Dear Banjo,

A Jewish scripture (http://www.hillel.org/jewish/textstudies/pirkei_avot/pa_c5_m16.htm) states:

"All love that is contingent upon something, when the thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not rely on something, will last forever."

Unconditional love is a rare achievement. On the way there, one can have varying degrees of love with less-and-less conditions, the less the better.

<<If my wife had never existed, I could never have loved her.>>

Your one remaining condition seems to be that you must have memories of being together in the flesh with your late wife in order to love her. That's not bad at all, but there's one more step to go, one last condition to lose.

<<I could love an imaginary God, but it would not be God. It would just be the fruit of my imagination.>>

Very true - and I'll take it even a step further:

Had you been loving an imaginary wife, then she would still exist, though only as a figment of your imagination. That would be more difficult than loving a late wife that you still have memories of. God however, is not even a figment of imagination: one may be able to imagine a wife, but one cannot imagine God. So to love God without any contingency, so that this love lasts forever, is even harder yet than loving an imaginary wife.

So what can you do? Just do your best and try to have as fewer conditions for your love of God as you can. Have patience, practice makes perfect.

A beginner may for example have conditions for loving God such as "God must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent and reward me for good deeds", etc. That's OK for a start, but ultimately one needs to drop such conditions and love God regardless even that He never existed.

---
What I told Suse was that SHOULD one change their behaviour (eg. cease their devotion and veneration) upon finding out that what they considered to be the object of their faith does not exist (and never existed), then they had no faith to begin with, only belief.

AJ Philips,

From your link I extract this as your definition of faith:
“Faith is belief without good reason”.

This is like a Christian zealot defining atheism as “a wish to end in hell”. Both phrases “without good reason” and “end in hell” are perceived as negative by the author of the definition. I do not think this a priori bias is reflected in the definitions from Webster’s Dictionary, however I leave it to others to decide which definition is more insightful, yours or theirs.

Otherwise, I am not sure what you mean by “belief without good reason” and even less by “belief without proof” (what is then belief with proof?). As I mentioned above, I think in contemporary English you speak of proof only in the context of symbolic (mathematical) logic or mathematics, otherwise you have evidence (e.g. you have circumstantial evidence but not circumstantial proof). This is specific to the English language: many non-English languages cannot differentiate between proof and evidence, hence the confusion also in everyday English.

Also, the use of the term “evidence” - when referring to the very nature, structure, of reality as studied by science, notably cosmology and theoretical physics - was popularized in the English language sphere by David Hume (I presume), and it reflects exactly that: an eighteenth century philosophy of science, way of looking at physical reality. (Not to mention beyond the physical for those who believe in such).

On the other hand, “with good reason”, as I understand it, is rather subjective: I can only assume that you consider what you are doing or believing as being with good reason otherwise you would not be doing or believing it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think we have already agreed that we have different understandings of “exists, existence” since you even claimed that you yourself (and I) did not exist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.asp).

Nevertheless, I think I can understand you but as I used to tell my students, I can only judge (mark) you on what you stated (wrote down) not on what I think you thought.

George,

<<This is like a Christian zealot defining atheism as “a wish to end in hell”.>>

Not at all. The difference is that we can demonstrate what is and is not a good reason for believing something. To define atheism as “a wish to end in hell”, is to inject an unfounded belief into the definition regarding the existence of hell, as well as assume what the atheist does or does not want.

Your analogy only focusses on one largely irrelevant aspect of my definition...

<<Both phrases “without good reason” and “end in hell” are perceived as negative by the author of the definition.>>

This is a reason as to why you wouldn’t use my definition in formal communication, or list the “A belief not based on evidence”, definition separately - as dictionaries do. But it does not demonstrate any inaccuracy in my definition and nor is it a reason as to why I shouldn’t use it in an informal setting.

You don’t seem to be distinguishing between formal and informal communication here.

<<I do not think this a priori bias is reflected in the definitions from Webster’s Dictionary...>>

No, it’s not. And for the reasons I mentioned above.

However, if there is any “a priori bias” in my definition then that’s certainly not a bad thing given that no deductive reasoning for theistic a priori presuppositions have ever withstood critiquing (the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument are but two examples). Which, after thousands of years of religion, must surely give some heavy weighting to any bias that I may be injecting.

<<I think in contemporary English you speak of proof only in the context of symbolic (mathematical) logic or mathematics, otherwise you have evidence>>

Proof can also be evidence that goes towards establishing a fact. Evidence is a broader term that can also be used to describe data that suggests something which has not yet been proven. (http://tinyurl.com/lhs9xd8).

But we can say “evidence” too, if you’re more comfortable with that.

Continued...

...Continued

<<On the other hand, “with good reason”, as I understand it, is rather subjective...>>

It is subjective. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t subjective at all. I just said that I don’t think I’m injecting too much of my own opinion, since we can generally agree upon what constitutes a good reason to believe most things (science and legal systems would be in trouble if we couldn’t), and no-one that I’ve ever heard from has given good reason as to why gods should have special consideration when applying similar standards.

Of course, this is all up for debate and I’m happy to defend my claims if anyone wants to challenge them (see my definition as stimulation for discussion, if nothing else). If there’s a theist out there who feels they have a good reason for their beliefs, then they’re welcome to sock it to me. Unfortunately we rarely ever get much of a response (as this thread demonstrated) and when we do, they’re the same old tired arguments that have been re-worked and recycled for hundreds of years now because people keep poking holes in them.

Where’s the “good reason”?

Truth is, there isn’t one. Theists believe, because they believe, because they believe, and when pressed for a reason, they’ll usually just point to some weak argument they heard after they’d already started believing, and that only sounds convincing to those who are already convinced.

Sorry, George. Started typing there and couldn’t stop. You get the gist though...

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote:

["All love that is contingent upon something, when the thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not rely on something, will last forever."

Unconditional love is a rare achievement. On the way there, one can have varying degrees of love with less-and-less conditions, the less the better.]
.

I can assure you, Yuyutsu, that love is not contingent on anything. Nor is it temporary, partial or conditional.

You seem to have forgotten the discussion we had on this a bit less than two months ago. Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14890#256883

As I noted previously, in my humble opinion, most of those who think they love somebody do not. They mistake love for feelings, affection, sentiments, sex, liking, sympathy, admiration or some other basic impulse or self-serving urge.

Some seem to fall in love with their own image. They even look alike.

.

You then observe:

"... one cannot imagine God ... but ultimately one needs to ... love God regardless even that He never existed."

I do not wish to hurt your feelings, Yuyutsu, but" loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine" appears to me perfectly futile and of no interest whatsoever.

However, I hasten to add that if your worldly obligations allow you the leisure to indulge in such futile occupations, I certainly see no harm in it.

A well known French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, wrote a book entitled "L'être et le néant" (Being and nothingness), an essay on phenomenological ontology which touches on some of the aspects of your theory, but his "ens causa sui" (a being that causes itself) excludes any suggestion of a divine creator.

.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

George and I had a discussion on what is meant by "faith" a few months back.

You may like to check it out. Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#248255

.