Faith and Reason

[johnpaul613]

"Though these facts are well known, they bear repeating. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas were early advocates of Aristotelian science; Copernicus, the popularizer of the heliocentric understanding of the solar system, was a priest; Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and a chief forerunner of Darwin, was a monk; many of the founders of modern

Comments

[wickedthought]

"During my time as a round-earther, I thought the tiniest belief in the flat earth was a sign of intellectual weakness bordering on a psychological illness..."

No, I don't believe that. I think literal belief in a god--any god--demonstrates intellectual self-delusion. I'll give you an example.

I want to sell you a car. No, you can't see the car. I'll tell you all about it, but you can't see it. I'll show you the keys to the car, but you can't see it. Because the keys exist, the car must exist, correct? But you can't see it.

Do you want to buy my car? Of course you don't: there's no evidence it exists. The keys aren't evidence the car exists--even though I'm using them to demonstrate the car exists--they're a complete red herring.

In order to "have faith," it is necessary to turn off critical thinking. I cannot imagine living without critical thinking.

For example, your Catholic belief comes in complete contradiction to Mormon belief, Muslim belief, Jewish belief, etc. One of you must be right and the others must be wrong. That isn't a judgmental statement based on my own observations: your own holy books say so themselves. Catholicism, Judiaism, Islam and even Mormanism all claim to be the One and Only True Path. Therefore, why is your path more true than all the others? Can you provide me any evidence?

[johnpaul613]

I was attempting to let you know that I understand you profound skepticism. I more than shared it for a long time. It was my hobby to show people just how delusional they were believing in God.

These beliefs are reasonable not empiric. Science only works with what it can measure. Things outside of this are not science but philosophy or theology.

Since we've had this discussion before, I have to ask, are you really interested in the philosophical arguments for belief in God? Faith and reason are compatible (even complementary) but they aren't the same thing. Don't expect to 'know' one completely with or without the other.

[johnpaul613]

You said "I cannot imagine living without critical thinking."

I'd agree with this statement. I use critical thinking everyday at my job and in my life. Why do you think that 'critical thinking' requires emperical proof. Can you not use critical thinking on philisophical subjects also? Are you a materialist?

[wickedthought]

I'll be rude and answer your question with a question: why are you not a Muslim?

[johnpaul613]

Me first. :)

[wickedthought]

Of course I can employ critical thinking on philosophical subjects. That's the whole point of philosophy. And yes, I am a materialist. I don't accept that anything exists until we can prove it. For the same reasons, using the same process of critical thinking, I find just as much evidence for god as UFOs, crystal power, Atlantis, reincarnation and the claims of Moon Landing Hoaxers.

[johnpaul613]

Sorry, didn't see this one in my Google list (it was in the middle of the replies.

To be honest, I'm not a Muslim because I was never moved in that direction and when I looked through their claims, I did not find them reasonable. I'm sure there are many Muslims who are much better people than I. My obligation is to follow the truth. This led me to where I am now.

Since you are a materialist, if you're not convinced by moral necessity, design, miracles, infinite perfections, origination/creation, ontological being, aesthetic experience, etc... there's not much for us to talk about. I do wish you well and hope that someday you come to a wider understanding of these things.

[wickedthought]

To be honest, I'm not a Muslim because I was never moved in that direction and when I looked through their claims, I did not find them reasonable. I'm sure there are many Muslims who are much better people than I.

Being a "good person" has nothing to with it. What part of the claims did you find difficult?

[johnpaul613]

I wasn't saying that being a 'good person' was the sole criterion for determining the validity of their claims. There is an argument of sancity though so it does have something to do with it.

[wickedthought]

Okay, that was kind of a miscommunication thing, so I'll try a different approach.

What claims of Islam did you find difficult?

[johnpaul613]

I was replying. It just took a moment.

[johnpaul613]

Several things. The moral system is weak. The understanding of Judaism and Christianity (of which Mohammad purports to be the final prophet) is severely lacking. Their prophet was not particularly convincing in his own actions. Lastly, they discount Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection which I believe did in fact happen. Placing Jesus and Mohammad side by side there isn't really much comparison. I'd follow Jesus.

[wickedthought]

Well, we have more evidence of Mohammed's existence than we do of Jesus. It's difficult to remove Mohammed from the historical record without damaging other established facts, although more research is proving it more likely that the Mohammed of the Qoran was, in fact, a fictional character inspired by the real one.

The moral system of Catholocism I find equally weak. Again, the Pope thinks condoms are more evil than AIDS. And the systematic hiding and re-assignment of child molestors is simply reprehensible. Also, I find St. Paul's treatment and suggestion of treatment of women morally bankrupt as well as the refusal to allow women to become priests. I find it particularly telling when John Paul II declares Purgatory is a state of being and not an actual place (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM), and yet, the new Pope is making a big comeback for indulgences (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html).

At least 19 of the books in the New Testament have been proven to be forgeries (http://freewarebible.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/uncs-prof-ehrman-19-of-27-new-testament-books-are-forgeries-there-was-no-resurrection/) . The story in John about Jesus and the adulteress--which appears in every recent publication of the Bible--was added in the 10th Century (see the same article above). If such a significant story of Jesus can be added to the Bible as late as the 10th Century--changing Jesus' "history" so easily--how easy could it have been to change other details of the story?

Therefore, not only do I find most of the details of Jesus' life pure speculation, but also any of the claims of Catholicism subject to skepticism and scrutiny. The same kind of scrutiny you certainly provided when you looked at the claims of Islam, correct?

Now, I see any of these as significant problems within the Catholic Church--at least as significant as the problems you find.

So, the question is, did you provide the same amount of scrutiny and skepticism to the claims of Catholicism as you did the claims of Islam?

[johnpaul613]

I'll be glad to look at these sources (it might take time though).

The short answer to your question is I took over 3 years of study through history, the early church documents, current church teachings, etc before I ever talked to my wife or a priest about joining the Catholic Church. I would have not joined if I had been convinced that the Church's claims were not true. I really didn't want to join initially but I couldn't stay away.

Being a materialist I would not expect you to understand. It's ok. I'll pray for you ;)

[wickedthought]

The term "materialist" is a loaded one and you've probably got a much wider definition than the one I use. So, let me be clear.

As a materialist, I cannot say "there is no god" because I don't really know. Saying "there is no god" is a lot like saying "there are no unicorns." There's no way of knowing. Instead, what I like to say is, "There's probably no god" or "I haven't seen sufficient evidence for me to say one way or another."

I say this about a lot of things, including the ones I mentioned above.

I'm far less interested in what people believe and far more interested in why they believe it. Which is why I asked, "Why are you not a Muslim?" You said, "I looked at the claims of the Muslim faith and found them lacking."

Well, I've looked at the claims of both the Catholic faith and the Muslim faith and found the very same thing: lack of any evidence for any of it.

Looking at the history of the Catholic Church, I don't see anything that justifies a belief in a Trinity, in Mary's perfection, in the virgin birth of Jesus, in the divinity of Jesus, the trial of Jesus or the crucifiction of Jesus or the ressurection of Jesus.

I do believe there was a man named Jesus--although much of the evidence suggests the Jesus of the Bible is a fictional version of the actual individual--who was a Jewish reformer who was influenced by the preponderance of Buddhist temples that were rampant throughout the Middle East in the time he was supposed to life. Almost all of his parables are actually Buddhist parables that were written centuries before Jesus' life.

So, I do believe in a historical Jesus and even find much of what he says to be useful and beneficial to mankind. But then there's all the bullshit people pushed into his mouth to justify racial, gender and religious hatred.

The Bible is an articial, man-made document that was no more divinely inspired than any other holy book. Except for mine: the Principia Discordia. That one's for real. :)

[johnpaul613]

I understand your position. I just profoundly disagree with you. So how/why did you come to the position of (modified, agnostic?) materialism? If spiritual things are outside the competence of science to evaluate how did you decide to excluded the possibility (as a practical matter if not an absolute)?