Christopher13

I have split this discussion off from the 'Neitzschean Approach' thread- if any of the posts here are hard to follow, that thread should also be perused. Jobar, moderator.

Nice reply, Diana.
Unas, you are a hair's breadth away from losing me with all of that jargon you have picked up. But I think I follow you. It's interesting reading. It seems that you have lost faith in human reason, a modern dilemma to be sure. My strongest respone to you is probably just to try very hard to recover it. Dialogue is not pointless because we only have reason to make our "perspectives" explicit. Much can be said, you are right, about over-reliance on reason to the detriment of other modes of knowing, such as poetic intuition or love of another. But this doesn't change the prerogatives of the human intellect to be ordered to the truth about reality.
You, of course, write as if you expect to be understood. You are involving yourself in a deep contradiction by employing reason to denigrate reason. Another point raised, which you addressed, is the relation between faith and reason. I am a theist who accepts that faith must be reasonable, that is reason cannot contradict it, but that some things can be proven by reason alone, such as the existence of God. Hopefully, I am considered one of the "rational theists."

diana

"Rewarding discussion" may have different characteristics to you, but in my book, it is imperative to answer the counterpoints and questions of your detractors, of which you may consider me one.

The terms you're using are fuzzy. I've asked you to define them so we may all know what we're talking about.

Questions I asked that you have not yet addressed:

1. I ask again: what, precisely, do you mean when you use the word "faith"?

2. What do you mean by "rarified void of hyperintellectuality"?

Counterpoints I made whose answers are still forthcoming:

1. Rational theist is an oxymoron. That's why faith is so indispensible. To argue this, you might point out to me why, if theism is rational, faith even enters the equasion.

You note I also use the word "faith." In this context, I mean it in the sense of "belief in a thing for which there is no demonstrable rational or sensual support." IOWs, belief in something you have no evidence for and where its existence does not follow.

2. (You addressed this one, but fallaciously. I offer you a chance to redeem yourself.) People do leave their former positions in lieu of the other, which means, if Nietzsche said they didn't, makes him full of bunk in that regard. As I said. This point destroys any argument he may have based upon this false assumption.

What I didn't say there is that he's full of bunk, period. I wouldn't know. I haven't any interest in reading him, and doubt seriously I have the patience. Hence, I wouldn't presume to condemn all his conclusions.

3. However, if you wish to proffer the theory that "manifestations of logicality merely cloak a preestablished pathos," I ask you to begin by offering a reasonable method to test this theory, beginning with giving us a definite way it can be falsified. Thanks in advance.

To be more specific, since you seem to have missed this request, as well, I don't buy your assertion. I have requested a way to test it. If you cannot give me good reason to accept this comment, I am not bound to believe it, or accept any argument which rests upon it.

4. Also with your assertion that "Facts are obviously structured and pre-charged by the life conditions in which they arise." I remarked that I do not find this obvious in the least. Again, unless you give me a good reason to accept this as true, I am not bound to do so.

My responses to specific points made in your second post follow:

Were any of these philosophers successful in "illuminating God"--and I assume you mean this in the sense of proving God's existence--using "disinterested, imperious reason"? If they were, please bring forth the argument(s). I'm keen to see them.

Their efforts to demonstrate, using reason, the (presumably) inescapable conclusion that God exists should not be confused with actual success in the venture. In the admittedly brief period of time I've argued against the existence of God, I've been struck by the fact that, while theists attempt to use reason to argue for his existence, they are forced, before reaching their conclusion, to depart from cogent reasoning.

IOWs, they must break the rules of logic at some point to present any "logical" argument for the existence of God.

This is why I conclude that there is no such thing as a rational theist. When the error in reasoning is pointed out, the theist has two choices: he may become a non-theist, at which point he is a rational non-theist, or he may discard reason as worthless and cling to his belief, at which point he shows that he is an irrational theist.

I am not moved by the names of famous people who have tried to use reason to prove the existence of God (such as Thomas Aquinas), because they have been, to a man, unsuccessful.

Had Einstein used his great mind to create a perpetual motion machine, the only rational question for us to ask would be: did it work? I would in no wise accept as a fact, as you appear to have done with your famous "rational theists," that Einstein's efforts in that area prove that perpetual motion is possible. Quite the contrary, actually. The fact that such a great mind would have (in my fictional example) pitted his intellect against such a challenge and failed would seem to support the idea that perpetual motion isn't possible.

By the same token, the fact that such great minds have tried to rationally prove God and failed, I think, is evidence in favor of my counterpoint that there is no such thing as a rational theist.

OK. What, precisely, do you plan to incorporate with cold logic to achieve this "more humble, unpretentious, integral, and cosmically truthful mode of envisionment"?

Why do I see emotions and faith upon the horizon?

Oh, mysticism. I'd like a definition so we all know we're on the same page, here, please.

Also, I think reason is challenged all the time. It just keeps winning.

Judging from your posts so far, I have to assume you meant this in the most polite and helpful way possible. However, you might consider, for future reference, that it (1) tacitly misrepresents what I said about Nietzsche, as noted above, (2) arrogantly suggests that I'm simply not advanced enough to understand what I'm reading.

If you wish to argue that I don't understand what I'm reading, the way to do that is by providing your counterpoints to the points I make--not by suggesting I simply haven't done enough homework to be worthy of discussing this with you.

AAAAAaaaahhhh. I've been waiting for this, actually. The old No True Scotsman/Christian/Atheist fallacy rears it's ugly head again: they changed their minds? Then they must have not believed in the first place.

Non-falsifiable positions are opinions. You're welcome to proffer them, but please avoid confusing them with fact. They do not qualify as logical support for an argument.

You've also taken care this time to qualify your statement with "amid hardcore partisans." Do you mean to imply that anyone who is not "hardcore" pro or con theism does not, in fact, count at all as "rational"?

This is equivalent to running an experiment and pointedly discarding all evidence that may prove your theory wrong. Such sloppy and dishonest recordkeeping is the stuff upon which the No True Scotsman fallacy thrives.

To imply that this rule applies to everyone in every pursuit--such as the search for God--is a hasty generalization.

Again, not for everyone. Propaganda is demonstrably more effective with the ignorant, uneducated, powerless and frightened.

Are you saying cold, heartless reason isn't truly possible? This would presumably include your fine list of ancient philosophers, I guess. If we aren't possible of separating ourselves from our emotions, then to be a "cocksure supporter of disinterested, imperious reason as a tool in illuminating God" is a pursuit destined for failure, anyway. So this point of yours appears to unmake your earlier point.

I agree that we are all manipulated by our emotions to some extent. However, do you not think it's possible to ferret out those emotions, the better to be objective in our judgments?

I do.

d

diana

Thank you, Christopher.

I was trying to find a concise way of putting this, something perhaps about using reason to argue against reason being self-refuting.

I like your summation, though.

Rational theist, huh? Hmmm...

Welcome to II, btw.

d

Christopher13

I hope Unas isn't intimidated by requests for him to clarify his language. All philosophies employ specialized concepts that require getting used to. But it's worthwhile to get some common ground.
Diana, you seem adept at applying logic, but what is keeping you from accepting, for example, Aquinas' proofs? You have also given a false picture of faith which should be defined as rational acceptance on the authority of another. Or something like that. I assert that my faith is supremely rational. It is a matter of respecting boundaries. Faith has a certain autonomy, but only to those who believe. I cannot prove, for instance, that angels exist. But no one can disprove them either. Therefore, faith is at least reasonable. More especially, faith makes room for reason's special competence which includes demonstrating God's existence. May I proceed with your permission? It might help if you explain the shortcomings as you see them in Aquinas' proofs, and perhaps I can summon a response you can accept. What I'd most like to emphasize, however, is that faith respects reason. And, again, I am a "rational theist."

Jobar

Welcome, Christopher13; I agree with diana on your bon mot.

To add to diana's excellent post above, remember that we may be rational on some subjects but not on others. I said specifically that we unbelievers (= atheists, agnostics, igtheists, skeptics, humanists, and- at least I contend- pantheists) are also prone to holding beliefs which would not hold up under serious philosophical and semantical examination. The difference is one of degree- there can indeed be theists who are thoroughly rational when discussing most any topic other than religion. And there can be atheists who hold the most astonishingly silly superstitions- they simply do not believe there is a God.

My long experience talking about religious topics on II and other boards demonstrates to me, though, that the dedicated theist will hold on to the most twisted, specious, and glaringly-incorrect ideas because of their emotional dedication to their religion. The examples on this board are legion. We atheists will normally (but of course not always) concede our ideas are wrong if rational argumentation demonstrates their weakness.

Christopher13

Thank you for the welcome, Jobar. In case I haven't mentioned it in my above posts, I consider myself rational, but I can't speak for all believers. Not everyone has an interest in the more philosophical aspects of things.
I am not offended though because it is a common misunderstanding, sometimes encouraged by religious people, that faith and reason are incompatible. I assure you that I can make the necessary distinctions. I am not interested so much in discussing strictly religious matters in this forum unless I need to, but I am not a shrinking violet. What is at stake in this thread, it appears, is an unwillingness to credit religious belief with reasonableness. As a newcomer, I ask is this common to the forum?

Jobar

Well, in the EoG forum, I would say that most of the regular non-theist posters do. Some with less grace and tact than others.

This is not to say that we don't have regular theistic posters here that are capable of carrying on wonderfully subtle and interesting conversations on the subject. We have poets, preachers, and apologists who try to get across what they mean when they say 'God'. Speaking personally though, I have never found any valid argument for a god separate from his creation- and I have seen very many attempts.

diana

Good morning, Christopher.

I've never read Aquinas. He just seems popular with some of the more classically trained theists that visit us.

You say faith is "rational acceptance on the authority of another." It sounds like arguments I've heard before, but I'll refrain from any counterpoint until I have a firmer grasp of your meaning. Please explain further. Rational acceptance of what on the authority of another what? And what makes the next person an authority, so he can be believed? Please provide examples. An example is worth a thousand explanations, I've found.

I'm also unclear on--but intrigued with--the idea that faith "is a matter of respecting boundaries." What boundaries? How do you know the boundary is there, to respect it?

While your at clearing up your definition of faith, please take a couple of extra moments and tell me what does and doesn't qualify as "reasonable."

By all means, please do. I don't understand the bit about "reason's special competence" or how "faith makes room" for it, either. I'm all...eyes.

I'll be happy to discuss any Aquinas you care to dig up. I simply have never seen a theist argument that doesn't try to be rational and, at some point, either stoop to ambiguity (or a host of other ills) or just throw in the towel. I have no doubt I've heard all Aquinas' arguments before.

We shall see. On both counts.

Yes, it appears this way, although I've not yet seen the idea approached from quite this angle before.

Fairly, yes. But we can be convinced with cold, hard logic.

d

Christopher13

This is my second attempt. My response was lost somehow when I tried to post it, so I'll be brief this time. Scotsmanmatt, thank you for providing an agreeable description of faith. I will only add that when I say religious belief is reasonable, I mean simply that it is not absurd on its face. God asks for belief in things unseen, but not in things impossible to wrap your mind around, at least a little, leaving room for mystery. There are ordinary reasons for faith such as the miracles of Jesus, the testimony of his disciples, the endurance of the Church, that make faith reasonable to accept. But it is primarily a gift of God's grace to believe, a gift open to all people. Please do not make me attempt theology again.
As for a proof for God's existence. Aquinas borrowed his first one from Aristotle. It begins with the motion/change/becoming of the world around us. "Everything that moves is moved by another" or as Aquinas said, if the stick is not moved by the hand, nothing else is moved by the stick. This search for causes of change, one thing by another, cannot proceed to infinity, or else nothing could ever move. Logic requires that an Unmoved Mover be posited, whether standing outside an eternal universe or one created in time, with a beginning. According to Aquinas, the eternity of the world cannot be proven or disproven. The argument for an Unmoved Mover only shows that in the ontological line of dependence, there must be this Mover we call God.
To anticipate objections, this does not prove the Christian God. It is another proof, also given by Aquinas (in his Summa), that shows his personality, for example. And it is purely a matter of faith that God is a Trinity of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Atheists need only accept, eventually, an Infinite, Perfect, Personal God. Is this too much to ask?

Theli

Hi, Christopher... the old "prime mover" argument, huh?
Let's see.
Obviously, this claim is inherently false because of the infinite regression.
Two problems here, first off we have no reason to assume that there is just one "move" and that it can be identified as a "mover". Secondly, the first "move" cannot have a source as that source would have to be created and put into action itself.
Who is "we"?
A big problem with your reasoning here is that you have jumped from 10 to 0 without checking out 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and 1, unless you trace the events backwards you cannot identify the first "move".
Are you asking us for a favour or for us to concede?
You are asking us to accept much but not giving us alot of material. There are inherit flaws and problems as it is with the christian god, and there are better explainations.