Unreasonable Faith Forum

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

  • Home
  • About
  • Forum
  • Writings
  • A Reading List
  • Submissions
  • Contact

Register or Log In

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Only Religion » Questions for Atheists / Theists

Reasonable Faith?

(117 posts) (25 voices)
  • Started 3 years ago by McHonza
  • Latest reply from Wafik

Tags:

  • burden of proof fallacy
  • Evidence
  • evolution
  • fake jacob co
  • great comandment
  • history
  • lightslategray wedding dresses
  • reasonable
  • reciprocal altruism
  • Science
  • Socrates
  • The Bible
12…4Next »
  1. McHonza
    Member

    Personally, my faith is pretty simple and based on the teachings of Christ. I find the elegance of the great commandment irresistible as a model for personal ideology and interaction with others. I think it is very portable to anyone approaching it with an open mind.

    Honestly following a particular value system should be based on the best aspects of that system. The worst aspects should never be ignored as a matter of cautionary historicity. i.e. If you wished to be a painter, you should study the masters and emulate all that you can. You should certainly be aware of the mistakes that they or their other students have made, but you wouldn't dismiss their talent because of them.

    I think that is reasonable.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. Daniel Florien
    Administrator

    How do you know what Christ really taught since he left no writings and we only have things written down generations after by anonymous authors (except Luke, who admits he is just a compiler)? Do you believe the miracles he is said to have done? If so, why do you think that is reasonable?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. Leo
    Member

    There are other people who claim to be "honestly following a value system" based on the exact same source as yours who interpret it so differently as to almost mean the opposite.

    For example, here, it is argued that the great commandment orders to honour god first and then neighbours secondarily, meaning that one shouldn't go against god's word as written in the old testament even if it overrides "love thy neighbour".

    To me it seems more like people making their own personal choices on morality (whatever they may be) and then using the bible to back them up. Which makes me think- why bother with the bible part?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. McHonza
    Member

    @Daniel - I like the ideology of the great commandment regardless of its actual source.
    If you made up it, I'd say it sounded worth following.

    The reality of the miracles are immaterial to me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. McHonza
    Member

    @Leo - I can only speak to my own honesty.

    The example you cite doesn't sound reasonable to me.

    As far as bothering to use the bible, I wonder about that as well. It seems that the essential message that Jesus was trying to convey is pretty simple.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. thewarfreak
    Member

    But if the source doesn't matter, then why not just follow Socrates? He said (at least, Plato says he did) things that were just as profound, and just as altruistic as Jesus - even before Jesus. He just didn't claim divinity.

    Why bother with Jesus if all the periphery is unimportnat? Surely you could've thought to yourself "gee, treating people kindly is a good thing" without having to enlist the help of a bronze age book.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. McHonza
    Member

    @thewarfreak - There is evidence that Socrates was a critic and reformer of his contemporary religious beliefs and practices as well. Jesus didn't give his own answer to the question of what the greatest commandment was, he cited earlier writings, which indicates that the answer was already there. Reciprocal altruism theoretically places concepts of the great commandment within the process of evolution.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. thewarfreak
    Member

    Totally agreed on all of your points, but that doesn't explain why you might follow Jesus. If anything, it points out the absurdity of it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. Kodie
    Member

    I don't know... I think you are saying to follow the great commandment - I'm not confident I know what that means, but I think it means to latch on to one specific person, an idol, as it were. To have no regard above that person. I don't think that's reasonable if that person didn't exist, and/or you can't prove that they were as great as legends would have you believe. It is in that sense arbitrary. If I would say, my mother is MY MOTHER, and that means more than all that she thinks and does and says, that I should do everything she says is best, without questioning it (I think this is another commandment). I'm really in deep shit if I do what my mother does and follow her rules to navigate my life. She's right some of the time, but I have to use my brain and gather wisdom from various sources - that seems reasonable. I don't think Jesus Christ "said" a lot of "unreasonable" things... I don't really know and rely on cultural references to it. That doesn't mean I want to uphold him as the ultimate guide. If he says one thing that makes sense to me (is reasonable), does it follow that he knows everything and I should do whatever he thinks is good? I don't think there's a god, for one thing, so this guy, he's putting together a package of inspirational thoughts, a lot like Wayne Dyer or Oprah Winfrey.

    Here is a blog: http://www.livingoprah.com/

    "In 2008, I performed an experiment. For an entire year, I lived my life completely according to the advice of Oprah Winfrey. I was VERY curious...as Oprah frequently urges her viewers and readers to "Live Your Best Life," I wondered what would happen if one woman committed whole-heartedly to her lifestyle suggestions. Would the costs of living as Oprah prescribes (financial, energy, time spent) be worth the results? ... This blog is the journal of my experience of Living Oprah." -- Robyn Okrant

    Here is her book on the experience, and website:
    http://www.robynokrant.com/

    I mean, that makes just as much sense, right? Find one person who knows everything (or in fact, compiles from a lot of advisors on many subjects) and wants you to have your "best life," and acts as a resource what this best means and is. Someone actually went ahead and did that, does that mean Oprah is a deity, or will be in 600 years? I don't think many people do everything she says, but at least some people follow at least some things she says to the letter - if they are left to their own decisions on what's "best" for them, in a sense, they don't know, but Oprah recommends -this- so they do -this-.

    Jesus, to compare, was also a guy who was saying some things that made sense, and had some charisma, I suppose, but not a lot of original thought, just like Oprah is really the vortex of a lot of information you can find yourself from other people. Some of it is smart or helpful. Not all of it is, and you are still free to take some advice from other people who haven't been featured on Oprah.

    I think what you're saying is that if you just ask WWJD, you can wear that in your brain (or a bracelet!) and figure out what the right thing to do is, if that's what you mean by portable, and that you need not think for yourself, Jesus always has the right answer, and if you rely on a variety of sources of wisdom, you might get confused and indecisive and make some poor choices. Bullcrap!

    UNREASONABLE!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. McHonza
    Member

    @thewarfreak - Everyone accepts a teacher at some time or another that is the mark of a substantial dividing point in ideology or is looking for one.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. DDM
    Member

    Do you really need someone to tell you to not hurt others?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. McHonza
    Member

    @Kodie - The Living Oprah example is awesome, I'm looking forward to checking it out. You're right, she could in theory become a sort of secular saint or deity in the future depending on how her ideology is handled once she is gone.

    As far as my own faith:
    I share your concern for following "without question."
    I share your belief that "gathering wisdom from various sources" "seems reasonable."
    I am not saying "that you need not think for yourself."
    As far as "Jesus always has the right answer": I think the great commandment does cover that, but I'm open to discussing anything in particular.
    As far as getting "confused and indecisive and [making] some poor choices": I think that does happen when people don't have a pretty clearly defined system of values.

    If that doesn't pull me back to reasonable for you, I'd be happy to further discuss any specific points.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. McHonza
    Member

    @DDM Yes, sometimes I need reminders. Other apparently do as well or there would be no need for time outs, teaching manners, traffic laws, jails, & prisons.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. rA
    Member

    So, you're saying it doesn't matter whether it is true, as long as it is useful?

    I think that is unreasonable.

    edit/PS: the master painter analogy is poor, because right or wrong, good or bad, their paintings do exist... whereas gods, souls, immaterial things don't ("may not", "probably don't") exist... a man named Jesus may not even have existed... the Bible is all or mostly made up and there is no good reason to believe any of it, no contemporaneous corroboration, only stuff written decades or centuries later... not only is there little or no reason to believe it, there is plenty of good reason to doubt it... factual errors, inconsistencies, barbarism... if the truth/divinity of any of it is called into question, the truth/divinity of all of it is called into question

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. thewarfreak
    Member

    @McHonza

    Personally, I can't find fault with espousing particular philosophies from Jesus or any other literary or historical figures. I think that the Jesus of the Bible spoke some truths - in the same way that Plato's Socrates did, or that Shakespeare was able to do with his work. It is only when one attaches more meaning to his words, and attributes divine powers to him that I get worried.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. DDM
    Member

    Yes, sometimes I need reminders. Other apparently do as well or there would be no need for time outs ... jails, & prisons.

    And you're okay with being grouped with such people because you need to be reminded of something as simple as not hurting other people?

    Also, what do these two have to do with hurting people?

    teaching manners, traffic laws

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. Travis
    Member

    So, maybe I am missing something, but would you consider yourself a theist then McHonza?

    I'm curious how you make the leap from trying to live your life according to your understanding of the Biblical Jesus and his teachings to belief in a God. Living according to the value system Jesus presented seems a great distance from belief in a personal deity.

    Also, by "great commandment" do you mean the golden rule?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. McHonza
    Member

    @rA - No, I'm saying that because it is so useful there may be some truth to it. Which does sound reasonable to me.

    As for the painter analogy, suppose the original master's works can no longer be viewed for some reason.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. McHonza
    Member

    @thewarfreak - The meaning that anyone attaches to anything is subjective. I don't get particularly worried when I hear someone talk about music or art transporting them to another place or altering their consciousness. But I would get pretty uncomfortable if they insisted I see it their way or something must be wrong with me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. McHonza
    Member

    @DDM - If you are perfect and have never hurt anyone, that is great. I on the other hand, like most people, irritate others, say offensive things, and behave quite selfishly at times.

    Do you really not see how a lack of manners or traffic laws could contribute to people getting hurt?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. McHonza
    Member

    @Travis - I would say I'm a struggling theist because I understand the doubts that are a necessary part of faith.

    I'm curious how you make the leap from trying to live your life according to your understanding of the Biblical Jesus and his teachings to belief in a God. Living according to the value system Jesus presented seems a great distance from belief in a personal deity.

    By great commandment I mean:
    (from Matthew 22:37-40) "Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
    or:
    (from Mark 12:30-31) "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. rA
    Member

    @rA - No, I'm saying that because it is so useful there may be some truth to it. Which does sound reasonable to me.

    Not to me, it doesn't. Nothing is true because it is useful. Sometimes true things are useful, sometimes useful things are true, but correlation is not causation. I could make up a belief that if children don't study hard for math and science, in the afterlife they will be tortured by a sixteen-headed demon named Steve. This belief would certainly be useful, but it would remain false. No amount of usefulness makes it true. (Neither does preference, by the way; sure, it would be nice if there were such things as eternal life and objective meaning, but that doesn't mean there are... wanting something to be true has no effect on whether it is true.)

    Conversely: two of my favorite humans, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln, were born on the same day (12 February 1809). This information is true but not useful.

    As for the painter analogy, suppose the original master's works can no longer be viewed for some reason.

    So, a complete analogy would be: there is an anonymously-written book that claims to be written by a master painter, although none of his alleged paintings exist. Some people take the book's advice and make good paintings; some people take the book's advice and make terrible paintings. You conclude that the former made good paintings because the advice is true; the latter made terrible paintings because they misinterpreted the advice.

    I think that is unreasonable.

    Throw in "...and this advice ultimately does more harm than good, that is, it results in more terrible paintings than good paintings" and the conclusion that the advice is true becomes unreasonable and dangerous. (Although "unreasonable" is already bad enough to strongly oppose it, imo... I value truth pretty highly.)

    PS: it is still a bad analogy, "this painting is good" is subjective, "there is a god" is not...

    PPS: you are jumping from "the teachings of Christ are useful" to "the god Yahweh exists"... even if the former were true, which is debatable (I say it's false!), what connection is there, other than they're both in the same book?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. JonJon
    Member

    "PPS: you are jumping from "the teachings of Christ are useful" to "the god Yahweh exists"... even if the former were true, which is debatable (I say it's false!), what connection is there, other than they're both in the same book?"

    Just throwing this out there as a possible answer:

    They're both in the same book. What I mean is, a firm commitment to one ideal can lead to a firm commitment on other ideals from the same source. I'll grant that this is something of a leap, but it isn't as though "do good unto others" is a markedly different guideline than "love the LORD your God." They both have to be taken at face value as morally good because either a) they make sense to you, or b) they come from a certain source.

    Treating others the way you would like to be treated could be valued as a precept of morality because it is in a text which seems like a reliable guide, or because it "makes sense," but there is nothing inherent to it that makes it morally good. In the same way, loving God can be taken as a moral precept because it is in a text which seems reliable, or because it "makes sense," and there is nothing inherent to it that makes it morally good.

    So if the options for adopting the golden rule or loving God as principles of morality are because it "makes sense" or because it comes from a certain place, then people who choose one or the other because it makes sense are not obligated to hold the other as a moral precept (I can take the golden rule and leave God, for example.) But if they are valued because of their source, then in order to hold one as a moral precept it becomes quite logical to accept the other.

    Obviously, we could debate on whether the Bible is a good source or not, but for those who hold that it is, it does make sense to make the leap from one to another.

    This isn't what McH is arguing either, and it does little more than describe the process by which some people might arrive at one from the other. But there you go.

    W/ regard to the painter analogy, we could come up with something a bit better. I hate to poke fun (wink wink) but we could use something along the lines of Strunk and White: a guideline regarded as essential by some and irrelevant by others. Yes, good writing could be accomplished without a style guide, and bad writing could certainly be accomplished with one. But a series of guidelines on how to do something properly has a closer connection with a set of moral teachings.

    With this analogy you have a differentiation between what is true and what is useful, and also a similar dependence upon context and culture. What is "correct" writing is subject at least in part to culture and common usage, although guidelines may still be culled from style guides that are thousands of years old (Aristotle's Poetics might be a good example; rhetoric is mostly dead, but there is a great deal of interesting theoretical speculation on what makes a good tragedy or comedy.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. rA
    Member

    You are still equating something subjective (whether a particular writer has good style, say) with something that is not (whether or not gods exist). Also, I understand the concept of "this part of the book is good and true, so this other part must also be good and true" (especially given that it self-defines truth and goodness! convenient word games), but I say that is ridiculous. In any other case it is obviously so.

    Yes, fine, if you knew nothing else about a book, a part being true may be a useful hint about the truth of other parts. But you know a lot more about this book! You know it says some things that are false: pi is 3, the world is flat, the Universe was designed, a global flood was a historical event, the sun orbits the earth, and on and on. What else is wrong? How do you know what's right? Who wrote this, anyway? Do you believe in the factual accuracy of any other book written by unknown authors?

    There are several (or many) books that claim to be the one holy text, the sole source of eternal truth. They contradict each other. They can't all be true, there could barely be more than one that is true. Is it more probable that one book is magic, or that none are?

    Ancient gods never existed. Zeus-, Apollo-, and Odin-worship were superstition. Only tying yourself into a mental pretzel, burying a fallacy in a mountain of reasonable-seeming drivel, can make Jesus-worship any different, any less false or superstitious. Modern gods don't exist either. You worship Jesus due to an accident of time and space. If you were born in Afghanistan you'd worship Muhammad. If you were born three thousand years ago you'd worship Athena. If you were born three thousand years in the future you'd put Yahweh in the same category as Baal. It's quite simple: all religions past and present are unreasonable, irrational superstition. You are already an atheist to the thousands of gods that have been invented and worshiped by humans. Go one god further.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. Leo
    Member

    @McH
    I don't think the opinion in my example is reasonable either, but it is another person's interpretation of the same rule. Such a vague rule of "be good to god and nice to other people" doesn't actually give specific moral guidance. All it really says to anyone is to do what you think is right.

    As many other people have asked: why Jesus? Why not one of many other sources of the same basic idea? Why not Bill and Ted?
    I've read your other posts on this thread and I can't find an answer to this.

    @rA

    a man named Jesus may not even have existed

    Sacrilege! Have you not seen The Big Lebowski?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. JonJon
    Member

    @ rA

    Yeah, I didn't think you would *like* the explanation. Just thought I'd offer a completely objective analysis. Nowhere do I enter into the question of whether the source actually is any good, because I don't have time to argue about that right now (unfortunately.)

    "You are still equating something subjective (whether a particular writer has good style, say) with something that is not (whether or not gods exist)."

    Actually, I don't think I am. I was talking about morality. Morality is not an objective question, and it absolutely need not concern itself with the objective question of whether God exists. If a particular moral code just says "honor the gods," for example, it is irrelevant whether or not those gods exist. That particular moral code need not demand that you believe in the gods--simply that you burn incense in front of a statue, or show some form of respect when presented with a family gravestone, or whatever. The point needn't be belief in a god or gods. Behaving in a certain way under certain conditions can be simply that; it needn't entail any belief at all. I'm equating a list of guidelines with a list of guidelines. I think it works rather well.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. rodneyAnonymous
    Member

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/forum/topic/top-5-movies#post-623

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. Leo
    Member

    @rA I rest my case :)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. McHonza
    Member

    @rA - You are correct that correlation is not causation, which is why I said "there may be some truth to it." That is what made my original statement reasonable. You ignoring what I actually said, in my opinion, makes you look unreasonable.

    So, a complete analogy would be: there is an anonymously-written book that claims to be written by a master painter, although none of his alleged paintings exist. Some people take the book's advice and make good paintings; some people take the book's advice and make terrible paintings. You conclude that the former made good paintings because the advice is true; the latter made terrible paintings because they misinterpreted the advice.

    I think that is unreasonable.

    Given your analogy above, I think the conclusion you attribute to me actually IS a reasonable one.

    The subjective nature of art does make the analogy weak. I started working on one with food, which has the objective attribute of sustenance as well as a the subjective attribute of taste, but I'm sure you would find it inadequate.

    PPS: you are jumping from "the teachings of Christ are useful" to "the god Yahweh exists"

    I didn't make either of those particular statements, so enclosing them in quotes is not really truthful, is it? For someone who just wrote, "I value truth pretty highly," this seems unreasonable.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. Elemenope
    Moderator

    I didn't make either of those particular statements, so enclosing them in quotes is not really truthful, is it? For someone who just wrote, "I value truth pretty highly," this seems unreasonable.

    You did say: "Personally, my faith is pretty simple and based on the teachings of Christ." While he didn't directly quote you, those two statements are quite consistent with what you said. Your *faith* in Jesus is based on the utility of his teachings. Either you didn't mean "faith" there in its normal meaning, in which case you ought to clarify, or you did, in which case you should have no beef with rA's concise articulation of the the consequences of the statement.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…4Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.