Sunday, June 21, 2009
Random Thoughts on Faith and Reason
* If nothing else, people who go to church once a week are reminded 4 times a month that there exists Truth with a capital T. That fact alone gives otherwise "simple" people a tremendous advantageous over much more clever atheists who subscribe to modern doctrines that deny this.
* The most important question about reality is whether God exists. People often say things like, "Let's put aside our religious differences, and discuss issue X on its own merits." But that's actually very difficult to do in practice, because people's differing assumptions on that fundamental axiom (if you will) have huge consequences. It's sort of like developing Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry. Things that are rational and true in a world without any God, are irrational and false in a world with Him. And the reverse holds as well: Atheists consider Christian doctrines one at a time, and each seems not only physically impossible, but also palpably absurd. Yet viewed in the context of the entire Christian worldview, each doctrine fits snugly with all the rest.
* Atheists will sometimes say, "People can't walk on water / come back from the dead / give birth as a virgin...it's against the laws of physics." No they are not! People come back from the dead, all the time. There are shows on The Learning Channel about this. (A kid is ice skating and falls into the lake, he's legally dead for 30 minutes, blah blah blah.) There is absolutely nothing in "the laws of physics" that says it's impossible for a guy to walk on water. For one thing, what if it's frozen? Duh, okay, what if it's not frozen? Well people at Sea World seem to walk on the water all the time; they trained dolphins. Duh, okay, well what about if it's warm and there aren't trained dolphins? Then the laws of physics say... My point is, atheists flippantly overstate the certainty of their position. Another example is when (many of them) say (falsely) that the entire field of biology stands or falls on the theory of common descent.
* When I first read Mises' magnum opus, I thought it was very odd that he titled it Human Action. I thought "Economics" or "The Market" would have made more sense. Yet the older I get, the more I understand why he did it the way he did. (And say what you will about him--I know there are many non-fans who probably read this blog--but the importance of the action axiom never really struck me until I read this Hoppe essay.) Well, one way of viewing the difference between atheists and believers in the LORD of the Bible, is that atheists see behavior of the physical world, whereas believers see God's actions. The Christian's interpretative stance involves "faith" and does not follow from pure reason. Yet by the same token, I will never be able to really prove that other people have consciousnesses the way I experience it. But I sure think the world makes a lot more sense, and I can sure achieve a lot more of my goals, if I interpret bodily motions as human action. (And Christians be careful how you deal with these issues: Yes you do think that a thunderbolt illustrates the will of God, but it doesn't necessarily mean He's angry.)
* The most important question about reality is whether God exists. People often say things like, "Let's put aside our religious differences, and discuss issue X on its own merits." But that's actually very difficult to do in practice, because people's differing assumptions on that fundamental axiom (if you will) have huge consequences. It's sort of like developing Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry. Things that are rational and true in a world without any God, are irrational and false in a world with Him. And the reverse holds as well: Atheists consider Christian doctrines one at a time, and each seems not only physically impossible, but also palpably absurd. Yet viewed in the context of the entire Christian worldview, each doctrine fits snugly with all the rest.
* Atheists will sometimes say, "People can't walk on water / come back from the dead / give birth as a virgin...it's against the laws of physics." No they are not! People come back from the dead, all the time. There are shows on The Learning Channel about this. (A kid is ice skating and falls into the lake, he's legally dead for 30 minutes, blah blah blah.) There is absolutely nothing in "the laws of physics" that says it's impossible for a guy to walk on water. For one thing, what if it's frozen? Duh, okay, what if it's not frozen? Well people at Sea World seem to walk on the water all the time; they trained dolphins. Duh, okay, well what about if it's warm and there aren't trained dolphins? Then the laws of physics say... My point is, atheists flippantly overstate the certainty of their position. Another example is when (many of them) say (falsely) that the entire field of biology stands or falls on the theory of common descent.
* When I first read Mises' magnum opus, I thought it was very odd that he titled it Human Action. I thought "Economics" or "The Market" would have made more sense. Yet the older I get, the more I understand why he did it the way he did. (And say what you will about him--I know there are many non-fans who probably read this blog--but the importance of the action axiom never really struck me until I read this Hoppe essay.) Well, one way of viewing the difference between atheists and believers in the LORD of the Bible, is that atheists see behavior of the physical world, whereas believers see God's actions. The Christian's interpretative stance involves "faith" and does not follow from pure reason. Yet by the same token, I will never be able to really prove that other people have consciousnesses the way I experience it. But I sure think the world makes a lot more sense, and I can sure achieve a lot more of my goals, if I interpret bodily motions as human action. (And Christians be careful how you deal with these issues: Yes you do think that a thunderbolt illustrates the will of God, but it doesn't necessarily mean He's angry.)
Comments:
Random thoughts on Reality and Reason...
* If nothing else, people who use Reality and Reason to understand the world are constantly reminded what is Truth. That is: «What is».
That gives people the drive 'to be' somebody for himself, for the most important thing he has: it's life.
* Reality is what is real. Things that can't be proven, seen and have no impact what-so-ever in the life are out of the reality. The After-Life is out of reality for the living.
With this, what is rationnal ? Rationnality is what promote life.
Rationnality is for the living.
* What is unknown to the rational man is of no consequence to his life. If people can walk on water, so be it. But I sure can't.
All the «what if..» that I can imagine are of no consequence to the life. What counts is reality as it is know, The Reality of the Moment.
* What is important, again, is reality. Whatever ( whoever ) created the world did not put itself ( himself ) in the reality. But I, I am bound to reality.
If I ignore reality, I die ( I don't eat, I die. I walk past a cliff, I die ).
Faith is accepting that something ( or somebody ) outside the reality bound me to this reality in the waiting that I deny it ?
Since denying reality is denying life, I can't accept this.
Maybe have I failed the test. But since «Life» is such a value, I choose it over any «salvation».
PS: this was written as a friendly argumentation. Take no offense.
For me, as an «economic guru» you are still a «god sent»... :)
Francois.
* If nothing else, people who use Reality and Reason to understand the world are constantly reminded what is Truth. That is: «What is».
That gives people the drive 'to be' somebody for himself, for the most important thing he has: it's life.
* Reality is what is real. Things that can't be proven, seen and have no impact what-so-ever in the life are out of the reality. The After-Life is out of reality for the living.
With this, what is rationnal ? Rationnality is what promote life.
Rationnality is for the living.
* What is unknown to the rational man is of no consequence to his life. If people can walk on water, so be it. But I sure can't.
All the «what if..» that I can imagine are of no consequence to the life. What counts is reality as it is know, The Reality of the Moment.
* What is important, again, is reality. Whatever ( whoever ) created the world did not put itself ( himself ) in the reality. But I, I am bound to reality.
If I ignore reality, I die ( I don't eat, I die. I walk past a cliff, I die ).
Faith is accepting that something ( or somebody ) outside the reality bound me to this reality in the waiting that I deny it ?
Since denying reality is denying life, I can't accept this.
Maybe have I failed the test. But since «Life» is such a value, I choose it over any «salvation».
PS: this was written as a friendly argumentation. Take no offense.
For me, as an «economic guru» you are still a «god sent»... :)
Francois.
"If nothing else, people who go to church once a week are reminded 4 times a month that there exists Truth with a capital T. That fact alone gives otherwise "simple" people a tremendous advantageous over much more clever atheists who subscribe to modern doctrines that deny this."
Yes, and these advantageouses have gotten us into many wars and helped us to justify killing many others, especially those whose Truths are Different and Wrong, as shown when they Lose.
Leaders may be dogmatic in order to use religion to expand their own polity, but our God-given need for community is what keeps breaking our dogmas up into denominations, Branch Dividians, Aum Shinrikyo, Satanic Verses and other Devilish divisions.
* "The most important question about reality is whether God exists."
Wrong. The most important question is whether one has water, food, shelter and friends. Otherwise, we contemplate reality and God from the grave.
"Atheists consider Christian doctrines one at a time" - Strawman.
"viewed in the context of the entire Christian worldview, each doctrine fits snugly with all the rest."
How cozy! But all religions have had been closed ecosystems like this, not just Christianity.
But let`s be clear here: you are essentially acknowledging that Christian doctrines cannot pass tests of reason. For this very reason, many reasoning men have had difficulties with Church authorities.
Oh, and please note this:
TT`s idle hands express idle thoughts
Yes, and these advantageouses have gotten us into many wars and helped us to justify killing many others, especially those whose Truths are Different and Wrong, as shown when they Lose.
Leaders may be dogmatic in order to use religion to expand their own polity, but our God-given need for community is what keeps breaking our dogmas up into denominations, Branch Dividians, Aum Shinrikyo, Satanic Verses and other Devilish divisions.
* "The most important question about reality is whether God exists."
Wrong. The most important question is whether one has water, food, shelter and friends. Otherwise, we contemplate reality and God from the grave.
"Atheists consider Christian doctrines one at a time" - Strawman.
"viewed in the context of the entire Christian worldview, each doctrine fits snugly with all the rest."
How cozy! But all religions have had been closed ecosystems like this, not just Christianity.
But let`s be clear here: you are essentially acknowledging that Christian doctrines cannot pass tests of reason. For this very reason, many reasoning men have had difficulties with Church authorities.
Oh, and please note this:
TT`s idle hands express idle thoughts
TT wrote:But let`s be clear here: you are essentially acknowledging that Christian doctrines cannot pass tests of reason.
No, I clearly said that if God doesn't exist, then the other Christian doctrines are irrational. But that's not a crushing concession on my part, since the existence of God is a fairly important axiom.
No, I clearly said that if God doesn't exist, then the other Christian doctrines are irrational. But that's not a crushing concession on my part, since the existence of God is a fairly important axiom.
Why is there something instead of nothing? Whether one is a naturalist or theist, genius or simpleton, the resolution of this question seems to involve faith in a necessary being of some type. Let’s first off all try and agree that if there was ever nothing, then nothing could be the only possibility.
Since nothingness is comprised of nothing, neither side *believes* that nothing was ever possibly the case. We mostly all agree that reality is composed of something. Therefore we are left with three ways out of our pickle of why there is something:
1) The necessary being is the creator of something or some phenomena
2) something or some phenomena is the necessary being.
3) The question is ill-posed and meaningless
Fortunately for the theist, the best and latest experimental evidence infers strongly that there was likely a beginning to the universe. A beginning of the universe seems to rule out the second option. Therefore, it comes down to which current option provides the best footing for a rational faith.
I invite all to rationally deconstruct this very elementary construction. If we get a default to Kant or Hume, ie that nothing is knowable except through empirical sensory evidence (option #3), then we must consider that response a punt on the whole question of why there is something instead of nothing.
Since nothingness is comprised of nothing, neither side *believes* that nothing was ever possibly the case. We mostly all agree that reality is composed of something. Therefore we are left with three ways out of our pickle of why there is something:
1) The necessary being is the creator of something or some phenomena
2) something or some phenomena is the necessary being.
3) The question is ill-posed and meaningless
Fortunately for the theist, the best and latest experimental evidence infers strongly that there was likely a beginning to the universe. A beginning of the universe seems to rule out the second option. Therefore, it comes down to which current option provides the best footing for a rational faith.
I invite all to rationally deconstruct this very elementary construction. If we get a default to Kant or Hume, ie that nothing is knowable except through empirical sensory evidence (option #3), then we must consider that response a punt on the whole question of why there is something instead of nothing.
# posted by 
: June 22, 2009 at 10:10 PM
: June 22, 2009 at 10:10 PM
"if God doesn't exist, then the other Christian doctrines are irrational."
Okay. You are essentially now saying that tests of logical only work if one first assumes what one wants to prove.
But even this concession is far too modest. There could be an infinite array of self-referential doctrines that, by themselves, can be internally logically consistent, if the existence of God is assumed. But that doesn`t make any such array of doctrines correct.
"Things that are rational and true in a world without any God, are irrational and false in a world with Him."
I`m not tracking you here. If I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, is this irrational and false if we have different belief systems?
Okay. You are essentially now saying that tests of logical only work if one first assumes what one wants to prove.
But even this concession is far too modest. There could be an infinite array of self-referential doctrines that, by themselves, can be internally logically consistent, if the existence of God is assumed. But that doesn`t make any such array of doctrines correct.
"Things that are rational and true in a world without any God, are irrational and false in a world with Him."
I`m not tracking you here. If I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, is this irrational and false if we have different belief systems?
Christianity rests on reason to a greater degree than most Christians like to acknowledge. It's well known in the history of science that Christianity's emphasis on reason caused the birth of modern science at a time when Western Europe was hopelessly behind China and the Ottoman Empire in technology.
It's also well known that the logic of the Protestant Reformation, especially that of the Dutch Republic created the freedoms that atheists hold dear today.
There is a tendency in Christianity to see faith as something totally irrational, and the more irrational the idea the greater faith once has. But Christianity has always taken pride in being founded upon reason, which other faiths, such as atheism, can not do.
Atheists can not offer any proof or any logic for their belief, partly because it's impossible to prove a negative. So atheists have always substituted ridicule for reason. As for evidence, they can't offer any and can only respond that the evidence offered for God by Christians is insufficient. But the never offer what would be sufficient evidence, otherwise they might actually have to consider something.
Atheists are quick to point out the death and destruction caused by
people who claimed to be religious, but not a one has repented of their atheism as a result of the 100 million plus people murdered by atheistic communism in the 20th century.
It's also well known that the logic of the Protestant Reformation, especially that of the Dutch Republic created the freedoms that atheists hold dear today.
There is a tendency in Christianity to see faith as something totally irrational, and the more irrational the idea the greater faith once has. But Christianity has always taken pride in being founded upon reason, which other faiths, such as atheism, can not do.
Atheists can not offer any proof or any logic for their belief, partly because it's impossible to prove a negative. So atheists have always substituted ridicule for reason. As for evidence, they can't offer any and can only respond that the evidence offered for God by Christians is insufficient. But the never offer what would be sufficient evidence, otherwise they might actually have to consider something.
Atheists are quick to point out the death and destruction caused by
people who claimed to be religious, but not a one has repented of their atheism as a result of the 100 million plus people murdered by atheistic communism in the 20th century.
# posted by : June 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM
: June 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Roger, for some reason I`m guessing your remark was addressed to me. Let me first thank you for your comments on the other thread and apologize for my preoccupation with other matters.
You are surely right to point to the role of Christianity in laying the foundations for the birth of modern science. But is that a proof of God?
That`s interesting that you refer to atheists as having a "faith" and "beliefs". Is atheism a personal or organized religion? What are its tenets? Do you distinguish agnostics from atheists? Was Darwin, a lifetime Christian, an atheist? Are Catholics, who accept that God works through natural selection?
What faiths are as reasonable as your own?
What about our simple gift of doubt - was doubting Thomas - or all Jews, for that matters - an "atheist", because they did not believe in the Resurrection? Or are you referring only to doubters who have explicitly rejected God (or Allah or YHWH or all others gods that the Ten Commandments refer to)?
"So atheists have always substituted ridicule for reason."
An obvious and appalling strawman. Why do you feel the need to sweep so broadly?
They "never offer what would be sufficient evidence, otherwise they might actually have to consider something."
You are exactly wrong, as skeptics of theism have reviewed countless claims by religious believers, and found or offered perfectly logical, non-theistic explanations. But thanks for implying the main point, which is that theism itself is at its core unscientific, as it offers no predictions that can or cannot be tested and proven.
"Atheists are quick to point out the death and destruction caused by
people who claimed to be religious, but not a one has repented of their atheism as a result of the 100 million plus people murdered by atheistic communism in the 20th century."
It`s hard to see what your point is. Does the fact that atheists murder prove that there is a God?
To the extent you direct this to me, you are certainly being unfair. My own point that people of different beliefs kill each other is not offered to ridicule belief, but to note how it is used to support group solidarity and inter-group rivalry.
In this, communism acts just as another faith with its own sacred postulates and, like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, is used by political leaders to consolidate power and to achieve success in struggles against rival groups (which explains communist hostility to other faiths). It is clear from your own comments that you also see faith as a matter of group solidarity and competition (sometimes quite murderous).
I clearly do not ridicule faith at all, but rather offer arguments that it stems from our very social human nature.
You are surely right to point to the role of Christianity in laying the foundations for the birth of modern science. But is that a proof of God?
That`s interesting that you refer to atheists as having a "faith" and "beliefs". Is atheism a personal or organized religion? What are its tenets? Do you distinguish agnostics from atheists? Was Darwin, a lifetime Christian, an atheist? Are Catholics, who accept that God works through natural selection?
What faiths are as reasonable as your own?
What about our simple gift of doubt - was doubting Thomas - or all Jews, for that matters - an "atheist", because they did not believe in the Resurrection? Or are you referring only to doubters who have explicitly rejected God (or Allah or YHWH or all others gods that the Ten Commandments refer to)?
"So atheists have always substituted ridicule for reason."
An obvious and appalling strawman. Why do you feel the need to sweep so broadly?
They "never offer what would be sufficient evidence, otherwise they might actually have to consider something."
You are exactly wrong, as skeptics of theism have reviewed countless claims by religious believers, and found or offered perfectly logical, non-theistic explanations. But thanks for implying the main point, which is that theism itself is at its core unscientific, as it offers no predictions that can or cannot be tested and proven.
"Atheists are quick to point out the death and destruction caused by
people who claimed to be religious, but not a one has repented of their atheism as a result of the 100 million plus people murdered by atheistic communism in the 20th century."
It`s hard to see what your point is. Does the fact that atheists murder prove that there is a God?
To the extent you direct this to me, you are certainly being unfair. My own point that people of different beliefs kill each other is not offered to ridicule belief, but to note how it is used to support group solidarity and inter-group rivalry.
In this, communism acts just as another faith with its own sacred postulates and, like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, is used by political leaders to consolidate power and to achieve success in struggles against rival groups (which explains communist hostility to other faiths). It is clear from your own comments that you also see faith as a matter of group solidarity and competition (sometimes quite murderous).
I clearly do not ridicule faith at all, but rather offer arguments that it stems from our very social human nature.
"theism itself is at its core unscientific, as it offers no predictions that can or cannot be tested and proven" says Toykyo Tom. His statement is not entirely accurate.
Theism certainly offered one major prediction that has indeed been tested empirically. Theism (Judeo-Christian brand) predicted that there was a beginning to the universe. The first four words of the Bible start with “In the beginning God”. Prior to the 20th century, virtually all physicists held to a steady-state universe that existed throughout eternity (Fred Hoyle tried to revive this model in the mid 20th century without success). Some physicists have recently proposed several new revisions of the steady state universe, but one curiously notices that steady-staters are often left describing their theory in absolute metaphors such as the "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe". Others use the absolute metaphor comparing this eternal self-reproducing or self-existing universe to “God”. Those physicists apparently choose my option #2 (with absolutely no more empirical evidence than the theist I might add). Interestingly, the writer of Hebrews defines faith as the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". That is certainly what is at play here whether you are a theist or cosmological physicist. Faith is required for either belief, but the substance hoped for by the atheist is a reality without the theist’s God; a God whom the atheist despises as vindictive and arbitrary in his justice, primitive in his means. A God whose declaration to a suffering Job was: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding”.
Finally, a note to amateur philosophers: Please do not discount the relevance of ontology, since it certainly is not irrelevant to the cosmologist. One earlier commentator stated without qualification that he did not associate with persons so silly as to take the ontological view of origins seriously. That type of austere self-discipline leaves out some of the most famous contemporary scientists of our day, and some of the most serious minds in history.
Post a Comment
Theism certainly offered one major prediction that has indeed been tested empirically. Theism (Judeo-Christian brand) predicted that there was a beginning to the universe. The first four words of the Bible start with “In the beginning God”. Prior to the 20th century, virtually all physicists held to a steady-state universe that existed throughout eternity (Fred Hoyle tried to revive this model in the mid 20th century without success). Some physicists have recently proposed several new revisions of the steady state universe, but one curiously notices that steady-staters are often left describing their theory in absolute metaphors such as the "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe". Others use the absolute metaphor comparing this eternal self-reproducing or self-existing universe to “God”. Those physicists apparently choose my option #2 (with absolutely no more empirical evidence than the theist I might add). Interestingly, the writer of Hebrews defines faith as the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". That is certainly what is at play here whether you are a theist or cosmological physicist. Faith is required for either belief, but the substance hoped for by the atheist is a reality without the theist’s God; a God whom the atheist despises as vindictive and arbitrary in his justice, primitive in his means. A God whose declaration to a suffering Job was: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding”.
Finally, a note to amateur philosophers: Please do not discount the relevance of ontology, since it certainly is not irrelevant to the cosmologist. One earlier commentator stated without qualification that he did not associate with persons so silly as to take the ontological view of origins seriously. That type of austere self-discipline leaves out some of the most famous contemporary scientists of our day, and some of the most serious minds in history.
# posted by : June 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM
: June 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]