Why should I have to justify?

[Midnight Pete]

Reality is that which exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it. In this context useful is that which has utility at discovering or coming as close to possible to discovering about reality.

If religion isn't about the world around us, then why does it make ontological claims such as the existence of things like gods and souls?

Hopeless.

 

[Willamena]

Yes but that's different from "faith" in the sense of an unjustified belief...

Different from "blind faith," right. But that's not unique to theists, nor does it define theism.

I'll look at the examples tomorrow.

 

[Meow Mix]

Different from "blind faith," right. But that's not unique to theists, nor does it define theism.

I'll look at the examples tomorrow.

Oh I agree that blind faith isn't unique to theists.

There are atheists who believe that gods don't exist and then couldn't justify that belief if their lives depended on it: those atheists are irrational, too.

If you don't suppose that some theists say they believe by "faith" and by that they mean "blind faith," what do you think they mean by "having faith" in God?

Is it inductive faith, like believing the sun will rise?

Is it trusting faith, like loaning a friend $5?

Or is it blind faith that something exists, even in the absence or sometimes contradicting the evidence?

 

[Meow Mix]

Hopeless.

Help me understand then. Why do we have to antagonize people who are really searching?

If you know something I don't then I want to know it.

If you're teaching a student with a learning disability (which is what you are treating me as) and they don't get something, do you just throw your arms up in the air and tell them they're hopeless?

Can't you see how unjust that is?

 

[Willamena]

If you don't suppose that some theists say they believe by "faith" and by that they mean "blind faith," what do you think they mean by "having faith" in God?

I said earlier. It is belief in something not yet actualized or unactualized.

 

[Meow Mix]

I said earlier. It is belief in something not yet actualized or unactualized.

So faith that god exists is belief in something not yet actualized or unactualized?

Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is on equal rational terms with belief that some thingy exists without any other rational evidence?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Help me understand then. Why do we have to antagonize people who are really searching?

If you know something I don't then I want to know it.

If you're teaching a student with a learning disability (which is what you are treating me as) and they don't get something, do you just throw your arms up in the air and tell them they're hopeless?

Can't you see how unjust that is?

I'm sorry, I really am.

But ... you couldn't even accept something simple like, The sun will rise tomorrow.

I was at a loss for words when I read that post. Text-based evangelism is probably not the best idea, anyway. And even if you and I were conversing face-to-face, I am not an evangelist. Obviously, I can't make you believe in God. Nor would I want to try. I think if you find God, Meow Mix, it should not be because someone said something you couldn't find a refutation for. I'm not very bright. I don't even know what I'm saying here ...

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm sorry, I really am.

But ... you couldn't even accept something simple like, The sun will rise tomorrow.

I was at a loss for words when I read that post. Text-based evangelism is probably not the best idea, anyway. And even if you and I were conversing face-to-face, I am not an evangelist. Obviously, I can't make you believe in God. Nor would I want to try. I think if you find God, Meow Mix, it should not be because someone said something you couldn't find a refutation for. I'm not very bright. I don't even know what I'm saying here ...

But I do accept that "the sun will rise tomorrow." I was saying that faith in that is a different context than faith in something without justification (since we indeed have justifiation to believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow; in fact we can substitute the word "induce" instead of faith there).

It seems we fundamentally disagree on the reasons why people should believe things. I want beliefs to be rational, that's all. If you don't think we can meaningfully exchange ideas then we can just limit our conversations to one another to friendly non-philosophical talk. Fair compromise?

 

[Madhuri]

Maybe I've been in the wrong places; I stick to the debate forums... I didn't know it's allowed to request justification in the DIR forums.

Well, you can ask respectful questions there. And justification can be requested respectfully. You can't debate in the DIRs, so be careful. I like to pose questions there to learn about beliefs and why people believe those things, but in a safe environment for everyone. Of course there is also the occasional debate in the general area that results in some enlightening conversation.

I am just speculating now, but perhaps people are more likely to open up to other people who are religious than to strong atheists. This is because some atheists can be intimidating in their approach, or come across as a bit vicious and close minded and when that happens, a theist will not feel comfortable opening up and getting seriously involved in the discussion. At least, that is how I feel sometimes. That might be a factor as to why you and I have had different experiences.

 

[sandandfoam]

Reality is that which exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it.

Bt definition you can never know anything which is external to you. Embodiment places a concrete horizon on your knowledge.

I share your belief in reality but I dispute any claim to knowledge of it.

 

[Wotan]

This is what I'm talking about. You've already decided faith is a fallacy. So why should anyone even bother trying to justify theiem to you?

Because you might have EVIDENCE or an effective ARGUMENT that might change her mind?

 

[Willamena]

Reality is that which exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it.

Does that include the belief that "reality exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it"? If reality exists external to us, are we then not a part of it, not real? How useful is that?

In this context useful is that which has utility at discovering or coming as close to possible to discovering about reality.

Perhaps that's not the proper context for discovering religion, which has us being real.

If religion isn't about the world around us, then why does it make ontological claims such as the existence of things like gods and souls?

Might I suggest that it's just your apparent belief that you are not real that makes those claims be only about "the world," and not also about yourself.

 

[Willamena]

Yes but that's different from "faith" in the sense of an unjustified belief...

Is that a proper context for "faith"? If it is, then is it fair to ask that "god believed in as faith" be justified?

Or do you just enjoy bashing your head against brick walls?

Let's try something. Do you think there's a qualitative difference between the word "faith" in these two examples?

1) I've seen the sun appear to rise for 26 years; I've also learned basic facts about the way orbiting bodies are perpetually falling around other objects and that bodies the size of planets and stars require quite extraordinary circumstances to change their habits. Due to these reasons, I believe it's so probable that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow (in the next 24 hour period) that it's beyond a rational doubt.

2) I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Don't ask me why, I've been in a coma up until this day and have never seen such a thing happen before and I don't understand much about physics -- in fact I haven't even seen the sun "rise" today. But gosh, somethinga bout it just makes me think it will rise tomorrow. That resonates with me, I feel that it's right.

Are both people equally justified?

Obviously you are distinguishing between a circumstance when a person is aware of and can explain on what they base their faith, and a circumstance where they are not aware of and hence cannot explain on what they base their faith. (Either that, or you truly believe that people actually invest belief in something they've just made up.) Neither example says anything about justification itself, but rather about a capacity for self-awareness and explanation; but one at least has a foot in the door to try to explain a justification to others.

Both may be equally justified, even identically justified, but we are in no position to say.

 

[Willamena]

So faith that god exists is belief in something not yet actualized or unactualized?

For me, yes. I hold that image of "God", and identify it as one that is monotheistic/monistic, imminent of creation, and immanent of understanding (standing "under" the world). And it's the context of "faith" that I see in the words of many others. I don't suppose that everyone holds the same image of "God", though.

Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is on equal rational terms with belief that some thingy exists without any other rational evidence?

There is rational evidence, just not empirical evidence. I believe it rests on acquiring an image of "God." God is then axiomatic.

 

[Wotan]

"Obviously you are distinguishing between a circumstance when a person is aware of and can explain on what they base their faith, and a circumstance where they are not aware of and hence cannot explain on what they base their faith. (Either that, or you truly believe that people actually invest belief in something they've just made up.)"

Speaking for myself YES indeed I DO think that. :yes:

Not something they personally made but something some one else did. Thousands of years ago, wrote it down, said it was the word of god and NOW believers just swallow it whole hog w/o a second thought and NO justification whatever beyond "It works for me. I feel better believing it."

 

[Wotan]

Does that include the belief that "reality exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it"? If reality exists external to us, are we then not a part of it, not real? How useful is that?


Perhaps that's not the proper context for discovering religion, which has us being real.


Might I suggest that it's just your apparent belief that you are not real that makes those claims be only about "the world," and not also about yourself.

You (deliberately?) misstate the position.

There is A reality that exists outside of us. THAT reality (of which we are NOT a part) is independent of us and exists independent of our understanding of it. This is not a new idea nor is it the 1st time you have heard it. This chair does NOT hold me up because I believe it will. And when the next person sits in it it will or will not support them no matter what they believe about it. Nor will my existence have any impact whatever on what the chair will do. THAT reality has no interest in nor awareness of ME.

 

[Meow Mix]

Bt definition you can never know anything which is external to you. Embodiment places a concrete horizon on your knowledge.

I share your belief in reality but I dispute any claim to knowledge of it.

Logic is external to me but I can know that.

But I think I understand what you're saying, especially about empirical reality. I agree that our knowledge of empirical things is tentative at best, but I did mention that we should use methods that either give knowledge of reality or approach such knowledge -- like an asymptote -- to the best of our ability.

Science is a good example. It's never absolute, but it does approach empirical knowledge. (It gives tentative empirical knowledge)

 

[sandandfoam]

but I did mention that we should use methods that either give knowledge of reality or approach such knowledge -- like an asymptote -- to the best of our ability.

I think the vast majority of humanity does approach reality to the best of their ability.
It's just that we all have a different perspective on reality and a unique way of inventing a story that allows us attempt to grapple with it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Because you might have EVIDENCE or an effective ARGUMENT that might change her mind?

It's obvious that I don't.

 

[Willamena]

It's just that we all have a different perspective on reality and a unique way of inventing a story that allows us attempt to grapple with it.

:clap Thanks.