reason vs believe

[robtex]

I cannot remember which of our Non-Theist members made the following statement, but it is apropos for this thread - "In the end, my desire to believe could not overcome my mind's ability to reason".

I would submit that the converse is true for Theists - "In the end, my mind's ability to reason could not overcome my desire to believe."

With all due respect,
TVOR

Thoughts?

source:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7655&page=14&highlight=epicurus

post 135:

 

[Mister Emu]

I disagree.

 

[Comprehend]

[SIZE=+0]I think the statement is elitist and arrogant. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To say that theists believe the way they do because of some mental defect is not constructive or accurate. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]BTW - I don't know how it works in other places but among lawyers, the actual amount of respect something is being said with is inversely proportionate to the amount of respect that is professed.[/SIZE]

 

[Willamena]

"In the end, my desire to believe could not overcome my mind's ability to reason".

I would submit that the converse is true for Theists - "In the end, my mind's ability to reason could not overcome my desire to believe."

I would submit that for the nontheist it was desire, not belief, that was overcome. He never did have belief, only the desire for it.

If he had belief, as the theist does, it would not so readily be "overcome" because it is based on reason.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the statement is elitist and arrogant.

Sounds that way to me too. Condescending comes to mind.

 

[Willamena]

Sounds that way to me too. Condescending comes to mind.

Perhaps; but such observations by-pass the argument itself and eliminate the need to respond to it.

 

[robtex]

[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]To say that theists believe the way they do because of some mental defect is not constructive or accurate. [/SIZE]

The words "mental defect" are not in that qoute. The word you sustituted that phrase for was desire. Desire as in strong want, emotional need, passion for. If you put the word desire back in, leaving out "mental defect" (and desire is not a mental defect) would it be reasonable to state that many theists desire for a higher power outweights their reasoning ablilities hence their inclination towards theism? If not why not?

 

[robtex]

I disagree.

can you walk us through on why you disagree?

 

[Engyo]

What would you all say about belief based on reason (or really evidence)?

I did not "believe" in Buddhism, but I began practicing. My belief began to grow as I saw the truth of the Buddhist teachings manifest in my life.

 

[robtex]

I would submit that for the nontheist it was desire, not belief, that was overcome. He never did have belief, only the desire for it.

If he had belief, as the theist does, it would not so readily be "overcome" because it is based on reason.

1) In the first sentence are you stating that all or most of non-theist want there to be a God but are blocked by reasoning skills to percieving one to exist? If so how is that different than the qoute provided?

2) You are stating in the second sentence that belief is the barrior to overcoming the perception of God due to reason? If so how is that different than the qoute provided?

3) Are you stating that if the perceptions of reason and belief conflict it is best in the case of God, to go with belief over reason?

4) You listed yourself as an agnostic theist, by the same token is your reasoning what keeps you from having a personal relationship (or knowing enough to not be an agnostic theist) with your ambigious God?

 

[robtex]

What would you all say about belief based on reason (or really evidence)?

I did not "believe" in Buddhism, but I began practicing. My belief began to grow as I saw the truth of the Buddhist teachings manifest in my life.

Your belief doesn't have a God but is more of a philosophy that subjectively states a optimal path or life course. I would say in that context alone that it differs sharply in the idea of a physical yet unevidencable God.

In your case, from knowing you on here for over two years I would say that subjectivly speaking the philosophy of buddhism is a perfect, or near perfect path for you by complimenting your personality. However, it has a stronger fit for some than for others.

 

[Willamena]

1) In the first sentence are you stating that all or most of non-theist want there to be a God but are blocked by reasoning skills to percieving one to exist? If so how is that different than the qoute provided?

It's not implied for all theists that they want there to be a God, but for the person who made that quote. The theist does not possess knowledge of or reasoning of God, but only this particular theist in this case has expressed a desire to believe.

That said, do I think that all non-theists want there to be a God? No. I think that most non-theists want for there not to be a god, but they behave as if that's what they want in an attempt to address the argument as best they can, or to understand --to put themselves in the theist's shoes as they see the theist's stance. It's not a faulty means of reasoning, but it is inadquate to address the issue of God and belief in such.

2) You are stating in the second sentence that belief is the barrior to overcoming the perception of God due to reason? If so how is that different than the qoute provided?

Overcoming "the perception of God" is not the goal for a believer. Does that make it clearer?

3) Are you stating that if the perceptions of reason and belief conflict it is best in the case of God, to go with belief over reason?

If belief is actual, and not just the desire to believe, they will not conflict, because belief is based on reason.

Believers are believers because they see no conflict between belief and reason. Non-believers cannot believe because they see a conflict.

4) You listed yourself as an agnostic theist, by the same token is your reasoning what keeps you from having a personal relationship (or knowing enough to not be an agnostic theist) with your ambigious God?

My reasoning is what supports my belief and keeps me having a "personal relationship" with a rather nonambiguous God.

Through agnosticism I believe that I will never know god (i.e. what the symbol "God" addressess in actuality), but as a theist I believe God exists --as both a symbol of the unknown/unknowable, and as the possibility of something greater.

 

[Comprehend]

The words "mental defect" are not in that qoute. The word you sustituted that phrase for was desire. Desire as in strong want, emotional need, passion for. If you put the word desire back in, leaving out "mental defect" (and desire is not a mental defect) would it be reasonable to state that many theists desire for a higher power outweights their reasoning ablilities hence their inclination towards theism? If not why not?

My use of the phrase mental defect was not referring to "my desire to believe" but rather, "my mind's ability to reason"

The statement is saying that believers "ability to reason" is somehow deficient. That is what I do not like. I wasn't referring to the desire side of the equation.

It is unreasonable to say that desire outways their reasoning abilities because you are first, presenting the logical fallacy of a false dillema, and second, for your argument you are assuming that it is unreasonable to believe, which is a subjective and faulty assumption. I strongly disagree that reason and faith cannot be perfectly happy with each other (one must only find a logical and reasonable faith).

 

[Comprehend]

Perhaps; but such observations by-pass the argument itself and eliminate the need to respond to it.

There is no argument to be had. It is an entirely subjective viewpoint. One cannot argue what is reasonable. Well, I guess you can but nobody could ever prove anything, it would be an exercise in futility.

I need to mail a letter, the nearest mailbox is 200 yards away. I think it is reasonable to walk, my wife thinks it is reasonable to ride a bike. Does anyone think you could get anywhere arguing over that?

 

[Comprehend]

Sounds that way to me too. Condescending comes to mind.

I just want to point out that what I am referring to and what I think Sunstone is also, is the "ability to reason" phrase.

Anytime you question somebody's "ability to reason", you have strayed from any reasoned argument and wandered onto the territory of insult.

 

[xexon]

Both reason and belief belong to the mind.

Reason is what calculates belief.

x

 

[UnTheist]

Both reason and belief belong to the mind.

Reason is what calculates belief.

x

So what is belief without reason? Faith?

 

[xexon]

Yes indeed. Good call.


x

 

[sojourner]

Yes indeed. Good call.


x

I disagree. Faith is not "absence of reason." Rather, reason is a step toward faith.

I don't believe that faith simply "plugs holes" that reason is unable to fill. I believe that reason informs faith.

We are whole human beings, and we bring our whole selves to faith -- body, mind and spirit.

 

[xexon]

You too, are correct.

Its not true absence of reason, but reason is limited to the evidence at hand. Faith attempts to connect the dots, even if the evidence may be faulty. Faith itself does not reason.

Faith is what pulls the wagon, but it does not steer.

Belief, is the road. Reason, the steering.


x