Theology III

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Faith is the firm belief in something that is unprovable. Like our old discussions on the existence of god. We both agreed that it's ultimately unprovable whether he exists or not. But you still have faith that he does.

And you believe that there isn't enough evidence to decide either way, and so you basically live like there isn't a god.

Logic, on the other hand, is the process of proving something.

I disagree. Now logic can be used to prove something. But logic is basically the "science of correct reasoning; science which describes relationships among propositions in terms of implication, contradiction, contrariety, conversion, etc.;" (Websters) IOW, it is a tool to help a person think and analyze as well as possible in a situation, given the information available.

And you can't prove, or disprove, something that is unprovable.

Exactly. So you use logic to help analyze the thing as much as possible, then make a decision about it. We make faith-based decisions all the time using logic as far as it will take us.

Thus, faith has nothing to do with logic.

Sure it does. Christianity is more than "God exists!" There's lots of tenets in Christianity that can be logically analyzed. Now some can't be logically proved, but they can be logically analyzed.

If you could prove god's existance via logic, you wouldn't need to resort to faith.

The final step in both Christianity and atheism involves faith. IMO, the final step in agnosticism involves faith, too, because I think that when an agnostic stands before God, he/she will finally acknowledge that they had enough information to make a reasonable decision that God exists.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly. So you use logic to help analyze the thing as much as possible, then make a decision about it. We make faith-based decisions all the time using logic as far as it will take us.

If people start with different base assumptions, they just can't arrive logically at the same conclusions.

And really, the fact that some Christians go from "God is Love" to "Dinosaurs never existed", and that some agnostics go from "My understanding of reality doesn't require God." to "Therefore, people who believe in God are deluded" makes the whole conversation much more difficult.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If people start with different base assumptions, they just can't arrive logically at the same conclusions.

Well, with my engineering background, I would change that to "aren't likely to arrive logically to the same conclusions", but I see what you're saying.

I certainly know that assumptions are critically important. If the assumption is wrong, then conclusions based on that assumption are invalid (they may be correct accidentally, but that's another thing! ) That's why I try to point assumptions out when people make them, because many people don't even realize they're making assumptions!!! Their deductions may be flawless, but if the underlying assumption is wrong ... well, sorry, you can't claim the deductions are right.

And really, the fact that some Christians go from "God is Love" to "Dinosaurs never existed", and that some agnostics go from "My understanding of reality doesn't require God." to "Therefore, people who believe in God are deluded" makes the whole conversation much more difficult.

Yes; that's why I like to "assume and analyze" - I like to take a person's worldview beliefs, ASSUME they are correct, and then analyze them to see what deductions may logically be drawn from them. And if the deductions don't fit the evidence observed in the real world, then it's reasonable to assume that the person's underlying worldview beliefs are not true (i.e., not a match with reality). If the deductions fit, then it's reasonable to assume that the person's worldview beliefs might be true (i.e., they match reality). I think that's a great way to analyze worldview beliefs.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You might be able to get an idea of some conscious worldview beliefs that someone holds. But I just can't imagine how you'd dig out the details to get even a majority of the things that make that up. You can be married for 20 years and still be surprised, kwim?

So any model you build will be, of necessity, flawed.

As you say, flawed models may produce good conclusions. That might be due to direct revelation, who knows? Or it might be pure dumb luck.

But as for a way to evaluate the accuracy of someone else's perceptions...coin toss would be faster.

[Rían]

Faster, yes; but speed isn't everything If you prefer to toss a coin, that's your choice Personally, I prefer thinking, as much as is possible according to whatever information is available, when it comes to something as important as a decision about what you will base your life on. We may not have ALL the information, but SOME is better than none. I'd rather think on the information I do have than toss a coin.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

No. Abrahamic, but that includes Jews and others as well.

Jews generally don't consider Jesus a prophet, though, so they would not be Christian by the proposed definition.

(TOTALLY behind the times, just wanted to toss that out there )

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Faster, yes; but speed isn't everything If you prefer to toss a coin, that's your choice Personally, I prefer thinking, as much as is possible according to whatever information is available, when it comes to something as important as a decision about what you will base your life on. We may not have ALL the information, but SOME is better than none. I'd rather think on the information I do have than toss a coin.

I'd consider you the authority on that.

I thought we were discussing your method of evaluating someone else's.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO, the final step in agnosticism involves faith, too, because I think that when an agnostic stands before God, he/she will finally acknowledge that they had enough information to make a reasonable decision that God exists.

I can see the power of your faith in that statement.

This agnostic won't be acknowledging that. Of course, I'll probably will be standing before the other guy anyway.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I can see the power of your faith in that statement.

This agnostic won't be acknowledging that.

And I can see the power of your faith in that statement! ^

Of course, I'll probably will be standing before the other guy anyway.

You and God know...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I can see the power of your faith in that statement! ^

You and God know...

I don't know the meaning of existence, but I do know myself. And frankly, if god does exist, he hasn't given us "enough information to make a reasonable decision", and I have absolutely no problem letting him know.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In my opinion, the evidence for Christianity is so powerful that no one can deny its validity without allowing bias, illogical and terribly faulty reasoning, and personal feelings to cloud their judgment.

Well, I certainly can't argue that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't know the meaning of existence, but I do know myself. And frankly, if god does exist, he hasn't given us "enough information to make a reasonable decision..."

I disagree - I think that at some point in time, everyone has enough info to make a reasonable decision, but we'll see ...

... and I have absolutely no problem letting him know.

Somehow, I think you'll change your tune at that time - it reminds me of Narnia, when Mr. Badger says of the White Witch (and we all have some White Witch in us ) meeting Aslan, "If she can stand on her two feet and look him in the face it'll be the most she can do and more than I expect of her."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Somehow, I think you'll change your tune at that time - it reminds me of Narnia, when Mr. Badger says of the White Witch (and we all have some White Witch in us ) meeting Aslan, "If she can stand on her two feet and look him in the face it'll be the most she can do and more than I expect of her."

I know the White Witch, and I'm no White Witch!

We'll see. I'll give him a chance for a good explanation.

[Rían]

No, you're no White Witch I said all of us have some WW in us. I know I do, and I suspect that you have just a teensy bit yourself!

[brownjenkins]

I think I have more Puddleglum.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
In my opinion, the evidence for Christianity is so powerful that no one can deny its validity without allowing bias, illogical and terribly faulty reasoning, and personal feelings to cloud their judgment.



Well, I certainly can't argue that.

Thanks for the selective quoting .

Prepare for a response that may strongly indicate that I'm touchy!

From the same post:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know that this naturally leads to a debate over the evidence. If you want to go there, we can.

I said in the very post you quoted from that my claims about the evidence would naturally lead to debate, and that I was quite willing to engage in it if you wanted to. You're ignoring the offer and then suggesting that my claims stand alone. By quoting my claims and ignoring my offer of follow-up, you make me look stupid. That is not very decent, in my opinion!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know that you don't agree with me about the evidence, and that without it, my claims about the nature of God transcend logic. The debate over the evidence is a whole 'nother issue.

Because it was a "whole 'nother issue," I didn't go into the specifics of the evidence for you to argue against. I didn't know, and still don't know, whether or not you wanted to go into debating that whole new subject.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I thought we were discussing your method of evaluating someone else's.

Yes, we were ... I don't understand what you mean ...

Originally Posted by brownie

I think I have more Puddleglum

*hands brownie a pipe*

I don't think brownie meant that line to be against you, Lief - I took it as since you claim faulty judgement, etc. is involved, then he is unable to argue in a valid way. Something like that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think I have more Puddleglum.

Puddleglum sees sense in the end . He said in the end that it was better for him to live and die searching for light, whether it existed or not, and so to live in hope and perhaps find the better world he seeks, than to embrace the real world of darkness that was the evil queen's underground.

In the same way, and I'm positive that this is what C.S. Lewis meant when he spoke through Puddleglum's mouth in the climax of "The Silver Chair," if one thinks that the real world consists of matter, relativity (which means absolute ignorance, for one can't be sure of anything at all and there are no absolutes, and one also can't know if one is doing good or evil in the world, is harming others or helping them), meaninglessness (which means buying a friend a pair of glasses is just as moral as tearing his eyes out, since without meaning, nothing matters, though all is matter) and pointless misery punctuated by temporary pleasure and bound to end with nonexistence and complete insignificance, then one is still only believing in that dark world one embraces and cannot know that it is all that is. You do not know that there aren't moral absolutes, that the Holy Spirit does not speak to God's followers as their Counselor and reveal the truth to them, that righteousness, peace, purity and joy cannot be found in Jesus Christ. You do not know that God is not alive and powerfully, amazingly active in the world. You do not accept the evidence that he is alive or active in the world either, but this is irrelevant to my point.

My point here is that if one knows one's own conception of reality is deeply flawed and darkened, and does not know that there is no higher reality, but rather merely believes that there is no higher reality, then the most logical and good course of action is to seek to find the better world, even if it doesn't exist, because it might exist. It is better to seek a higher world than to, in blind faith, take the underground for the only reality that exists.

[Lief Erikson]

*Scrambles with the contents of this post.*

*Lief eats a piece of pie.* Yum! My compliments to the chef (my own imagination).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is better to seek a higher world than to, in blind faith, take the underground for the only reality that exists.

I wholly agree with this.