Why the religious believe the debate is a personal attack?

[brewmaster]

I keep seeing this popping up where one of the religious members of the forum get defensive and claim they are being attacked or that the atheist across the table is being unfair, etc. with respect to a debate on religion.

Why is this? I have not seen anything but logical posts coming from the agnostic/atheist side. And, for the most part (excluding the kind I am talking about) the posts coming from those with religion have been reasonable arguments as to why they have that faith, for them.

Is it because this topic is so personal in nature that eventually the argument leads to frustration on both sides? And then because the atheist/agnostic does not have the belief they don't get defensive because they have nothing to 'lose', while those with the faith feel the encroachment creeping in? I'm not trying to be an ass with that last statement, the encroachement I'm talking about may be subconscious.

Thats about all I can come up with. Any thoughts?

[Epicurus]

The religious side in general has not arguments enough at sertain issues to make themselves look anything else but stupid, if they would not be forced to to do this by unavoidable ignorance. I think they are just to smart to be believing in what they do, and realize that without these ''arguments'' they are not seen as intelligent enough as they want to be. It might be an INTJ syndrome, or only amongs people of considerable intelligence. While others just get trapped and have to say ''well what if'' followed by an increadible stupid statement.

Just my guess.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Faith is a very personal matter... nearly impossible to discuss candidly without offending somebody. People invest their very soul (to the extent that there is such a thing) in such beliefs- and I don't blame them a bit for taking it personally when their faith is insulted. It's human nature... and I'm guilty of the same.

That said, I hold a special hatred in my black little heart for Christianity... and what it's done to my family. When I comment on that virulent form of transmittable schitzophrenia, I'm careful to direct my ridicule and contempt at Jesus (who is magically also God and the Holy Spook at the same time) rather than his specific followers... unless they're public figures, of course. Feelin's are still gonna be hurt, but I think it's a small price to pay if I can free even one thinking & feeling individual from the grip of that destructive mind-virus.

[jnpl0011]

The religious side in general has not arguments enough at sertain issues to make themselves look anything else but stupid, if they would not be forced to to do this by unavoidable ignorance.

Um, maybe because of comments like this... many people have a tendency to talk about religious people in general, and so the intelligent religious people take offense to these generalizations about "religious people" and "religion". If you want to argue against a religion, argue against its tenets, not its adherents.

As I've said before, anything can be corrupted in the hands of the powerful and in the hands of the masses. Most people are superficial... and most people happen to be religious. Taken together, superficial religion prevails.

Religion is not necessarily superstitious by nature. Most people have a tendency to believe what they are fed... others, such as myself, deliberate upon religion for years and come to the conclusion that religion may have had some things right after all. I was an atheist for six years before I came back to my religion. For me, it was not a matter of giving in or being mentally lazy or emotionally needy... I made a life decision. I decided that my religion (and not what others have made of it through the centuries of evangelical christianity) was the best way to live and was worth believing in. Others will not make the same decision as me, and that is fine. Belief is something you have to come to on your own through experience. Deep spirituality cannot be forced upon someone and it is not something that anyone can make another person have through logic and argumentation.

Likewise, a religious person is not going to be convinced by argumentation. They will have to come to that on their own because they do not only believe in this or that, they have decided to live a certain way by believing--whether they choose actively or passively.

[Fogghorn]

I have no issues with those who believe in God, it's those that know there is a God that I have no respect for.

No matter how much any of us believe in logic and empirical evidence its sometimes comes down to faith. Does your spouse love you? Well then show me the proof...... You can't, it comes down to your personal faith and if I am entitled to believe in faith in the love of my family it would certainly be hypocritical for me to deny anyone their faith in that which the wish to believe in. Just because there is no scientific proof to support their belief does not mean they are wrong.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Religion is not necessarily superstitious by nature.Care to elaborate?

[Epicurus]

Um, maybe because of comments like this... many people have a tendency to talk about religious people in general, and so the intelligent religious people take offense to these generalizations about "religious people" and "religion". If you want to argue against a religion, argue against its tenets, not its adherents.I guess you are right.

I have no issues with those who believe in God, it's those that know there is a God that I have no respect for.

No matter how much any of us believe in logic and empirical evidence its sometimes comes down to faith. Does your spouse love you? Well then show me the proof...... You can't, it comes down to your personal faith and if I am entitled to believe in faith in the love of my family it would certainly be hypocritical for me to deny anyone their faith in that which the wish to believe in. Just because there is no scientific proof to support their belief does not mean they are wrong.I agree with you quite some... You could perhaps use the word intuition when it doesn't come down to religion. Tough I believe all logic is in itself correct and it must be, but none of them all tells anything about reality. Yes religion is logic aswell even if a bit corrupted, but that all logic is to compared to the ''universal logic'' wich no one knows of or atleasts can't know that they know of it 100%. Even tough people like me do not understand its logic it is to the people understanding it, correct, they are appart of it mindly and I am not. There is always some form of belief wich connects all knowledge, superstition or whatever it is no matter what it is you believe. I just hate everyone that are saying they are completely right on these issues regarding ontology/methaphysics. Its just yourself scrambling together all knowledge and making something out of it. Then any science dude can come and say anything, that you have to believe in current science wich is the most advanced and correct logic (including believing in witches and that the earth is flat) or you can not know anything as much as it does and denying knowledge. (A bit off-topic tough.)
EDIT: I was a bit hasty. (Other types of) knowledge can also be put in instead of anything like faith or intuition, when it comes down to more acctuall knowledge wich isn't based on tales or imagination at the same extent as religion often is.

[Tsuru]

Religion is such a sore spot because it's so deeply integrated into a person's identity and reality.

If you are serious about your religion (especially if it is a major focal point of your life and you've spent many years with it), you are spending much of your time devoting yourself to it and taking the ideas seriously. It also acts as a sense of fundamental and unshaken structure in many people's lives. To have it attacked is an attack on YOU as well as your self image, because they are saying that your reality is false, and that you have spent much of your life chasing a fantasy. And that your fundamental sense of structure in life is just a bogus illusion. And that's obviously an uncomfortable assertion to have tossed towards you, and it fires up tempers as people themselves feel attacked.

- insert biting criticism here-

I personally think religious seriousness is the equivalent of people scaling the heights of a ready-to-crumble tower on a rotting scaffold. Attacking the fundamentals of faith is asking them to look down.

[Rohsiph]

I personally think religious seriousness is the equivalent of people scaling the heights of a ready-to-crumble tower on a rotting scaffold. Attacking the fundamentals of faith is asking them to look down.

Neat metaphor. It really makes me wonder . . . I mean, isn't it less reprehensible to let someone know that they're wasting so much energy, that they might just yet put it to better use?

I've never wanted to attack religion simply to be vitriolic, to hurt people . . . it's always either to try learning more about irrationality (if I don't have a reason to care about the person), or to try fundamentally helping the person (if I do care) to become a more rationally enlightened person (based on noting success/failure ratio of rationally-motivated vs irrationally-motivated experiences).

[rwyatt365]

Ok, I'm going to try to be careful here because my points have been misunderstood, or misrepresented in other threads…

First, religion is something that is a "foundational" belief. By that I mean that a person that has religious beliefs most likely holds those beliefs central to their world-view, it's the foundation that much of the rest of their beliefs rest and depend on. Anytime something "attacks" that foundation, the person will tend to react strongly. An "attack" might be something as simple as questioning that belief, or tagging that belief as irrational, unreasonable, stupid or any of a number of inflammatory words. BTW – this is no different than a non-religious person with some other strongly-held belief.

Second, religion is faith-based (in some way), not proof-based. At some level, in every religion, there is something that the religious doctrine asks the adherent to accept "by faith" – it cannot be "proven" (in the strict manner of scientific observational proof), it must be accepted "as-is". Starting from that foundation of faith, the religious advocate will argue the logic of religion (as Tsuru says, "people scaling the heights of a ready-to-crumble tower on a rotting scaffold"). I would counter and say that the neither the "tower", nor the "scaffold" is crumbling or rotting – simply that the foundation is composed of a different "composition" than one that a non-religious person would use – metaphorically. That is to say that the foundation of "faith" is not a foundation that a non-religious person would use, and so is considered (by that non-religious person) to be inadequate. To a non-religious person religion is built on shifting sands and thus is subject to collapse and unsuitable for habitation. To the religious person, that (so-called) shifting sand is shored up by a greater power and so is imminently habitable – indeed, it is exquisite by comparison.

So, to tell a religious person that their beliefs are irrational, foolish, or stupid is akin to telling the non-religious person that something that they hold precious is crap – you'll get the same kind of reaction.

At best, any religious debate will end with "this is what I believe, and why" without characterizing the other position in any way. I think that if we leave "irrational", "stupid", and other derogatory words out of the conversations, we could have some fruitful discussions without resorting to name-calling and finger-pointing.

PS - For the record, I am squarely in the non-religious "camp", but I respect people for having whatever beliefs that they may have.

[brewmaster]

Thank you Tsuru and rwyatt365, that was what I was looking for.




At best, any religious debate will end with "this is what I believe, and why" without characterizing the other position in any way. I think that if we leave "irrational", "stupid", and other derogatory words out of the conversations, we could have some fruitful discussions without resorting to name-calling and finger-pointing.

Very true. The religious threads have become circular and akin to beating the dead horse, and I am bored with them, although I cannot quit watching like its some kind of train wreck. Keeping the derogatory words out is probably a good idea, as they seem to only make it worse, I'm not sure irrational is one of those though.

[Hdier]

If someone laughs at me (or my religion) because of my religion, then I just shrug it off. I would say, though, that it is probably because many people become irrational when it comes to religion, and so people who would normally understand that you are simply challenging their religion jump to illogical conclusions that you are attempting to call them idiots and fools, causing them to look like idiots and fools in their attempts to 'defend' themselves.

I am not talking about anyone in paritcular, and only talking in general.

Please don't bite my head off. :scared:

[rwyatt365]

The word "irrational" is used often when discussions of religion are addressed, usually to indicate that religious people and religious belief are irrational. When examined closely, "irrational" has to do with a lack of reason or understanding. Looking at "reason" one finds that it's application is not strictly limited to (but often applied to) logical argument.

"Reason" can simply be something that makes something else explainable, or intelligible (and not necessarily logical, or provable). "Understanding" is simply comprehension of something, or applying relationships and concepts towards knowing something. Once again, this is not necessarily bound by objective, repeatable "proof".

So, in the strictest sense, religion is indeed rational – as it is explainable, comprehendible and has it's own set of intelligible concepts and relationships. They may not be consistent with the scientific method but, in and of themselves, they are rational. So, to address them as irrational is (strictly) and untrue characterization. Now, the belief systems of most (if not all) religions may not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and objective proof-based inquiry. But that does not make them irrational - it makes them un-scientific and un-provable.

[AgentofGaming]

No matter how much any of us believe in logic and empirical evidence its sometimes comes down to faith. Does your spouse love you? Well then show me the proof...... You can't, it comes down to your personal faith and if I am entitled to believe in faith in the love of my family it would certainly be hypocritical for me to deny anyone their faith in that which the wish to believe in. Just because there is no scientific proof to support their belief does not mean they are wrong.

This one isn't exactly the best example.
Your family has done many things for you (for most people).
You have frequently benefited from what they do for you.
You have experience of what they are willing to do for you.
Therefore you can to some objectivity demonstrate they love you. This is through experience, (sounds like the need for consistent proof in science).
This is less accurate than say letting a rock go and seeing if it falls, but is similar: asking someone who loves you if they are willing to do a small favour for you, or sometimes they do it even without being asked.


As described in by different posters
1)
The American Heritage Dictionary has this to say about Irrational:
* Not endowed with reason
* Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock
* Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment

and about Faith:

* Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

So, yes, faith makes you irrational. I'll break it down into little pieces

1) you have faith in something
2) the definition of faith requires a lack of logic and evidence
3) therefore, you have confidence without reason
4) no reason means you are irrational

2)
So, to tell a religious person that their beliefs are irrational, foolish, or stupid is akin to telling the non-religious person that something that they hold precious is crap – you'll get the same kind of reaction.


1) As described above faith has to do with someone's rationality.
2) Who here would really want their rationality questioned?
It's more likely that a thinker who's rationality is questioned will consider it an insult and I trust that all of us if not most of us here are thinkers. Even those that may or may not be considered thinkers want to be at least considered as thinkers (my generalization of people as a whole, not pointing to anyone).

For if we considers ourselves highly as thinkers the questioning of our rationality is a questioning of whether we are thinkers.

...would normally understand that you are simply challenging their religion jump to illogical conclusions that you are attempting to call them idiots and fools, causing them to look like idiots and fools in their attempts to 'defend' themselves.

Well such is the pain of trying to achieve consensus. You don't want the masses to consider your idea foolish.
Perhaps sometimes people will already assume that masses will think their idea is foolish. That's when people get insulted without an insult.

[jnpl0011]

Care to elaborate?

Well, my intuition is that if you come to make a rational decision about your beliefs, then that is not superstitious and irrational by default. And we should note that superstition and irrationality are not the same things. A religion can be irrational without being superstitous. And not all religions are either of these things while some of them are.

We generally equate superstition with a certain kind of irrationality that is not based in any kind of experience. I'm sorry if you cannot see the difference, but there is no real comparison between the faith of Thomas Aquinas and the evangelist Christianity of your average soccer mom. And there is a big difference between soccer mom faith and the animism of a cave man. I have a hard time calling anything rank superstition when it is based on a system, as most major religions are. However, some people take Christianity to superstitious levels... for me, the line seems blurred between Central American Marian devotion and all-out paganism.

Even in Ancient Greece, intelligent people didn't believe in the myths and stories of Ovid in a literal fashion... they did, however, believe in the gods of the pantheon. They believed in them in a metaphorical sense as forces of nature, not actual people. Just read Plato. This is not to say that old grandmothers didn't believe in the stories as told.

So--most of the intelligent faithful have a real reason for their belief, whether it be a religious experience or a detection of purpose in the world or choice to believe because they sense that a life with belief is more valuable and meaningful than one without. Any of these reasons make the choice to believe rational, if not in the scientific sense. None of these confirm the existence of God, but they make faith permissible. Certainly we should take advantage of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge is hardly the beginning and end of all knowledge and wisdom. Belief in spite of a lack of empirical, scientifically-tested evidence is not tantamount with superstition. The things that religion explains are not things that we can even begin to test. In this sense, religion is a supplement to scientific knowledge, albeit one that many choose to go without. Superstition replaces naturalistic explanations and makes connections between events that there is no reason to assume. Religion, on the other hand, answers purpose-related questions that only religion can answer so there are very real stakes involved in religious belief, and these beliefs do not contradict scientific beliefs. The great thing about traditional monotheism is that God is separate from His creation so within the confines of this world, we are free to take a completely scientific viewpoint with the possible exception of the occasional miracle. No need for superstition. I would prefer to define superstition as a needless and unfounded ontological explanation. Religion is not scientifically founded, but it is not needless... certainly not for those who long for a better explanation for things than "you were born, you will die, and nothing happens thereafter, rendering everything you do here on earth ultimately pointless."





jnpl0011 added to this post, 6 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Faith is not irrational... it is arational. It does not work against reason, it works outside of it for the most part.

[rwyatt365]

Moderate this out, but I agree with jnpl0011 in this.

You make good arguments for separation of faith and supersition. I particularly like the use of "arational" in place of "irrational".

Well done! :thumbsup:

[Santana28]

same thing with politics.

you question someone's choice of religion or politics - and you're questioning their core values and decision-making ability. people always want to believe they have made the best choice according to their values, when in reality most people dont give much more thought about it other than "what is everyone important to me saying?"

you ask someone to consider something else, and you're asking them to change who they are. and what gives you the right to condemn another's choices and values?

if people would stop and examine their own thought processes and decision making ability as we INTJs do... the world would be in infinitely better (and more reasonable) place.

[Hdier]

Well such is the pain of trying to achieve consensus. You don't want the masses to consider your idea foolish.
Perhaps sometimes people will already assume that masses will think their idea is foolish. That's when people get insulted without an insult.

Yes, I agree that you should defend your faith, as I have attempted to do on multiple occasions, but that is different than responding to the argument as if it were a personal attack.

[jnpl0011]

Moderate this out, but I agree with jnpl0011 in this.

You make good arguments for separation of faith and supersition. I particularly like the use of "arational" in place of "irrational".

Well done! :thumbsup:

Finally--my achievements have been recognized... :shy:

[AgentofGaming]

Religion is not scientifically founded, but it is not needless... certainly not for those who long for a better explanation for things than "you were born, you will die, and nothing happens thereafter, rendering everything you do here on earth ultimately pointless."


and that's where the differences are formed right?
Those that need an explanation for the unexplainable and those that don't and just accept the world as it is.

That's like finding strength from ideas and it becomes of basis of your existence. I don't know why, but I don't feel that a basis that's can't entirely affirmed can be a good idea.
I much prefer to say make "your positive mark on humanity" instead of founding my self on something not scientific or saying that life was completely pointless.

Yes, I agree that you should defend your faith, as I have attempted to do on multiple occasions, but that is different than responding to the argument as if it were a personal attack.

It's better to respond to perceived hostilities as criticism. The internet is very impersonal so a lot can be mistaken as personal attacks. I like to take it as criticism at first and reply with why I disagree with it.

[jnpl0011]

No, that is not the only difference... the differences are far deeper, though I don't claim to know them all. I can only offer what I see. And since I am on my Christmas break and have all the time in the world, I am up to a challenge. That is only among the differences. If we are going to get into a huge philosophical argument about the nature of superstition as opposed to religion, we had better start with a definition for these terms and what each does.

Both explain phenomena with non-empirical observations.

What are the phenomena that each attempt to explain? Superstition explains connections between events such as shattering mirrors and bad luck (a plainly arbitrary belief) and also natural phenomena, like when a kid sees a shadow and thinks it a witch (a view which is simply not empirically based and which a little exploration and observation will remedy). So there are at least two senses that we use the word. Then there are also more spiritual superstitions like native americans who thought that eating the hearts and brains of their enemies would bring them courage and intelligence. This kind of superstition involves metaphorical thinking that associates the object itself with the idea it represents. That is the source of this superstition and it is a plainly fallacious mode of thinking. Also, the very belief in witches and fairies and so forth is "superstitious" because there is no evidence to support such beliefs.

Religion is not this way at all, though religion and superstition are admittedly related insofar as each has to do with things that cannot be seen or immediately experienced. But this is where the similarities end.

Religion, in its most refined and philosophized form a la Aquinas and Augustine and so on, is not arbitrary belief as in the mirror example. People believe for a reason--the distinct intuition that this world did not appear ex nihilo and that all temporal things have a beginning and end. Religion explains natural phenomena, as does the witch example, but it does not try to explain empirical phenomena in the particular sense which can be explained with observation and exploration. It seeks to explain existence itself: that is, existence as a concept and in a general sense. It does this by posing a thing that is timeless and all-powerful, i.e. capable of creating all that is in existence. Given the intuition that all things must come into existence and that infinite regression is a senseless concept, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that existence has been conferred upon us by something that cannot cease to exist, exists outside of time, and that exists outside of his creation (because it seems equally counter-intuitive to think that we are God or a part thereof... pantheism in its pedestrian sense is hardly theism at all in my opinion, just another form of naturalism).

Theologized religion does not delve in metaphorical modes of thought as in the heart eating example, though it may use metaphors to describe things that are too abstract for language to accurately depict. No, not even the eucharist, and I will tell you why. Many protestants believe it is symbolic, meaning that it is a declaration of faith. Others believe that the ESSENCE of God is carried by the eucharist after it is blessed by the holy spirit. In this case, the holy spirit comes to reside within one's person. This does not treat abstract qualities as having tangible manifestations. It is all about essence and what a thing symbolizes in the minds of God and the faithful. Moreover, it is a CONCIOUS metaphor and symbolic act, so the superstitious mode of thought seen in heart-eaters is by default overcome. The same is true of ancient Roman libations and sacrifice. It is a symbol of penitance and respect. Not quite the same as raw superstition which thinks they are tapping directly into some mystical source. Now, the roman catholic position is harder to defend and I won't try to do that here since most catholics don't even know what they are supposed to believe. But even in this case, we aren't working on an animistic mode of thought.

Lastly, there is reason for belief in most religious people's minds. Many people find that the trials they go through teach them lessons that they needed to learn and they see that when their plans go wrong, often times new opportunities open up in life. And also, morality is made absolute in religious systems, which can't be all that bad if the system of morality is a good one to have. And also, I do think that most people think life is pointless without some form of religion or spirituality in their lives. Some people are okay with that... others aren't. And since man is very much a meaning-seeking creature, belief in a system that offers that is very natural and by no means irrational when it does not get in the way of more sober ways of knowing reality.

Agent of gaming-- There are alot of things in life that you cannot confirm the existence of, but you have faith that they exist. As someone remarked, you have faith that your wife loves you even though all she can do is tell you. You have faith that other people are not walking, talking zombies which produce actions without thought. And the people who see purpose in life and in the universe have faith in God. Your wife may love you; she may not. Certainly you believe she does up until the moment you find her in bed with the mailman. But you believe because you need to believe and because you love her and because your life is better that way. God may move creation, he may not. I believe because I love God and I love the purpose I see in creation and because my life is richer when I work for pursuits nobler than myself and the few people around me. I am going to die within another sixty or seventy years and so will they. And one day it is likely that mankind will perish in some fashion or another.

It is not solely a matter of "accepting the world as it is" or "needing an explanation". It is a matter of interpretation of the world around you and detecting purpose and meaning in all things. Some people see it. Some don't. It may exist. It may not.

"Making your positive mark on humanity" is fine, but ultimately pointless to many people. You will be dead in a few decades along with everyone you ever affected. Some make a choice to believe in something they perceive to be nobler and purposed.

That said, I am not going to convince you or anyone else here of any damn thing they don't want to hear. Thus is human nature. I hope only bring some people to be more tolerant of the rationality of the believer (being that it DOES in fact exist).

Furthermore, I should add (though this is not directed at anyone in particular) that the religious life is not easier because you have purpose and direction... this is a huge misconception made by pretentious high-schoolers who are just finding out they have a brain. All of the deeply spiritual people I know have a more difficult life because of their faith, though a more fulfilling one. It is harder BECAUSE you have direction and purpose. You have roles to fulfill and things to accomplish.

[AgentofGaming]

No, that is not the only difference... the differences are far deeper, though I don't claim to know them all. I can only offer what I see. And since I am on my Christmas break and have all the time in the world, I am up to a challenge. That is only among the differences. If we are going to get into a huge philosophical argument about the nature of superstition as opposed to religion, we had better start with a definition for these terms and what each does.

Both explain phenomena with non-empirical observations.

What are the phenomena that each attempt to explain? Superstition explains connections between events such as shattering mirrors and bad luck (a plainly arbitrary belief) and also natural phenomena, like when a kid sees a shadow and thinks it a witch (a view which is simply not empirically based and which a little exploration and observation will remedy). So there are at least two senses that we use the word. Then there are also more spiritual superstitions like native americans who thought that eating the hearts and brains of their enemies would bring them courage and intelligence. This kind of superstition involves metaphorical thinking that associates the object itself with the idea it represents. That is the source of this superstition and it is a plainly fallacious mode of thinking. Also, the very belief in witches and fairies and so forth is "superstitious" because there is no evidence to support such beliefs.

Religion is not this way at all, though religion and superstition are admittedly related insofar as each has to do with things that cannot be seen or immediately experienced. But this is where the similarities end.

I'm not on Christmas break yet, one more exam to go. :rolleyes: However I'm always ready to make some interesting discussions.

Well there have been some instances of cause-effect between religion-superstition. Say the Christian persecution of witches or the fabricated prejudices that led to the inquisition. What connection do you find on those between religion and superstition?

Religion, in its most refined and philosophized form a la Aquinas and Augustine and so on, is not arbitrary belief as in the mirror example. People believe for a reason--the distinct intuition that this world did not appear ex nihilo and that all temporal things have a beginning and end. Religion explains natural phenomena, as does the witch example, but it does not try to explain empirical phenomena in the particular sense which can be explained with observation and exploration. It seeks to explain existence itself: that is, existence as a concept and in a general sense. It does this by posing a thing that is timeless and all-powerful, i.e. capable of creating all that is in existence. Given the intuition that all things must come into existence and that infinite regression is a senseless concept, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that existence has been conferred upon us by something that cannot cease to exist, exists outside of time, and that exists outside of his creation (because it seems equally counter-intuitive to think that we are God or a part thereof... pantheism in its pedestrian sense is hardly theism at all in my opinion, just another form of naturalism).
Yes it's somewhat reasonable but non-deterministic and therefore as reasonable as the guesses on "non creation".

Sometimes it seems that religions are in fact metaphorical. Certain religions try to put a humanly touch to an unhuman environment by claiming creationism. I can't help but feel this is an oversimplification of the universe. It's like finding meaning from something with no meaning.


Lastly, there is reason for belief in most religious people's minds. Many people find that the trials they go through teach them lessons that they needed to learn and they see that when their plans go wrong, often times new opportunities open up in life. And also, morality is made absolute in religious systems, which can't be all that bad if the system of morality is a good one to have. And also, I do think that most people think life is pointless without some form of religion or spirituality in their lives. Some people are okay with that... others aren't. And since man is very much a meaning-seeking creature, belief in a system that offers that is very natural and by no means irrational when it does not get in the way of more sober ways of knowing reality.
Yes it's useful in that faith is a means to guide people, but what if the faith is radical? What if the faith preaches intolerance or even violence?

Morality made absolute can be bad, as it is a limitation of personal freedoms.

If I may say this moralism and giving of meaning , raises issues in stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, gender roles etc.

Might I also claim that moralism leads to conservatism which with the above issues lead to stagnation of civil liberties, science.

Morals don't necessarily come from religion. I'm guessing everyone would probably know that murder and stealing is bad.

Agent of gaming-- There are alot of things in life that you cannot confirm the existence of, but you have faith that they exist. As someone remarked, you have faith that your wife loves you even though all she can do is tell you. You have faith that other people are not walking, talking zombies which produce actions without thought. And the people who see purpose in life and in the universe have faith in God. Your wife may love you; she may not. Certainly you believe she does up until the moment you find her in bed with the mailman. But you believe because you need to believe and because you love her and because your life is better that way. God may move creation, he may not. I believe because I love God and I love the purpose I see in creation and because my life is richer when I work for pursuits nobler than myself and the few people around me. I am going to die within another sixty or seventy years and so will they. And one day it is likely that mankind will perish in some fashion or another.
Well I'm single so I won't have to worry about mailmen :rolleyes:
You do know some people do produce actions without thought, don't need to elaborate on that.

As I stated in some posts above, I don't exactly take relationships as direct faith. I don't exactly know what you mean by the need to believe, but if I ask my brother to get milk he is willing to get me a cup of milk for me. It's not exactly a belief it's proven, he has done it before many times and so I believe he is willing to do it for me. Of course he might be feeling bad one day, that would be an exception.


"Making your positive mark on humanity" is fine, but ultimately pointless to many people. You will be dead in a few decades along with everyone you ever affected. Some make a choice to believe in something they perceive to be nobler and purposed.

Well I think it's more/less pointless depending on what you do for a living, but it does have an impact altogether. What if I say helped a team invent a hover car, is my impact dead with me in a few decades? no, it lives on until technology is no longer used, but will inspire future technologies and allow other people to make their impacts. I think it is much more meaningful to have faith in humanity than faith in a higher being. The goal is to help people, help society, no matter how little meaning it has impact. So if faith was on humans instead of higher beings wouldn't that make society be better, more productive?
Admittedly the world would be better off without some people (like the bad mailman, but who'll deliver the mail?) but that's the different story.;D

So I'm probably a person with more faith in people than religion. So this lack of spirituality doesn't mean much for me if I already have my meaning. Cause-effect is huge, I think people should have more faith in humanity than seeking to the skies.
For say if a farmer thousands of years ago didn't farm and produce that extra food and instead went to church, X person would have died of hunger, then his descendants who could have been great people that benefited the world wouldn't exist etc. Then wouldn't that have made the church immoral in a weird sense. The point is many people benefit the world, not all will make it to the history books, but those who do made the best contribution, regardless everyone should contribute.
So don't go into marketing, ;)
Although if the world doesn't survive, I might fault apathy or villainy.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Theologized religion does not delve in metaphorical modes of thought as in the heart eating example, though it may use metaphors to describe things that are too abstract for language to accurately depict. No, not even the eucharist, and I will tell you why. Many protestants believe it is symbolic, meaning that it is a declaration of faith. Others believe that the ESSENCE of God is carried by the eucharist after it is blessed by the holy spirit. In this case, the holy spirit comes to reside within one's person. This does not treat abstract qualities as having tangible manifestations. It is all about essence and what a thing symbolizes in the minds of God and the faithful. Moreover, it is a CONCIOUS metaphor and symbolic act, so the superstitious mode of thought seen in heart-eaters is by default overcome. The same is true of ancient Roman libations and sacrifice. It is a symbol of penitance and respect. Not quite the same as raw superstition which thinks they are tapping directly into some mystical source. Now, the roman catholic position is harder to defend and I won't try to do that here since most catholics don't even know what they are supposed to believe. But even in this case, we aren't working on an animistic mode of thought.

Wrap it in all the pretty words and reasoning you want... The Eucharist is ritual cannibalism.

Some make a choice to believe in something they perceive to be nobler and purposed.emphasis mine

You have an interesting take on religion, jnp. I'd be interested to read your take on my post #112, here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rohsiph]

I really appreciate the responses made since my snide little contribution--particularly jnpl0011's most recent post, and the term "arational." However, something I feel compelled to point out:

. . . That is to say that the foundation of "faith" is not a foundation that a non-religious person would use, and so is considered (by that non-religious person) to be inadequate. To a non-religious person religion is built on shifting sands and thus is subject to collapse and unsuitable for habitation. To the religious person, that (so-called) shifting sand is shored up by a greater power and so is imminently habitable – indeed, it is exquisite by comparison.

Then . . . I can read this, expanding the analogy into basic geology: the religious person buys the house with the beautiful view on the beach believing their faith will ward off the erosion that will inevitably destroy the home . . . and it's a problem for the non-religious to point out the backwards nature of living in such a house because the religious has invested so much in choosing this place with a wonderful view stabilized primarily thanks to faith?

Am I understanding this right?

Again . . . I'm kind of afraid I come off as any other jerk "making an attack" on the religious, but it's really concerning to me that anyone would make any important decisions based on such foundations. Quite a few members in my family are fairly religious, and it disturbs me every time they expose how much energy and effort they expend in their religious quests . . . time that could be spent cultivating their hearts and minds with art, music, literature, etc.

jnpl0011, your post gives me some closer insight into what might be going on . . . but it's still dangerously foreign to me, how /choices/ and /decisions/ can be made on religious basis.

[terencec]

1. Your family has done many things for you (for most people).
2. You have frequently benefited from what they do for you.
3. You have experience of what they are willing to do for you.

Therefore you can to some objectivity demonstrate they love you.


To be logical true, there cannot be any contradiction. We can program a robot to do everything for us (1), we are frequently benefited (2), have experience what the robot is willing to do for us(3), does the robot love us? If not, there is a contradiction in our logic.

Love is emotion/feelings and it does not necessary base on logic.

[rwyatt365]

Then . . . I can read this, expanding the analogy into basic geology: the religious person buys the house with the beautiful view on the beach believing their faith will ward off the erosion that will inevitably destroy the home . . . and it's a problem for the non-religious to point out the backwards nature of living in such a house because the religious has invested so much in choosing this place with a wonderful view stabilized primarily thanks to faith?

Am I understanding this right?
Yes, that's a fair extension of my analogy. And, if the beach house stands for years without appreciable damage then the dweller of that house feel completely justified and vindicated for their faith that the sands will not shift. So does the religious person, with faith in their system of belief, feel justified and vindicated when their faith sustains them even in the face of apparent danger. Now, the non-religious person can say that they were just the beneficiary of a "quirk" that prevented the erosion that will come eventually. But can the non-religious person say precisely and authoritatively that the "quirk" was not divinely inspired? They may be able to postulate theories (and many know my view on "theory"), but they cannot know the absolute cause of that "quirk". Whereas the religious person "knows" what happened and why (because of their faith).
Again . . . I'm kind of afraid I come off as any other jerk "making an attack" on the religious, but it's really concerning to me that anyone would make any important decisions based on such foundations. Quite a few members in my family are fairly religious, and it disturbs me every time they expose how much energy and effort they expend in their religious quests . . . time that could be spent cultivating their hearts and minds with art, music, literature, etc.
We're having a discussion, and I appreciate you stating your viewpoint and asking questions.

To the non-religious mind, making important decisions on the basis of faith, or belief in a religious system can be disturbing. I spent several years delving into the (Christian) religion of my wife and family because of their fervor, and my bias against what I felt was "irrational" behavior. Since I couldn't convince them to make "reasonable" decisions, I decided to try to understand where they were coming from. I now know that their system of beliefs is different (not worse, not crazy, not irrational) than my own. I don’t agree with how they reach some of the conclusions that they reach, and sometimes I don’t agree with the conclusions themselves. However, I don't berate them for having a different belief system and we find ways to agree to disagree.

Non-religious people often point to the atrocities committed in the name of religion as "proof" that religion is bad and irrational. But atrocities have been committed in the name of love, politics, and greed – and every atrocity committed has eagerly used the tools of science to win their cause. So, in context, religion is no worse than most other human endeavors.

Many of us on this forum have expressed that they have been misunderstood by others and ostracized for their differences, and yet so much energy has been expended levying judgment on religion – I sense a bit of irony in that, don't you?

[Jennywocky]

rwyatt365's post sums up most of my feelings.

Religious belief is not just something outside of many people -- it's intertwined into their life story. When you rip it out by the roots, you are also destroying THEM, because their judgments and perception and personal narrative is built on it.

And there are many good things (by anyone's standards, believer or not) in their lives that were perceived and identified in terms of the religious beliefs. "Answers" to prayer, emotional and relational maturity/growth, changes of heart, acts of selflessness, etc.... all these things are GOOD things that were assigned to the religious system that was held. So when you attack the religious belief, the person will fight back for GOOD reasons, because you're assaulting GOOD things as well as the belief in question.

Whether or not the personal growth and goodness did stem from the religious belief isn't really the question; the fact simply is that they are connected, so if you attack the belief, the person will equate that to attacking what actually IS good and positive and understandably respond as if you're rejecting good.

[brewmaster]

Interesting, and thank you Jennywocky for putting the the thread back to topic.

Religious beleifs are so beyond my understanding, that understanding the motivations, and views of religious people is very foreign. (probably stemming from the fact that I was raised catholic by two atheists, funny eh?)

[AgentofGaming]

To be logical true, there cannot be any contradiction. We can program a robot to do everything for us (1), we are frequently benefited (2), have experience what the robot is willing to do for us(3), does the robot love us? If not, there is a contradiction in our logic.

Love is emotion/feelings and it does not necessary base on logic.
The robot loves us, if we can make it so, I don't know how to logically quantify that. I just need the robot to buy presents for me without me asking and it'll be perfect replacement for humans. I wonder what it will be like when they can make robots indistinguishable from humans. They'd also make good liars.

Perhaps what if people didn't have the right-side irrational part of their brains?
Could they love you?


Non-religious people often point to the atrocities committed in the name of religion as "proof" that religion is bad and irrational. But atrocities have been committed in the name of love, politics, and greed – and every atrocity committed has eagerly used the tools of science to win their cause. So, in context, religion is no worse than most other human endeavors.

Religion is just another avenue to cause an atrocity. It's just the use of an ideology; a cause for atrocities like any other tool of power. However you can question your country it's fine, but if you question your religion you question your own fundamentals.

I wonder is it possible to attack an atheist's foundation? or is it a void?
Is it possible for an atheist to be insulted from attacking that foundation, or would they find the attempt foolish?

[Rohsiph]

Yes, that's a fair extension of my analogy. And, if the beach house stands for years without appreciable damage then the dweller of that house feel completely justified and vindicated for their faith that the sands will not shift. So does the religious person, with faith in their system of belief, feel justified and vindicated when their faith sustains them even in the face of apparent danger. Now, the non-religious person can say that they were just the beneficiary of a "quirk" that prevented the erosion that will come eventually. But can the non-religious person say precisely and authoritatively that the "quirk" was not divinely inspired? They may be able to postulate theories (and many know my view on "theory"), but they cannot know the absolute cause of that "quirk". Whereas the religious person "knows" what happened and why (because of their faith).


That's interesting . . . I still can't help but feel it'd be entirely short-sighted & irresponsible for one to ground themselves in such "quirks," but I think this explanation may have actually helped me get a bit closer to accepting what you go on to suggest--


To the non-religious mind, making important decisions on the basis of faith, or belief in a religious system can be disturbing. I spent several years delving into the (Christian) religion of my wife and family because of their fervor, and my bias against what I felt was "irrational" behavior. Since I couldn't convince them to make "reasonable" decisions, I decided to try to understand where they were coming from. I now know that their system of beliefs is different (not worse, not crazy, not irrational) than my own. I don’t agree with how they reach some of the conclusions that they reach, and sometimes I don’t agree with the conclusions themselves. However, I don't berate them for having a different belief system and we find ways to agree to disagree.

It certainly seems pragmatic to find a way to "live and let live" when there is little/no detriment on either side. This sounds like a good perspective.

Non-religious people often point to the atrocities committed in the name of religion as "proof" that religion is bad and irrational. But atrocities have been committed in the name of love, politics, and greed – and every atrocity committed has eagerly used the tools of science to win their cause. So, in context, religion is no worse than most other human endeavors.

Many of us on this forum have expressed that they have been misunderstood by others and ostracized for their differences, and yet so much energy has been expended levying judgment on religion – I sense a bit of irony in that, don't you?

Indeed--it's an odd frustration, from both sides it seems. I found a way to appreciate "faith" above "belief" a while back, stemming from a then-not-quite-understood intuition about the "arationality" of faith against strong feelings towards the word "belief" thanks to studying modern epistemology. It's not my mission to hurt anyone's faith . . . but it's been troubling for me when I keep hearing about "strong belief" where such beliefs are necessarily logically invalid.

I appreciate your response.

Religious belief is not just something outside of many people -- it's intertwined into their life story. When you rip it out by the roots, you are also destroying THEM, because their judgments and perception and personal narrative is built on it.

And there are many good things (by anyone's standards, believer or not) in their lives that were perceived and identified in terms of the religious beliefs. "Answers" to prayer, emotional and relational maturity/growth, changes of heart, acts of selflessness, etc.... all these things are GOOD things that were assigned to the religious system that was held. So when you attack the religious belief, the person will fight back for GOOD reasons, because you're assaulting GOOD things as well as the belief in question.

Whether or not the personal growth and goodness did stem from the religious belief isn't really the question; the fact simply is that they are connected, so if you attack the belief, the person will equate that to attacking what actually IS good and positive and understandably respond as if you're rejecting good.

I wonder, though, about the systematic valuation & ethical foundations determining the "goodness" herein . . . I think a large point of discontent I have when I consider religion (particularly separated from individual faith) is that established/organized religion appears so forceful in setting down specific definitions for what is "good" and "bad" for everyone, often intolerantly so. But I acknowledge this to be a wider "group" problem, and try to steer away from identifying individuals as ever contributing (to any significant degree) to the perception.

[Nomad]

The word "irrational" is used often when discussions of religion are addressed, usually to indicate that religious people and religious belief are irrational. When examined closely, "irrational" has to do with a lack of reason or understanding. Looking at "reason" one finds that it's application is not strictly limited to (but often applied to) logical argument.

"Reason" can simply be something that makes something else explainable, or intelligible (and not necessarily logical, or provable). "Understanding" is simply comprehension of something, or applying relationships and concepts towards knowing something. Once again, this is not necessarily bound by objective, repeatable "proof".

So, in the strictest sense, religion is indeed rational – as it is explainable, comprehendible and has it's own set of intelligible concepts and relationships. They may not be consistent with the scientific method but, in and of themselves, they are rational. So, to address them as irrational is (strictly) and untrue characterization. Now, the belief systems of most (if not all) religions may not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and objective proof-based inquiry. But that does not make them irrational - it makes them un-scientific and un-provable.

I've found the religious debates interesting. To expand on Rwyatt's point. There are a bunch of INTJ's here. You can call an INTJ almost anything and they will just sort of look at you with a puzzled expression. You call them an idiot or irrational and you've insulted the very core of their existence.I am religious but I do not subscribe to an organized religion or even any commonly understood dogmas. I think Rwyatt made some excellent points. Kudos.

-Nomad

[Antares]

Essentially, they are both beliefs. I believe that there is no God, they believe otherwise. Debate over. In that sense, they are equal and there is no reason for theists to be offended, but however (I think you all heard this coming), atheists don't have a God to love, unlike theists. For theists, their lives are directly influenced (guided, based on etc etc) by the God. When you are criticizing an atheist, you are merely criticizing their conviction that there is a God. To atheists, it may just be another debate or argument, but to theists, you're touching a nerve because it's something personal. From a detached point of view, theists shouldn't react emotionally, but we must accept that INTJ are just a VERY small portion of the population and most find it hard to be detached.