Logic VS, Faith

[ppp]

it's understandable to imagine that best way to live is originated, created, like a an original work of art.

Having an initial originator, whom others copy.

But that isn't so.

The best way to live naturally depends on the particular attributes of human nature, our common genetic similarity.

Human nature -- what we have in common -- is fixed (constant).

Therefore, a best rule about how to live exists before being discovered. Instead of being created like a work of art, it is discovered, over and over. I'd expect many of these rules have been discovered billions of times.

Billions.

Because many of these rules only need enough life experience (though decades) and some reflection to realize. Not all. Some of the best rules are more subtle. But the basics like "love your neighbor as yourself" are discoverable I think. Perhaps 1 of 100 people could discover that one, or even 1 in 20.

I am not sure why you are saying all this. But sure. I agree in principle. The best way(s) to live is discoverable, because those best way(s) are based on the facts of our existence. This share some foundation with the Moral Landscape and similar philosophies.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Belief in any religion requires faith. My problem has always been that so much of religion is not logical. The different miracles for example defy logic. The Virgin Birth for example.
The Four Gospels Record 37 Miracles. As A Christian Do You Believe Them?

I don't believe that logic and faith are mutually exclusive. There are many things that we need to take on faith. It is the only logical conclusion.

 

[ppp]

God worked to end slavery, but it took time because people could not follow even much more simple and basic laws like against robbery and murder -- so ending slavery took millennia even to get here where we are, where slavery is more hidden, today, and largely illegal, or at least in most countries. A step in the bible not all seem aware of is the sudden change in Philemon. But that was only an inevitable outcome of Matthew 7:12.

This is the hand-waving of which I am so very contemptuous.
It pretends that laws against rape and slavery are not as "simple and basic" as laws against "robbery and murder"
It pretends that robbery and murder ever stopped over the last several millennia.
It pretends that god did not explicitly and directly endorse the practice of slavery both at the individual level and as a societal institution.
It pretends that banning tattoos and the mixing linen and wool was more important that taking a stand against slavery.

It pretends that there is every an excuse for failing to say, "Don't own people."

God cannot commit 'genocide' when by definition He makes 'death' only "sleep", from which He awakens everyone.

Yes, he can. And not only did he commit genocide, but he ordered other people to commit genocide.

 

[ppp]

I don't believe that logic and faith are mutually exclusive. There are many things that we need to take on faith. It is the only logical conclusion.

Such as?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Such as?

Many scientific theories are basic leaps of faith. They see an outcome that cannot be explained but surmise that one day it will be.

We don't know or understand all things but believe that we can learn more and more and more. This is faith.

 

[ppp]

Many scientific theories are basic leaps of faith. They see an outcome that cannot be explained but surmise that one day it will be.

I don't think that is the case. Can you provide a specific example?

We don't know or understand all things but believe that we can learn more and more and more. This is faith.

If I take a take a class to learn to knit, then it is faith to expect to learn how to knit? That seems a pretty thin definition of faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

*sigh* What does the term 'logic' mean to you?

For what it's worth, I thought it a rather astute question.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't think that is the case. Can you provide a specific example?

The entire process is based on faith. There is a faith that the universe is as it is and the laws we discover will remain as they are. Dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin

There is no reason the laws of science are what they are - they just are. And that - to me at least - is faith.

If I take a take a class to learn to knit, then it is faith to expect to learn how to knit? That seems a pretty thin definition of faith.

It's more like the idea of currency. We believe that it has value - we have faith that it does - but we won't know that until someone else exchanges it for a good or service.

How do you define faith?

 

[74x12]

Belief in any religion requires faith. My problem has always been that so much of religion is not logical. The different miracles for example defy logic. The Virgin Birth for example.
The Four Gospels Record 37 Miracles. As A Christian Do You Believe Them?

Of course. The point of a miracle is that if God exists; then He should be able to do them. If you believe God exists then I don't see why miracles are a big leap of faith at that point.

 

[halbhh]

I am not sure why you are saying all this.

You had written "Jesus was a late arrival to that scene." -- seeming to suggest that either timing or repeating an already known truth (best solution/way of all competing solutions/ways) was somehow not valuable?

He came when he came. In his time. He repeated truths because they were true. To say what is true and not say what isn't is already quite valuable, really.

But a common claim some try to make is that Jesus merely repeated ideas discovered by others, as if copying original inventions of inventors elsewhere. But instead he did something so much more valuable -- distilled the most crucial always-existing truths (best ways of all competing ways based on human nature) into clear and useable instruction.

Or did you intend a different meaning? If so, how was he 'late' to the scene?

Human progress cannot be all-at-once. Even sudden change is long in the making, with a lot of more subtle changes happening to prepare the way, first. Human progress has to be incremental, because culture has...mass, as it were, inertia. It takes time and an influence over time, to change. Slavery, for instance, seems somewhat endemic to human nature: that people want to take advantage of others. Changing it is very profound, and not some easy quick thing, as if only to promulgate a law everyone would then ignore and merely find a work around to obviate.

 

[ppp]

The entire process is based on faith. There is a faith that the universe is as it is and the laws we discover will remain as they are. Dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin

Like I said, that seems thin to me.

How do you define faith?

Being convinced of [whatever] without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence.

 

[halbhh]

This is the hand-waving of which I am so very contemptuous.
It pretends that laws against rape and slavery are not as "simple and basic" as laws against "robbery and murder"
It pretends that robbery and murder ever stopped over the last several millennia.
It pretends that god did not explicitly and directly endorse the practice of slavery both at the individual level and as a societal institution.
It pretends that banning tattoos and the mixing linen and wool was more important that taking a stand against slavery.

It pretends that there is every an excuse for failing to say, "Don't own people."


Yes, he can. And not only did he commit genocide, but he ordered other people to commit genocide.

See other answer just above, last paragraph.

Also, the common misconception that God 'endorsed' slavery (instead of progressively regulating it more and more over time) arises I think from not knowing very well the full content of the common bible.

For the reasons given in post #90 just above, slavery is even harder to root out than something like theft.

Making laws no one would follow is truly useless. God did something far more effective, over time, with progressive pieces in book after book of scripture, we can read.

e.g. -- one small incremental step, but not trivial:

Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you.
Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Like I said, that seems thin to me.


Being convinced of [whatever] without evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence.

That is not faith as I understand it. Faith is a combination of belief and hope - not necessarily conviction.

Also - and I am not trying to disparage you in any way - a lot of the "contradictory evidence" people share and claim should destroy someone's faith is not as "destructive" as they believe.

They have faith that their evidence is enough to destroy the faith of others. Kinda ironic.

 

[ppp]

See other answer just above, last paragraph.

Your last paragraph was simply a repetition of your second paragraph. It didn't change my response.

Also, the common misconception that God 'endorsed' slavery (instead of progressively regulating it more and more over time)

'Progressively regulating' is endorsing. No misconceptions here. God was a slaver.

For the reasons given in post #90 just above, slavery is even harder to root out than something like theft.

Don't try to get me to treat god as though he were human. Omnipotent creators the the universe get no excuses and no sympathy. They either ban evil acts, or they are evil. There is no middle ground with omnipotence.

 

[joe1776]

Why only religion? Any belief without evidence is a belief without evidence and if you act on it, you have faith in it. At least faith in this sense: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. That is not limited to religion.

Other than religion, I don't refer to a belief without evidence as "faith." I reserve that word for religion because believers refer to their own position as faith.

That doesn't imply that I believe other important claims without evidence.

 

[ppp]

That is not faith as I understand it. Faith is a combination of belief and hope - not necessarily conviction.

That is the definition to which I was referring.

There are a few of definitions of faith. I am using the Biblical definition from Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.). It's the one that we used most often growing up Baptist, and its the one I hear the most often from Christians of most stripes. The Biblical definition is what is commonly termed blind faith.

If you want to use belief proportional to the evidence as "faith" that's fine. But they are not the same thing. In the same way that "light" to describe a color, and "light" to describe weight are not the same thing.

Also - and I am not trying to disparage you in any way - a lot of the "contradictory evidence" people share and claim should destroy someone's faith is not as "destructive" as they believe.

I am not sure what you mean. I am not sure that many people outside of believer circles actually think in terms of "destroying" faith. I am sure some do, but its a mind set that I rarely hear from the non religious. When I talk about contradictory evidence, I mean that people who adhere to a doctrine will not change their mind in teh face of evidence that shows' that their doctrine is incorrect. Earth revolving around the sun. Demons not being the cause of disease of epilepsy. Gender equality. Etc.

And don't worry about disparaging me. So long as you are forthright and candid (not just trying to get in licks), that doesn't bother me.

 

[ppp]

Other than religion, I don't refer to a belief without evidence as "faith." I reserve that word for religion because believers refer to their own position as faith.

That doesn't imply that I believe other important claims without evidence.

There are non-religious groups to whom I think faith applies. Astrology, dowsing and other forms of divination. The flat earthers. The anti-vaxxers. For instance.

 

[joe1776]

It's not that clear a difference, though, either. How does one determine a figure to be "authoritative"? I would think that would involve some sort of functional credibility.

Here's how I look at what people choose to "believe in".

I think it's mostly based on what 'works' for them in terms of what they want from life. If an idea serves that desire, they "believe in" it. If it doesn't, they reject it. Hence, a vengeful man believes in a vengeful god. A jealous man believe in a jealous god. A weak people believe in a strong god. A kind people believes in a forgiving god. And so on.

People believe in whatever ideals serve their natures, and serve their desires as dictated by their natures. And then they create or adopt the gods and religions that bolster these beliefs. And I'm not saying this is wrong. But I am saying that beliefs rarely change people, because people, choose their beliefs. Not to be changed, but to be justified, validated, and bolstered.

Christian beliefs have been passed along as traditional beliefs to children. Their parents, their priests, their ministers are the authority figures. The choices to which you refer are adult choices. I'd guess those are in the minority.

 

[halbhh]

Your last paragraph was simply a repetition of your second paragraph. It didn't change my response.


'Progressively regulating' is endorsing. No misconceptions here. God was a slaver.


Don't try to get me to treat god as though he were human. Omnipotent creators the the universe get no excuses and no sympathy. They either ban evil acts, or they are evil. There is no middle ground with omnipotence.

I'm starting to wonder if you respond to posts in too much of a rush.

Perhaps the problem though is that you are arguing and/or saying old talking points (those tend to have already been shot down once they are a few years old typically), and worse, with several people at once.

I think...perhaps you should take more time to try to read more closely what I wrote above, since it's clear I know the contents of the common bible more thoroughly than you, and could give you a more precise and complete response from the contents than most.

There's no rush. Take your time.

 

[Zaha Torte]

That is the definition to which I was referring.

There are a few of definitions of faith. I am using the Biblical definition from Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.). It's the one that we used most often growing up Baptist, and its the one I hear the most often from Christians of most stripes. The Biblical definition is what is commonly termed blind faith.

If you want to use belief proportional to the evidence as "faith" that's fine. But they are not the same thing. In the same way that "light" to describe a color, and "light" to describe weight are not the same thing.

I've never understood the whole "blind faith" thing - considering that the Bible records the Lord often rewarding those who pass trials of faith with visions and miracles and other witnesses.

The Biblical record - in my opinion - actively speaks out against the idea of "blind faith".

It asks people to act on their faith - which gives the Lord the opportunity to reward them with a faith-strengthening witness - and then the cycle repeats ad infinitum.

Yet it is the faith - or rather the obedience to Gods' commands - that is the first step. The promised blessings come afterward.

That is how it has been throughout my life. I received the promised blessing after passing my trial of faith.

Asking for a witness before passing a trial of faith is putting the cart before the horse. It does no one any good.

God does not just want people to obey His commands - which is why we are not automatons - but to choose to trust in Him and exercise our faith and grow from the experience.

I am not sure what you mean. I am not sure that many people outside of believer circles actually think in terms of "destroying" faith. I am sure some do, but its a mind set that I rarely hear from the non religious. When I talk about contradictory evidence, I mean that people who adhere to a doctrine will not change their mind in teh face of evidence that shows' that their doctrine is incorrect. Earth revolving around the sun. Demons not being the cause of disease of epilepsy. Gender equality. Etc.

I did not mean to suggest that you and others are actively trying to "destroy" anyone's faith.

Yet - when someone presents "evidence" they believe contradicts someone's faith - and then they act indignant or even angry when that person continues to hold to their faith because they don't believe this "evidence" is compelling enough - that does apply some kind of motive and that is irksome to me.

We are all just trying to control each other all the time. It's baffling to me.

Anyways - I would consider the examples you shared above to not really be all that compelling because I don't believe that the Bible teaches as doctrine a geocentric universe, that demons are the cause of any disease nor that the genders are not equal.

I believe these to be assertions of Man based on faulty thinking - not the Bible or God - so my faith is unaffected by them.

And don't worry about disparaging me. So long as you are forthright and candid (not just trying to get in licks), that doesn't bother me.

Good to know.