Do Christians Use Reason And Logic In Making Their Choice?

[Interested Atheist]

Hello everybody. I've been reading these forums for a long time, and finally got round to joining., Not counting a comment on the Star Trek thread, this is my first post here. I'm sure I'm going to enjoy myself!

 

OK then. Here's my first bit of venting...

 

I've been talking recently on the Christian Answers Forum, confining myself mainly to the section set aside for atheists and agnostics (in which section only atheists/agnostics are allowed to start a thread, and only Christians are allowed to reply ) I'd like to write more about what went on there later, but right now there's a question that's puzzling me.

 

In an email exchange with one of the people there, he told me a little about himself, and it seems he's quite clever. It was an impressive resume of education and skills. But then the story changed and he told me how he became a Christiain. Here's what he said:

 

 

"I am 45 years old, my best and most favorite subject in school and since then, is Science. I am an Extra Class Amateur Radio Operator, I am a Certified Computer Technician, and I have spent the last 25 years studying Psychology at an amateur level, (meaning I have not gone to school for it). I have however, made observations that comply with or confirm what I have studied. I have been in law enforcement, risking my life for people, who in some cases, could care less if I lost my life in that particular situation or not.

 

In learning about psychology, I started out at the basic level, learning animal body languages and how to read it. I then learned human body language and how to read that. In learning about computers I started out much in the same way, I took 6 computers completely apart without having any idea what the part was that I just took out.Then I rebuilt them incrementally going by what looked like the best parts in the first computer rebuilt. I have practically rebuilt the engine on my 1972 Ford F-250 and I'm not a mechanic.

 

My point to this is, I, just as many of the members on the message board, have much worldly knowledge, as do you. Many of us on the message board have had an introduction or a calling to God, by Him. For me it was more of a calling. My life was a mess, and one day I got an overwhelming urge to pick up the Bible and start reading it. As I read it, many of the questions I had were answered. The pain that I felt deep inside me, for what I had been through in the law enforcement job, was taken away from me immediately. Because the guilt that had been placed on me, was not mine to bare. You are wanting proof that God exists before you will truly believe in Him. I can only point out the things that I know are from Him, it's up to you to see it for what it really is. A gift from God."

 

 

So in other words...what?

In other words, he didn't use his mind. He switched it off, read the Bible, and chose to believe what was in it.

 

So here's the thing I find frustrating about talking to Christians. My last thread was on hell - how do you reconcile it's cruel nature with the belief that it was created by an all-loving God? I asked if there was any reason they had to justify this, or explain it. Sure they did! Lots of reasons. They posted away.

 

So, what was I expected to do?

 

I read the answers, thought about them, decided they didn't hang together (in the sense of, if this is true, then this would mean that, which doesn't make sense) and responded. This went on for quite a long time - several pages of posts. And, mea culpa, perhaps I was a little too free with the sarcasm in the responses I posted. Some of the Christians got angry.

 

I decided to pull back and try sweet reason. Well, this worked for a while, but eventually some people got ticked off at that too. One person (a Muslim who became a Christian) said that I was obviously here just to play games with people, and that he reccommended nobody further answer my questions. Well, that's true in a sense, I was enjoying the debate, but the game I was playing was "let's reason out the truth". Others said that my mind was closed. There was a general consensus that unless I decided to have faith in God, I would never be able to understand the problem, because God's ways were higher than our own.

 

What I wanted to say - didnt, but maybe will go back and say it later - was:

"So does this mean that you don't actually have any good reasons for believing what you believe? That when your reasons for your belief are shown to be invalid you will keep on believing anyway? That, in short, you believe because you believe? That's okay if you just want to live on faith, but shouldnt you at least admit that you don't have any good reasons?"

 

So my question is: does it matter if a person has good credentials for intelligence and education, since it seems that neither of these is important when he comes to make the choice to be a Christian?

 

Thanks all.

[Eponymic]

So my question is: does it matter if a person has good credentials for intelligence and education, since it seems that neither of these is important when he comes to make the choice to be a Christian?

 

Thanks all.

 

This dudes story is Tippy Typicalson of Christians. The truly sorry part about intelligent Christians is that they are still succumbing to the same fear/emotional tactics and using their reason to attribute it towards God rather than the proper source.

 

So yes, Christians do use reason & logic, it's just misdirected and used towards the purpose of proving Christianity. Whereas most open-minded, non-religious people are merely seeking to answer questions. There's no pre-ordained agenda behind in the search for the answer.

[Interested Atheist]

I remember Michael Shermer, on the Penn and Teller Bullshit Bible, saying that "smart people are very good at coming up with intelligent reasons for why they did stupid things."

[Amethyst]

 

 

What I wanted to say - didnt, but maybe will go back and say it later - was:

"So does this mean that you don't actually have any good reasons for believing what you believe? That when your reasons for your belief are shown to be invalid you will keep on believing anyway? That, in short, you believe because you believe? That's okay if you just want to live on faith, but shouldnt you at least admit that you don't have any good reasons?"

 

So my question is: does it matter if a person has good credentials for intelligence and education, since it seems that neither of these is important when he comes to make the choice to be a Christian?

 

None of those matter when people choose to be a Christian. Most of the time it is peer pressure from friends and family members and many of them never realize that. Other times it is the carrot and whip approach that Christianity uses to trick them into believing in it. The false hope of an imaginary friend who you can lay all your troubles and sorrows on is very enticing to a lot of people, not to mention living forever in a fairy-tale afterlife. And still others are curious and then get drawn into it.

[Mnemosyne]

Okay, this is going to be a somewhat lengthy response because I wrote a paper on this last term that I'm going to try to sum up. The gist of it is that religious belief can be... prudentially rational... if you're selfish and don't place much emphasis on evidence or logic. Here we go...

 

Blaise Pascal argues that religious faith is rational because when viewed as a bet, it makes the most sense to believe in God. If we believe but God does not exist, we lose nothing significant (in comparison to eternal suffering), but have everything to gain if he does exist. And vice versa for atheists.

 

At first glance, this does seem to suggest that it makes more sense to believe. Even if we can't be sure which deity to believe in, we're still better off placing our wager on one of them than none at all.

 

However, Pascal doesn't acknowledge that his reasoning isn't epistemic, i.e. that he doesn't give any empirical or logical basis for God's existence. He therefore doesn't address the fact that some people may simply not be able to convince themselves to believe, because they need this sort of epistemic reasoning to back up their beliefs (as most of us here probably need).

 

Then there's William James, who also argues that religious belief can be rational. But unlike Pascal, he admits that religious beliefs cannot be proven or falsified. Instead, he focuses on the rationality of religious belief for the individual (as opposed to Pascal's claim that it's universally rational). So, for those who can believe, religious belief is rational, but it's NOT rational for those for whom religious belief is a "dead" option.

 

The reason James claims that religious belief can be rational for those who can believe is because he questions the wisdom of avoiding error at all costs (i.e. not believing due to lack of evidence or logic).

 

This contrasts with the sceptic's approach of only believing what one has good reason to believe. James claims this approach to belief is flawed. He claims that it's more important to pursue something which is beneficial and could potentially be true than to avoid error due to fear of mistake. It is not the cause, he argues, that "to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true”.

 

HOWEVER, I think that it's wrong to give James' prudential reasoning the same status as epistemic reasoning. James claims that avoidance of error is because people fear making mistakes, but I don't think this is really true. Some people (god forbid) just want a little something called evidence before they go believe in faeries and ghosts.

 

Also (according to Clifford, who argues for the sceptical view), James' prudential reasoning involves "stifling doubts" instead of “honestly earning" the belief through investigation.

 

I also think that it's not advisable to disbelieve only what we have good reason to think false. When a belief has profound implications in the way a religious belief must, implications which affect not only our own lives but also loved ones and society as a whole, it is really damn important that we have reason to believe other than a lack of reason to disbelieve. It's just not fair to ourselves or others to believe something with such profound implications without any sort of real support (I don't see prudential reasoning as "real" support).

 

Of course, you could just argue that despite the effects belief has on your own life, those around you and society as a whole, it's still worth it (prudentially) to believe despite lack of real reason. I just think that this sort of prudential reasoning sucks in comparison with actually backing up your views...

[Interested Atheist]

Thanks a lot, Mnemosyne, that was great!

 

My personal take on this:

1. Christians like to say that their religion is logical and reasonable because it looks better. In fact, logic and reason don't have much to do with it; it's an emotional choice.

2. If Christianity were logical and reasonable, then you wouldn't be trying to persuade people to join it with emotional arguments, and there would be good answers to atheist objections.

3. My favourite ever exchange on the exchristian website:

 

- Christian: "May I politely suggest that you have no idea at all about a life lived in Christ Jesus. None."

- Atheist: "May I politely suggest that your mind is clouded by a fantasy."

 

...which says it all, really...

[SkepticOfBible]

Hey IA,

 

check out the website in my signature, it should give you enough "biblica" ammo to put these christians in a tizz

[Friendly neighborhood atheist]

Do Christians Use Reason And Logic In Making Their Choice?

 

Yep! Same way ol' Dick Cheeny uses his $20,000 shotgun to "hunt" stuff.

 

But seriously, a rat in a maze can use deductive reasoning to SOME degree.

But you know where a rat has a christian beat?

His goal is REAL.

 

I have found that logic and reason, though employed by christians in their never-ending self delusion and attacks on those who do not share that delusion, take a back seat to emotionalism, bullying, condescention, and even desparation. Logic and reason are twisted to support a faulty assumption, an inherently indefensible position - it must all be taken on faith DESPITE all the growing evidence to the contrary. So logic and reason become tools to support the unsupportable,

not tools to check and see if it's supportable.

 

If you set out to make a case (even to yourself) that a claim so offensive to ACTUAL logic and reason is reality and true, when there is NO scrutinizable evidence to support it, you must pervert the process of logical thinking to that end.

 

The most intelligent christian mind warriors are using logic and reason the best,

but only to beat others into shaming submission.

And what's worse, even a PERFECTLY sound logical, reasonable argument coming from christian ideology is entirely dependant on their religious assumptions being correct. And as true logic dictates, one can not draw a proven conclusion from an assumption.

The harder they argue, the less faith they demonstrate.

 

This is why a "true christian" is actually immune to logic and reason,

because he/she has faith in the illogical and unreasonable.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that contradicts their assumed reality is AUTOMATICALLY illogical and unreasonable to them, even if it's scientifically provable.

 

FNA