Atheism, Logical?

['ol Perfessor]

, you are absolutely correct. Though perhaps not in the way in which you want to be. Atheists tend to rely on science for their views of the world, and science, as yet, is utterly unable to provide the answer as to how the world began, and what forced the world to be the way that it is.

Note, sirs that as science has progressed so has religion. From the worship of the biggest rock to the astounding leap of a belief in one God; to todays revelations that to live is to sin and that salvation is offered to all that live and breathe. Indeed there have been changes not in God but in mans capacity to understand God.
To paraphrase both Aquinus and Augustine there is no conflict between science and religion.

Ultimately, I would argue against the accuracy of any established religion due to another simple but crucial observation – there has never been a convergence of religions between geographically isolated societies, while they remained geographically isolated.


As I state above there is only a difference of the capacity to understand in those disparate peoples. Religion, based on the civilizations worldview,( like the Azteks bloodlust and subsequent human sacrificial religion as excuse for eternal war),is a constant in civilized society.

 

[rei_t_ex]

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]Note, sirs that as science has progressed so has religion. From the worship of the biggest rock to the astounding leap of a belief in one God; to todays revelations that to live is to sin and that salvation is offered to all that live and breathe.[/QUOTE]
While it is true to point out that newer religions tend to be somewhat more advanced than older ones (in particular due to a greater preoccupation with the metaphysical rather than rudimentary banalities of solar motion/seasons/elements/crop growing etc.), the particular religions in and of themselves have changed little. I would hesitate to believe that a Christian in 200 CE, if transported to the present day would struggle with identifying current Christianity for what it is, and vice versa. Moreover, it is also highly dubious in my mind that new major religions will emerge any time soon, if ever. Hence, the evolution of religious views is likely, by and large, complete. Sure, some things will be tweaked, especially with the expanding body of scientific knowledge, but fundamental paradigm shifts in religious are highly unlikely.

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]To paraphrase both Aquinus and Augustine there is no conflict between science and religion.[/QUOTE]
I would never argue against that. In my mind, religion and science deal with very different and non-overlapping phenomena. There simply cannot be any conflict, since there is no interaction. Conflict may emerge if people attempt to use religion to describe the physical world (rather than keeping it strictly metaphysical, as they should). Conflict may also emerge if people are to claim that religious beliefs are rational. They are not. That does not necessitate that they are untrue (indeed, at one point in human history, our body of knowledge dictated the belief in a spherical Earth to be irrational), but they most certainly are irrational.

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]As I state above there is only a difference of the capacity to understand in those disparate peoples. Religion, based on the civilizations worldview,(like the Azteks bloodlust and subsequent human sacrificial religion as excuse for eternal war),is a constant in civilized society.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that I follow. If religion, as it is understood and practiced by different societies at different times, is simply a subjective interpretation, what is it a subjective interpretation of? What is it that remains constant? A belief in a higher power? If so, how would you know that said belief is actually constant, and not simply a particular societal interpretation that has just so far never been largely modified or replaced?

 

[Deornwulf]

A philosopher once did a logic test chart to prove why it was illogical to not believe in a god. The test assigned simple values to the results of how one's life and afterlife would conclude based on one's belief or non-belief and whether or not there actually was indeed a god. The belief and non-belief lives resulted in a zero if there was no god but the non-believer's life ended up with a negative one if there was a god while the believer's life ended up with a positive one if there was a god.

Basically, this philosopher proved it was illogical to not believe in a god.

 

[Zhukov]

That sounds kind of.............well, stupid, for lack of a better word.

I don't supose you could provide a little more information, either about the philosopher, or preferably about the 'simple values' used?

 

[Deornwulf]

It was a presentation of Blaise Pascal's Wager that I heard in a Philosphy course in college.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know that to the extent that faith instills hope, it should effect all aspects of a person. Often it does. Maybe logical is not what he means, but beneficial.

 

[rei_t_ex]

A philosopher once did a logic test chart to prove why it was illogical to not believe in a god. The test assigned simple values to the results of how one's life and afterlife would conclude based on one's belief or non-belief and whether or not there actually was indeed a god. The belief and non-belief lives resulted in a zero if there was no god but the non-believer's life ended up with a negative one if there was a god while the believer's life ended up with a positive one if there was a god.

If you believe in God is only to secure yourself a more pleasant afterlife and God indeed exists, I sincerely doubt that you would achieve your aims. After all, your faith was highly selfish, contrary to what faith should be. If you have faith for other reasons, then that faith is irrational. Again, this is not to say anything negative about faith.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you believe in God is only to secure yourself a more pleasant afterlife and God indeed exists, I sincerely doubt that you would achieve your aims.

Why?

After all, your faith was highly selfish, contrary to what faith should be. If you have faith for other reasons, then that faith is irrational. Again, this is not to say anything negative about faith.

How is selfish faith irrational?

 

[Zhukov]

It was a presentation of Blaise Pascal's Wager that I heard in a Philosphy course in college.

Ok, yes. This is the argument that says you may as well believe in God because if their isn't one you lose nothing and if there is then you guessed right, yay for you.

Unfortunately making such a decision does not equal faith.

If there were a God, I would think he'd be able to distinguish between the faithful and the false.

Therefore, in my opinion, the entire premise of Pascal's wager is flawed.

 

[nakedemperor]

Ok, yes. This is the argument that says you may as well believe in God because if their isn't one you lose nothing and if there is then you guessed right, yay for you.

Unfortunately making such a decision does not equal faith.

If there were a God, I would think he'd be able to distinguish between the faithful and the false.

Therefore, in my opinion, the entire premise of Pascal's wager is flawed.

Is there a difference, from the perspective of "logic", between not believing in A god as being illogical or not believing in THE (christian) god? Just in terms of the context of this discussion-- the answer could be different for different people.

 

[Deornwulf]

One could extend Pascal's wager and argue that faith would follow belief if believing meant following the tenets of a religion. Of course, the point is moot if one chooses to believe in the wrong god as suggested by Naked.

 

[5stringJeff]

Is there a difference, from the perspective of "logic", between not believing in A god as being illogical or not believing in THE (christian) god? Just in terms of the context of this discussion-- the answer could be different for different people.

I think Pascal devised the whole thing around the premise that the Christian God was the true God, and that the religion's claims were mutually exclusive with other religions - i.e. either one is a Christian and goes to heaven or one is not a Christian and goes to hell. In other words, the exclusivity of Christianity is built into Pascal's Wager. Therefore, I don't know that it could be transferred onto another belief system, unless that system had similar exclusivity.

 

[rei_t_ex]

rtwngAvngr,

Belief in God not because you are thankful to him for his patronage but simply because you wish to avoid the bowels of Hell, is akin to giving to charity in order to keep more money from the resultant tax-break. While such actions may perfectly fine in terms of human law, and such selfish motives hidden from human view, I am yet to come across a religion that portrays its deity as condoning such actions. Certainly, there are plenty of warnings against this in the Bible.

As to faith being irrational, it is irrational because there is no observable or quantifiable experience that can only be explained with the notion of God. There are certainly things that we cannot rationally explain, but those things are just as easily explained by other far-fetched flights of fantasy, as they are with any religious notions.

 

[Zhukov]

Is there a difference, from the perspective of "logic", between not believing in A god as being illogical or not believing in THE (christian) god? Just in terms of the context of this discussion-- the answer could be different for different people.

Well I read the original post of this thread as exclusive to the Christian God because of proofs and what not; the point the original poster made was simply that it was illogical to reject those proofs.

Pascal's Wager, on the other hand, could conceivably apply to any religion where there existed some sort of punishment for non-belief; therefore one should logically choose to believe to avoid that punishment.

One could extend Pascal's wager and argue that faith would follow belief if believing meant following the tenets of a religion.

But is there, in reality, any faith where simple adherence to the rules is sufficient?

 

[dilloduck]

Well I read the original post of this thread as exclusive to the Christian God because of proofs and what not; the point the original poster made was simply that it was illogical to reject those proofs.

Pascal's Wager, on the other hand, could conceivably apply to any religion where there existed some sort of punishment for non-belief; therefore one should logically choose to believe to avoid that punishment.


But is there, in reality, any faith where simple adherence to the rules is sufficient?

There are some that simply infer that by not adhering you will be more uncomfortable as a consequence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwngAvngr,

Belief in God not because you are thankful to him for his patronage but simply because you wish to avoid the bowels of Hell, is akin to giving to charity in order to keep more money from the resultant tax-break. While such actions may perfectly fine in terms of human law, and such selfish motives hidden from human view, I am yet to come across a religion that portrays its deity as condoning such actions. Certainly, there are plenty of warnings against this in the Bible.

So you're not saying it's irrational, you're saying it's immoral.

As to faith being irrational, it is irrational because there is no observable or quantifiable experience that can only be explained with the notion of God. There are certainly things that we cannot rationally explain, but those things are just as easily explained by other far-fetched flights of fantasy, as they are with any religious notions.

yeah. well. that's faith for you.

 

[rei_t_ex]

So you're not saying it's irrational, you're saying it's immoral.

I am saying that faith is inherently irrational/illogical, and any attempts to make it rational necessitate faith to become immoral. Only in relation to our current body of knowledge, of course.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am saying that faith is inherently irrational/illogical, and any attempts to make it rational necessitate faith to become immoral. Only in relation to our current body of knowledge, of course.

I'm sorry. Maybe it's me, but this makes no sense.

 

[5stringJeff]

I am saying that faith is inherently irrational/illogical, and any attempts to make it rational necessitate faith to become immoral. Only in relation to our current body of knowledge, of course.

I disagree. I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe it to be true.

I have faith in Jesus as the Christ. Why? I have the Bible, which tells me that Jesus was the Christ. I have history to look at, which tells me that Jesus' followers proclaimed Him as the Christ. I have the church, which (as history says) has been around for 2000 years or so, proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ. I also have many non-Christian references to the Christian faith, showing that the faith has been around for a long time. I also have many arguments for the historical facts that surround Christianity (i.e. facts about Jesus' life, His death, and His resurrection). All those things are evidence that I use to make a decision to believe in the tenets of Christianity. With that, I am forced to believe, on faith, some things that I can't determine. For example, I have never seen God. But I believe that He exists, based on the evidence on Christianity. I have never seen heaven, or angels, or demons, but I believe they exist as well, for the same reason. So I take these things which I have not (and cannot) observe on faith, because I do have some evidence about some parts of Christianity which causes me to believe.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So i guess what he meant is it's wrong to try to verify religion rationally. Why would it be? That's crazy. We're all mixtures of fact, reason and faith.

There is faith on the left too. Science is hardly in agreement that our ways will ruin the world, yet envirowackjobs preach it like the gospel, and anyone who tries to verify their faith, is demonized.