mopgoblin on 13/1/2007 at 16:58
Quote Posted by Fingernail
StD it doesn't matter what you think benevolence is, the point of faith is to accept that God's will is unknowable by us and attempting to place human characteristics such as "goodness" or "benevolence" or "evil" onto him is irrelevant because we can never know what his motives (or actions) actually are unless he chooses to reveal them.
Well, that logic leads to "if we can't know god's will, we can't ever trust that he actually wants us to do what he says, so our chances of doing good things are the same whether we listen to him or not". If you can't know his will, and he makes the rules, then any understanding of the notions of "good" and "evil" is out of our reach with respect to every person and every possible action.
SD on 13/1/2007 at 16:59
Quote Posted by Fingernail
I guess this is why it's called
faith?
Don't get me wrong, I know exactly the fundamental paradox but nonetheless it's just one of those things that as much as you argue with a true believer, there's no practical reason for them to change their belief (for the most part).
So why, then, is religious faith the only kind of belief that doesn't require supporting evidence? I mean, if I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, or that I've invented a device that can create gold out of thin air, one would be well within their rights to request some sort of proof. And if I then failed to supply that proof, I would be a "crank", a "loony", a "nutjob". Why do we make religion an exception to that rule?
Indeed, religion, presenting itself as an answer to the most important questions of all, ought to require
more proof than my Thin Air Gold Creation System, rather than none whatsoever.
Josh68 on 13/1/2007 at 17:06
Hey StD, you're gonna die. In the absence of some kind of reason why that is so, do you blame most people (yes most) for believing in God? Hell if I wasn't so fucked up I would believe in god too.
Fingernail on 13/1/2007 at 17:09
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Well, that logic leads to "if we can't know god's will, we can't ever trust that he actually wants us to do what he says, so our chances of doing good things are the same whether we listen to him or not". If you can't know his will, and he makes the rules, then any understanding of the notions of "good" and "evil" is out of our reach with respect to every person and every possible action.
Well not exactly, if you believe that God has given us the 10 commandments and teachings of Jesus which we are able to comprehend to live by.
You just can't hold him to the same set of values because he isn't an imperfect human! So it's not hypocritcal!
(I don't believe in God)
Gingerbread Man on 13/1/2007 at 17:11
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Why do we make religion an exception to that rule?
Because it's WAY too fucking tiring to bang your head against the wall of "proof denies faith" and at some point the rest of us just kinda abandon the faithful to their blissful simplicity and give them that little smile and head-pat that we give to the severely retarded who, despite their soft brains, try so goddamned hard it's adorable.
What gets on my tits is the assumption that without the omniscient and benevolent presence of Big Daddy, morality is either impossible to justify or difficult to enforce. I thought we ended that debate with Hume.
paloalto on 13/1/2007 at 17:19
I have never bought the argument that higher levels of complexity and order can come from the bottom up from a grid of random events.Randomness and order are opposites.A house doesn't build itself from a random event it takes intention,order.planning and intelligence to build it.The patterns we see in nature must have been precast from the top down as far as patterns go.If there is nothing supernatural then the intention to pattern has to be contained in something physical.Does a molecule have it or any stuff of matter?
st.patrick on 13/1/2007 at 17:27
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Because it's WAY too fucking tiring to bang your head against the wall of "proof denies faith" and at some point the rest of us just kinda abandon the faithful to their blissful simplicity and give them that little smile and head-pat that we give to the severely retarded who, despite their soft brains, try so goddamned hard it's adorable.
What gets on my tits is the assumption that without the omniscient and benevolent presence of Big Daddy, morality is either impossible to justify or difficult to enforce. I thought we ended that debate with Hume.
That just about sums it up pretty well.
And, um, to get back to the topic, Dawkins might be a bit of pain-in-the-arsey sometimes, but throwing his work on genes and evolution together with some airport stall paperback Danielle Steel shit just doesn't do. Ah tellin' ya, dat guy knoes 'is sciences.
fett on 13/1/2007 at 17:29
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
So why, then, is religious faith the only kind of belief that doesn't require supporting evidence?
I can assure you that religious - in this case specifically Judeo/Christian - faith is not defined this way anywhere in their Scriptures. In fact, biblical theology
requires that faith be placed
in the direction of evidence. Though it's been long forgotten, the faith of the patriarchs was based almost solely on fulfilled prophecy - and for good reason if you care to do the historical research.
Christians have done a huge disservice to the logic and philosophy of biblical faith by defining it as you do (and it's ultimately their fault that you have this misconception of biblical faith). I can't find a single passage of scripture where God says in essence, "just trust me on this one." In fact, the Bible is rife with challenges to look at the fulfilled prophecy, check the timeline, examine the details, and so forth. In other words, the God of the Bible is not afraid to have his motives, actions, or words challenged. I also don't find a single instance of him punishing those who do so - only those who are willfully disobedient to him (i.e. the nations I mentioned earlier, whose religious practices btw are also documented in Egyptian and other near-eastern writings of the time in answer to your other post).
The odd thing is that most of the stuff Christians take 'by faith' are things that actually are supported by empirical, objective proof - but they don't know it because they are intellectually lazy. On the other hand, the things for which they think they have proof (the Bible being the word of God, creationism, etc.) are things no one will ever be able to prove empirically. It's a tangled web my friend...
SD on 13/1/2007 at 17:31
Quote Posted by paloalto
I have never bought the argument that higher levels of complexity and order can come from the bottom up from a grid of random events.
Better the theory that a complex being like God just appeared out of nowhere, rite?
Quote:
The patterns we see in nature must have been precast from the top down as far as patterns go.
What you see is the
illusion of design, but is actually the result of evolution by natural selection.
Gillie on 13/1/2007 at 17:42
Such an Interesting Thread.
Surely It is us as humans who have the freedom and choices. No one! what ever you believe "Makes" us do anything. The problem with Scientist is they have to have the "proof". They can not believe it unless a machine tells them such. We live in a Materialistic World.. Not a Spiritual world.
We are responsible for the results of what we do, and the reactions to our activities, or karma, compel us to take repeated births, where we try vainly to fulfill our desires. We are responsible for the results of what we do, and the reactions to our activities, or karma, compel us to take repeated births, where we try vainly to fulfill our desires. Without the grace of God our material births are endless. Our spiritual life begins when we try to make a spiritual solution to our material suffering.
