religion and reasoning

[Athena]

What is the reason or cause of that?

Why should it be this way?

How does it happen?

Why do we need God?

[Fonceai]

In your first line, what is the "that" to which you are referring?

[Lotharia]

Please specify the subject of your pronouns -- that? it?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Athena Why do we need God?

We don't, or at least rational people don't. The problem is that there are far too many irrational people who would rather think happy thoughts than deal with the cold, hard reality that we live in. They want to feel comforted and loved and hope for the future and answers to all their questions, even when such things just don't exist in reality, so they make it up.

Irrational people suck.

[Jakob]

We need God because we need something absolute to base our observations of the universe on. Heard of the Uncertainty Principle? It's a part of Quantum Mechanics that states we cannot know both the location and velocity of a particle. The reason being that the only methods available of studying one changes the other. Every time we try to observe the universe, the universe changes, because we are, at least partially, a part of the universe.

That obscure principle extrapolates out, and can be applied to all of human observation. Us trying to measure and define the universe is like us being an inch on a ruler, and trying to measure the ruler. It can't be done. We cannot trust our own methods of measurement, because we can't observe without changing something.

Therefore, to have any basis for human knowledge at all, there must be something beyond the universe, some backdrop that we can measure against. That's why we need God. Without God, all of the human thought is just some nihilistic haze.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jakob We need God because we need something absolute to base our observations of the universe on. Heard of the Uncertainty Principle? It's a part of Quantum Mechanics that states we cannot know both the location and velocity of a particle. The reason being that the only methods available of studying one changes the other. Every time we try to observe the universe, the universe changes, because we are, at least partially, a part of the universe.

Are you somehow suggesting that believing in God makes Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle untrue?

Therefore, to have any basis for human knowledge at all, there must be something beyond the universe, some backdrop that we can measure against. That's why we need God. Without God, all of the human thought is just some nihilistic haze.

So you suggest that we need to blindly believe in something ridiculous and completely without merit because you believe that human thought requires blind belief in a farsical deity to make sense?

[Jakob]

I am not suggesting that belief in God makes the Uncertainty Principle untrue. I'm suggesting that because of that principle, it is impossible for us, without a backdrop that doesn't change by our own measurement, to truly know anything. Without some kind of stability, some kind of absolute-ness, there is only subjectiveness, and that gains us nothing.

As for your second question, if you would step out of your bigoted box and think a little more carefully about my statement, I'm sure you would find that it makes a little more sense.

I'm suggesting that we need to accept the existence of something that exists beyond our universe, for the simple fact that otherwise we cannot trust our own thoughts. It is not that human thought requires blind belief to function, it is that to be able to truly trust our own thought, we need some standard to judge it against.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Athena What is the reason or cause of that?

the reason and cause of everything is in the nature of existence and can be simply determined by observation.

Why should it be this way?

Nature is the way it is because God is a very natural God.

How does it happen?

Science does a pretty good job at answering this question, and getting better all the time.

Why do we need God?

We would not exist without God, but humans unfortunately tend to define the need of God in a selfish egocentirc way.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jakob I am not suggesting that belief in God makes the Uncertainty Principle untrue. I'm suggesting that because of that principle, it is impossible for us, without a backdrop that doesn't change by our own measurement, to truly know anything. Without some kind of stability, some kind of absolute-ness, there is only subjectiveness, and that gains us nothing.

I can know a lot of things that don't require me to be certain exactly where a particular particle is at a particular time. Unfortunately, you are insisting that because *YOU* feel uncomfortable with uncertainty, that there has to be this invisible, unknowable certain thing to make yourself feel better. Funny, a lot of people, myself included, have no problem whatsoever with the unknown. Maybe the problem doesn't lie with us, but with yourself.

As for your second question, if you would step out of your bigoted box and think a little more carefully about my statement, I'm sure you would find that it makes a little more sense.

There's nothing bigoted about pointing out the irrationality of your statements. You don't like uncertainty so you *INVENT* something that's certain. Sure, that's logical and rational. And kids want presents on Christmas so they *INVENTED* Santa Claus. Well guess what, just because you want God to exist doesn't mean God really exists anywhere but in your imagination, until you are able to logically and objectively demonstrate otherwise.

[Cephus]

Quote by: shunyadragon We would not exist without God, but humans unfortunately tend to define the need of God in a selfish egocentirc way.

Prove it. Give us some evidence to support this claim. Otherwise, it's just a lot of hot air.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Jakob We need God because we need something absolute to base our observations of the universe on. Heard of the Uncertainty Principle? It's a part of Quantum Mechanics that states we cannot know both the location and velocity of a particle. The reason being that the only methods available of studying one changes the other. Every time we try to observe the universe, the universe changes, because we are, at least partially, a part of the universe. That obscure principle extrapolates out, and can be applied to all of human observation. Us trying to measure and define the universe is like us being an inch on a ruler, and trying to measure the ruler. It can't be done. We cannot trust our own methods of measurement, because we can't observe without changing something. Therefore, to have any basis for human knowledge at all, there must be something beyond the universe, some backdrop that we can measure against. That's why we need God. Without God, all of the human thought is just some nihilistic haze.

The only real problem with this line of thought is that the uncertainty principle is only realized in the sub atomic scale, not the macroscopic scale such as moving cars. Faith (belief without logical proof or empirical evidence) in some deity plays NO ROLE in what we can and can not know. The term "beyond our universe" is meaningless and anything that lies outside of our "observed universe" is still the universe. We can see roughly 13 billion light years out into our universe, this is our "observed universe", if and when we can see father, this will become the new "observable universe", and it will still be just "The universe", there is no "outside" of it.

[agustine]

To Cephus.

We don't, or at least rational people don't.

I find myself entirely rational, insofar as I possess the capacity to grasp propositions and hold beliefs. Yet, I find a need for God in my life. Now, my belief in God is entirely rational, in that I possess justifiable epistemic warrant for my belief. I do so apologize, but I find your assertion regardinfg rationality entirely vacuous. With respect to your comment

The problem is that there are far too many irrational people who would rather think happy thoughts than deal with the cold, hard reality that we live in. They want to feel comforted and loved and hope for the future and answers to all their questions, even when such things just don't exist in reality, so they make it up.

This is merely an assumption, it is entirely ad hoc. With respect to your last comment

Irrational people suck.

Ahhh! the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem.......... And you say theists are irrational! Wow!!!

Augustine

[pikatore]

Quote by: agustine To Cephus. I find myself entirely rational, insofar as I possess the capacity to grasp propositions and hold beliefs. Yet, I find a need for God in my life. Now, my belief in God is entirely rational, in that I possess justifiable epistemic warrant for my belief. I do so apologize, but I find your assertion entirely vacuous. Augustine

So you are telling me, that because you have what you think is warrant for that belief, it is therefore rational?

Hitler felt he had warrant for his belief that Aryans were the superior race. Is it a rational belief? You answer that, and tell me how your belief differs in rationality.

I'm sure you can go to the local asylum and find plently of people who hold warrant for what they believe. That does NOTHING to assure that the belief holds rationality.

I'm a pretty rational person, yet I dont believe in God. I don't believe in a magical being in another realm that created everything that exists, and watches each one of us constantly in our lives. That is a conclusion I have come to through reasoning and logic.

Of course I may be wrong. But I also may be wrong in saying that leprechauns don't live in my garden.

[Cephus]

Quote by: agustine To Cephus. I find myself entirely rational, insofar as I possess the capacity to grasp propositions and hold beliefs.

I'm sure the people who think they're Napoleon find themselves entirely rational as well. Doesn't mean a whole lot.

Yet, I find a need for God in my life.

Children often find a need for imaginary friends in their lives as well. Doesn't mean it's rational and it certainly doesn't mean that it's credible and most children outgrow this ludicrous belief.

Now, my belief in God is entirely rational, in that I possess justifiable epistemic warrant for my belief. I do so apologize, but I find your assertion regardinfg rationality entirely vacuous.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, you simply have faith and your faith is no more demonstrable than the believe in Allah or Krishna or aliens following Halley's Comet. Just because *YOU* find it rational doesn't mean that it is. Rationality is specifically taking the evidence at hand and going where it leads.

[agustine]

To pikatore. With respect to your comment

So you are telling me, that because you have what you think is warrant for that belief, it is therefore rational?

I don't think you understand my point. I was speaking epistemologically drawing upon the great philosopher Alvin Plantiga's seminal epistemological work "Warrant and Proper Function," the central thesis of which is that belief in God is, like many other propositions, properly basic. Proper basicality is a construct of the Foundationalist Epistemology. Foundationalism within Reformed Epistemology recognizes that there are many things for which we cannot be certain yet we are entirely rational in believing. For example, I cannot be certain that other minds exist, or that my cognitive functions are reliable, or that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated by electrodes to make me believe that I am posting this comment, or even in the reality of the external world. Yet despite the uncertainty I am entirely rational in believing in them. Belief in God is also entirely rational..... With respect to your comment

Hitler felt he had warrant for his belief that Aryans were the superior race. Is it a rational belief? You answer that, and tell me how your belief differs in rationality.

Well, despite the informal fallacy reductio ad Hitlerem, racial supremacy is evil independent of the fact that Hitler believed the Aryan Race to be superior. The underlying principle is known a priori yet extended to the particular circumstances empirically. The belief in racial supremacy is not considered evil because Hitler held them but Hitler is considered evil because he held those beliefs. Almost a category mistake on your part. With respect to your comment

I'm a pretty rational person, yet I dont believe in God. I don't believe in a magical being in another realm that created everything that exists, and watches each one of us constantly in our lives. That is a conclusion I have come to through reasoning and logic.

Please allow me to ask you: how does logic inform you that God does not exist?

Augustine

[agustine]

To my friend Cephus. With respect to your comment

I'm sure the people who think they're Napoleon find themselves entirely rational as well. Doesn't mean a whole lot.

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

Children often find a need for imaginary friends in their lives as well. Doesn't mean it's rational and it certainly doesn't mean that it's credible and most children outgrow this ludicrous belief.

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

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim...

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

[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.

[agustine]

To Gods_Mercenary. With respect to your comment

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.

Well done! The Pascalian Wager.

Augustine

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, Pascal's wager says that believers get to go to heaven, I think good people go to heaven ragardless, so it's not. Pascal's wager is also flawed in that it doesn't take into count the many other religions one can believe in. I am assuming that God doesn't exist. If it makes you happy, so what if you weren't right.

[agustine]

To To Gods_Mercenary. With respect to your comment

No, Pascal's wager says that believers get to go to heaven, I think good people go to heaven ragardless, so it's not. Pascal's wager is also flawed in that it doesn't take into count the many other religions one can believe in. I am assuming that God doesn't exist. If it makes you happy, so what if you weren't right.

Your statement is very much akin to the first premise of Pascals argument. Thats all I was alluding to......

Augustine