Faith: What's the big deal?

[Acriku]

Okay, so what evidence is there for theology to make elements coherent?

[Caid Ivik]

To comprehend this further, one needs to study the formation of sciences (Leibniz in the present case, but for a more complete map let's say Newton, Voltaire, Bacon, Descartes - hey, that's my favorite Cartesian! -), or alternatively the Confucean concept of Li.

I would recommend Derrida or von F

[Egeides]

Okay, so what evidence is there for theology to make elements coherent?

You're sentient.

Caid: Looking into it (up to now, in broad lines, Derrida/Foerster and this seem like subtly different but typical interpretative branches of DaoDeQing - the matter looks like a definition of "balanced", the nature of 1 and 0)

[Acriku]

Sentience is not evidence in and of itself. Before we get into philosophies of sentience, like only you can be sure of your own sentience, etc, I have a question: if sentience is evidence for theology, what of the times before man existed? Or are we going off of the 6000 year timeframe  ::)

[Egeides]

if sentience is evidence for theology, what of the times before man existed? Or are we going off of the 6000 year timeframe  ::)

Acriku, did you mean that you thought the laws of physics' "intelligence" to be dependent on the number of humans on Earth? Anthropocentric freak! [/irony]

I have shown it with intelligence and natural laws. Sentience is the same in another field of this coherence. Sentience and natural consciousness.

PS:

We're going on the infinite timeframe with the universal. Stop thinking that reading the Bible implies 6000 years old history. Did your reading of Aristotle imply that being rational was about a world with 55 spheres, 4 elements and flat Earth?! Don't imply the same for theology.

[gunner154]

You might look at your life as the scope of what you're saying, but I am looking at the overall scope of the matter. Saying that the principle of believing in something without any evidence does more harm than good is actually very useful. I am denouncing the principle that believing in something without any evidence does more good than harm. I am doing that because it helps you get why I am so confused as to what the big deal about faith is and why people cherish to have it.

Why do they become better people? Same reason why religion has helped in the history, by manipulating them with hopes of rewards like eternity or Heaven or virgins. If we all died in the end and nothing happened, and all the Bibles said that, then religion isn't very useful in helping "evil" people to become better beyond what self-help books can do.

No Faith equates to no purpose. Being a believing Christian is a choice - nobody forces you to become one. Since many aspects of Christianity cannot be proven in absolute, the lack of Faith implies absolutely no belief in Christianity. It provides that headstart in the purpose of leading a Christian life. Think of it as pre-loading a game on Steam and getting to play it later, if that helps.

In fact, by relating religion to "manipulation" implies Faith already, except that it's Faith in the other direction. You have Faith in the belief that people choose to become better out of fear of punishment, so why don't you tell me what Faith in that really does for you, and does that do more harm than good or vice versa? ;)

And even if that were the case (ie. even if the belief that people became better out of fear were to be true), is it of consequence? You're raising a highly Faith-based argument - that we all died and nothing happened, and that the Bible said all that. Unless you're talking about a religion in general and not Christianity, that statement really goes nowhere. Besides, such a religion cannot really exist - if no spiritual force were to be considered in this religion, it would not stand as a religion but more of an underlying moral principle. We'd be stepping into the fields of morality and ethics already. It would be speaking of what you ought to do (and what you ought not to do) with the purposes of betterment of society. Without the consideration of an all-powerful being (which separates religion from general morality schools), it would not be considered a religion in the first place.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Does this apply to children who have been trustingly brain-washed by their parents?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Does this apply to children who have been trustingly brain-washed by their parents?

Thats irrelevant, once you get of a certain age you will question your own faith.  Hell Acriku had a close relationship with God and went to Hebrew school, his mom and dad are christian/jewish,  but he's an atheist now (although he has to hide it from them).  I myself questioned my faith in college and now i educate myself and search for truth.  Perhaps there are some people who will stay brainwashed all their lives, but if they dont break out of it ... its irrelevant because it means they're so weak-minded that they would have been brainwashed by something sooner or later down the road and if they cant question themselves now, they probalby dont have the intellectual to educate themselves or probably dont have the desire, so really its moot.

Also i would like to add to gunner's post and say that faith is needed to have a relationship with God.  If you dont have any faith you wont accept that He exists and you'll never be able to get past the first step of trying to reach out to Him.  This also ties in with the fact that gunner brought up about having to have faith in order to move past level 1 in any faith.  Faith is to be cherished because without it you cannot open your mind to anything spiritual.  The evidence for most people is their sentience.  So for most people their own sentience is their proof.  So most people dont consider their faith entirely with any proof.  I myself find my own sentience quite intriguing.  Nema has stated that is normal for any intelligent being to find its own sentience intriguing and amazing. But why is it normal?  Why is it normal for mankind to view its sentience as intriguing?  Perhaps because the universe seems all too convenient and fabricated? 

Faith is needed to believe in God but it comes with strong feelings about ones own perception of the universe and one's sentience.  Its much harder to refute God as a concept than it is to assault a religion.  Sure its easy to make fun of the virgins in Islam but its harder to truly deny the concept of a God.  I'd say the majority of people are simply deists who dont know which religion to choose.  Which is the problem with atheism.  Atheism assaults God by assaulting perceived flaws in religion, but even if you were able to perfectly refute every religion on earth you still wouldnt have successfully refuted God Himself.  Hence atheism is an exercise in futility.  Which is why pascal's wager makes sense to me (in its core sense).  By simply reaching out to God and attempting to know Him, you are still better off than someone who never tried.  Even if its 1% increase in odds I'll take it.  I guess that why faith should be cherished, simply because of that ability.

Gun

[Darth Kwisatz]

If religions and their documents be the only indicators of god, god is easy to refute. The universe is the only thing that doesn't seem fabricated, except for the convenience of explaining religious dogma for all-too-human purposes.

As to faithlessness pointing to purposelessness, that may or may not be true, as purpose is ultimately an individual thing. Even religious people nominate purpose for themsleves. Why be terrified of having no purpose? Why be terrified of nothingness after death as a concept?

Why does spirituality have to be the only vocabulary within which to express a sense of absolute wonder at the majesty of the universe? Why does such a sense have to be poisoned by inadequate human myth concepts of purpose and design?

[GUNWOUNDS]

If religions and their documents be the only indicators of god, god is easy to refute. The universe is the only thing that doesn't seem fabricated, except for the convenience of explaining religious dogma for all-too-human purposes.

As to faithlessness pointing to purposelessness, that may or may not be true, as purpose is ultimately an individual thing. Even religious people nominate purpose for themsleves. Why be terrified of having no purpose? Why be terrified of nothingness after death as a concept?

Why does spirituality have to be the only vocabulary within which to express a sense of absolute wonder at the majesty of the universe? Why does such a sense have to be poisoned by inadequate human myth concepts of purpose and design?

Thats just it...religions and their doucments are not the only indicators of God.. because at one point religions and their documents didnt exist at all, yet we have them now.  Therefore, it seems that a faint knowledge or feeling of God is "built-in" within us.. sort of like some inverted homing beacon, instead of it helping God to find us it forces us to find God.

As far as purpose goes.... who knows why humans balk at the idea of dying and becoming nothing but dust?  It seems to be another thing instilled in us....the desire for eternal life.  And purpose is necessary, it is natural for everyone to want to feel important and wanted and for your life to be meaningful instead of thinking of yourself as a decaying meatbag on some rock in the middle of void space, another common "built-in trait" of humans.  This universe does seem all to convenient and fabricated.  I mean elements ranging from Oxygen for us to breathe to Iron for us to forge into tools and weapons, and titanium and carbon for us to make golf clubs.  Its all so bizarre, and yet so convenient.

Spirituality isnt the only vocabulary with which to express a sense of absolute wonder at the majesty of the universe and your own sentience.  However one cannot help it if one's thoughts are permeated with thougts of the metaphysical and what "could be" due to the intrinisic awe that one feels about one's own sentience and the universe that surrounds it.  Its just open-mindedness really, and you'll see that open-mindedness towards the metaphysical moreso in Theoretical Physicists than in any other scientists in any other science field.  Most likely due to the fact that the closer you get to understanding the universe itself the more sense God (or whatever supreme force) makes.   You're more likely to hear Theoretical Physicists talk about Supreme Beings, Clockmakers, A being that monkey'd with the universe, Supreme force, or Creator than any other type of scientist and i find that interesting.  You'd think the closer you got to understanding the universe the more you would reject God... but it seems to have the opposite effect.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Gunwounds...

I think you've answered all my questions, for which I owe you great thanks.

Prehistoric mono-theitstic belief expressed as the god of eternal heaven and hell is a cultural quirk of the early Jews despite other explanations developed by the other races and cultures of humanity. Some people think they have a homing beacon, and divine purpose as expressed by creation reflects nothing but a human desire for immortality.

I'd be needing truckloads of faith to sustain such a belief system too, and I can see why egoistic theists therefore do make such a big deal of faith. I can certainly see why they executed Jesus and other "heretics", and why a fatwa still affects Mr Rushdie. What a dirty, dangerous and corrupt game to play.

[Egeides]

DK:

You are claiming that Gunwounds' words are "what theism is", and what I wrote simply does not use any of this. What I wrote on the last page to answer Acriku makes my point here. If something is claimed by the majority, are you to take it integrally and say as them "this is theism/Christianity"?

If I give a book showing Descartes' scientific method to a whole population to learn from, there are chances that it wont give all the same things for each. It might be a guidebook for most in approaching scientific phenomenons, but it'll still give a whole range of results (each his context, each his psychology, etc.).

[Darth Kwisatz]

It was a deliberately provocative cheap shot, and I confess to being mesmerised by his banner showing a guy dressed like a mormon bashing the viewer for making stupid posts. It's just too irresistable!

[GUNWOUNDS]

you really didnt respond to any of my points.  You just seem to post random thoughts from your head.  You seemed to be obsessed with talking about irrelevant examples like fatwa (ok so man is able to corrupt a message so what?)... and yes humans desire immortality  (but why?) and then you talk about how mound of faith is needed to believe in an afterlife (yet it doesnt take much for agnostic theoretical physicicsts to get a taste of it)  and then you say that theism is a quirk from the jews and that we dont have beacons.  (Yet non-jew primitive men have made altars and felt the need to worship a spiritual force... strange)   And you still havent said why you dont think the universe is convenient.  C'mon all of us meatbags floating on a rock with all these cool malleable elements to do with as we please... all too easy.

Pascal said it best.... "its inconceivable that God exists...and its inconceivable that God doesnt exist." 

Its to the point where if we were finally able to prove that God absolutely doesnt exist.... I would say "yea...oh sure i guess that makes sense."   OR if we were finally able to prove that God absolutely DOES exist i would say "yes of course its so obvious"

Pascal's quote and my sentence above fits your paradox rule and therefore God is truth and exists.

Ok guess that wraps it up... anyone up for a new topic about bean burritos?

[Egeides]

It was a deliberately provocative cheap shot, and I confess to being mesmerised by his banner showing a guy dressed like a mormon bashing the viewer for making stupid posts. It's just too irresistable!

Got me.

I'll go for burritos. Except if Acriku comes out with some unmentioned or something. With lots of that sauce please.

[Darth Kwisatz]

What's wrong with tangentalism and a good old stream of consciousness from time to time? Most of your points have been refuted in earlier posts and threads, not necessarily by me and without adequate counter-argument. To repeat the same questions, musings and answers is, frankly, dull. Raise something new, or god forbid, enlighten us so that we may believe! That's been the silent challenge in all this.

Any example of faith is relevant to the general body of "knowledge" contained in a flawed belief system, and therefore to debunking it. In your arguments, the exceptions only seem to prove the rule.

A universe of simplicity is neither convenient or inconvenient. It is coincidental. Convenience is an entirely subjective view. Convenient to a partisan position.

Was it Nietzsche who said "If god didn't exist man would have invented him anyway"? I am not even slightly concerned whith what Pascal could or could not conceive of. He did speak for me.

[Darth Kwisatz]

Load up my burrito with jalapenos, red tobasco, onions, garlic and red chilli. And none of that cheese from inside a tube.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I've noticed many who defend their belief that their is no God note, among other things, the fact that science has explained so much of the origins of the universe and of life, that there is just no cause to believe in a God. They're not stupid enough to use this as an argument against the existence of a God, though some might think it counters what they attribute as a an invalid reason that many have for believing in God. They're not stupid enough to use this as an argument against the existence of a God, or at least will quickly correct themselves if they do and are called on it, yet, I often get the distinct sense that this looms large in their belief system: Science is Great - Science can explain all - there is no mystery in the universe that, if not already explained by science, will not eventually be explained.

There are a couple of problems I have with those who have such strong and pure faith in science (yes, it is pure faith) as to believe it can explain all mysteries.

1) The origins of the universe.

2) The nature of consciousness.

If you assume an initial condition of nothingness - no matter, energy, space, time, or anything - not even any physical laws - you can't explain how a universe comes into existence. So, there's always a big bit of mystery about the fact that there were some initial conditions that happened to be favorable to producing what we see around us. Now, this might not be such a big mystery. You could use a kind of anthropic principle, along with a view that the universe - the collection of all possible universes, really - is purely hypothetical. In other words, if (hypothetically) the initial conditions were X, X' would logically result, and if the initial conditions were Y, Y' would logically result. What is the difference between the idea of resulting universe X' - the full idea, complete in every detail - and the real thing? So which one of all possible universes do we find ourselves in? Certainly one like ours. Actually, ours (not just one like it).

It's just a plain simple fact that there is no conceivable way science could ever explain consciousness (sticking to reasonable definitions of the words "science", "explain" and "conciousness"), yet it's the most fundamental and salient aspect of our day-to-day existence. It's right there in front of our faces (figuratively speaking - who can locate it?) every day, yet it's fundamentally different than anything that science could conceivably observe, let alone explain. To reiterate, if it's not clear: it's not simply that science has not yet explained this, but that the thing to be explained here is fundamentally different than the kinds of things that science can explain and still be science. It is a great mystery, right in front of everyone's face, and so many people are completely oblivious to it.

These are the things that atheists have never addressed.  Its not about immortality, its not about purpose, its not about manipulation of the masses.  Its about the metaphysical thing we deal with everyday... our own consciouness.

Just like in the past was done, you can't just assume everything not provable is because of God.

Of course.

But I can't help but have a strange feeling about the universe the way it is and the way, by any imaginable scientific account, it could be. The way it is I have these rich experiences - I see things. Just looking at the colors on my computer screen I see stuff that there is no explanation for (how the colors look) and that can't be described (how the colors look), though we do label them. The way it could be, by any imaginable scientific account, is that I'd still exist, and be typing everything I'm typing, going on and on about consciousness and subjective experiences, and I'd be a complex automaton without consciousness or subjective experiences. The fact that the most wonderful thing about the universe (consciousness - being aware of something) is right there in front of us, obvious, every day, and yet can't be described, or measured scientifically, or objectively shown to exist ... ... right there in front of us more obvious than anything, and yet hidden from every way we have of making scientific observations - this really makes me quite suspicious about this world.

Before you say that not currently understanding what something is does not make it unexplainable nor does it make it metaphysical. Let me finish.

I'm NOT talking about a lack of understanding of consciousness, but of a clear understanding that it is fundamentally different from anything that we can explain scientifically. (hence metaphysical)

If you can't describe at all how the color blue looks to you so that I can have an idea whether I see it as you do (or so that a blind person can have some idea what you're talking about), how can you explain how physical processes give rise to it looking that way to you? You can't prove 1+1=X if you can say nothing about X other than that it is something we are labelling with the symbol 'X'. Similarly you can't say some complex physical processes give rise to the experience of seeing blue when you can't say anything about blue (as you see it) other than that it is something we are labelling with the word 'blue'. And I don't believe your inability to describe how the color blue looks to you is because of ignorance or lack of understanding. You know how it looks to you, you know what is conceivably explainable, and you know it can't be done.

That is Theism to me.  Its not about all the other BS superificial naturalistic explanations that atheistis crank out to keep their intellectual ego intact.... its about having a piece of metaphysical inside you that you know is there.. but you know is impossible to explain... and wondering.... hey is there more of this metaphysical sentience stuff out there?  Theism and creation isnt far-fetched or some fuzzy invention of prehistoric man wanting immortality or purpose in life... its simply a branch of logic.  You only have two choices... "created" or "always existed".  If you choose "created" then you have two more choices, "sentient creator" or "non-sentient creator".  So 2 creation possibilities and 1 non-creation possibility.  So 3 logical choices.  The atheists in this thread havent even yet to begin to touch on these basic principles i have put forth in the above paragraphs, which go beyond superficial judgement of religion to something far deeper.

Gun

[GUNWOUNDS]

p.s. i like my burritos smothered in that green salsa.

[Acriku]

Thats just it...religions and their doucments are not the only indicators of God.. because at one point religions and their documents didnt exist at all, yet we have them now.  Therefore, it seems that a faint knowledge or feeling of God is "built-in" within us.. sort of like some inverted homing beacon, instead of it helping God to find us it forces us to find God.

From the objective point of view, this sounds more like man creating religion and God for whatever reason. Playing it out to be us finding God is an a priori argument, an argument starting with the assumption that God already exists.

As far as purpose goes.... who knows why humans balk at the idea of dying and becoming nothing but dust?

Well, not humans. Just members of certain societies. The Amish view death a totally different way than we do. As do many tribes. Our civilization has built its own view of the dead and dying through different influences that have largely caused us to fear or make a huge deal about death.

It seems to be another thing instilled in us....the desire for eternal life.  And purpose is necessary, it is natural for everyone to want to feel important and wanted and for your life to be meaningful instead of thinking of yourself as a decaying meatbag on some rock in the middle of void space, another common "built-in trait" of humans.  This universe does seem all to convenient and fabricated.  I mean elements ranging from Oxygen for us to breathe to Iron for us to forge into tools and weapons, and titanium and carbon for us to make golf clubs.  Its all so bizarre, and yet so convenient.

Yes, well purpose or not, our type of life springs up in those conditions so if you have the conditions life will find a way. So it's not right to say it's too convenient. Life may have sprung in a totally different way under totally different conditions and we'd be amazed by the convenience of the abundance of those resources instead.

Spirituality isnt the only vocabulary with which to express a sense of absolute wonder at the majesty of the universe and your own sentience.  However one cannot help it if one's thoughts are permeated with thougts of the metaphysical and what "could be" due to the intrinisic awe that one feels about one's own sentience and the universe that surrounds it.  Its just open-mindedness really, and you'll see that open-mindedness towards the metaphysical moreso in Theoretical Physicists than in any other scientists in any other science field.  Most likely due to the fact that the closer you get to understanding the universe itself the more sense God (or whatever supreme force) makes.  You're more likely to hear Theoretical Physicists talk about Supreme Beings, Clockmakers, A being that monkey'd with the universe, Supreme force, or Creator than any other type of scientist and i find that interesting.  You'd think the closer you got to understanding the universe the more you would reject God... but it seems to have the opposite effect.

Well, to not misunderstand any scientists, what many refer to as God or the creator, such as Einstein, is merely the first cause or something that triggered the big bang. Don't suppose that this means they believe in a sentient God or even a Christian God.

[Acriku]

p.s. i like my burritos smothered in that green salsa.

Friggin' load mine con queso and black beans and I'm set.

[Edric O]

In relation to one of Gunwounds' points, I should point out a fallacious argument that atheists often use (albeit implicitly). It is the argument of the form:

"Since science has explained some things in the past, it will be able to explain all things in the future."

This is implicit in the typical atheist answer to the "God of the gaps" - we don't need God to explain any gaps in our knowledge because we'll find some other explanation for those gaps some day in the future.

Needless to say, this argument is a complete non-sequitur. There is no reason to expect that science will ever be able to explain everything without postulating the existence of a god (particularly since we tend to discover new gaps in the process of filling old ones).

[Acriku]

In relation to one of Gunwounds' points, I should point out a fallacious argument that atheists often use (albeit implicitly). It is the argument of the form:

"Since science has explained some things in the past, it will be able to explain all things in the future."

This is implicit in the typical atheist answer to the "God of the gaps" - we don't need God to explain any gaps in our knowledge because we'll find some other explanation for those gaps some day in the future.

Needless to say, this argument is a complete non-sequitur. There is no reason to expect that science will ever be able to explain everything without postulating the existence of a god (particularly since we tend to discover new gaps in the process of filling old ones).

What's the point of bringing this up here? No one has said it. You're border-lining a straw man Edric, you should know better.

[GUNWOUNDS]

What's the point of bringing this up here? No one has said it. You're border-lining a straw man Edric, you should know better.

No one has said it in this thread but Dante uses it quite frequently. 

[Darth Kwisatz]

If there's anything better than stretching to drop an old growth forest log after a large low-fat meal, its shooting out razor blades after a chilli drowning! But I digress...

My questions about god go to wanting a scientific explanation for spirits and their quantifiable effect on the physical realm as a foundation for god belief. I don't think that is too much to ask, and I can't accept the possibility of spirits existing without this. Ultimately, anything universally perceivable can be observed, measured or calculated if someone is smart enough and focused enough, so my satisfaction with science comes not from faith.

I don't assume an initial condition of nothingness so that point is lost.

I am happy with the explanation that consciousness is the by-product of a highly evolved neuro-chemical system. I am comfortable with complexity as a concept. I resent efforts of christians to reign in scientific research to protect their political influence.

The one aspect of existence that mystifies me utterly is optics. Eyes are simply the most amazing biological contraptions, but I suppose that if someone was smart enough to invent a camera, it can't be that complex, if yet amazing.

One thing I am happy with is faith in ideals, and for mythology to serve as a store of collective wisdom and allegory to guide humanity. I am happy with god as a metaphor for the universe and for nature, but not as a literally-interpreted personality with human characteristics, although again, metaphorically, a personality can be ascribed. The concept of perfection representing balance actually makes sense in this context, but no other.