Invitation to Defend Religious Faith

I identify two strong considerations:

First, There is ample evidence to suggest there are entities which have no real scientific basis (at least not yet). Ghosts, aliens, demons, angels, and the like are all well documented by people who have experienced them directly or indirectly. Perhaps there are just millions and millions of gullible people. Perhaps such entities are just another branch of our kingdoms in biological taxonomy but we have difficulty harnessing evidence. The safest assumption we can make at this point is the one they already imply: a spiritual one. Further, there is evidence that there is conflict between these entities (take exorcisms for example) suggesting that there probably is a head of either side (God and Satan) (otherwise, why would there be conflict? How do they know what side they identify with?)

Second, and more strongly I believe, we have evidence that everything that exists in the universe has a first cause. The big bang explains how everything got here, but there is nothing to explain how these sub-atomic particles have reached their "at big bang" state. I suggest that a god of some sort put them there, but everyone argues "who put God there?" My response is that we have no evidence to suggest that God (if there is one) is subject to the same rules we observe on matter.

On these points (and a few others), I identify my religious grounds, but they will not work for everyone. Certainly my faith cannot, in any way, be considered superior to any other school of thought. Do bear in mind that failure to agree with either rationality above implies you already have a faith (religion perhaps?) in the opposite. That is, that these things have more correct reasoning (say through science and observation), but we as humans have not found it yet. These people believe religion is not sufficient to reconcile them. In either case, the "believer" or "non-believer" both have faith in something that cannot be proved with no level of rationality. That is: "Religion can explain it" or "Science will explain it". Neither side can say with any absolute truth that their position is more correct. The suggestion that science will somehow explain what we don't know is just as valid as religion does explain what we don't know. Both are rather volatile positions. For all we know, the truth can swing either way.

At any rate, I do want to address this sentence:

All religions I have encountered basically boil down to a system of authoritarian ethics mainly relying upon the commandments of some deity for the grounding of moral prescriptions.

Christianity, although often misrepresented in that way, actually teaches that salvation is yours whether you disobey (or disobeyed) the rules it defines or not. Rather it is a gift to you, and your response to this gift defines how committed you are to accepting it. This is the concept of grace. If you make a mistake, redemption is still yours as long as it was a mistake and you are sorry for it. If it's on purpose, it is clear you do not really accept the grace given to you - perhaps a clear rejection of it.

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the following concepts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

before pawning off all religions as win or lose authoritarian ethic systems.

You point out that contradictory beliefs are "troubling". The main reason they're a problem is that in most forms of logic, if a contradiction is true, then nothing - nothing at all - can be proven false. The entire system of logic is "inconsistent", and therefore useless. If you can believe a contradiction, then (almost by definition) you can believe anything.

You also mention "intermittent" rationality. I don't think that quite characterizes the situation. If you tell even the most pious man that his daughter shoplifted, he'll demand proof. Rational, justifiable, logical proof. The kind of proof that you're looking for him to give you about his faith. It's not an "intermittent" rationality - for most people, it's more like a "bounded irrationality". The irrationality is confined to particular subjects.

As I see it, the theist sees "faith" as more important than "truth". In matters where "faith" applies, "truth" is pretty much irrelevant. They insist otherwise (but that's only because articles of faith are assumed to be true - for them, there's no dissonance between the notions).

But that points out that the discussion you're looking for begs a really important question - you've got a key assumption that rationality is the only way to access "truth". The theist assumes that there are other means. What's the justification for either stance?

As long as we're all discussing religion and god here ... one of the problems I have is the notion of creation for us. It's almost counter-intuitive that Earth and its beings are a creation of an almighty god.

• a god of all-encompassing power ought to find Earth child's play
• worship ... seriously? he needs/wants it?

I would be more willing to concede the "god" that most people attribute miracles to is merely an entity to which we cannot understand - yet. An entity (or series of entities) that is amused by its creation, much as a child is with toys. After gaining an understanding of just another life form, I wager the notion of it being a god would fade away and it would just be catalogued into the appropriate biological tree - alienus superpowerus.

But an omnipotent being with incalculable power that seems to be fascinated with the trivialities of humanity and a penchant for piousness ... riiiight. Seems awfully like the creation of primitive mankind's imagination there - and the fear of that wrath led to generational adoption. After all, what have you got to lose by believing right?

What you ignore is that every aspect of society and culture is based on belief . It might seem brave and reevolutionary to you to think that you live outside this box but that is naive.Mankinds knowledgebase is based on belief. call it instinct call, it evolution ,call it commonsense. It Is a subconcious pre-conception that makes sentient living beings not just give up and die.

this is the imperative:-There is something greater than you.It will breed you ,Nature you and Consume you ,And maybe if you endear yourself to it ,It will preserve you..and if you are lucky ,make a pet out of you----DEUX EST IDIOTA.

--------

of course the alternative to that mental arrhythmia is that wer are alone .Freaks of physics . a flaw in statistics .

-------------

if there is evolution the end result is God // or at least godlik e beings.and if so maybe this evolution has already happened.there can be no proof ,for or against . we may or may not be a pivotal existence. but we can Dream

Since everything has died down in this post, I wanted to summarize the debate and see what salient points bear repeating.

1. Logic is not sufficient to know the world but it is necessary for one's beliefs to be non-contradictory in order for them to be correct.

2. At least no one presented counter-evidence to my claim that terms like 'spirit' and 'supernatural' have no referent in the world. No one has even sufficiently defined the terms, much less commended any reader to an experience in which one would be forced to believe that natural and physical forces are insufficient to explain the world. In fact, terms like 'natural' only gain meaning in juxtaposition to terms like 'supernatural' which are ill-defined at best.

3. I proposed a rule of epistemology that anything asserted with no evidence in its favor should be rejected as arbitrary. While any meaningful sentence could be coincidentally true, unless someone has a rational [experienced] or logical [entailed] means of knowing its truth, it should be rejected for lacking a context of discovery or justification. No one denied my proposed rule.

4. Insofar as anyone did attempt to justify their belief in deities, everyone who bothered appeared to conclude that God must be supernatural, not simply one more object in the world of human experience.

In short, I think these three arguments and one observation about believers in deities are sufficient to reject all arguments that anyone deemed fit to present in defense of faith in some deity. It is my sincere hope that anyone who does believe in some deity will be hesitant from now on to use that deity as a justification for any ethical belief.

Your title subtly implies asking people to argue about their faith hence the word 'Invitattion to defend religious faith' which clearly implies you do not believe in anything. So that is why when people make a long case of defending their faith, you came back with a longer arguement which starts off another longer arguement and the vicious cycle continues.

Why? Why do you ask people to make a case to defend ?

Any case, your writing is echoing your deep cry for knowing whether there is or is not a higher being. Anyhow it is not of anyone to tell you and the only way you can find out is not through logical explanation , you have to find out yourself.

A belief can be challanged , so too an unbelief can be challanged too but are you willing to accept that?

Well ... it's done. All the other religions are moot for the Flying Spaghetti Monster has shown itself in Germany. Seems pretty cut and dry, eh? Video proof. :-)

First, I believe faith to be a rather irrational choice in the first place. Using the definition stated - that faith is in a deity that is not in the believers (I assume you mean sight, sound or touch) experience, I don't see how anyone could RATIONALLY decide to hold this belief. It is an irrational decision.

So, accepting that I cannot explain my belief in an invisible, untouchable, and unhearable GOD, I will attempt to answer the second part of your query. I would say that I employ logic and reason in my life... including my religion and ethics. You seem to equate religion and faith... this is not strictly so.

I can look at the religion that I adhear to and see pros and cons of following it. I have a social network, I have temporal help when needed, I get an emotional boost from attending services and taking part in the religion. I get a real psychological benefit from it.

The costs? Ridicule and condescension from those who do not share my belief, monetary costs of donations I choose to give and a few hours a week. Oh yeah, on top of not killing (from which all ethical people refrain) I try to not swear, or take the name of GOD in vain. Little things. To me, the benefits (totally ignoring any metaphysical benefits that by your definition and my agreement are irrational) outweigh the costs in following my religion.

I feel that I am happier and better prepared in life because of it. You can have faith in a religion, but it needn't be entirely BLIND faith. You can use logic to make decisions. If your religion asks you to do that would be unethical, you should rethink your allegiance. If there are no religions available that didn't require of me things I found unethical, then at that time I would be forced to eschew religion in totale. This brings me to my answer to the second item in this question... I believe that those who kill themselves and a bus load of people are not in any way ethical. I believe that this action would be a point at which I would need to rethink my loyalty to a religion that preached the destruction of my fellow man. I would have felt the same about the crusades of Christianity or the holy wars of Islam. Sadly most of those who hold these beliefs are, of course, quite fanatical about their chosen religion and unable to think about it in any objective way.

So while holding a faith in the unseen may be irrational, my decision to adhere to a religion does not in any way preclude using logic in ethical decisions in life. Superiority/Inferiority aside, I can feel that those whose only intent is to hurt others and not to help are only lying to themselves that it is what they truly believe is right.

I'm not going to sit here and write thousands of words because I don't believe writing the longest essay makes you right.

I am god, this is according to a lot of the bible and I'm not about to clarify each one. Each of us are god, you and you and you!

The christian bible implies that god is in each of us and I find this to be the truth. Everywhere I go I am watching over me. I am responsible for the good things and the bad things I do and I will have vengeance upon myself should I do wrong. The bible tells us that to get into heaven you need to follow 10 rules, these rules are simply rules which will, if followed by the general population bring the place we are closer to the ideal of "heaven" right here on earth but if you and those around you fail to follow the simple common sense rules then life surrounded but thieves liars cheats and adulterers will be hell.

The stories in the bible or other religious writings are generally a guide for how life works but I don't think they are based on the lives of any one man but rather the lives of many. The Australian Aborigine has the Dreamtime, these are stories you would expect a father or mother to tell a curious child when they themselves don't know the answers. A river hasn't been formed by years of erosion over millions of years but by a giant snake because the tracks of a snake look like the path of the river. These stories are told to so many generations they are no longer just stories but facts my father told me, he believed because his father told him. They must be true, my father wouldn't lie to me. Now when there is a written language developed the fables that became fact can be written into books to become a book of facts. Where do these facts come from? They are from before living memory so they must be the word of god.

There is nothing wrong with the stories in the bible or similar writings in other books that organisations have picked up or grown around, it is the men who with good intention or otherwise adopt the writings and put their own interpretation on that make these books dangerous. The organisations that grow around these publications give power to individuals well in excess of that which men should hold. Such power allows a man to dictate to a person that they should disregard the instinct given them by god to take their own life along with that of others. This has nothing to do with god but everything to do with the power of religion over the weak and down trodden.

If you are scientist then I challenge you to choose one religion and practice it dutifully as an experiment. I suggest Christianity because is convenient. Please note that I am not "pushing" you to believe, I am suggesting that you adopt the intent to believe when the evidence presents itself (if any does). Then follow the rigors of this religion. Practice it with all seriousness. Do not openly act contrary to your adopted faith. Just perform, like an actor. You might assume that this experiment would be condemned by "believers" but it probably won't be. Only truly ignorant people would condemn it. There is no harm is acting "as if."

If you are true seeker and you really want a defense of faith, you will not be afraid to practice a faith and thereby undergo the transformation that is the result of such practice. Faith or "religion" is not merely a social system--it just looks that way from the outside. Faith is a personal transformation that takes place within you when you perform certain ritual acts. Before you condemn this nonsense, you must admit that you won't try it, correct?

If you, in good faith, practice the rituals of faith, and are not affected in any way, then your position will be the same. You will hold the same opinion, and nothing will be lost. You may look a bit "foolish" in your own eyes, but isn't it worth it to know the truth? Don't run and hide from this experiment that millions of people have fearlessly undertaken.

Consider the most "outrageous" claims of the sermon on the mount. Jesus clearly claimed that everything you need would be yours if you merely asked for it.

Have you asked? In order to "count," the "asking" has to be sincere. You can't just make sounds or wish in general. You must address your request TO something and you must sincerely believe that your request has been heard. If you can do this, you can test the assertion by the man Jesus that faith is all that is required. But unless you can actually have faith, then there is no way to test the assertion, except unscientific assumptions. Observation at a distance will not work. This is why you have not found anyone who can provide a solid, scientific "proof" that will satisfy you. God is an experience, not an observation. Until you are ready to take a risk and attempt to have that experience, then you will see only observations and you will never be able to learn anything about God from observation, since anyone can tell you that God is not detectable with our instruments.

I have been watching this tennis match on this thread (with fascination I’ll admit) for the past few weeks. This entire coffee shop article has done an excellent job in convincing me of one thing; that the issue of religion, God, atheism and matters of any spiritual nature, will never, ever be agreed upon by everyone, and this debate will forever continue for the entire history of man.

I am left with only one question for Kevin1. You have stated in no uncertain terms that the only way you will believe in any deity is for that deity to basically step out of the clouds and tap you on the back and say, “O.K. here I am.” The question I have for you, I really want to know the answer to. I’m not trying to lead you in any direction or anything like that. After reading many of the posts of anyone who frequents this site, one begins to get a mental ‘picture’ of the person, and the answer to this question will add a great deal to your picture. This is of course a completely hypothetical question; but what if that deity actually did step out of the clouds (or whatever) and make (him/her/it) known to you, and by whatever means deities use in this situation, there could be absolutely no mistaking that (he/she/it) was your creator, and you were mistaken after all. How would you take it? Would you be angry or glad about it?

I realize the same question could be turned around on believers with a hypothetical disproof of God. I can tell you without asking that I would be dismayed and deeply saddened by that disproof. (Kind of lonely too.)

--Anyone else feel free to answer this question also as long as you state what your beliefs (or lack of) are for clarity.

As a person with some Religious faith in the understanding of

scientific achievements such as the enormity of, as the Chinese describe chi or Japanese Ki energy's.

To have some faith however one must have the ability to show this for the individual to achieve eternal life, or demonstrate this.

With only my personal insight to this which is all that one needs

i have found some thing which ensures my faith in my belief.

Key to this is that the understanding is right and will only be so if it is right.

From this has evolved a mode of transport which employs logic.