Faith

The difference between faith and insanity? Faith doesn't involve unsoundness of mind or the lack of understanding necessary to make responsible decisions.

I'm not using reason to defend my faith.

dado

feel free to point out a post where i have done either of those things. my beliefs are exactly that - "beliefs" and "mine". the only objective reality of my G-d is that which comes through in my actions - everything else may as well be a hallucinatory fantasy for all the impact it has on the world.

dado

"false" implies a standard. for any given text, there is indeed some arbitrary standard by which it is not defective, or false. to that extent, i agree with your statement. whether the standard necessary to achieve non-falseness has any relevance to anyone is a separate question.

dado

i am very much in agreement with that reading of it. it's not the only possible way to read it - amelq has his/her own unique and defensible spin - but it's the one that makes most sense to me.

Yahzi

What constitutes "soundess of mind?" What constitues a "responsible" decision?

Why... reasonableness.

One's mind is sound if one is reasonable. One's decisions are responsible if they are reasonable. By reasonable, we mean "in accordance with reality to the best of a prudent person's judgement."

Your faith is bound by reason. If you heard a voice in your head right now, demanding that you sacrifice your child on a stone altar, what would you do? If your neighbor's teenage daughter turned up pregnant, and swore she was still a virgin, what would you think? If you opened the Bible at random and dropped a crucifix on the page and it landed on the passage that says, "sell everything, give your money to the poor, and follow me," what would you do? What would you want your child or your sister to do?

In all ways your faith is hedged in by reason. If the Bible is really true, then people shouldn't be sad at funerals. But they are, because they are reasonable, and they don't let their faith get in the way of being reasonable. They keep their faith in a box, for those special moments when they want to get high, and when they are done, they put it away again.

I wouldn't object to that, but lately people seem to be forgetting to put down the crack pipe before they drive, go to work, or run for public office. So I'm pointing out that what separates your faith from the faith of those that fly planes into buildings is only reason. And once we've conceded that reason should be the ultimate arbiter of public behaviour, then... we've conceded the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Reason should be the ultimate arbiter of public behaviour. You already agree to this. Reason should be the ultimate arbiter of truth. You agree to this, too, except you want a special exemption for your own faith.

But the whole deal is, reason doesn't grant special exemptions. That's part of what makes it reasonable.

If you can get a special exemption, why can't anyone else?

Yahzi

So you freely concede that all of your talk is no more meaningful than commentaries on Harry Potter?

The standard, dado, is called "reality." A text is false if it is not in accordance with reality. The standard of reality is not arbitrary.

We can see that you are using "true" and "false" in their special philosophical sense where they have no actual meaning. You should be advised that most people use them in their ordinary sense, where "true" means true and "false" means false.

Indeed, given your above claim about the reality of God, we can see that you have never actually said anything on these boards that was not merely personal opinion, unsupported by any facts, and indeed of no more revelance to the rest of the world than the startling but true fact that I think dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate. The difference is two-fold: when I talk about my personal preferences and fantasies, I don't use language that seems confusingly similar to the language people use when they talk about objective truths; and secondly, I don't think my personal tastes in fiction are so compelling that people want to hear about them.

French Prometheus

First, you should note that atheism only means no belief in gods/God. That doesn't imply anything about morality. Some atheists believe that absolute morality exists.

AFAIC I'm a moral relativist : I think that nothing is intrinsically morally right or wrong since morality is a social construct (but a society is not free to choose any set of morals as I explained before). If you deceive/harm others they'll be tempted to follow suit. A society that allows this to occur is unstable. More generally, if a society regards such behvior as morally acceptable then it may not last long.

Now should "lying, cheating,..." be regarded as always wrong? I don't think so. There are situations when they may be the best "moral" choice (or the least bad if you prefer). If someone wants to kill your child and asks you where he is, I doubt you'll tell the truth. If someone is threatening you with a gun and you have one yourself, you may have to use it to save your life. A woman who steals a loaf of bread to feed her starving child does the right thing IMO.

What's more, we have free will but our behavior also depends on our education, experiences and probably our genes too. I wouldn't kill someone I don't like even if I could get away with it. Not out of fear of hell but because I've learned to empathize with others.

We should also learn from history and modern human rights are the result of trials and errors. Morality is a complex thing and I agree it'd be easier if it were reducible to a set of basic rules that apply to every situation. But this is mere wishful thinking.

Faith

Are you not trying to equate faith with insanity by virtue of a common lack of "reasonableness"? And at the same time aren't you telling me that my faith is bound by reason, that it's what separates my faith from the faith of those who fly planes into buildings for their God, yet I'm not permitted to use the "reason" argument to defend my faith?

Forgive me for being a little confused.


I don't argue those statements. So, if my faith is my own and is harming no one else, and I'm not being hostile to atheists as miata contends Christians often are, then what's the problem with it?

Faith

Please don't misunderstand, I don't subscribe to the concept of moral absolutism. There are times when the "least bad" moral choice must be determined and implemented. I wouldn't hesitate to lie to spare a loved one or steal to feed my starving children, for instance, but I don't believe I could purposely harm or kill someone.

That has less to do with a fear of Hell than a respect for human life, which I see as a product of my faith.

Biff the unclean

Then you have abandoned religious based "morality" and adopted a set of morals that are based on empathy. Good for you.

That you even mention "Hell" means that your religion has contempt for humans and not respect. If you have been lead to believe that you need to be saved, that all men are fallen/sinners then what passes for morality in that religion is nothing but a set of rules to be followed because of the authority of the God who issued them. "Might makes right."

It is wonderful that you have adopted true moral values and abandoned those based of threat of punishment