Is reason compelling cause to leave Christianity?

[Totallyatpeace]

1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true. When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them?

 

I don't think so if it's something you truly believe. But I'll think on it.

[Skankboy]

Where are your evidences to have faith in the bible stories? Did any of these characters get a message from god through a book?

 

This is a VERY good point DC. "Faith" by defintion, is a belief not supported by the available evidence (some might even say, "in spite of" the available evidence). All of the characters in the bible were given first hand experiences of the divine.

 

Did Adam have faith in god? No, he knew god personally, no faith involved! Did moses need faith? No, he got see god's ass and hold his hand. Did Thomas have faith? No, he needed to touch the wounds first.

 

None of these people were expected to have faith based on the texts of a book, why should we?

 

IMOHO,

[Guest Joseph]

1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true.

When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them?

 

If you say "yes" or "no" to this question, you are a liar.

The only correct response to this question is something along the lines of the following (for the believer and unbeliever alike).

 

"I do not know."

Or (perhaps)...

"Althought violating all rules of natural order/law, and the fact that a human can not walk on water without breaking through the surface, it is highly likely that he did not walk on water though not being there I can not know all variables that took place and what influences could have been in play during this time. Thus from such a perspective I would deduce that this is mythos and not the truth unless given more evidence to demonstrate that this outrageous claim was in fact the truth.

 

Let me give you an example of how this could be the case. Technology seems many times to be "magical" to those primitive cultures that come into contact with a more advanced people. So when we say that "Jesus did not walk on water" we say so from the standpoint of our current knowledge base. However, a culture more advanced than us could have used a type of technology in order to allow them to somehow change the surface tension of water and "walk on it."

 

Thus the case could be made that no reasonable argument against this event nor for it can be made unless either side is arguing from a standpoint of ignorance. (aka: faith)

 

The answer to that question has nothing to do with whether or not the person on the recieving end of your statement is a believer or a non-believer.

 

Due to the various things that could have been in play when this mythos was written (from super-natural to quite natural reason why this event might have happened) it is not a lie to say either, while the most honest answer from either party is "I do not know." Saying anything more is to make a statement upon faith alone as neither party was present.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

I hate to break it to ya but Fwee is definitely a male.

Unless he's been keeping secrets...

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought Fwee was female!

[crazy-tiger]

1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true.

When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them?

 

I don't think so if it's something you truly believe. But I'll think on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me see if I've got this right...

 

As far as you are concerned, the truth is that Jesus walked on water. If you tell people that, you're not lying to them, per se, but telling them what you believe to be true.

[Guest Joseph]

When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them?

 

I don't think so if it's something you truly believe. But I'll think on it.

 

Let me see if I've got this right...

 

As far as you are concerned, the truth is that Jesus walked on water. If you tell people that, you're not lying to them, per se, but telling them what you believe to be true.

 

Any given truth is a relative truth by definition. Even reason or logical constructs are built upon assumed axioms which can not be demonstrated. Thus any given truth is based upon an assumed world view that is not empirical.

 

Therefore for a believer to say that Jesus walked on water is not a lie while at the exact same moment for an unbeliever to say that he did not is not a lie.

 

"Truth" is not some intangible absolute value that can be applied universally to a given concept or subject, it is in totality relative to a current culture and world view.

[white_raven23]

For the record..... I agree with you and there is no reason to explain it again.

 

Toss the book? Toss the faith.

 

It's that simple.

 

Tap

 

One of the things I feel sorry about for anyone trapped in a religion is that their faith and spirituality has been HIJACKED by the religion. So much so that they cannot seperate them. Religion=Faith=Spirituality to them. And they use those three words interchangeably, as though they will always mean pretty much the same thing.

 

TAP NO!!!!

 

 

As I pointed out earlier, you are welding religion and faith together so that you cannot seperate them. No wonder you still hold on to the religion. You are convinced that if you put christianity aside, you pitch faith and spirituality out the door with it.

 

No one ever said that had to be done. pitching the book does NOT mean pitching faith or spirituality.

 

There's an old saying: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"

[chefranden]

Any given truth is a relative truth by definition.  Even reason or logical constructs are built upon assumed axioms which can not be demonstrated.  Thus any given truth is based upon an assumed world view that is not empirical.

 

Therefore for a believer to say that Jesus walked on water is not a lie while at the exact same moment for an unbeliever to say that he did not is not a lie.

 

"Truth" is not some intangible absolute value that can be applied universally to a given concept or subject, it is in totality relative to a current culture and world view.

 

Thank you for this insightful post. To add to the thought:

 

Any "truth" must be understood by a subject. This is "true" even if truth is actually transcendent, or actually out there where reality is. Thus "truth" is always relative to the subject that is doing the understanding.

 

Reason tells us that walking on water just won't happen. Fweethinkers have made the assumption that reason should be the deciding factor in the walking on water example. However, reason is, for normal everyday people, only a contributing factor in deciding what is "truth" or what is the best course of action. In fact to use pure reason more purely people had to invent a method. And people need special training in the method to use it well. That means pure reason is not an intuitive process in understanding "truth". To say that reason should always be the deciding factor in deciding "truth" is unreasonable. Science and reason brought us some understanding of evolution. That this species has been a successful survivor of the process of elimination even though it approaches reality unreasonably for the most part, shows that approaches to reality that don't use the scientific method, or logical methods are still successful strategies.

 

If this speculation of mine is true there is nothing wrong with TAP and she is being honest in her appraisal of "Truth".

[Ouroboros]

Thank you for this insightful post.  To add to the thought:

 

Any "truth" must be understood by a subject.  This is "true" even if truth is actually transcendent, or actually out there where reality is.  Thus "truth" is always relative to the subject that is doing the understanding.

 

Reason tells us that walking on water just won't happen.  Fweethinkers have made the assumption that reason should be the deciding factor in the walking on water example.  However, reason is, for normal everyday people, only a contributing factor in deciding what is "truth" or what is the best course of action.  In fact to use pure reason more purely people had to invent a method.  And people need special training in the method to use it well.  That means pure reason is not an intuitive process in understanding "truth".  To say that reason should always be the deciding factor in deciding "truth" is unreasonable.  Science and reason brought us some understanding of evolution.  That this species has been a successful survivor of the process of elimination even though it approaches reality unreasonably for the most part, shows that approaches to reality that don't use the scientific method, or logical methods are still successful strategies.

 

If this speculation of mine is true there is nothing wrong with TAP and she is being honest in her appraisal of "Truth".

 

Hehe! We keep on getting back into discussions about truth. Chef, that was very clearly and well formulated.

 

I agree with what you're saying, and just wanted to add a little piece, and that is perception of truth, faith and belief is extreme close to opinions. We base our opinions in pretty much the same way as we do when we believe a certain truth, fact or piece of information.

[crazy-tiger]

Any given truth is a relative truth by definition.  Even reason or logical constructs are built upon assumed axioms which can not be demonstrated.  Thus any given truth is based upon an assumed world view that is not empirical.

 

Therefore for a believer to say that Jesus walked on water is not a lie while at the exact same moment for an unbeliever to say that he did not is not a lie.

 

"Truth" is not some intangible absolute value that can be applied universally to a given concept or subject, it is in totality relative to a current culture and world view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that's what I meant to say...

[dogmatically_challenged]

"Truth" is not some intangible absolute value that can be applied universally to a given concept or subject, it is in totality relative to a current culture and world view.

Why should we even share ideas when our opinion is just as good as anyone elses is. Why should we even make the effort to interact with others if we can't learn anything from others.....after all we already have the truth no matter what. We can even say something is true without the burdon of proof. We can shy away from testing our beliefs and still be considered honest right?

 

Might as well pack bags and go home. Forget about debates. Facts and evidences are meaningless afterall. We're all equally right no matter what.

[white_raven23]

Why should we even share ideas when our opinion is just as good as anyone elses is. Why should we even make the effort to interact with others if we can't learn anything from others.....after all we already have the truth no matter what. We can even say something is true without the burdon of proof. We can shy away from testing our beliefs and still be considered honest right?

 

Might as well pack bags and go home. Forget about debates. Facts and evidences are meaningless afterall. We're all equally right no matter what.

 

This is exactly why you don't see much in-fighting between ex-christians. We have atheists, deists, pagans, and wiccans (I think) all under th same roof. You'd think the differences would cause a lot of serious debate.

 

It doesn't.

 

The only time the fur flies is when christians come and tell us we're all wrong.

 

Funny that.

 

There's more in-fighting on the christian forums than here.

 

Hmmmm.

[chefranden]

Why should we even share ideas when our opinion is just as good as anyone elses is. Why should we even make the effort to interact with others if we can't learn anything from others.....after all we already have the truth no matter what. We can even say something is true without the burdon of proof. We can shy away from testing our beliefs and still be considered honest right?

 

Might as well pack bags and go home. Forget about debates. Facts and evidences are meaningless afterall. We're all equally right no matter what.

 

Don't make the mistake that there isn't anything real to relate with, just because humans have to relate to reality relative to individual experience, and physical sensibilities.

 

The reason why this line of reasoning is important is to come to the understanding that there is no "one right way" to live. That does not mean that copper for you is not copper for me or that killing for you is not killing for me, but only that we will respond to them differently. That difference may be slight if we are of like mind because of our back ground and community, or it may be large based on the same.

 

It also means that exchange of ideas is best accomplished by dialectic rather than trying to establish which of us is "right" and which should submit.

[dogmatically_challenged]

This is exactly why you don't see much in-fighting between ex-christians. We have atheists, deists, pagans, and wiccans (I think) all under th same roof. You'd think the differences would cause a lot of serious debate.

 

It doesn't.

 

The only time the fur flies is when christians come and tell us we're all wrong.

 

Funny that.

 

There's more in-fighting on the christian forums than here.

 

Hmmmm. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I know is that I would rather go where the evidence leads me even if I turn out to be wrong later on. I can fix that when I am aware of it. And I don't plan on hiding from evidences that will require me to change my mind.

 

And the only definition of truth I'll accept is a statement that has been proven to be true. I really don't like to use the word truth very often unless I can fullfil my obligation of burdon of proof.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Don't make the mistake that there isn't anything real to relate with, just because humans have to relate to reality relative to individual experience, and physical sensibilities.

 

The reason why this line of reasoning is important is to come to the understanding that there is no "one right way" to live.  That does not mean that copper for you is not copper for me or that killing for you is not killing for me, but only that we will respond to them differently.  That difference may be slight if we are of like mind because of our back ground and community, or it may be large based on the same.

 

It also means that exchange of ideas is best accomplished by dialectic rather than trying to establish which of us is "right" and which should submit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see now. Still it is not honest to present as truth that jesus walked on water. People believe this, but they do not know this as fact. The burdon of proof is on them.

 

And there will always be a better way of doing something eventually if not presently. Always.

[chefranden]

I see now. Still it is not honest to present as truth that jesus walked on water. People believe this, but they do not know this as fact. The burdon of proof is on them.

 

And there will always be a better way of doing something eventually if not presently. Always.

 

They do know it as fact, not because it is a fact i.e. reality, but because that is how they know it. There are other components that recognize truth in the human organism than just reason. If reason does not agree with the other ways of apprehending how the world works, most people will doubt reason first. Why? I don't know for sure. Perhaps because the other faculties are more ancient parts of the body and more basic to the organism.

 

A cat that jumps on a hot stove will never jump on another one, but it will also never jump on a cold one.

[dogmatically_challenged]

They do know it as fact, not because it is a fact i.e. reality, but because that is how they know it.  There are other components that recognize truth in the human organism than just reason. If reason does not agree with the other ways of apprehending how the world works, most people will doubt reason first.  Why? I don't know for sure. Perhaps because the other faculties are more ancient parts of the body and more basic to the organism.

 

A cat that jumps on a hot stove will never jump on another one, but it will also never jump on a cold one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have seen in my family the things you point out Chef...........

 

I am flustrated.

 

What you point out here should be a thread of its own. It is something that should be shared and discussed. I have no empathy for them a lot of times. I can't relate to their brand of truth because it is repugnant to me. I have changed very fast in this short amount of time that I have had away from my family.

[Guest Joseph]

Why should we even share ideas when our opinion is just as good as anyone elses is.

 

Because in the differing ideas' natural selection process, the one with the most convincing or violent or strong argument wins...actual truth (if it even exists, it MIGHT NOT) doesn't even matter or play a real role in the end.

 

Let me give examples:

You say Jesus did not walk on water.

Someone says he does.

 

Whichever one has the "might" wins in the end and that idea will be given down through time as "accepted." Does "if this man ever actually walked on water" come into play? Nope, because it is the power of the number of individuals that hold this viewpoint that give it power and thus such a viewpoint can stand the test of time even if it would actually violate what happened.

 

The thing is that we can not say empirically that he did not walk on water even as an unbeliever, but only that it would violate known natural laws through an unexplained phenomena. We would then deal in probabilities and say it is highly unlikely to have taken place. Carl Sagan was fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence(s).

 

Why should we even make the effort to interact with others if we can't learn anything from others.....after all we already have the truth no matter what.

 

A relativist understands that there is no empirical world view. That no matter how you wish to assign a 100% purity/certainty to a given context, term, item, or subject it could always be due to a problem with evidence. No proofs are 100% at any given time. In fact, given the "Matrix paradox" we can't even know if reality itself is reality.

 

Again, that any given world view "wins" or is the "magority" viewpoint doesn't mean a damn thing about if it is correct or not, look at science even...Newton gave over to Einstein because people would have never thought that time was fluid (a minute didn't always equal a minute) or that a meter wasn't always the same length. So we find that our viewpoints (even those at one time considered empirically demonstrated) are nothing more than generationally adopted figments which are in fact fluid and change over time.

 

We can even say something is true without the burdon of proof.

 

Mankind must do this or we could not form a single concept/idea. Let me give an example of relativity that drives some people nuts.

 

"Up."

 

Such a simple term. But based souly on personal relative viewpoint. Up is not always above your head (what if you lay down on your back, on your stomach?). Neither is it always in the same direction. Also, at any given time, "up" can be in exactly opposite directions for two given people (people in US vs people in Aussie land).

 

We can shy away from testing our beliefs and still be considered honest right?

 

I do not agree with this. While our relative reality might not give creedance nor power to "truth" at any given point, nor is any given truth stronger than any given lie (due to improper methodology or perhaps bad evidences), it is through the repeated testing of a given accepted concept/idea/term that we discover new forms of relative truths. Thus we have found that Newton was wrong in his viewpoint of the clockwork universe while Einstein was correct in the macro-level that as you approach the speed of light, time slows and a meter stick grows (meaning a minute is not constant neither is a distance measurement in any given section of space-time the same). However, relate this to quantum mechanics inthat Einstein is also wrong and his ideas collapse upon probabilities and uncertainty principles.

 

A truth is nothing more than "what we currently accept or is currently adopted." Neither is it in actuality empirical in the larger viewpoint of time/history.

 

Might as well pack bags and go home. Forget about debates. Facts and evidences are meaningless afterall. We're all equally right no matter what.

 

Not equally right, but we could find a means by which to people with opposite viewpoints are right from within their specific world views. The only thing that would then matter is which world view the majority and/or the most powerful holds and thus it would then impose that world view upon the rest whether they like it or not in a form of "survival of the fittest idea," truth be damned.

 

I think this is almost a form of natural selection of ideas/concepts/theories, etc. Inwhich over time with investigation many accepted truths are given over to "newer" truths which are then thought the "end all" and of course...they ARE NOT the end all just the placeholder until the next more powerful one takes over.

 

The important thing is to remember that it doesn't have to be true to get mankind to buy into it, all you have to do is repeat it often enough.

[Ouroboros]

They do know it as fact, not because it is a fact i.e. reality, but because that is how they know it.  There are other components that recognize truth in the human organism than just reason. If reason does not agree with the other ways of apprehending how the world works, most people will doubt reason first.  Why? I don't know for sure. Perhaps because the other faculties are more ancient parts of the body and more basic to the organism.

 

A cat that jumps on a hot stove will never jump on another one, but it will also never jump on a cold one.

 

 

I like the dictionary's definition here:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3. Sincerity; integrity.

4 Fidelity to an original or standard.

5. Reality; actuality.

 

Especially if you look at "or accepted as true". In religion is very much based on what has been commonly accepted in the group as a "truth", and that is considered "truth" just because it is accepted.

 

The of course there is the truth when we talk about actuality and reality, i.e. life exists, and everyone can agree that life exists, and is therefore truth.

[Guest Joseph]

I see now. Still it is not honest to present as truth that jesus walked on water.

 

Neither is it honest to present a viewpoint that states with 100% certainty that Jesus did not walk on water. To be honest you have to answer the question that we do not know if an unexplained phenomena took place or not, however we could refer to modern day inwhich it is highly unlike that such an event took place (but this is an argument from our day).

 

If either one was being honest they would have to say "I do not know, but I think..." and go from there. You could back up a claim that he did not walk on water with some very heavy science (water tension to weight ratios, ect.) but then again we would not know if some technology was at play or some unexplained force not being given the ability to view and/or witness this event.

 

People believe this, but they do not know this as fact. The burdon of proof is on them.

 

Agreed.

The burden of proof is on the one making the statement. So let it be them saying he walked on water not us saying he didn't. Because both of those are based entirely on an argument from ignorance.

 

And there will always be a better way of doing something eventually if not presently. Always.

 

As time and history continues along many of the "truths" we hold to so dearly (even scientific laws) tend to become outdated and even disproven given enough time.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Because in the differing ideas' natural selection process, the one with the most convincing or violent or strong argument wins...actual truth (if it even exists, it MIGHT NOT) doesn't even matter or play a real role in the end.

 

Let me give examples:

You say Jesus did not walk on water.

Someone says he does.

 

Whichever one has the "might" wins in the end and that idea will be given down through time as "accepted."  Does "if this man ever actually walked on water" come into play?  Nope, because it is the power of the number of individuals that hold this viewpoint that give it power and thus such a viewpoint can stand the test of time even if it would actually violate what happened.

 

The thing is that we can not say empirically that he did not walk on water even as an unbeliever, but only that it would violate known natural laws through an unexplained phenomena.  We would then deal in probabilities and say it is highly unlikely to have taken place.  Carl Sagan was fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence(s).

A relativist understands that there is no empirical world view.  That no matter how you wish to assign a 100% purity/certainty to a given context, term, item, or subject it could always be due to a problem with evidence.  No proofs are 100% at any given time.  In fact, given the "Matrix paradox" we can't even know if reality itself is reality.

 

Again, that any given world view "wins" or is the "magority" viewpoint doesn't mean a damn thing about if it is correct or not, look at science even...Newton gave over to Einstein because people would have never thought that time was fluid (a minute didn't always equal a minute) or that a meter wasn't always the same length.  So we find that our viewpoints (even those at one time considered empirically demonstrated) are nothing more than generationally adopted figments which are in fact fluid and change over time.

Mankind must do this or we could not form a single concept/idea.  Let me give an example of relativity that drives some people nuts.

 

"Up."

 

Such a simple term.  But based souly on personal relative viewpoint.  Up is not always above your head (what if you lay down on your back, on your stomach?).  Neither is it always in the same direction.  Also, at any given time, "up" can be in exactly opposite directions for two given people (people in US vs people in Aussie land).

I do not agree with this.  While our relative reality might not give creedance nor power to "truth" at any given point, nor is any given truth stronger than any given lie (due to improper methodology or perhaps bad evidences), it is through the repeated testing of a given accepted concept/idea/term that we discover new forms of relative truths.  Thus we have found that Newton was wrong in his viewpoint of the clockwork universe while Einstein was correct in the macro-level that as you approach the speed of light, time slows and a meter stick grows (meaning a minute is not constant neither is a distance measurement in any given section of space-time the same).  However, relate this to quantum mechanics inthat Einstein is also wrong and his ideas collapse upon probabilities and uncertainty principles.

 

A truth is nothing more than "what we currently accept or is currently adopted."  Neither is it in actuality empirical in the larger viewpoint of time/history.

Not equally right, but we could find a means by which to people with opposite viewpoints are right from within their specific world views.  The only thing that would then matter is which world view the majority and/or the most powerful holds and thus it would then impose that world view upon the rest whether they like it or not in a form of "survival of the fittest idea," truth be damned.

 

I think this is almost a form of natural selection of ideas/concepts/theories, etc.  Inwhich over time with investigation many accepted truths are given over to "newer" truths which are then thought the "end all" and of course...they ARE NOT the end all just the placeholder until the next more powerful one takes over.

 

The important thing is to remember that it doesn't have to be true to get mankind to buy into it, all you have to do is repeat it often enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Joseph. I figured I needed to poke you with a stick and see what you say. What you posted earlier could give folks the wrong ideas in my opinion. Lurkers are important too.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Neither is it honest to present a viewpoint that states with 100% certainty that Jesus did not walk on water.

Now you can't cite were I did this. Here you are assuming. To me evidence is what gives us confidence. I have said this specifically. I never said otherwise.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Tap. Where are your evidences to have faith in the bible stories?

I never talked about 100% proofs or any of that garbage.

[Ouroboros]

It's interesting to see that history as we read it in the history books are written by the nations that conquered and won the battles, rarely you read, or you can read a few almost lost fragments, from the nations that defended themselves and lost.

 

History is written by the winning nation in a war.

 

So how can we say history tells us the truth?

[Ouroboros]

I got a new acronym: WWJB

 

meaning: Who Would Jesus Bomb?

 

In correlation to religious reasons to go to war...