xelabale wrote:xelabale wrote:Why should there be underlying order? Where do you get that from? What determined this so-called order?
Nearly everything we observe has some sort of order to it, as we see it. Things are very much less than chaotic. Where that underlying order comes from, we might not be sure, but only leaves a gap for a creator, or any other hypothesis, to fill; it does not serve as proof that such exists.
xelabale wrote:Faith isn't supposed to determine laws of nature and other incidentals (which are nevertheless very useful to us). We have logic to do that. I am not anti-logic. I believe completely in science. I just don't think it can be used to determine the existence of God. Please don't be so protective of logic, I'm with you for the most part. Faith comes at the point where we must accept that logic can't take us any further, the existence of God for example. Choose to believe or disbelieve in a God, but it's still faith.
I'm very happy that you have come to terms with science. That is important, I think, and sets you aside from most of the religious nutters that you claim you are not. What bothers me is you give faith some sort of explanatory power, and fail to explain why it has that. Not only that, you are telling me that there are some things that I need to accept on faith, that logic cannot touch,
and you are expecting me to take that on faith. You don't have a reason (or, at least, have not given one) why I should take your word on why our logic can't touch god. You say god is outside logic. Why? Is that necessary?
Let me back up a bit. What you are telling me, essentially, is that there are two ways of knowing our universe, correct? Logic will give us an accurate representation of the physical realm of our existence. We both agree on that. However, you are arguing that there is another realm that logic can't touch. That is my first issue with your perspective. It requires a presumption of a dualist nature of our existence that I do not share. I do not think dualism is a viable way to look at things (call me a determinist, it turns me on), but I don't think we need to argue about that (right now, anyway), so I'll carry on. We'll assume that there is a realm logic can't touch. The next part of your argument is that faith is a method (if not the only method, you haven't told me if there are any others) to evaluate this other realm (I won't call it the supernatural yet... do you have a term for it?).
I have several questions on that topic. What are the characteristics of faith that allow it to be useful in such an endeavor? What is it about faith, which is anchored in the same realm as logic, that allows it to transcend the barrier between the physical realm and the whatever, leaving logic to piddle itself with naturalism? Additionally, it seems to me that the varieties of faith in our world are a testament to the inaccuracy of faith in determining anything. Sure, there are many commonalities in all the different faith-based concepts of the world, but those are all easily explained by sociological idea transfer and the relatedness of our brains and their needs for explaining certain situation and events. Faith has no built-in system for eliminating the wrong ideas, and elevating the right ones.
"Sophisticated" theologians are merely those who have used logic (which isn't supposed to apply) to eliminate the faith-based ideas that do not coincide with a modern, civilized perspective. There is no way of knowing if their ideas, and, indeed, yours, are any more accurate, or useful, than any of the millions of other faith-based ideas conceived in our history as a species. Why, if there is no way to assess its accuracy, do you put faith on the pedestal as the means to discern what is going on in this other realm? My logic is telling me not to put my faith in your faith in faith.
xelabale wrote:Here I must quote you:
I have faith in reason, because I have tested it myself and found it to be reliable. Faith on such a basis is ok by me. You are defending faith for the sake of faith. That's just silly.
Not silly - faith IS believing without requiring proof - go look it up, as I told you this before.
Yeah, yeah, I know what faith is. I think faith without proof is silly for the above reasons. Mainly, there is no way to separate faith in Jesus as the savior and faith in Jesus as only a prophet and faith in Jesus as just a normal dude and faith in Jesus as just a normal chick except for what
feels right. And so many people
feel differently that it's clear that it's useless for determining anything.
xelabale wrote:I don't know if there's a quantum physics section in the bible, I don't remember one. As I am not Christian, nor do I believe in any one religion, this is utterly besides the point. I think you are arguing from your standard playbook without understanding what I'm saying. I suggest you take your time and read what I've been saying more carefully rather than trotting out glib retorts that aren't relevant.
If we both open our minds we can both learn something from this discussion. If you choose to argue for the sake of it without trying to understand that I'm not a "religious nutter", well what's the point? (Maybe we could even achieve some sort of synthesis
)
You are right that I'm maybe less than serious in most situations. I have a sense of humor, and I'm going to use it. That's how I am. I don't mean anything personal by it, nor do I mean anything personal in any of this discussion. I am merely telling you how I feel. I would be lying if I didn't say that I think a reliance on faith is childish. If you are offended, I'm sorry, but that's not going to make me change my mind.
And come on. Quantum physics in the Bible? That was good.
And, I swear to god, if you tell me to ignore what I wrote because it is based too much on reason and insist on my having faith in my faith in your faith in faith, I'm going to just return to insulting you.
