What is Faith?

[Meow Mix]

I have not formally studied philosophy beyond Philosophy 101, over 25 years ago, so I get a bit lost when we start discussing espitemologies and presuppositistionalistic notions. However, the philosophers I have read a little of all seem to start with presuppositions, and sometimes some pretty wild ones (monads - now what was that all about?!). Which epistemologies have no presuppositions? Further, I did offer my data for justification. However, I offer my experiences as justification with the notation that I hold in tension the objective uncertainty with "the infinite passion of the individual inwardness."

Fair enough about epistemologies and presuppositions, but most presuppositions in working epistemologies are hypothetical imperatives; i.e. held in order to accomplish something: namely, to seek truth. Thus it becomes counterproductive to assume something is true without having to; it defeats the entire purpose of having an epistemic structure. To clarify on what I mean by assuming something is true without having to, see my examples below.

Presuppositions in epistemology tend to be barebones necessities like affording basic utility to induction (e.g., assuming that the language we're communicating with means the same thing to the listener as is intended by the speaker; with rare exceptions that can be solved by defining terms)... or conceding that we can trust our senses enough to say there is at least an external world (because such a concession is necessary to debate at all). These presuppositions are necessary to function at all in a debate -- presupposing the existence of something like God isn't, as is evidenced by the ability of atheists to function normally.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's true that we all have presuppositions but epistemically responsible presuppositions are those which only accept the bare bones axioms required to discuss at all; and theism isn't one of those. Thus we arrive at the situation where we can't ask someone why they accept the efficacy of language (because we'd contradict ourselves) but there's nothing contradictory about asking someone why they presuppose the existence of a deity. If it can be questioned without contradiction, in other words, it should be supported somehow if the epistemology is a good guide to truth and knowledge.

 

[lunamoth]

Fair enough about epistemologies and presuppositions, but most presuppositions in working epistemologies are hypothetical imperatives; i.e. held in order to accomplish something: namely, to seek truth. Thus it becomes counterproductive to assume something is true without having to; it defeats the entire purpose of having an epistemic structure. To clarify on what I mean by assuming something is true without having to, see my examples below.

Presuppositions in epistemology tend to be barebones necessities like affording basic utility to induction (e.g., assuming that the language we're communicating with means the same thing to the listener as is intended by the speaker; with rare exceptions that can be solved by defining terms)... or conceding that we can trust our senses enough to say there is at least an external world (because such a concession is necessary to debate at all). These presuppositions are necessary to function at all in a debate -- presupposing the existence of something like God isn't, as is evidenced by the ability of atheists to function normally.

I would think that depends upon what the debate is about. While it is true that atheists can 'function normally' in a debate about epistemology, they hold the presupposition 'no God,' and this colors and biases their rhetoric, as we have seen in this thread. I suppose, though, that it depends what the debate is about. If the question is whether life has meaning, and what is the basis of that meaning, I have not yet seen an atheistic answer other than "there is no inherent meaning or purpose to our existence" followed by "I make meaning for myself, and that is all that matters." No one chases that second statement down demanding objective evidence to support that particular truth. And, no one questions the underpinnings of ethics in a world where we each make/choose our own good. On what basis could argue what is good for others, other than what is ultimately good for me (or my genes?).

Basically what I'm saying is that it's true that we all have presuppositions but epistemically responsible presuppositions are those which only accept the bare bones axioms required to discuss at all; and theism isn't one of those. Thus we arrive at the situation where we can't ask someone why they accept the efficacy of language (because we'd contradict ourselves) but there's nothing contradictory about asking someone why they presuppose the existence of a deity. If it can be questioned without contradiction, in other words, it should be supported somehow if the epistemology is a good guide to truth and knowledge.

How do you know that reason is leading you to truth? What is truth? Is it defined by "what works" or "what the most observers agree on?" How do you know what you take as truth has any connection to reality?

If reason is the tool for finding truth, what do we use to prove the validity of our reason?

I am not using the above as an argument for God, BTW, but showing that atheistic worldviews also fall short.

And a tangent, many of the philosophers throughout history did believe in God. Did that belief distort all of the rest of their thinking?

 

[Meow Mix]

I would think that depends upon what the debate is about. While it is true that atheists can 'function normally' in a debate about epistemology, they hold the presupposition 'no God,' and this colors and biases their rhetoric, as we have seen in this thread. I suppose, though, that it depends what the debate is about. If the question is whether life has meaning, and what is the basis of that meaning, I have not yet seen an atheistic answer other than "there is no inherent meaning or purpose to our existence" followed by "I make meaning for myself, and that is all that matters." No one chases that second statement down demanding objective evidence to support that particular truth. And, no one questions the underpinnings of ethics in a world where we each make/choose our own good. On what basis could argue what is good for others, other than what is ultimately good for me (or my genes?).

Atheists don't necessarily presuppose "no God," a position otherwise known as strong atheism. Atheists in general just lack belief in gods. Those who assert the existence of gods have the onus of proof, so do those who assert the nonexistence of gods. Those who are merely neutrally skeptical hold no burden of proof in that respect.

Atheists have a wide range of opinions about the meaning of life. Many Buddhists are atheists, for instance, and they certainly have ideas on the meaning of life. Even for those who aren't convinced there's an overall meaning for life we're talking about a preference here, not something that exists (like a God): you note that nobody pounces on them for evidence when they say they make their own meaning, but I don't see why they should any more than they should pounce on someone who says "I like the color green."

How do you know that reason is leading you to truth? What is truth? Is it defined by "what works" or "what the most observers agree on?" How do you know what you take as truth has any connection to reality?

Truth to me is correspondence to reality. Epistemic systems that most correlate to reality are on a better track than epistemic systems that don't. Science really stood out as a great system for empirical questions because it so obviously corresponded to reality very well: sometimes in modern times to the point where we can make predictions so accurate that they match experiment to seven decimal places.

Likewise, good epistemologies guide towards truth by corresponding to reality. If an epistemology incorporates doing things such as accepting claims in lieu of evidence there's no measure to reality; and thus no guide towards truth.

If reason is the tool for finding truth, what do we use to prove the validity of our reason?

Arguably, the use of reason is a learned behavior and not an innate one. It may well have simply come from trial and error; but the act of observing that it works and adopting it because of that is itself an act of reason. It goes back to correspondence to reality: people discovered that certain ways of thinking corresponded to reality a little better than, say, flipping coins to decide what to believe; and so they adopted reason.

I am not using the above as an argument for God, BTW, but showing that atheistic worldviews also fall short.

And a tangent, many of the philosophers throughout history did believe in God. Did that belief distort all of the rest of their thinking?

Not necessarily. Some people are very good at separating the use of reason from the abandonment of reason. Newton for instance believed that he would be remembered for his alchemical (religious) work; but his dabbling in pseudoscience didn't affect his work in science in the least. I'd argue that many waste their brilliance on what I consider to be foolishness and nonsense and I wonder what sort of world we'd be living in today if these intelligent men and women had spent less time on pseudoscience and theological stuff; but that's passing a little too much judgement without enough argumentation so I won't go there for now.

Even smart people believe in weird things; and they're often good at justifying them. I enjoy tackling the ideas of people like Aquinas, Plantinga, Maydole, Craig and other theodicians/theologians because they're unusually clever at defending (again, in my opinion) nonsense. In the case of scientists, it's usually not problematic (e.g. Newton, Pascal, etc.) but sometimes it certainly does become problematic when they allow their epistemic loopholes to interfere with times when they should have full epistemic integrity: consider the Intelligent Design movement to declare creationism a "science," the uproar over stem cell research, and other such things.

I'm not arguing that holding theism as true (via preusppositionalism) undermines any epistemic integrity at all, I'm just saying it introduces loopholes and kinks into something that's arguably the most important aspect about us: our epistemic integrity, the engines by which we determine what we are and what this universe is. It's like inheriting an exquisite Victorian mansion but instead of keeping a solid foundation you take out a few cornerstones to add in something fanciful that you enjoy; but which doesn't bear any weight and potentially turns the whole thing into a proverbial house of cards.

In short, it's my opinion that the way we think is vitally important -- maybe what I would consider the most important thing we build for ourselves in our lives (otherwise seeking truth without proper epistemology is like trying to play chess without knowing the rules). Believing without justification hinders our thought; it isn't a shortcut to reality so much as a dart toss. It cheats us from the integrity that we could otherwise have by building our epistemes from the ground up. Two of the most important questions I feel I could ever ask someone -- with the second question having the most importance -- are "What do you know" and "how do you know it?"

If I ever have children I will be emphasizing that second question to them quite a lot, I think; and if they become good at answering it I'll consider their development into critically thinking beings a success.

 

[Magic Man]

but us Christians,we believe what the scripture says, the words of God is enough and we are satisfied. we believe in God and he made the heavens and the earth and all that is in it and we exist through Him.

Yes, and this is faith, as in belief without evidence. This is exactly what we're saying.

 

[Magic Man]

How do you know that reason is leading you to truth?

Well, if it's not, then nothing else is. Reason is the best tool we have for getting to the truth.

What is truth? Is it defined by "what works" or "what the most observers agree on?" How do you know what you take as truth has any connection to reality?

Truth is what's observed to be true in reality. We know that what we take as truth has a connection to reality because it is supported by the observations of everyone else.

If reason is the tool for finding truth, what do we use to prove the validity of our reason?

The fact that it works. It consistently gives us objectively verifiable facts.

I am not using the above as an argument for God, BTW, but showing that atheistic worldviews also fall short.

How so?

And a tangent, many of the philosophers throughout history did believe in God. Did that belief distort all of the rest of their thinking?

Sometimes.

 

[Magic Man]

I was just saying that when it comes to relationships with people, I don't use a scientific approach.

Yes, you do. You judge them using reason. First, you start by judging whether or not they're real people using reason. After that you judge their character using reason. You say "Hmm, well this person believes this or that" or "That person is mean because they say mean things to people". That stuff goes into your relationship with them.

But really the main point people are missing when bringing up stuff like this is that we're mainly concerned with the truth of a statement when we talk about faith and reason in a religious context. Is God real? Well, you can just believe it without evidence and say yes, or you can reason through it and say probably not. That's not an analogous situation to your relationships with real human beings.

 

[lunamoth]

Atheists don't necessarily presuppose "no God," a position otherwise known as strong atheism. Atheists in general just lack belief in gods. Those who assert the existence of gods have the onus of proof, so do those who assert the nonexistence of gods. Those who are merely neutrally skeptical hold no burden of proof in that respect.

Atheists have a wide range of opinions about the meaning of life. Many Buddhists are atheists, for instance, and they certainly have ideas on the meaning of life. Even for those who aren't convinced there's an overall meaning for life we're talking about a preference here, not something that exists (like a God): you note that nobody pounces on them for evidence when they say they make their own meaning, but I don't see why they should any more than they should pounce on someone who says "I like the color green."

And, likewise, I don't see why they should pounce on someone who says "I find meaning in my faith in God."

Truth to me is correspondence to reality. Epistemic systems that most correlate to reality are on a better track than epistemic systems that don't. Science really stood out as a great system for empirical questions because it so obviously corresponded to reality very well: sometimes in modern times to the point where we can make predictions so accurate that they match experiment to seven decimal places.

Science is the most powerful method for finding out truth about our material existence.

Likewise, good epistemologies guide towards truth by corresponding to reality. If an epistemology incorporates doing things such as accepting claims in lieu of evidence there's no measure to reality; and thus no guide towards truth.

But, the claims about God are not made in lieu of evidence. The evidence is subjective, much as when a person might say "My finance is beautiful." Meanwhile you think she has the face of a horse. Is she not beautiful? Is she only beautiful if 9 out of 10 people agree?

Arguably, the use of reason is a learned behavior and not an innate one. It may well have simply come from trial and error; but the act of observing that it works and adopting it because of that is itself an act of reason. It goes back to correspondence to reality: people discovered that certain ways of thinking corresponded to reality a little better than, say, flipping coins to decide what to believe; and so they adopted reason.

So you equate truth with 'what works.' How do you apply that to what is true about relationships?

Not necessarily. Some people are very good at separating the use of reason from the abandonment of reason. Newton for instance believed that he would be remembered for his alchemical (religious) work; but his dabbling in pseudoscience didn't affect his work in science in the least. I'd argue that many waste their brilliance on what I consider to be foolishness and nonsense and I wonder what sort of world we'd be living in today if these intelligent men and women had spent less time on pseudoscience and theological stuff; but that's passing a little too much judgement without enough argumentation so I won't go there for now.

Many of them may not have been moved to investigate and search for the 'truth' about the world if they were not first moved by a passion to understand more about God's creation. You may consider this compartmentalizing or abandoning reason, but another valid way to see it is that they used different approaches for different aspects of their search for understanding.

Even smart people believe in weird things; and they're often good at justifying them. I enjoy tackling the ideas of people like Aquinas, Plantinga, Maydole, Craig and other theodicians/theologians because they're unusually clever at defending (again, in my opinion) nonsense. In the case of scientists, it's usually not problematic (e.g. Newton, Pascal, etc.) but sometimes it certainly does become problematic when they allow their epistemic loopholes to interfere with times when they should have full epistemic integrity: consider the Intelligent Design movement to declare creationism a "science," the uproar over stem cell research, and other such things.

I agree, but I would not use the terms loopholes and integrity, but using the wrong tools for the job. ID is bankrupt; it informs neither science or theology, but undermines both. It is a shame that some atheists insist on linking atheism with science in the public eye. As long as science is viewed as promoting atheism, there will be continued resistance to 'epistemologically sound' science in schools.

I'm not arguing that holding theism as true (via preusppositionalism) undermines any epistemic integrity at all, I'm just saying it introduces loopholes and kinks into something that's arguably the most important aspect about us: our epistemic integrity, the engines by which we determine what we are and what this universe is. It's like inheriting an exquisite Victorian mansion but instead of keeping a solid foundation you take out a few cornerstones to add in something fanciful that you enjoy; but which doesn't bear any weight and potentially turns the whole thing into a proverbial house of cards.

Alternatively, not holding theism as true is like inheriting an exquisite Victorian mansion and thinking that you built it yourself.

In short, it's my opinion that the way we think is vitally important -- maybe what I would consider the most important thing we build for ourselves in our lives (otherwise seeking truth without proper epistemology is like trying to play chess without knowing the rules). Believing without justification hinders our thought; it isn't a shortcut to reality so much as a dart toss. It cheats us from the integrity that we could otherwise have by building our epistemes from the ground up. Two of the most important questions I feel I could ever ask someone -- with the second question having the most importance -- are "What do you know" and "how do you know it?"

If I ever have children I will be emphasizing that second question to them quite a lot, I think; and if they become good at answering it I'll consider their development into critically thinking beings a success.

Well said and I agree. But I will also be interested in their answers to "Now that you know, what are you going to do about it, and why?"

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That's not an analogous situation to your relationships with real human beings.

I'd have to disagree with you there.

 

[Magic Man]

Science is the most powerful method for finding out truth about our material existence.

Science is the most powerful tool for finding out truth about everything in the universe.

But, the claims about God are not made in lieu of evidence. The evidence is subjective, much as when a person might say "My finance is beautiful." Meanwhile you think she has the face of a horse. Is she not beautiful? Is she only beautiful if 9 out of 10 people agree?

They're made without real evidence. Someone's opinion is not real evidence. I have to ask, did you mean "My face is beautiful" or "My fiancee is beautiful"? In any case, an opinion or preference is not what we're talking about. We're talking about truth claims, which are either true or false. That is a completely different subject than opinions.

So you equate truth with 'what works.' How do you apply that to what is true about relationships?

Well, you see what works. What works in a relationship is what's true. Again, though, you're confusing different subjects. "God exists" is a different issue than "My friend and I have a relationship".

 

[Magic Man]

I'd have to disagree with you there.

I'm sure you would, but you'd be wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

And, likewise, I don't see why they should pounce on someone who says "I find meaning in my faith in God."

I'm not sure I know of any atheists who would pounce on that specifically. No one doubts that someone can believe in God, and no one doubts that they might find meaning in that belief in God. What atheists are really interested in though is why that belief in God is there; what justifies it? You comment below:

But, the claims about God are not made in lieu of evidence. The evidence is subjective, much as when a person might say "My finance is beautiful." Meanwhile you think she has the face of a horse. Is she not beautiful? Is she only beautiful if 9 out of 10 people agree?

But can you see how statements about something's existence (actual, literal, ontological existence) are in an entirely different class of statements than statements about something's attributes; and require different standards of justification?

"I trust my friend Bob" can have a few different connotations in a few different scenarios:

1) Bob is a flesh and blood human being who works at the Burger King down the street, he's a pretty nice and loyal guy which is why you became friends with him, etc.

2) Bob is a flesh and blood human being who works at the Burger King down the street, but he's a real jerk. He spits in your food, calls you names, hates black people for no real reason, is known to steal things, etc.

3) Bob is your child's invisible friend.

Why does the statement "I trust Bob" only rationally fit with one of these scenarios? It's epistemically obvious: because in (1) we find that Bob is trustworthy; you have the epistemic grounds on which to trust him rationally. In (2) it's a little less rational to trust him, but it's certainly more rational to trust him than in (3) where you have no justification that he even actually ontologically exists.

"Faith," when used as trust, only matters when something ontologically exists. It can't be used to establish or to justify the ontological existence of something; nor can it be said rationally about something whose ontological existence is dubious or unestablished.

So you equate truth with 'what works.' How do you apply that to what is true about relationships?

"What works" isn't exactly the same as correspondence to truth because sometimes you're not talking about anything that "works" but rather just making an observation.

Ask yourself: "Would I like to be friends with a hardline dirty talking gangster that shoots people, hates several "races"/religions/cultures and excessively uses foul and demeaning terms for those people, spits in public, picks his nose, has foul body odor and just wants to be with me to have sex with me and constantly hounds me about it?"

Depending on your values, I bet you would say "no." There's nothing mysterious about our relationships with other people. We form friendships and relationships based on our observations of people and holding them up to a standard of our values. We trust people only after we establish reasonably that we can trust them. Yes, we can give strangers the benefit of the doubt, but that's still rational most of the time because we're trusting strangers that are reasonably, statistically likely to be like us and share our values. Would you walk into what's deemed a "scary neighborhood" and trust the strangers you met there? I doubt it! Trust is based on reason; but believing in the ontological existence of things subjectively is far from being based on reason.

Many of them may not have been moved to investigate and search for the 'truth' about the world if they were not first moved by a passion to understand more about God's creation. You may consider this compartmentalizing or abandoning reason, but another valid way to see it is that they used different approaches for different aspects of their search for understanding.

That's true, in fact Darwin set out to learn more about creation. I can't really argue that, but something tells me that people who are so driven would have maybe been driven anyway to discover more about the universe. Curious people are driven by many things but my guess is that they'd be curious no matter what, even if in some other universe they had a different reason to be curious. I can't back that up so I'll concede the point, but point out that such a benefit may not outweigh the cost.

Alternatively, not holding theism as true is like inheriting an exquisite Victorian mansion and thinking that you built it yourself.

Haha, touche!

Well said and I agree. But I will also be interested in their answers to "Now that you know, what are you going to do about it, and why?"

That's a good question to ask, too. I'm enjoying the conversation, thanks for that!

 

[Willamena]

Meox, in "your semantics," do attributes "ontologically exist"?

 

[Meow Mix]

Meox, in "your semantics," do attributes "ontologically exist"?

"Meox," I like that :flirt:

They ontologically exist insofar as the things that carry them exist, unless you're getting at attributes of something that isn't known explicitely to exist like unicorns.

If you are asking about the attributes of things we're not sure exist, then the attributes only "exist" in the sense that we can make truth statements in our minds about them simply from the proposed definitions of the things we're describing (e.g. "Unicorns have two horns?" "False.")

Edit: It's not an ontological existence per se (in the case of unicorns) unless you count the logic that drives our ability to make truth statements from the hypothetical definitions, which I do (but I wouldn't say "the attributes of unicorns exists ontologically," I would say the logic that allows truth statements to be made about them does).

 

[Willamena]

"Meox," I like that :flirt:

They ontologically exist insofar as the things that carry them exist, unless you're getting at attributes of something that isn't known explicitely to exist like unicorns.

If you are asking about the attributes of things we're not sure exist, then the attributes only "exist" in the sense that we can make truth statements in our minds about them simply from the proposed definitions of the things we're describing (e.g. "Unicorns have two horns?" "False.")

Edit: It's not an ontological existence per se (in the case of unicorns) unless you count the logic that drives our ability to make truth statements from the hypothetical definitions, which I do (but I wouldn't say "the attributes of unicorns exists ontologically," I would say the logic that allows truth statements to be made about them does).

Sorry for the typo, typing too fast.

So "beauty" ontologically exists in so far as the face that is beautiful exists, but beauty cannot be addressed ontologically, correct? I ask because I think your response avoids the question Luna asked rather than addressing it, i.e. the question "Is she not beautiful?" addresses evidence that her beauty exists. If it's not an ontological existence, per se, then the response doesn't address the question.

I'll shut up now. (Have to work, and am just following along for now.)

 

[lunamoth]

But can you see how statements about something's existence (actual, literal, ontological existence) are in an entirely different class of statements than statements about something's attributes; and require different standards of justification?

"I trust my friend Bob" can have a few different connotations in a few different scenarios:

1) Bob is a flesh and blood human being who works at the Burger King down the street, he's a pretty nice and loyal guy which is why you became friends with him, etc.

2) Bob is a flesh and blood human being who works at the Burger King down the street, but he's a real jerk. He spits in your food, calls you names, hates black people for no real reason, is known to steal things, etc.

3) Bob is your child's invisible friend.

Why does the statement "I trust Bob" only rationally fit with one of these scenarios? It's epistemically obvious: because in (1) we find that Bob is trustworthy; you have the epistemic grounds on which to trust him rationally. In (2) it's a little less rational to trust him, but it's certainly more rational to trust him than in (3) where you have no justification that he even actually ontologically exists.

"Faith," when used as trust, only matters when something ontologically exists. It can't be used to establish or to justify the ontological existence of something; nor can it be said rationally about something whose ontological existence is dubious or unestablished.

But God is not in the category of ontological existence, but is ineffable. Bob and unicorns are not the basis of reality, although you can postulate/investigate their existence in reality. The only way I can express it is that God is More. This is the reason I chose worldview before trust. God 'is' ineffable More than ontological being. Our contemplation of what God 'is' is limited in the same way a potato would contemplate sentience. It can't, not because sentience is not real, but a potato just does not have the faculties to contemplate it. But can sentience impact a potato? It sure can. I like mine chipped and fried.

So, how do you get to God the ineffable? You choose your worldview. The data need to fit the worldview, but you do not need to limit your worldview to 'only ontological existence is real'.' You are of course free to use Occam's razor to rationalize why you want to just stick to 'this is all there is' and remain rational and consistent. However, it would then appear that Hawking is right, philosophy is over, except for our pushing forward of scientific knowledge that is objectively and empirically testable. Everything else is aesthetics or simply lacking in rational basis, including our illusion that anything can be considered virtuous or good.

We make choices 'in spite of the evidence.' The evidence suggests that there is no inherent value in life; it is a (happy for us) accident of nature. We are evolutionarily honed to survive, and in the last hundred years or so it has entered our collective consciousness that there is no actual purpose to our existence, only the blind perpetuation of the smallest self-reproducing unit. Yet, we do not take this into account as we learn and grow and love. If we truly bought into that logic, we would be making choices that ensure the perpetuation of our genes, such as by limiting the number of children we have, reducing or eliminating our destruction of natural resources, and starting a huge program to get as much of our DNA as is technologically possible off this planet and into space where it can hopefully find another hospitable environment for perpetuation. It does not matter if humans ever evolve again - so long as the gene perpetuates. Or, does our humanity really matter? Why? The answer to the why is not based in ontological evidence. <end rant >

"What works" isn't exactly the same as correspondence to truth because sometimes you're not talking about anything that "works" but rather just making an observation.

Sure, it also applies to 'what most people agree 'is,' which is reasonable. But, how can there be more truth in one philosophical system than another, unless there is only valid philosophical system, one based only on the empirically testable? As I said above, then you must agree with Hawking that philosophy as an endeavor has come to an end, except maybe in the labyrinth of exploring language.

Ask yourself: "Would I like to be friends with a hardline dirty talking gangster that shoots people, hates several "races"/religions/cultures and excessively uses foul and demeaning terms for those people, spits in public, picks his nose, has foul body odor and just wants to be with me to have sex with me and constantly hounds me about it?"

Depending on your values, I bet you would say "no." There's nothing mysterious about our relationships with other people. We form friendships and relationships based on our observations of people and holding them up to a standard of our values. We trust people only after we establish reasonably that we can trust them. Yes, we can give strangers the benefit of the doubt, but that's still rational most of the time because we're trusting strangers that are reasonably, statistically likely to be like us and share our values. Would you walk into what's deemed a "scary neighborhood" and trust the strangers you met there? I doubt it! Trust is based on reason; but believing in the ontological existence of things subjectively is far from being based on reason.

Of course trust is not divorced from reason, even when it comes to relationships with people. Of course we would not trust someone who has not shown themselves to be trustworthy, or choose to be friends with someone we find obnoxious or dangerous. But there is still that feeling, which you expressed so well in the other thread, that is it good to try to help other people regardless of what they have done, and make the world a better place for future humanity, and there is something valuable in our human efforts to promote joy, and culture, and seek knowledge. What is the basis of all of that? Just personal aesthetic preference?

That's true, in fact Darwin set out to learn more about creation. I can't really argue that, but something tells me that people who are so driven would have maybe been driven anyway to discover more about the universe. Curious people are driven by many things but my guess is that they'd be curious no matter what, even if in some other universe they had a different reason to be curious. I can't back that up so I'll concede the point, but point out that such a benefit may not outweigh the cost.



Haha, touche!



That's a good question to ask, too. I'm enjoying the conversation, thanks for that!

Thanks, I'm enjoying it as well. However, I am again running out of time. I start posting when I have a couple of days with a bit more free time, and then things pick up again. I will try to stay tuned and respond as I can.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Science is the most powerful tool for finding out truth about everything in the universe.

Again, I disagree.

Well, you see what works. What works in a relationship is what's true. Again, though, you're confusing different subjects. "God exists" is a different issue than "My friend and I have a relationship".

God is a relationship. Faith teaches you that relationship (i.e. what 'works').

 

[Magic Man]

Again, I disagree.

And again, I'm sure you do, and again you're wrong.

God is a relationship.

No. God is a being that is supposed to exist. People supposedly have a relationship with that being.

Faith teaches you that relationship (i.e. what 'works').

No, faith means you accept that God is real despite the lack of objective evidence.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I'm not sure I know of any atheists who would pounce on that specifically. No one doubts that someone can believe in God, and no one doubts that they might find meaning in that belief in God. What atheists are really interested in though is why that belief in God is there; what justifies it? You comment below:

I think you've answered your own question. If you can find meaning in a belief, that is the justification. God must be there in order to fulfill that meaning. Therefore God exists.

And again, I'm sure you do, and again you're wrong.

Of course. I seem to be wrong about everything with you.

No. God is a being that is supposed to exist. People supposedly have a relationship with that being.

God is the relationship. You don't have a relationship with God, you become the relationship with God.

No, faith means you accept that God is real despite the lack of objective evidence.

Yes, we've established that. I can generalize how this is a problem for people, but how is it a problem for you, specifically?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think you've answered your own question. If you can find meaning in a belief, that is the justification. God must be there in order to fulfill that meaning. Therefore God exists.

Only insofar as the delusions of crazy people or people on hallucinogenics exist.
Also God does NOT need to be there to fulfil that meaning. That is a non sequitur.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course. I seem to be wrong about everything with you.

No, just the one topic we've discussed lately. Just because I say you're wrong on that one topic doesn't mean I think you're wrong on anything else.

God is the relationship. You don't have a relationship with God, you become the relationship with God.

Sorry, but no. God is a being. If you want to talk about something other than a being, then you should use a different word. The word "God" is messed up enough with so many people using it for so many different things; it doesn't need you messing it up even more. The one thing all semi-legitimate definitions of "God" have in common is they're some sort of being. If you want to talk about a relationship with a god, you need to use a different word than "God".

Yes, we've established that.

Oh, good. I didn't realize you had admitted that.

I can generalize how this is a problem for people, but how is it a problem for you, specifically?

What do you mean, how is it a problem? It just is. Believing in something without evidence is a problem because you could believe pretty much anything like flying a plane into a building is a good idea.