okay, enough destructive thought, how about some constructive thought. i am clear that faith is not the way to go; how does logic bring us forward in the search for truth? i can reason three possible worldviews:
1) there is no god. we are only stardust, no more no less. we are merely an incredibly complex collection of atoms, interacting to create human life. what makes us special? well, perhaps the question is: what if were not special? are we so egoistic as to think that the human race is a strange, wonderful, creation? maybe the only thing we can do is muddle through life making as much sense of it as we can. morality is built on our daily experiences of what is good, what is bad, not on some higher power. a kind of hobbesian 'state of nature'. (if i got that hobbes bit wrong forgive me, PS lectures are on freaking fri afternoons
2) there is some kind of 'first mover'. a divine being that, while not a personal entity, is a powerful entity that gave us life in the first place. a force that made life special, a force that gave the universe its staggering complexity. something like the star wars notion of 'the force'. yes, i mean that, dont roll your eyes!
3) there is a personal, benevolent, omnipotent god. like the god of the bible or the koran. a god who created humanity and the universe, a god who takes immense personal interest in humanity, a god who cares for humanity, a god who loves us, and desires to be loved.
maybe another good approach to take would be to examine each religion logically. at this point im too shack to go and list out.
Friday, November 5, 2010
the deficient understanding of faith
ive been in some discussions recently, where people have claimed that faith is in our physical domain and that we need faith to believe in everything we do daily.
for example, we need faith in the air we breathe, because we cannot see it or feel it but we know it is there. or we may not understand everything about how a car works, but we have faith that it will bring us where we want to go.
but i honestly dont buy this. we know there is air because it is a scientific theory, proven by fact. our belief in air is rooted in what we can hypothesize, test, prove. air is a theory that has stood the test of experiments, of logic. and hence air is the best explanation for why we live; there is no better proven theory. most people's belief in religion, on the other hand, is not rooted in the senses. it is rooted on the idea that god is unknowable by the senses and hence that they need to take a jump into the darkness. the leap of faith is so called because it is exactly that - a leap. a leap that contravenes logic.
likewise, we know that that is a car because we can see, feel, touch it. it has driven us to work before, it will again. the arguments on air and the car have a proper premise. that is, the premise of the logical process. it is important to make this distinction on what faith is, on how utterly ungrounded the biblical notion of faith is.
let us dispense with faith. everything one does should have a premise. i believe in air because it is a scientifically proven notion. i believe in my car because i (roughly) know how it works, because it logically follows that if you ignite petrol to work cylinders to turn wheels, you will be able to drive. i would not, for example, jump off a cliff, because i know that there is no good premise for it.
that is the difference between faith and belief. belief is a conclusion made with adequate consideration for a premise. faith is a conclusion based on a decision to avoid a premise. faith is fallacious. if you would not do anything in everyday life that is fallacious, why would you do he same for religion? neither is the bible a solid premise; saying "i believe in god because i believe in god's word: the bible", is a fallacy of begging the question/circular logic.
therefore let us base our belief in religion on a solid premise.
one thing you might have thought of at this point is that the conclusion of logic as the ultimate basis for truth is itself not based on a premise. well, its all we have. its the best, the only way we make sense of everything in the world. rationalism and empiricism are grounded in the here and now.
for example, we need faith in the air we breathe, because we cannot see it or feel it but we know it is there. or we may not understand everything about how a car works, but we have faith that it will bring us where we want to go.
but i honestly dont buy this. we know there is air because it is a scientific theory, proven by fact. our belief in air is rooted in what we can hypothesize, test, prove. air is a theory that has stood the test of experiments, of logic. and hence air is the best explanation for why we live; there is no better proven theory. most people's belief in religion, on the other hand, is not rooted in the senses. it is rooted on the idea that god is unknowable by the senses and hence that they need to take a jump into the darkness. the leap of faith is so called because it is exactly that - a leap. a leap that contravenes logic.
likewise, we know that that is a car because we can see, feel, touch it. it has driven us to work before, it will again. the arguments on air and the car have a proper premise. that is, the premise of the logical process. it is important to make this distinction on what faith is, on how utterly ungrounded the biblical notion of faith is.
let us dispense with faith. everything one does should have a premise. i believe in air because it is a scientifically proven notion. i believe in my car because i (roughly) know how it works, because it logically follows that if you ignite petrol to work cylinders to turn wheels, you will be able to drive. i would not, for example, jump off a cliff, because i know that there is no good premise for it.
that is the difference between faith and belief. belief is a conclusion made with adequate consideration for a premise. faith is a conclusion based on a decision to avoid a premise. faith is fallacious. if you would not do anything in everyday life that is fallacious, why would you do he same for religion? neither is the bible a solid premise; saying "i believe in god because i believe in god's word: the bible", is a fallacy of begging the question/circular logic.
therefore let us base our belief in religion on a solid premise.
one thing you might have thought of at this point is that the conclusion of logic as the ultimate basis for truth is itself not based on a premise. well, its all we have. its the best, the only way we make sense of everything in the world. rationalism and empiricism are grounded in the here and now.
is it really important?
is the whole question of a god really important? why invest time and effort in searching for the Truth when you could be spending your time enriching the rest of humanity? isnt it more important to do good than to philosophize on morality? are you truly being moral?
the answer, to me, is that the search for Truth is ultimately the standard we set for the importance of anything in the world. whatever we do in the world, whether it is moral or not, whether it is fruitful or not, is entirely predicated in the first place on some notion of morality. thats why the search for some sense of morality cannot be abandoned; this sense of morality drives everything in the world that we think of as right or wrong.
YES, doing good is important. we need to think of it as a need. but ultimately what drives our sense of 'good' can only be reached through a thorough examination of the facts.
the answer, to me, is that the search for Truth is ultimately the standard we set for the importance of anything in the world. whatever we do in the world, whether it is moral or not, whether it is fruitful or not, is entirely predicated in the first place on some notion of morality. thats why the search for some sense of morality cannot be abandoned; this sense of morality drives everything in the world that we think of as right or wrong.
YES, doing good is important. we need to think of it as a need. but ultimately what drives our sense of 'good' can only be reached through a thorough examination of the facts.
Friday, February 12, 2010
to Arbiter
sorry about the lack of posts, and sorry Arbiter for the late reply. army life has been very busy and we dont even get to sniff an i-net computer in that cui camp of ours.
anyway, these are arbiter's comments:
***
"Hi. You don't know me but I happened to chance upon your post. To me the only good reason anybody needs to disprove religious belief is the sheer number of religions in the world. To overuse an oft-repeated slogan, an atheist only believes in one less god than a theist (or a hundred billion if that theist is hindu, but that's outside the point). There is absolutely no basis for preferring one religion over another except that its the one you came into contact with."
"As for Christianity, the only rational basis for belief is the account of Christ's resurrection. Note only that the earliest accounts of this were written years after the alleged incident, and the records of the various apostles differ on many details. Personally I believe that Jesus did exist and was an inspiration to those around him, but I doubt that he in any way claimed he was God. The whole Trinity idea was syncretised into his teachings centuries after he died."
"More importantly, I think it's important to consider that you don't need religion to be moral and ethical, and you don't need religion to understand what an absolute miracle that you should exist to be able to observe the world in all its beauty and splendour."
***
my views:
i dont think the first argument necessarily refutes belief in religion. as i understand the arbiter's argument, the theist is almost/just as rigorous as the atheist in rejecting a great number of religions, and the basis for the theist's belief is the bigoted upbringing he had in it. this bigoted upbringing cannot objectively account for the theist's disbelief in the legion other religions, and hence his belief in his own religion cannot stand. (please forgive any defective understanding!!)
But if someone were to go beyond the usual theistic approach and take a good, reasoned, logical look at each religion, and then come to a good, sound conclusion, then the massive number of other religions which he has disproved supports the basis for the religion he has objectively and scientifically chosen, because he has taken a look with an eye neither bigoted nor biased by upbringing or the concept of faith.
i definitely agree with using the resurrection episode as one of the key bases for belief/disbelief. evidence from without the four gospels must be sought, evidence preferably not of one of his followers. but then there are so many more arent there? there is francis collins' interpretation of the genome (when i finish reading that book in maybe 20 years we can talk more about non overlapping magisteria!), there is the whole pandora's box of apologetics, there is CS lewis' argument on moral law, there is dawkins' vitriol on any possible aspect of the subject.. but more later!
lastly i agree with the arbiter about not needing religion to live a happy, full, moral life. im all for a fully humanistic experience of the world, where we do things for the people who count in our lives and matter to us (i remember thinking about this before my first post!) but we must be careful, i think, because the fact that it is irrelevant does not disprove religion and should not hinder one's search and ultimately, adherence to the authority of reason if a religion is ever proved true.
cheers! happy new year
anyway, these are arbiter's comments:
***
"Hi. You don't know me but I happened to chance upon your post. To me the only good reason anybody needs to disprove religious belief is the sheer number of religions in the world. To overuse an oft-repeated slogan, an atheist only believes in one less god than a theist (or a hundred billion if that theist is hindu, but that's outside the point). There is absolutely no basis for preferring one religion over another except that its the one you came into contact with."
"As for Christianity, the only rational basis for belief is the account of Christ's resurrection. Note only that the earliest accounts of this were written years after the alleged incident, and the records of the various apostles differ on many details. Personally I believe that Jesus did exist and was an inspiration to those around him, but I doubt that he in any way claimed he was God. The whole Trinity idea was syncretised into his teachings centuries after he died."
"More importantly, I think it's important to consider that you don't need religion to be moral and ethical, and you don't need religion to understand what an absolute miracle that you should exist to be able to observe the world in all its beauty and splendour."
***
my views:
i dont think the first argument necessarily refutes belief in religion. as i understand the arbiter's argument, the theist is almost/just as rigorous as the atheist in rejecting a great number of religions, and the basis for the theist's belief is the bigoted upbringing he had in it. this bigoted upbringing cannot objectively account for the theist's disbelief in the legion other religions, and hence his belief in his own religion cannot stand. (please forgive any defective understanding!!)
But if someone were to go beyond the usual theistic approach and take a good, reasoned, logical look at each religion, and then come to a good, sound conclusion, then the massive number of other religions which he has disproved supports the basis for the religion he has objectively and scientifically chosen, because he has taken a look with an eye neither bigoted nor biased by upbringing or the concept of faith.
i definitely agree with using the resurrection episode as one of the key bases for belief/disbelief. evidence from without the four gospels must be sought, evidence preferably not of one of his followers. but then there are so many more arent there? there is francis collins' interpretation of the genome (when i finish reading that book in maybe 20 years we can talk more about non overlapping magisteria!), there is the whole pandora's box of apologetics, there is CS lewis' argument on moral law, there is dawkins' vitriol on any possible aspect of the subject.. but more later!
lastly i agree with the arbiter about not needing religion to live a happy, full, moral life. im all for a fully humanistic experience of the world, where we do things for the people who count in our lives and matter to us (i remember thinking about this before my first post!) but we must be careful, i think, because the fact that it is irrelevant does not disprove religion and should not hinder one's search and ultimately, adherence to the authority of reason if a religion is ever proved true.
cheers! happy new year
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
response
this post seems messy and disjointed because it is in response to several responses to a previous post.
i think i get what ryan means about kierkegaard and christianity being real for you.
my goal is to prove or disprove god, using reason. if god is proven to exist, although i presently say i will dutifully submit to logic and give god due credit, i must admit i will struggle with making god real in my life; what difference will god's being make on a persons life in real terms, especially if they were a strong practitioner of, as ryan mentioned, human, secular love?
and another can of worms: it will be difficult reconciling several aspects of christianity such as god's jealousy and pride and insistence on sending non believers to eternal damnation.
in the light of all this, does the duty to logic still hold? im leaning towards yes.
***
about proof for god: one should not and indeed cannot take the bible as a starting point to prove the bible: the argument becomes circular, ie 'the bible is true because the bible, which is true, tells me the bible is true".
we need to step out of the bubble, out of the truth framework the bible has constructed. the premise for god needs to come from a source that Doesnt claim gods presence in the first place.
its like the matrix. or plato's cave. one needs to step out of the matrix/cave to gain a clearer picture of reality, before making a sound and reasoned judgement on the nature of the universe. (apologies, i know plato's cave is slightly out of context here)
***
about love, sin and free will: is free choice to believe really a free choice? granted, we have the choice when we are here on earth, but with eternal damnation in a lake of fire and brimstone, "in the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", as a disincentive, id say we arent really free are we.
also, there is a lack of proof supplied by god in the first place. why does he hide in the shadows, when he could just give evidence of his existence, and let people choose from there whether they want to be his? is un-informed choice really free choice?
does god love us so much that he is prepared to look beyond us not worshipping him, and spare us from hell? or does he love himself more? he says clearly that non believers will burn. even though he sent jesus to die for us.
what about sin? i will say, the concept of sin has probably done a lot of good for human behaviour insofar as it governs human-human relations. when you reach the greatest commandment, "worship the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might", and you consider that, i paraphrase, "all work for man should be for god", and also consider the generational sin of adam and eve, it gets really tricky.
if i do not live my life to glorify god but to glorify valuable human life, is that sin? in gods eyes, yes, it is. so sinful a travesty is it, in fact, that one could spend eternity in fire and brimstone for it.
this is not an atheist rant. im searching, and i admit i struggle with the above, but the duty to logic still holds. this is a real issue about people that needs to be seriously addressed, not brushed off with the sunday school answer of: "for my ways are higher than your ways".
i think i get what ryan means about kierkegaard and christianity being real for you.
my goal is to prove or disprove god, using reason. if god is proven to exist, although i presently say i will dutifully submit to logic and give god due credit, i must admit i will struggle with making god real in my life; what difference will god's being make on a persons life in real terms, especially if they were a strong practitioner of, as ryan mentioned, human, secular love?
and another can of worms: it will be difficult reconciling several aspects of christianity such as god's jealousy and pride and insistence on sending non believers to eternal damnation.
in the light of all this, does the duty to logic still hold? im leaning towards yes.
***
about proof for god: one should not and indeed cannot take the bible as a starting point to prove the bible: the argument becomes circular, ie 'the bible is true because the bible, which is true, tells me the bible is true".
we need to step out of the bubble, out of the truth framework the bible has constructed. the premise for god needs to come from a source that Doesnt claim gods presence in the first place.
its like the matrix. or plato's cave. one needs to step out of the matrix/cave to gain a clearer picture of reality, before making a sound and reasoned judgement on the nature of the universe. (apologies, i know plato's cave is slightly out of context here)
***
about love, sin and free will: is free choice to believe really a free choice? granted, we have the choice when we are here on earth, but with eternal damnation in a lake of fire and brimstone, "in the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", as a disincentive, id say we arent really free are we.
also, there is a lack of proof supplied by god in the first place. why does he hide in the shadows, when he could just give evidence of his existence, and let people choose from there whether they want to be his? is un-informed choice really free choice?
does god love us so much that he is prepared to look beyond us not worshipping him, and spare us from hell? or does he love himself more? he says clearly that non believers will burn. even though he sent jesus to die for us.
what about sin? i will say, the concept of sin has probably done a lot of good for human behaviour insofar as it governs human-human relations. when you reach the greatest commandment, "worship the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might", and you consider that, i paraphrase, "all work for man should be for god", and also consider the generational sin of adam and eve, it gets really tricky.
if i do not live my life to glorify god but to glorify valuable human life, is that sin? in gods eyes, yes, it is. so sinful a travesty is it, in fact, that one could spend eternity in fire and brimstone for it.
this is not an atheist rant. im searching, and i admit i struggle with the above, but the duty to logic still holds. this is a real issue about people that needs to be seriously addressed, not brushed off with the sunday school answer of: "for my ways are higher than your ways".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)