AJ Philips,

I quoted those definitions from a respectable (not a priori theist or a priori atheist) source as a reaction to the questions raised by Suseonline. Of course, you are entitled to your own definitions as is my imaginary Christian zealot. And you are right that I would not use your definition, or that of that imaginary zealot, in formal communication with people seeking answers (and not a confirmation of their pre-conceived views). As I said, everybody can decide for themselves whether they find your or Webster’s definition more helpful.

Some theists and atheists have a rather sophisticated understanding of the basic concepts they build their worldview on; some others - again both from the theist as well as atheist camps - are satisfied with a rather simplistic understanding of science, religion and/or philosophies thereof. I think a fruitful exchange of views is possible only on the former level, not on the latter. That is another reason why I brought in an authoritative source of definitions; not to argue against anybody.

We have been through verbal ping-pongs a couple of times before and I always could only finish by reassuring you that I am not trying to convert you - to change what you find as “good reasons” for your beliefs or unbeliefs on which you build your worldview. There are missionaries - e.g. of a Christian or “dawkinsian” kind - who might try this, with or without success, but that is not why I occasionally enter discussions here.

[By the way, in the link Banjo gave you will recognise the distinction between “Sagan’s maxim” and the opposite - (i) and (ii) - that some time ago I posited as the basic wolrdview alternatives as part of my answer to you as to what I believed. Well, I should have given the link http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 instead of repeating myself. Then in my post to Banjo I would not have misplaced Sagan’s name to look as if he was equivocal about both (i) and (ii), which he, an avowed atheist, was obviously not.]

Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for the link. I think I remember that discussion.

George,

You’ve overlooked the differences I outlined between the definition of faith that I use and the definition of the imaginary zealot.

<<Of course, you are entitled to your own definitions as is my imaginary Christian zealot.>>

The imaginary zealot is not entitled to that definition, and for the reasons that I outlined. We don’t just get to invent our own definitions if they are inconsistent with reality and cannot be supported by evidence and reasoned argument. We may be entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.

<<Some theists and atheists have a rather sophisticated understanding of the basic concepts they build their worldview on; some others - again both from the theist as well as atheist camps - are satisfied with a rather simplistic understanding of science, religion and/or philosophies thereof. I think a fruitful exchange of views is possible only on the former level, not on the latter.>>

I agree, which is why I think we make so much headway in our discussions. Just remember, though, that there is more to sophistication than just ignoring the arguments that one feels are unsophisticated (it just comes across as snobbery that way). It also requires the ability to show why an unsophisticated argument is irrelevant or incorrect using sophisticated rebuttals. Sometimes the most unsophisticated points can blow the biggest holes in seemingly sophisticated arguments, and it is not enough to just brush the point off as unsophisticated and move on.

<<We have been through verbal ping-pongs a couple of times before and I always could only finish by reassuring you that I am not trying to convert you - to change what you find as “good reasons” for your beliefs or unbeliefs on which you build your worldview.>>

Yes, and again I remind you of just how disappointing I find that as there is no better way to ensure the truth of one’s beliefs, and weed out the false ones than to have them challenged.

Continued...

...Continued

I would also, again, express my confusion as to why you are often under the impression that I think you’d do anything of the sort - or that I’d fear it.

Finally though, it was fitting that you linked back to that old post of yours to me because, on re-reading it, I have spotted a problem that will enable me to demonstrate to you just one of the reasons as to why my definition of faith is not just based on a preconceived view and how my claim of, “without good reason”, can be demonstrated. The problem lies in the following sentences:

“There is no rational way to decide “logically” in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference.”

Actually, there IS a way to logically favour one over the other.

What we prefer is irrelevant. In both a philosophical sense and a practical sense, we take the option without the additional layer (e.g. the “Something” in “there must be Something”). Until we have good cause to believe that the additional layer exists - using evidence and reasoned argument - then (1) should be our default assumption.

You downplayed the role of occam’s razor (which is what, initially, determines the fundamentally important burden of proof) in making a rational choice and only offered a more subjective and emotive reason why one would prefer to assume this additional Something.

This is why it can be argued that atheism is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.

Imagine how this type of reasoning would go down in a court of law or in a scientific discipline (and as I said in my last post, I’ve never been given a reason as to why religious belief should have special consideration here).

Dear Banjo,

<<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.>>

Firstly, it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God.

Now I think that you already agreed just then that the highest form of love is when no interests are involved. 'Futile' is always in relation to some object to be achieved: God cannot be achieved because we already ARE God (all we need to realise this is to remove the veiling obstacles).

Also, loving God is in our very nature, it's there anyway so we do not need to create it - only to uncover it, thus love of God is not just a method, but its own reward!

AJ Philips,

>>which is why I think we make so much headway in our discussions.<<

Well, perhaps, but only to the point (I think already reached many times) where we start to go around in circles. Hence my reference to verbal ping-pong.

>> there is more to sophistication than just ignoring the arguments that one feels are unsophisticated (it just comes across as snobbery that way). <<

Sometimes it is called snobbery, sometimes condescension, sometimes mental or intellectual gymnastics, I have been accused here of all these things. (I was often tempted to remark that it is hard to have discussions about algebraic topology with somebody who lacks the background insights - in this case mathematical rather than different worldview perspectives - and finds my attempts at explanations as condescension or snobbery.) This is why I wrote above that I only brought up an authoritative source of definitions, without wanting to argue against anybody or anything.

>>there is no better way to ensure the truth of one’s beliefs, and weed out the false ones than to have them challenged.<<

The “truth of one’s beliefs” and “weeding out the false ones” sounds to me like the language of rather conservative Catholics. Hardly a way to start discussions about theist and atheist worldviews, since exactly a different understanding of what is “truth” (except in formal or trivial situations) lies at the very basis of their (philosophical) disagreements.

>>This is why it can be argued that atheism is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.<<

Agreed. The same as “it can be argued that belief that not all of reality is reducible to the physical world accessible to science (which is less than belief in God, the next step in the beliefs that define a theist) is the more rational position. Given what we currently know, at least.”

Different “we’s” have different understandings of “know” on this abstract level, so this is not a contradiction.

For the rest, I can only repeat that everybody can decide for themselves whether they find your or Webster’s definition more helpful.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You indicate:

"Firstly, it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God."

Please be assured I was not "implying an object". I had no idea Hindus considered their Gods as objects.

Am I not right in thinking that Yuyutsu was a moral warrior in the epic Hindu Mahabharata in which there were numerous Gods ?

I am sorry for mistakenly believing you were polytheist like your namesake.
.

You observe:

" 'Futile' is always in relation to some object to be achieved"
.

In the context in which I employed the term (loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine), the "object" is to love God. In this context, it is impossible and simply an illusion.

The same principle applies as that which you indicated above in respect of "faith":

" ... 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 ...".

Applied to " loving a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine", doesn't this mean that you thought you were loving God but you weren't and it was only an illusion ?
.

You also indicate:

" ... loving God is in our very nature ..."

No, Yuyutsu, it is not. It is receptivity to the possibility of God that is in our nature.

Neuroscientific research has revealed that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

Genetically determined receptivity provides a favourable foundation for religious belief, subsequently developed through education.

Love, hate and indifference are attitudes which depend on individual choice.
.
As a general comment, Yuyutsu, I can't help feeling that some of your posts here strangely resemble the difficulty some men have in coping with their "anima" as described by Carl Jung:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjRQbJPULx4

.