on every count;

LT: dang! You beat me to it. Nicely done.

mis-t: Mentioning that you mentioned the IQ does nothing to support your argument. IQ measures nothing but your score on a standardized test. In fact, nowadays, the IQ test has all but been replaced by more coherent test formats. Regardless, in the end intelligence is not a function of how well you respond to an artificially constructed situation.

More to the point, nothing can be proven but those things that we can validly derive from truthful premisses. This is why the vast majority of human knowledge is nothing but contingently true positions that have been inductively supported. IN the end, to claim something as proven would be an extremely irrational thing to do.

 

[wesmorris]

This is awfully convenient, you know.

Man there is a lot to discuss on that comment alone. I'll stick to the direct issue though: True, or untrue?: Proof is the satisfaction of conditions set forth and tested to determine the validity of an assertion?

Thus, anything goes.

Like christianity, buddism, islam???? Of course. That's the rub eh? It's the flip side of your own coin regarding your god. Is my proof to the contrary of your proof, worse than yours? If so, by what standard? What if my proof only says resoundingly "inconclusive"? Whose proof is better than whose? Who decides?

What would motivate you to prove something to a particular person?

There are a lot of different reasons I might be motivated to attempt to prove something to you, or anyone else. We could just put it in the terms of evolutionary psychology though and say: "when my memes think they're better than your memes".

And the beginning of all problems.

LOL. Sure I suppose. Relativism is a bitch of a reality. I can prove it to you. *smirk*

 

[wesmorris]

"Give me an area, field or branch of science that contains no assumptions.
Or one self contained branch of logic that does the same."

Assumptions are the name of the game. We all assume self. It's what other kind of crap you assume that starts conflicts. Theism is inclusive of the most vane assumption of all. "God". The presumption that you are "created" and can somehow possibly relate to that creator, who is beyond your blah blha.

Look I've got to tell you. The idea of presuming god is one of the most seductive, despicable, arrogant ideas in the universe. On the other hand, hoping there is a god, that's just human and kind of pretty in a lot of ways. Presuming one could possibly actually know anything it regard of such a superior beign is simply loathsome to me.

 

[water]

Look I've got to tell you. The idea of presuming god is one of the most seductive, despicable, arrogant ideas in the universe. On the other hand, hoping there is a god, that's just human and kind of pretty in a lot of ways. Presuming one could possibly actually know anything it regard of such a superior beign is simply loathsome to me.

Why do you find this loathsome?
Why do you think the idea of presuming god is one of the most seductive, despicable, arrogant ideas in the universe?
What is your reasoning behind this?

 

[water]

Man there is a lot to discuss on that comment alone. I'll stick to the direct issue though: True, or untrue?: Proof is the satisfaction of conditions set forth and tested to determine the validity of an assertion?

No proof, other than strict intellectual proof, is ever sufficient.
Whatever is based on the senses is bound by the inherent relativity of empiricism.

Like christianity, buddism, islam???? Of course. That's the rub eh? It's the flip side of your own coin regarding your god. Is my proof to the contrary of your proof, worse than yours? If so, by what standard? What if my proof only says resoundingly "inconclusive"? Whose proof is better than whose? Who decides?

Might is right.

There are a lot of different reasons I might be motivated to attempt to prove something to you, or anyone else. We could just put it in the terms of evolutionary psychology though and say: "when my memes think they're better than your memes".

But why do you think they are better?
On what basis do you surmises that at some point your memes are better than mine?

LOL. Sure I suppose. Relativism is a bitch of a reality. I can prove it to you. *smirk*

Why do we endure relativism, even though we don't like it?

 

[wesmorris]

No proof, other than strict intellectual proof, is ever sufficient.

Prove it.

You can only assert.

Whatever is based on the senses is bound by the inherent relativity of empiricism.

So you're saying that only the ethereal is provable?

Might is right.

Blame your god.

But why do you think they are better?

Based on my context. It's what makes sense. Making sense is "fitting a puzzle piece into the apparently correct hole in the puzzle of one's mind".

On what basis do you surmises that at some point your memes are better than mine?

Are you presuming I said they were? I'm saying that's the motivation, whether it's "true" or not is unknown.

Why do we endure relativism, even though we don't like it?

LOL. Why to we live, even though there is pain? Why do we breath? Why can't we "KNOW" EVERYTHING? Relativism isn't a choice. It's recognition of the organizational pieces in play.

 

[wesmorris]

Why do you find this loathsome?

Because of its audacity and self-important nature.

Why do you think the idea of presuming god is one of the most seductive, despicable, arrogant ideas in the universe?

Seductive because it's an easy answer to a lot of questions people often think of as "hard", because they refuse to accept "I don't know".

Despicable because of how it's utilized to justify "knowing", and it's propensity to stifle invidual thinking, to keep sheeple shackled, to enslave the minds of the "faithful" (as if god is the only thing that one could have faith in) into the dogmatic horse-shit of their cult. Despicable because that people actually teach religion to children as fact. Bah, too much explaining to get to the bottom of all of those, and sure, you can make a case that they aren't true, but in the end, this is my take on the specific charge. I should have said insidious, as the minds of most people who promote it, really don't understand the implications of their actions other than to "bring another into the fold" and thus stifle those who might actually have to think about why this or that is wrong or right, etc. Please, shape my conscience to your godmatic BS. (not you, I'm speaking to the idea of "god" in general). The idea for instance, that particular words or passages are "holy" is rooted in the idea of god. That is despicable IMO. All my bitching aside, it's despicable for the reason that it is fundamentally unethical, as faith in this "god" is purely etherial and by its nature puts any alternative suggestions in opposition. Bah I don't have the time to get deeper with it at the moment.

Obviously, "despicable" is indicative of my emotional reaction to certain consequences of "believing" in "god".

The arrogance isn't obvious?

Okay well first let me ask you something so I can see if it's a semantical issue:

Is either of these more arrogant than the other:

I know you can't see this thing in my head, but I assure you it's an objective fact that the reflection in my head is representative of the creator of the universe, and he has granted me special access to his juicy spritual goodness. He'd do it for you too if you'd just ask.

or:

I know you can't see this thing in my head, and don't expect you to necessarily believe me, but I think it's represenative of the creator. Do you think it's respresentative of special access to his juicy spiritual goodness?

Can you see why I might have a conversation with the second guy and be tempted to smack the first? I may just start putting distance between myself and either of them, but IMO, one is more arrogant than the other... and though not precise, the first smarmy condescending arrogance. Even if you package it differently, it's still the same. Gnostics piss me off, because there is not but to preach from "knowing" of god. Anything spoken, is spoken from it's pretense.

I don't particularly have a problem with your particular perspective on "god" water. It's mainly it's association and horsecrap via religious moronic implementation that sickens me. That the idea has been abused.

And to me, the following "makes sense" as I described making sense above:

If there were a god that created the universe, it rendered itself irrelevant by consequence of its creation. So really, I'm doing god's work by trying to bring the clarity of that realization to the minds of those who could not fathom such a thing on their own. *smirk*

You clingy god-bitches really ought to worry about making your fellow man suitable for reliance.

Glad to get that rant out of my system.

 

[water]

Wes,

No proof, other than strict intellectual proof, is ever sufficient.

Prove it.

You can only assert.

Hehe. What am I doing right now?

So you're saying that only the ethereal is provable?

No, I don't know what you mean by "ethereal", so I can't meaningfully answer your question.

Might is right.

Blame your god.

Why?
Present me an argument why I should blame this on "my god"!

On what basis do you surmises that at some point your memes are better than mine?

Are you presuming I said they were? I'm saying that's the motivation, whether it's "true" or not is unknown.

But isn't it odd, that one spends one's life doing things and not knowing why?

LOL. Why to we live, even though there is pain? Why do we breath? Why can't we "KNOW" EVERYTHING? Relativism isn't a choice. It's recognition of the organizational pieces in play.

Relativism can be overcome.
Give me that -p.a.r.a.d.i.g.m. s.h.i.f.t.

 

[water]

Wes, hi again.

Why do you find this loathsome?

Because of its audacity and self-important nature.

Why do you think "audacity" and "self-important nature" are bad, or something undesirable or at least unlikable?

Seductive because it's an easy answer to a lot of questions people often think of as "hard", because they refuse to accept "I don't know".

Oh no. Some people do cling on to religion for those reasons, but this isn't what the aim of religion is.

Despicable because of how it's utilized to justify "knowing", and it's propensity to stifle invidual thinking, to keep sheeple shackled, to enslave the minds of the "faithful"

How a person understands religion depends on their motives for either joining a religion or avoiding it. But this doesn't mean that said religion is defined by how someone understands it.

(as if god is the only thing that one could have faith in)

God is the only one worth having faith in, ultimately. Everything else is perishable, but He is not.

Despicable because that people actually teach religion to children as fact.

What facts do you have?

Bah, too much explaining to get to the bottom of all of those, and sure, you can make a case that they aren't true, but in the end, this is my take on the specific charge. I should have said insidious, as the minds of most people who promote it, really don't understand the implications of their actions other than to "bring another into the fold" and thus stifle those who might actually have to think about why this or that is wrong or right, etc. Please, shape my conscience to your godmatic BS. (not you, I'm speaking to the idea of "god" in general). The idea for instance, that particular words or passages are "holy" is rooted in the idea of god. That is despicable IMO. All my bitching aside, it's despicable for the reason that it is fundamentally unethical, as faith in this "god" is purely etherial and by its nature puts any alternative suggestions in opposition.

You want relativism, all the way through?

Obviously, "despicable" is indicative of my emotional reaction to certain consequences of "believing" in "god".

... as *you* understand those consequences to be, yes.

The arrogance isn't obvious?

No. I can understand how it is obvious to an outsider, but on the inside, there is no room for arrogance. One is nothing without God.

Is either of these more arrogant than the other:

I know you can't see this thing in my head, but I assure you it's an objective fact that the reflection in my head is representative of the creator of the universe, and he has granted me special access to his juicy spritual goodness. He'd do it for you too if you'd just ask.

Per definition, God is the one who incites a person to start seeking Him. This must be understood when entering communication about God and believing in God. A person doesn't start seeking God regardless of God, even though the person may think it is so.

I know you can't see this thing in my head, and don't expect you to necessarily believe me, but I think it's represenative of the creator. Do you think it's respresentative of special access to his juicy spiritual goodness?

Can you see why I might have a conversation with the second guy and be tempted to smack the first? I may just start putting distance between myself and either of them, but IMO, one is more arrogant than the other... and though not precise, the first smarmy condescending arrogance.

I see now. You would like to have God presented to you in a way that would please you.

Even if you package it differently, it's still the same.

No, not at all. One must develop one's organs of discernment to see the differences. It is a life-long work.

Gnostics piss me off, because there is not but to preach from "knowing" of god. Anything spoken, is spoken from it's pretense.

But how do you know it is pretense?

I don't particularly have a problem with your particular perspective on "god" water. It's mainly it's association and horsecrap via religious moronic implementation that sickens me. That the idea has been abused.

Ideas can't prevent themselves form being abused.

And to me, the following "makes sense" as I described making sense above:

If there were a god that created the universe, it rendered itself irrelevant by consequence of its creation.

I don't understand your reasoning here.
Why would god become irrelevant after creating the universe?
Do you think God made the universe, and then left to spin on its own?

You clingy god-bitches really ought to worry about making your fellow man suitable for reliance.

Do you think we are not?
What do you suggest that we do?

 

[Lawdog]

THIS STATEMENT "Religion is not rational or objective and in fact, cannot stand to scrutiny by the intellect." is extreme.

This would mean that the following giants of the history of world thought are irrational: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Jefferson, Aquinas, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, and numberless others.

You are defeated here.