How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[Augustus]

Yes, it would be both logical and rational to reject any position for which there is no objective evidence. Your happiness has no bearing on reality.

It has no bearing on objective reality no, but why is it highly important to be objectively correct? If you want to build a plane or a submarine you need to be correct to a high degree or you will die, why does it actually matter to be objectively correct on an issue such as religion?

What would be rational about an individual living a less fulfilling and beneficial life simply for the ability to be objectively correct on a particular issue of little importance? Seems highly irrational to me.

So where do you draw the line between the rational and the irrational. We agree that YEC is irrational, that scriptural literalism is irrational, well ... let's turn the question around, would you list a few things exclusive to that, "epistemologically shaky foundation" that are, in fact, perfectly rational, and that we might agree to as we do YEC and literalism?

You do not believe in God, which mean you believe that religions are human constructs. I don't know if you subscribe to the perspective that religions were created by an elite to control the masses, or that religions evolved from the masses and were later co-opted (and potentially refined) by elites. For me, the latter is a much more tenable position.

With any idea, theory, etc. the longer it has survived with popularity, the more likely it has genuine merit. This doesn't mean it is flawless or doesn't contain any errors or imperfections, but standing the test of time is one of the best methods of evaluating something's merit.

Religion contains (at least) 2 'parts', the supernatural part and the ritual, rules, knowledge, wisdom and guidelines part. The supernatural part is the less important of the 2 and really serves as a foundation for the ritual, rules, knowledge, wisdom, guidelines part. There is no exact line to draw between the rational and irrational, but on a continuum, you are less rational the more you focus on the supernatural aspects and the less you focus on the 'real world' aspects.

So religions contain an aggregation of knowledge drawn from the masses over thousands of years that has survived for thousands more. This is very substantial evidence that at least a significant portion of this knowledge benefits individuals and society and one can be considered rational for believing in it.

Look at many guidelines, avarice is hated, usury is forbidden, do not covet what others have, be thankful for what you have, forgive others their mistakes. We can easily find some modern 'objective' evidence for the benefits of these things, also many religious rituals, etc.

If we look at modern problems such as the debt crisis, inequality, shallow consumerism, depression and social isolation, there exist provisions in religion that would help mitigate these.

Each generation underrestimates the chance that their new ideas may be incorrect and harmful, which is why people need to remember lessons from the pasts. Religion has proved the best method of doing this, not the only way, but by far the most effective and successful. It also reminds humans that they are not omnipotent, and much of their life is 'in the lap of the Gods', something that many modern people seem to forget also.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it so. I explained where subjectivity has it's uses and where it is not valuable for determining truth. Because your beliefs cannot show that they are actually true and cannot be tested objectively, you're upset that people aren't taking your subjective claims seriously, since that's all you have, and now you're playing more make-believe with inaccurate and ridiculous claims.

The fact is, your religion lost it's fight with reality. Now you're trying desperately to spin it so it doesn't look quite so bad. Good luck.

My argument probably applies to 95 percent of posts of atheists / evolutionists.

You did in fact rule out all subjectivity twice, and then in complete contradiction to yourself you twice said that subjectivity is valid.

I am upset at evolutionists / atheists ruling out all subjectivity, and I get good mileage out of my argumentation. Not actually changing people's minds much, but breaking the atheist machines down That I have achieved.

 

[gnostic]

I find all faith, meaning all faith relating to a religion or to a god (hence, "religious faith"), to be irrational.

There is nothing rational about believing a supreme being, who can do magic trick, or what one may call it a "miracle".

 

[gnostic]

Well if a muslim joined a Buddhist forum, he would be considered a troll, if a Christian joined a Jewish forum he would be considered a troll, I don't see how atheism classifies as a religion, unless because it has that element of faith required that there is no God, when there isn't one way to understand for certain 100% one way or the other, But to call atheism a religion and join a religious forum to argue with people that believe in god, that does sound troll like.

This is not a "religious" forum, Lyndon.

It is a "religious education" forum. It is for all religious and non-religious members to participate in.

 

[McBell]

Well if a muslim joined a Buddhist forum, he would be considered a troll, if a Christian joined a Jewish forum he would be considered a troll, I don't see how atheism classifies as a religion, unless because it has that element of faith required that there is no God, when there isn't one way to understand for certain 100% one way or the other, But to call atheism a religion and join a religious forum to argue with people that believe in god, that does sound troll like.

Once again this is not a "religious" forum.
It is a "religious education" forum.

If your religious beliefs are so weak you cannot have them challenged, it seems to me you have no business being on a religious forum or a religious education forum.

 

[McBell]

With any idea, theory, etc. the longer it has survived with popularity, the more likely it has genuine merit. This doesn't mean it is flawless or doesn't contain any errors or imperfections, but standing the test of time is one of the best methods of evaluating something's merit.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

I think so, if faith entails ideals that better humanity, and part of that faith is affirming those ideals. Would you deny people of faith like Martin Luther King Jr have done great things for human betterment? That is a useful and life-changing kind of faith.

 

[Cephus]

There is a scientist who has recently done some research on the brain in relation to experiences of God. They made a helmet that utilizes electro-magnetics to stimulate certain parts of the brain.
The brain can be stimulated and the person has what is being called a God experience. Epileptic fits often stimulate the same experience. Those parts of the brain were recognizable in a scan.
These are my observations and evaluations to date.
If access to God was withdrawn or was more difficult to find when Adam developed another consciousness and behavior pattern then this part has been closed off since then.
An ongoing experience of God is to do with observed behavior and the cleanness of the personality in regard to what others pick up from it.

At the moment we can force each other to respond in a reactive manner, both then have to harden up. The question is harden what and the Bible relates that mans' heart is hard ( the inner being ) and needs circumcising of all the traits that are seen in a personality. We all know what mans' behavior is like but where will it lead, mostly into conflict.
I do not believe the God experience is all there is and it is not just in the head but it is a communication point much like tuning into a radio station to a remote transmitter but it is dimensional.
This wouldn't be accepted by a scientist just yet.

By the same token, we can replicate near death experiences in the lab too, none of these things are supernatural in origin, they're just electrochemical reactions in the brain, yet the religious refuse to acknowledge these things because it gets in the way of their emotional comfort. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is anything else to it. None whatsoever. It's all just wishful thinking.

 

[Cephus]

I agree but I'm claiming evidence (not proof).

Proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol. You're not claiming evidence, you're making unsupported assertions without any evidence whatsoever. You are arguing for things on an emotional, not an intellectual basis. It doesn't matter how many times you, or anyone else, repeats it, it doesn't make it evidence. It doesn't matter where you get your explanations, it doesn't matter how these explanations make you feel, the simple fact is that you're making massive unsupported leaps in illogic to claims that cannot be verified rationally, for no reason other than it makes you feel good to do so.

That is not rational. Period.

 

[Cephus]

It has no bearing on objective reality no, but why is it highly important to be objectively correct? If you want to build a plane or a submarine you need to be correct to a high degree or you will die, why does it actually matter to be objectively correct on an issue such as religion?

What would be rational about an individual living a less fulfilling and beneficial life simply for the ability to be objectively correct on a particular issue of little importance? Seems highly irrational to me.

Oh sure, because if you have cancer, what difference does it make if you're treatment options are objectively correct? Maybe you want to dance around a fire singing kumbayah while you're getting eaten from the inside out. Objective reality doesn't matter, right?

 

[AllanV]

By the same token, we can replicate near death experiences in the lab too, none of these things are supernatural in origin, they're just electrochemical reactions in the brain, yet the religious refuse to acknowledge these things because it gets in the way of their emotional comfort. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is anything else to it. None whatsoever. It's all just wishful thinking.

I understand and this could be all part of what is the occult type of experience. It is apparent that most religious people are having false conversions and are then prone to self deception.

 

[AllanV]

I think so, if faith entails ideals that better humanity, and part of that faith is affirming those ideals. Would you deny people of faith like Martin Luther King Jr have done great things for human betterment? That is a useful and life-changing kind of faith.

After having an experience of God and understanding what the dictionary meaning of the word Faith is, there was then no need for faith. I knew totally. My whole life was livened up with new experiences and exploration to gain answers and reassurance that what I was shown in my mind was true. Forty years on I still believe but my memory of particular points is not as clear but there is good recall.
But faith has evidence therefore the wrong word is being used in reference to the scriptures or the wrong meaning is in the dictionary.

 

[George-ananda]

George

In regards to your many comments along the lines of 'it's all there if you want to look', there is an inference of bias and ignorance.
May i ask if you could resist simply dismissing anything I say as ignorance. I have told you that I have read the research and have a deep interest in the topic.

Unless I am very much mistaken, you were referring to proof of telepathy - the Ganzfield experiments have done no such thing. Radin has not made such a claim, he is claiming results that show statistically significant anaomalies, not proof of telepathy.

Let's go to the horse's mouth, Dean Radin quote:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established

He is saying step 1 is to show something not understood is happening. Step 2 would be proposing theories as to what is going on as he does in his book 'Entangled Minds'. He's saying step 1 has happened and we're onto step 2.

Hard core skeptics still say step 1 has not happened. Dean Radin and Chris Carter attack their arguments about experimental error and non-reproducibility.

I get justifiably exhausted by coming on RF and repeatedly hearing; THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR ....blah, blah

If he does claim proof of telepathy please quote him.

My understanding was that you claimed reproducible proof of telepathy. To be honest I don't see the connection to the supernatural - if science proved telepathy it would be natural. So I am unsure of what it is you think I am biased against or skeptical of.

I believe telepathy is natural; as are souls, etc. 'Supernatural' to me is just a colloquial word for things that don't fit in the current materialist worldview. If it exists, it's natural.

 

[AllanV]

Proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol. You're not claiming evidence, you're making unsupported assertions without any evidence whatsoever. You are arguing for things on an emotional, not an intellectual basis. It doesn't matter how many times you, or anyone else, repeats it, it doesn't make it evidence. It doesn't matter where you get your explanations, it doesn't matter how these explanations make you feel, the simple fact is that you're making massive unsupported leaps in illogic to claims that cannot be verified rationally, for no reason other than it makes you feel good to do so.

That is not rational. Period.

An experience of the Holy Spirit of God can look by observation as though the partakers are drunk with wine. Alcohol is a good example.
If someone appears drunk it is assumed they are and blood samples taken if they have been caught driving.
When someone is in the spirit there is joy, happiness, peace. If every person in the world was experiencing this there would be no conflicts or war.

 

[George-ananda]

Proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol. You're not claiming evidence, you're making unsupported assertions without any evidence whatsoever.

No, I am claiming experimental evidence and anecdotal evidence. Are you confusing me with one of your other debate partners? You just say the same thing to everybody.

 

[Cephus]

I understand and this could be all part of what is the occult type of experience. It is apparent that most religious people are having false conversions and are then prone to self deception.

Yet most theists are entirely unwilling to entertain that possibility because they get an emotional high off of their beliefs. By believing these things, they get a constant jolt of "happy" chemicals in the brain that they are addicted to and don't want to give up. There is no reason whatsoever to think that these experiences are supernatural in origin, especially since we can replicate them in the lab quite easily. It's all emotional nonsense that makes theists cling desperately to these beliefs, there's no rationality in it at all.

 

[Cephus]

An experience of the Holy Spirit of God can look by observation as though the partakers are drunk with wine. Alcohol is a good example.

It's not wine but there are chemicals in the brain that produce good feelings that are triggered by religious experiences and the like. People get addicted to these chemicals and purposely act to trigger them repeatedly.

None of this has anything to do with the supernatural, but with brain chemistry.

 

[Cephus]

No, I am claiming experimental evidence and anecdotal evidence. Are you confusing me with one of your other debate partners? You just say the same thing to everybody.

If it's experimental evidence, then anyone ought to be able to do the experiment and come up with the same conclusion. Produce that evidence for objective evaluation please. And I question your anecdotal claims. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You are taking a subjective experience and assigning arbitrary and unsupported causes to said experience. That is what I keep pointing out and what you keep avoiding.

And you are posting in a debate forum, that makes you a debater. If you don't like being held to debate standards, go find yourself a discussion forum to post in.

 

[AllanV]

It's not wine but there are chemicals in the brain that produce good feelings that are triggered by religious experiences and the like. People get addicted to these chemicals and purposely act to trigger them repeatedly.

None of this has anything to do with the supernatural, but with brain chemistry.

There is no one as far as I am aware openly bringing supernatural events as described in the Bible.
I understand this is on purpose but it will happen after the imminent world war.

 

[Augustus]

Oh sure, because if you have cancer, what difference does it make if you're treatment options are objectively correct? Maybe you want to dance around a fire singing kumbayah while you're getting eaten from the inside out. Objective reality doesn't matter, right?

Quite clearly I stated that objective reality matters in some things as if you are wrong you will suffer serious harm. In other areas you may be objectively wrong but gain benefits, with little downside. I think you can probably safely infer that this is one of the things in which it matters.

This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The longer an idea, theory, book, etc has been popular, the more likely it is to have merit. Time is evidence as bad ideas are likely to fail eventually and be filtered out. This is true in all areas of life, and is not some mumbo-jumbo, hocus-pocus flight of fancy, but a solid evidence based conclusion. It is a rule of thumb rather than an absolute 100% truth of course, but I shouldn't need to point that out.

Which living creatures are most likely to be around in the future? The ones that have been on earth the longest or those which are relatively recent?

What books are most likely to be in print in 100 years time, Shakespeare or Dan Brown?

What music is most likely to be listened to in 100 years, Beethoven or Kanye West?

If you want to get a tattoo that doesn't look horribly dated in 20 years time, are you better to get a design that has been around for the last 20 years, or the most fashionable current design?

Why do high level jobs require x years of experience?

You consider yourself rational, why ignore all of the evidence?

What is wishful thinking is that we are so much smarter now that we can dismiss all of these 'silly old ideas' and enter a golden age of 'wonderful modern rational progress' free of the baggage of the past that serves no purpose except holding us back: the myth of 'progress'.