Dear david f,

I agree that Christian etc. religious beliefs are not “driven” or “justified” by reason. What I claimed was that they do not have to be AGAINST reason. Like they are not “driven” or “justified” by scientific findings (e.g. evolution), only don’t have to be seen as going against science. The position of Kant - that the “proofs” for the existence of God are not universally valid, or justified, if you like - is today the default Christian, and I think also Jewish, position.

Maybe I should not have used the word affront, however claiming that those who do not accepts the proofs for the existence of God,cannot use their reason (ratio, Verstand) - as some Christian apologetics used to claim not so long ago - could have also been seen as an affront to sincere and honest atheists or agnostics. So I thought by now we should have learned not to call irrational (againt reason) those who see these things differently, both ways.

My father called my attention to the inappropriateness for children of the story about Abraham and Isaac - it’s meaning is beyond a child’s comprehension - before I developed a critical attitude myself.

>>My feeling was a revelation, possibly, the way religious believers have revelations. There can be revelations which cause one either to accept or reject religious belief. Reason can play a part in the thought processes leading to the revelation. <<
I certainly will not contradict you, and appreciate your sharing of such an intimate experience. Christian mystics talk also about something called “the dark night of the Soul” (John of the Cross), so there are certainly also negative "religious" experiences or revelations, both lasting and temporary.

I repeat, I know practically nothing about ancient mathematics. As for Euclid’s original proof, perhaps you can find something in here: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/%7Edjoyce/java/elements/bookIX/propIX20.html. And, as for the notation they used, perhaps in the link I gave before: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Counting.htm.

Hi Oliver,

I differentiated between “philosophical positions”, which involve only the rational part of one’s mind (that, I agree should be kept open) and “states of mind” involving the whole person.

However, I take your point that for a skeptic doubt might be a permanent state of mind, so at second thought, agnosticism can also be a permanent state of mind. Thanks for calling my attention to this.

Nevertheless, I still maintain that although “having doubts” is an intermediary state of mind between having (religious) faith and loosing it, speculations trying to resolve doubts CANNOT lead a skeptic/atheist to acquire faith: that is a more complicated psychological process, requiring what e.g. Karl Jaspers calls “limit situations”.

I think Lakatos stays within philosophy of science, i.e. - speaking metaphorically - he analyses the proverbial (scientific) “finger”, but this analysis cannot decide whether the finger is pointing to a supernatural “moon” or just a mental “baloon”.

Another metaphor: You can search all you want while staying within an n-dimensional space, and you will never detect an (n+1)-dimensional object; mostly only its projection into - or intersection with - the n-dimensional space you live in.

>> Theists has the challenge of defending scriptures as the word of God(s)<<
Not only that, they also believe that “God created them” although they know the “technology” of making babies. No contradiction with history/anthropology or biology respectively.

>>If humans are smart enough science might one day explain … <<
For a theist such explanations will only see as extend our knowledge of HOW God made these things. Like when a Christian child learns how babys are made, he/she can still believe that God is behind it.

What I am trying to say - as I did a couple of times before - is that advancements in science will move further away the “God of the gaps" but would not make a difference to what a theists or a Sagan-atheist can believe: such explanations are compatible with both the a priori held world-view orientations.

Thanks again for giving my “little grey cells” something to chew on

AJ Philips,

Let me repeat: I am not trying to take away your world-view certainties, nor your feelings of being more reasonable (rational) than I.

Therefore in an earlier post I promised not to bother you with attempts at explaining how I see things, since I obviously was not able to express myself sufficiently comprehensibly (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#176068). Then I broke my promise, and now I take your last four posts as a punishment for that.

I am indeed sorry that so many words had to be used to express the simple fact that we cannot understand each other, and I cannot help it.

Hi George,

An interesting reply. I will need think about it. Albeit, in the meantime, please note, I would suggest that doubters, those mental make-up does not apply the methods of faith, can still place probabilities on A (god) or B (no god, while holding the favoured probability tentatively and degraded one as a diminished construct. Another metaphor might be soap bubbles, some are big and some small. As a skeptic, and especially a skeptic, who has reworked Lakatos a little, I focus/emphasise the biggest bubble, while to a "lesser extent" remain aware of the foam. Like supporting Big Bang theory yet not thowing away the Solid State universe completely. Lakatos (and Polanyi) are perhaps are a little less known than Kuhn and Popper, so I don't claim to speak for all skeptics.

Dear George,

I am no longer a child, but I still feel the same way about the story of Abraham and Isaac. The lesson I get from it is, "Atrocity is justified if faith demands it."

I feel that the God in that story must be rejected if justice and compassion are valued.

banjo some links
but im unsure/of the importance of knowing/the historical/jesu/joshua

i reason jesu/..the christ..is either in our heart...or not
we either follow his egsample or not..
the dead sea scrolls make mention of him
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=christ+dead+sea+scrolls&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

so does thomas
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-of-thomas.htm

http://www.pdfmeta.com/tw/the%20jesus%20scroll-pdf-1.html

perhaps aj./could enlighten us/with the MANY he claims to have found/read...but the only real importance..is to know god..or in the end/seek to know him...and love others..

simply by loving/others is enough/or
at least..not decieving others away-from/knowing..that/they have eternal/life..ahead of them..dead dont mean dead

anyhow have fun
loving helping others is only a beginning
keep an open mind to multi-universe's

as far aas i gather..jesus..he himself recognised john had the higher claim..to be messiah...[johns birth was miraculous..his mother was in her eighties..his father waas the high priest...it was to john jesus went to get baptised...it was only following johns murder..that it became clear/jesus was the intended messiah

sent mainly to rebut...the smouldering in the graves/till a mythical day of judgment...[to reveal we are all born again..following physical..death]...thus those who claim he died for their sin...are not only decieved/but decieving...as a man is in his heart so is he

as long as we love to sin..
forgiving them is simply [paternalistic deciet/platitudes...for they dont see that they love to do as sin...neither does god]..god needs no inteceeder..we can know him one/to one..personaly

god is the living god/ie he lives now
jesus is a christ..who came to reveal/much..
its his revealations that is important..

those who think the son/the father..
simply dont get god/..nor christ..his favoured angel

the importance of belief..is that to keep the family together/
in the after-life...

its important they/..hold the same beliefs..
so as to be able to/..live in the same realm/room..after rebirth

sorry about the rambeling-rave
its far better/to all believe the same..[lie or truth]
than to believe different things..be you or they right/or wrong