Self-reinforcing delusions in Christianity

A self-reinforcing delusion is a false belief which in some way ensures that it will continue to be believed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So if a child imagines that fairies exist then he has a false belief (delusion). If the fairies tell him that his mother and father will not see them because the are grown-ups then the child has a false belief that reinforces and justifies itself (a self-reinforcing delusion).

Is Christianity (or any religion really) a self-reinforcing delusion? Here's a short list of features that would seem to indicate that it is.

1. The virtue of faith. According to Christianity believing in the existence of God and Jesus as the messiah without any good evidence or reason is a virtue. In the gospels the power of faith is affirmed over and over. One of Jesus' catchphrases is "O ye of little faith" and in Matthew 17:18-20 he says this:

"And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

If there's any kind of failing in a Christian it's normally that they didn't believe strongly enough. In this way the delusion of Christianity is very much self-reinforcing.

2. The threat of hell. According to Christianity if you do not believe in the existence of God and Jesus as the messiah then you're going to burn. Now as I'm sure Gabu would point out this is not necessarily what is found in scripture but nevertheless it is widely believed by the majority of Christians. The very fact that non-belief is connected to punishment should surely indicate to us that this belief is self-reinforcing.

3. The allure of heaven. According to Christianity if you do believe in the existence of God and Jesus as your lord and saviour then you're going to paradise. Inversely to hell the fact that belief is connected to reward surely indicates the self-reinforcing nature of Christianity.

4. The great commision. If you're a Christian then it's your responsibility to share your belief with as many people as possible and to spread the delusion. This is unambiguously self-reinforcing.

5. Satan's role as a deciever. If anything in some way undermines God, Jesus or Christianity then it is automatically blamed on Satan. Anything that seems to disprove Christianity in fact further proves its thesis by demonstrating the presence of some cosmic liar who is out to cause non-belief and trick people into hell. This in effect makes Christianity, if it is true, indistinguishable from an everyday falsehood. Check for self-reinforcement.

6. The total depravity of mankind. According to Christianity mankind is so wicked that we have a natural predisposition to hate God. If you don't believe in God it's not because you have sound reasons not to, no. It's because you hate him and you have a hardened heart that corrupts your objectivity and fairness in observing the evidence for his existence. If people don't believe it's just because they're being naughty. If people get angry at you while you're sharing your beliefs then that's proof that you're right. Here's a perfect illustration of this point. Another check for self-reinforcement.

Whew okay that's six points done. If anyone can think of any ther ways that Christianity (or any other religion) reinforces itself list them here.

Who says fairies don't exist? Many people can believe certain things without objective evidence, and know assuredly they are right... but that doesn't mean they are "deluded." We can't always rely on our senses and sometimes we can be fooled by them. Unless you can explain absolutely everything about the universe, I don't think it is fair to evaluate other's beliefs as "deluded."foxhound_fox

Yeah I figured I'd get flak for declaring Christianity to be a delusion.

Point taken but hypothetically presupposing here that the beliefs of Christians are false would you agree that it is a self-reinforcing delusion?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Who says fairies don't exist? Many people can believe certain things without objective evidence, and know assuredly they are right... but that doesn't mean they are "deluded." We can't always rely on our senses and sometimes we can be fooled by them. Unless you can explain absolutely everything about the universe, I don't think it is fair to evaluate other's beliefs as "deluded."domatron23

Yeah I figured I'd get flak for declaring Christianity to be a delusion.

Point taken but hypothetically presupposing here that the beliefs of Christians are false would you agree that it is a self-reinforcing delusion?

Studies indicate that humans actively seek to reinforce their already formed beliefs in just about everything, because they become personally attached to them.  This is much the same as what you describe: no matter what evidence comes out, people will invariably try to figure out how it substantiates their beliefs.  So the fact that people look at the Bible and find, no matter what, something to support their beliefs does not strike me as anything out of the ordinary.

It is perhaps the case that a certain reading of the Bible makes it easier than usual to assure oneself that no matter what happens one is still right, but that's about as far as I see it going.

Studies indicate that humans actively seek to reinforce their already formed beliefs in just about everything, because they become personally attached to them.  This is much the same as what you describe: no matter what evidence comes out, people will invariably try to figure out how it substantiates their beliefs.  So the fact that people look at the Bible and find, no matter what, something to support their beliefs does not strike me as anything out of the ordinary.

It is perhaps the case that a certain reading of the Bible makes it easier than usual to assure oneself that no matter what happens one is still right, but that's about as far as I see it going.

GabuEx

This isn't just people reading the Bible and then selectively interpreting it in a way that bolsters their pre-conceived notions though. The points that I listed are key tenets of Christianity, they are the fabric of the belief itself, not the biases that the people assessing it bring in to the equation.

This isn't just people reading the Bible and then selectively interpreting it in a way that bolsters their pre-conceived notions though. The points that I listed are key tenets of Christianity, they are the fabric of the belief itself, not the biases that the people assessing it bring in to the equation.

domatron23

Yes, but my point is that, no matter what, people always attempt (whether subconsciously or otherwise) to get into the position where any new information is guaranteed to support their views.  For example, I can't count the number of times I've seen someone blame the political party in power for an economic downturn and then refuse to credit them when the economy recovers.  Christianity might offer a specific framework through which people may gain a self-perpetuating belief, but humans are perfectly good at coming across such things all on their own, too.

So I guess I'm not really sure what your intended point is.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

This isn't just people reading the Bible and then selectively interpreting it in a way that bolsters their pre-conceived notions though. The points that I listed are key tenets of Christianity, they are the fabric of the belief itself, not the biases that the people assessing it bring in to the equation.

GabuEx

Yes, but my point is that, no matter what, people always attempt (whether subconsciously or otherwise) to get into the position where any new information is guaranteed to support their views.  For example, I can't count the number of times I've seen someone blame the political party in power for an economic downturn and then refuse to credit them when the economy recovers.  Christianity might offer a specific framework through which people may gain a self-perpetuating belief, but humans are perfectly good at coming across such things all on their own, too.

So I guess I'm not really sure what your intended point is.

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself  (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

Who says fairies don't exist? Many people can believe certain things without objective evidence, and know assuredly they are right... but that doesn't mean they are "deluded." We can't always rely on our senses and sometimes we can be fooled by them. Unless you can explain absolutely everything about the universe, I don't think it is fair to evaluate other's beliefs as "deluded."foxhound_fox

The basis for such a belief is irrational though, thus I think it is fair to evaluate said beliefs as delusions.

Studies indicate that humans actively seek to reinforce their already formed beliefs in just about everything, because they become personally attached to them. This is much the same as what you describe: no matter what evidence comes out, people will invariably try to figure out how it substantiates their beliefs. So the fact that people look at the Bible and find, no matter what, something to support their beliefs does not strike me as anything out of the ordinary.

It is perhaps the case that a certain reading of the Bible makes it easier than usual to assure oneself that no matter what happens one is still right, but that's about as far as I see it going.

GabuEx

The basis for such a belief is irrational though, thus I think it is fair to evaluate said beliefs as delusions.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]The basis for such a belief is irrational though, thus I think it is fair to evaluate said beliefs as delusions.foxhound_fox

To say that somebody holds a delusion is not to say they are certainly and absolutely wrong. Rather, I think the word is used to describe the nature in which a belief is held or derived rather than the absolute rightness or wrongess of what what one believes.

For example, I think it would be erroneous to describe a scientist as deluded who say believed in a particular model or theory even though all the evidence at that time supported that theory, even though a 100 years ago said scientist was proven to be wrong. That scientist would have been wrong, but not deluded. The two words are not synonymous.

Just because they are irrational doesn't mean they are "wrong." Not having objective evidence doesn't make someone "wrong." If you are affirmed in a belief, and have personal, subjective evidence, then to you, you are "right" and that is all that matters. We could all be deluded by physical existence, God (or some supernatural entity) could exist and it might just be a test of faith. Who knows, which is why one must remain agnostic concerning questions of existence.

Granted, claiming such things as "right" objectively, is definitely not healthy for society. Philosophically, its fine. But I assume the basis of this discussion is philosophy.foxhound_fox

Its true that irrational people are not always "wrong", but they are far less likely to be "right" than those reaching rational decisions.

I think it is important to weigh subjective evidence objectively! In legal terms, the perceived high quality of "witness testimony" evidence has decreased in the past few decades, as the standard of quality for "circumstantial" forsensic evidence has provided far more reliable means of deciding guilt.

A "delusion" could be a belief based ona a fanciful idea, or it could be a description of a psychotic state, so it can be interpreted as an insult quite easily. "Irrational" is a better description, since its far harder to refute. Unfortunately, its still just as likely to offend, though.

It is great wondering about possibilities and no-one really does know about our ultimate purpose. But to base your way of living on a religious doctrine is living a life based on one of many different equally-irrational possibilities - that favour personal preference over objective evidence.

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself  (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

RationalAtheist

I'm not talking about science or religion.  I'm talking about people.  People always like having their views substantiated, and don't like having their views refuted.  We're not robots and we're not Spock, much as some scientifically-minded people would like to think they are.  If someone has spent years and years of their life arguing in favor of a position such that it's become a part of their life, they're not going to part with it just like that; they will always try to find validation of their position in whatever new evidence comes along.  This is true both of the religious and of scientists - there's a reason why people still persist in pitching a scientific idea even after most of the scientific community has moved on and declared it discredited.  Probably one of the most courageous acts that anyone can ever do is to admit the possibility that they have been wrong their entire life.

I will certainly grant that science is structured in such a way to mitigate the effects of this psychological phenomenon whereas Christianity isn't (although I have always maintained that one is not supposed to glean scientific facts from Christianity anyway), but then, again, I still don't see what the point of this thread is.  No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

If we can't discuss and underpin the basis for our views here (in this open to all union), then what's the point of it?

I think you assume that science has boundaries, whereas I think the unexplained is a scientific frontier. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself  (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

GabuEx

I'm not talking about science or religion.  I'm talking about people.  People always like having their views substantiated, and don't like having their views refuted.  We're not robots and we're not Spock, much as some scientifically-minded people would like to think they are.  If someone has spent years and years of their life arguing in favor of a position such that it's become a part of their life, they're not going to part with it just like that; they will always try to find validation of their position in whatever new evidence comes along.  This is true both of the religious and of scientists - there's a reason why people still persist in pitching a scientific idea even after most of the scientific community has moved on and declared it discredited.  Probably one of the most courageous acts that anyone can ever do is to admit the possibility that they have been wrong their entire life.

I will certainly grant that science is structured in such a way to mitigate the effects of this psychological phenomenon whereas Christianity isn't (although I have always maintained that one is not supposed to glean scientific facts from Christianity anyway), but then, again, I still don't see what the point of this thread is.  No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

If we can't discuss and underpin the basis for our views here (in this open to all union), then what's the point of it?

I think you assume that science has boundaries, whereas I think the unexplained is a scientific frontier. 

RationalAtheist

But science does have boundaries, that's the point. There are basic laws that determine specific events. New theories MUST be supported by pre existing evidence, thus placing a boundary on what will and will not be accepted. If you mean that there will never be an end to scientific discoveries or possibilities, you are completely correct.

itsTolkien_time

The laws are NOT immutable, since evidence for new discovery has changed scientific understanding considerably in the past.

I see a claim of irrationality far less insulting than being damned to hell. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself  (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

GabuEx

I'm not talking about science or religion.  I'm talking about people.  People always like having their views substantiated, and don't like having their views refuted.  We're not robots and we're not Spock, much as some scientifically-minded people would like to think they are.  If someone has spent years and years of their life arguing in favor of a position such that it's become a part of their life, they're not going to part with it just like that; they will always try to find validation of their position in whatever new evidence comes along.  This is true both of the religious and of scientists - there's a reason why people still persist in pitching a scientific idea even after most of the scientific community has moved on and declared it discredited.  Probably one of the most courageous acts that anyone can ever do is to admit the possibility that they have been wrong their entire life.

I will certainly grant that science is structured in such a way to mitigate the effects of this psychological phenomenon whereas Christianity isn't (although I have always maintained that one is not supposed to glean scientific facts from Christianity anyway), but then, again, I still don't see what the point of this thread is.  No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

I don't think the OP was really commenting on the scientific validity of Christianity. Rather he's arguing that Christianity prevents people from challenging their beliefs by having various morals and secondary beliefs designed to promote unconditional belief and discourage critical analysis.

While I do agree with the point that religions are designed (intentionally or not) in such a way as to maximize retention rates via discouraging critical thought, I wouldn't go so far as to call religious belief a delusion. It can become delusional, but for most people it's just a belief.

If we can't discuss and underpin the basis for our views here (in this open to all union), then what's the point of it?

RationalAtheist

No offense, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, or this thread at large.  You can feel free to discuss the basis for your views... but that's not what this thread is about; this thread just invites people to list ways in which belief in Christianity is self-perpetuating.  And I don't see what purpose that will fulfill, aside from giving people fodder for which to (slightly ironically) validate their negative views of the religion.

I think you assume that science has boundaries, whereas I think the unexplained is a scientific frontier.

RationalAtheist

I do think science has boundaries, yes, that being the boundary between "is" and "ought".

this thread just invites people to list ways in which belief in Christianity is self-perpetuating.  And I don't see what purpose that will fulfill, aside from giving people fodder for which to (slightly ironically) validate their negative views of the religion.GabuEx

Is it not right to be suspicious of a self-perpetuating system like this though? If Christianity were simply a plain matter of fact then all of these self-reinforcing mechanisms wouldn't be needed at all.

No offense, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, or this thread at large.  You can feel free to discuss the basis for your views... but that's not what this thread is about; this thread just invites people to list ways in which belief in Christianity is self-perpetuating.  And I don't see what purpose that will fulfill, aside from giving people fodder for which to (slightly ironically) validate their negative views of the religion.

GabuEx

Well, it was only a retort to your saying this earlier:

 

No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

GabuEx

I think there is a valid argument against all religions or organisations that self-perpetuate and re-enforce their beliefs. At the very least, it encourages a blinkered and controlled view of the world. It's certainly not a criticism that can be safely levelled at atheism. In my view, atheism is a belief that many arrive at independently and without re-enforcement or cajouling.

 

 I do think science has boundaries, yes, that being the boundary between "is" and "ought".

GabuEx

I thought you did. I'm not clear on that distinction between "is and "ought" though. Don't you agree that things considered miraculous years ago are routine now?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

The psychological evidence you mention; that humans tend to prefer and enforce what they think, would seem to enforce the notion of religious delusions from faith - not just from Christianity.

I'd say that's not true that new information does not affect view. Deductive rationalisation does not re-enforce conclusions. The scientific framework for discovery itself (based on this logic) can question existing scientific paradigms in the light of new discovery.

Bad science (take cold water fusion discovery, for example) can be dismissed, based on the lack of evidence supporting it - no matter how much people want to believe in it. There's the difference between rational and irrational thought.

GabuEx

I'm not talking about science or religion. I'm talking about people. People always like having their views substantiated, and don't like having their views refuted. We're not robots and we're not Spock, much as some scientifically-minded people would like to think they are. If someone has spent years and years of their life arguing in favor of a position such that it's become a part of their life, they're not going to part with it just like that; they will always try to find validation of their position in whatever new evidence comes along. This is true both of the religious and of scientists - there's a reason why people still persist in pitching a scientific idea even after most of the scientific community has moved on and declared it discredited. Probably one of the most courageous acts that anyone can ever do is to admit the possibility that they have been wrong their entire life.

I will certainly grant that science is structured in such a way to mitigate the effects of this psychological phenomenon whereas Christianity isn't (although I have always maintained that one is not supposed to glean scientific facts from Christianity anyway), but then, again, I still don't see what the point of this thread is. No offense to anyone involved, but this smacks as just a petty attack on Christianity with no broader or deeper point being made, as if to just say, "Ho ho ho, look at how silly and un-scientific Christianity is."

In case you hadn't noticed this is called the 'Atheism Union' and not the 'Christian Apologetics Union' -- you knew very well the nature of this forum when you joined up so you really can't complain.

NB: I don't mean to be rude, but you really are taking the biscuit with this one.

The supposed predisposition to hate God is untrue. A good atheist would respect the idea of God too much to attribute it to the creation of evil.

Whether Christianity is true or false, still the observation in the OP is an interesting one.

Based on my opinion, (that Christianity is possibly true but the Bible is influenced heavily by the authors) , that observance shows a common human trait, like GabuEx explained it very well.

I think the thread has a point in that it poses the problem of the instances where a debate over Christianity ends suddenly when one person (that would be the Christian fundamentalist), disposes of all premises of the "opponent" by bringing up any of the tennents listed in the OP.

Or generally when such a "defense mechanism" doesnt allow the people who use it to move on and accept new information that may refute their opinion in the slightest.

So why Christianity? Is it a far greater delusion that it is more important to refute than either Judaism or Islam, or any other "the faithful shall be rewarded"-religion out there?ChiliDragon

Christianity is just what I (and I suspect most of the people here) are the most familiar with. While I have singled out Christianity this applies equally to all religions and I mentioned as much inthe opening post. I also invited everyone to note down self-reinforcing delusions, including ones from any other religion, so I'm by no means making Christianity to be a special case.

That being said here's a big reinforcing feature that can be found in Islam, the punishment for apostasy. If you denounce your beliefs in Islam then you get executed. That's a pretty blunt way of perpetuating a delusion.

Now I understand that not all sects of Islam would agree with that but there it is.

While I have singled out Christianity this applies equally to all religions and I mentioned as much inthe opening post. I also invited everyone to note down self-reinforcing delusions, including ones from any other religion, so I'm by no means making Christianity to be a special case.domatron23

That being said here's a big reinforcing feature that can be found in Islam, the punishment for apostasy. If you denounce your beliefs in Islam then you get executed. That's a pretty blunt way of perpetuating a delusion.domatron23

Chili I allready explained to you why I have focussed on Christianity, it's what I know. Most people on this board come from a westernized backgrond and guess which religion is most prominent in that background? That's right Christianity. I'm not targeting it because it's the worst religion or the most self-reinforcing I'm targeting it because I don't know jack about anything else. Also how many Muslims or Jews or Hindus are on this board? None, the only theists we have are Christians.(apologies if there is actually a non-Christian theist here).

Now I allready explained why I've focussed on Christianity but you managed to cut it out in your quotes.

Furthermore I have allready explicitly stated that this thread is not "exclusively about" Christianity.

Is Christianity (or any religion really) a self-reinforcing delusion? Here's a short list of features that would seem to indicate that it is.

Whew okay that's six points done. If anyone can think of any ther ways that Christianity (or any other religion) reinforces itself list them here.

domatron23

Domatron (or anyone else),

I don't know if you've already considered these in your musings, but here goes:  

I think some ritualistic elements re-enforce faith. For example, prayer (as already mentioned), bead-counting, church attendance, passage and story recital and service repetition all instil a sense of normality on proceedings.

Church (or Mosque!) buildings also stand as sybols of faith, admittedly much less so now than they used to be.

Often, the doubting faithful are instructed to seek guidance from a religious conversionist.

Some faiths limit contraception and abortion. The cynical may argue this is to increase the population of that faith. 

All very good points RA, thanks for sharing. I have another that I thought up earlier today, the Christian persecution complex.

Built into Christianity is the notion that, as a believer you will be persecuted and hated by the world. Now normally if you're persecuted and hated because of a belief you might be inclined to question and re-appraise it. However since Chrstians have allready been forewarned that they will be persecuted any critique that their pattern of behaviour or belief system recieves will only serve to reinforce it.

Another check for self-reinforcement in the tenets of Christianity.

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times. 

So, even if it were relavent, only some strains of Evangelical, protestant christianity would be "self-reinforcing" 

lulz okay so there's a thread on the CWU about my post. Maheo helpfully points out that I've defined faith as belief without supporting evidence whereas it really means a reliance and trust in the truth and power of another.

That's entirely fair enough to point out but I don't really think that it changes what I said simply because in trusting God's power and truth you're expected to prioritize him over evidence and your own reasoning. If God's word points one way and the evidence points the other way then you're expected to go with God. That infamous Answers In Genesis statement of faith outlines this point nicely:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

And then there's guys like Ken Ham with his "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". Watch 4:00 to 4:30 on that video. EDIT: also just for laughs watch 5:27-5:31

Some scriptural support here just so that it doesn't seem as if I'm relying on what fundamentalists say about Christianity. This is from proverbs 3 with particular attention to verse 5.

 1 My son, do not forget my teaching,
       but keep my commands in your heart,

 2 for they will prolong your life many years
       and bring you prosperity.

 3 Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
       bind them around your neck,
       write them on the tablet of your heart.

 4 Then you will win favor and a good name
       in the sight of God and man.

 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
       and lean not on your own understanding;

 6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
       and he will make your paths straight. 

 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
       fear the LORD and shun evil.

 Btw Maheo you don't have to respond to me via a different union. If you want to you're more than welcome to post here.

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times. 

So, even if it were relavent, only some strains of Evangelical, protestant christianity would be "self-reinforcing" 

danwallacefan

Hey dan good to see you again. Yeah I do realise that some of my points apply more to certain types of Christians more than others. 99% of the Christians I know place reason over faith or find that their reason affirms their faith.

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times.danwallacefan

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times. 

So, even if it were relavent, only some strains of Evangelical, protestant christianity would be "self-reinforcing" 

danwallacefan

When you say "high emphasis on faith" -- do you mean "blind faith", or something else? Just curious.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times. 

So, even if it were relavent, only some strains of Evangelical, protestant christianity would be "self-reinforcing" 

Lansdowne5

When you say "high emphasis on faith" -- do you mean "blind faith", or something else? Just curious.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

You do realize that the high emphasis on faith over reason is found only in Protestant christianity right? Catholic theologians have emphasized the paramount role of reason since midieval times. 

So, even if it were relavent, only some strains of Evangelical, protestant christianity would be "self-reinforcing" 

danwallacefan

When you say "high emphasis on faith" -- do you mean "blind faith", or something else? Just curious.

eh, so there is a religion that places little importance in believing said religion? :?itsTolkien_time

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]eh, so there is a religion that places little importance in believing said religion? :?ChiliDragon

I thought Lutherans intellectualise blind faith. Isn't blindness a descriptor of faith, rather than a type of it?

I thought Lutherans intellectualise blind faith. Isn't blindness a descriptor of faith, rather than a type of it?RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]I thought Lutherans intellectualise blind faith. Isn't blindness a descriptor of faith, rather than a type of it?ChiliDragon

I'd say the difference between "blind faith" and "faith" is the difference between gnostic and agnostic theism. A gnostic theist will tell you there is undeniable evidence that God exists and will send you to Hell if you don't accept it. An agnostic theist will tell you that there is evidence that can lead some people to believe God may exist, but not everyone, since a lot of it is found through personal exploration, not merely blind acceptance.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I'd say the difference between "blind faith" and "faith" is the difference between gnostic and agnostic theism. A gnostic theist will tell you there is undeniable evidence that God exists and will send you to Hell if you don't accept it. An agnostic theist will tell you that there is evidence that can lead some people to believe God may exist, but not everyone, since a lot of it is found through personal exploration, not merely blind acceptance.ChiliDragon

I'm still not sure I understand. I think its the link between personal exploration and blind acceptance that I can't wrap my brain around.

Would you define an agnostic Christian as someone who knows that some questions about our origins and destiny are unanswerable or unknowable, so they choose to live their lives believing in Christianity anyway? (That seems more like Universal Unitarianism to me.) 

I think the difference here with atheism is with the "active" choice made to have a faith. Both strong and weak atheists can be agnostic - to my mind, anyway. 

I'm still not sure I understand. I think its the link between personal exploration and blind acceptance that I can't wrap my brain around.RationalAtheist

I'm still not sure I understand. I think its the link between personal exploration and blind acceptance that I can't wrap my brain around.

Would you define an agnostic Christian as someone who knows that some questions about our origins and destiny are unanswerable or unknowable, so they choose to live their lives believing in Christianity anyway? (That seems more like Universal Unitarianism to me.) 

I think the difference here with atheism is with the "active" choice made to have a faith. Both strong and weak atheists can be agnostic - to my mind, anyway. 

RationalAtheist

GabuEx is someone who is by definition "Christian," someone who tries to follow Jesus' teachings and believes in a personal God, yet still doesn't blindly accept the Bible as "truth" and tries to justify those beliefs (for himself) through things like science and academic exploration. Religion for most people isn't academic discussion. It is a way of life. Not everyone wants to find their own morality, and can very much take religion as a good set of guidelines to help them be active and supportive mebers of society.

A "strong" atheist cannot be agnostic. Strong atheism is the claim that "there is most certainly is no God" without the clarification that "we can ultimately not know." Agnostic atheists, like myself, don't claim there is no God, but we claim that there is no evidence of a God, gods or the supernatural... yet. A gnostic atheist wouldn't be open to evidence if it was found, which is why not many atheists can be termed gnostic.

For the same reason there is "there is most certainly no God" and "we have no way of knowing either way" with atheism, theists have varied beliefs as well. To think they are all close-minded, evangelical, bible-thumpers is quite close-minded on your behalf. You need to do more research into theist beliefs.

GabuEx is someone who is by definition "Christian," someone who tries to follow Jesus' teachings and believes in a personal God, yet still doesn't blindly accept the Bible as "truth" and tries to justify those beliefs (for himself) through things like science and academic exploration. Religion for most people isn't academic discussion. It is a way of life. Not everyone wants to find their own morality, and can very much take religion as a good set of guidelines to help them be active and supportive mebers of society.

A "strong" atheist cannot be agnostic. Strong atheism is the claim that "there is most certainly is no God" without the clarification that "we can ultimately not know." Agnostic atheists, like myself, don't claim there is no God, but we claim that there is no evidence of a God, gods or the supernatural... yet. A gnostic atheist wouldn't be open to evidence if it was found, which is why not many atheists can be termed gnostic.

foxhound_fox

To suggest I have those views is somewhat presumptive. To suggest I need to do some research on faith is quite insulting. What do you think I'm doing?

Gnosticism and atheism are seperate things to me, as an agnostic atheist. I've made one decision based on the other - in a really simple way: I believe that all kowledge is relative. The only things we can reliably reference are things we can deduce. God can not be deduced. It really is that simple.

So, as I've written here many times (and as defined by the British Humanist Association), I am a strong agnostic atheist. I say strong, because I share my views as a responder in places like this. I think "strong" atheists care about the perception of religion, while weak atheists just don't believe.

I'm not sure I've met any atheists that claim knowledge is absolute. In the same way, I'm not sure I've met a theist who isn't positive about their belief.

Don't beat yourself up, most atheists make the same mistake. ;) The choice to have faith in a deity is not one that is made without good reason. You may disagree with my choice, and if I spelled out my reasoning you would disagree with that as well, but that doesn't change the fact that my decision to believe in an all-powerful deity whose very nature is love and justice, wasn't made blindly. I had, and still have, what to me are very good reasons to believe that such a being exists. It's a form of acceptance, but to assume that it is blind acceptance made with the intellect partially "turned off" is a mistake. It's more a matter of using rational thought and empirical observations. I just came to a different conclusion than you did.ChiliDragon

The thing I don't get is the reason leading to choice. The reasons you have for belief can not be rationalised deductively (can they?). So you seem to make a choice, based on inductive reasoning or logic - inference.

I'm constantly aware that people think deeply about what they believe. People can intellectualise all sorts of beliefs. People also are willing to re-enforce them and justify them to themselves. So intellectualism isn't necessarily the only requirement when it comes to faith. I'm wondering what empirical observations and rational thought processes can lead you to a faith-bound belief.

(EDIT: Could you answer my Gnostic Christian question please, to help me understand? Thanks)

The thing I don't get is the reason leading to choice. The reasons you have for belief can not be rationalised deductively (can they?). So you seem to make a choice, based on inductive reasoning or logic - inference. I'm constantly aware that people think deeply about what they believe. People can intellectualise all sorts of beliefs. People also are willing to re-enforce them and justify them to themselves. So intellectualism isn't necessarily the only requirement when it comes to faith. I'm wondering what empirical observations and rational thought processes can lead you to a faith-bound belief.(EDIT: Could you answer my Gnostic Christian question please, to help me understand? Thanks)RationalAtheist

GabuEx is someone who is by definition "Christian," someone who tries to follow Jesus' teachings and believes in a personal God, yet still doesn't blindly accept the Bible as "truth" and tries to justify those beliefs (for himself) through things like science and academic exploration. Religion for most people isn't academic discussion. It is a way of life. Not everyone wants to find their own morality, and can very much take religion as a good set of guidelines to help them be active and supportive mebers of society.

foxhound_fox

Well, to be clear, I don't think that the Bible is false or anything.  I just take the same sort of view of it as the ancient Alexandrian school of thought, who preached an allegorical interpretation of the events described within it rather than a literal and historical one.  Which is basically what you said; I just wanted to clarify that point.

I'm still not sure I understand. I think its the link between personal exploration and blind acceptance that I can't wrap my brain around.

RationalAtheist

Well, here, I think, is the fundamental question regarding belief that may be asked towards those who believe in God: "Why do you believe in God?"  If the person's answer in some way includes the sentence opener "the Bible says...", then that's pretty much blind faith - their beliefs ultimately originate from just having been told the way things are, and accepting that.  If, on the other hand, the person lists off observations about the universe that they have made absent of a holy book and logical inferences that they have made based on those, then I would find it very hard to justify the claim that that person's faith is blind - they have gone from what they've seen to conclusions they believe may be made, which is the very fundamental basis of rational thought.  That doesn't mean that their arguments are sound, of course, but it does mean that they are rational in nature.

I think to a large extent, the chasm between atheists and theists is just one of personal experience.  If two people look at something beautiful like a sunset, they may well come to entirely different conclusions about it - one may see the face of God in the beauty, whereas the other may see nothing but mundane mechanical processes understood by science.  And both will surely think that the other is dead wrong - the theist will tell the atheist that he should open his eyes to the supernatural, whereas the atheist will tell the theist that he should stop making conclusions that include unnecessary assumptions.  It can be very tempting at this point for both to accuse the other of not properly using their brains, but there are intelligent people in existence both theist and atheist.

So what's the reason for the difference?  I couldn't say, exactly.  In my case, though, I've never claimed to know for certain that God exists, but I've nonetheless had certain things that have led me to the conclusion that the existence of God seems likely.  Those would include, for example, the existence of love and happiness on a certain level above and beyond what seems evolutionarily beneficial.  Or, the fact that anything exists at all - one may counter with "then what created God", but I contend that this is a separate issue; all the evidence we have thus far points to the universe being non-cyclical in nature.  Of course, then one may ask why that creator need have intelligence, and I concede this point.  Or, a dream I had once in which I was in God's presence, and he assured me that everything was all right, and I woke up feeling happier and more peaceful than I'd been in a long time.

There are also certain unexplained things that I keep coming back to.  For example, there was a time when I was an absolutely terrible hypochondriac - any time there was any ache or pain in my body, I immediately suspected the worse.  This came to a head one time that the meningococcal C bacteria was causing a low-level outbreak of meningitis where I lived, and I thought I had it, and went to the clinic as a result.  Though the receptionist assured me that I didn't, she set me up to see the doctor anyways, and I sat down feeling kind of sheepish.  There was a woman beside me, but besides that, everyone else was on the other side of the room.

Out of absolutely nowhere, this woman started talking to me, telling me about how she had actually had meningitis before, and that she understood how I felt.  Before I knew it, I was telling her all about my hypochondria, and how my parents didn't understand, and such like - stuff that I never even spoke to my friends about I was now feeling completely at ease telling a complete stranger.  By the time the doctor was available to see me, I was feeling much better, and the doctor assured me that there was nothing wrong with me.  When I went out, I wanted to thank her again for her support, but she was gone, and I never did see her again after that.  And my hypochondria, ever since then, has been completely manageable.  It's stuff like that that I just have a really hard time explaining as just a weird coincidence.

Would the above convince an atheist to believe what I believe?  Of course not - I am sure that any atheist would tell me that I was just seeing in things that which has no real objective evidence in its favor.  And they'd be right on that.  But it's all very real to me, and that is why I am not an atheist.