Balancing Skepticism and Faith

HansMustermann said:
I dunno about David, but MY problem with using that is that it's circular. Jesus is X because he says so himself. Technically what Jesus does there is a whole lot of ipse dixit fallacies, but those whose reason why the bible is true is that the bible says so are just doing circular reasoning. Ultimately it boils down to just asserting that the bible is true without any other support, which is to say it's just some handwaving to mask that it's an ipse dixit itself, rather than anything even vaguely resembling reason.
Click to expand...

Hi Hans. Yes, that's a very reasonable point/objection. I agree that faith and belief are choices, not logical conclusions. I think that's (at least in part) why many people of faith point primarily to feelings and experiences, rather than scripture or dogma as the basis of their faith, though they frequently revert to the latter to defend it.
 
Thor 2 said:
Yes I can see the Biblical justification for making claims of truth, but I think the loud and repeated statements betrays a lack of belief in that truth. If you look at the words mouthed by the clergy at funerals for example - "In sure and certain hope ........." you will see what I mean. If someone is sure and certain they shouldn't feel compelled to make such a claim.

Sure some do make authoritative statements outside a religious context although I try not to do this myself. Possibly I may do at times and please pull me up if I do. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you here Thor 2. I think there is a reasonable expectation of traditional words of comfort at a funeral, but I understand your point and I think it's a good one. I also think things like hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently are signs of a shaky foundation.

It's pretty hard to avoid asserting oneself overly authoritatively from time to time, especially on an on-line forum. I'll watch you for it if you'll do the same for me :)
 
attempt5001 said:
I also think things like hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently are signs of a shaky foundation.
Click to expand...
Yet religions that have applied their hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently (or don't have a belief) have survived on that "shaky foundation" for millennia ;).
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
I'm with you for the most part there David Mo, though I think the implied "reason" is wrapped up in the claim of Christ being God incarnate. Not sure exactly what you mean by "force of faith", but I agree, claims of absolute truth are one of the main dangers of religion.
Click to expand...

God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.
Click to expand...


Yes I have come upon this myself often.

When I make the observation that some biblical story makes no sense to me I am told you need faith to understand it.

- How do you get faith?
- By accepting the Bible as truth.

But of course you can't do that if it makes no sense to you as a non believer. As good a catch 22 as I have ever come across.
 
HansMustermann said:
Yeah, he did, although it's not a very original claim. Zoroastrianism had a big hardon about Truth long before Jesus.

Edit: and presenting religious nonsense as THE truth is even older. E.g., the Buddha's "4 noble truths." Oh-la-la, it must be not just truths, but NOBLE truths, because they say so themselves.

That said, it's one of those claims that don't make sense even semantically, because it needs one to reify one of the terms in that equality. It's like saying "my cat is the dreaming". What does it even mean?

And if you want to drag that other thread in, it's been a long standing observation of mine that there seems to be an equivalent of Gresham's law for religions. To wit, Gresham's law states that "bad money drives out good". Having read Mircea Eliade and generally looked a bit into several religions, it seems to me like the more stupid or crazy religions drive out the less stupid and crazy ones.

Or rather, that the madder the notions the people must believe, the more uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance, and the more they'll fight to push the madness upon others.
Click to expand...

Agreed that truth is a hard concept in theism in general, as are clear definitions of terms (all of which come back to an idea of God, who/which is also impossible to define in non-abstract terms).

I think I understand your Gresham's law idea, and have seen that too from time to time, though not as a rule, and again, not exclusively in religious contexts. (Of course, since religion is a human construct, it is inevitable that any behaviour that manifests in a religious context will also manifest in a non-religious context right?)
 
ynot said:
Yet religions that have applied their hate and anger and aggression towards people who believe differently (or don't have a belief) have survived on that "shaky foundation" for millennia ;).
Click to expand...

Ouch! Low blow. ;) As I've mentioned, I've been fortunate to experience more of a Gal. 5:22 "foundation" and my hope that religion and faith have a positive role to play in society lies in that direction. :)
 
David Mo said:
God's existence is either undemonstrable or contradictory. God's concept is abstruse. Nobody knows what is saying when he says that God is so and so. In reality, God's concept is only and undue extrapolation of natural properties of things.

Therefore, when you put the screws on a believer he inevitably ends replying that you lacks some kind of extra perception, you are unable of some superior comprehension or you cannot see with espiritual eyes... This is to say, you have not faith. Apparently, faith is an ability to grasp undoubted certainties that are only accessible to those who have faith. Naturally, faith does not serve to solve problems of physics or common sense. It only serves to solve heavenly problems or to communicate with God without needing to a telephone. Of course, like almost everything in religion, it's indefinable.

This happen with the most refined thinkers, reputed religious filosophers, etc. I just read the latest book by "the world's most famous atheist" -this is said in the cover--, Antony Flew. By the way, it is very bad.
Click to expand...

I think you're quite right that believers are trying to explain and describe things they don't understand and that this is inherent in the idea of faith. I get unnerved myself when people present their faith as being totally figured out and clear (or worse, try to (mis)use scientific terminology when discussing it). For some, this is simply repeating learned religious phrases, but I think many people also have what they perceive to be religious experiences and/or epiphanies and, not surprisingly, use the religious context of those experiences to try to understand and describe/explain them. This creates a situation where someone who has never had such an experience (not to mention a natural skeptic) will almost certainly be unsatisfied with any description/explanation, which leads to frustration on both sides and (unhelpful) phrases like "well I guess I have faith and you don't". :/
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
I think you're quite right that believers are trying to explain and describe things they don't understand and that this is inherent in the idea of faith. I get unnerved myself when people present their faith as being totally figured out and clear (or worse, try to (mis)use scientific terminology when discussing it). For some, this is simply repeating learned religious phrases, but I think many people also have what they perceive to be religious experiences and/or epiphanies and, not surprisingly, use the religious context of those experiences to try to understand and describe/explain them. This creates a situation where someone who has never had such an experience (not to mention a natural skeptic) will almost certainly be unsatisfied with any description/explanation, which leads to frustration on both sides and (unhelpful) phrases like "well I guess I have faith and you don't". :/
Click to expand...

We've all had got confusing experiences at one time or another. For example, around the moments before or after deep sleep. The Greeks turned them into Asclepian messages. Asclepius is not in fashion today. Therefore he doesn't send messages no more. Or nobody listens to them. :D

What is called faith is a variant of Asclepius' messages. It reaches some people through the TV screen. They even have conversations with the Virgin and the Saints. Dostoevsky had mystical experiences after epileptic attacks. Others, more cautious, say it is a transcendent experience.

The absurd thing is to name it and turn it into something out of the head. And even more, to dress up it in the clothes of our desires and fears. And even more, to claim superiority because others do not have that "transcendent" experience.
 
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...

You prepare income statements monthly and tithe accordingly because any perceived dishonesty has consequences. They group was small and self policing.

I was encouraged to join in the fun if it mattered to me to keep my job as the shop owner knew the way to glory. He had a mission to save me from a hollow existence that would lead to doom.

Being that his poor pay and constant preaching got in the way of my plans we parted ways and his old "converted" helper returned.

Both of us are happier now and still friends. Even if he knows his soul is superior to mine as Jesus has promised him glory to come.

You can't make this crap up. Or at least we shouldn't but in human history we do. Many times over. I just kind of wrote it off as he needs more salvation than others as his past isn"t very pretty from papers he left in his desk...
He feels greater need to fix past errors as his netted him jailtime when younger. Those who never see the extremes have less to adjust for.
 
Last edited:
8enotto said:
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...
You prepare income statements monthly and tithe accordingly because any perceived dishonesty has consequences. They group was small and self policing.

I was encouraged to join in the fun if it mattered to me to keep my job as the shop owner knew the way to glory. He had a mission to save me from a hollow existence that would lead to doom.

Being that his poor pay and constant preaching got in the way of my plans we parted ways and his old "converted" helper returned.

Both of us are happier now and still friends. Even if he knows his soul is superior to mine as Jesus has promised him glory to come.

You can't make this crap up. Or at least we shouldn't but in human history we do. Many times over. I just kind of wrote it off as he needs more salvation than others as his past isn"t very pretty from papers he left in his desk...
He feels greater need to fix past errors as his netted him jailtime when younger. Those who never see the extremes have less to adjust for.
Click to expand...


I posted a comment on this subject on the "Religious? Are you mad?" thread.

Your'e right, you just couldn't make this stuff up.:boggled:
 
8enotto said:
Some of the Christian based cults in Mexico kind of require you can pray yourself into a frenzy of sorts and talk in tongues. I have witnessed this. Those who failed this basic test are of doubtful faith...
Click to expand...
That's not an extreme cult behaviour. I witnessed and participated in this sort of thing in my suburban Canberra church in the 90s. Why does everyone think this is weird?
 
arthwollipot said:
That's not an extreme cult behaviour. I witnessed and participated in this sort of thing in my suburban Canberra church in the 90s. Why does everyone think this is weird?
Click to expand...
Perhaps that you don't think it is weird reflects how much this form of weird has been normalised in your brain.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
In what way does being "a thing" stop it from being "a weird thing"?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It's just that we have a different definition of "weird". For me, speaking in tongues and prophecying and all that is completely normal. It is weird to me that people don't understand that this is what goes on.
 
David Mo said:
Dostoevsky had mystical experiences after epileptic attacks.
Click to expand...

Just as a minor correction, which doesn't affect your larger point, but actually in epilepsy the "aura" moment always comes BEFORE the actual epilepsy attack. It's in fact the seizure on the way to the actual attack.
 
HansMustermann said:
Just as a minor correction, which doesn't affect your larger point, but actually in epilepsy the "aura" moment always comes BEFORE the actual epilepsy attack. It's in fact the seizure on the way to the actual attack.
Click to expand...

However, Dostoevsky places the state of blessedness at the end. At least in "Memories of the Dead House". This man was original even in that.
 
arthwollipot said:
It doesn't. It's just that we have a different definition of "weird". For me, speaking in tongues and prophecying and all that is completely normal. It is weird to me that people don't understand that this is what goes on.
Click to expand...
No, we are applying "weird" to different things.

People do understand what goes on (at least to a reasonable degree) and think that what goes on is weird. It's weird that you think they don't understand.

Here's ten weird religious practices. These practices are probably completely normal to those that practice them, are they completely normal to you, or are they weird?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom