Better Living Through Blogging!: Comment on Belief

Comments On: Belief

Ok...I don't want to get into debate. But I do take issue with those who don't believe that say that those of us who do believe have set aside logic.

My faith is not a crutch, it is not irrational, it is not illogical. On the contrary, my faith is based on logical thought and complete rationality. But it is a matter of FAITH, which by definition is believing in that which you cannot see. FAITH is an act of will. I have chosen, by an act of my will, to believe that God is real, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is who he said he is.

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I do.

Posted by jen at June 28, 2003 04:11 PM

SDB gave this a thorough treatment not too long ago, and that got me to thinking about the topic.

I hold particularly radical views about a lot of things. Perhaps my least radical view is that of atheism, but I reach all of my conclusions the same way: a rational integration of what I know and experience. It's an inductive process, and it serves me fairly well.

Because I have such radical views, I frequently find myself doing just that. I get into a heated debate with somebody about something, get ultimately frustrated that they won't listen to me and change their mind (because I'm right, don't you know), and then finally we just decide to leave the topic alone. We stick to the things that we know we can relate on, and we remain friends.

As far as the question of whether faith is irrational, SDB wrote a lot about that. What it boils down to is how much evidence do you need to believe something is true? That's a personal decision for you. It can range from very little evidence to lots of evidence. People who exert their will and just *believe* in God fall on the low end of that range. What most modern thinkers like to do, however, is reach the truth through a process of rigorous thinking involving lots of evidence. We call one religious thinking, we call the other scientific thinking.

What Mark might be better served to do, is say that religion is a science-free zone.

Posted by Samuel at June 28, 2003 05:48 PM

No one wants to be accused of being irrational. No one wants it to be said that they're less than thoughtful.

I've always said that I can see natural laws at work every minute that would make a supernatural creature impossible. Unfortunately, every person of faith who has tried to prove that they aren't ignoring easily perceived reality has fallen far short.

It's also unfortunate that people who do believe get so emotional about it. Heck, I'm just pointing to what's in front of me! Why do they insist on treating me like a villian?

I also find it interesting that people assume that I am less than moral because of my lack of belief (and some of them actually insist that they are morally superior through their own belief). This is rather strange, in my opinion.

James

Posted by James R. Rummel at June 28, 2003 07:05 PM

There is a lot of validity to the old saying "never discuss politics and religion at a bar." You are dead on, in both cases you won't change anybody's beliefs so skip it and get on with what you do share. Great post.

Posted by Sgt Hook at June 28, 2003 09:46 PM

No one likes to think of themselves as ignorant lemmings, do they? So being called that, even so subtlely and seemingly benignly as you've done is going to get some (me) a little fired up.

I have one question: there are many, many scientists who have a deep faith in God and the Bible. Where do they fit in your "religious thinkers" versus "scientific thinkers" breakdown? Believe it or not, the two can coexist. And some of those scientists have found evidence that backs up the Bible.

Posted by jen at June 29, 2003 03:50 PM

"there are many, many scientists who have a deep faith in God and the Bible. Where do they fit in your "religious thinkers" versus "scientific thinkers" breakdown? Believe it or not, the two can coexist. And some of those scientists have found evidence that backs up the Bible."

If you go back through the published works of these scientists who have faith I think you'll find that not a single one of them has ever been able to offer a shred of proof of the supernatural. They might have faith, sure, but it certainly doesn't enter into their professional work.

So far as proof of the Bible, it's true that it has some value as a historical record. So far as offering proof in the existence of a diety or even proof of a miracle, I'm afraid that this has never been done.

James

P.S. It would seem that you're lumping Samuel's and my comment together. If you weren't addressing your latest remarks towards me then please excuse me for jumping in there.

Posted by James R. Rummel at June 29, 2003 06:34 PM

Here's an agnostic jumping into the discussion here...

To me, faith and religion are two different things. I have faith that there IS something bigger than we are, I just don't feel it's what we've been told it is. The Bible is simply full of too many contradictions and heavy symbolism that no one can truly interpret it. The churches are nothing but tax-free businesses that are leading people away from the truth, rather than towards it. Most religions seem a bit threatening to me "believe as we do or roast in the fiery pits of Hell". Well, I don't believe in a set Heaven or Hell. There is an afterlife, but its experience is very individual.

Well, geez, I'm rambling. LOL!

I tend to generally avoid uber religious folks because quite honestly, they bug me. They have this air superiority about them and they seem to have this distorted version of reality.

Ugh. I don't know where I am going with this so I'll just shut up now.

Posted by Jane at June 29, 2003 11:27 PM

Interesting comments one and all. I've been to Church a lot and the priest never said "Believe as I do or you will burn in Hell." That's a popular generalization of many non-religious people. Go to a Church or Temple first and listen to a sermon or two before you go casting stones. Maybe in some ultra-conservative Baptist sects, but not in my Faith.

And Jane, did you ever think that a religious person's view of reality isn't distorted, it's just that they are closer to God so they have a CLEARER view of reality than a non-religious person? Think of it this way, if absolute Truth is at the top rung of a 100-rung ladder, and I am on rung 95 and you are stuck down on rung 13, my perception of things and yours are going to be radically different. You may even say my view of reality is "distorted." I, being closer to knowing absolute Truth, may even seem or act "superior" to you guys down on rung 13. (I am just using this as an example, by no means do I feel I am close to knowing absolute Truth.) It just looks distorted to a non-believer because you all see things in only black or white; either something is or it isn't. If I can't feel it or see it it must not exist (trying to remember the name of that philosopher who believed the same thing. . .its been too long since Philosophy 101).

Does my house exist when I turn the corner to go to work every morning? I can't perceive it, so does it exist? Does my car exist after I enter my building at work? Again, I can not see it or feel it or perceive it, so does it exist? Now, you're gonna say you can't see God, but some of us see God in everyday life, in the birth of our children, in answered prayers, in a sunset, etc.

Bottom line believe what you want to believe, in God or not, but don't be insult me cuz I do and I won't insult you cuz you don't. The original post (Mark's) was condescending and insulting and a put-down to religious people. And James said he sees natural laws at work that would make a supernatural being impossible (although he does not site them). Religious people say the opposite James. We see things every day that cement in us a belief in God. Again, it comes down to perception.

Finally, I think you all are confusing "moral" with "spiritual." As when James said religious people believe they are "morally superior" to him because he is a non-believer. You can be an atheist and be a moral, law-abiding (heck even NICE, haha) person. On the contrary, you can be a so-called "religious" person and be immoral. They are not mutually exclusive. However, I would say a person who believes in God and tries to be a beacon for their faith is spiritually superior to an atheist person, all other things being equal.

I don't get upset about it, as a matter of fact like Hook says I try not to ever bring the subject up for debate for obvious reasons.

Posted by Robert Ferrau at June 30, 2003 11:35 AM

"And Jane, did you ever think that a religious person's view of reality isn't distorted, it's just that they are closer to God so they have a CLEARER view of reality than a non-religious person?"

Then it should be easy enough to provide concrete physical proof that the supernatural exists. For someone of faith to claim that they perceive reality with greater clairty when it would appear that reality keeps proving their faith to be wrong is a very bold statement indeed.

"It just looks distorted to a non-believer because you all see things in only black or white; either something is or it isn't."

No, not at all. I certainly believe in many things that I've never directly experienced, but there is eveidence that these things exist. Zero evidence for plus plenty of evidence that seems to make something impossible to exist means that the burden of proof is on those that have faith. Philosophical musings or trying to play word games isn't helpful. Where's the evidence?

"And James said he sees natural laws at work that would make a supernatural being impossible (although he does not site them)."

Easy enough. While I'm out mowing my lawn neither I now the lawn mower passes through the ground, ghostlike and insubstantial. The lawn mower needs fuel to run. The grass doesn't suddenly turn into something more useful than lawn clippings no matter how hard I want it to.

These basic, everyday natural laws seem to effect everything, and they seem to effect everything all of the time. Every religion I've ever studied baldly stated that their diety can ignore them at will and effect the everyday world.

Okay, let's see it. If someone can do something like that, and do it repeatedly under controlled conditions so there's no chance for a con, then it would be proven that these natural laws can be suspended at certain times and incertain places. That's the basic, rock-bottom first step.

"Again, it comes down to perception."

My point exactly. But the only way to perceive the existence of the supernatural is to ignore or dismiss the evidence that's right in front of your eyes.

"However, I would say a person who believes in God and tries to be a beacon for their faith is spiritually superior to an atheist person, all other things being equal."

Hmmmm. I have a problem with this. I worked for some years for my local police department, and I've saved lives. Since then I've run a free firearms training program for people who want to remain safe in their own homes, all expenses paid.

I fail to see how someone who's never been at physical risk, who promotes something that by every indication is untrue, could actually consider themselves to be moral (let alone more moral than myself). Where's the morality in trying to expand a religion? Why in the world would someone consider this to be a moral act?

Just wondering.

James

Posted by James R. Rummel at June 30, 2003 04:21 PM

James, read my post again. . .you are still confusing moral and spiritual. In fact, I said an atheist can be a moral, law-abiding citizen. You ignored that and put words in my mouth that I did not write. Again, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the person of faith who is a beacon for their faith is SPIRITUALLY SUPERIOR to an atheist. Yes, the atheist who saves lives is MORALLY SUPERIOR to the person of faith who imorally takes a life. In fact, I said this very thing in my original post.

You and I are not supernatural beings, hence we can not turn grass into steak, or whatever point you were trying to make. Again, I never said a human could do it. I believe in God, and I would think God has better things to do than make you lawnmower run by itself. To me and others like me who have faith, God has already shown himself. Obviously, you need him to perform a petty miracle for you to believe. That's fine for you. I just wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

Finally, you igonore the (parens) comment I made after I posted towards Jane. I specifically said by no means do I think I am on "rung 95," I was just using it as an example to show how maybe what she perceives as distorted is only distorted because of a lack of faith. Like the native Central Americans who thought the Spanish conquistadors were attached to their horses, maybe a person of faith does have a clarity that a person without faith can not perceive. It was meant to be a metaphor to offer a POSSIBLE explanation when Jane mentioned a person of faith having a distorted sense of reality.

If you are going to nit-pick, read the entire post first. Like I said, you believe what you want, I have no problem with atheists or agnostics or whatever. It seems you have the problem with people of faith.

Most religions teach it is a moral and spiritual imperative to spread the "good news" about their faith. If you are going to argue a point, at least know a little bit about what you are arguing against.

Your generalizations about people of faith not being at physical risk is easy to defeat, as most generalizations are. Try being a Christian in a country like Pakistan, or the Sudan, or Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Robert Ferrau at June 30, 2003 06:20 PM

I wish that I could make steak out of grass.

Posted by David at June 30, 2003 07:18 PM

"Again, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the person of faith who is a beacon for their faith is SPIRITUALLY SUPERIOR to an atheist."

You're distinctions between morality and spirituality only make sense if the spirits exist. If they don;t then people who make the distinction are fooling themselves.

"Most religions teach it is a moral and spiritual imperative to spread the "good news" about their faith."

I've stated more than once that the core belief of every religion that I've ever studied is that there's a deity that can affect the natural world. There's zero evidence of such a deity, and plenty that the supernatural is impossible. If these dieties don't exist then there's little no real point in what any religion teaches.

"To me and others like me who have faith, God has already shown himself."

Then it shouldn't be any problem in providing proof to the rest of us.

"Obviously, you need him to perform a petty miracle for you to believe. That's fine for you. I just wouldn't hold my breath waiting."

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I'm most definately not holding my breath.

Why is it that people of faith characterize those of us who simply want evidence of what appears to be impossible "petty", anyway? It certainly isn't the doubter's job to disprove a claim that appears to be impossible, it's the responsibility of the fellow who's making the claim to provide some proof. Yet if I ask someone who actually believes to provide that evidence I'm a small minded fellow.

Wouldn't it be small-minded if I accepted something that was counter-intuitive without proof?

"I have no problem with atheists or agnostics or whatever. It seems you have the problem with people of faith."

No, not at all. I don't even have a problem with faith as long as those that have it don't try to subvert the public school system to reflect their own religion (trying to ban the teaching of evolution, or trying to include "Intelligent Design").

In fact, all I want is someone to provide some evidence. This makes me a bad guy?

"Try being a Christian in a country like Pakistan, or the Sudan, or Saudi Arabia."

Let me know when you walk the walk, then. I've already paid my dues.

James

Posted by James R. Rummel at June 30, 2003 07:48 PM

Right James, and I believe the spirit exists. That's why it is OK for me to make that distinction and for you to be unable to see it.

You want proof but even in science there are no "truths," at least as we know them. Plenty of theories (relativity, gravity, evolution) but they can only be "proven" within the accuracy of the instruments being used and theknowledge we currently have. When something new is introduced, sometimes the predictions we make based on the theory are incorrect. We can make predictions based on these thoeries, but we can not prove them. God has proven himself to me, and to others, but in different ways. If ya really wanna know what sunk it in for me email me and I'll tell ya cuz it broke a few natural laws, like gravity and physics! Happened when I was 9 years old. What is proof for me may not be proof for someone else. I guess when you can prove the theory of evolution or relativity or gravity I will prove the existence of God. If you accept any of the theories I mentioned as truth than you are small-minded, which leads to. . .

I never said you were small-minded, you did. What is small minded is the generalization in the original post that concluded people of faith were less intelligent than people who did not believe.

Dude what century are you living in? I think that case about the theory of evolution in the public schools went before SCOTUS in the 1920s. There was even a book written about it if I'm not mistaken. As far as the public schools go, teaching intelligent design or evolution is probably the last thing I worried about when making the decision where to send my child for his education. Untrained teachers, the pushing of ADD diagnosis and Ritalin, the dumbing down of the curriculum, the revisionist histories being taught and the lack of teaching critical thinking were more important to me than if they taught evolution.

Never said you were a bad guy. . .I don't even know you James.

Walk the walk? Dude, my wife and I have served this country for over 25 years combined, partly in muslim countries where our own President was prohibited from celebrating Christmas with the troops in a country we just prevented from getting overrun by Iraq. Just because you worked with cops and taught firearms training doesn't make you "holier than thou," pardon the pun. When you're working in some backwards ungrateful muslim country and that alarm goes off for condition red and you have to run your ass to the bunker while putting on your MOPP gear and it is not a drill, and SCUDs are on the way, and you see people crying and praying and you wonder if you will ever see you kid again. . .yeah you could say we walked the walk junior.

Bottom line is this. . .if there is no soul and Jesus was just a fairy tale but I live my life believing I have a soul and that Jesus is the Messiah, for me there is no harm no foul as I lay in the ground feeding the worms. But if there is and He is, one of us is in for a rude awakening!

Posted by Robert Ferrau at June 30, 2003 10:33 PM

What is small minded is the generalization in the original post that concluded people of faith were less intelligent than people who did not believe.

Call me small-minded if you like, but the original post says no such thing. In fact, it specifically points out that very smart people can still be religious.

All this controversy seems to be proving my point, though, that religion is one area where stating your considered opinion is politically incorrect. Say that communism is evil or that Republicans are cold-hearted and you'll likely get an argument in return, but say that a belief in religion is illogical and you get attacked for being a condescending oaf.

Posted by Mark at July 1, 2003 08:50 AM

if there is no soul and Jesus was just a fairy tale but I live my life believing I have a soul and that Jesus is the Messiah, for me there is no harm no foul as I lay in the ground feeding the worms.

Except that you've lived the only life you have in the service of a non-entity instead of your own happiness. I'd say that's a slight loss.

Posted by Mark at July 1, 2003 09:05 AM

Yes but Mark the HUGE assumption you make is I believe in Jesus at the expense of my personal happiness. Quite a stretch, and quite the contrary. I believe in Jesus, my life is pretty darn good, and I'm a pretty happy guy! :) Plus, if what you believe is true, what will my happiness level as a living being matter when I'm dead? My corpse won't be able to feel the "loss" of a "wasted" life. For that matter, if what I believe is true it won't matter either.

Posted by Robert Ferrau at July 1, 2003 09:33 AM

L'Chaim!

Posted by Sis at July 1, 2003 09:55 AM

Didn't see your 1st post. . .Mark, in the original piece Dave posted on here from your site, you say, "it (belief in religion) just betrays a lack of clear thinking." If that isn't a sweeping generalization questioning believers' intelligence than what is? In fairness, you do say you don't regard all religious people as stupid, but then you go on to write, "others. . .have for some reason compartmentalized religion as a logic-free zone." In fairness to me, it is reasonable to conclude from the paragraph or two Dave posted here that although you say you don't view religious people as "stupid," you do question their intelligence. That's like saying "I'm not saying you're fat, but do you really think you need a 3rd bowl of ice cream?" to an obese person. In my opinion you did it in a condescending manner, which I may have misinterpreted as we are not having a real-time discussion and things like body language, voice inflection and the writer's experiences/background are left to the reader's interpretation.

Anyway, like I have maintained from the beginning, believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. We can agree to disagree, and if you want to continue just email me.

Posted by Robert Ferrau at July 1, 2003 10:02 AM

I believe in a God... it's just that I do not believe in worship. Dave-O?

Posted by geo at July 4, 2003 12:09 AM

I believe in no God; but I do believe in the separation of Church and State.

And I also find these tenets quite appealing:

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Feared.html

Posted by Joni at July 5, 2003 03:08 AM