can someone explain religion to me?

[ozium]

I have faith in nothing, I have beliefs and hopes, and there is a distinction. Faith is belief without evidence. If you're a Christian, try Hebrews 11:1.

And I already addressed the idea that assuming there is no X until evidence is presented X exists takes no faith. In all likelihood, you operate this way with everything that isn't your god. For some reason, we're supposed to give great care and consideration to the probability of a few supernatural beings (the most popular ones), when there's nothing empirically separating them from unicorns, dragons, Zeus, and Santa.

Theists are atheists to every god but theirs, in most cases the ones you were raised with.

 

[etilit]

lol all

 

[richym]

Hey Ozium,
Sorry to go on about the same point again, but the Hebrew passage talks about focusing on our hopes and the things unseen. It does not mean that we don't have evidence for God, Paul in Romans talks about the fact that the whole of creation points towards God. But God is unseen, so we can not fully explain him. We must have faith in the things that we can not see, because God/the gods are far greater than us.

I'm interested that you presume the onus of proof is only on those who believe that there is a God. In that case you have faith by your definition, because you believe something you have no evidence for (though I am sure you have evidence that satisfies you to believe it is true).

I would argue there is a lot of empirical difference between God and unicorns and Santa etc. None of the latter claim to have written/inspired a book to the people. None of them can be verified like we have the historical accounts of Jesus. There is a great deal of difference between them.

You point to an important thing. We must continually search and ask questions of our faith, and other's faith. It is easy to just grow up believing what you have been taught. But I believe true faith only develops as you search and question, and as the things become your faith. We are all on that journey I hope.

 

[ozium]

"Sorry to go on about the same point again, but the Hebrew passage talks about focusing on our hopes and the things unseen. It does not mean that we don't have evidence for God, Paul in Romans talks about the fact that the whole of creation points towards God. But God is unseen, so we can not fully explain him. We must have faith in the things that we can not see, because God/the gods are far greater than us."

This is a logical contradiction. Even evangelicals will tell you the reason we no longer see miracles like conscious burning bushes, water turning into blood and wine, etc, is because that would remove the need for faith. They just don't complete the circle and realize how glaring the contradiction is. Kind of like free will vs. god's plan. The bible says both, and they're logical contradictions.




"I'm interested that you presume the onus of proof is only on those who believe that there is a God. In that case you have faith by your definition, because you believe something you have no evidence for (though I am sure you have evidence that satisfies you to believe it is true)."

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but with extraordinary claims it's a good indication. And absence of evidence is certainly eons away from evidence of existence. I'm claiming there are no gods based on the evidence that I observe no gods. What's interesting to me is when theist's make the "atheists are just as bad/unfounded as theists" argument. Do they not pick up on the tacit admission that theists are bad/unfounded?



"I would argue there is a lot of empirical difference between God and unicorns and Santa etc. None of the latter claim to have written/inspired a book to the people. None of them can be verified like we have the historical accounts of Jesus. There is a great deal of difference between them."

Claiming within a book that that book was written by a supernatural being is not empirical evidence of a supernatural being. I could claim to be a god writing this right now. If the words survived 2000 years, it's still not evidence god wrote/inspired writing this post. Historically proving Jesus is eons away from empirical evidence for the validity of Christianity or existence of a god, and even then, arguments for his existence are tenuous. I was evangelical once, I made those arguments. Empirical information is gained through observation and experiment, not anecdotes.

 

[richym]

Hey Ozium,
Some Chirstians would say that miracles have gone, but that would be the very conservative, and I would guess in the minority, although I am not sure of the exact statistics sorry. I believe that miracles can and still do happen. God hasn't suddenly changed how he does things just so we have to rely on blind faith.

Ah the idea of free will vs God's plan is a huge point, and probably people don't want me going on about it. I believe we can have both, but there are of course people all along the spectrum (favouring one or the other or both to varying degrees).

Mate, my belief in God is based on facts that God is there. Let me give you mine (feel free to think they are rubbish). 1) Look at the complexity of the world, it would not just happen by accident. Even if it all comes down to evolution and the big bang, who started the big bang? Talk to many biologists and they will talk about how you struggle to explain things like the human eye through evolution, because there are so many parts working together, that if you don't have one, it is useless and would be in theory evolved out. 2) There is a desire amongs all people to find this God, to fill what some call the "God shaped hole". Yes it could just be a need to understand how the world works, or it could be that we all have a sense in us that there is a God. 3) Jesus came to Earth. This man came, and did amazing things. He came and he claimed to be God come amongs us. Now either he was the greatest liar that ever lived, or he was the maddest person to ever live, or he was exactly who he claimed to be. 4) At times in my life God speaks to me, no not with an audible voice. Things he puts in my head, I don't think of. Ways that he helps me, I couldn't do by myself.
Now you are free to try and pick that all apart. But I believe when I put them together, that I have evidence that there is a God. I base my faith on facts. Because without some basic facts you have blind faith, and that is usually unwise. (Much like going on a blind date your friends set you up on is usually unwise.)

Arguements for who's existence are tenuous? And yes I agree, to just say a book is holy or from God because it says it is not wise. You need to examine the book. Is the author, or authors reliable. How did they say they came by the book. Is it just one person writing it all, or like the Bible do you have many authors, over a prelonged period of time giving a consistent message? As an historian, I apply the same critique I would to any other ancient doent to see if it is reliable or not.

 

[donitello]

Religion is a set of personal beliefs and morals. The problem that one typically finds with organized religion is that someone else has decided what it is one should believe in. Books are written about it, wars are fought over it, and people are persecuted daily over it. What it basically boils down to at the end of the day is what you believe in as real, is real but within its own consequences.

 

[ozium]

Just want to say up front I apologize for hijacking this thread with the usual theist-atheist banter, and I apologize for this novel:





"Some Chirstians would say that miracles have gone, but that would be the very conservative, and I would guess in the minority, although I am not sure of the exact statistics sorry. I believe that miracles can and still do happen. God hasn't suddenly changed how he does things just so we have to rely on blind faith."

I said miracles like god audibly speaking through a bush and water turning into wine. Are you claiming miracles of this caliber are happening today? Face it, the only "miracles" that happen today are ones that could have happened without a god. A life saved, a good decision, a piece of toast that resembles a bearded man. According to Christianity, God does clearly, suddenly, change. If you don't believe this, you're admitting you haven't read the bible. Just think OT God vs. NT God.



"Ah the idea of free will vs God's plan is a huge point, and probably people don't want me going on about it. I believe we can have both, but there are of course people all along the spectrum (favouring one or the other or both to varying degrees)."

Favoring both to any degree is a logical contradiction. Like believing 2 + 2 = 5, it breaks the definitions you've just set up. And free will also directly contradicts the idea of an omnipotent God. Either God has all power (and he is to blame our suffering and decisions), or God is not all powerful. You cannot have both, and claiming it's just beyond our comprehension is a juvenile cop out. Like claiming 2 + 2 = 5 is just beyond our comprehension. It isn't beyond an 8 year old's comprehension.



1) Look at the complexity of the world, it would not just happen by accident. Even if it all comes down to evolution and the big bang, who started the big bang? Talk to many biologists and they will talk about how you struggle to explain things like the human eye through evolution, because there are so many parts working together, that if you don't have one, it is useless and would be in theory evolved out.

Argument from ignorance + non-sequitur. Because you can't understand everything about the world, X must exist. In this case, the god you were raised with must exist. And if you're claiming complex entities need a cause, what caused God? I am a biochemistry major, and there is no struggle for any professional biologist to explain any animal's eye by evolution.
http://anonym.to/?http://www.britannica.com/bps/media-view/74661/1/0/0
More interesting is the faithful's inability to explain why the vertebrate eye is built backwards and upside down. Seems rather arbitrary and unintelligent for omniscient design.



2) There is a desire amongs all people to find this God, to fill what some call the "God shaped hole". Yes it could just be a need to understand how the world works, or it could be that we all have a sense in us that there is a God.

Argumentum ad populum. Slavery was also implemented and respected throughout all recorded history. Old and popular doesn't equal valid.



3) Jesus came to Earth. This man came, and did amazing things. He came and he claimed to be God come amongs us. Now either he was the greatest liar that ever lived, or he was the maddest person to ever live, or he was exactly who he claimed to be.

False choice. If Jesus existed, it's possible the man wasn't a liar, mad, or true. It's possible humans, translating a story by hand over centuries, like a game of telephone, embellished or totally fudged the story.



4) At times in my life God speaks to me, no not with an audible voice. Things he puts in my head, I don't think of. Ways that he helps me, I couldn't do by myself.
Now you are free to try and pick that all apart. But I believe when I put them together, that I have evidence that there is a God. I base my faith on facts. Because without some basic facts you have blind faith, and that is usually unwise. (Much like going on a blind date your friends set you up on is usually unwise.)

Confirmation bias. These aren't facts, these are logical fallacies. And the bible supports blind faith.



Arguements for who's existence are tenuous? And yes I agree, to just say a book is holy or from God because it says it is not wise. You need to examine the book. Is the author, or authors reliable. How did they say they came by the book. Is it just one person writing it all, or like the Bible do you have many authors, over a prelonged period of time giving a consistent message? As an historian, I apply the same critique I would to any other ancient doent to see if it is reliable or not.

Arguments for Jesus's existence are tenuous. They're comparable to King Arthur. Lots of legend, barely any biographical information. And as I already said, lets pretend you 100% prove Jesus existed. You're still no closer to proving your god. Joseph Smith existed, that doesn't mean Mormons are right. I don't want to accuse you of lying, sir, but there is a near 0% chance you are a historian. I can tell just by your arguments you haven't read the bible at length, and these arguments are elementary.


NB: Please anonymize links per forum rules.
Daedalus
Moderator

 

[richym]

Like Ozium I want to appologise for taking over this thread, but I guess this is how we start to explain religion. It is not just some easy thing, but something we must wrestle with. Sorry for going on and on, and feel free to tell me to shut it.

Hey Ozium,
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I might not go through in the exact order you have replied, I hope that's ok. Firstly you suspect I'm neither an historian nor that I have read the Bible at length. Well I have a BA in ancient history (particularly studying the Biblical period) and I have a Bachelor of Theology, and I have read the Bible all the way through a number of time. Does that mean I understand it all, heck no, but I try to give it a go.

Did Jesus exist. I think most historians would say it is foolish to argue that he didn't. Not only do we have the four gospels recorded in the Bible, but we have various other sources. Seutonius mentions the followers of Chrestus (probably the least convincing of the references), Tacitus (Roman historian) talks of how Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Josephus (Jewish historian) talks of how John the brother of Christ was killed. (he has another section about Jesus, but it has probably been so tampered with by later Christians that it can't be sure what he originally said.) There is a Syrian letter which talks of the Jews killing thier king, the only logical option being Jesus. The writings of the Jewish rabbis mention Jesus a number of time, as someone who taught and did "magic". There can be no doubt that Jesus existed.

The translation of the Bible is done very carefully. We gather together the thousands of ancient copies of the New Testament that we have, comparing them all to make sure that what we have is what was originally written. From an historical point of view, the gospels in the New Testament are good sources. We have copies of them closer to writing than other ancient histories, and we have vastly more copies. They are reliable historians too, Luke has proven to be acurate in his record in the book of Acts. If he got that right, he probably got his gospel right too. So it is good history, of course you need to work out for yourself if the claims that Jesus makes are true or not.

I'm interested that my experiences are "logical fallacies". I can only tell you what I have experienced, and I guess it relies on you thinking about what you have experienced. You talk of former Christian faith, and I can only guess that someone in the church has said something or done something to hurt you. I know that saddly that church people can do that a lot.

Yes salvery was throughout history, but do you think people have a desire to get slaves. Do you think it was a need they had to fill, much like religion seems to be? I would say the quest for God is a more internal need, than just a popular feeling.

I have read some biologists who talk about the complexity of the eye points to God. Not all may believe that, but there are defiantely some who do. You may agree or disagree, that's fine.

Miracles do happen today. People are healed, people are brought back to life. Large numbers are fed from a small amount of food. We like to rationalise them all off, but God is still as active as he was in the past.

Yes we can get confused between big mean God in the Old Testament, and nice loving God in the New Testament. I think the key is to understand the different worlds they are living in. In the Old Testament, God commands them to take over a land, so they have to be brutal, other wise no one around them would have respected them, and they would never had the land to themselves. Where as in the New Testament, the Pax Romana is in place, so there is no invasion needed. In the Old Testament God is not saying it is good to go and wipe people out all the time. It is just for that time and place. Then it is clear, look after the foreigner, make sure they are welcome in your land, look after the poor and needy. God in the Old Testament cares about people too.

God most definately has a plan for the world, but part of that plan is allowing us to make choices. Yet because God knows everything, he knows the choices we will make before we make them, because he knows us. It is like if we go out to dinner, I know my wife is having the chicken snitzel. I haven't made her, she has complete free will to pick anything on a menu, but I can tell you that is what she will have because I know her. The same is true with God. Because he knows us completely, he knows the choices we will make. Sometimes he acts to point us onto the right path, but in general he lets us go about making our decisions. So I believe, yes, you must have both free will and God's plan.

 

[ozium]

I feel I addressed most of these points in my last post, so here are a few final comments:

"There can be no doubt that Jesus existed."
There can, and there is. It is a highly contested issue, the gospels contradict each other, and most importantly it claims magic events happened, which puts it more in line with legend than history (King Arthur & Merlin). The fact that so many are emotionally invested in his existence also blurs the issue. And for the third time, proving Jesus doesn't begin to prove your god.


"You talk of former Christian faith, and I can only guess that someone in the church has said something or done something to hurt you. I know that saddly that church people can do that a lot."
They did plenty to hurt me, but that's not why I left. I left because there's no evidence for any gods. The fact that there isn't any evidence to back it up does make me happy, though, because I think hell is the most disgusting, immoral idea humans have ever conceived of.


"God is still as active as he was in the past."
More evidence you haven't read the bible recently. The world of the bible and today's world are incomparable. My point stands: the miracles you mention could easily be explained without a god. Parting the sea, living inside a fish stomach, zombies, cannot. That's why they were claimed to be miracles in the first place: there's almost no other possible explanation for them if they happened.



Thank you for being so respectful, even when I started getting snarky. My advice is that you read your bible, every word, ASAP. Nothing deconverts a person faster. If you can't finish it, ask yourself why. It is littered with archaic immorality, contradiction, and complete banality. I think I'm done here. Cheers! :cheers:

 

[richym]

Hey Ozium,
Thanks mate. I want to say sorry for the way the chruch has hurt you. You seem like a good, well thinking man. I guess that gets some Christians worried, they don't like you to think or question, because they believe doubting is evil. But mate, question, seek the truth, it's the only way we get our own faith. Be happy with yourself, you should be.

I guess we have come to the point where we are just going to sit arguing over the same few points, and that won't necessarily get us anywhere. One of those times when you just have to agree to disagree. (although i'm sure I'm meant to pound you over the head with the Bible till you believe, lol) I would just say that Jesus existed, there is no doubt about it. The gospels aren't the same, as any two witnesses will not tell you the exact same thing. That's the historical view anyway. I'm sure there would be many who would disagree.

I have read the Bible all the way through a number of times, and yes, probably don't read it as much as I should these days, bad me hehe.

Take care of yourself, and I hope maybe we will have conversations about other things in the future.

 

[topdog]

... science attempts to answer the how question, how the world works. Religion attempts to answer the why...

I think that this thought by Richym is closest to getting at the "Why?" of religion itself.

First of all, trying to evaluate religion by using logic and reason is a waste of time. (Logic isn't going craft anything satisfying in Philosophy, Ethics, or Art either.) It's the wrong tool for the job.

The point of religion is this: observation, reason, science, and mathematics can answer a lot questions - but they can't answer every question. Why am I here? What gives life meaning? Where am I going? Why do good people starve and bad people prosper? What is more important - my survival or the survival of my community? Or is there something going on that's bigger than that?

Maybe the most perplexing human question is "What's beyond the horizon?" Albert Einstein said that "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is incomprehensible." There are things we observe with our senses, and things we can figure out with our brains. But both of those abilities are very finite and really quite narrow. My dogs can hear and smell things that I can't detect. Bats and porpoises can calculate distance from sound. Thousands of cell phone conversations surround my body, as well as radio and television signals - but I can't detect them. And these are just the things I know about. What else is there surrounding me that is yet undetected by my senses? And what's beyond the farthest star?

The fact is that reason can only take you so far. In order to get to beauty, morality, love, and purpose - you have to leap beyond it. Religion is that leap. Religion is not (necessarily) God, a set of rules, and a tribe of believers - which is how we often think of it. In it's broadest sense, Religion is what gets you over the gap* from where reason ends and beauty/morality/love/purpose begins.

In this sense, Religion is very practical. There are times in life when it's crucial to draw on those resources on the far side of "The Gap". I remember a doentary on the after affects of the World Trade Center collapse where they talked to survivors. Some found their faith deepened and extended by the experience. (Their beliefs got them over the gap.) Others felt like their faith was shattered, and the world no longer made sense. (The stuff in their gap didn't hold up under pressure.) In overwhelming cirstances, having access to a "bigger picture" can can mean survival, healing, and moving forward.

This is why reason and observation won't really help in evaluating or validating religious faiths. Their whole point is to take us where our brain and senses can't go. I tend to be a pragmatic sort who judges these things by what gets the job done. If it works for you - great! If it's not working, then it may be time to ask some hard questions and try a different path.



* The concept and term "The Gap" is unashamedly stolen from the late Peter McWilliams put forward in his book Life 101.

 

[ozium]

In my opinion, the choice between reason and beauty/morality/love/purpose is a false one. In fact, I believe they go hand in hand. We wouldn't know what stars to look beyond if it weren't for reason. We wouldn't even know what the stars were, or how ridiculously beautiful they are up close. It's especially worrying when one separates morality from reason.

 

[Daedalus]

I think that this thought by Richym is closest to getting at the "Why?" of religion itself.

First of all, trying to evaluate religion by using logic and reason is a waste of time. (Logic isn't going craft anything satisfying in Philosophy, Ethics, or Art either.) It's the wrong tool for the job.

The point of religion is this: observation, reason, science, and mathematics can answer a lot questions - but they can't answer every question. Why am I here? What gives life meaning? Where am I going? Why do good people starve and bad people prosper? What is more important - my survival or the survival of my community? Or is there something going on that's bigger than that?

Maybe the most perplexing human question is "What's beyond the horizon?" Albert Einstein said that "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is incomprehensible." There are things we observe with our senses, and things we can figure out with our brains. But both of those abilities are very finite and really quite narrow. My dogs can hear and smell things that I can't detect. Bats and porpoises can calculate distance from sound. Thousands of cell phone conversations surround my body, as well as radio and television signals - but I can't detect them. And these are just the things I know about. What else is there surrounding me that is yet undetected by my senses? And what's beyond the farthest star?

The fact is that reason can only take you so far. In order to get to beauty, morality, love, and purpose - you have to leap beyond it. Religion is that leap. Religion is not (necessarily) God, a set of rules, and a tribe of believers - which is how we often think of it. In it's broadest sense, Religion is what gets you over the gap from where reason ends and beauty/morality/love/purpose begins.

This is why reason and observation won't really help in evaluating or validating religious faiths. Their whole point is to take us where our brain and senses can't go. I tend to be a pragmatic sort who judges these things by what gets the job done. If it works for you - great! If it's not working, then it may be time to ask some hard questions and try a different path.

Well said indeed!

 

[topdog]

In my opinion, the choice between reason and beauty/morality/love/purpose is a false one. In fact, I believe they go hand in hand. We wouldn't know what stars to look beyond if it weren't for reason. We wouldn't even know what the stars were. It's especially worrying when one separates morality from reason.

We are kind of thinking along the same direction, in that these things are not conflicting choices. Except you have to keep straight what is a result (or goal, or destination, or outcome - whatever you want to call it), and what is a means of getting there. Reason and Religion are means; beauty/morality, etc. are results or outcomes we want to reach.

The question I am putting forward is this: If I want to find meaning and purpose in life, what tool do I use to get there? Reason is a tool, but it's not particularly well suited for reaching that goal. I definitely think it can be part of the solution, but it won't get you all the way there.

That's not a knock on Reason. It's a great means of hashing out physical and theoretical questions. But as I said before, it's not the only tool in the box. The faith that reason is the only valid means of arriving at truth is peculiar to modern Western culture.

 

[richym]

I like what topdog has to say. I agree, we should not throw out one for the other. Over the years we have got too caught up in the idea that it is religion or science. The church has a poor history of accepting scientific advancement.
Yet I believe we need both. God gave us a brain, and he wants us to use them. The Bible encourages us to think, to look at the world and question. We can not throw out logic and reason, that would be foolish as you point out ozium. I think we are agreed, we need both to help us to understand the world.
For some of us one is going to be easier than the other. I have a sort of maths/science brain, so I like when there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Which drove me nuts when I did philosophy at uni, because there was just all this thought, with no real answers. So some will feel more comfortable on the science side, some will feel more comfortable with the more religious, open side, where things are more thought out and not so clear.
Life is a journey of exploring, I'm positive we will never get it all worked out. We just need to keep asking questions. But we also need to open ourselves to mystery. To be amazed at the stars. To be blown away by how the human body works, to be surprised that humans can act in amazingly loving ways to each other (yes it does happen). And maybe somewhere in that mystery is God.

 

[ozium]

The question I am putting forward is this: If I want to find meaning and purpose in life, what tool do I use to get there? Reason is a tool, but it's not particularly well suited for reaching that goal. I definitely think it can be part of the solution, but it won't get you all the way there.

That's not a knock on Reason. It's a great means of hashing out physical and theoretical questions. But as I said before, it's not the only tool in the box. The faith that reason is the only valid means of arriving at truth is peculiar to modern Western culture.

Reason is our only tool. It's not perfect, it doesn't answer what we want when we want, but it's all we have. If you think faith has ever answered important human questions from any arena, lets hear them. I have the whole of academia backing reason up. Faith doesn't ask questions, it asserts answers. It will never discover any greater purpose to life than whats already asserted in its books, most of which are millennia old. If a singular purpose or reason to all of life is even a logical question, and I don't believe it is, reason will be the one to discover the answer. Specifically via philosophy, which is almost entirely devoted to the question.

Like asking "which came first, the chicken or egg?". Maybe it sounds like an important philosophical question, but under a closer light of reason it's basically an admission you don't understand evolution. Eggs were around before birds entirely. Perhaps the "purpose of life" is like the "purpose of blue". Perhaps life has no greater purpose than what we are able to decide for ourselves. That's another thing reason can do: it helps sort out what questions are even worth asking.

This faith that reason is a cold process that can only address numbers and trivia, while reeping exorbitant benefits from reason 24/7, is peculiar to modern American culture. I wish we could get over our reason/science paranoia. The rest of the industrialized world has, and it's starting to show.

 

[topdog]

Reason is our only tool. It's not perfect, it doesn't answer what we want when we want, but it's all we have...

Basically what you are saying is that reason is the only valid tool and any question that it can't answer is not worth asking. Or if it can't be answered, then we should all just learn to make do.

I think this falls under the heading "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

OK, limit yourself to that and through reason alone:

• Create and appreciate art
• Work through the death of a spouse or a child
• Heal a relationship that's been torn by betrayal
• Commit to care for a parent or friend through a prolonged illness and deterioration
• Find a connection to hundreds of thousands of people starving on the other side of the earth

As I said, if you have something that gets you through all that then, great! But I have to say that it's too limiting for me. I sing and I act, and couldn't do either using only reason. (Well, I could do them badly using only reason, I guess.) I could not reason with a grieving mother and comfort her in her devastating loss. I couldn't forgive through reason and logic, and learn to love and trust again. But, as I said before, fortunately, reason isn't the only tool at my disposal. I have reason and religion, creativity, inspiration, hope and compassion (none of which are related to reason and logic). But if reason works for you, stay with it.

Still, do you really mean to say that your way (reason alone) is the only way through those dilemmas and that Religion hasn't worked to bring most of the human race through those questions for millennia? Do you want to be a "Reason Fundamentalist" and assert that only your path is right and everyone else is wrong? Are you condemning the rest of us to Irrational Hell? :devil:

 

[ozium]

"Basically what you are saying is that reason is the only valid tool and any question that it can't answer is not worth asking. Or if it can't be answered, then we should all just learn to make do."

I'm saying it's our only tool, and questions that can't be answered with it won't be answered, because faith certainly won't answer them either. And some questions are not worth asking..."Why is blue?" and similarly unreasonable things. Like I said before, it's the faithful who claim if it can't be answered, we should just make do: "It's beyond our comprehension", "it's not for us to know", "if we knew, we wouldn't need faith!"

The doctors, scientists and philosophers, the reasonable are the people searching for answers to difficult, unanswered questions every day. Just because reason can't answer it today doesn't mean they ever stop trying.



OK, limit yourself to that and through reason alone:
* Create and appreciate art
* Work through the death of a spouse or a child
* Heal a relationship that's been torn by betrayal
* Commit to care for a parent or friend through a prolonged illness and deterioration
* Find a connection to hundreds of thousands of people starving on the other side of the earth

I think the mistake you're making here is assuming reason negates emotion. Creativity, inspiration, hope and compassion are all intricately linked to reason and logic. Even religion is linked to reason, albeit faulty, fallacious reasoning. Reason is how you worked out how to respond to me. Reason is what separates us from the rest of life. It's why emotions mean anything beyond a reptilian chemical response at all. I have done everything on your list without faith, a good chunk of the population has:

I'm a former artist, I still appreciate art, and to be proficient it's a lot closer to science/reason than many assume. To create it, you must experiment: constantly making mistakes and repeating similar tasks endlessly until you are exceptional. To fully appreciate it, you must experience, study, and compare other works. It takes 10 years to be exceptional at almost anything.

Working through a loved ones death or sickness is the most difficult part of life, and I would never declare my beliefs to someone in that situation if they didn't ask, but there are ways to approach it rationally. Without a god/karma/whatever, there is no intention behind that death. You can chalk it down to the arbitrary chaos of the universe, where everything alive comes to an end. They didn't deserve it. There's no force in the sky that needs blamed or questioned, and I've personally found that incredibly comforting. Or try Mark Twain's rationalization of death: "I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." I find these ideas more comforting than "It's all going to be OK. Just trust me."

In the same way, it's easier for me to forgive and to empathize when I don't imagine some karmic reason some do better than others, when I don't have the expectation a relationship can lack betrayal. And better than just empathizing with humans, reason (evolution in particular) helps you empathize with every living thing on the planet, as everything alive is related to varying degrees. Even if faith works for you, I still wouldn't recommend one stay with it. I believe we have too singular and short a life to spend it with a head in the sand.



Still, do you really mean to say that your way (reason alone) is the only way through those dilemmas and that Religion hasn't worked to bring most of the human race through those questions for millennia? Do you want to be a "Reason Fundamentalist" and assert that only your path is right and everyone else is wrong? Are you condemning the rest of us to Irrational Hell?

Yes, reason is the only way to legitimately "get through" those dilemmas, not just put a band aid on them. Call me a reason fundamentalist, a skeptic fundamentalist, those are compliments. No one has ever killed another by being too reasonable. As I already stated, reason is not perfect. Humans make (huge) errors. As I already stated, hell is the grossest immoral idea humans have ever conceived of (another reason I don't find heaven comforting to the dying). At the very worst, I'm accusing the faithful of an incorrect approach. I'm condemning no one to eternal punishment of any kind for disagreeing: reason makes it nearly impossible to be so callous.

 

[richym]

I'm sure there will be some brilliant arguement against this, I'm not a great technical wizard, but a computer works on pure logic and reason. That is all that a computer has, it can't believe in something, it can't feel something. And so therefore a computer can never fully know the world, because it does not experience, it does not feel, it does not trust. It just follows logic. It can never understand or answer questions that we can, because it has no ability for faith. Yes faith can not answer every question, but I think it is strange to state that it can not answer any question. You may not agree with the answer, but religion is what tells us why we are here, it tells us why we shoul take care of others. Yes we don't have all the answers, because God is far greater than us, so we will never fully understand him/her. Again I would say, faith does not negate reason, and reason does not negate faith. Both can, and I believe should, live happily together.

 

[emk48]

Perhaps you should look at the section on religion shown in Zietgiest which you will find on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
Sincerely, Ed