Is Religious Faith just another Religious Myth

[remez]

Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit. Either I don't have the information that I require to make an informed decision and so I just go with the teaching, or I do in fact possess a significant degree knowledge to bring to bear but am afraid to face the resulting conclusion, and so I opt to live a lie, namely that I prefer ignorance to truth. In either case I am living an untruth, however comforting.

So it seems to me that religious faith is largely a myth, hence we hear discussions about "Faith and Reason" owing to the fact that they present opposing methodologies to dealing with a claim. There really isn't any faith, rather ignorance or willful self-deceit that results in an acceptance of a belief.

A child who believes in Santa literally has faith in Santa.

But what if I do have the information to make an informed decision that God exists?

Notice, you are only asserting there is no evidence or good reasoning for God’s existence. I’m sure such reasoning has been presented to you. We have battled over it in the past, Joedad. And you have rejected my evidence with less plausibility than I have to hold it. But you ignore that and deceive yourself to you feel informed enough to assert that theism has no evidence and reasoning. That is the picture of ignorance and self-deceit.

Well, I reject your unsupported premise that I don’t have good reason to believe God exists. Thus it is your burden to show me where my reasoning and evidence is weaker than your reasoning and evidence against it. You don’t just get to counter. You have to make the case that your counter, that your reasoning against is better than my reasoning of support. This is where your assertion above breaks down. Like abaddon, you simply reason that any presented counter eliminates my reasoning. It doesn’t and is a self-delusion. You would need to show your counter is more reasonable than by premise.

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

Also before you start shouting the virtues of “I don’t know” agnosticism. Aka IDKism. You have to stay consistent. If you can’t know something with absolute certainty then you cannot concurrently hold your “decision” as rational. For example…..your assumption….”Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit.”

Bump

Step up to the line of scrimmage already.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit. Either I don't have the information that I require to make an informed decision and so I just go with the teaching, or I do in fact possess a significant degree knowledge to bring to bear but am afraid to face the resulting conclusion, and so I opt to live a lie, namely that I prefer ignorance to truth. In either case I am living an untruth, however comforting.

So it seems to me that religious faith is largely a myth, hence we hear discussions about "Faith and Reason" owing to the fact that they present opposing methodologies to dealing with a claim. There really isn't any faith, rather ignorance or willful self-deceit that results in an acceptance of a belief.

A child who believes in Santa literally has faith in Santa.

But what if I do have the information to make an informed decision that God exists?

Notice, you are only asserting there is no evidence or good reasoning for God’s existence. I’m sure such reasoning has been presented to you. We have battled over it in the past, Joedad. And you have rejected my evidence with less plausibility than I have to hold it. But you ignore that and deceive yourself to you feel informed enough to assert that theism has no evidence and reasoning. That is the picture of ignorance and self-deceit.

Well, I reject your unsupported premise that I don’t have good reason to believe God exists. Thus it is your burden to show me where my reasoning and evidence is weaker than your reasoning and evidence against it. You don’t just get to counter. You have to make the case that your counter, that your reasoning against is better than my reasoning of support. This is where your assertion above breaks down. Like abaddon, you simply reason that any presented counter eliminates my reasoning. It doesn’t and is a self-delusion. You would need to show your counter is more reasonable than by premise.

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

Also before you start shouting the virtues of “I don’t know” agnosticism. Aka IDKism. You have to stay consistent. If you can’t know something with absolute certainty then you cannot concurrently hold your “decision” as rational. For example…..your assumption….”Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit.”

Bump

Step up to the line of scrimmage already.

You have information that a god exists just like a four year old has information that a santa exists.

As I've said many times in the past I believe that conjecturing and ooing and aweing about these magical beings and magic events and how they come to be is really great brain exercise. I don't think it's any different than throwing iron around, getting good sleep, following the proper diet and watching a bicep get bigger, healthier and stronger. What I then do with that big strong brain or bicep is what is important.

You are free to reject what you call an "unsupported premise" or any part of my response that pleases you. I'm a scientifically literate and rational organism that comes to conclusions based on my genetic inheritance and environmental interactions. None of those experiences allow me to conclude in the existence of magical beings or magical events. I do enjoy a good fantasy, a movie with a good plot but that is obviously "staged." That's called pretending, something humans love to do. In fact we spend billions on such entertainment so it must be part of being human. Religion is a form of pretending as I see it. Pretending I just won the lottery and thinking about the things I will do with my winnings is quite enjoyable.

Ah, the old KLM and beginnings argument. That's been dynamited so many times but I agree with you that if someone told me about how a santa wasn't real and I was a typical four-year-old I'd have plenty of things to bring up in my argument for santa. Look at all those presents! Look at all the kids who testify that they know santa is real! Look at all the parents saying the same thing! Look at all the stories about santa! Look at how the cookies I leave for him get eaten! Look at how those carrots get eaten that I leave for his flying reindeer! Look at all the evidence for my santa!

If you know anything about the universe you would know that all matter/energy is conserved. That's not an assertion, that is basic science. The way you think about the universe having a beginning is the same as an ice cube in my freezer having a beginning as water. If it pleases you to get all semantically happy then you can say that your universe began at the big bang just like I can say that my ice cube began when I put water in the freezer. You should brush up on your science. If you did, and if you set aside your anti-scientific bias you wouldn't need to have a double standard, one for the universe and one for magical beings. But clearly, belief in magic is more meaningful to you than scientific understanding. And don't feel like I'm picking on you, that's a pretty common condition within our species.

I'm a consistent fellow who practices certainty in many aspects of my life, same as you. Absolute certainty must have some kind of religious meaning to you. It never comes up in my life. So maybe you mean reasonable certainty. Is that what you mean? I've sat on juries with other jurors and we had to come to decisions based on reasonable considerations, which we did. Why are you so anal and obsessive about your absolutism? I really can't identify with that. Do you ponder the possibility that maybe you have seven invisible heads in addition to the one you see in the mirror? Are you absolutely certain that there aren't seven invisible heads looking back at you? What are you going to do about the possibility that these seven heads are there? Shouldn't you be concerned about the absolute implications? I mean, those heads could be there and you can't be absolutely sure they are not. You should be concerned about those heads, shouldn't you?

See how being reasonable is different than talking about absolutism? Because I'm a reasonable person and not an absolutist like yourself I don't have to be concerned about having seven invisible heads. Likewise for santa, succubi, magic, dragons, souls, afterlives, angels, gods, and all manner of superstitious nonsense. It simply makes reasonable sense. And no. because I am a reasonable person I am definitely not agnostic about things called gods. Gods aren't real. That's a reasonable position to take imho.

Sorry if I ignored your question for so long. I've had you on ignore like forever, I think from our first interaction whenever that was, seems like years ago. I was curious as to what you were saying in this thread so I took you off ignore and voila, there you were asking me a question. I honestly thought you had me on ignore as well. Interesting how our brains work.

 

[remez]

Hut hut HIKE!

You are free to reject what you call an "unsupported premise" or any part of my response that pleases you.

No hand-waving on the line of scrimmage. You’ve been flagged.

I did more than reject your premise. I countered it. Thus you now have the burden to defend your insulting assertion………………

Having religious faith requires some combination of ignorance and self-deceit. Either I don't have the information that I require to make an informed decision and so I just go with the teaching, or I do in fact possess a significant degree knowledge to bring to bear but am afraid to face the resulting conclusion, and so I opt to live a lie, namely that I prefer ignorance to truth. In either case I am living an untruth, however comforting.

……against my evidence for a past finite universe. Specifically where was my evidence ignorant or self-deceitful? I provided several scientific supports. Let’s examine what you brought.

I'm a scientifically literate and rational organism that comes to conclusions based on my genetic inheritance and environmental interactions.

We’ll see.
I certainly claim the same, despite your apparent blind faith that theism is anti-scientific.
So……
Now let’s examine what we each provided for our perspective positions.
For your past eternal universe you offer……..

If you know anything about the universe you would know that all matter/energy is conserved. That's not an assertion, that is basic science. The way you think about the universe having a beginning is the same as an ice cube in my freezer having a beginning as water. If it pleases you to get all semantically happy then you can say that your universe began at the big bang just like I can say that my ice cube began when I put water in the freezer. You should brush up on your science.

Very weak but your insults add a nice touch. Offering something that weak and then insulting my scientific prowess is priceless.

Here is where your weak evidence and reasoning fails…..

The first law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, and therefore is a physical law. Physical laws only apply within the arena of the space-time continuum. They can’t apply to the origin of the arena itself. The physical law of conservation logically can’t govern before the beginning of the physical universe or the causal conditions that would bring the physical universe into being, or apply outside the arena of the physical space-time continuum. The physical law of conservation only applies once the physical space-time continuum is in place and exists.

Seriously you’re scientifically literate …So ask yourself……

Why don’t the cosmologists regard the first law as violation of the SBBM?
Serious question.

They are now writing books about a beginning universe. Their efforts to explain it naturally have failed miserably, but their efforts DO acknowledge a past finite universe. The truth with your so called evidence for a past eternal universe is that you bought into some atheistic dogma. That you self-deluded yourself into believing. Just like you asserted that “religious faithers” do in your OP.

So now ……

Let’s examine what you had to say about the evidence and reasoning…….

For example, based upon the available evidence, I reason that the universe (the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter, not Uncle Karl’s pantheistic everything there is, or was or ever shall be.) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, etc. So how is that an “uninformed decision?” Seriously it requires more blind faith (belief w/o or against the evidence) to reason that a past eternal universe is remotely plausible. Thus the theistic implications (decisions) of a past finite universe are not “uninformed.” Good luck arguing against the reasoning for a beginning universe.

…..I provided.

?
??
???
What?
Nothing?


You provided absolutely nothing.

But your dogma still piled higher……………….

Ah, the old KLM and beginnings argument. That's been dynamited so many times but I agree with you that if someone told me about how a santa wasn't real and I was a typical four-year-old I'd have plenty of things to bring up in my argument for santa. Look at all those presents! Look at all the kids who testify that they know santa is real! Look at all the parents saying the same thing! Look at all the stories about santa! Look at how the cookies I leave for him get eaten! Look at how those carrots get eaten that I leave for his flying reindeer! Look at all the evidence for my santa!

….and higher. Atheists continually delude themselves that their dreams of a dynamited KCA are real. Some actually have a blind faith that the law of conservation has done the job. No matter what reason is given to them they still have their blind faith that the KCA is dead and buried.
Further……
You claim you’re scientific. Yet your defense is supported by cookies, presents and reindeer. Against my 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, GTR, the BGV theorem, etc. Wake up already.

So at this point, my evidence remains unchallenged and yours has been sacked. Care to try again?
next...........

I'm a consistent fellow who practices certainty in many aspects of my life, same as you. Absolute certainty must have some kind of religious meaning to you. It never comes up in my life. So maybe you mean reasonable certainty. Is that what you mean?

Absolute certainty is only found in mathematics and logic. I can go with your “reasonable certainty” for now. All belief should have sufficient reason. Meaning it is more plausible than the alternatives and beyond a reasonable doubt.
So this…………….

See how being reasonable is different than talking about absolutism? Because I'm a reasonable person and not an absolutist like yourself …..

….is another self-delusion. Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of yourself.

Sorry if I ignored your question for so long. I've had you on ignore like forever, I think from our first interaction whenever that was, seems like years ago.

It was years ago. You forgot my MO was “tone for tone.” Well thanks for trying. You can put me back on ignore and go rejoin your atheistic cuddle huddle.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey remez thanks for the reply. I think it best for you to continue in your religious faith, at least at this point in your life. Thanks again.

 

[remez]

Hey remez thanks for the reply. I think it best for you to continue in your religious faith, at least at this point in your life. Thanks again.

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this with you.
Until next time be safe.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hey remez thanks for the reply. I think it best for you to continue in your religious faith, at least at this point in your life. Thanks again.

Thanks for the invitation to discuss this with you.
Until next time be safe.

Thanks, we need each other more than we don't and we're really not that different, so if I could just ramble.

If each of our brains has all the same information about the environment around us, at least very similar information, how do those two brains come to such different conclusions about the presence of magic in that environment? That's the fascinating scientific question. As four year olds we all have what I would call a mania for belief in magic. And we know from studies that young brains are very much like brains that are overstimulated with drugs. We see that manic behavior in children, and as we age it dissipates into adult behavior. Very likely, without that selected-for, early life, overstimulation our brains wouldn't enrich to be able to take on life as a human. We know that an enriched environment produces a different person, and that only makes sense.

Some of our brains, however, even as we age, do not lose that conviction for belief in magic. Those brains make observations and come to rational decisions about how to react within their environments, but that conviction that there is magic out there does not go away. And the brain that is me, not so surprisingly, also wants that magic to be just as real as when I was a child but it has come to realize that it isn't real, based on observations of the environment, at least ostensibly. I want to lasso Pegasus just like Perseus, for example, and ride him through the night sky so I can marry the beautiful, fair princess, but I know that story is fantasy. I want to pray away the flea beetles that are munching on my eggplants but realize that alone won't get rid of them so I have to do other things. Yet I enjoy watching Superman's exploits, which are no less fanciful than any religious tale.

The most likely explanation for that difference seems to be that our two brains are presently different in a very small but very fundamental way, namely their awareness about magical belief. We both want magic to be real but only one maintains the conviction that it is, despite both living in the same environment.

When I was young I watched cartoons and all manner of staged entertainment just like most other kids. But I knew it didn't work like that outside of the television. When I was a coach I had one of the team's eight-year-olds climb a tree with an umbrella and jump out so he could float to the ground like he saw in the cartoons. Luckily he only broke an arm. But it was obvious that his brain at his age could not separate reality from fantasy like mine could. Had he tried that from a tall building he would have been killed, natural selection marches on.

So, as I've said before, most magic/religious behavior is accompanied by a preponderance of rational behavior. This only makes sense, for if every eight-year-old was convinced of and never lost his belief that he could actually fly through the air like superman there wouldn't be any of us around today. Natural selection has a way of weeding out such behavior, even though the desire for magic to be real remains.

And this is how I view a person's attachment to these type beliefs. Everyone with religious/magical beliefs is going to find a rational way to get the flea beetles off their eggplants, or, they will buy their eggplants from people who do find rational ways to get the flea beetles off their eggplants. They might concoct stories about how they prayed away the flea beetles but it was rational behavior that ultimately yielded them their fruit. They may remain unaware that there is no connection between prayer and eating fruit from eggplant, but it isn't affecting their survival to the degree that it matters, thanks to an overwhelming amount of accompanying rational behavior.

 

[remez]

Thanks, we need each other more than we don't and we're really not that different, so if I could just ramble.

Great. Me too. Particularly this very first part. I really would like to have a discussion on this. Where am I getting this wrong? Because I think you are wrong. I really want to understand this insulting magic thing.

If each of our brains has all the same information about the environment around us, at least very similar information,

OK, I’m with you
Then…..

…..how do those two brains come to such different conclusions about the presence of magic in that environment?

I don’t believe in magic either. Magic is the default you insultingly assign to my reasoning because I reason beyond the limited reach of science to conclude that this universe needs an efficient cause.

I don’t think that it is reasonable on your part to REASON that “anything not scientific is magic” by default, but that is what you do. It is self-contradicting to reason that way. Because the actual REASONING you use to conclude that “anything not scientific is magical,” is itself not scientific. Thus by your own reasoning….magical. Get it? AKA scientism. You just added a nice magical flare to it. But I contend that it blinded you at the same time.

My reasoning (yours too) is not limited to science only. Philosophy is the better paradigm to discern truth/belief anyway. Careful, if you try to argue against that you would actually be affirming my assertion. So I hope you have seen I fully embrace good science but I’m not limited by it either. Before you object, that is not an open invitation to fantasy. Reason still rules and science has great influence beyond its own reach. It is also not an open invitation on your part to incorrectly philosophize that anything “not scientific is magical.” There is good philosophy and bad philosophy. I’ve been contending that mine is better than yours. But that is the game.

Earlier I shared with you my reasoning and evidence for a past eternal universe. Where was any of that magical? How is GTR or an expanding universe to be considered magical? It is not and you know it is not and I know you know it is not. So what are you actually calling magical? Be specific.

If it is the miracles recorded in the Bible then hold on. I’m only at this point trying to establish good reason that God exists. If I can do that with any reasonably in your eyes then I can address the issue of miracles.

So please help me further….what are your thoughts on this so far? Can you see your contradictions or show me where I’m wrong about your contradictions?

One more thing….I did not ignore the rest of your post. I just reasoned that this is a big enough piece to chew on for now and it focuses on the main difference between our positions, which seemed to be your main concern.

 

[DBT]

It still remains that faith, a conviction of truth without the support of evidence, is blind by its very nature. Something is believed to be true, not on the basis of evidence, but because it is appealing, comforting or desirable in some way.

 

[remez]

It still remains that faith, a conviction of truth without the support of evidence, is blind by its very nature. Something is believed to be true, not on the basis of evidence, but because it is appealing, comforting or desirable in some way.

Great example.

 

[DBT]

It still remains that faith, a conviction of truth without the support of evidence, is blind by its very nature. Something is believed to be true, not on the basis of evidence, but because it is appealing, comforting or desirable in some way.

Great example.

How do you mean? Can you explain?

 

[remez]

It still remains that faith, a conviction of truth without the support of evidence, is blind by its very nature. Something is believed to be true, not on the basis of evidence, but because it is appealing, comforting or desirable in some way.

Great example.

How do you mean? Can you explain?

How do you ignore?

 

[DBT]

How do you mean? Can you explain?

How do you ignore?

Oh, dear.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Great. Me too. Particularly this very first part. I really would like to have a discussion on this. Where am I getting this wrong? Because I think you are wrong. I really want to understand this insulting magic thing.

OK, I’m with you
Then…..

…..how do those two brains come to such different conclusions about the presence of magic in that environment?

I don’t believe in magic either. Magic is the default you insultingly assign to my reasoning because I reason beyond the limited reach of science to conclude that this universe needs an efficient cause.

I don’t think that it is reasonable on your part to REASON that “anything not scientific is magic” by default, but that is what you do. It is self-contradicting to reason that way. Because the actual REASONING you use to conclude that “anything not scientific is magical,” is itself not scientific. Thus by your own reasoning….magical. Get it? AKA scientism. You just added a nice magical flare to it. But I contend that it blinded you at the same time.

My reasoning (yours too) is not limited to science only. Philosophy is the better paradigm to discern truth/belief anyway. Careful, if you try to argue against that you would actually be affirming my assertion. So I hope you have seen I fully embrace good science but I’m not limited by it either. Before you object, that is not an open invitation to fantasy. Reason still rules and science has great influence beyond its own reach. It is also not an open invitation on your part to incorrectly philosophize that anything “not scientific is magical.” There is good philosophy and bad philosophy. I’ve been contending that mine is better than yours. But that is the game.

Earlier I shared with you my reasoning and evidence for a past eternal universe. Where was any of that magical? How is GTR or an expanding universe to be considered magical? It is not and you know it is not and I know you know it is not. So what are you actually calling magical? Be specific.

If it is the miracles recorded in the Bible then hold on. I’m only at this point trying to establish good reason that God exists. If I can do that with any reasonably in your eyes then I can address the issue of miracles.

So please help me further….what are your thoughts on this so far? Can you see your contradictions or show me where I’m wrong about your contradictions?

One more thing….I did not ignore the rest of your post. I just reasoned that this is a big enough piece to chew on for now and it focuses on the main difference between our positions, which seemed to be your main concern.

Calling something magic is not an insult, and is not intended as insult. Do you prefer some other word or phrase? If you do, what is the difference between what you prefer and using the word magic? No one can insult anyone unless the insultee consents to being insulted. That's my take. If you wish to insult me then go ahead, I'm going to deal with it as objectively as I can, not perfectly of course, and respond to content, if there is any.

Are you aware that science is a branch of philosophy? It is called Natural Philosophy. And there are different philosophical truths, science deals with objective truth as opposed to personal truth or political truth or religious truth of whatever other truth you want to discuss.

As far as the existence of gods and your wish to support the KLM, the KLM is just a clever argument based on semantics. It's nothing different than a first cause argument that is self-contradictory and begs the question. If you don't agree for reasons of personal or religious truth that's okay with me.

Could you please tell me when the Big Bang ended?

 

[ideologyhunter]

What is the meaning of KCA and KLM? I went back a page or two and couldn't find them. Google just says KLM is the Royal Dutch Airline.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is the meaning of KCA and KLM? I went back a page or two and couldn't find them. Google just says KLM is the Royal Dutch Airline.

KLM is Kalam, as in Kalam Cosmological Argument. KCA is the same thing.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Thank you. I was able to google it and read a little on it. It looks like a modern rephrasing of the old cosmological argument, which relied on a false premise and "proved" only what believers wanted it to prove.

 

[remez]

What a dodge…….

Calling something magic is not an insult, and is not intended as insult. Do you prefer some other word or phrase?

You took acceptation to some insignificant adjective (insulting) to avoid the reasoning. So simply drop it. It had absolutely no bearing on the reasoning I addressed.

As far as the existence of gods and your wish to support the KLM, the KLM is just a clever argument based on semantics.

Another dodge.
All arguments need to be semantically correct. So what?
Is the clever argument reasonable?

It's nothing different than a first cause argument that is self-contradictory and begs the question.

Simple assertion. Try something new and provide your reasoning as to why it begs the question? Or is self-contradictory? You won’t be able to.

If you don't agree for reasons of personal or religious truth that's okay with me.

I don’t agree because you are dodging your burden to present reason for your groundless assertions that you magically believe are true.
A few posts back (post 85) I gave you a way out after destroying your reasoning in post 83, because it seemed like you waved the white flag in post 84. Since you have continued on with the debate it has now become apparent that you dodged post 83. If you are going to continue then be fair and address post 83 rather than continuing to repeat your same bad reasoning.

 

[remez]

Thank you. I was able to google it and read a little on it. It looks like a modern rephrasing of the old cosmological argument, which relied on a false premise and "proved" only what believers wanted it to prove.

You guys have so much faith in your own hype.

 

[remez]

How do you mean? Can you explain?

How do you ignore?

Oh, dear.

Have I been providing evidence and reasoning?

 

[DBT]

Oh, dear.

Have I been providing evidence and reasoning?

Not when I made the comment 'Oh, dear.'' Prior to that you appeared to be denying the given definition of faith, a conviction held without the support of evidence.

Which is fundamentally the definition of faith given in the Gospels;

''Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen'' - Hebrews 11:1