religion and reasoning

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes, It was, but pascal was a mathemetician, not a very good philosopher.

[Gods_Mercenary]

My thing is much more limited than Pascal's Wager in that it assumes that faith(or self delusion, if you like) will make you happy, if it won't for you, then it doesn't really apply to you.

[agustine]

To Gods_Mercenary. With respect to your comment

My thing is much more limited than Pascal's Wager in that it assumes that faith(or self delusion, if you like) will make you happy, if it won't for you, then it doesn't really apply to you.

I understand your point, however I think there is a rational foundation for belief in God, and that the dichotomy between faith and reason is patently false.

Augustine

[Gods_Mercenary]

well, in that case, I don't even have to be making this point to you:)

[Athena]

Quote by: agustine To my friend Cephus. With respect to your comment Likening theists to people who believe they are Napoleon. Sounds a lot like argumentum ad hominem. However, despite proper basicality, I think we have very good reasons for believing in God. With respect to your comment Again! argumentum ad hominem. I am sorry, two logical fallicies and I'm being irrational. With respect to your comment You raise the evidentialist objection. I'm so very glad you have argued in this manner. One question, why must I have evidence to support my belief? Are you suggesting that the theist has some type of obligation or duty to provide evidence to support his belief? If so, how then does one deduce such a moral duty? What is the ontological status of moral obligations? Almost a self-defeating argument...... Augustine

You use a lot of fancy words, but arguing there is nothing wrong with believing the God of Abraham is exactly as the bible says, is not good reasoning. There is plenty wrong with this. It is not just a belief in a God, but also a belief in Satan and demons and a superstitious, non scientific understanding of what it is to be human and why we are not perfect. A lot of bad decisions spin out of this. On top of this is believing supernatural beings of good and evil can do as they please. These beings are not confined by universal laws. That is plural beings, one is good and has angels, the other is evil and has demons, all doing as they please without laws of nature or physics restricting what they can and can not do.

Now what comes out of this is, thinking humans can determine who does what by the power that person can have, and get away with it, just as their God can do as he pleases and get away with it. So Bush with too much military power for any individual to have at his use, leads us into a war that should have never happened, so North Korea and Iran boldly talk about developing nuclear weapons, and Israel threatens to use nuclear weapons on Iran. This is really insane. There is a cost to war, and people are ignoring the cost, trusting in a God who can do as He wills, and is not confined by univeral laws, and magically makes them immortal too. The belief system leads to bad logic and worse.

[Athena]

Quote by: agustine To Gods_Mercenary. With respect to your comment I understand your point, however I think there is a rational foundation for belief in God, and that the dichotomy between faith and reason is patently false. Augustine

This reasoning is as good as doing drugs because the drugs make a person feel good. There is a cost to bad reasoning.

[Cephus]

Quote by: agustine With respect to your comment Likening theists to people who believe they are Napoleon. Sounds a lot like argumentum ad hominem.

No, just simple logic. A person who believes they are Napoleon and a person who believes in an unseen, unknown deity, are very much the same. Would you prefer we change that to people who wear tin foil on their heads to avoid the alien mind-control rays?

I think we have very good reasons for believing in God.

Yet you can offer none of them for examination.

Why is that?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Perhaps the believers are the rational ones, after all, if it makes them happy and God doesn't exist, then they've lived a happy life, an irrational one, perhaps, but who cares, your dead, either way.

But you've wasted your life believing a lie, giving money to a lie, teaching your kids about a lie and sacrificing your intellectual integrity on the altar of a lie.

Doesn't sound rational to me.

[agustine]

To Athena. With respect to your comment

You use a lot of fancy words, but arguing there is nothing wrong with believing the God of Abraham is exactly as the bible says, is not good reasoning.

Why? You argument appears to be merely an expression of preference. With respect to your comment

There is plenty wrong with this. It is not just a belief in a God, but also a belief in Satan and demons and a superstitious, non scientific understanding of what it is to be human and why we are not perfect.

First, if belief in Satan corresponds with reality, then it is entirely rational. Second, a scientific understanding? Science can only provide us with one aspect of truth regarding the external world, that is truth as it relates to physicalist questions. Science is entirely impotent in answering other such questions such as, for example, moral inquiries: to what extent is it permissible to use animals in scientific experiments? or does a scientist have a moral duty to report the results of his experiments truthfully? What experiments can one perform to demonstrate that such a moral duty exists? Science cannot provide us with answers concerning statements of value such as: why should we pursue the scientific enterprise in the first place? What experiment could the scientist perform in order to answer that question? These are metaphysical questions, not scientific questions and thus we are entirely rational in positing them. With respect to your comment

So Bush with too much military power for any individual to have at his use, leads us into a war that should have never happened

Subjective and argumentitive at best. With respect to your comment

There is a cost to war

I agree, however this is a statement of value that cannot be answered scientifically. It is a metaphysical question. With respect to your comment

These beings are not confined by universal laws

What is the source of the universal law with which you speak? We know the natural construct is itself contingent, finite and caused. Yet you speak of this universal law within the context of metaphysical necessity. Whether you are aware of it or not you are arguing right into a theistic context. With respect to your comment

This is really insane

A moral judgment. How do you derive moral postulates from time-plus-matter-plus-primordial slime when the current evidence derived from the physical sciences confirms that time and matter are themselves finite and contingent.

Augustine

[Jack]

Are you suggesting that the theist has some type of obligation or duty to provide evidence to support his belief?

If their beliefs are restricted to their own lives, without impacting mine, then no, they're free to believe whatever they wish. But when they act on those beliefs in such a way as to negatively affect my freedom to enjoy life as I please, then yes, they do. I cannot condone this country or even my town being ruled in accordance to a 2000 myth with no substance beyond faith. If there isn't logic or evidence to support their position, it should not be allowed to have an effect on others.

[agustine]

To Cephus. With respect to your comment

No, just simple logic

No sir.. First you posited two arguments that were logically invalid. Now with your comment

teaching your kids about a lie and sacrificing your intellectual integrity on the altar of a lie.

The clear import of your argument is that positing God's existence is a lie. Actually arguing God absolutely does not exist. You are attempting to affirm a negative in the absolute. Wow! You are batting a thousand my friend....

Augustine

[agustine]

To Isherwood. With respect to your comment

then yes, they do.

Where then does this moral obligation come from, or for that fact any moral obligation? The unconditional ought in the Kantian sense.

Augustine

[Athena]

Quote by: agustine To Cephus. With respect to your comment No sir.. First you posited two arguments that were logically invalid. Now with your comment The clear import of your argument is that positing God's existence is a lie. Actually arguing God absolutely does not exist. You are attempting to affirm a negative in the absolute. Wow! You are batting a thousand my friend.... Augustine

It wasn't his fault. Satan made him tell an untruth.

[Osborn F Enready]

to the original post....

What are religion and reasoning doing in the same sentence?

You trying to create an atom bomb?

[agustine]

To Osborn F Enready. With respect to your comment

What are religion and reasoning doing in the same sentence?

Belief in God is an entirely rational enterprise. The false dichotomy between faith and reason was played out sometime ago.

Augustine

[agustine]

To Athena. With respect to your comment

It wasn't his fault. Satan made him tell an untruth.

No No, logically invalid. I suspect Satan is also responsible for causing your absence from logic 101. Affirming a negative in the absolute would require infinite knowledge......

Augustine

[Athena]

Quote by: agustine To Athena. With respect to your comment No No, logically invalid. I suspect Satan is also responsible for causing your absence from logic 101. Affirming a negative in the absolute would require infinite knowledge...... Augustine

Sure honey, Satan is behind everything we don't like, except when God decides to punish us. It is just hard to know when the misery is because of Satan or when it is caused by God's displeasure with us. Whatever, we have no control over either, so it pointless to ponder the reality created by Satan and God too much. Just worship, light candles and burn incense and hope for the best. Oh you might try sacrificing animals and painting your door with the blood of the lamb. May be carrying a silver cross is helpful too?

Osborn, perhaps I should have labeled the thread "reason verses religion", instead of religion and reasoning?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: agustine To my friend Cephus. With respect to your comment Likening theists to people who believe they are Napoleon. Sounds a lot like argumentum ad hominem.

This was not an ad hominem attack at all. This wasn't an attack on you. An Ad Hominem is an attack on or an appeal to the person with whom you're debating. example, Person A says X is true, Person B says Person A is an idiot and can't be trusted. This was an attack on Person A and not the argument.

However, despite proper basicality, I think we have very good reasons for believing in God.

Yet I have not seen any reasons coming from you other than you saying you have epistemological ones. Which leads right back to Cephus' rebutle about nutters believing they are Nepoleon.

With respect to your comment Again! argumentum ad hominem. I am sorry, two logical fallicies and I'm being irrational.

Again, this wasn't an Ad hominem.

With respect to your comment You raise the evidentialist objection. I'm so very glad you have argued in this manner. One question, why must I have evidence to support my belief? Are you suggesting that the theist has some type of obligation or duty to provide evidence to support his belief? If so, how then does one deduce such a moral duty? What is the ontological status of moral obligations? Almost a self-defeating argument......

Now you have commited a strawman. Morals have nothing to do with this thread. Stay on topic... REASON and RELIGION. Morals are a whole other ball of wax and deserves its own thread. But to clear things up a bit, morals are driven by conscience, not some god. If you think that god is the provider of morals, then you should be able to prove which god since all societies have morals but they many different gods.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: agustine Belief in God is an entirely rational enterprise.

You've made this kind of statement before, but you never seem to be willing to inform us of the arguments involved.
I'm familiar with many theological arguments, and trust none of them. Do you have anything new?

[pikatore]

Quote by: agustine To Osborn F Enready. With respect to your comment Belief in God is an entirely rational enterprise. The false dichotomy between faith and reason was played out sometime ago. Augustine

How is a belief in a god a rational enterprise?