Reason vs. Religion

The Stranger [Seattle] ^ | 10/24/02 | Sean Nelson

[general_re]

Ahh, you're just jerking my chain, aren't you? ;)

Reason - "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."

What is "faith"? ;)

[js1138]

I don't recall any massive withcraft trials in
Appalachia. I am referring to the large scale witchcraft trials in midaeval Europe. These were well documented. the charges had nothing to do with "real" witchcraft (wicca). The charges were uniformly absurd and the trials were almost always a sham to cover up a land grab. Countries where land grabbing was not legal (England) had far fewer trials. Wherever land grabbing was outlawed, witchcraft trials dropped to nearly zero.

[AppyPappy]

Faith - Belief in something

I noticed you are PH came up with two different definitions. Oddly both seem to conclude that religion is based in reason. We use our logical thought and intelligence to find God.

[AppyPappy]

I thought you referring to the killing of witches, not trials. My bad.

[general_re]

Not surprising that there are several related definitions - I just reached for the dictionary...

We use our logical thought and intelligence to find God.

Can you logically prove the existence of God using reason? Lots of people have tried - nobody's pulled it off yet ;)

[AppyPappy]

Of course I can. Why else would I believe in Him?

[general_re]

I'm interested in seeing your proof, but I'll start by asking this - if you can prove God's existence, what's the point of faith?

[ASA Vet]

You must have a good "reason" to burn witches.

If there were in fact such a thing as a witch, being one would be enough.

[AppyPappy]

I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say. I cannot prove something to you that only happened to me. See what I mean?

I know God and have faith in His Will. I have faith He will do what is best in the future. It's called "Walking in Faith".

[stuartcr]

How are things that are perpendicular to each other considered compatible? I don't understand.

[Dimensio]

I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say.

With that kind of 'reasoning', I can prove that the Muslims are right and I can also prove that you owe me $1000. Pay up.

[stuartcr]

Why is there a need to prove God's existence?

[AppyPappy]

If you truly believe that because you have evidence, what is wrong with that?

[lasereye]

Explain how atheists like Mao Pol Pot and Stalin murdered tens of millions of their own people if atheism = reason. Or am I doing something illogical by lumping all atheists together?

[general_re]

I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say. I cannot prove something to you that only happened to me. See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but technically speaking, a true proof should be objectively verifiable, and not dependent on subjective inferences - I would certainly accept that the existence of God has been proven to your satisfaction. IOW, the inductive case you can assemble from your own experiences is enough to constitute proof for you, but that's not quite the same as a deductive case that God must exist, where nobody can quibble with the conclusion - for that, each of the premises in your argument must also be objectively shown to be true also. Which is the major problem in proving that God must logically exist - Aquinas tried his hand at logical proofs of God's existence, but the results were somewhat unsatisfying from a logical standpoint. ;)

I know God and have faith in His Will. I have faith He will do what is best in the future. It's called "Walking in Faith".

As it should be, it seems to me. Some things have to be accepted or rejected as a matter of faith, ultimately - the person who demands absolute proof or disproof of God before taking a position is demanding something that, objectively speaking, doesn't exist, and, IMO, is not likely to ever exist...

[general_re]

Why is there a need to prove God's existence?

It's not a question of whether there's a need for it - I'm suggesting that it can't be done, regardless of whether someone "needs" proof or not...

[AppyPappy]

a true proof should be objectively verifiable

Nonsense. If this thread gets deleted, did it ever exist? If I say "Hello" to you but no one else hears it, did it happen?

Truth is truth. Stuff happens.

[AppyPappy]

a true proof should be objectively verifiable

Nonsense. If this thread gets deleted, did it ever exist? If I say "Hello" to you but no one else hears it, did it happen?

Truth is truth. Stuff happens.

[stuartcr]

I agree it can't be done, people have been trying since the beginning. I would like to understand a persons need for proof, I can't understand that either.

[tacticalogic]

So for me, that's the bottom line - faith and reason don't have to be incompatible at all, and I tend to get a bit peevish when I see people who appear to be going out of their way to intentionally set them at odds with one another...

Indeed. I'll go a step farther, and say that to claim they are incompatible is unreasonable, for it assumes a level of knowlege and understanding that reason itself will tell you we haven't yet attained, and probably never will.