Reason vs. Faith...

[9sublime]

The CHOICE of any religion is, of course, a subjective choice.

Oo, nice dodge.

Please tell me, what is logical about following one of the world religions over another?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why do you insist on muddling the argument? Do you persist in the hope of devicing a face-saving formula for your posted nonsense?

RELIGION IS A RIGHT OF THOUGHT.

It is an individual's expression of something self-evident or faith-based. Of course it necessarily extends to the wider scope of religion in the same manner that the axioms of mathematics extends to the wider scope of mathematics in the same way that the axioms of science extends to the wider scope of science, etc. etc.

Do other people need your leave on how they wish to express their faith?

Calm down, I was trying to get clear about what YOU were saying. What's wrong with you? I asked polite questions and you have to go ballistic?

I can see how one could make a case for the existence of God using the self-evident truths of our existence, but where science can produce a series of self-evident truths to support a wide variety of sujects, I don't see any self-evident truths being put forward to support the vast diversity of religious dogma.

All religious people balance their checkbooks using the self-evident truths of mathematics and they all obey the law of gravity while doing so (both math and gravity being self-evident), but there are thousands of conflicting dogmas with nothing to support them.

No, of course people don't need my permission for their religious beliefs, I wasn't talking about other people, I was trying to understand what YOU were saying.

 

[numinus]

Oo, nice dodge.

I wasn't aware I needed to dodge anything. I have ALWAYS stated that organized religions are political entities -- hence have purposes that are political.

Please tell me, what is logical about following one of the world religions over another?

Organized religions, complete with dogmas, heirarchy, and some form of regulative powers exist for the purpose of creating a more humane society. If the command of your priest, immam or rabbi does not logically accrue to a more humane society, then why follow it? Nothing in your religion (right of thought) obligates you to do something that is AGAINST YOUR CONSCIENCE. At least nothing in the catholic church I belong to.

 

[numinus]

Calm down, I was trying to get clear about what YOU were saying. What's wrong with you? I asked polite questions and you have to go ballistic?

I am calm.

I can see how one could make a case for the existence of God using the self-evident truths of our existence, but where science can produce a series of self-evident truths to support a wide variety of sujects, I don't see any self-evident truths being put forward to support the vast diversity of religious dogma.

All religious people balance their checkbooks using the self-evident truths of mathematics and they all obey the law of gravity while doing so (both math and gravity being self-evident), but there are thousands of conflicting dogmas with nothing to support them.

The self-evident truth is that GOD EXISTS. What the nature of that existence is, I cannot presume to know beyond those that argument logically concludes.

What you wish to do with this self-evident truth -- pray, kneel, ignore, ridicule other people or what not -- is entirely your own choosing. More often than not, what you choose to do usually depends on your OWN UNIQUE EXPERIENCES.

No, of course people don't need my permission for their religious beliefs, I wasn't talking about other people, I was trying to understand what YOU were saying.

What I am saying is that I manifest my faith in a manner that I choose. For example, I choose to manifest my faith by trying to understand the fundamental principles in physics and mathematics to the best of my abilities. And when some comprehension dawns on me, I am usually in awe, something that I can only describe as numinous.

I would imagine that other people feel the same thing with simple acts of kindness towards others or self-flagellation or suicide-bombing or, yes, even bible-beating.

 

[9sublime]

I wasn't aware I needed to dodge anything. I have ALWAYS stated that organized religions are political entities -- hence have purposes that are political.



Organized religions, complete with dogmas, heirarchy, and some form of regulative powers exist for the purpose of creating a more humane society. If the command of your priest, immam or rabbi does not logically accrue to a more humane society, then why follow it? Nothing in your religion (right of thought) obligates you to do something that is AGAINST YOUR CONSCIENCE. At least nothing in the catholic church I belong to.

And by what logic do you base your faith in catholicism, rather than, lets say, buddhism or Islam?

 

[Dr.Who]

I can see how one could make a case for the existence of God using the self-evident truths of our existence, but where science can produce a series of self-evident truths to support a wide variety of sujects, I don't see any self-evident truths being put forward to support the vast diversity of religious dogma.

Secular humanism, some agnosticisms, Some scientific ideas, atheism, and other faiths all empbrace their own religious dogma. Sadly what is supported by brute force of self evidence truths is just so scanty that we would no almost nothing if we did not accept lesser standards of evidence for some of what we believe.

All religious people balance their checkbooks using the self-evident truths of mathematics and they all obey the law of gravity while doing so (both math and gravity being self-evident), but there are thousands of conflicting dogmas with nothing to support them.

There are indeed many different world views including the secular humanists, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I listed above and they are all (religious, scientific, philosphical, ideological, etc.) supported by some of the evidence. I wish life were so simple that all the wrong ideas had no evidence supporting them and all the right ideas had tons of evidence. But it is just not that way. All the evidences that exist can by used to support a lot of different ideas and sorting it all out is pretty complex. There are some ideas that are better than others - at least in my opinion. The hard party is communication with people who value the ones I think are least worthy and who find least worthy the ones I value most.

I doubt there is anyone out there who says "I think I will just develop my world view by selecting evidence ignorantly and drawing a wrong conclusion." No, everyone draws a conclusion because they think they are right.

 

[Dr.Who]

And by what logic do you base your faith in catholicism, rather than, lets say, buddhism or Islam?

I think it is safe to say that he has a logic and he thinks he is right.

Just as you have a logic for what you believe and think that you are right.

When we have contradictory ideas we can know that one of us is wrong. Now we have a starting place to debate and discuss and evaluate what we know in whatever way helps to sort it out. Perhaps we can arrive at a closer approximation of truth.

 

[numinus]

And by what logic do you base your faith in catholicism, rather than, lets say, buddhism or Islam?

Because catholicism provided the most correct epistemological basis of the self-revelation -- I am I.

 

[9sublime]

Because catholicism provided the most correct epistemological basis of the self-revelation -- I am I.

Hm, I don't find that satisfactory. I don't think it is logical to pick a religion without any real proof of the existence of the God said religion promotes to be true.

 

[numinus]

Hm, I don't find that satisfactory. I don't think it is logical to pick a religion without any real proof of the existence of the God said religion promotes to be true.

Have i not provided proof from causation, volition, contingency, perfection and design?

I don't know why you choose to ignore them.

 

[9sublime]

Have i not provided proof from causation, volition, contingency, perfection and design?

I don't know why you choose to ignore them.

You have given evidence of a creating force, not the Catholic God.

 

[numinus]

You have given evidence of a creating force, not the Catholic God.

The simplest definition of a force is a push or pull, isn't it? And isn't the principle of volition or will behind any push or pull, hmmm?

 

[9sublime]

Just answer the question, what proof do you have that the Catholic faith has any truth behind what it says when it comes to what force created the universe?

 

[numinus]

Just answer the question, what proof do you have that the Catholic faith has any truth behind what it says when it comes to what force created the universe?

I just did.

That any 'force' NEEDS a principle of volition or will to set anything into motion. That reasoning represents a very clear posteriori proof that even science considers valid.

Remember newton's first law -- that an object in a state of inertial WILL remain in a state of inertia unless a force acts on it. Not only is a space-time singularity in a state of inertia, it is in a state of NOTHINGNESS. That the universe not only is in motion but ostensibly in existence as well proves that the principle of volition exists as well.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I just did.

That any 'force' NEEDS a principle of volition or will to set anything into motion. That reasoning represents a very clear posteriori proof that even science considers valid.

Remember newton's first law -- that an object in a state of inertial WILL remain in a state of inertia unless a force acts on it. Not only is a space-time singularity in a state of inertia, it is in a state of NOTHINGNESS. That the universe not only is in motion but ostensibly in existence as well proves that the principle of volition exists as well.

How does that support the Catholic faith?