• 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!

Is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief?

strange

Member
By saying faith goes beyond reason you are making an appeal to mysticism. To say 'when reason falls short' is to dismiss reason in favour of a belief. And in that case there is a distinction to be made between reason and faith.


"Faith falls short of understanding, for a mind that understands assents to what it itself sees in the light of the first premises of understanding." Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, edited by Timothy McDermott, pp. 29.

What that quote says is that any understanding one might have is outside the realm of which God exists and therefore we have no understanding, no reasoning that could possibly begin to understand God and so that means that faith is with no understanding of God.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
By saying faith goes beyond reason you are making an appeal to mysticism. To say 'when reason falls short' is to dismiss reason in favour of a belief. And in that case there is a distinction to be made between reason and faith.

not at all... simple reasoning tells us that reasoning has limitations.

Example:

teach a dog calculus. It wont apply its learning and solve lots of math equations.
It will carry on being a dog.

Just like people, people are like dogs.. there will always something that is simply beyond our intellect. People for some silly reason like to assume that we can intellectualize everything. It really makes us arrogant to assume that there is nothing more than people.

But then, people like their beliefs.

consider this Buddhist parable:

One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants.

He saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him.

Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied,

“A piece of truth.”

“Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?”
his attendant asked.

“No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
not at all... simple reasoning tells us that reasoning has limitations.


Example:

teach a dog calculus. (!) It wont apply its learning and solve lots of math equations.
It will carry on being a dog.

Just like people, people are like dogs.. there will always something that is simply beyond our intellect. People for some silly reason like to assume that we can intellectualize everything. It really makes us arrogant to assume that there is nothing more than people.

But then, people like their beliefs.

consider this Buddhist parable:

I'm sorry but I don't know where this is going. What is your argument?
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
depends what you define as God

but the answer would be no.

If all things could be demonstrated by reason we wouldnt have things that lay outside the boundaries of logic and reason... like particles and waves at the quantum level:sorry1:

How do particles and waves at the quantum level lay outside the boundaries of logic?
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
If the first cause is the universe, god=universe and that eliminates the concept of a first cause, god. The "leap of faith" is to believe that there is a god. Either way, it is a "leap of faith."

The logic of God is, or Wisdom, is God. It therefore stands to reason that there is no need to change history. Stars are born and stars die. Creation is perfect no matter how we analyse God's creation and needs no adjustment. Subjective and objective reasoning on our part to understand God.

There is no 'leap of faith' required to understand the concept of Supreme Being.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Agreed, we are a part of Creation and therefore exist for a short period of time; life and death with no promise of of anything.

The "Big Bang," there was no such thing as time before that "Big Bang" nor do I suspect that God exists in time and space. Time and space is very much an integral aspect of Creation. Where God exists is beyond our understanding. Another dimension? Doubt that we could claim God exists in another dimension.

As the first cause, God's effects are enough to prove that God exists but not enough for us to understand what God is.

I think you are using the word "God" for things we do not know - namely the hitherto unknown laws of physics that prescribe / describe how universes are born and die. I'm comfortable enough with not knowing that I don't have to plug the holes in my understanding with fantasies of a supernatural intelligence. For me at least, it is healthier to say "I don't know" than it is to say "I believe". "I don't know" opens the door to inquiry, fascination, awe and contemplation of the mystery of our existence, whereas "I believe" too often slams it shut.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
There is no 'leap of faith' required to understand the concept of Supreme Being.

The "leap of faith" arises the moment you believe such a thing exists. We can all understand a lot of nonsensical concepts. Think of a purple horse with five legs and one eye. Success? Thought so.
 

strange

Member
There is no 'leap of faith' required to understand the concept of Supreme Being.

For some reason, I think you have missed my point about "leap of faith." Basically, it take no reasoning to believe in God but it does take a "leap of faith." That means there is no reasoning that could help you to understand God. There is no understanding except for subjective and objective reasoning. But again, no one has ever seen God, or heard God let alone touch God. All your senses are used to subjectify/objectify God. But no human sense can understand God. Therefore it is a "leap of faith."

"Faith falls short of understanding, for a mind that understands assents to what it itself sees in the light of the first premises of understanding." Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, edited by Timothy McDermott, pp. 29.
 

Smoke

Done here.
The failure to employ [human] reasoning is not a demonstration of the irrationality of human reasoning.

Unfortunately, this point seems to have been overlooked in the ensuing discussion --though I can't be 100% sure; my eyes tend to glaze over when people start talking about Descartes.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Unfortunately, this point seems to have been overlooked in the ensuing discussion --though I can't be 100% sure; my eyes tend to glaze over when people start talking about Descartes.

And rightly so. He's hugely over-rated. Although I did hear once that his ridiculous "proof" of God was an attempt to save his own neck. The Christians were still allowed to flay / burn / torture / disembowel / etc. unbelievers in his day. If that's the case, I suppose I can forgive him, although I wonder if he would be surprised to learn some Christians are still using his "proof".
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
The "leap of faith" arises the moment you believe such a thing exists. We can all understand a lot of nonsensical concepts. Think of a purple horse with five legs and one eye. Success? Thought so.

There is nothing illogical or contraditory in the concept of God, nor for that matter in the image of a purple horse with five legs and one eye. And the leap of faith arises with an emotional investment, a belief in God, as opposed to a belief that there is, or might be, a God.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
For some reason, I think you have missed my point about "leap of faith." Basically, it take no reasoning to believe in God but it does take a "leap of faith." That means there is no reasoning that could help you to understand God. There is no understanding except for subjective and objective reasoning. But again, no one has ever seen God, or heard God let alone touch God. All your senses are used to subjectify/objectify God. But no human sense can understand God. Therefore it is a "leap of faith."

"Faith falls short of understanding, for a mind that understands assents to what it itself sees in the light of the first premises of understanding." Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, edited by Timothy McDermott, pp. 29.
There are many "believers"who claim to have had a direct experience of "God". When I was a child I had an experience that I can't really explain any other way. But I agree that to "believe in God" requires an act of faith. Though I don't think it's so much greater an act of faith than choosing to believe in logic or reason. And in fact it is logical and reasonable to choose to believe in a god when one considers that there is no proof that would suggest that god does not exist, and when one considers that for many people there are a lot of positive benefits that go along with holding to such a belief. And lastly, as I mentioned before, belief tends to produce it's own proof, just as does non-belief. We "see" what we expect to see, in life, because we identify what we see partly through our expectations.

Non-believers claim the lack of evidence or proof as their main objection to theism. Yet most theist believe BECAUSE of the evidence of their own experience, that they take as "proof" of god's existence. What that tells me is that the two are interpreting their experience of life, very differently.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
There are many "believers"who claim to have had a direct experience of "God". When I was a child I had an experience that I can't really explain any other way. But I agree that to "believe in God" requires an act of faith. Though I don't think it's so much greater an act of faith than choosing to believe in logic or reason. And in fact it is logical and reasonable to choose to believe in a god when one considers that there is no proof that would suggest that god does not exist, and when one considers that for many people there are a lot of positive benefits that go along with holding to such a belief. And lastly, as I mentioned before, belief tends to produce it's own proof, just as does non-belief. We "see" what we expect to see, in life, because we identify what we see partly through our expectations.

Non-believers claim the lack of evidence or proof as their main objection to theism. Yet most theist believe BECAUSE of the evidence of their own experience, that they take as "proof" of god's existence. What that tells me is that the two are interpreting their experience of life, very differently.

For me, a god's non-existence is all the evidence I need to prove it doesn't exist. I don't "think" or "believe" there is no human-like supernatural entity playing puppeteer, I know it - as surely as I know that water is wet. I have experienced directly and personally the phenomenon that allows people to believe their god-concepts are real. Thoughts make gods, and we are the puppeteers. For me, knowing (and using) the stuff all gods are made of is infinitely more satisfying than separating myself from this essential stuff by personifying and externalizing it.

I don't see any benefit to God-belief for me, but I think that it is probably better to have a weak understanding of / relationship to that "stuff" than no relationship at all. The problem arises when organized religions subject to human hierarchies are born.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
not at all... simple reasoning tells us that reasoning has limitations.


Example:

teach a dog calculus. (!) It wont apply its learning and solve lots of math equations.
It will carry on being a dog.

Just like people, people are like dogs.. there will always something that is simply beyond our intellect. People for some silly reason like to assume that we can intellectualize everything. It really makes us arrogant to assume that there is nothing more than people.

But then, people like their beliefs.

consider this Buddhist parable:

I'm sorry but I don't know where this is going. What is your argument?

read the parable, silly....

beliefs are beliefs...

the map is not the territory.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
There is nothing illogical or contraditory in the concept of God, nor for that matter in the image of a purple horse with five legs and one eye. And the leap of faith arises with an emotional investment, a belief in God, as opposed to a belief that there is, or might be, a God.

It all depends on what you are definign as God

As a Gnostic God to me is ineffable...
Of course also, all things are God, as opposed to some external "it"
...
Ineffable: (before anyone says plagureeeeeism, this is from MY blog!)

Ineffable: Means, 1. Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. See Synonyms; unspeakable. 2. Not to be uttered; taboo: “the ineffable name of God.” (American Heritage Dictionary)….”Moreover it is these who have known him who is, the Father, that is, the Root of the All, the Ineffable One who dwells in the Monad. He dwells alone in silence, and silence is tranquility
since, after all, he was a Monad and no one was before him.” (”A Valentinian Exposition. ”)
…………………..
In Gnosticism one of the universal concepts is the unknowable mature of God. Indeed Gnostic texts even state that word God is insufficient. So as Gnostics we know that God is unknowable.
But we can easily fall into a trap here. As Gnostics we know that our concepts, our map, our cosmology etc are merely sign posts upon the way. Metaphor and symbolism. Thus things should be taken at face value, yes…but not JUST.


O HOW may I ever express that secret word?
O how can I say He is not like this, and He is like that?
If I say that He is within me, the universe is ashamed:
If I say that He is without me, it is falsehood.
He makes the inner and the outer worlds to be indivisibly one;
The conscious and the unconscious, both are His footstools.
He is neither manifest nor hidden, He is neither revealed nor unrevealed:
There are no words to tell that which He is.
–Kabir


Kabir the Hindu/Islamic mystic here explores this very theme, very well. God is ineffable, but that is not really the whole story. Sister Artemis expressed a view that G_d is the root. So G_d is “knowable” to a point… But I think you get the idea, I hope.

The Kabbalistic concept of Ain or En Sof is this unknowable root.
ain

I think it is very easy to see this concept is fairly universal within mystic traditions. I think it is important to restate that we should not fall into the trap of thinking a concept is the truth. There is truth in the idea of the Ineffable, but that is not the whole “truth.”

This leads in to the idea of transcendence…
………………….

As for the Way, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way;
As for names, the name that can be named is not the constant name.
The nameless is the beginning of the ten thousand things;
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Therefore, those constantly without desires, by this means will see only that which they yearn for and seek.
These two together emerge;
They have different names yet they’re called the same;
That which is even more profound than the profound—
The gateway of all subtleties.

–Tao Te Ching (chapter 1)
…………………
Therefore to It Gnosis is no beginning; rather is it [that Gnosis doth afford] to us the first beginning of its being known.
Let us lay hold, therefore, of the beginning. and quickly speed through all [we have to pass].
`Tis very hard, to leave the things we have grown used to, which meet our gaze on every side, and turn ourselves back to the Old Old [Path].
Appearances delight us, whereas things which appear not make their believing hard.
Now evils are the more apparent things, whereas the Good can never show Itself unto the eyes, for It hath neither form nor figure.
Therefore the Good is like Itself alone, and unlike all things else; or `tis impossible that That which hath no body should make Itself apparent to a body.
The “Like’s” superiority to the “Unlike” and the “Unlike’s” inferiority unto the “Like” consists in this:
The Oneness being Source and Root of all, is in all things as Root and Source. Without [this] Source is naught; whereas the Source [Itself] is from naught but itself, since it is Source of all the rest. It is Itself Its Source, since It may have no other Source.
The Oneness then being Source, containeth every number, but is contained by none; engendereth every number, but is engendered by no other one.
Now all that is engendered is imperfect, it is divisible, to increase subject and to decrease; but with the Perfect [One] none of these things doth hold. Now that which is increasable increases from the Oneness, but succumbs through its own feebleness when it no longer can contain the One.

–Corpus Hermeticum
…………………….
Light and darkness, life and death, and right and left are siblings of one another, and inseparable. For this reason the good are not good, the bad are not bad, life is not life, and death is not death. Each will dissolve into its original nature, but what is superior to the world cannot be dissolved, for it is eternal.
The names of worldly things are utterly deceptive, for they turn the heart from what is real to what is unreal. Whoever hears the word “god“ thinks not of what is real but rather of what is unreal. So also with the words “father,” “son,” “holy spirit,” “life,” “light,” “resurrection,” “church,” and all the rest, people do not think of what is real but of what is unreal, [though] the words refer to what is real. The words [that are] heard belong to this world. [Do not be] deceived. If words belonged to the eternal realm, they would never be pronounced in this world, nor would they designate worldly things. They would refer to what is in the eternal realm.
Only one name is not pronounced in the world, the name the Father gave the Son. It is the name above all-it is the Father’s name. For the Son would not have become Father if he had not put on-the Father’s name. Those who have this name understand it but do not speak it. Those who do not have it cannot even un­derstand it.
Truth brought forth names in the world for us, and no one can refer to truth without names. Truth is one and many, for our sakes, to teach us about the one, in love, through the many.

–Gospel of Philip
……………….
Monad: From the Greek word, meaning “one”, “single” or “unique.” It has ample
descriptions according to different contexts: According to Pythagoras it was the
first thing in existence. ”The Valentinian Exposition” declares Jesus the
‘Monad.’ (See Sethian Monadology.) mo·nad; (mnd) n. 1. Philosophy; An
indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent
element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz. 2. Biology; A
single-celled microorganism, especially a flagellate protozoan of the genus
”Monas.” 3. Chemistry ; An atom or a radical with valence 1. (Online
Webster’s Dic. See also; Wikipedia.) The Monadic sequence to the Triad is
expressed is by the ”Oracles of Zoroaster,” which illuminates the
sequence…..
25. The Monad first existed, and the Paternal Monad still subsists.
26. When the Monad is extended, the Dyad is generated.
27. And beside Him is seated the Dyad which glitters with intellectual sections,
to govern all things and to order everything not ordered.
28. The Mind of the Father said that all things should be cut into Three, whose
Will assented, and immediately all things were so divided.
29. The Mind of the Eternal Father said into Three, governing all things by Mind.
30. The Father mingled every Spirit from this Triad.
31. All things are supplied from the bosom of this Triad.
32. All things are governed and subsist in this Triad
33. For thou must know that all things bow before the Three Supernals.
34. From thence floweth forth the Form of the Triad, being preexistent; not the
first Essence, but that whereby all things are measured.
35. And there appeared in it Virtue and Wisdom, and multiscient Truth.
36. For in each World shineth the Triad, over which the Monad ruleth.”
Tao « Prayers and Reflections
............

So we see, reason enough will never be enough. Why? reason has a set of parameters, God by its very nature has none.
 

strange

Member
It all depends on what you are definign as God

As a Gnostic God to me is ineffable...

I think it is important to restate that we should not fall into the trap of thinking a concept is the truth.



As foreign as Gnosticism is to me, I understand your point and agree.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
For me, a god's non-existence is all the evidence I need to prove it doesn't exist. I don't "think" or "believe" there is no human-like supernatural entity playing puppeteer, I know it - as surely as I know that water is wet. I have experienced directly and personally the phenomenon that allows people to believe their god-concepts are real. Thoughts make gods, and we are the puppeteers. For me, knowing (and using) the stuff all gods are made of is infinitely more satisfying than separating myself from this essential stuff by personifying and externalizing it.

I don't see any benefit to God-belief for me, but I think that it is probably better to have a weak understanding of / relationship to that "stuff" than no relationship at all. The problem arises when organized religions subject to human hierarchies are born.
Yes, because they very often seek to exploit other people through their beliefs.

I tend to take it all at face value. If. for example, it were shown that a "god-experience" was actually the result of a specific set of chemical reactions in the brain, I would not be at all surprised, nor would that make god and less "real" to me. I assume already that "god" is a natural phenomena. I already understand that "god" is an idea in my mind, and that it "works" for me or doesn't as such. I also know full well that I have no way of authenticating a "god" even if that god were it to stand before me and dare me to.

Everything that exists does so because of a set of limitations that come from I don't know where. To me, it's ALL an expression of "God". But what is "God"? I don't know.
 

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
"Everything that exists does so because of a set of limitations that come from I don't know where. To me, it's ALL an expression of "God". But what is "God"? I don't know."

Then your understanding is as meaningless as your concept of "god." You might as well worship invisible unicorns. You can have a "spiritual" experience with them also. If you believe hard enough.;)
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Yes, because they very often seek to exploit other people through their beliefs.

I tend to take it all at face value. If. for example, it were shown that a "god-experience" was actually the result of a specific set of chemical reactions in the brain, I would not be at all surprised, nor would that make god and less "real" to me. I assume already that "god" is a natural phenomena. I already understand that "god" is an idea in my mind, and that it "works" for me or doesn't as such. I also know full well that I have no way of authenticating a "god" even if that god were it to stand before me and dare me to.

Everything that exists does so because of a set of limitations that come from I don't know where. To me, it's ALL an expression of "God". But what is "God"? I don't know.

That sounds reasonable enough. All the perks of theism, but none of the baggage of religion.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That sounds reasonable enough. All the perks of theism, but none of the baggage of religion.
Exactly! The mistake people make, I think, is in trying to be "right". When it comes to an idea like "god", I don't think we can know what's right or true. So why not quit trying, and go with what works. If it works, meaning that it improves our experience of life and each other, then use it. If it doesn't (as some very strict religions god-concepts don't) then let it go.
 
Top