It was an attempt to be brief rather than a dodge. It shows I do not hold certain Christian traditional beliefs. I believe we are primarily spiritual beings rather than physical. I believe we are all connected to God and each other equally. Since we are all spiritual then is that supernatural or is it our natural state? Since we are all equally connected to God and each other are we one and the same? I’m still learning. One of the Christian doctrines I object to is the language that places God out there and us as separate unworthy beings. I think when Christ said I am in the Father and the Father in me, and I and my Father are one, and when you do it unto the least of these you do it unto me, he was teaching basic truths that apply to all people equally.
Several ways
In studying the history of the Bible we see how it has been changed and manipulated by man for various reasons. A great resource but we have to keep in mind it’s imperfections. There are several things we can do. Study other writings such as the Nag Hammadi library. The Gospel of Thomas is said to be the sayings of Jesus. Study other religions with the idea that “seek and you will find” applies to all men in every culture and age. Those who sought the truth with a sincere heart and taught others have something to offer. It’s interesting to note the many similarities between what Buddha taught and what Jesus taught. Even more recently established religions can offer insights. Most importantly we have to trust our own connection to God within and use that to discover our own path amid all the tradition and various teachings. The essentials are in the Bible. Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth and the truth will set you free. Value the eternal qualities above the fleeting elements of life that decay with time.
I agree with that there is much to criticize about organized religion , Christian and otherwise. Too often they place more value on their own traditions than the truth . Yet it is part of the human journey and each person must walk their own path and surrender to the truth in their own time. I try to find a way to honor each persons right to choose while using interaction {like ours} to aide the growth process in myself and those I interact with.
I would have to say yes. It has become important to me to see the difference between “what I currently believe” and “what I know to be true” We must as people go forward based on what we currently believe but we can go forward with our minds and hearts open to new information and input. Not to be swayed by every new fad that comes along but to realize that we still have much to learn and trust that life will bring us what we need to learn it. {The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth} I see interaction as a teaching tool for myself and others. IN that interaction which would include criticism of certain beliefs we can ask ourselves certain questions.
Is my purpose to teach and be taught? To share ideas and views, or merely be right and get that “I win” or “I am superior” feeling? {I have to watch that all the time}
In realizing that each person must choose their own path {something you see Christ honored} I also came to realize that I don’t know what is “right” for others. That’s between them and God and they will move on when they are ready. The decision needs to be that it is truly the right thing for them. Out of a desire for truth rather than a fear of someone else’s or some groups opinion.
So, I would say yes it’s okay to criticize beliefs. I might even call it a necessity for growth , but we should examine our method and motivation.
Ok, I think I understand now. I just want to be sure. You are saying everyone is on an equal playing field with regards to divinity. You, I, and everyone else is no more or less divine that Jesus or anyone else. Is that correct?
Are you saying there is a separate god that we are all equally connected to, or that each of us are equal parts of god and thereby there is no other god outside of us?
Yes, that the (as you put it) narrow and mundane definition of faith I put forward is rational or irrational?
I don’t know. I believe it’s beyond our comprehension. I don’t believe in the image of God as a separate being from us as in God is there and we are here. I think in the process of growth praying to God out there, or referring to God as our father is useful, but ultimately inaccurate in the way it maintains the concept that we are separate from God and lowly. I prefer the humility of seeing we are equal parts of the greater whole. So, it could be either of the ways you mentioned. For now, that detail doesn’t matter. Jesus referred to God as the father but also said “I am in the father and the father is in me” and “When you see me you see the father”
I don’t believe I called your definition mundane. That was in reference to the everyday faith {expectation} of getting correct change. The idea I find narrow is to present that faith does not explore, or challenge us to think and grow but rather it promotes blind acceptance of unfounded assertions that there is no evidence for. Let me clarify.
I think it can be irrational and unreasonable to accept beliefs, especially outrageous ones, simply because your preacher or your parents said so. I acknowledge that more than a couple of people do this kind of thing when it comes to religion. Even those who do this kind of thing may be in the process of growth. Religion holds a strange place in the hearts and minds of people but if we take away its special status and put it on an even playing field with other aspects of life we can see it differently and understand it better.
We might find it hard to accept certain things about our parents or a close friend. If we found out what they were telling us was wrong we might be very reluctant to believe it, or to accept it. Religion seems like that only stronger in lots of people. They think it’s God and to question it means you’re questioning God in some way or their emotional attachment to certain traditions or a specific group makes them very reluctant to question the beliefs of that group. It seems to feel like they betrayed a friend simply by doubting them. Seems silly doesn’t it but I think that’s part of it.
Certain aspects of religious belief are falsifiable from a scientific standpoint. There is enough evidence available for those who truly examine it. I think those beliefs should be challenged. Too often religious folks will surround themselves with like good like minded people and they become each others support system of belief. It makes it that much harder to reject certain beliefs or even to critically examine them. I had one Christian guy call me incredibly arrogant to think that I was right and millions of Christians were wrong. He didn’t seem to notice that not all Christians agree and by his logic he was calling every non Christian in the world wrong. Wouldn’t that be equally arrogant?
I want to stress that I believe it’s important to separate the subjective portion of the spiritual journey from the physical aspects of belief. I believe subjective evidence is valid evidence when it comes to making those “what I believe” decisions. When someone says there is no evidence that God exists I can’t agree. There is no objective evidence that can be clearly demonstrated to others but I believe the subjective experience found in the spiritual journey is still valid evidence for individuals.
So faith in things not seen, rational in that sense. Faith that God is, based on my own subjective experience. Rational, with the understanding that I am only beginning to understand. That is where faith prompts exploration. The exploration of the inner person.
When you get down to the falsifiable objective portions of religion I would agree that it’s unreasonable and irrational to insist that certain things are true when there is ample evidence to contradict them.
If there’s simply no evidence then I would say try and keep an open mind but be wise enough not to embrace outlandish claims to easily.
Ok, I think I am understanding your position better.
I bolded your word “can” here. Does your use of that word mean you think there are exceptions where accepting beliefs (again especially outrageous ones) based entirely on someone’s say so is irrational and unreasonable? If yes, what acceptions would you allow. Or did you use the word “can” inadvertently for the word “is”, which would thereby put us in agreement.
Also I have not seen you comment directly on believing in things just because we hope them true, or wish them true. Do you believe this irrational?
I think so.
I think I recall you saying that subjective experience is valid only to the individual. If I’m wrong on this please correct me. However, I would still be interested to hear what subjective experiences you have had leading you to your beliefs.
A more worthwhile topic should be the ethics of belief.
A man should NEVER believe anything that isn’t rationally deduced. In other words, believing a particular thing because it is pleasant or because it introduces meaning in a mysterious existance is wrong. It is no more good for a man to do the same thing by willing his beliefs over the communist faith, or the islamic faith, etc.
Religion and science do not mix. The later is the governance of the world, the former is simply man’s desire to have meaning and to explain the nature of the universe. The doctrines of Christianity were created 2,000 years ago by agricultural societies of the Eastern Mediterranean. For a man to be a scientist and be a christian is to live in a schizophrenic reality. In one world he believes in objective truth, it is what makes the world work, it explains the world he knows, in another it is the complete opposite. The man shuts the eye of reason so long as it does not compromise his faith, it is in essence, not wanting to know what is real. Few people would care to know Jesus’ original disciples were against Paul’s open acceptance of gentiles, much less the idea that Paul wrote 16 of the New Testament’s 27 works when he never met the historical Jesus. Jesus spoke of the “coming kingdom of God” and so did Paul. This was an apocalyptic view where the living and deceased would be divided into sheep and goats. Jesus and God would descend onto earth and establish a new world order. The evil would be behead and God would instill a new political kingdom. This is what the earliest Christians believed and it did not change until around 67-70 CE and the fall of the temple. It would do one well to read the Old Testament, Jesus did not establish universal peace nor create a second Eden. This is what the ridiculous prophet Deutero Isaiah believed, add to this that Jesus was crucified via a wooden structure, a form of death blantantly condemned in the book of Deuteronomy as wicked, and you’re in quite a paradox if you are Jewish. Most of the axial prophets were wrong in the predictions for messianic deliverers, the most correct was Ezekiel. God told Ezekiel to bake barley cakes made of human dung and to bake them where others can see him. This is real stuff. Jesus was not even the most famous messianic deliverer during his time, there were also 1,000s of healers, it was in essence a profession!
If we are to grant subjective evidence for you, also known as evidence which is not objective nor “a priori” then we must grant subjective evidence to the muslims, to the Jews, to any man of any particular faith. Faith according to this logic, is always good. We must also grant it to the group who is responsible for burning alive the first translator of the bible into English. We must grant it to the early Christian Spaniards who cut off the chins and noses of the Native Americans and raped them in front of their husbands.What is unfortunate is that God is granting you these grounds yet is damning to eternal hellfire the young child not exposed to Christian doctrine.
Faith by definition is not wanting to know what is real. According to Benjamin Franklin it is shutting the eye of reason.
The benevolence of Christianity is more superficial than one thinks. This is also the essnece is the absurdities of ‘willing’ a belief or allowing subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge is not knowledge, it is hodgepodge, if a man cannot reason logically about a particular thing he does not particularly know this thing.
Maybe its time for you to be more specific. What exactly concerning Christian belief are you talking about?
I’ve been thinking about the terms irrational and unreasonable. We believe things without having first hand evidence all the time. I think its a matter of trusting the source. We tend to trust history books but sometimes they are not always accurate. Is it then irrational to believe a man rose from the dead when we are told by a source we trust and reinforced by others we trust, or would it merely be inadvisable to accept it to readily? I do believe that might be labeled irrational for Christians to cling to beliefs that there is ample evidence against. After all, it’s supposed to be about the truth not tradition.
Hmmm, I thought they were all the same. Do we pull beliefs out of the air that we hope or wish were true?
That is correct. By it’s nature we cannot point to it and say “Here is proof for everyone” It is something the individual must interpret, knowing our knowledge is incomplete and our interpretations will be imperfect.
We may still declare whatever truth we perceive from the subjective experience knowing that others may choose to reject it.
Briefly
Some very subtle and some profound. Several times I have heard the inner voice so clearly that it seemed like a separate audible voice even though I knew it was internal. In those times it brought insight and clarity to the moment.
Years ago a man I had just met spoke to me with a piercing insight about me that left me moved and stunned, but also with a sense of purpose and direction.
Several years ago I had what I can only describe as a vision that showed me profound truths behind a personal crisis I was going through. It left me on a high for a couple of days that others commented on.
There have been many subtle moments when a certain insight or understanding dawns on me. To me those often feel like connecting to a source of insight and understanding rather than “Oh I figured that out”
I am aware any of these experiences have other viable explanations. My interpretation is what it is. To me it is part of the spiritual journey.
I’m talking about some improbable things, but for the most part I’m referring to anything and everything supernatural or otherwise physically impossible, miracles etc. Would you agree that it’s irrational/unreasonable for people to believe in these types of claims simply because they hope or wish them true?
Who determines what is rational? You? Me? A panel of experts? The truth is we go forward constantly based on what we believe to be true placing our trust , our faith in some source that provided information. It isn’t all based on deductive reasoning. It may be intellectually pleasing to say that but not very realistic when considering mankind.
Should a person be cautious about embracing things to readily as absolute truth. I think a wise person would be.
Lots of information here that isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. I’d like to mention that I strive to separate the teachings of Christ from the Christianity that developed afterwards. The sentence I bolded is relevant. My objection is that although I realize that there are people and certain aspects of organized religion that “close the eye of reason”. To infer all Christianity and all Christians are like that is completely inaccurate and prejudicial. I am no fan of organized religion but I understand it. Within the myth, doctrine, and tradtion, the very real process of the spiritual journey takes place.
This is an incorrect and inaccurate interpretation of what I’ve said as well as a false deduction of where it leads.
In no way did I suggest that any act done in the name of faith or religion was acceptable and should be allowed.
IMHO it is the clinging to religious tradition rather than seeking the truth that is shutting the eye of reason. Not faith per say.
When it comes to choosing what we value all people must and do make subjective judgements. Things they believe to be true. That is the essence of faith that all people exercise. It is not knowledge in the objective sense. That it is exactly why we must separate the objective from the subjective in the dialogue.
I think reason plays a huge role in the spiritual journey. Christ taught that by looking within we can be led to the whole truth and that the truth would set us free. He also said the kingdom of heaven is within. Science and reason plays it’s role in the study of the objective world. That is only a portion {and probably the least important portion} of what life is. IMO the essence of God and the spiritual journey is about love and truth. If a person makes a commitment to the truth rather than a particular religion or doctrine then that person uses reason to learn the nature of God. Too often people make the commitment to a particular doctrine first and then resist any evidence that contradicts it.
I’m not familiar with Bertrand Russell but his quote is only an opinion. I’ll give it due consideration, which is to say, none at all.
W.K. Clifford on the other hand makes an important point. I don’t agree with the first sentence in that I believe the process begins with and contains for some time a belief in things we have little evidence for. I agree wholeheartedly that a commitment to the truth, spiritual truth in this case, means we must consider all the evidence for and against certain beliefs. We must be willing to challenge our current beliefs and with an honest heart and mind and not let our emotional attachment to a religion or a group cloud our pursuit of the truth. That definitely means looking at and giving consideration to all the arguments against.
Jesus taught that seeking the truth should come first over even allegiance to family and far ahead of the traditions that man teaches.
Seeking spiritual truth does is not incompatible with logic or reason.
I’m the kind of person who believes few things are impossible. That doesn’t mean I embrace every wild idea that comes along. It’s a matter of what is relevant to the human condition and growth.
It’s also a matter of degrees. There’s a difference between “I think it’s possible”
“I tend to believe” and “I hold it as undeniable truth”
For people to hold the stories of the Bible or even stories they are told “God cured my cancer” as undeniable truth is irrational and unreasonable. Bogus faith healers and other Charlatans depend on this. I might qualify that with what I mentioned before. Is it unreasonable or irrational to accept what is told to you by a source you trust and is affirmed by a group or, is there a better description?
Mix in the Clifford quote. When people accept something as true and then resist considering other evidence that contradicts their belief, I consider that unreasonable
“Rational” by definition is something that is rationally deduced. It is the art of logic, if one cannot ‘logically’ create an argument for or against a particular thing it is no longer rational. A belief in God by definition is not rational less you could ‘prove’ this particular thing. God’s existence cannot logically be derived, less everyone would believe in his existence. This does not mean God does or does not exist, simply that it is unproven.
All faiths deduce an argument for God that is not based on reason. We both acknowledge Christianity nor the native tribes of Africa can prove the verility of their particular doctrines. Those of illigitimate faiths, which happen to be all faiths, encourage one to never use reason to arrive to their particular beliefs. This, in essence, would cause one to compromise their faith.
The willing of one’s beliefs is called direct volitionism, it is the crippling of the human spirit and it compromises one’s ability to discern the truth.
See Professor Louis Pojman’s article on the ethics of Faith, Hope, and Doubt: http://www.louispojman.com/Faith_Hope.pdf
Also see
The elements of religion are not rational less they would not be religion, they would be science. The spiritual journey you speak of is simply an irrational attempt to apply meaning to life, it is not my intention to rob you of this meaning, but man can not survive less he escapes the cave wall he’s been staring at. Perhaps this is a ludicrus assertion because it is rather mean, but this in essence is the allegory of the Cave. One shouldn’t need to appeal to authorities in order to discuss religion but the realm of science and religion by rule, cannot co-exist.
Perhaps its best we discern what “truth” and “faith” is. Truth, by definition, is in no way spiritual. Some call this “subjective truth”, this is really no truth at all less it would be an objective truth.
A man should never choose to believe anything, he must believe what he must.
The man who makes “subjective judgments” and lives a life based on this is living a lie. It is defrauding the realm of science and knowledge for the desire for a meaningful existence, consequently appealing to beliefs intended to explain the universe 2,000 years ago. May I ask which absurdities of the Christian faith do you believe and do you not believe? These particular beliefs entail numerous absurdities, I can point to as many as you have time for.
Do you truly believe you should turn the other cheek if I were to slap you? This reveils that Christ’s teachings were perhaps allegorical and not to be taken literally. Or perhaps they were? And God said to the prophet Jeremiah that Israel is like a she-camel who can easily be found at mating time. God blatantly calls Israel a whore in 4 or 5 various passages, he seems to be obsessive over the word mind you.
I think perhaps your method of dealing with reality, in other words, cumpulsively worshipping and selecting various truths is evident in your post. You chose not to use any logic whatsoever in regards to Russell, heck forbid you uncover the truth and it does not go along with your hope that the world is a particular way.
If I were to not reason properly for my conclusion I would be irrationaly arriving at a doctrine for life based on rationale. This is in itself a paradox. This is easy to point out.
What is difficult to discern is the methods man goes about with religion, in other words, he lives a life based on objective truth. He lives a finite existence worshipping death, fate, and time until he leaves the earth. There is no particular mystery, less all Cows, Trees, and grasshoppers are saved and everyone else burns in hell for no less than eternity. For a morality based on benevolence, this is also a paradox.
It seems the only way avoid these illogical doctrines is to never use faith. We do not have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the world is round. Faith is substituting emotion for evidence, we would not speak of faith when arriving at mathematical conclusions. True knowledge should perhaps be acknowledging what we know and what we do not know.
We know we do not know God exists, less we could prove it and everyone would therefore believe it. Some choose to ‘jump the gun’ and will their beliefs. This to skeptics like Professor Louis Pojman is the pathetic of all sins… worthy in and of itself to eternal hell and writhing.
But rational deduction is powerless to tell you what’s true; it can only tell you what else is true. You have to start somewhere, with some axioms that are assumed, not proven.
I could create a logical deductive argument for just about anything (including God’s existence), if I get to start with the right givens.
And may I say that, all too often, somebody here on the SDMB makes the claim that religion is completely irrational—that religion on the one hand, and reason and logic on the other, are completely disjoint. Stop it, folks. This is false. There have been plenty of examples of theologians using reason and logic to investigate the “truths” of Christianity; read Thomas Aquinas for example. Heck, the reason Creationists oppose evolution is as a logical consequence of their starting postulate that everything the Bible says is the literal, scientific truth. (So, I guess getting back to the original point of the thread, they don’t subscribe to a “double truth” because that wouldn’t be rational.)
The greatest thinkers of the medieval era were the logicians you think of. Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. None of their ontological arguments, or arguments logically deriving the existence of God, still stand as logical today.
Part of the reason why the medieval era was so brutal was that the most prized thinkers were in the church, they were allowed to learn and in reclusion. Unfortunately this ascetic life lead to many a new doctrines and rather than enjoying the pleasures of the body they enjoyed the pleasures of the mind, this by malevolent means which entailed how the sinful would burn and toil in eternal hellfire.
I have spent my time doing my best to unravel any sort of rational belief in God. I have yet to find it… and people such as Einstein, Russell, and Sigmund Frued view such a search as paradoxal in nature… see if you can follow:
If man’s ends of action are to acquire particular desires and their given consequences or to avoid undesired consequences… then thinking of God and ‘meaning’ relative to existence associates solely with humans who have the desire to fufill a particular want… this must correlate to a belief in a God… to think of a particular ‘god’ or meaning relevant to nature… is a paradox… because this God would randomly be intervening strictly in our search for meaning… and everything according to universal causation would be thrown out of whack.
Thus a God who intervenes in human affairs much less awards and punishes humans who act by neccessity is beyond comprehension. To einstein, it is for egotistical individuals and those with feeble souls.