Skip to comments.Does Einstein’s ‘God Letter’ Prove He Was Godless?
Posted on 10/07/2012 8:51:46 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
click here to read article
Not true at all. The history of human experience provides a wealth of data to corroborate the doctrine of original sin. Blasé Pascal shows this with remarkable insight in his Penses. Further, I would affirm that the cosmological argument, the ontological arguments, the teleological argument and the moral argument all show that reality transcends the empirical. And there is absolutely no basis in logic or reason to assume it doesn't.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
My response to post 28:
I define reason as identification and integration of sensory perceptions of Objective reality by a process of logic or non-contradictory identification.
This is a good Objectivist definition of reason but not the classical meaning. Classically, reason is applying the laws of logic to a set of premises. Reason is no better than the premises. What you are describing, most of us would call science.
I define faith as belief in knowledge gained from some mystical or supernatural source not connected to sensory perception of objective reality.
Once again, Ms. Rand comes through. This definition makes a false distinction. Classically understood, faith is trust, reliance, placing confidence. The word may be used narrowly in the sense you use but that is NOT the meaning of the word.
It is implicit that Faith is superior to reason when God demands that one accept his words on faith and not walk by sight but by faith.
If you use the common, classical definitions I used above, there is NO conflict here. Faith correlates with reason. I trust what I believe to be revealed because it makes sense to do so.
My response to post 29:
Reason is objective. Faith is subjective.
Well that is human experience. Over 95% of our life is subjective. "It's a great day!". "What a lovely rainbow". "I trust that candidate". These are subjective statements stemming from reason - from evaluating our experiences. Of course they are compatible.
My response to post 46:
I have respect for someone who looks at the complexity of the Universe and the order and concludes that it was created by an intelligence. I would call him a rational man. He has a reason for what he believes. There is no conflict between that man and a scientist who studies natural laws or evolution. That is not where the conflict arises. The conflict comes when someone holds the bible up as a standard of truth and says to science you better not say anything that contradicts this.
I am so glad that you clarified that. Yes there are lots of unthinking believers. People who choose to put faith in the Bible without thinking it true. That is OK for children but mature people have tho think through their faith (using my definition of faith).
While there are many who are unthinking, it isn't fair to take them as the definition of faith or even "mysticism" as Ayn Rand does. There are millions like me who try to work out a reasonable approach to life and the conflicting philosophical or political or even theological views and claims we are faced with.
Rather than write everyone off as obscurantist mystics everyone who has confidence in God, check out one or two thinkers who do use objectivity and reason with their faith(again, my definitions).
For example: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/, the web page of William Lane Craig.
Anyway, thanks for an opportunity to exchange views.
That’s ok we are all busy I hope. I want to respond to you but it is late so let me get my thoughts together and post to you tomorrow. Have a good night.