• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does all this debate have any real value

S

Seabear

Member
Abuser said:
I dunno. Sometimes I'm playing X-Box, enjoying myself, then the thought that the sun will eventually snuff out comes to mind and lets face it, that just sucks all of the joy out of being in last place on an online Forza match.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the core tenets of nihilism.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
orcel said:
Tertullian was a first centuary theologian who often argued for the support of religion and faith alone. To Tertullian reason amounted to nothing more then distractions placed before humanity as a temptation away from faith.

Personally I disagree with Tertullian completely. I believe both faith and reason are God given gifts to humanity. But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?
Click to expand...

Once you have reason, what room is there for faith -- depending on how you define faith?

In order to be rational we must justify our beliefs, but the whole idea of "justifying belief" is reason. Everything you probably believe in life is for a reason -- you're convinced you're at a computer because sensory evidence gives you a good reason to think so. You're convinced your loved ones love you because they act like it. You're convinced China exists as a country because of all the verifiable evidence that exists which you can use to justify that belief. To pre-empt any retorts about us having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's actually a different context of the word -- that belief is justified via induction.

Why is it that when it comes to creator-beings we suddenly abandon reason and we move on to just believing? It seems very irrational to me. What room is there for faith at all in a rational being's life, and why is a person who accepts the so-called "utility" of faith unwilling to use it when, say, crossing a street or when making life-altering decisions?
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
orcel said:
---- But Tertullian did have one intersting thing to say...

" A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art destroys as much as it builds, changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion."
Click to expand...

Yes. When one argues for its sake alone and if arguments involve only the above listed negative aspects, then it is merely burden that one carries.

So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?
Click to expand...

Many arguments may have above features but discussions need not be mere arguments. There is a word in hinduism called satsangh, which means association with true and good. I think, that one can seek out true and good that gives happiness and also gain understanding of science and religion together, if one's goal is set right.
 
GabrielWithoutWings

GabrielWithoutWings

Well-Known Member
Meow Mix said:
Once you have reason, what room is there for faith -- depending on how you define faith?

In order to be rational we must justify our beliefs, but the whole idea of "justifying belief" is reason. Everything you probably believe in life is for a reason -- you're convinced you're at a computer because sensory evidence gives you a good reason to think so. You're convinced your loved ones love you because they act like it. You're convinced China exists as a country because of all the verifiable evidence that exists which you can use to justify that belief. To pre-empt any retorts about us having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's actually a different context of the word -- that belief is justified via induction.

Why is it that when it comes to creator-beings we suddenly abandon reason and we move on to just believing? It seems very irrational to me. What room is there for faith at all in a rational being's life, and why is a person who accepts the so-called "utility" of faith unwilling to use it when, say, crossing a street or when making life-altering decisions?
Click to expand...

How do you view Deism, then? They believe in God yet hold reason as the pinnacle of human problem solving.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Meow Mix said:
Once you have reason, what room is there for faith -- depending on how you define faith?

In order to be rational we must justify our beliefs, but the whole idea of "justifying belief" is reason. Everything you probably believe in life is for a reason -- you're convinced you're at a computer because sensory evidence gives you a good reason to think so. You're convinced your loved ones love you because they act like it. You're convinced China exists as a country because of all the verifiable evidence that exists which you can use to justify that belief. To pre-empt any retorts about us having "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's actually a different context of the word -- that belief is justified via induction.

Why is it that when it comes to creator-beings we suddenly abandon reason and we move on to just believing? It seems very irrational to me. What room is there for faith at all in a rational being's life, and why is a person who accepts the so-called "utility" of faith unwilling to use it when, say, crossing a street or when making life-altering decisions?
Click to expand...
I very few people who "just believe".... usually faith is built upon personal experience with the divine.

Having said that, I think reason is still a vital tool not only for understanding the world around us, but also our faith (or lack there of).

As for Tertullian, I think that debate solely for the sake of disagreeing or trying to prove oneself right is to be avoided... but debate for the sake of self discovery, enlightenment and education is necessary. IMHO Tertullian was speaking as a person with a vested interest in suppressing free thought for blind obedience in order to maintain a power structure. And one should always be wary of people preaching such things.

wa:do
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
GabrielWithoutWings said:
How do you view Deism, then? They believe in God yet hold reason as the pinnacle of human problem solving.
Click to expand...

I disagree, unless deists have some sort of justification for belief in the existence of a deity (or more) that I've never come across.

Just because the god of deism has a "hands off" approach doesn't make it more rational to believe in. Is it less or more rational to believe that clock gnomes set my digital alarm clock in motion than it is to withhold such a belief in lack of evidence?

Ultimately the deist is still committing to a fundamentally difficult to defend position, and the only reason I'm saying that instead of "outright irrational position" is to hedge my position in case someone has some epistemic justification for the existence of such a being, however unlikely that may be after literally thousands of years of failures at the attempt to provide such.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
painted wolf said:
I very few people who "just believe".... usually faith is built upon personal experience with the divine.
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't be faith -- it would be perception, a foundational justifier which qualifies as a link in a chain of reason. If a being is truly "experienced" then it isn't faith. Said "experience," if not an illusion or delusion, removes any breathing room for faith to fill the picture in the same way that once I've tasted an apple I no longer believe by faith that it exists but rather by experience via the senses.

Experience doesn't always have to be through the senses, don't get me wrong. Five of the fundamental justifiers in epistemology are perception, memory, introspection, testimony, and reason itself. Memory and testimony aren't sufficient in themselves as they must be grounded in some other, more primary justifier.
 
jarofthoughts

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
orcel said:
So I ask are we really doing anything good here? Is this debate really worth anything? Or does Tertullian almost have a point?
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned by others, a hearty debate can be highly entertaining.
Also, I do my best to engage debates honestly (at least provided I get the sense that the other party is doing the same) in which case I might actually learn something. In other words; I am open to changing my mind if valid argumentation indicates that this is what I should do.
I have very little hope, though, of "converting" others to my views. ;)
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Meow Mix said:
Then it wouldn't be faith -- it would be perception, a foundational justifier which qualifies as a link in a chain of reason. If a being is truly "experienced" then it isn't faith. Said "experience," if not an illusion or delusion, removes any breathing room for faith to fill the picture in the same way that once I've tasted an apple I no longer believe by faith that it exists but rather by experience via the senses.
Click to expand...
Isn't it? You have faith the experience is divine rather than delusion. ;)

Experience doesn't always have to be through the senses, don't get me wrong. Five of the fundamental justifiers in epistemology are perception, memory, introspection, testimony, and reason itself. Memory and testimony aren't sufficient in themselves as they must be grounded in some other, more primary justifier.
Click to expand...
Rational Faith IMHO is a form of perception and depends on introspection and reason. At least in my case and I suppose for a great many other thoughtful theists.

Tertullian proposed blind faith.... not a deeper faith built on introspection and reason. I've never been any good at blind faith.

Where we differ is how we perceive our various lives experiences. :cool:

wa:do
 
jarofthoughts

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
S

Skeptisch

Well-Known Member
jarofthoughts said:
Not necessarily.

Unnatural: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal, or: not existing in nature; artificial.
definition of unnatural from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
definition of supernatural from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Click to expand...
In “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking came to an interesting conclusion:

“… in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this [last] century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language’”.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Skeptisch said:
Can “Rational Faith” have an unnatural or supernatural connotation?
Connotation - an idea or feeling invoked in addition to its primary meaning
Click to expand...
Perhaps a weak sense of the "supernatural".... :shrug:

I don't have any particular supernatural leanings myself.

wa:do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top