[lit-ideas] Re: Faith

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:08:22 -0400

> > This is very interesting although seemingly incompatible. Can there
> > be ANY  acts but rational (i.e. decisive) ones?
>
>Of course.  That is impetuous or impulsive behavior.

Which, according to modern knowledge of physiology STILL have a rational 
cause: "I think (or at least feel), therefore I do". Whether you 
consciously say to yourself "I think I'm going to reach out for that really 
nice ripe raspberry and eat it" before you do so is immaterial. That IS 
what is happening. Your hand went out, you ate the fruit, you liked it. 
Very simple bio-feedback there I would say.

> > Apparently, I suppose with faith, any degree of rationality MUST be 
> completely ignored.
>
>How so?  Why are they mutually exclusive?

Because, as I define faith, it is a belief/hope/understanding that 
something is true without ANY proof whatsoever. It's even MORE nebulous 
than liking chocolate ice cream.

> > This explains to me how intelligent people (and especially scientific 
> people) can possibly be
> > religious.
>
>Yet, is this hypothesis confirmed by religious people themselves?

Well to tell you the truth, I've been asking religious people WHY they 
believe for 25 years and NEVER have I gotten an answer that is intelligible 
or anything other than a circular argument "because HE MUST exist."

>Have you heard religious scientists say that rationality must be 
>ignored?  I doubt it.

Not explicitly, but then again, every atheistic-leaning person must give 
myriad reasons why he DOESN'T believe, while every religious person is 
given a free pass of 'sorry, I can't explain it.' That's because there IS 
NO EXPLANATION for believing in religion other than, "The Bible is God's 
Word" or "The Qura'an is the holy word as revealed to Mohammed" or whatever 
faery tale happens to be perpetuated in your neck of the woods. The 
Religion one believes in is LARGELY, merely an accident of birth and 
geography without much influence of DNA-potentiality and YES, I HAVE read 
Dean Hamer's "the God Gene" and am still unconvinced by his specious 
arguments.

>You can't on the one hand say you are trying to understand faith and then 
>posit that faith MUST be what you think
>with imperfect data.

Does anyone understand faith? Is it even understandable? Can YOU define 
what faith is? Can you tell me why you are a believer? CAN ANYONE write me 
a 500 word essay on why they believe in their particular religion? I bet 
you, I will NOT get one single reply. It's been my experience that I don't.

Again, I'm not saying that the natural, almost universal longing for the 
hope of an explanation to 'all this' throughout recorded history is bunk. 
I'm saying that _religions_ are organized, in some cases, useful mythology 
that help hordes of people come to terms with life. Their truth values seem 
to be irrelevant. The "reason" that people ACTUALLY believe any one of them 
and completely live their life according to them is itself a mystery to me. 
And it's a mystery to them too apparently.

> > It can, in fact be the ONLY explanation.
>
>Why?  Because it is the only one you can think of or the only one
>that's been offered?  The latter certainly isn't true.

Where are these explanations that have been offered? Can you give me a list 
of sources? Or are you talking about in this forum?

What I said [in full] was "Apparently, I suppose with faith, any degree of 
rationality MUST be completely ignored. This explains to me how intelligent 
people (and especially scientific people) can possibly be religious. It 
can, in fact be the ONLY explanation."

What I was getting at is that IF one who is religious begins to try to tell 
me WHY they believe, the begin sounding not only "not rational" but 
"irrational" in a hurry. Therefore, since they are OBVIOUSLY NOT silly in 
other ways, there must be some underlying 'non-rational' reason for them to 
believe. BUT... that doesn't make it legitimate or a good thing.

> > I'm very interested in this, but every time I try to bring up the
> > subject, those of you who ARE religious get offended. I mean no
> > offense, I  need an explanation.
>
>I'm not offended.  Let's talk.

talking, but hurriedly so,
paul

##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada 

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: