In reply to C-h Freese (msg # 371):

Like I said, it's Heath that's arguing faith and knowledge can't coexist, not me.

His view seems to be that you have to believe that something is true before you can find out whether it is true.  Or, at least in the case of God's existence he does...I'm assuming he doesn't think it applies anywhere else.

As for faith and the assumptions that go into logic, I think they're not quite the same.  You don't have to be believe an assumption is true to use logic.  Intro to logic courses are full of examples that start with assumptions that we don't believe, to get us into the habit of just using the rules of logic to determine what does and doesn't follow from an assumption.  For example "All men are immortal; Heath is a man; Therefore Heath is immortal" is an entirely valid logical syllogism, despite the fact that we don't actually think all men are immortal.  We don't have to believe the assumption to follow it to its conclusion.

Following a similar line of reasoning, I would argue we can say things like "Okay, lets assume God exists.  Then X should follow, and from that Y should follow, and from those Z should be true."  And then we could look to see whether Z was actually true, and use that to learn whether or not our initial assumption was a good one or not.  Heath would argue we (or at least I!) cannot do that, because it only works if we actually believe God exists.  God, Heath tells us, intentionally hides evidence of his existence from those who don't already believe in him, but gives all kinds of convincing evidence to those who do.

Heath's position is that it's critically important to believe in God before you see evidence for his existence.  It's like going to a trial, and the judge telling the jury "We'd like you to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty.  After you do, I'll have to lawyers present their evidence so you can see that you were right."  To me, Heath's version of God seems too much like someone who insists you have to sign the document before you read it--you'll have plenty of time to inspect the fine print after the deal is made, but you simply must not read it before hand.

I don't see any reason why a real God would demand belief before providing evidence.  I DO see reasons why a false religion would demand it, and claim their god demands it.

There were a great many people who believed their god would rescue them, or their children/family/friends, from the hell and torture of the holocaust. Truly and utterly believed it. Then they found out that it was indeed not true when they watched their children burned alive or used as living medical experiments.

Guess they found out the answer.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 373):

No.. they didn't..
To prove any truth requires Logic..  And by definition logic requires a foundation of "Assumptions".  Which can NOT be proved.

That does not mean you can't be convinced of truth, If you look at the DISC personality profile you will find the three other forms of finding truth.

D ~ Dominant; What I say is true, is truth, now.[ often used by the military to save lives ]
I ~ Internalized; What feels right is truth
S ~ Social; What everyone believes is true, is truth
C ~ Calculator; What can be reasoned from logical processes, is Truth.

Yes.. I know the titles may not be right but that is how I remember them.
I also know that people denigrate the DISC personality profile as not a "personality" profile.. the point is it is mainly used in Sales, as I understand it, to help to convince others of "truth".

The problem is a High "C" will realize that all of the required assumptions, will come from the other three roots of truth.

None.. of the four roots are Perfect since we are limited to a Finite comprehension.
But the all actually work in a practical world.

Just because that would Convince You.. has no meaning to those living through it.. It may convince them It may not.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:23, Sat 25 Nov 2017.

In reply to C-h Freese (msg # 374):

I am sure the parent watching their child be disemboweled would find the discussion of the DISC profile fascinating.

In reply to C-h Freese (msg # 374):

I don't really have much disagreement with what you're saying there, but I think you'd struggle to get most religious people to actually agree that their faith is in any of the categories other than C.  If religious people would say "I just assume a priori that God exists," I'd largely view that as progress.  In part because once one acknowledges something as an assumption, one doesn't try to convince anyone else that it's true--they either also assume it or they don't.

Find and identifying the different assumptions we all start with, and how they lead us to different conclusions is what really interests me about these kinds of religious discussions.  But I find that people tend to be very reluctant to have their assumptions made explicit.

And again, I think it's important to remember that you can apply logic to assumptions that you don't necessarily believe.  While assumptions are by definition accepted without supporting evidence (and thus cannot be proven), the rules of logic can be used to test whether a given set of assumptions are consistent.  So it is sometimes possible to show that at least one assumption in a given set must be false, because a contradiction can be derived from the set.  So "I believe in this by assumption--you cannot question it!" isn't really a get-out-of-jail free card.  Put another way, while we may not be able to prove or disprove God's existence, we can ask whether God's existence (and the qualities they are assumed to have) are consistent with the observations we make.  It sort of feels to me like you're trying to say that because we require assumptions, we may as well just call it a day and consider all positions on anything as equally likely.  Sort of like "hey, they feel it's true, so lets say that's there assumption, and just stop there," which I don't think is going to get us very far.

The problem with DISC as you laid it out, is that it excludes truth itself. Something can be true even if no one commands it, no one feels it is, most people don't believe it, and it hasn't been proven.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 377):

But that is not truth at all, much less Truth.. it is existence and has much less direct meaning to the senses since so much isn't.  Truth is like limits in calculus it Exists but getting there is the practical problem.
. . Truth is the subset that a finite and fallible mind can contain of the Full set of existence.

 Unless of course you posit the existence of an infinite mind..

The fact is the fallible subset is actually more real to us then existence it's self.

I feel like a moron because I have read your last post about 6 times and have no idea what it means C-h Freese.

Sometimes I feel that these philosophical discussions on theoretical understandings of truth etc etc, just really need to be weighed against the real life experiences of people.

When discussing the existence of a god, many jewish people prayed that they or their family/friends would be rescued. They were not. The conclusions from that are what interest me - and ultimately what led me to give up all belief and faith in any god.

Either this god could not hear them, chose not to answer them, or does not exist. If people experiencing some of the greatest suffering in known history cannot reliably get safety from this god, then it's of no practical value in my opinion.

Could a god that appears to be the exact same thing as non-god exist? Sure. But since that god is identical to non-god (at best - at worst this god could be far more evil and horrific than a world with no god) then I see no reason why I would base a life upon the belief that it exists.

Now, the interesting thing to me is that it still allows the option to believe in god. As my wife does. It's just clearly not for any reason that is logical, but rather purely based on faith. And I am ok with that as long as it's laid out in the open. There is no convincing needed, but merely the acceptance that it is not a reasonable decision, but an emotional one that makes an individual feel good.

I actually feel like it would be great if there were some god that was going to set it all right in the end and redeem the entire universe. I just can't logically go there and so cannot trick myself into living a life based on that idea. If I was able to take a pill and rewire my brain to believe it, would I?  I really don't know. There is something awfully nice about living the delusion that it's all going to pan out in the end. That the children who have been abducted and used as sex slaves their entire lives will one day have an eternity where they are redeemed and given a glorious life. It's a beautiful idea, but just not rooted in anything outside of total and blind faith.

So, I am choosing to suck as much life and experience out of what I can only assume is my one and only shot at these few spins around the sun. Because when it's over, that's it.

In reply to Tycho (msg # 376):

Tycho, this is one thing I do like about the Catholic faith. There are a number of beliefs which are labeled as assumptions, and that's that. Sometimes they say why (for example, Mary as a Virgin is accepted as canon, because a pope said it's true owing to it already being a common belief. That's it! Don't like it? Well tough luck, it's part of the package).

Then several great thinkers moved on from that to ask the tough questions of 'if this is true, what does that mean? What does it permit?' Aquinas did a fantastic amount of work. Augustine, who I disagree with on just about everything, also really pushed the bounds of religious knowledge based on logic. I had a good friend who worked at NASA who specifically said he's Catholic because of how internally consistent it is.

The big issue we hit though is that philosophy does not have the same rigor of proof as mathematics. The RCC specifically relies a lot on Natural Law, which states the morality of an action is based in part on if an item or action is in line with God's purpose for it. Atheists don't get a pass on this either--relying on utilitarianism or social vote or whatever to determine moral action. Regardless, it brings up a flaw in our reasoning--that no matter the philosophy, even building off recognized assumptions, we will be making logical leaps which are not totally justifiable.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 379):

I have to disagree with you on this one.



This makes an assumption as well, that the suffering and death in our mortal world is of any measure compared to things outside. Especially when religion brings in concepts like infinity. No amount of suffering in life can compare to an infinity of even mild happiness.

(I do also think it would be pretty interesting if, on the last day, God comes down and says "yeah, that whole thing about being all-powerful and moving mountains was hyperbole, guys. I'm pretty super, but I couldn't just end world wars." I do think the definition of how 'all-powerful' God is seems to be a major stickler for religion in general, and as our imagination gets wider, that problem gets worse.)

You could be right. The best part about faith, when I had it, was the idea that all was going to be set right in the end. It was extremely hopeful.

I don't see how the possibility of a future 'all will be made well' situation, actually changes the logic of prayer. If no person in history can reliably get answers, regardless of their circumstances, then of what value is it?

If people who don't pray get saved at the same rate as people who do, and people who pray have no way of knowing whether their prayers will actually save them or not, then I have to ask again. Of what practical value is it in life?

This was the question that ultimately killed any faith I had.

A world that has some sort of god is identical to a world that does not have a god. Since faith is the only thing that can lead someone to believe in a god, and it is not based on anything in reality, then I had no choice but to say it was of no value.

EDIT: Let me just say that it actually frees me up to see those who have faith, not as lesser people, or as intellectually inferior to me, but just as people who are wired differently. People who can take blind faith and let it be the force with which they organize their entire lives. It makes no sense to me, but I am married to someone who sees it as completely workable for her. I have come to terms with the fact that we are just different. As long as my life is not forced to change due to these types of folks (say through public policy governed by faith decisions) then I am wonderfully happy letting them live their lives in the way that they choose.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:54, Wed 29 Nov 2017.

" If no person in history can reliably get answers, regardless of their circumstances, then of what value is it?"
\
By that argument, I shouldn't believe in the library because when I look for a particular book I want, they don't reliably have it :)

Although I guess you're right, if there's no change in finding books at a library compared to NOT going to the library, there isn't a lot going for it.

Even if one does not receive answers to prayer (which is not what I espouse), from a physiological, emotional and psychiatric perspective, prayer has a positive effect on a person, just like meditation but with the added hope of not just relaxing but thinking it will result in some positive outcome--blessings, wish fulfillment, etc.  So it is beneficial regardless.

But does prayer require faith? Studies have shown that placebos can have positive effects for recovery and pain management, even when the patient knows it's just a placebo.

Prayer without faith is meditation or talking a problem through, which is psychologically healthy, I think.  But I think to be "prayer," faith is part of it's definition (or at least 'hope'), or else it can't be called "prayer."

But you need to already be a believer to have that faith. There's no way to force yourself to believe and thus get any extra 'faith' benefits from prayer.

I think you're missing the point. If the benefits of prayer are equivalent to the benefits of meditation + wishful thinking, I don't know that prayer has a whole lot going for it, and again having religious faith seems equivalent than not (until God comes down and proves things one way or the other).

While disagreeing with all the responses above (^_^), I don't think prayer requires faith. You can hope for a response from someone you don't trust or even believe in. Though I admit you'd consider that hope a long shot in such a case.

As a digression, though, I think 'pray' has to be a transitive verb. That is to say, you have to pray to someone. That makes it different than meditation or talking through a problem.

Heath can clarify, but I assume he meant faith the person you're praying to exists (not so much faith that your request will be perfectly granted). I know a lot of Christians who pray "your will be done" knowing they're probably not going to get what they want.

It's certainly one aspect I find so odd post-faith, but was so normal at the time.

Praying for something, truly believing that my prayers had some effect on reality.  It's so absurd to me now, but at the time was the most normal thing ever.

Makes me wonder what things I will look back on in my life now, in 10 years, and shake my head at!

When I say "faith," I mean that faith is an experiment.

I think it would be foolish for a mortal to think that an almighty God would change His will or bend it to meet the selfish desires of an individual.  Selfless desires...maybe.

Rather, faith is about gaining access to a higher covenant.  For example, if God says you will receive a certain benefit by following a certain rule with faith, then faith is experimenting on that with belief (or hope) that God will follow through on His promise.

I never use faith in the sense that we ask for something we want and expect God to give it to us.  Rather, faith is for us to reach a higher level of enlightenment or saving grace.

I gotta admit, that explanation sort of loses me... Faith is participating in an agreement we didn't create, with an individual we've never met, in the hopes that should we put all in, he'll both exist, and also pay up?

What do you call that, then, if not faith?  If I recall correctly, doing that, and getting what you asked for is one of the reasons you're confident that your belief is correct, no?

In the past I think you've told us that you've asked for illnesses to go away, or the weather to change, and its happened.  In those cases, do you feel God changed his will or bent it to meet your desires?

The key is whether it is selfish and whether it fits in God's will.  I do not believe God's will is subject to one and only one possibility, but He is compassionate and where those asking are asking something that fits within His will, he provides.

For example, the Israelites are wandering the wilderness without food.  They pray and have faith, and it is God's will to provide mana.  Had they not prayed and had faith, His will would not have been able to be exercised because they failed their end...to ask.  But had it been mana, loaves and fishes, or whatever, there is not necessarily just one outcome that fits inside His Will.  His Will was to "provide" for his people.  The manner they are provided for is up to them.  Don't think of his Will as a certain set of events that must take place, but instead as principles and ultimate goals based on humility, selflessness and an eye toward goodness.

Katisara:  You did not restate what I said correctly.

It is not an agreement until the offer is accepted.  By exercising faith, one is accepting an offer from God which then becomes a binding covenant on both parties.

If I offer you a million dollars and all you have to do is come to my house to accept it, would you do it?  God makes offers, and exercising faith is the way we accept those offers.  Then they become binding promises.

We obviously don't create the "offer" to God for salvation because we are not the ones possessing the ability to grant salvation to ourselves, just like offering someone a million dollars if you don't have it.

"would not have been able"?

What does that mean? God is omnipotent. Do you actually mean "not able" or is this a "would chosen have not to intercede"? (Not a trick question, it just legitimately seems very odd to me, and totally contrary to everything about God I'd read before.)



I'm not sure I see your point here. I said faith is participating in an agreement. You say it's an agreement after it's accepted. If you have faith, I think it's implied you accepted. Am I missing something? Should I have said "faith is accepting an agreement"?




I think this proves my point more than yours. No, if an anonymous person on the Internet sent me an address and said "go here for a million dollars", I would not do that. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either.



I agree with that. My understanding of what you're saying is 'participating in'. God creates the terms, you agree to the terms, you are now in the agreement. Is that not correct?