Is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief?

[TheKnight]

Yes, I agree with you. But it is the way we apply reason that may mislead. Descartes was correct when he said anything we perceive clearly and distinctly is true. He was referring to necessary truths. For although we might be misled by our senses (for example a stick in water appears bent but when withdrawn is seen to be straight), a triangle’s three angles are always equal to two right angles and we know intuitively that a fish can never be a mammal. But is it necessarily true that God isn’t a deceiver? If it isn’t self-evident that God is benevolent, or wholly good, then clearly it doesn’t take a massive leap of logic to say he not beyond deception. So Descartes misused reason on two counts: a premise not demonstrably true and a conclusion given in advance.

Well, He created this wonderful world that appears to operate of its own accord and then He hid behind it. It's like a giant game of hide and go seek. I wouldn't go so far as to call it deception, but I would say that it isn't either

 

[slave2six]

Yes, I agree with you. But it is the way we apply reason that may mislead. Descartes was correct when he said anything we perceive clearly and distinctly is true. He was referring to necessary truths. For although we might be misled by our senses (for example a stick in water appears bent but when withdrawn is seen to be straight), a triangle’s three angles are always equal to two right angles and we know intuitively that a fish can never be a mammal. But is it necessarily true that God isn’t a deceiver? If it isn’t self-evident that God is benevolent, or wholly good, then clearly it doesn’t take a massive leap of logic to say he not beyond deception. So Descartes misused reason on two counts: a premise not demonstrably true and a conclusion given in advance.

It's pointless to use the word "god" and then talk about any of this supposed being's attributes as "self evident" considering that there is no god and if there was then there is absolutely nothing about him that can be considered "self-evident" since everything that people think about him is based on what people think about him and not based on a "self" that has interacted with these people. No two people seem to be able to agree on what this deity is actually like. If you're a jury member in a trial wherein no two witnesses agree on what actually happened then you have to acquit the defendant. In a discussion about god, you have to dismiss the concept entirely.

 

[slave2six]

Well, He created this wonderful world that appears to operate of its own accord and then He hid behind it. It's like a giant game of hide and go seek. I wouldn't go so far as to call it deception, but I would say that it isn't either

It's all the same mistake that man has always made. We mistake shadows for substance and invent stories about great monsters based on an encounter with something that turns out to be not so monstrous after all. I mean, all those stories of the leviathon and whatnot have pretty much disappeared since we have learned how to master the ocean and have explored its depths. Why people talk about this god person as if he/she/it is a real thing, especially in this day and age, is beyond me! Are we really as stupid as our stone-age ancestors? Please.

 

[linwood]

I think my beliefs are rooted in unconscious processes over which I have little control so I can hold beliefs which appear to conflict with my reason without experiencing discomfort.

I`m not capable of this.

This is the thing about religion/spirituality I have always attempted to comprehend to no avail.

 

[cottage]

It's pointless to use the word "god" and then talk about any of this supposed being's attributes as "self evident" considering that there is no god and if there was then there is absolutely nothing about him that can be considered "self-evident" since everything that people think about him is based on what people think about him and not based on a "self" that has interacted with these people. No two people seem to be able to agree on what this deity is actually like. If you're a jury member in a trial wherein no two witnesses agree on what actually happened then you have to acquit the defendant. In a discussion about god, you have to dismiss the concept entirely.

The atheist who says 'there is no God' wants to say too much, even though there is nothing contradictory in the statement, no more than there is in saying 'God exists'. I disagree that the concept has to be dismissed entirely. There are things we can know about God (if he exists): he will be the Creator, he will be omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to bring worlds into existence, and he will be necessarily existent. That is the self-evident identity. Denial involves a contradiction, ie God is not God, since the above identity is true by definition. But if we say 'God is love' or God has made a covenant with his creation' we can deny those statements without fear of self-contradiction.

 

[linwood]

We have other tools. Intuition, creativity, desire, these are also available to us. Why not use them all? I think our current culture puts too much emphasis on what it calls "reason", alone.

I don`t think it puts enough on it.

In fact the things I dislike about my society the most are driven by irrational or ignorant thought.

If people learned to at least think about why they do things and why they hold the beliefs they do the world may just be a much better place.

Instead most people simply swallow and regurgitate whatever sound bite or catch phrase gets the most emotive response this week.

 

[slave2six]

There are things we can know about God (if he exists): he will be the Creator, he will be omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to bring worlds into existence, and he will be necessarily existent. That is the self-evident identity. Denial involves a contradiction, ie God is not God, since the above identity is true by definition. But if we say 'God is love' or God has made a covenant with his creation' we can deny those statements without fear of self-contradiction.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying that because I found an empty cave in the mountains there must be dragons.

 

[slave2six]

Instead most people simple swallow and regurgitate whatever sound bite or catch phrase gets the most emotive response this week.

And how many of those people in turn get in the face of reasoning persons and tell them that if they don't believe the myth then they are going to Hell or whatever? The sky is falling!!

 

[Alceste]

And just how did you come to such a conclusion? Based on evidence of any sort? I guess the real question is, "How can you discover such a thing outside of the realm of reason?"

Mainly this:



But also a little bit of this

I'd go with the book, if it's evidence you're after. It's chocka.

 

[cottage]

That's ridiculous. That's like saying that because I found an empty cave in the mountains there must be dragons.

With respect, it isn't. An empty cave is just an empty cave, and empty caves don't imply the existence of dragons. But God, if he/it exists, will be the Creator. We don't have to believe in God, believe that there is a God, or believe that there might be a God, in order to acknowledge that.

 

[Alceste]

The atheist who says 'there is no God' wants to say too much, even though there is nothing contradictory in the statement, no more than there is in saying 'God exists'. I disagree that the concept has to be dismissed entirely. There are things we can know about God (if he exists): he will be the Creator, he will be omnipotent, or at least sufficiently powerful to bring worlds into existence, and he will be necessarily existent. That is the self-evident identity. Denial involves a contradiction, ie God is not God, since the above identity is true by definition. But if we say 'God is love' or God has made a covenant with his creation' we can deny those statements without fear of self-contradiction.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are thousands of gods who are not creators of the universe (Kali, Kokopelli, Diana, Guan Yin, etc), and plenty of religions that have a god or gods but none of them are an omnipotent creator (Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, Wicca, Shamanism, Paganism, etc). So your definition of "God" is subjective. You are conveniently defining the word to conform to your own personal religious belief, despite the fact there's no basis in human culture (taken as a whole) for this interpretation.

Yes, I know that to Christians, their god is "the" God, but to non-Christians Yahweh is only one of an endless number of extraordinarily diverse god concepts - no higher or lower in some imagined hierarchy of gods than any other. The arbitrary attribute of creating the universe is no more or less significant to the meaning of the word "god" than, for example, the attribute of living on top of a mountain and being able to turn into a swan to mate with a human woman.

 

[strange]

How do you think this Kierkegaadian movement is made?

"[...]it repels the individual by virtue of its absurdity,[...]" - Kierkegaard

And what is the "absurd"?

"What now is the absurd? The absurd is- that the eternal truth has come into being in time, that God has come into being, has been born, has grown up, and so forth, precisely like any other individual human being, quite indistinguishable from other individuals...." - Kierkegaard

To me, at this time, it seems Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is belief in the "absurd"

"Without risk there is no faith, and the greater the risk the greater the faith; the more objective security the less inwardness (for inwardness is precisely subjectivity), and the less objective security the more profound the possible inwardness." - Kierkegaard

"[...]there can be no stronger expression for inwardness than when the retreat out of existence into the eternal by way of recollection is impossible; and when, with truth confronting the individual as a paradox, gripped in the anguish and pain of sin, facing the tremendous risk of the ojbective insecurity, the individual believes." - Kierkegaard

"Faith then gives us a sort of knowledge, for when we believe, our minds assent to something knowable; but not to something we see but to something he whom we believe sees. Faith falls short of understanding, for a mind that understands assents to what it itself sees in the light of the first premises of understanding." Summa Theologiae, pp.29.

If by absurb, you mean unbelievable, then I would disagree with your premise. But is by absurb you mean amazing, then I have to agree with your premise that it is unbelievable; only in that it takes an act of faith, "leap of faith" to get our minds to believe.

Can't say that I agree with everything that Kierkegaard says but with my understanding of christian thought I see how others have expanded on his theology.

Again, it takes faith to believe but faith is not a belief system. Once that belief system is established it is equated with one's faith.

 

[strange]

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are thousands of gods who are not creators of the universe (Kali, Kokopelli, Diana, Guan Yin, etc), and plenty of religions that have a god or gods but none of them are an omnipotent creator (Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, Wicca, Shamanism, Paganism, etc). So your definition of "God" is subjective. You are conveniently defining the word to conform to your own personal religious belief, despite the fact there's no basis in human culture (taken as a whole) for this interpretation.

Yes, I know that to Christians, their god is "the" God, but to non-Christians Yahweh is only one of an endless number of extraordinarily diverse god concepts - no higher or lower in some imagined hierarchy of gods than any other. The arbitrary attribute of creating the universe is no more or less significant to the meaning of the word "god" than, for example, the attribute of living on top of a mountain and being able to turn into a swan to mate with a human woman.

Don't assume that when I speak of God that I do not acknowledge what others call the creator. After all, it is just mankind's way of subjectifying God. We either subjectify or objectify the creator. We have no other means. It is all about reasoning. And yes, Cottage has it right. I/We cannot be responsible for those that don't understand the correct usage of reasoning. Far too many don't have an education to even begin to understand word usage.

I used reasoning to slip into the question of faith. Again, for some it is a learning process. And that is true whether your god is Kali or the god of Abraham. Which by the way the god of Abraham is the god of three religions; Jewish, Christianity and Muslim religions all have the same God.

Man's description of God is are attempt to understand God. We have no means to know the first cause. "So we are forced to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name God." Summa Theologiae, pp. 113.

 

[Alceste]

Don't assume that when I speak of God that I do not acknowledge what others call the creator. After all, it is just mankind's way of subjectifying God. We either subjectify or objectify the creator. We have no other means. It is all about reasoning. And yes, Cottage has it right. I/We cannot be responsible for those that don't understand the correct usage of reasoning. Far too many don't have an education to even begin to understand word usage.

I used reasoning to slip into the question of faith. Again, for some it is a learning process. And that is true whether your god is Kali or the god of Abraham. Which by the way the god of Abraham is the god of three religions; Jewish, Christianity and Muslim religions all have the same God.

Man's description of God is are attempt to understand God. We have no means to know the first cause. "So we are forced to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name God." Summa Theologiae, pp. 113.

I think you have completely missed my point. I was trying to tell you that many gods are NOT "creators", and many cultures and religions do not have a "first cause" god at all, let alone struggle to understand it.

I don't think you'll understand me though, since it sounds like you are starting with a firm assumption your personal concept of god actually exists, or could exist, then trying to use reason to understand it. I am coming from a perspective where I know your god is a figment of your imagination, as is everybody else's god, which is a conclusion I reached not by contemplating first causes, but by the careful observation of humans. First causes don't interest me at all. That's not to say I am not interested in empirical research into the origins of life and the universe, but if empirical research into our origins never comes up with a testable theory, I won't miss it. And I certainly won't turn to religious belief to fill in the details.

 

[Jeremiah]

"Faith then gives us a sort of knowledge, for when we believe, our minds assent to something knowable; but not to something we see but to something he whom we believe sees. Faith falls short of understanding, for a mind that understands assents to what it itself sees in the light of the first premises of understanding." Summa Theologiae, pp.29.

If by absurb, you mean unbelievable, then I would disagree with your premise. But is by absurb you mean amazing, then I have to agree with your premise that it is unbelievable; only in that it takes an act of faith, "leap of faith" to get our minds to believe.

Can't say that I agree with everything that Kierkegaard says but with my understanding of christian thought I see how others have expanded on his theology.

Again, it takes faith to believe but faith is not a belief system. Once that belief system is established it is equated with one's faith.

"If by absurb, you mean unbelievable, then I would disagree with your premise. But is by absurb you mean amazing, then I have to agree with your premise that it is unbelievable; only in that it takes an act of faith, "leap of faith" to get our minds to believe.'

Kierkegaard's "absurd" is that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh; an "objective insecurity". Also it is not my "premise"; I was quoting Kierkegaard.

 

[cottage]

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are thousands of gods who are not creators of the universe (Kali, Kokopelli, Diana, Guan Yin, etc), and plenty of religions that have a god or gods but none of them are an omnipotent creator (Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, Wicca, Shamanism, Paganism, etc). So your definition of "God" is subjective. You are conveniently defining the word to conform to your own personal religious belief, despite the fact there's no basis in human culture (taken as a whole) for this interpretation.

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Given that human reasoning is demonstrably irrational is reason a good enough basis for belief/non-belief in God?

Human reason is the only thing that we have to go on. It is the basis of everything we experience in this world, even our own emotions.

 

[Alceste]

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

By your definition. Your definition is not based on logic, but aesthetics.

Aesthetic preferences are not logical positions (by definition .) You like that god concept best, so to you all other god concepts are inferior. I like arbutus best, so to me all other trees are inferior. "But trees are all variations on the same thing - none are better or worse than any other" you say. "None of the others are so red and bendy" I reply, "therefore it is logical that the arbutus is the supreme tree among trees".

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...od-enough-basis-belief-non-8.html#post1584183

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

By your definition. Your definition is not based on logic, but aesthetics.

Aesthetic preferences are not logical positions (by definition .) You like that god concept best, so to you all other god concepts are inferior. I like arbutus best, so to me all other trees are inferior. "But trees are all variations on the same thing - none are better or worse than any other" you say. "None of the others are so red and bendy" I reply, "therefore it is logical that the arbutus is the supreme tree among trees".
I’m guessing that in using that analogy to address what I’ve written above you’re not being entirely serious?
Anyway, it’s not my definition, and it most certainly is not based on aesthetics. It’s simple logic: if Jayne is taller than Sue, and Sue is taller than Chloe, then Jayne is the tallest of the three. My views on the attractiveness, or not, of tall women does not in the least alter the conclusion that Sue and Chloe are shorter than Jayne. So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

 

[Alceste]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage

Then those gods you mention will by defintion be inferior to the concept of a single, omnipotent, Necessarily existing Creator. And I have no 'personal religious belief', but am simply demonstrating a logical position.

By your definition. Your definition is not based on logic, but aesthetics.

Aesthetic preferences are not logical positions (by definition .) You like that god concept best, so to you all other god concepts are inferior. I like arbutus best, so to me all other trees are inferior. "But trees are all variations on the same thing - none are better or worse than any other" you say. "None of the others are so red and bendy" I reply, "therefore it is logical that the arbutus is the supreme tree among trees".
I’m guessing that in using that analogy to address what I’ve written above you’re not being entirely serious?
Anyway, it’s not my definition, and it most certainly is not based on aesthetics. It’s simple logic: if Jayne is taller than Sue, and Sue is taller than Chloe, then Jayne is the tallest of the three. My views on the attractiveness, or not, of tall women does not in the least alter the conclusion that Sue and Chloe are shorter than Jayne. So it is with the concept of an omnipotent, necessarily existent Supreme Being. If such a God exists, then other gods, which by definition cannot have that same identity, will necessarily be inferior. And my (or your) preferences have no bearing on that self-defining, necessary truth.

That's not what you're saying. You're saying Jayne is taller than Sue, and Sue is taller than Chloe, so only Jayne necessarily exists, and she is a superior emblem of womanliness to Sue and Chloe. Plus it's all a moot point when all three ladies are figments of your imagination anyway. You could just as easily imagine Sue to be taller than Jayne.

You've decided the attribute of creating the universe is better, more important and more necessary than the attribute of (for example) flying the sun across the sky in a chariot. The Greeks would emphatically disagree with you (because if the sun doesn't rise, the crops will die). Their disagreement would be based on culture and aesthetics, not logic. But if your god doesn't exist, and their gods don't exist, none of them are necessary and all their imagined attributes are moot. There's nothing there, so there's nothing to compare.