329 replies to this topic

[Sophianic]

One more I just had to go back to, you are the one who is mistake here.  Religion is a claim to specific knowledge.

No, I am not mistaken.

Religion is general belief in a higher power(s) and the expression of such belief in conduct and ritual. It is also a system of belief and worship, but not a specific claim to knowledge. Certainly, religion contains specific claims to knowledge, but such claims are arbitrary.

[Sophianic]

I am attempting to understand your point so I will provide an illustration.

Bob,

Thanks for the example. My replies follow.

In science, there is string theory which essentially presumes that there are 10 dimensions (Actually at least one more dimension is required, but the initial theory was based upon 10 dimensions.)  On the other hand, the senses only detect four dimensions (including time).

This is true.

Currently, there is no physical evidence to prove that string theory is a fact,  yet string theory is believed by many (like myself) as a strong possibility.

Hmm, I think I would put it this way: "currently, there is, as yet, no evidence to support the possibility of String Theory" (if in fact that's true; I'm not current on String Theory).

String theory could possibly be indirectly proven to an extent through a repeatable experiment, but currently there is not a sufficient energy source to conduct such an experiment.

So far so good.

How might such an illustration fit into what you are stating?

String Theory is already in a field (Theoretical Physics) that works with evidence and expects such evidence in confirming its hypotheses. Any theory worthy of its name provides testable hypotheses, with the expectation of gathering evidence from future observations and experiments. If, in future, String Theory fails to confirm any of its hypotheses, it will fall into the dustbins of scientific history.

If you are not comfortable with this illustration, please feel free to provide another, but my concern with your statement is in regards to evidence from the senses since new physics theory needs to go beyond the senses to a degree.

Either directly through observation or indirectly through logical inference, any statement of claim relies on evidence from the senses. Unlike science, religion has no history of being committed to finding evidence, no systemic basis from which to draw hypotheses, and no method by which to test these hypotheses. When a scientist advances a theory that "goes forward and beyond the senses," s/he does so with a set of reasonable expectations about what s/he (and the theory) are capable of doing.

[bobdrake12]

Sophianic,

Thank you so much for the clarification, and I agree.

We might add that string theory is based upon mathematics.

One challenge is to be consistent in our thinking. If we believe X but don't belive Y, are we consistent in our rationale?

Many people believe in a religion because they were brought up that way. They also believe in a political party because they were brought up that way.

The brought up that way is not the consistency I speak of but rather the rationale for the conclusion.

bob

[Sophianic]

Thank you so much for the clarification, and I agree.

My pleasure.

We might add that string theory is based upon mathematics.

And much of theoretical physics is based on higher-level mathematics. You might say that the latter is the language of choice to communicate the former.

One challenge is to be consistent in our thinking.  If we believe X but don't belive Y, are we consistent in our rationale?

Many people believe in a religion because they were brought up that way.  They also believe in a political party because they were brought up that way.

The brought up that way is not the consistency I speak of but rather the rationale for the conclusion.

Indeed. Implicitly, the way we are raised is often used as a way to justify (i.e., rationalize) beliefs that clash with evidence that support existing beliefs.

If someone is raised to be fair, balanced and impartial, then the agnostic position might be just the ticket that someone needs to appear this way to others (regardless of the fact that this position is fundamentally and logically flawed). Or, perhaps this position is seized upon as a psychological crutch to avoid serious confict. I'm thinking of those who are surrounded by family and friends who believe in God, and yet, they themselves actually hold no such belief, but to placate those around them, they decide to use the agnostic label as a way to give the impression of being undecided on the question.

The motive power for someone to adopt the atheistic label is also interesting. Someone like Madalyn O'Hair no doubt took a great deal of satisfaction from putting the Christian theistic belief system in its place, through political opposition, and so she must have felt compelled to have a label to represent her activism. By itself, however, a-theism doesn't mean very much, but when she attached it to existing systems of thought, i.e., materialism (as opposed to metaphysical idealism) and naturalism (as opposed to spiritualism or spiritism), she had herself a position from which to challenge theism at the political level.

The problem with this approach is that it creates unnecessary conflict. The many millions who consider themselves believers, and were brought up that way, will not think twice about turning their backs on the likes of Madalyn O'Hair (no matter how intelligent or articulate or persuasive they may appear to free thinking individuals). The ideal approach to breaking down the intransigence of religious belief is to take a careful look at why these people are so heavily invested in keeping their beliefs alive, and then to seek ways to offer (gently, quietly, reasonably) secular alternatives that address their needs and concerns.

[bobdrake12]

The ideal approach to breaking down the intransigence of religious belief is to take a careful look at why these people are so heavily invested in keeping their beliefs alive, and then to seek ways to offer (gently, quietly, reasonably) secular alternatives that address their needs and concerns.

Sophianic,

I agree.

Unfortunately, this approach is sometimes replaced by the diametrical opposite one consisting of various inquisitions that even exist in some parts of the world today. Their essential methodology is "believe as we do or pay the consequences".

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 27 January 2003 - 12:44 AM.

[Sophianic]

Unfortunately, this approach is sometimes replaced by the diametrical opposite one consisting of various inquisitions that even exist in some parts of the world today.   Their essential methodology is "believe as we do or pay the consequences".

On a personal and interpersonal level, the ever implicit admonition "believe as we do or pay the consequences" is coming from parents and teachers and others who presume authority under religious fundamentalism or ideological correctness, and affects those who are not yet secure in their values and principles, including most children and many adolescents.

On a political, economic and social level, this same admonition is coming from those who wield power backed by force and from those with considerable influence over livelihoods, and affects virtually everyone in one way or another, more so in some cultures and nations than others. The result can often be that groupings of adults hold to one set of values and principles while pretending to another set to appease those in power.

What to do?

The bottom line is that anyone who cares about being an individual in a free society must see the value in making "responsibility for your own life and happiness" sexy and desirable, and in spreading the word about it, not just for adults, but for children and adolescents; not just for those in relatively free cultures and countries, but for those living under tyranny.

And not just at a superficial level. I'm talking about doing this at a fundamental level, without the need for religion and ideology. A system of principles and guidelines that upholds this kind of responsibility in this life, in this world, would be the basis for making that happen ~ a system free of religious persecution and ideological intolerance.

In facing off with those under the pall of religion and ideology, one does not want to face them head on. A subtler strategy is required. A stealth strategy. The first step is to ally yourself with a group that upholds personal freedom and responsibility, especially one that is already co-ordinating efforts to inform, educate, and set an example for, those who are susceptible to new learning ...

[Gaio]

'ello. I've invented a new ideology/religion: Itism.

Edited by Gaio, 28 January 2003 - 03:38 AM.

[caliban]

Hmm. This question might have needed a clarification.
What does “prefer” mean?

Prefer as in “lesser evil”
prefer as in “it serves my goals if everyone is a Christian?”
or (presumably) prefer as in “This is the label I would be least unhappy (or even proud) to identify my belief system with?”

… oh well
...

caliban votes “pagan”

[kevin]

I chose 'other' in that my beliefs do not fit with any of the categories presented.

When I was young I would spend a lot of time running around the woods down by the river close to my home. I'm sure many of us have had moments growing up similar to the ones I used to have when I would marvel at a drop on a leaf, or the swimming of creatures in the water on the shoreline. It was during more than a few of those moments when it felt like "I" disappeared and had become subsumed; that I was placed in a state of crystalline awareness where I totally understood everything and it's connectedness to everything else. This state is the closest thing I have experienced which might resemble being in touch with 'god'.

It was an 'altered state' of consciousness which I tried to reproduce with various substances over the course of my youth but found the easiest way was to just not try so hard, like trying to see something on the edge of your field of vision that moves everytime you turn to see it more clearly. I believe in god, serendipity and basic spiritual principles that perhaps form another set of 'laws' as real, but perhaps not measureable as those which govern the physical world. I look to my experiences and in the abscence of hard fact I'm forced to go with my intuition that there is something else operating behind the scenes. What it is.. I have no idea.. nor do I think I will ever have an unqualified response and I doubt if I would ever understand the answer were it given. Today I just look straight ahead and relax in the knowledge that there are some questions I have no need to answer, because for me they already are.

Kevin

[sixfootbrit]

I voted Buddhist because they have the most rational religion, eg God is everything. This makes sense logically, and ascribes to God all the qualities of the universe (in a physical scientific sense), while putting us all in the position of co-creators. Of course, co-creator is an illusion because we are all one (energy continuum, common source, does not contradict BigBang theory) As a result, all we have to do to experience Godhood is to sit still and clear our minds, duh [wacko] in other words JUST BE.

[acaveyogi]

I chose Christian cause I am. Jesus whoever He was, brought a final end to human and animal sacrifice as a way to appease God. And His message was love God and love your neighbor.

Sixfootbrit: Yogis spend lifetimes just to understand what you seem to already understand: "All we have have to do to experience God/Godhood, is to just sit still, clear our minds and just be."

Based on my experience God is a very quiet entity and if one doesn't sit quietly then He/She/It can't visit with you. We are noisy folk and we expect God to be noisy folk. When it turns out that God is not noisy, then we suspect that God doesn't exist. The fault has to be His/Hers/It's. Love, john

[galtsgulch]

To "know" everything about the Universe(s) would require something "outside" the Universe (AS IN SUPERNATURAL - ABOVE NATURE). I hold that there CAN NOT be such a thing as an all-knowing, all-powerful god, thus I do not BELIEVE in such. I disagree with those who would say I believe there is no god. I have an explicit absence of belief in god." From my reading of the American Heritage Dictionary, that means I am an Atheist.

[smochoap]

I am an Atheist because I believe there is no god and because I do not believe in a god. Both mean the same. There is no logic behind saying that a statement is negative. You can always turn it into positive by using an antonym. It is grammatically negative but not logically. A negative statement is just a symbolic notation saying that a statement is the opposite of another, but you could always denote the negative as positive and the positive as negative and they are still logically correct.

If you say you are not an Atheist and, at the same time, you do not really believe god exists, it means that you are agnostic because you believe in neither (or do not believe in either, which is the same).

On the other hand, if you choose to be “other” you must have an answer to which “other” you belong to (i.e., the list is too short and your option is not there). Otherwise, if you do not have the answer to which other religion you belong to, then you are either agnostic or atheist, which are the only “non-religious” possibilities there are. Any “other” alternative has to be religious. So, please, those of you who answered “other”: can you tell us which other?

Of course, you could always look for synonyms of “atheist” or “agnostic” but they would just be other words for the same thing, so it makes no sense to increase the list’s length with words that mean the same.

[Sophianic]

So, please, those of you who answered “other”: can you tell us which other?

For me, "other" = none. See my first post in this thread (the second post) and then please tell me why I must be either an agnostic or an atheist. If someone added "None" to the list of categories, I wonder how many would change their answer from "other" to "none."

[smochoap]

You are right, many who don't like the words "agnostic" or "atheist" would prefer a "none" option, but I still believe that you must be either agnostic or atheist, which are the only non-religious options I can think of. The problem with "none" is that you fail to specify whether you believe that god does not exist or you are not sure about it. It’s like being either agnostic or atheist but not wanting to specify which. Putting it in another way, agnostic and atheist are both sub-options of the “none” group, which is less specific, and I cannot find a third possibility inside the group.

[Sophianic]

I still believe that you must be either agnostic or atheist, which are the only non-religious options I can think of. The problem with "none" is that you fail to specify whether you believe that god does not exist or you are not sure about it. It’s like being either agnostic or atheist but not wanting to specify which. Putting it in another way, agnostic and atheist are both sub-options of the “none” group, which is less specific, and I cannot find a third possibility inside the group.

The original question is "Which religious/non-religious identity do you prefer?" and not "Do you believe in God?" These are two separate questions. In saying that I have no religious identity, I am dis-identifying myself from any affiliation with religion. This approach to the question is a radical departure from defining yourself in terms of gnosticism or theism, both of which are systems of belief that were (and still are) prevalent in the world at large. The reason I wish to cut my ties with religion is simple: the prospect and pursuit of immortality in this world is preferable to waiting for an afterlife.

Do I believe in God? I liked the way Carl Sagan handled this question from an audience member at a public lecture that I attended years ago. He rejoined: What do you mean by God? In other words, a yes or no answer to this question is not creative. If one sees any merit in viewing ourselves as Gods and Goddesses in embryo, especially in light of moving toward an apotheosis from a transhumanist perspective, one would do well to keep this potentially fascinating question open to further analysis and discussion.

[Saille Willow]

Belonging to a political party is the same to me as belonging to a religion. You then have to swear alegiance to an organization, and you are not free to find your own truth. An evolution of belief.

[smochoap]

The reason I wish to cut my ties with religion is simple: the prospect and pursuit of immortality in this world is preferable to waiting for an afterlife.

I also consider myself non-religious and, of course, do not believe in an afterlife or god. I long for physical immortality because I believe that if I die, that's it, there is nothing afterwards.

I think the word "God" is supposed to mean a being or beings superior to all there is, who created everything and that there can't be anything superior or anything that wasn't created by him/her/it/them.

I don't think we should use the word to mean something natural or physical, or us. That would be changing the meaning of the word so that it fits a new belief. In this case we should look for another word or invent a new word which fits the new meaning.

So, we could have religious beliefs which are atheist, i.e., they believe in some natural force which guides and created everything there is, or something. But, could we call that a religion or is this another kind of non-religious belief? I think it is another kind of atheist religion.

So you are right, it is better to call yourself non-religious than atheist, since you could be atheist and still believe in some kind of religion. I never thought about this possibility. But if you are non-religious than you have to be atheist too, because being non-religious implies not believing in god (my definition of god).

So, agnostics are not "non-religious", they are just not sure what to choose or prefer not to choose, which is valid and logical since there is no way to prove one way or the other.

In a way being non-religious is also a matter of faith since you have no proof that what you believe is right. It is just logically right as far as you can tell. This is the way I believe: so far everything indicates that all religions are artificially created by the human mind (this sounds agnostic because of the “so far” part) but, it is my belief that we will never prove the opposite because this is how it really is.

[galtsgulch]

So, we could have religious beliefs which are atheist, i.e., they believe in some natural force which guides and created everything there is, or something. But, could we call that a religion or is this another kind of non-religious belief? I think it is another kind of atheist religion.

So you are right, it is better to call yourself non-religious than atheist, since you could be atheist and still believe in some kind of religion. I never thought about this possibility. But if you are non-religious than you have to be atheist too, because being non-religious implies not believing in god (my definition of god).

Sorry Smochoap, I don't understand your statement. An Atheist is someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. How could that person "still believe in some kind of religion?"

In a way being non-religious is also a matter of faith since you have no proof that what you believe is right. It is just logically right as far as you can tell. This is the way I believe: so far everything indicates that all religions are artificially created by the human mind (this sounds agnostic because of the “so far” part) but, it is my belief that we will never prove the opposite because this is how it really is.

I disagree with your statement. You are falling for the religionist's view that there's no difference between believing and not believing - they both require faith. To reject a premise because the proponent of that premise has failed to prove it, does not make you into a "believer" of the negative of that premise.
Truth has to be definable; my definition relates to knowledge about NATURE (things which are natural as opposed to supernatural - above nature). I hold that only those things which can be perceived (directly or via instrumentation) are "real" (part of Nature). God, by the definition Man has given it, would not be perceivable or measureable. I do not "believe" in anything: ghosts, unicorns, god(s), martians, etc. How does that require a "faith" on my part?

[smochoap]

With respect to an atheist who still believes in some kind of religion, I was just differentiating between being non-religious and not believing in God as stated by Sophianic in her last post. She said:

The original question is "Which religious/non-religious identity do you prefer?" and not "Do you believe in God?" These are two separate questions.

This sounded logical to me, so I was wondering if someone could be religious in a way but at the same not believe in God. For example, he/she believes in some kind of natural energy which guides our destiny but does not consider this God.

I disagree with your statement. You are falling for the religionist's view that there's no difference between believing and not believing - they both require faith. To reject a premise because the proponent of that premise has failed to prove it, does not make you into a "believer" of the negative of that premise.
Truth has to be definable; my definition relates to knowledge about NATURE (things which are natural as opposed to supernatural - above nature). I hold that only those things which can be perceived (directly or via instrumentation) are "real" (part of Nature). God, by the definition Man has given it, would not be perceivable or measureable. I do not "believe" in anything: ghosts, unicorns, god(s), martians, etc. How does that require a "faith" on my part?

If you do not believe in anything that you cannot prove then I agree with you, that doesn’t make you a believer of the opposite, so you have no faith at all. I believe the same way you do, but if you also believe that those things actually do not exist, than you are expressing a belief in the opposite, so in a way you must have some faith that those things don’t exist. But it could happen that some day we will prove that they did exist after all, we just didn’t know. If you leave that possibility open, then you are agnostic, but if you actually believe, or have faith that they will never be proven, then you are atheist. I actually believe (have faith) that the existence of God will never be proved, so I consider myself atheist.

[galtsgulch]

To clarify my position: Faith and Belief are synonymous. To "believe" is to accept something as true without LOGICAL PROOF.

LOGIC is our method of verifying, as best as possible, our theories by inductive and deductive reasoning. Under the rules of logic, a negative statement (e.g., "there is no such thing as a ghost") can never be proved. This does not mean that someone who does not accept the truth of a proposition (such as "Ghosts exist") is acting on faith. The burden of proof is on the person making the proposition.

All truth must be empirical. I only accept things as true if they can be percieved (directly or via instrumentation) and even then only if it is subjected to logical verification (i.e., avoiding mistakes, illusions, etc.). I am not omniscient, so I will make mistakes, but at least I do not hold things as "proved" merely because someone else tells me it's true, or I've read it in a book. It must be observable, and pass the rigors of logic. This applies to ANYTHING which is espoused as being "true," not just religion.

With regard to the God question, I have never heard anything approaching "evidence" of the proposition which would satisfy the criteria of: 1) observable; and 2) subject to logical verification. In fact, Theologians make a point of saying that God requires FAITH / BELIEF. They also claim that God is "above" proof (i.e., Supernatural - above Nature) and is "by definition" not understandable by Man. Thus, their very definition of God makes it unprovable.

[smochoap]

I think I understand now what Sophianic and John are saying:
1. There was never the slightest proof by any religion about the existence of God
2. Any logical deduction used to prove the possibility of God’s existence does not have any initial proof from where to start. So it’s not based on facts.
3. We have no way to prove that God exists.

Then why bother saying that we do not believe in something that never had a proof and will never have a proof.

Even if some superpowerful entity came to us and said it was God, and threatened to send us to hell if we did not believe in it, this would be no proof. A more logical thing to believe would be that it was some kind of extraterrestrial life form who wanted to invade our planet and is taking advantage of our weakness (religion) to make sure we don’t fight back.

With respect to having an atheist religion, Buddhism could be an example, according to what sixfootbrit said:

I voted Buddhist because they have the most rational religion, eg God is everything. This makes sense logically, and ascribes to God all the qualities of the universe (in a physical scientific sense), while putting us all in the position of co-creators. Of course, co-creator is an illusion because we are all one (energy continuum, common source, does not contradict BigBang theory) As a result, all we have to do to experience Godhood is to sit still and clear our minds, duh  in other words JUST BE.

I think what Buddhists are actually saying is that God doesn’t really exist in the classical meaning of the word, so they are atheist.

[Sophianic]

I also consider myself non-religious and, of course, do not believe in an afterlife or god. I long for physical immortality because I believe that if I die, that's it, there is nothing afterwards.

As I indicated in my first post in this thread, I do not consider myself to be "non-religious." That, to me, would be defining myself with reference to religion ~ something I have no wish to do.

I think the word "God" is supposed to mean a being or beings superior to all there is, who created everything and that there can't be anything superior or anything that wasn't created by him/her/it/them.

I don't think we should use the word to mean something natural or physical, or us. That would be changing the meaning of the word so that it fits a new belief. In this case we should look for another word or invent a new word which fits the new meaning.

When I speak of ourselves as "Gods and Goddesses in embryo," I do so as a provocative challenge to established religion; I speak to the vast potential of unlimited future growth in all of the ways possible to us as biological, psychological infants. Compared to what is in store for us, I believe that even the most mature and sophisticated among us are still infants ~ if that.

So, we could have religious beliefs which are atheist, i.e., they believe in some natural force which guides and created everything there is, or something. But, could we call that a religion or is this another kind of non-religious belief? I think it is another kind of atheist religion.

Let us not confuse vitalism with atheism. Atheism is opposed to theism. Vitalism postulates a vital, intelligent force that makes life possible ~ above and beyond physics and chemistry ~ but without the hallmarks of religion: e.g., deification, worship, an afterlife, etc.

So you are right, it is better to call yourself non-religious than atheist, since you could be atheist and still believe in some kind of religion. I never thought about this possibility. But if you are non-religious than you have to be atheist too, because being non-religious implies not believing in god (my definition of god).

Actually, it is better not to give any legitimacy to religion whatsoever. If I reject a belief in one God as creator and ruler (Atheism), I could still believe in one God as creator, but not as ruler (Deism), or still believe in God as synonymous with the laws, forces and manifestation of the universe (Pantheism), or still believe in the many gods of antiquity (Polytheism). And because I give no legitimacy to the term "non-religious" (pertains to belief systems), I see no need to give any legitimacy to the term "atheism" (pertains to opposition to, or rejection of, a particular religious belief system ~ i.e., one that holds that one God is both supreme creator and ruler of the universe).

So, agnostics are not "non-religious", they are just not sure what to choose or prefer not to choose, which is valid and logical since there is no way to prove one way or the other.

Agnostics are "fence-sitters." Where religious faith is concerned, they exist in a kind of limbo, too afraid (for whatever reason) to come down on one side or another. Not being sure of their position is in no way valid or logical when the onus of proof lies squarely with they who assert the positive. If empirical evidence for a statement is found to be absent (through logic), the statement becomes arbitrary and loses its cognitive status. It wouldn't make any sense to prove a negative, i.e., "God does not exist," if there's no valid evidence (the key word here is 'valid') to begin with.

In a way being non-religious is also a matter of faith since you have no proof that what you believe is right. It is just logically right as far as you can tell.

This is false. Starting with a blank slate on matters of faith is not itself a matter of faith. How can it be? Nothing is asserted when you start with a blank slate.

This is the way I believe: so far everything indicates that all religions are artificially created by the human mind (this sounds agnostic because of the “so far” part) but, it is my belief that we will never prove the opposite because this is how it really is.

The "so far" part merely indicates an open mind to new evidence. It has nothing to do with agnosticism. And again, "proving the opposite", i.e., proving a negative, is illogical when you properly understand the intricate nature of evidence in relation to reality, reason and logic in making and defending claims.

[Sophianic]

1. There was never the slightest proof by any religion about the existence of God

More precisely: There has never been any valid evidence for the claim that God exists.

2. Any logical deduction used to prove the possibility of God’s existence does not have any initial proof from where to start. So it’s not based on facts.

More succinctly: A deduction made to assert that God exists is empty without reference to facts. Incidentally, one does not prove a possibility; one establishes a possibility ~ based on evidence.

3. We have no way to prove that God exists.

The color blue exists. And yet, I have no way to prove that it exists. I am aware of this color; I can point to it; I can distinguish it from other colors; I can talk about different shades of blue. But I cannot prove that it exists. And yet, it is there, next to me, as I type these words. Through introspection (rather than sense perception), I could say that I am aware of a presence in my mind when I meditate, and that this presence fills me with peace when I dwell on it. I could even give this presence a name: God ~ or Jesus Christ or Sophia or Buddha or Mother Theresa. But I cannot prove to you that this presence exists. Do I dwell in my own presence or the presence of another? How do I know? This very question is central to the continuance of religion. And there is only one way to answer it: through a study of the branches of philosophy known as metaphysics and epistemology while practicing the art of non-contradiction with a commitment to fully integrated honesty.

Then why bother saying that we do not believe in something that never had a proof and will never have a proof.

More precisely: why bother saying that we do not believe in something that has no valid evidence?

Even if some superpowerful entity came to us and said it was God, and threatened to send us to hell if we did not believe in it, this would be no proof. A more logical thing to believe would be that it was some kind of extraterrestrial life form who wanted to invade our planet and is taking advantage of our weakness (religion) to make sure we don’t fight back.

And yet many (far too many) would believe it was true, and they would likely persecute or ostracize anyone who believed otherwise. But why? This question of motivation is central to understanding why they would resist or reject science, technology and philosophy in the pursuit of immortality.

With respect to having an atheist religion, Buddhism could be an example

Careful. Buddhism does not oppose theism, and therefore is not atheistic. It merely puts forth its own brand of other-worldly truth (with its doctrine of reincarnation) ~ it is neither atheistic nor pantheistic (as the quote from sixfootbrit suggests re: pantheism). Also, there is nothing rational about religion ~ the foundation and perpetuation of religion relies on faith.

I think what Buddhists are actually saying is that God doesn’t really exist in the classical meaning of the word, so they are atheist.

A Buddhist who tolerated the existence of God would be pantheistic in one sense of that term. A Buddhist who opposed the existence of God would be atheistic. A Buddhist who believed in God would be confused. But a Buddhist who had nothing to say about the existence of God would not be an atheist. S/he would merely be a Buddhist.

[Lazarus Long]

Excellent debate [!] A rational and well laid reductionist analysis of religion. But what does it prove?

Do people have faith that transcends their reasoning processes? And I will add to what purposes?

I can assert the answer to at least the first part is demostrably true.

Do people "reason" that they prefer the comfort of faith to the simple and less emotionally secure idea of determining their attitudes on nothing more than a "rational analysis of fact (whatever that is )"?

Sometimes this can at least also be demonstrated by the Religion as a "crutch" argument.

So I ask again: How can faith and reason be integrated constructively?

I ask this because it is obvious from numerous studies of cognitive psychology that "faith based" reasoning is a critical aspect of developmental "attitude/motivation" organization for each individual.

I will stand back and observe again. You folks are doing a wonderful job on your own, I am thoroughly enjoying this one. But I have noticed that the pure logicians have begun to replace the theologians again, any particular reason why?

That was not quite a rhetorical question, more an open challenge; being one that answered "other" to the poll.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 18 April 2003 - 03:25 PM.

[Sophianic]

Do people have faith that transcends their reasoning processes?

People may claim to have a faculty (faith) that transcends reason, but how would they demonstrate that it exists without committing the fallacy of special pleading?

And I will add to what purposes?

To believe in someone beyond the grave who cares what happens to them when or if they suffer or die ~ to comprehend evil, to reassure themselves that death is a transition.

I can assert the answer to at least the first part is demostrably true.

How is that possible? How can you reasonably or logically demonstrate something that transcends the very means of demonstration?

Do people "reason" that they prefer the comfort of faith to the simple and less emotionally secure idea of determining their attitudes on nothing more than a "rational analysis of fact"?

First, we do not analyze facts; we analyze arguments (i.e., premises in relation to claims) and comprehend facts in support of those arguments. The comfort of faith is really just the comfort of a claim that brings solace in the face of evil, pain, suffering and death.

Incidentally, a sovereign determination (key word here: sovereign) of values and attitudes based solely in reason is neither simple nor emotionally insecure. It's as complex, secure and interesting a process as you want to make it. But don't tell that to religious leaders and apologists.

So I ask again:  How can faith and reason be integrated constructively?

That depends on how you define faith: faith as attitude within the bounds of reason or faith as faculty beyond the bounds of reason? The former can be integrated easily enough with reason.

I ask this because it is obvious from numerous studies of cognitive psychology that "faith based"  reasoning is a critical aspect of developmental "attitude/motivation"  organization for each individual.

Faith-based reasoning? Or an attitude of faith in harmony with reason? Let us not be deliberately obtuse about the difference.

I will stand back and observe again.  You folks are doing a wonderful job on your own, I am thoroughly enjoying this one.  But I have noticed that the pure logicians have begun to replace the theologians again, any particular reason why?

Because theology has had its day. It's time for it to be put to rest. And who are the pure logicians? Pure logic is a creature of Immanuel Kant. There's no place for him here. Logic divorced from experience is a fool's game.

[galtsgulch]

I ask this because it is obvious from numerous studies of cognitive psychology that "faith based"  reasoning is a critical aspect of developmental "attitude/motivation"  organization for each individual.

There are also numerous studies which clearly show a relationship between religious experiences and various brain disorders... It's highly likely that most Prophets and Saints were what we would casually refer to as "crazy."

Edited by John Galt, 18 April 2003 - 11:40 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

People may claim to have a faculty (faith) that transcends reason, but how would they demonstrate that it exists without committing the fallacy of special pleading?

Knowing the level of logic being employed I chose my words very carefully, though I was in a hurry and they were a little bit hasty. I never said "assert" I said "demonstrably"; the difference?

Objectively I can verify the assumption using the placebo effect. I can do so not a believer in any specific proposition of "faith” but from a qualitative analysis of the effects of faith upon specific believers, under specifically controlled (scientific) conditions.

To believe in someone beyond the grave who cares what happens to them when or if they suffer or die ~ to comprehend evil, to reassure them selves that death is a transition

Again we are addressing this at cross purposes because I certainly am not making any such assertion. I still ask the initial question of; "Why belief? Toward what purpose?"

This time I will split the question in order to establish that I do think there exists a "purpose” to belief (as a process of cognition) not requisite of a specific belief such as in the question of "here after". It’s a separate analysis to question the quality of any given belief and "belief itself", despite the Politically Correct notion to the contrary, beliefs are subject to judgment for BOTH validity and consistency, perhaps even for an analysis of the character of the believer.

How is that possible? How can you reasonably or logically demonstrate something that transcends the very means of demonstration?

I just did and objectively so. You overlooked our ability to test belief in a pragmatic fashion. Not to test the "truth” of the belief but to test the effects of truly believing. Logic cuts like Occams Razor and I was very specific. I am not trying to prove whether or not a given belief is true at all, I said I could prove demonstrably the first part (at least) .

I said:

Do people have faith that transcends their reasoning processes?

The placebo effect shows a relationship to the immune system and stress related illness that "demonstrates" that faith" transcends the reasoning process. As in denial of all evidence to the contrary some things will still be effected and Medical science is rife with examples.

The why of this is more subtle and may be decipherable and this is a question I am interested in because along with the memetic power of belief to influence large group mass behavior there appears to be a subtler and more important characteristic that does bear some importance with our endeavor here in this forum.

Alright let's move on. I will grant the first part was intentionally ambiguous to create a logical trap but now comes the second part and Sophianic says:

First, we do not analyze facts; we analyze arguments (i.e., premises in relation to claims) and comprehend facts in support of those arguments. The comfort of faith is really just the comfort of a claim that brings solace in the face of evil, pain, suffering and death.

Here I can disagree. I analyze fact; I analyze arguments for BOTH consistency and validity of their factual claims. But I (re)create (in response) my own arguments for whether or not any given assertion is valid and rarely rely on someone else’s argument. I seek comprehension, not agreement a priori, and that influences my thought processing in this respect, but I do not think I am particularly unique.

I happen to agree with the second part of the statement as this is also demonstrably true that many people find solace in shared belief, but it is insufficient to explain all the qualities of belief.

Yes, "misery loves company" and "birds of a feather flock together" but there is still an aspect of belief in "self" that grants significant empowerment to transcend all assumed limitation and assumptions that allows individuals to become much more than they at first imagined themselves to be. This is related often to accepting and confronting "successfully" unforeseen environmental challenges so this behavior could have a survival aspect related to Natural Selection.

QUOTE  
So I ask again:  How can faith and reason be integrated constructively?

That depends on how you define faith: faith as attitude within the bounds of reason or faith as faculty beyond the bounds of reason? The former can be integrated easily enough with reason.

Actually this is more complex than you are crediting because as most pure logicians do, you overlook the importance of emotion in the reasoning process, and it is emotion not objectivity that determines attitude. Integrating them is not an idle question.

We feel with our hearts (not the organ ) and think with our minds. This is a parallel to the brain/body dilemma, or the classical concept of a balanced Mind/Body relationship.

I think faith is a powerful "sociopsychological force" but not easily integrated with pure logic because logic of a truly analytical and objective nature DEMANDS (skepticism) a constant questioning of ALL assumptions and this behavior is antithetical to belief.

Again you are addressing the primary question of this thread but I am examining the process by which faith functions, socially, individually behaviorally, psychologically, and memetically as it effects adaptive evolutionary characteristics for our species.

Example: "Faith" caused literacy to become sufficiently commonplace to create both history and science. Was this intentional? I have my doubts too but the effect is clear and the issue is actually an aspect of "faith" among many religions not the least of which is Judaism.

QUOTE  
I ask this because it is obvious from numerous studies of cognitive psychology that "faith based” reasoning is a critical aspect of developmental "attitude/motivation"  organization for each individual.

Faith-based reasoning? Or an attitude of faith in harmony with reason? Let us not be deliberately obtuse about the difference.

No, I said "faith based reasoning". Seductive logic for example is "faith based". It isn't interested in truth, it is a communicative process aimed at the determination of conviction.

I will also point out that much of social endeavor (common cause) and individual aspiration stems from a "faith based reasoning" structure that is NON-rational, not irrational, and this is what drives cognitive psychologists crazy trying to limit their understanding to purely rational models. You can also examine surrogate mating behavior for humans and see various aspects of common primate behavior that have been subsumed into novel expressions like clothes, cars, and personal wealth.

I am not being intentional obtuse I am pointing out aspects of the logical assumptions that don't fit the facts Quite apparantly more is going on then we possess "reason" to have faith in pure logic, and more iportantly the "logical assumptions being touted as "proven".

As I said I am the last person to come in here preaching, so I didn't intend to attempt to substitute my "faith" for your lack of it (or as opposed to it) I came in to analyze "faith" as a function of memetics for primate behavior. Religion is not relevant for its conclusions; its relevancy is in its effects.

I will add however that "faith in logic" is an example of "seductive reasoning," logic to remain pure must be forever treated skeptically, like statistics. " Statistics don't lie but people lie all the time with statistics". This is basically a modern varient of the Socratic lament against the "sophistries of the Sophists".

To say that "faith based reasoning” does not influence behavior is simply wrong. Belief in one's own "self" is a determinant factor in whether any given test of one's ability will in fact be willingly challenged or willfully ignored, with concurrent self determinant effects on the outcome.

This is still great fun but I will not answer anymore for now because I want to continue reading what transpires between the rest of you and prefer to not further influence the argument. At least for a while.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 19 April 2003 - 01:40 PM.

[galtsgulch]

The placebo effect shows a relationship to the immune system and stress related illness that "demonstrates"  that faith" transcends the reasoning process.  As in denial of all evidence to the contrary some things will still be effected and Medical science is rife with examples.

I have read (Howard Bloom's "Lucifer Principle" & "Global Brain") that the brain can turn on and off positive/negative neurochemicals which drastically affect health. The trigger for the release of either self-destructive or beneficial neurochemicals seems to be centered around issues of self-esteem and connectedness with other people. It also appears that optimism regarding ANY treatment (science, medicine, Mom, or God) appears to turn on the immune system while dread and pessimism do the opposite.

[Lazarus Long]

Here is a conundrum that is perplexing me out of this discussion:

Is there a difference qualitatively between a "belief in self" and a "belief in God"?