Faith and Reason

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I honestly believe if you take two people from the same soci-economic backgrounds, who go to the same church and make it to all of the same sermons, and the same bible study class, will come to different conclusions. They might have a lot more similarities than someone in your question, however in this life no two people have the same perspective.

I agree and would go so far as to say if you take 50 different people studying the same faith you will find a variety of different answers as well. Faith is symbolic and symbols are able to be interpreted individually.

There are some things that make a religion what it is, but other than that everything else is left up to the individual.

All of this is why Christians are urged to study scripturw in groups. Each perspective adds to the others and some can be found to be textually or historically wrong. It keeps everyone from going off into flights of self delusion.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

All of this is why Christians are urged to study scripturw in groups. Each perspective adds to the others and some can be found to be textually or historically wrong. It keeps everyone from going off into flights of self delusion.

Or people stop thinking and just adopt the opinion of the dominant person in the group.

I don't mean this as a criticism of religion, but it is a fairly common group dynamic. I've seen studies where actors are directed to mislead with obviously wrong and simple answers and the vast majority of the time the rest of the group will follow. One study I remember had people looking at the length of lines and were supposed to state which line was longer. These were obvious differences, not close calls. The actors were directed to pick the wrong answer and 70 - 80 percent of the time they were agreed with by the the test subject.

And when it comes to religious people vs. non religious people the most common difference is that religious people tend to place a higher value in belonging to a group while non-religious people tend to place more value on individuality. This has been the conclusion of several studies as well. They found no differences in education, income, etc., but the difference in the value placed on belonging vs. individuality was pronounced.

It makes me wonder if that earlier group dynamic would be even more pronounced. Either way it's incredibly high, though.

"rafael wrote:

Or people stop thinking and just adopt the opinion of the dominant person in the group.

I don't mean this as a criticism of religion, but it is a fairly common group dynamic. I've seen studies where actors are directed to mislead with obviously wrong and simple answers and the vast majority of the time the rest of the group will follow. One study I remember had people looking at the length of lines and were supposed to state which line was longer. These were obvious differences, not close calls. The actors were directed to pick the wrong answer and 70 - 80 percent of the time they were agreed with by the the test subject.

And when it comes to religious people vs. non religious people the most common difference is that religious people tend to place a higher value in belonging to a group while non-religious people tend to place more value on individuality. This has been the conclusion of several studies as well. They found no differences in education, income, etc., but the difference in the value placed on belonging vs. individuality was pronounced.

It makes me wonder if that earlier group dynamic would be even more pronounced. Either way it's incredibly high, though.

I understand the dynamic and have seen it work in religious and secular groups. In the middle ages where access to source documents was restricted that did happen. My point is however you have literally thousands of groups doing the work coming to a small group of solutions it has a greater chance at validity.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I understand the dynamic and have seen it work in religious and secular groups. In the middle ages where access to source documents was restricted that did happen. My point is however you have literally thousands of groups doing the work coming to a small group of solutions it has a greater chance at validity.

IMO the expected conclusions are fairly obvious. I think the people that are coming to different conclusions are the ones who are leaving the church. I don't think it's a coincidence that the percentage of people who classify themselves as spiritual but not religious continues to rise. Just like the percentage of Americans who believe there is not just one way (or religion) to get into heaven rises. Here's an article about a survey from last year:

Religion in America is changing...

A new survey finds many Americans say there is more than one way to find heaven...that includes many evangelical Christians.

Pastor David Brown of the Pilgrim Congregational United Church of Christ says, "We believe God loves everyone and includes everyone."

That's not a statement historically associated with the Protestant Church...but, according to a new study it is becoming the norm.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life consulted more than 35,000 Americans for its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.

Pastor Brown says, "God's family is a lot bigger than, unfortunately, some people seem to feel."

The survey finds among evangelical Protestant churches more than half the members believe many religions can lead to eternal life.

They're not alone...the vast majority of Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu and more than half of Muslim Americans believe the same way.

Here in the Tennessee Valley not everyone agrees.

Associate Pastor Dwight Martinof Calvary Baptist Church says, "We love them, and we want them to understand the truth. But, the Bible says there's only one way."

Pastor Martin says it's not a question of interpretation.

He says the Christian Savior is the only path to eternal life, and while he knows the idea is not popular, heaven is open to all who would believe, "That's what God's word says and I believe that with all my heart. So...people who don't believe that, their argument is not with me, it's with God's word."

Brown says it's not about telling people how to find heaven, it's helping them get there, "Americans are changing. I think we're far more conscious of diversity, far more aware there are many different religious paths to God. Each of us has to find and choose and commit to our own religious path."

Another interesting finding in the study...one in five American Atheists and more than half of Agnostics believe there is a God or Universal Spirit.

http://www.wdef.com/news/americans_say_more_than_one_way_to_heaven/06/2008

I don't see that as people coming to the same conclusion. That seems like more and more people are looking at the various religions and seeing some things they like in many of them.

Of course from your vantage point you will not. And likely from my vantage point I don't see all you do.

Of course people will pick and choose. Why take into account anything that makes you uncomfortable or challenges your own desires? Design a god who loves you and never asks anything of you. Thou shalt not? Why limit what I want?! I know self centeredness is strong. Why pick up something that might make me feel guilty or shameful?

The Abrahamic faiths call that original sin and I see lots of it.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Of course from your vantage point you will not. And likely from my vantage point I don't see all you do.

Of course people will pick and choose. Why take into account anything that makes you uncomfortable or challenges your own desires? Design a god who loves you and never asks anything of you. Thou shalt not? Why limit what I want?! I know self centeredness is strong. Why pick up something that might make me feel guilty or shameful?

The Abrahamic faiths call that original sin and I see lots of it.

That could be one reason. For me, I grew up catholic, it was that I found the bible and Catholicism's interpretations to be at best inconsistent and often just ludicrous. That is what made me look elsewhere.

Then when I thought about it, I realized that I don't believe God would design a system where goodness or being worthy of heaven is limited to one religion. It struck me as patently unfair that a kid who grew up in a different religion and never even heard of catholicism or christianity (or any other religion) but was by all other measures a good person is denied heaven. I don't think God would do that. That more than anything is what makes me believe that it can't be limited to just one religion. In my experience that is why many people believe there has to be more than one way to heaven.

The detail we would need to go into to continue this is probably beyond what our forums are designed to do. I will resist the urge to go further.

I wish you well

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

All of this is why Christians are urged to study scripturw in groups. Each perspective adds to the others and some can be found to be textually or historically wrong. It keeps everyone from going off into flights of self delusion.

It also increases the chances of going off into flights of group delusion. :tongue2:

I do believe that no matter what you study it is best to also study it in groups. Especially if it is spiritual. Join some people who are on a the same spiritual path. Unless you are athiest. I still do not understand why athiests meet. How can you get a group and discuss nothing?

Other perspectives really do add to other people. I know for myself on my own path my level of understanding and understanding my naivity grew thousands fold when I got into groups and discussions about my path.

So my advice to anyone on any path (other than Athiesm) is to join groups and discuss. You will learn from sharing your thoughts as you will hearing other thoughts.

Also remember that you are your own guru or at least that you are the one who is responsible for your actions. Never give your power up to anyone who says they are better than you or more advance than you. Someone might know more about you on a subject, however that does not mean they are more advanced or better than you.

This topic has gone silent, and I did not take part in the earlier discussion, however for anyone interested there is a good amount of information on William Lane Craig's website www.reasonablefaith.org (the Q/A section is very helpful). I don't believe you can separate faith from reason, though some have tried to make "faith" in faith the greatest of faiths... whatever that means. Christianity is an evidence based religion- not a blind leap as some say. It is objectively true. You can try, like some, and pick and choose what you like. But, ya know, when you go to a buffet what do you get on your plate? The stuff you like, and what you don't like you don't put on your plate- Some people choose their religion this way. Jesus said that those who seek the truth find him, truth is by nature exclusive.

"BB Ocho wrote:

This topic has gone silent, and I did not take part in the earlier discussion, however for anyone interested there is a good amount of information on William Lane Craig's website www.reasonablefaith.org (the Q/A section is very helpful). I don't believe you can separate faith from reason, though some have tried to make "faith" in faith the greatest of faiths... whatever that means. Christianity is an evidence based religion- not a blind leap as some say. It is objectively true. You can try, like some, and pick and choose what you like. But, ya know, when you go to a buffet what do you get on your plate? The stuff you like, and what you don't like you don't put on your plate- Some people choose their religion this way. Jesus said that those who seek the truth find him, truth is by nature exclusive.

I also have followed but not participated in this discussion. However, I find many of your claims of "fact' to be quite the opposite.

Some context about me before I say more. Unlike most atheists I do not hate religion. I've been a christian and am currently married to one. When I was a christian, I was immersed in it. My parents taught Sunday school even. My "conversion" from faith to atheist, was not reactionary or made without careful thought, discussion and research. It also wasn't made with a foregone conclusion.

My objections to what you posted are most specifically about 2 statements you made.

I don't believe you can separate faith from reason

I can't see that belief as being more wrong. Not only can they be separated, but its absolutely vital to separate them if either of the words' meaning are to maintain their integrity. You cannot have fact with beliefs, nor can you truly have faith with facts. This doesn't mean someone can't have faith and beliefs at the same time. It just means that if they try to mix the two, then they are doing themselves a disservice. One cannot have faith in a fact. The idea of faith is believing something without knowing it to be true. If that something is true, you, by definition, no longer have faith in it. Its like colors. You can have red or blue. If you mix the two you get purple, which is neither red or blue, but something else entirely.

truth is by nature exclusive

Truth is not exclusive. Truth is relative, because the measuring stick for truth is emotionally fickle. When looking for "truth", the first thing one must do is gather and understand his tools. Its like going on a trip. You must first understand how to drive. So when looking for the truth, you must first understand the definition to certain words.

fact: 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened

belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction;
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Once one understands that these words are more or less opposites, then one can actually begin to find their "truth"/faith.

"Finascious D wrote:

I also have followed but not participated in this discussion. However, I find many of your claims of "fact' to be quite the opposite.

Some context about me before I say more. Unlike most atheists I do not hate religion. I've been a christian and am currently married to one. When I was a christian, I was immersed in it. My parents taught Sunday school even. My "conversion" from faith to atheist, was not reactionary or made without careful thought, discussion and research. It also wasn't made with a foregone conclusion.

My objections to what you posted are most specifically about 2 statements you made.

I can't see that belief as being more wrong. Not only can they be separated, but its absolutely vital to separate them if either of the words' meaning are to maintain their integrity. You cannot have fact with beliefs, nor can you truly have faith with facts. This doesn't mean someone can't have faith and beliefs at the same time. It just means that if they try to mix the two, then they are doing themselves a disservice. One cannot have faith in a fact. The idea of faith is believing something without knowing it to be true. If that something is true, you, by definition, no longer have faith in it. Its like colors. You can have red or blue. If you mix the two you get purple, which is neither red or blue, but something else entirely.

Truth is not exclusive. Truth is relative, because the measuring stick for truth is emotionally fickle. When looking for "truth", the first thing one must do is gather and understand his tools. Its like going on a trip. You must first understand how to drive. So when looking for the truth, you must first understand the definition to certain words.

fact: 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened

belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction;
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Once one understands that these words are more or less opposites, then one can actually begin to find their "truth"/faith.

God help me, but I belive I agree with a lot of what you just said.

Faith and reason are separate. That doesn't mean they contradict; rather, I believe them to be complementary.

"DrAstroZoom wrote:

God help me, but I belive I agree with a lot of what you just said.

Faith and reason are separate. That doesn't mean they contradict; rather, I believe them to be complementary.

Uh oh. Next thing you'll know, you'll be voting Obama, drinking lots of Mt. Dew, and become ruggedly handsome....:lol:

"Finascious D wrote:

Uh oh. Next thing you'll know, you'll be voting Obama, drinking lots of Mt. Dew, and become ruggedly handsome....:lol:

Holy hell, I agree with you too.

I already drink the Dew, my wife thinks I'm ruggedly handsome...

Oh well, like Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad! :D

"Finascious D wrote:

Truth is not exclusive. Truth is relative (emotion/experience...etc...)

This statement reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Several blind men were walking along and came upon an elephant that allowed them to touch and feel it. "This creature is long and flexible like a snake" said the first blind man, holding the elephant's trunk. "not at all - it is thick and round like a tree trunk," said the second blind man, feeling the elephant's leg. "No, it is large and flat," said the third blind man, touching the elephant's side. Each blind man could feel only part of the elephant - none could envision the entire elephant. In the same way, you are arguing, that "truth" is relative to the person and only part of it can be grasped and no one can see the whole elephant, or claim to have a comprehensive vision of the truth.

This is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How can you know that no one can claim to have truth, unless you yourself are able to have it?

There is an appearance of humility in saying that truth is relative, no one can comprehend truth... but really it is an arrogant claim. How could you know that no religion or person could see the whole elephant (truth) unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of truth which you just claimed is not absolute- that no one can claim to have?

"BB Ocho wrote:

This statement reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Several blind men were walking along and came upon an elephant that allowed them to touch and feel it. "This creature is long and flexible like a snake" said the first blind man, holding the elephant's trunk. "not at all - it is thick and round like a tree trunk," said the second blind man, feeling the elephant's leg. "No, it is large and flat," said the third blind man, touching the elephant's side. Each blind man could feel only part of the elephant - none could envision the entire elephant. In the same way, you are arguing, that "truth" is relative to the person and only part of it can be grasped and no one can see the whole elephant, or claim to have a comprehensive vision of the truth.

This is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How can you know that no one can claim to have truth, unless you yourself are able to have it?

Soooo, I'm the blind one and you're the one that can see? That parable, completely proves my point.

"BB Ocho wrote:

There is an appearance of humility in saying that truth is relative, no one can comprehend truth... but really it is an arrogant claim. How could you know that no religion or person could see the whole elephant (truth) unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of truth which you just claimed is not absolute- that no one can claim to have?

I find it hard to believe that you can actually accuse me of arrogance when you're the one claiming you have some superior comprehensive knowledge.

If you re read my post, you'll find that I made no claim about your god being real or not. I'm talking about words and how you're using them improperly. That any of us can have absolute comprehensive knowledge of, in the form of a dictionary. A humble man, would not believe he has supreme knowledge and that others are wrong on matters of faith. A wise man would understand that communication is only as good as the definitions of the words he uses. You've shown yourself to be neither.

Truth is relative

If truth is relative, then the statement "Truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "Truth is relative" is false.

It is true for me that relativism is false. I ask you, is it true that relativism is false?

"BB Ocho wrote:

If truth is relative, then the statement "Truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "Truth is relative" is false.

It is true for me that relativism is false. I ask you, is it true that relativism is false?

If truth is relative, then there wouldn't be "absolutely true", thus the statement "Truth is relative" would be "relatively true".

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

If truth is relative, then there wouldn't be "absolutely true", thus the statement "Truth is relative" would be "relatively true".

Thanks for helping us along Dupree. I think Relativism is self defeating and I hope you will take a shot at answering the question in the previous post of mine. Relativism seems to deny the very nature of truth, that truth is not self-contradictory.

In this short conversation, I am saying that there is an "either-or" system, and by what you are saying that you are convinced that there is a "both-and" system to reality, and that if I were to critique your relativism ("both-and") I must adopt that framework and work within it, right?

"BB Ocho wrote:

Thanks for helping us along Dupree. I think Relativism is self defeating and I hope you will take a shot at answering the question in the previous post of mine. Relativism seems to deny the very nature of truth, that truth is not self-contradictory.

In this short conversation, I am saying that there is an "either-or" system, and by what you are saying that you are convinced that there is a "both-and" system to reality, and that if I were to critique your relativism ("both-and") I must adopt that framework and work within it, right?

Relativism isn't self defeating it is self substaining.

I answered your question. :)

Relativism doesn't deny the very nature of truth. If it would deny anything, it would deny the ability of man to fully disclose what it is. For instance in your story, one person's absolute truth would be that the animal is a long snake, and the other truth would be the qualities of the leg. Both of them would be describing something that is "true", yet niether would be describing the whole truth. However they are not wrong, it is "both-and". Also neither of them could describe the entire elephant even if they were to get their hands around the entire thing. For instance they would not be able to describe the color. From their limited perspective they would never be able to see the color.

In short, the only place where "either-or" works is on a computer. Even human beings have the ability to believe two ideas that are completely contridictory.

Also to critique "either-or" I must adopt that framework and work within. That is the nature of an argument.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

In short, the only place where "either-or" works is on a computer. Even human beings have the ability to believe two ideas that are completely contridictory.

Also to critique "either-or" I must adopt that framework and work within. That is the nature of an argument.

ok, so you are saying that I must use either the "both-and" framework, or the "either-or" framework?

"BB Ocho wrote:

ok, so you are saying that I must use either the "both-and" framework, or the "either-or" framework?

If you are going to argue for either side, then the argument must be contained in the framework.

It would almost be like having an conversation about evolution and say that it falls apart because that isn't what the bible says.

It doesn't make sense to say the "both-and" framework falls apart because in the "either-or" framework, "this, this and this".

If the "both-and" framework collaspes upon itself, it must collapse upon itself within the idea of itself.

I think we have the first thread for the new "Philosophy and Erudtion Forum!" :wink2: :up:

Dupree, I appreciate the discussion! You have just validated my point by saying that you must use EITHER the "both-and" OR the "either-or" framework. You are using the "either-or" framework just to answer the question. If you don't see this then I don't know how else to show this to you.

Which, I think, goes to my previous idea that Truth is by nature exclusive, the law of non-contradiction (either-or) is inescapable.

Maybe, before we go further or leave this altogether I should ask what is your definition of truth? I would say truth is that which conforms to reality, or fact, or actuality. Or, if you'd like truth is not error, truth is not self-contradictory, truth is not deceptive.

Also, the question I asked earlier was "If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?" I think that sidestepping from answering that question shows the inconsistency of relativism.

"BB Ocho wrote:

Dupree, I appreciate the discussion! You have just validated my point by saying that you must use EITHER the "both-and" OR the "either-or" framework. You are using the "either-or" framework just to answer the question. If you don't see this then I don't know how else to show this to you.

Which, I think, goes to my previous idea that Truth is by nature exclusive, the law of non-contradiction (either-or) is inescapable.

Maybe, before we go further or leave this altogether I should ask what is your definition of truth? I would say truth is that which conforms to reality, or fact, or actuality. Or, if you'd like truth is not error, truth is not self-contradictory, truth is not deceptive.

Also, the question I asked earlier was "If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?" I think that sidestepping from answering that question shows the inconsistency of relativism.

You are making a semantic circular argument. You cannot define "truth" without proof. The proof you personally require for a bit of info to become truth is different than mine. That is why "truth" is relative. It is because of the relative nature of truth, you cannot go around discounting other people's beliefs. If you want other people, to accept your truth, than prove it to their acceptable level of proof.

The real problem with your way of thinking, is that if you honestly believe your's is the only truth and everyone else is wrong, than you've become intolerant of other people's beliefs. Last I checked, Jesus, wasn't big on intolerance.

Simply put, trying to turn your beliefs into facts, means your faith is on a domino foundation. Meaning, if one thing in your belief structure, is proven to not be a fact, then your beliefs fall like dominoes. That is why, people like yourself, use the word "truth" when describing your beliefs. That is why faith healers have a following. That is weak faith. Any faith that requires fact, is not really faith at all. Its the same when, people of any faith, try to remove what they consider sin from everyone else's lives. If you cannot stand in the middle of temptation and not be swayed, then your faith isn't really that strong.