reason vs believe

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

[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]

I am a practicing attorney, and I have read that 3 times now and for the life of me cannot figure out what you are getting at. I understand the definition of all the words used, but I cannot comprehend the thought you are trying to get across. I like the alliteration of the sentence, however, so if you can explain what the heck it means I may begin using it in conversations. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh, and Rob, great thread, and I, personally, think that faith and reason are pretty near polar opposites. Faith is believing something with no particular reason for believing it, while reason, in a nutshell, is believing something with a concrete reason for doing so. <--- these are nickel versions of the definitions, I realize Webster would have something different, and more complete to say.

B.

 

[Ozzie]

Thoughts?

source:

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

post 135:

None except we are probably conditioned to believe or not believe, and reason within this outlook.

 

[Halcyon]

Thoughts?

source:

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

post 135:

I'd say it was a sweeping generalisation, and originates from a very simplistic outlook on the human mind and life in general.

Belief in God does not necessitate the overcoming of reason. I think that reason originates and applies 100% within this universe, believing in a God that encompasses reason but extends beyond the horizon of this reality, renders reason null and void - as reason does not apply to such an entity, reason derives from It.

However, believing in certain acts of God and myths of God, such as YECreationism, does place reason second to faith. This form of religious belief places faith in what one is told above that which we can see and work out for ourselves. So, instead of reason not applying to the situation, we have a situation where reason does apply, but is being ignored in favour of belief.

 

[Comprehend]

I am a practicing attorney, and I have read that 3 times now and for the life of me cannot figure out what you are getting at. I understand the definition of all the words used, but I cannot comprehend the thought you are trying to get across. I like the alliteration of the sentence, however, so if you can explain what the heck it means I may begin using it in conversations. Any help would be appreciated.


B.

LOL. It's nothing special, I meant just the plain meaning of the words. Whenever the other guy stresses how much "respect" he is saying something with, it usually means they are about to say something rude.

such as, "with all due respect your honor, that tie looks stupid."

 

[Sunstone]

It seems the OP assumes faith always contradicts reason. That does not seem to be the case, however.

For example: Reason indicates there is neither a reason to believe in deity nor a reason not to believe in deity (I am not talking here of any particular deity). In that case, faith does not contradict reason when faith takes a leap reason cannot and affirms belief in deity.

But as Halcyon points out there are times when faith does indeed contradict reason. At those times, any rational person will choose reason over faith.

 

[pstevenson]

"You experience what you believe, unless you believe you won't, in which case you don't, which means you did." - Harry palmer from the workbook "ReSurfacing"

 

[pstevenson]

"You experience what you believe, unless you believe you won't, in which case you don't, which means you did." - Harry palmer from the workbook "ReSurfacing"

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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

In the end, my desire to reason overcame my mind's ability to disbelieve.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Thoughts?

source:

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

post 135:

Could it be that there are different types of reason, or different ways to reason? The way I think has changed a great deal since I last believed.

Back when my beliefs were strong I had a different method for determining the truth. If I was presented with a new question or idea I would compare it with what I already believe. I'd brainstorm all the possibilities. The whole core of my logic was to always see God in the most favorable light possible. Even if it meant fitting a square peg into a circular hole there are always enough loopholes and interpretations and conjecture to make it fit. If it makes God look bad or contradicts current belief it must be false. Whatever makes God look the best and agrees with current beliefs must be true. There wasn't a lack of reason, just a different focus and method. It's actually quite challenging at times.

 

[Scuba Pete]

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."

Gosh I miss TVOR!

Unlike a few atheists that I know, TVOR did not have a malicious bone in his body. I consider him a true friend and a colleague.

That being said, I see merit in what he said and I am certain that there are many theists for whom only this is true. I would also give this a minor adjustment as well to make it completely true!

"In the end, my mind's ability to rationalize could not overcome the truth."

FWIW, I e-mailed Bill with a link to this thread.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Robtex,
I totally agree with the first part of TVOR's post. My deconversion can be summed up in that one sentence.

However, I question the application of its opposite to all theists. There are indeed those theists who choose to believe contrary to reason. However, there are plenty of theists who remain unconvinced by atheistic arguments because they feel that those arguments are invalid or are merely ignorant of them.

Also it must be noted that many atheists fall into the second category. Now I believe that the atheistic position is the most plausible and therefore the only rational position to hold. However, that does not mean that it cannot be held to for completely the wrong reasons. I am sure we've all met somebody who can fit the stereotype of the atheist who is an atheist because of the tree-shaped chip on their shoulder.

One final thought, and contrary to what many have suggested on this thread, the only time reason and faith can be compatible is when "faith" is being used as a synonym of "belief".

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know...

I would like to add a caveat here: I have seen MANY on this forum become far more tolerant towards the other extreme. Now we even see atheists making fun of other atheists for being too zealous. There is a lot of GOOD to be said for a forum that helps us to be more accepting of those who believe differently than us.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

The accusation of some sort of conflict between reason and religion is quite false, especially among certain groups!

The Baha'i Faith, for one, explicitly endorses the harmony of science and religion and recognizes the necessity of both! And its scriptures state that true religion must agree with established science.

So I humbly suggest that this "conflict" is a false dichotomy.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[quietlight]

I would actually agree with Bruce on this. To put reason 'vs' faith is starting in the wrong place.

First, I think it is clear that we figure out what faith is. Some have said that faith is 'believing when there is lack of sufficient reason', or (summarizing) believing when evidence is not complete. I would disagree with that.

I have known people who have reasoned themselves to understand why some things are true, but they still do not accept them. Reason on its own does not make a person believe in God - but it does not mean that we cannot know that God exists by reason. Faith allows us to submit our reason and belief to God - it does not mean that we abandon our reason.

I am a big advocate of the fact that reason can be used to come to know God. At the same time, I do recognize that faith is ultimately needed to accept that knowledge.

 

[robtex]

I am a big advocate of the fact that reason can be used to come to know God. At the same time, I do recognize that faith is ultimately needed to accept that knowledge.

Could you give us some examples where you used reasoning to come to know God. When you say know, do you mean shake his hand once a month or so, have coffee with him on sunday mornings or is a gut feeling that you know him or something else? Could you qualify know.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Robtex, I'm just wondering: do you know the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge? Read my signature below. Do you think "slenderest knowledge" refers to conceptual knowledge?

Why do critics of religion get away with saying religion is mere “belief”? Do they seriously believe a person's experiential knowledge of, and relationship with, Ultimate Reality is mere belief? Does reality end where the skin begins? Certainly the experience is thinner for some people than others, and clearly conceptual interpretations vary as well as the experiences themselves. What do they expect? We are finite creatures looking to the Infinite. For anyone to assume another’s religion is mere belief is the epitome of supercilious arrogance.

Beam me up. Scotty!

 

[robtex]

Robtex, I'm just wondering: do you know the difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge? Read my signature below. Do you think "slenderest knowledge" refers to conceptual knowledge?

In reference to your signature I would only assess qoutes within the context they are presented. To infer a qoute out of context is to cheat the author on the meaning of that idea presented. I will have to look up the qoute, find the context and get back to you on that. The qoute out of context has little meaning to me.

On the idea of conceptual knowledge and experiental knowledge can you give me some psychologists psychatrists or other medical professionals who may have addressed this to further my understanding of what you are saying when you use the terms experimental and conceptual knowledge? Is experiential a word in the english language?

Why do critics of religion get away with saying religion is mere “belief”?

I think many people percieve there to be a God say their perception is an article of faith and predicated only on belief. Entire churches like the methodist church for example, are open about their perception being that of faith.

Do they seriously believe a person's experiential knowledge of, and relationship with, Ultimate Reality is mere belief? Does reality end where the skin begins? Certainly the experience is thinner for some people than others, and clearly conceptual interpretations vary as well as the experiences themselves. What do they expect? We are finite creatures looking to the Infinite. For anyone to assume another’s religion is mere belief is the epitome of supercilious arrogance.

You are going to have to define your key terms of "experiential knowledge" and "ultimate reality" What is the difference between ulitmate reality and reality?

Are you stating, when you say "we are finite creatures" that there is no afterlife, and if so do you realize that idea there makes you one who rejects most the religions of the world?

Beam me up. Scotty!

Gene Roddenberry, the creator of star trek was an atheist.

 

[quietlight]

Could you give us some examples where you used reasoning to come to know God. When you say know, do you mean shake his hand once a month or so, have coffee with him on sunday mornings or is a gut feeling that you know him or something else? Could you qualify know.

Is that what you need to know something? I never had coffee in Russia, but I know it exists.

I personally like many of the Thomistic proofs of God, but that's not exactly what I meant by my statement.

The emphasis of my statement is that faith is not opposed to reason, and vice versa. It is possible to reason your way to the knowledge of God, albeit difficult.

 

[Scott C.]

The question gets to differences in desire between those who believe in and submit to God and those who refuse to believe. Some (and I repeat "some") atheists comments lead me to believe that they don't want to believe in God, they don't want God to exist, because they prefer to decide on their own what is right and wrong and don't like the idea of submitting their will to a superior Almighty God. I get this idea from comments like "how could a God be so cruel?', "why would God tell me to do this or do that, and to not do this or do that?" It seems they hide behind a claim to rational superiority as they demand "prove it, prove it, prove it". If I'm right about this, some people are not allowing God to get through and reveal Himself, because of attitude.

 

[stone]

It seems they hide behind a claim to rational superiority as they demand "prove it, prove it, prove it". If I'm right about this, some people are not allowing God to get through and reveal Himself, because of attitude..

your post is based on many assumptions,

a)you assume Atheits are hiding when they make the statements you refer to, they could just be valid questions they are asking.
b)asking for proof is not as unreasonable a request as you assume.
c)You assume God is trying to get through. Can you provide any evidence to support this notion?