Self-reinforcing delusions in Christianity

I don't know enough about gnosticism to comment on it either way. Hopefully someone else who does will be able to answer that question. As for your other questions, I'll give you one simple example: Living organisms. The proteins and molecules that make up the genetic code that makes my body what it is, are organized. They are a part of a system that we can see, analyze, and in some sense predict. I think of it like source code. Just because we can't track down the person that wrote the "I Love You" email virus, doesn't mean he doesn't exist, if anything, we assume he exists, since there must have been an intelligent mind behind the code. The number of coincidences that have to be absolutely right in order for life to exist, life to go on, and life to reproduce, is too staggeringly large for me to accept unless there is an intelligent creator behind the scenes running the show. So I chose to believe there is one, since it makes perfect sense to me to believe that the source code for our and other species' DNA was somehow "written" by an intelligent creator at some point in the past. I would also say that there is no such thing as an "agnostic Christian" since that would be quite a contradiction in terms. :)ChiliDragon

That's what I find so hard to rationalise: If an intelligent creator is running the show, why the dinosaurs, why the famines, earthquakes and tidal waves? Why spend so much time evolving so many different extinct species? Why is nature so amoral and survival largely based on predation? Why do the little children die? Why the viruses and epidemics? Why the rest of the Universe? Why was Genesis wrong? etc?

Hasn't quantum theory determined that events can be uncaused? I think the assumption you make that DNA was written like code is a leap of faith. 

I think people can be agnostic Christians; some defining their "faith" in overcoming their doubt, I guess. 

BTW, Are you saying that "I Love You" virus wrote itself? I think we can deduce there was an author rationally.

BTW, Are you saying that "I Love You" virus wrote itself? I think we can deduce there was an author rationally.RationalAtheist

Hasn't quantum theory determined that events can be uncaused?

RationalAtheist

No - quantum theory has said that it is impossible for us to make precise predictions and measurements of anything at the quantum level (the best we can do is statistical modeling at a higher level), but that doesn't mean that events at that level are uncaused.  Cause and effect still very much rules the world in which we live.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Hasn't quantum theory determined that events can be uncaused?

GabuEx

No - quantum theory has said that it is impossible for us to make precise predictions and measurements of anything at the quantum level (the best we can do is statistical modeling at a higher level), but that doesn't mean that events at that level are uncaused.  Cause and effect still very much rules the world in which we live.

If what you say is true, then events may be uncaused, or may not be, no?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]BTW, Are you saying that "I Love You" virus wrote itself? I think we can deduce there was an author rationally.ChiliDragon

Its how we arrive at our conclusions that interests me. I can't deduce rationally that God exists in the same way I can deduce rationally that you, I or the "virus pest" exist. If deduction leads to several possible outcomes, they'd still be valid as possibilities.

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.

GabuEx

I'm not sure I agree. I think we largely have largely similar personal experiences, but attribute seperate personal meanings to them. Psychology demonstrates the tendancy to believe in stuff, based in luck or chance.

Rationalism uses deduction to reach its conclusions. The "soundness" of arguments of course would affect their use in a rational deduction. Arguments that claim faith do not have a rational basis. Observational and inductive arguments will not make for a rational proposition.

Its entirely natural for an anxious chap to give out to an anonymous listening ear - the dissociation enables unusual candour to a sympathetic stranger - its happened with me too. My interpretation would tend towards the humanist here.

If what you say is true, then events may be uncaused, or may not be, no?

RationalAtheist

I don't really know what you mean here.  There is no reason to believe that the events are uncaused just because we can't measure or predict them precisely.

I'm not sure I agree. I think we largely have largely similar personal experiences, but attribute seperate personal meanings to them. Psychology demonstrates the tendancy to believe in stuff, based in luck or chance.

Rationalism uses deduction to reach its conclusions. The "soundness" of arguments of course would affect their use in a rational deduction. Arguments that claim faith do not have a rational basis. Observational and inductive arguments will not make for a rational proposition.

Its entirely natural for an anxious chap to give out to an anonymous listening ear - the dissociation enables unusual candour to a sympathetic stranger - its happened with me too. My interpretation would tend towards the humanist here.

RationalAtheist

When I say "personal experience", I suppose I don't mean just what they're subjected to, but rather additionally how their brain views it.  Two people can be subjected to the exact same stimuli, but can experience completely different things.  For example, some, upon listening to a piece of music, may be brought to tears because they find it so moving and emotional, while others may just be entirely unaffected whatsoever.  Same stimulus, different experience.

At any rate, I was not attempting to convince you of anything; I was merely explaining what the link is between personal exploration (or the lack thereof) and blind acceptance.  You're free to come to the conclusions that you will about the examples I gave.

 

When I say "personal experience", I suppose I don't mean just what they're subjected to, but rather additionally how their brain views it.  Two people can be subjected to the exact same stimuli, but can experience completely different things.  For example, some, upon listening to a piece of music, may be brought to tears because they find it so moving and emotional, while others may just be entirely unaffected whatsoever.  Same stimulus, different experience.

At any rate, I was not attempting to convince you of anything; I was merely explaining what the link is between personal exploration (or the lack thereof) and blind acceptance.  You're free to come to the conclusions that you will about the examples I gave.

GabuEx

That's my view too. The only way to establish any objectivity is to rationalise peoples "experiences" or "responses" to "stimuli". Your music example may elicit an emotional response. In trying to understand that response, you must understand why the music either makes you cry, laugh, or groan. I'm not sure its enough to trust in emotional responses alone - precisely because psychological analysis shows a pre-disposition to bias in one's beliefs.

I'm not attempting to attack your beliefs and I do thank you for sharing them. Your views seem to me to be some of the most enlightened and justified Christian beliefs I've ever heard. I don't aim to convert as equally as I don't think I'll be converted. It's a privilege to be so frank here, which may bet interpreted as "being insulting" or ignorant, for which I'm sorry. The central feature of my position here is that all faith is blind, even faith that has been well considered, since trusting is implicit in faith. 

Its how we arrive at our conclusions that interests me. I can't deduce rationally that God exists in the same way I can deduce rationally that you, I or the "virus pest" exist. If deduction leads to several possible outcomes, they'd still be valid as possibilities.RationalAtheist

The central feature of my position here is that all faith is blind, even faith that has been well considered, since trusting is implicit in faith.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)ChiliDragon

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)MetalGear_Ninty

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

But "God did it" is no answer as it opens up another question of who did God who unquestionably has to be more complex than all life combined.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)Gambler_3

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

But "God did it" is no answer as it opens up another question of who did God who unquestionably has to be more complex than all life combined.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]Its how we arrive at our conclusions that interests me. I can't deduce rationally that God exists in the same way I can deduce rationally that you, I or the "virus pest" exist. If deduction leads to several possible outcomes, they'd still be valid as possibilities.ChiliDragon

Exactly, just as the rational process of deduction still is valid in both cases.

The central feature of my position here is that all faith is blind, even faith that has been well considered, since trusting is implicit in faith.RationalAtheist

If I understand this right you're saying that what makes faith "blind faith" is the trust component, in other words that trust is what is given blindly. Faith is then based on that trust. Did I get that right? If I did, do you apply this view to all forms of trust, including the trust found between friends and/or family members?

I think you misunderstand my thrust here: We can both deduce rationally that the virus author exists. But I can not deduce God exists rationally - A Christian God is one of a number of different possibilities at best, under my scrutiny. Whereas you say you can rationalise your faith deductively - that is the bit I can't understand.

Faith is absolutely linked with trust, but is not "trust" itself, which is a social or moral contract in its general sense. I think that's the disconnect here, in that you've introduced deduction and rationalism to justify a faith-based belief.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)MetalGear_Ninty

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

But "God did it" is no answer as it opens up another question of who did God who unquestionably has to be more complex than all life combined.

Faith is absolutely linked with trust, but is not "trust" itself, which is a social or moral contract in its general sense. I think that's the disconnect here, in that you've introduced deduction and rationalism to justify a faith-based belief.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)Gambler_3

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

But "God did it" is no answer as it opens up another question of who did God who unquestionably has to be more complex than all life combined.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]Faith is absolutely linked with trust, but is not "trust" itself, which is a social or moral contract in its general sense. I think that's the disconnect here, in that you've introduced deduction and rationalism to justify a faith-based belief.ChiliDragon

OK - that's still confusing to me. Please let me know what you think the difference is between using deduction to support and using deduction to justify. Surely deduction and rationalism would lead you away from faith based ideas.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]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)Gambler_3

Most of what you said there can be explained by natural sselection.

But "God did it" is no answer as it opens up another question of who did God who unquestionably has to be more complex than all life combined.

DNA is just a more complex form of the basic structure of RNA; I don't think anybody knows precisely how RNA came into being within the first organisms, or whether the first organisms used RNA as their 'gentic material'.

But these are not issues of evolution, but stray in the realms of biochemistry, molecular biology etc.

OK - that's still confusing to me. Please let me know what you think the difference is between using deduction to support and using deduction to justify.RationalAtheist

Surely deduction and rationalism would lead you away from faith based ideas.RationalAtheist

 

An idea supported by deduction can stand without it, though perhaps not as well. An idea justified by deduction relies on it.

ChiliDragon

Most any idea can stand without the scrutiny of deduction.

 

Apparently not. :P Like I said before, DNA, the way the human body works, RNA, cell mutation, mitochondrial DNA, RNA, the brain stem... sure, maybe all of it evolved by chance with the help of natural selection over unimaginable eons of time. But the number of coincidences that have to be absolutely right, and in the right order, for these things to happen without any external guidance whatsoever, is too staggeringly large for me to accept. To me, a world as complex as ours makes a lot less sense without an intelligent creator. I'm not asking you to agree with me, or even to acknowledge that I am making a good point. I am however asking you not to out of hand dismiss the results of my deductions as irrational fantasies just because they are different from yours.ChiliDragon

I'm not dismissing your deductions because they are different from mine, I question them because I don't think they are rational deductions. I also haven't dismissed them, but am trying to understand the basis for your beliefs. 

Your belief in the divine because of the complexity of life is not a valid rational deduction - its an inference - your interpretation. It may be a valid interpretation, but not a valid rational deduction. For instance, the issues with the huge amount of evolutionary extinction reveal a process that could be described as just as arbitrary as you think it is designed.

It does not necessarily follow that God exists through the complexity of creation. For that deduction to be valid, it would definitely have to follow. Also, rationality tries to avoid personal feeling and emotion, so what makes sense to you is less important than what makes objective sense, when the term is used.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]The central feature of my position here is that all faith is blind, even faith that has been well considered, since trusting is implicit in faith.ChiliDragon

Also, rationality tries to avoid personal feeling and emotion, so what makes sense to you is less important than what makes objective sense, when the term is used.RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]Also, rationality tries to avoid personal feeling and emotion, so what makes sense to you is less important than what makes objective sense, when the term is used.ChiliDragon

If rationality is flawed, why use it to support your faith?

If rationality id flawed, why has the scientific method of discovery made so much progress with it?

Our emotions and senses are not deviod of rationality. A Deep connection between people can be ratioanlly explained in psychological terms. Being married, I know that being "objective" is better than being "emotional" in maintaining my 10 year relationship. 

Are you now saying that you don't use deduction to rationalise your faith?

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]The central feature of my position here is that all faith is blind, even faith that has been well considered, since trusting is implicit in faith.foxhound_fox

Our senses are simply "limited" and it's remarkable that our brain has evolved enough to actually realise that.

If rationality is flawed, why use it to support your faith? If rationality is flawed, why has the scientific method of discovery made so much progress with it?RationalAtheist

Our emotions and senses are not devoid of rationality. A Deep connection between people can be ratioanlly explained in psychological terms. Being married, I know that being "objective" is better than being "emotional" in maintaining my 10 year relationship. Are you now saying that you don't use deduction to rationalize your faith?RationalAtheist

Our senses arent "wrong". There are many means of verifying that. I mean if our senses were "wrong" then wouldnt our study of gravity and all would have been a failure and we wouldnt be flying planes?

Our senses are simply "limited" and it's remarkable that our brain has evolved enough to actually realise that.

Gambler_3

Probably because rationality goes really well with scientific method of study, while religion hardly is an exact science. If it was, we wouldn't have "faith", we'd have "knowledge".

First, that's not what I said. Second, you are over-thinking this far too much. :P "Flawed" was perhaps not the best word to use, I should have said it's lacking the ability to explain everything. That doesn't mean that it doesn't cover what it does cover very well. It's just not enough with rationality alone. If I asked you to describe your car to me you'd probably tell me what it looks like. That doesn't cover everything about it, since the pitch of the engine and the way it smells inside isn't included in the car's appearance. Does that mean you should never use your eyes, or that you should stop relying on them since they can't communicate sounds and smells to you? Of course not, that would be stupid. Our eyes provide very important data about the world around us. Just not enough data to describe the entire world around us, and they're not meant to either.

You're either mistaking faith for something that is purely intellectual, or for something that is entirely based on intellect or justified by it. In either case, you're wrong, and that's probably why it's not making sense to you. Once the faith is there, objectivity and rationality can be used to support it, if the person with faith wants to do so, but I don't think you will ever meet someone who logically and analytically reasoned their way towards a religious faith and who has no other reason to have faith. Once again, it's not a purely intellectual process.ChiliDragon

The scientific method is based on rational deduction, which is why I find your assertion that you use rational deduction in helping you reason your faith so curious.

I find it wierd that you accuse me of over-thinking. What does that mean - is it a state of denial, or is that under-thinking?

I would love to describe my cars to you (3 cool ones) - I'm a bit of a fanatic - I'd bore you to tears! I understand the huge emotional response that cars can give. Cars are not made by eye - we can't trust them as much as the machines and measuring devices we use to make cars. I can't see how our "eyes" are left out of rationality though. Optical illusions say we can't always trust our eyes, but objective observations are always welcome in rational deduction.

Are you saying that your faith is blind now (since it is just "there", rather than based on anything intellectual)?

Are you now saying that you don't rationalise your faith deductively? You did say you did, sparking this whole "faith is blind" exchange.

The scientific method is based on rational deduction, which is why I find your assertion that you use rational deduction in helping you reason your faith so curious. I find it wierd that you accuse me of over-thinking. What does that mean - is it a state of denial, or is that under-thinking?RationalAtheist

I would love to describe my cars to you (3 cool ones) - I'm a bit of a fanatic - I'd bore you to tears!RationalAtheist

I understand the huge emotional response that cars can give. Cars are not made by eye - we can't trust them as much as the machines and measuring devices we use to make cars. I can't see how our "eyes" are left out of rationality though. Optical illusions say we can't always trust our eyes, but objective observations are always welcome in rational deduction.RationalAtheist

It means that thinking rationally alone can't explain all about what it means to have faith. Once the faith is there rational observation and deduction can provide support for it. It's not the cause of faith, or the only support for it, but it is one of many things that combines to keeping faith alive. A person believing there is a loving creator sees traces of that creator everywhere around them... little bits of heaven in each wild flower, to borrow a quote and twist it a little bit.

ChiliDragon

As I keep pointing out - you may like to think you are doing "rational deduction", but you are not. You are making inferences, not deductions. I guess we can disagree about what it is to deduce something if you like.

 

If they actually are cool, and not just cheesy, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't bore me... I'm a geek. :P Complex machines or devices, regardless of size and function, are by definition fascinating to me. And then I will tell you in as much detail about my swords and my shoe collection. :twisted: 

ChiliDragon

No cheese here. Do you have matching swords and shoes?

 

I think I may have explained my point poorly. Let me try again... Rationality is lacking in the same way our eyes are; both are very good at what they are specialized in doing (natural sciences and recognizing colors respectively) but there are things that they absolutely cannot do. There are real things in our universe that cannot be rationally explained, but that doesn't make them any less real. Just like the things about your cars that you can't see are still perfectly real, and are properties of the car that someone who is interested in buying it would care about and want to know. How it handles on wet roads, for example. You can't determine that by watching the car, or even watching someone else drive it on a wet road. The only way to really understand how the car handles in rain is to drive it in rain. In the same way that there is more to the car than what it looks like, there is a lot more to reality than what science can deduce and explain within its own limited paradigm. At least in my world view .:)ChiliDragon

I can understand your rejection of rationality since it can't explain "everything". So it makes it even more incomprehensible to me how you use it to justify your faith. Surely you can't now say you use rationality or deduction to support your faith if "things in the universe can not be rationally explained".

Funnily enough, the properties of a car that handles badly on wet roads are thankfully not just the preserve of those experiencing them. I have just such a car. There has been much written about it's condition, experimentation done to replicate it, then deductions as to why it happens and what can be done to reduce it. Now I have a suspension and shocks and bushes upgrade that increases wet grip drastically and gives a bit more feedback on reaching the grip limit. If I had tried to personally find the wet grip limit (as I have done), I'd end up backwards in a hedge (as I have done)!

I've yet to see this "more to reality than science can deduce". It's a shame, seeing as you did say you could deduce your faith rationally and that it was not blind.

Why is it then so many people claim to have "seen" ghosts yet there be no scientific or objective evidence to support their claims? We can't ultimately say that they aren't "wrong" unless we know all the how and why things work in the universe.foxhound_fox

Dawkins in the god delusion mentioned that he saw a ghost once but only realised after getting close to it that it was something else(dont remember what). I think he was alone at night and saw something in the window, if he had got afraid and raw away then he may have forever thought of it as a real ghost...

If there really were ghosts that people can see then there shouldnt be any reason why none have been taken on camara. The camara cant get hallucinated, the brain can.;)

As I keep pointing out - you may like to think you are doing "rational deduction", but you are not. You are making inferences, not deductions. I guess we can disagree about what it is to deduce something if you like.RationalAtheist

No cheese here. Do you have matching swords and shoes?RationalAtheist

I can understand your rejection of rationality since it can't explain "everything". So it makes it even more incomprehensible to me how you use it to justify your faith.RationalAtheist

I've yet to see this "more to reality than science can deduce". It's a shame, seeing as you did say you could deduce your faith rationally and that it was not blind.RationalAtheist

If by deduction you mean something that you also can deduce, we probably have to. :) I look at the complexity of a string of DNA and come to the conclusion that since it's organized in a system, someone created the system. I think that's a perfectly valid conclusion.ChiliDragon

Great - have you looked it up yet? It might be a perfectly valid conclusion, but it has not been a valid deduction, since other alternative conclusions exist, regardless of whether you believe in them. See, your deduction:

1. DNA is complex.

2. All complex systems are created by God.

3. DNA is created by God. 

Your argument is not sound in that "not all complex systems" are created by God. Potentially, quite the reverse! The premises are not necessarily true - and they need to be for this to be deduced.

 

I'm not. I'm letting rational thoughts lead me to conclusions that agree with my faith, which lends further support to the original premise: There is a god. Besides, "justify" implies that faith somehow needs to defend its own existence, as if there's something wrong with having it, when obviously there isn't. ;)

ChiliDragon

Sorry if you took "justify" to mean something attacking faith. But after all; "Rationalism is a view appealing to reason as justification". (from the wiki rationalism definition). It is confusing that you attack rationalism for not explaining the inexplicable, yet still profess to use it to lead you to your faith. I honestly don't think you understand what rationalism and deduction really mean at all. What do you do about the rational thoughts that lead you to conclusions that disagree with your faith?

 

That's probably why we're not making sense to each other. I assume there's more to reality than science can deduce and therefor see nothing wrong with not being able to explain everything rationally. You on the other hand have the opposite starting point, that is something is a part of reality it must be rational and science be able to explain it. For obvious reasons, none of our arguments seem valid from the other's point of view and for as obvious reasons, none of us will convince the other until we accept that the other person's view point is valid. To me it makes perfect sense that if you refuse to accept that anything science can't explain is real, religion comes across as delusional. However, if you're open to the possibility of supernatural creatures, deities and creators, then accepting things on faith isn't necessarily blindly trusting. It makes intellectual sense. However, you have to get over that first hurdle -- science can't explain everything, any more than our five senses can perceive everything around us. "Faith deduced rationally" implies that science and rationality leads to faith. That's in a certain sense nonsense, because science and rationality can't explain everything, and religion and what theists have faith in, lies by and large outside of the scope of what science can understand. However, if one starts out assuming that there is an all-powerful creator of the universe, the rational thoughts used to interpret, study, and learn about that universe will go in a different direction than if one does not.ChiliDragon

I don't think of being open to possibilities (as I am) the same as being faithful. I also can't see how accepting things on faith is not blindly trusting. You really have not explained this, aside from repeating it. At this stage, we are not even discussing each other's point of view, but the basis for them. 

I have many more than 5 senses. Why does faith need to lie outside of science? Science gradually has incorporated so much of what was faith. We've increasingly seen religion grudgingly and gradually accommodate scientific change, in turn dramatically changing their preachings to accommodate. In what way does rationality not try to explain everything? Can't you accept "Don't know yet, but we're working on it. Here are some possibilities..."? It would be far more rational. Using rationality and deduction, the signs all point to no biblical deity. Why make the assumption? On what grounds? That's exactly what rationalism and deductive reasoning do away with - assumptions!

How do you know that the different direction that this "new" "Faith deduced rationality" takes will be the right one? And what's so bad about the direction of our existing skeptical scientific framework - so far free from enforced assumptions.

Either you genuinely don't know what the terms "deduction" and "rationalism" mean, or I think you like to use inappropriate scientific and analytical terminology incorrectly to add an air of philosophical respectability to your own inductive reasonings for your faith.

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. domatron23

Sorry, but you're falling flat at the very beginning here. The New Testament emphatically declares that Christianity should only be accepted because of evidence, namely the resurrection of Jesus. In fact Paul says in the New Testament itself that Christianity shouldn't be believed if Jesus can be shown to have not risen from the dead. Faith to the first Christians meant placing your trust and loyalty in Jesus because of evidence that demonstrated that he was who he said he was.

Here is the passage mentioned above.

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

-1st Corinthians 15:12-19 (NIV)

Also, in Acts 17:11 (NIV), Luke says

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

There is no way the NT teaches that Christians should ignore evidence that may upend their faith, but in fact calls them noble for checking out its claims for verification.

@MatrixSamurai27

The fine folks at the CWU beat you to pointing out that my definition of faith wasn't exactly spot on. Nevertheless I'd still like to defend my overall point. If you look back to page two you can see my response to that thread which argues that faith takes priority over evidence and in that way makes itself immune to criticism.

That respone is kind of tailored for the YEC crowd though and I imagine it wouldn't really apply to you.

What do you think about verses like Psalm 3:5 or John 20:29? I still think there's an argument to be madein favour of what I was saying.

Oh and what do you think about the rest of the points I and others made throughout the thread. Do you think Christianity has any self-preserving elements to it?

If you look back to page two you can see my response to that thread which argues that faith takes priority over evidence and in that way makes itself immune to criticism.domatron23

Yeah, that may true of YEC's, but I would propose they're ignoring the passages I cited above that give instruction to Christians about a truth seeking attitude.

What do you think about verses like Psalm 3:5 or John 20:29? I still think there's an argument to be madein favour of what I was saying.domatron23

Not sure how you think Psalm 3:5 helps you and in John 20:29, Jesus is criticizing Thomas about wanting more evidence past the point that he already been given sufficient evidence to believe. He had been around the 11 apostles for years and had no reason to distrust them, yet when they all told him they had seen Jesus with their very own eyes, he wouldn't believe them. To make matters worse, he had already seen Jesus' empty tomb, and witnessed Jesus do miracles over the last three years, including raising people from the dead.

Oh and what do you think about the rest of the points I and others made throughout the thread. Do you think Christianity has any self-preserving elements to it?domatron23

To me it doesn't matter one way or the other because I can't see Christianity being less likely to be true following from that. Although, at its beginning, Christianity had everything going against its preservation.

Not sure how you think Psalm 3:5 helps youMatrixSamurai27

Oops that's embarrasing. I meant proverbs 3:5, my bad.

and in John 20:29, Jesus is criticizing Thomas about wanting more evidence past the point that he already been given sufficient evidence to believe. He had been around the 11 apostles for years and had no reason to distrust them, yet when they all told him they had seen Jesus with their very own eyes, he wouldn't believe them. To make matters worse, he had already seen Jesus' empty tomb, and witnessed Jesus do miracles over the last three years, including raising people from the dead.MatrixSamurai27

I dunno. To me he seems to be saying "don't be so sceptical like this guy here just believe what you're told dammit".

Oops that's embarrasing. I meant proverbs 3:5, my bad.

domatron23

Proverbs 3:5-7 says,

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

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

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

In the overall context, Solomon is talking about living well and morally. Solomon isn't giving advice on evaluating truth claims here. In fact, with the whole book being wisdom literature, it seeks to help a person become more wise. Being wise means being discerning.

I dunno. To me he seems to be saying "don't be so sceptical like this guy here just believe what you're told dammit".

domatron23

Hm hmm. Nothing you're saying is an argument to overturn my position. To further cement it, I offer this.

Is telling someone to "not lean on your own understanding" really helping a person to become more discerning?

Is living in fear really a wise move?

I guess we have different ideas about wisdom.