Discussions of Faith: Rhyfelwyr and Pizzaguy

[Askthepizzaguy]

This thread is more or less intended to be a public discussion regarding the merits of faith and the merits of skepticism, and related topics, primarily between the orgahs mentioned above.

Commentary from other orgahs is welcome, but I ask that it be spoilered:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As such

So that the primary advocates can more easily read and respond to one another.

Askthepizzaguy will argue that faith in and of itself has little merit, and skepticism in and of itself does. However, Askthepizzaguy will not condemn any religion, any person, nor say that religious teachings haven't been positive influences on the world as well as sometimes negative. The discussion is more about the value of faith versus skepticism and related topics, and it will be a friendly, welcoming discussion or it will not happen at all; I will bow out courteously, and if I overstep my bounds (being human) I would welcome reminders and criticisms to edit out less helpful commentary.

Rhyfelwyr will advocate for faith and its merits, I suspect. However, I will not put words in his mouth; I will allow him to express his own positions.

I must stress respect at all times here for all members, observers and advocates. However, the opinions expressed here must be open to fair criticism, as it is the topic.

_____________

My opening statement is very brief; I contend that faith itself does not bring any merit, but that certain philosophical viewpoints are valid, invalid, or irrelevant. I also contend that objectivity and skepticism, a scientific and literal approach to philosophy and ethics and morality, is not only possible, but preferable to faith-based teachings and traditions. But I am not simply looking to advocate one is better than the other; I am genuinely curious to hear what the merits of faith are, from your perspective, and perhaps give examples of where faith has played a crucial and positive role in life.

I welcome the opening statement by Rhyfelwyr.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I want a clean fight. No head butts, no gouging, no rabbit blows, and any limbs torn off are to be returned to the owner. Now, go to your corners and wait for the bell.

Ding!

[Vuk]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Faith is stupid, because it is believing in something you do not know for sure.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have faith that faith will fail you in the end.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: I am only joking BG (and am a man of faith myself), so don't go jumping on the ban button :P

[a completely inoffensive name]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This will be interesting to say the least...

[CountArach]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hello there.

[rasoforos]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You could alternatively each chose a curvaceous sexy young female champion, dress them in a tiny tiny bikini and have them wrestle in an oil pit.

Spoilered in conformance to OP request. I really like your idea though. SF

[Rhyfelwyr]

There are so many angles to take this discussion from it's almost impossible to decide where to start, as with many Backroom discussions I think it will take a while to find a good battleground, and things will take off from there. Anyway...

Obviously, while this debate is on the role of religion in society, I will be focusing on the Christian aspect in particular. I firmly believed if people followed the Bible, specifically the teachings of the New Testament and of Jesus himself, society would be a much better place for it.

Sorry for all this introductory stuff, but I think it needs to be said. I will admit, that religion, when only half-heartedly evident in society, can have negative effects. This has led to many unfair accusations against religions potential impact on society if it was more widely evident. For example, people point to the unusually high teenage pregnancy rates in the USA, caused largely by a religiously-inspiried denial of sex education. Of course, if these teenagers truly followed the Bible and didn't have pre-marital sex, the problem would not exist in the first place!

Indeed, most mainstream religions would utterly comdemn many of the problems which plague todays society. They would allow no alcoholism, no drug abuse, no gambling into debt, no crime, no domestic violence etc etc. As well as the obvious direct benefits from the removal of such problems, it would I expect have a very positive effect on social equality. So many of these issues are fundamental to the poverty cycle for people in developed nations. If they were to be removed, the lives of those in the lower classes would improve dramatically.

At the heart of these social issues is the very nature of man himself, a huge barrier against a well functioning society. Only religion offers to truly reform this nature by a higher power, rather than leaving us to work with it as best we can. I used to think that if you were a good person, if people generally cooperated with each other, then a well functioning society would follow. That was back when I was a more innocent soul, now the more observant I've become of people, even those I would have seen as good and moral people, the deeper I see the problems run. If you trust in the nature of man to achieve morality, the ideal society, you are building a great tower up to Heaven/Utopia, but laying the foundations on sand.

Perhaps my argument has taken a more philosophical approach than the debate was intended for, but to me that is what religion is all about - transforming the very nature of a person. I realise the atheistic perspective may lead to the debate being treated more along the lines of "how well can religious authorities enforce morality on an unwilling flock". But that is something I would not defend with any great enthusiasm. If everyone would just read the Bible themselves and follow Christian values willingly, then that would truly benefit society. The practicability of this may be questionable, indeed seem impossible in todays society. I do believe that it has however been achieved in socities in the past, although if I start naming examples it may go into controversies that this thread was not created for.

So that's my very vague start, hopefully ATPG can pick some issues out of that and we can get a good debate going..

[Mooks]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” -Richard Dawkins

[Rhyfelwyr]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Faith is the result of having to think, of having to truly reflect upon our natures, and of questioning the viability of the morals and worldviews we take for granted; within the framework of a Godless existence. To avoid having faith, you must bow your head down and charge your way through life, hoping one vain pursuit occupies your mind until the next, until you hit the brick wall of death, and you can hide from the truth no more." - Rhyfelwyr

I put this in spoilers since its ATPG's turn to speak

[Askthepizzaguy]

I will think carefully on your opening statement, Rhyfelwyr, and return with my first argument.

[Meneldil]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Morality doesn't require Faith or Religion. I myself am not perfect, being often lazy, lying more than I should, and what not. Yet I have strong morals (that, I admit, are probably all coming from religion). Everytime I end up in a church (admitedly, not that often), I find myself wondering how many of the people around me have cheated on their wife, beaten their kids, stolen the poor and what not.

Religion obviously failed to make the world a better place. Humanism, the Enlightnement and liberal ideas carried by the French Revolution failed aswell, but I'll stick to these, simply because I find the idea of a Supreme Being ruling over our lives the worst form of alienation possible (that and many of the postulate of religions have been proven wrong by science).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You have to acknowledge a higher force for morality as we know it to have any true meaning. To many people nowadays, morality is simply a term for the cooperation shown between people so that they may live in a society without conflicting with each other too much. Absolute morals, true and unchangeable values which do not change with humans perceptions of them, are a different matter entirely. Faith is necessary if you are to believe in their existence, since being absolute and unchanging, they must be something apart from the ever changing biological information stored in our genes. If you don't have faith in this, you are not living by morals, but simply the laws of consent, which in reality exist to serve the individual as much as anyone else.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Response to Rhyfelwyr's opening statement.

No comment on the first paragraph.

In response to your second paragraph: You may advocate for the christian cause, but I will be talking about faith itself, which covers much more. I can limit the debate to more christian stuff, but it must include other forms of faith to be a complete and valid discussion. You advocate for jesus' philosophy, and that is fine. But faith is more than philosophy, and it is harmful.

In response to your third paragraph: Religion itself has no ill effects, because it is simply a theory of the supernatural. That is what religion is. Faith on the other hand is what causes the harmful effects, because people act on faith, not just religious faith, to do very very bad things. Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm. Should the assumptions hold true in the supposed afterlife, that is fine; but faith should not influence the living to bias their judgment, because any religious philosophy could be easily and in superior fashion replaced with rational thinking and ethics, morality, and law. Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.

In response to your fourth paragraph: All the examples of things you say religions condemn, the rational mind condemns as well. And that would explain why religions have credibility; when they were written and spread around by men who were looking to gain power, they used what we know of basic human morality as a base upon which to launch semi-reasonable attacks against the unfaithful, because they were lost, uneducated, starving people who did what they had to do to survive, and they couldn't defend themselves using rhetoric, and people flocked to religions because they were, and still are, attracted to power and authority and gangs. As for social equality, most religions advocate against social equality; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have historically been sexist and anti-homosexual, as well as racist and genocidal towards others. In the Old Testament, the Bible adocates the tribe of Israel wipe out their neighbors. In Christianity, divine right was used as an excuse to wipe out the native americans, and to consider blacks inferior because they were considered to be godless heathens. In Islam, it says in the Koran that infidels can be destroyed and it is the will of Allah. And religions have been used in the past and in the present as excuses for war. Repression of those on the lower social order happens in Hunduism, and in many other faiths. It is not just monotheisms, but all religions I have come across which threaten those they disagree with and persecute them. Heretic burnings, witch trials, exorcisms, crusades, jihads, holy wars, religious persecution across the globe in every major and minor country... faith in religion has caused massive social disorder in every single case I have seen, and as such, I disagree with the assertion that religion brings about social equality... unless by that you mean everyone is fair game for harassment, which you probably don't mean.



In response to your fifth paragraph: Religion is not the only barrier against the lesser nature of man, for enlightenment, rationalism, ethics, philosophy, literacy, science, art, and many other things which heighten man are not and have never been the sole domain of religion or faith. Some of the greatest thinkers in history advocated no faith, and they were not evil men who acted as animals. So I disagree with your assertions in your fifth paragraph. If you base all your reasoning on religious faith, you are building your own tower out of ancient traditions, many of which have been overturned by rational thought and society has become better for it. Women are treated as equals, racism in the workplace and in other matters has been outlawed. religious persecution is outlawed, and no religious test shall be made for the offices of government in the United States. Religion does not act as a beacon of light in this world for all, and faith is the shakiest foundation of all, because it is by definition entirely unfounded by fact. I prefer to stand on sand than nothing at all.

In response to your sixth paragraph: I believe education and reasoning can transform a person even more than a religion can. Many men have converted to a faith, and then used that faith as a tool to commit crimes against humanity, using doctrine and tradition as grounds for arguing that their crimes are now actually holy acts. Murder, for example, is holy if you are killing an infidel, according to many faiths. genital mutilation is an act of God, according to many faiths. Self-inflicted wounds can be considered holy as well to some, and human sacrifice was used historically by the faithful. Bottom line is that faith alone does not transform a person. A person must accept rational thought, ethics, and a moral philosophy, for their faith to have any merit whatsoever, and I contend you can do that without religious doctrine. I certainly have, as have millions of others. Religion is the unnecessary middle-man, and even if you must find religion, faith without doubt is an untempered force which can result in self-destruction or the destruction of others or the destruction of the mind through bias, certainty where there should be none, and self-righteousness which should never exist.

The above is my response to your opening statement; for clarity, I will restate clearly and succinctly my position.

1. Religion in and of itself is harmless, because it is a supernatural theory of existence which does not harm anyone if it is not used as a basis of rational thought.

2. FAITH in religion or anything, frankly, is harmful, because it is the rational mind surrendering to the irrational, and being influenced by the biases and superstitions of ancient tradition and mythology which has been mostly disproven or discredited or otherwise deemed unprovable by science, and therefore religion should never be associated with science, nor taught as fact. Faith in God does not in and of itself cause an issue, but the BELIEF that God wants you to do a certain thing means that you are cutting off your own reasoning process and following other men who may or may not (most likely not) have more access to this God than you do. As such, you become a follower of other people's thoughts and that leads to ignoring your own or replacing your own with other people's thoughts. Belief that God wants you to be moral is more than OK, I encourage that. Belief that God hates homosexuals is not OK, because there is no way to prove that and it can lead to persecution of innocent, kind, decent people. Belief that God wants you to cut off parts of yourself is not OK, because it can lead to permanent irreparable damage. Belief that God wants you to do this to your infant child is even less OK, because it causes permanent irreparable damage to an innocent unwilling person who may not have agreed with either your faith, or your decision to do this to this child had they been an adult, and had a say in it. Botched operations as such are like crimes against infants, because now they can no longer have a normal life. And if this God does not accept people for how they are created, then he can only blame himself.

3. Rational thought in this life is superior to faith, because it allows for mistakes. Faith does not allow for mistakes. That means that faith in something which is wrong cannot be undone, whereas a rational theory in something can be undone. As such, progress can be made using rational thought whereas faith in the supernatural cannot make forward progress for humanity.

4. All moral and ethical arguments must have a rational foundation. Religions and faithful people then use those arguments to justify conversion to such faith. But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.

[Meneldil]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That is if you consider unchangeable morals to be something positive. That's precisely the issue with the Pope saying he's against condoms. I understand that he has to stand for his beliefs and morals, but maybe it's about time to admit that condoms might help fighting AIDS. The world is changing, and some ancient morals are now causing more harm than anything.
Add to that the fact that many religious morals are actually quite conservative (though to be honest, morals are by definition conservative), and then I'm definitely not sure I'd like to follow any absolute moral established centuries ago.
Then, if everything is a matter of Faith, I think I could say I have faith in Humanity (though I'm not sure this can be considered similar as having faith in a religion), but I'm not even sure to have faith in humanity.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meneldil-

I admire many religions, because they are basic attempts to find meaning and purpose in this life, as well as form a moral code. They were essential to the formation of modern philosophical thought, ethics and morality; however I believe they are outdated and based on as much mythology as reasoning, and therefore are no longer necessary.

However, I condemn no one for their religion; I simply question them when they act on faith alone, because that is dangerous. What a person believes about the afterlife is no one's business, and I admit, it is a comforting thought, but I would be more comforted if people rejected the ancient traditions and applied critical thinking to everything they did.

There would be no need to believe in heaven in the afterlife if this world wasn't such hell. As for the afterlife; if heaven exists, and they won't let me in because I refused to have faith in it, then it is not a place I desire to go. Especially if they won't allow decent moral rational people who are non-religious.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point of Order:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

if it is a theory of the supernatural, then it cannot be a theory of the natural world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's a theory which embraces both. You don't have to accept it's validity, but that doesn't change what it is. I told Rwy I wasn't going to crash his party, and I'm not. However, the divine is part of the fabric of existence, not seperate from it.

[Mooks]

Point of Order:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It attempts to explain what is can not be explained naturally (otherwise known as empirical evidence, the 5 senses). It goes beyond nature, so we call it supernatural.

Rhyfelwyr's quote about faith

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Faith is the result of having to think, of having to truly reflect upon our natures, and of questioning the viability of the morals and worldviews we take for granted; within the framework of a Godless existence. To avoid having faith, you must bow your head down and charge your way through life, hoping one vain pursuit occupies your mind until the next, until you hit the brick wall of death, and you can hide from the truth no more." - Rhyfelwyr

I put this in spoilers since its ATPG's turn to speak

Response:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Im really really trying hard to wrap my head around this. Please answer my following questions, as I am genuinely interested in trying to figure out exactly what you mean. Im using bullet points because they are easier to understand.

1)I was under the impression that faith is believing, not thinking. The kind of people that have absolute faith, which under no circumstances can be altered (and there are people of this nature in every religion) dont think about the existence of their diety, they know .

2)I fail to see how faith questions the human nature. As any person knows (or they are very naive) there are more then a few people that would gain power at any cost, and would shamelessly con people into giving them power; this could easily be applied to the authors of the bible or any religios text. I would generally like a better explanation of how it questions the human nature.

3)I think that all morals are customs and traditions of the times and culture of where they all. And they change fluidly, albeit very slow. What was moral hundreds or thousands of years ago, seems barbaric today. Or even a better example: what seems barbaric and horrific in one part of the world could seem perfectly civilized where its practiced. With this being said, I dont know how faith questions morals, as it keeps them exactly as they are. Followers of the bible are following the morals of the authors of the bible (and this ranges in the thousands of years), followers of the Koran are following the morals of a 7th century desert tribe.

4) You say having no faith is

you must bow your head down and charge your way through life, hoping one vain pursuit occupies your mind until the next, until you hit the brick wall of death, and you can hide from the truth no more.

First, I fail to see how having no faith is like "bow your head down". If anything its straight up, think of what worshipping is, theres alot of bowing and scraping involved.

[Meneldil]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meneldil-

I admire many religions, because they are basic attempts to find meaning and purpose in this life, as well as form a moral code. They were essential to the formation of modern philosophical thought, ethics and morality; however I believe they are outdated and based on as much mythology as reasoning, and therefore are no longer necessary.

However, I condemn no one for their religion; I simply question them when they act on faith alone, because that is dangerous. What a person believes about the afterlife is no one's business, and I admit, it is a comforting thought, but I would be more comforted if people rejected the ancient traditions and applied critical thinking to everything they did.

There would be no need to believe in heaven in the afterlife if this world wasn't such hell. As for the afterlife; if heaven exists, and they won't let me in because I refused to have faith in it, then it is not a place I desire to go. Especially if they won't allow decent moral rational people who are non-religious.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My comment was a response to Rhyfelwyr, but thanks for the insight.
I used to be quite anti-religious and what not, calling people who believed idiots or biggots. I even went as far as reading the Bible just to win some smartass arguments against my religious friends.
Then I met some more believers (especially here in Canada), and for the sake of not being an annoying jackass, I learnt to respect them and their ideas.

But overall, I completely agree with you. Acting out of blind faith (wether in a religion or in an ideology) is never a good thing. I don't believe in absolute morals pulled up from some book written centuries ago. Morals, based on religious teachings, have to evolve because the world is evolving, changing.

And yeah, I find the whole 'If you don't believe you're going to hell' line to be ludicrous.

[Sarmatian]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It might be better if people don't try to enter the discussion, even if they put it in spoiler tags. This is between Pizzaguy and Rhyfelwyr, if we interject too much it will become just another thread where all of us are involved...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He's a witch! Swedishfish is talking like a cat so he must be a witch! That's the devil's work, it is.

edit: his post has been deleted by a moderator, I believe.

It's a theory which embraces both. You don't have to accept it's validity, but that doesn't change what it is. I told Rwy I wasn't going to crash his party, and I'm not. However, the divine is part of the fabric of existence, not seperate from it.

But it does not embrace both. It holds as being truth supernatural reasons for creation, and life and death and allows for angels and demons and devils and saints and resurrection and so on; and it even contradicts and challenges science because people KNOW science must be wrong due the FACT that religion is the word of GOD. That kind of certainty does not exist in the rational, scientific realm.

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world

It is not a theory, or it would be opened to being challenged, actually. I take it back; religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.

Thought experiment:

If I were to say there is an invisible magic box which contained the Incredible Fire-Breathing Leprechaun (known from here on as IFBL for short) and I said that it is a theory of reality, which cannot be tested, questioned, or proven, then scientists would laugh in my face or attempt to reason me out of it. The religion of the IFBL, I could argue, should be taught alongside other theories of reality in science class. I could write books about it, wear holy clothes, pray to the IFBL, and make Saint Patrick's Day outlawed because it is blasphemous to the Fire-Breathing Lord. I could even try to post the tenets of my faith in court rooms next to the Ten Commandments and call them equal. For convenience, here are the tenets of the Incredible Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Thy Fire-breathing Leprechaun hates all other gods, therefore you should not worship them
2. Thou shalt not misspell the name of the Leprechaun God, nor use improper grammar.
3. Remember thy four-leaf clover and keep it holy.
4. Honor thy Rainbow and thy Pot o' gold.
5. Thou shalt not catch the Leprechaun.
6. Thou shalt not taste His rainbow.
7. Thou shalt not steal His Gold.
8. Thou shalt not use faerie magic against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's pixie dust.
10. Thou shalt not attempt to breathe fire like the Leprechaun God, lest you die from third-degree burns.

Because some believe (there are a growing number of us) in the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, and it is now one of the fastest-growing religions, we demand equal time to teach children our theory of the universe, which is not to be questioned, because we find questioning our faith offensive. It is a valid theory of reality, not the supernatural, if as you suggest, other religions which teach about the supernatural are also theories about reality.

Listen, I find religion itself to be harmless and sometimes it teaches good things. For example, the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion does not advocate stealing people's Gold, for that is a sin against the Lord. Therefore, it begs the question; how would humanity find morality without the Book of the Leprechaun to guide us? Humanity is flawed, and only the perfect and beautiful, and very very lucky, Fire-Breathing Leprechaun Lord can show us the light. I know this sounds absurd, and like a mockery of religion, but it is not intended as such. Allow me to explain. All I really did was edit out Christian words and add the words of Irish folklore and mythology. Mythology and religion go hand in hand, most of the time, and there was a time when people believed in Leprechauns. So it is NOT a stretch to say that in our world, in our real living world, people could believe in Leprechaun Gods.

When the tenets of the religion are basically the same, just replaced with Irish folklore, they do sound rather silly, do they not? Especially when one argues that without this form of religion, mankind would be lost and unable to function or find moral truths. I am simply saying, that any religion is fine, as long as people also doubt the veracity of the tenets of that religion with equal measure that they believe in them. What IF there is an incredible, fire-breathing Leprechaun in the sky? Can anyone here suggest that God, in His infinite power, could transform Himself into a burning bush, but not a Fire-Breathing Leprechaun? If you believe in God, you must also believe He could appear as a Fire-Breathing Leprechaun if He so chose. So even though on the surface this sounds like a joke, it is but one step away from being the reality of religion itself; a story of the supernatural that people believe is 100% true, in spite of a lack of evidence which supports the story. There is almost no difference between the two stories, and the moral message that is carried is nearly the same as well.

I would suggest that many of the moral messages of faith can be taught using empirical data, observation, thought experiments, history, research, logic, reason, and debate. There is no need for the supernatural to get involved in our day-to-day decisions. If at the end of our lives, we go to heaven, or hell, or The Magic Box, then it will be proven that the theory of existence which includes those endings is true. Until then, it must be considered at best a plausible but unprovable explanation which is unsupported by fact, and therefore treated with the same grain of salt as the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion. I hope this thought experiment has offended no one; I had to create a fake religion as an example, as a thought experiment. No offense was intended to any person of faith. However I would say that if a person's sensibilities are so easily offended, the backroom is not for them. I apologize anyway in advance.

[Reenk Roink]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Atpg, a couple of comments on your comments, especially on your use of the word 'rational' and its various forms.

You say:

Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm

Here I take you to say that something is irrational if it either cannot be proven true using the scientific method or if it has been proven false.

(You later seem to espouse the opinion that it is "logic" that is the basis of rationality so I sense a bit of incoherence)

Ignoring what exactly you mean by 'scientific method' or 'prove' for a moment, is it correct to state that your position is one that states that the scientific method is the criteria for rationality? If so, please explicate your conception of the scientific method and then I will get back to you with my objections.

You say:

Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.

Your claim of morality not originating from the supernatural is simply false to anyone who believes in any sort of voluntarist ethics.

You then say that one must use "rational arguments" as a justification even for people who claim "religion causes morality" and I wonder how this is so. I could simply assert that supernatural being A said act X was good. You could construe this trivially to be a form of argument, but it would be trivial, as you could construe any statement as such.

Your last statement doesn't even seem to be coherent. Because someone uses rational arguments to promote a case for voluntarist ethics it means that the ethics are "caused" by "rationalism" and not voluntarism? Is this what you are saying?

religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.

The fact of the matter is, that every foundation of "rationalism" that you have hinted at (the scientific method and logical inferences) are the same. They are unprovable.

The law of non contradiction is the basis for (traditional/classical) logic. Please prove the law of non-contradiction without reference to itself.

Please prove the assumptions that is needed for any natural science to proceed. Prove that the external world actually exists beyond our sense perception.

Or are these "unquestionable" axioms that need to be accepted before logic or the scientific method can proceed?

Lastly, please explain why something that is testable has any more epistemic merit than something that is not.

These are basic foundational questions against (what I perceive as) your view of rationalism.

But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.

By "logic" I will take you to mean deductive inferences. Is this what you mean?

If so, I have already provided an example of an axiom of deductive logic that is accepted without proof - on 'faith' that is.

Thanks

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reenk, you seem to have the view that nothing can be proven because proof relies on means which you seem to consider faulty, our senses. As such, it is pointless to debate anything, because it is impossible to prove anything using such standards.



Since we are at an impasse, I will accept further debate from you in private or a separate thread, so as not to derail this one. I seriously doubt we will reach an understanding if nothing can be proven using reason; which is interesting, because you're attempting to prove using reason that nothing can be proven using reason. A self-defeating argument.

[Reenk Roink]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Actually Atpg, I never denied things that your view of rationalism depends on. I never denied the validity of the law of non contradiction and the existence of an external world.

I merely ASKED you to PROVE the foundations of them. Are you not saying that say, religious revelation should be held to a standard of your rationalism? If so, I say your rationalism should be held to a standard of religious revelation, thus I require proofs.

You are correct to say that we arrive at an impasse. Essentially, you are taking the stance that religious revelation is irrational and should be held to an external standard. Any religious believer could easily reject this view and say that religious revelation is itself an epistemic primitive and needs no justification. The impasse is clear.

Lastly, even if someone denies "reason" (which I will be charitable and take as deductive inferences because it certainly is possible to argue against sense experience without using sense experience) and makes a self defeating argument against it, it in no way, shape, or form justifies this reason...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If one holds a subjective view of proof, and takes religion and faith as being true, and assumes that rational proofs must be false because they cannot be proven using an unreasonably high standard, then it is impossible to prove anything, because one with a subjective view of proof can simply disagree and say "I do not believe that is so."

Subjective truths cannot be disproved, because nothing can disprove opinion if one's opinion is based on subjective truth, which is incompatible with objective truth. Since there is only one truth, there is no way to prove anything to a person who does not accept objective proofs or truths. I sense you are one who believes that truth is in the eye of the beholder, that all truth is questionable if you do not believe in it, and that your opinion is as valid as everyone else's opinion, even if one's opinion is unsubstantiated by reason or evidence. When you question the common usages of reason and evidence as being valid, it becomes impossible to prove anything using your standards.

While you can debate ad infinitum using such impossible standards, you will also defeat your own argument while doing so, and as such, there is no reason for me to give you a rebuttal or attempt to answer your questions. I do have a feeling you've spent more time researching terms and have a better understanding of the subjective or unorthodox perspectives that question everything, and as such you have me at a disadvantage. However, when one begins to question that things can be proven, that rationalism and logic are more useful than faith, and when one denies objective standards of proof, then it is impossible to either win or lose a debate with you, because there is no such thing, according to your standards.

If subjectivity wins, then my view is as valid as yours, and therefore also correct, so there is no point in debating me. If objectivity wins, then subjectivity is self-defeating, and there is no point in debating me. That is where I see the impasse. However, if we are discussing different things, then you can attempt to challenge my arguments again in private or elsewhere in a separate thread.

[KarlXII]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What happened to my Meow Mix song?

Moderator's Response:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It was deleted as spam as it was not remotely germane to the thread.

Moreover, you did not even provide the correct number of "meows" for the entire jingle.

Now, contribute something at least vaguely related from here on out please.

[Reenk Roink]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Out of respect for your discussion with Rhyfelwyr, this will be my last post on this thread (I do feel it to be VERY pertinent to the question of faith otherwise I would have just posted on your profile ).

This really has nothing to do with "objective" or "subjective" "views of proof" Atpg. I think you are misunderstanding my points.

I am simply calling into question your belief that logic and the scientific method should be the standard of rationality. Why cannot it be a certain religious revelation instead?

How is the former the 'objective' standard and the latter not? To me they both look subjective and unless you explain to me how yours is the objective one, I can merely claim that another is the objective one like you are.

Frankly, it seems you are using the word objective to mean your point of view and subjective to mean not your point of view without ever demonstrating how this is so.

To show how vacuous your objective standard is, someone else could go and purport that a religious revelation is the overriding standard. He is providing a standard that is above all others, thus objective. Proof and disproof are up to it. If it claims that there is an external world then it is so.

Even further, I have demonstrated that your standards of logic and the scientific method themselves are based on axioms that are unquestioned and based thus not on proof but by faith. Your standard cannot hold up to itself, why should others have to hold up to it?

Lastly, I take issue with a statement you made to the effect of:

FAITH in religion or anything, frankly, is harmful, because it is the rational mind surrendering to the irrational, and being influenced by the biases and superstitions of ancient tradition and mythology which has been mostly disproven or discredited or otherwise deemed unprovable by science

I would contend that there is not much that has been disproven or discredited (examples please), only things that have been deemed unprovable. Science has never ruled out angels, demons, an afterlife, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I see this one on one debate between Rhyfelwyr and Pizzaguy has stayed on course with little interference from others. And some people thought it was foolish that whenever religion is brought up you could prevent others from putting in their own opinion...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I probably do misunderstand your points, Reenk, because I don't agree with or understand fully your viewpoint.

What I do understand, or think I understand, from what you've said:

1. You question what makes something objective. Well, I suppose the definition of objective reasoning can be easily found online in any dictionary. I am attempting to use that definition. Not the authoritative source, but the best I can find at short notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

There is an almost universally accepted difference in the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. Whether you agree with those differences or not, they do exist. Which is an interesting example of such; regardless of your opinion OR MINE, there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity which is so inherent and intrinsic that it defines everything else. Subjectivity does not allow for truth itself except that which accepts conflicting truths, and to me, the definition of truth does not allow for contradictory truths to exist, otherwise they aren't true.

This statement is false, for example, cannot be true because it negates it's own logic. However, if I believe in subjective truths, I could say that the statement is true, because it is my opinion that it is, regardless of objective proof that it is self-contradictory and therefore invalid. I believe we touched on this a little bit in the Godfather thread.

2. "I am simply calling into question your belief that logic and the scientific method should be the standard of rationality. Why cannot it be a certain religious revelation instead?"

They are the standard of rationality, by the definition of rationalism. Again, wikipedia is hardly the authoritative source, nor do I agree with everything contained within the page, but it is a good starting point.

The trouble with your argument is that you (from my perspective) simply are challenging definitions of things, and questioning everything, and putting everything in the "no way of knowing one way or the other" category. As such, it is physically impossible to answer your questions or define terms to you. As such, I am at an impasse at understanding what it is you want from me.

Why can it not be a certain religious revelation? It could be. However, there is no evidence thereof, and when rationalism and science have proven things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, can predict events with remarkable accuracy, can provide us with rational explanations and provide us with opportunities for growth and learning and scientific achievement, and religious tenets do not provide us with a method of doing so with any real accuracy, cannot provide us with rational explanations and provide us with opportunity for scientific achievement, then there is more value in one approach than the other in most applications in life, I argue and within a reasonable standard of proof, I can prove.

It is not religion I question, Reenk Roink. I readily admit that there is no way of knowing anything with 100% accuracy when it is scientifically unprovable. However, I AM questioning FAITH as opposed to REASON as the primary philosophical motivation, because FAITH does not bend, does not allow for changes, does not allow for error, does not allow for growth, does not allow for progress, and that is something that is objectively true based on a reasonable definition of faith versus reason.

Reason, on the other hand, allows for changes, allows for error, allows for growth, allows for progress, and that is also something that is objectively true based on a reasonable definition of faith versus reason.

If you reject reason as having value, and believe with unrelenting FAITH that religious revelation has the same intrinsic value as reason, proof, and the scientific method, then that is your opinion and it cannot be disproved using your standards. But you do not seem to believe that things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because (in my opinion) you base your philosophy on an unreasonable standard of doubt; therefore I cannot define my terms to your satisfaction, nor can anyone prove anything to you. But, because of your subjective viewpoint, that is fine. However, there is an objective viewpoint, and it is NOT as you suggest, simply my opinion. It is NOT simply an opinion that the Earth is round, because there is about a billion times more proof that this is true, than evidence to the contrary, therefore that theory has about a billion times more value than the theory that the Earth is somehow still flat and this is all an elaborate deception.

You could suggest that in the afterlife, we will find out that the Earth was flat all along, and were mistaken. However, the evidence does not lean that way, and if we reject reasonable standards of proof and reasoning, and blindly accept all things as having equal merit, then scientific progress is impossible, and there is no room for learning, growth, or knowledge. You seem to disagree on principle that knowledge even exists, according to your standards of proof.

As such, it is impossible to reach an understanding between our minds. However, just because you hold this opinion, that will not stop the rest of the world from using objective thought to accomplish many many things, and continue to prove using reason and evidence that rational thought is superior to irrational faith in that which can never be proven.


Again, it is NOT religion I question, but the viewpoint of 100% faith. I have doubts about the ability of science to explain everything, sure... no amount of science can explain the supernatural. But it can explain the natural world in a way that FAITH can never do. Faith does not explain; it knows unquestioningly that which cannot be known. As such, it is false logic and it has resulted in terrible consequences for mankind.

FAITH in one's own beliefs without allowing for doubt resulted in people using violence to overthrow the Russian state and then proceed to exterminate and imprison millions who disagreed with those beliefs. And that was an irreligious form of faith; faith in Communism. That same faith resulted in the deaths of millions in the Chinese civil war when political radicals murdered millions and starved millions more in their attempts to overthrow the establishment and create a new state based on their beliefs; beliefs that they had such FAITH in, that they would murder people who disagreed with them. FAITH resulted in the Holocaust; for only a man who believed with 100% certainty that his views were correct, could order the destruction of millions. If that man had doubts about his opinions, he might have thought twice before giving the order.

If I have FAITH that if I drive down the street with my eyes closed, I will be all right; I could be right. But I also could be wrong, and faith does not allow for that. As such, acting on such faith, I could be responsible for many deaths and my own.

FAITH is the unquestioning belief in something; to the point where you act on it without debate or hesitation. And FAITH is that blind, unrelenting force which does not tolerate opposing views, whether they are religious or not, and that form of INTOLERANCE is the root of all evil that has plagued mankind forever and ever. FAITH is that which does not tolerate reason or dissent. FAITH is that which contradicts and overpowers the rational mind; whether for religious or other reasons, it still is faith. Certainty where there should be none. That is what I consider FAITH.

It is NOT religion I question; it is FAITH. Religion combined with doubt allows for us to explore the rational mind and experience the occasional irrational thought or allows for us to discuss what there might be in a supernatural world.

DOUBT allows for the mind to be sane. DOUBT is the root of all scientific knowledge, DOUBT is the root of all reasoning. DOUBT is the thing which has provided mankind with ALL progress it has made towards creating a sane, viable collective existence, because DOUBT allows for dissent, disagreement, contradiction, opinion, proof, and science. DOUBT is infinitely superior to FAITH.

However, you seem to employ an unreasonable standard of doubt, which is it's own form of faith. As such, you bring the discussion to a place I cannot go, because I do not agree with the assumptions you make, as you do not agree with mine.

And because of DOUBT, I can sit here and amicably disagree with you. I have no FAITH in my opinions, I DOUBT them as much as you do. I allow for the possibility that you could be correct, even. However, I seriously doubt that an unreasonable standard of doubt is useful as a philosophical viewpoint, and I have many reasons and examples to give as to why a reasonable standard of doubt is superior to either irrational or extreme faith, or irrational or extreme doubt.

It is about moderation in things; I do believe it is possible your more radical approach could be correct, but I have not seen examples of your approach yielding positive results. I do not see examples where faith has yielded positive results either; but I do see those extremes taking credit for what the rational mind already knows, and claiming the truths which come from the rational mind and calling it part of their philosophy, when it is not so.

In the end, Reenk, you and I will never agree unless we can agree on a simple, reasonable standard of proof and a basic agreement on definitions. While you seemingly disagree that proof is even possible, and you challenge every definition I toss at you, I cannot debate with you. If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized your position, let me know elsewhere or in private, as I feel we are getting into an off-topic discussion about epistemic knowledge which suits you more than this discussion regarding faith, and it is not one I signed up for, but will gladly discuss with you elsewhere.

I will debate epistemology with you to the ends of the earth, Reenk Roink, but we will never agree, I contend, and I do believe it IS in the realm of off-topic when we are discussing the difference between reason and faith. You contend there is no difference when there absolutely is, by definition, and as such you're just questioning the definition, and that is a separate argument, and I believe ultimately the entire thing is a red herring. But that is my opinion, and that is subjective, and that is something you can challenge, and I'd be interested to see how well you do with that.