Theists, answer please!
Posted on: April 1, 2008 - 1:49am
Offline
Theists, answer please!
At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I strive for knowledge I question my beliefs all the time. I study, I learn and I think about my beliefs.
My room is full of books. Both pop science and university texts. I read I learn.
So yeah. It's not Easter Bunny/Santa Clause.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
You don't appear to be doing either. What's your point?
O RLY? What makes you think that?
My point is I do apply reason to my beliefs. Your question was why does reasoning stop at religion.
I answered that it shouldn't.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
Thanks for your response.
So does logic give a little way for faith to support your beliefs?
First I'm not sure that I learned, or reasoned without the assistance of adults (who taught me how to reason) that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't real. I personally was told that they weren't real and then accepted that they weren't real, and moved on. But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. And also because I've never seen any arguements from evil for why Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist. I'm not entirely sure that I understand what "reason" is, nor am I entirely sure that religiouse beliefs are unreasonable; this is a huge epistemological question and I'm not sure I've found an answer to it yet; nor do I think a lot of so called rationalists, even though they are quite sure that they have. So, i'm not sure i understand your question.
First, I blame Tim Allen for my personal misspelling of Santa Claus. I add the "e" almost every time. It usually takes someone else to write it before I realize what I've done.
It's fair to say that neither of those characters have the emotional weight attached to them that a personal deity has. Nor the kind of "ultimate" status that allows for a cosmological or teleological argument.
Certainly not in the sense that "that price is unreasonable" or "you're being unreasonable" they're not. But "reason" does tend to move in the direction of knowable facts.
You may not find the answer satisfactory, but science does make for an extremely successful epistemology. More successful, in fact, than any other by far. I'm guessing the divide you feel between yourself and rationalists is the conclusion that there is no supernatural. My personal definition (by no means exhaustive or definitive) of "reasonable" includes the rejection of the supernatural as unfounded fiction.
I'm guessing that in your case, the supernatural only gets to have one element, and that's a personal god. Does anyone ever address other gods that have been worshipped? Or are they simply the "wrong" gods, like an attempt at doing religion right, and failing? (There's no counter-punch there - I'm just asking your personal opinion.)
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
So why assume that they are in the same epistemic boat as well? I see these sorts of assertions all the time as hand waving arguments, most noteably by dawkins and it always confuses me. If we look at the arguments or the apparent evidence presented for the intimation to believe in a God, I'm kind of lead to believe that God is in an entirely different epistemic and metaphysical boat as these characters, the same goes for monsters of pasta and celestial tea pots.
No it doesn't. I could believe in a fact without sufficient evidence, and just be right by luck. So something being a fact is not sufficient for reason. Most rationalists seem to think that sufficient evidence leads to facts, but they never actually reveal how much evidence is "sufficient", nor do they actually tell us what "evidence" is. Nor is it entirely clear that rationality is purely a matter of having the right amount of evidence. These are major buzz words they use to support their position, but never actually do any philosophical work in defining what these are. Further it seems to me that one could be sufficiently justified in believing something, and they could just be wrong. For example, I can be sufficiently justified in having hands and indeed i am sufficiently justified in believing that I have hands. But if I'm a brain in a vat, being decieved, I could just be wrong.
I actually think that defining rationality as "not including supernatural", is ad hoc. Nor am i entirely convinced that science cancel's out religiouse belief. And as I stated before, i'm not entirely sure about the epistemic status of religiouse belief, these are huge questions in philosophy of religion. In my opinion supernatural is a word that carries with it certain metaphysical baggage, that includes other Gods, other than a personal one that can be worshipped. Certainly the question as to what type of supernatural dieties exist, and the nature of those dieties are important theological questions, and it is still something that every theist should explore and be ready to follow the arguments wherever they lead. But it seems to me that these questions are rather unimportant to atheists, since they don't believe in any diety, or dieties, so why on earth do they ask them? Further, if it is not entirely clear what the answers to these theological questions are, it doesn't mean theism is false. I think first you should probably have a genuine interest in these questions, probably by being convinced that there is a God, then you should inquire as to what the nature of the said God is. My personal opinion is that every religion has overlapping truth claims, some of them contradict others, in which case you should probably make an inference as to what the best explanation is, and continue to carry on an open theological and philosophical dialogue with these other religions. On the other hand these other religions do a lot of things right, and it's important to recognize these things as well. Throughout the process I aim to be intellectually modest and continue to inquire; I believe that this is the best process, if you believe in a diety, to get at what the nature of the diety is.