PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Reason And Faith [HD]
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- It is common to think that Faith and Reason must be in conflict. Often this view emerges because how we use the term "believe" is ambiguous. In this video Greg Ganssle (Yale University) clarifies how this term is used and how Faith and Reason can be properly related.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/GcFh/
![PHILOSOPHY - History: Aristotle on the Purpose of Life [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sQk6t-9mQjE/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - History: Aristotle on the Purpose of Life [HD]](/img/tr.png)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Will to Believe [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uzmLXIuAspQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Someone once asked Mark Twain, "Mr. Twain, do you believe in infant baptism?" "Do I believe in it? Hell, I've seen it!" he replied.
Where is he now
@@ce6236 In eternal peace..
I've looked for years and never herd such a good well presented and sensible explanation of what faith is for a believer. It was worth the wait. Thank you.
That said, I think this video fails to address the much more common problem that faith *IS* in direct conflict with reason because that is how many people define faith. I've been told for example "You can't use logic and reason to understand [and believe in] God, you just have to have faith". Faith is one of those horribly loaded words like "atheist" that is defined depending on how you feel about it and everyone assumes that others have picked the same meaning. Anyway this definition will certainly give me a new tool for pinning down what people I talk to are trying to say.
Faith is not blind trust in the absence of information, rather it's an intelligent decision based on the evidences/proofs that are in full view.
@@Kman.
Or so it should be
@@anassyria5176 ...it is so with me. In what, or who do you place your faith?
@@Kman. 'Faith is an intelligent decision based on observable evidence...'?!
Um ... no, we already have words for that.
'Faith is NOT an intelligent decision based on observable evidence...'
There, I fixed it.
@@shannontaylor1849 I reckon you'll now need to validate your truth statement that you set forth. Please...do share, and while you're at it...
=====> Take a moment if you would please, to posit your position as to the beginning & purpose of life. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but have you placed your *FAITH* in what you came across in some books, or by what you've been taught...that you originated from a _ROCK_ was it?
An easy to understand piece on epistemic claims about belief. The certainty aspect in the middle needs more development than could occur in a short video. I.E. We aren't certain of the existence of other minds, the reality of the past, or an external world. Yet we operate as if we were certain of these things every day.
So there are classes of beliefs that seem to be foundational and others that build on foundational beliefs.
What is the method for forming true beliefs? How does one KNOW that is the method (the problem of the criterion), is also a self-referentially incoherent statement as the question, "How do you know," can be asked ad infinitum.
I look forward to the other videos in this series.
"Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life." ~ Abdu'l-Baha in London. Baha'i Faith
That's scientism.
Uggh. No. Driving to New York is not a 100% commitment just because I'm 100% in the vehicle. At any point along the way I'm willing and capable of stopping or turning around in the face of any number of apparent obstructions or arising conditions.
In the case of me being truly faith-bound, truly 100% committed to traveling to New York, I wouldn't stop for anything. Literally anything. Tires explode? Keep driving. Engine melts? Get out and start running. Road ahead replaced with spikes? Keep running. Legs chopped off? Start crawling.
This is what makes faith divorced from reason. A reasonable person doesn't commit to ANY proposition with 100% certainty, because that way lies madness, and an unwillingness to change in the face of new evidence.
+David Clifford , but one has to commit to a faith believe every day as well, its not 100% one time decision, a believer can at any moment choose not to believe, to get out of the car.
chad deffler But faith based commitments are made independent of evidence. At what point can you decide you are wrong, and thus need to leave the car?
+David Clifford, first off i don't think its fair to say there is no evidence, perhaps no empirical model based off of measured data; But aristotle, plato and socrates arrived at monotheism long before new testament, or koran faith based commitments in monotheism existed and against the prevailing polytheism of their day, they weren't dumb church goers who just believed what everyone at the time believed, they were independent thinkers who worked it out for themselves. Read the summa contra gentiles by Thomas Aquinas, there is alot that can be demonstrated about God before appealing to supernatural faith. The only commitment is to have faith that reason is capable of arriving at such knowledge. a reliance on empirical evidence for all knowledge is a loss in a philosophical faith in the power of reason.
Regardless , there's always enough evidence against a commitment to God,because of evil and suffering, for most atheists that is the evidence against God and most believers can admit that atheists have a point, but believers still seek out an explanation for evil, they don't just abandon their hypothesis that God exists and is good, and nor dose any good scientist, hypothesis are reworked over and over as evidence builds. we don't give up newtonian physics because of quantum mechanics, we persist in trying to explain the data with fixed universal laws even though the evidence time and again suggests otherwise. we have a commitment to the belief in fixed universal laws and only with this commitment can we do physics. in short you need a minimum set of belief commitments just to do science, ie the world really exists, truth exists, truth is knowable. if you follow Aristotle's philosophical demonstration in God you don't need a commitment to supernatural faith, only one in philosophical method.
chad deffler None of this has anything to do with my question. I didn't ask how you can prove yourself right. Anyone can build an internally consistent mound of sophistry and call it "non-empirical evidence" for literally anything the imagination could conceive of.
I asked; "How can you determine if you're wrong?".
+David Clifford , My point is the conditions for knowledge you call science, is not how science is actually done. All theories are internally consistent models that compete with other models. But to meet have Poppers criteria for falsify, you have to debate causality and arrive at a model of causality like hume's, since all most all models for Gods existence depend on objective causality.Hume dose falsify aristotle by saying all causality is a mental category not in the world, but hume himself can then be falsified. so a criteria can be formed, but not sustained.
People in the comments... the statement "I believe *that* God exists" is making a simple claim. "I believe *in* God is different". A satanist would say "I believe *that* God exists" because he is not committed to God. Although this is a good video about Faith vs Reason in general, it's not a good video about that subject in religion because religious critics don't question if someone is committed to God, they question if he exists.
but the point of the video is not to answer the question of Gods existence, it's discussing the problems of actions investing more than what reason has to offer.
Kind of shooting yourself in the foot with the exemple of Satanism, since Satanists do not believe in the existence of God or Satan as actual deities but rather abstract, philosophical concept. (Unless you were referring to Theistic Satanism, and not LaVeyan Satanism).
Bertrand Lecerf yeah sorry I was thinking of Luciferism or whatever it's called, I don't really know much about the quasi Christian beliefs and cults
Hi. We should stop making the decisions that make us live in a world based on certainties. Besides, Nietzsche said perfection is in unconsciousness and instinct. So you can't deny certainty that exists but I think also that Hume said everything we know can be boiled down to percentages. 100% certainty about anything is pretty absurd.
Alexander Kitchens Right on. We cannot be sure of anything ("I only know that I know nothing", after all), but, even if absolute certainty is unachievable, that should'nt stop us from commiting to certain things.
For exemple, with religions, there comes a time when you need to make a decision whether you do or do not believe in God(s). (Or, call yourself an agnostic if you really don't know).
I chose to commit to Atheism because it makes more sense to me, but I of course may be wrong, since I cannot be sure of anything. That does'nt stop me from making that spiritual choice, though.
"Meet a fork in the road, don't pick it up, you don't know who last used it!" Yogi
Mission statement of Rivendell Institute at Yale (from its website):
"To examine and *advance the contribution of a Christian vision* of life to human flourishing and the common good within the academy and contemporary culture." (my emphasis)
I came to watch a philosophy video. This is apologetics, not philosophy.
1. Before committing "believe in", one must fully examine "believe that". What nebulous thing is one committing to otherwise?
2. Car and airplane travel are terrible analogies for the god concept. You have a 99.9999% chance of arriving alive on commercial flights in the US, and only 1 in 100 million VMT (vehicle miles traveled) chance of dying in a car. Who would get into a car or plane if the chance of survival is 50/50?
Faith and reason are opposites.
Faith and reason are not opposites, but it is stupid to think that one will get help from something divine without working hard or suffer for it, and when one then achieves one's goal after hard work, then non-theists and atheists will say that it was the hard work that made one reach the goal, not any Divinity. And God wants it that way, as God isn't any all-year Santa or anything similar. Prayers aren't for wish-fulfilment, they are for communion. Sure, God might help out occasionally, but if you manage to handle things by yourself, you are much better off. ******************************************************************************************** I agree that the car and plane analogies are improper comparisons, though.
RubberyCat
Faith is opposite of Reason
From Atheists/nonbelievers -
George H. Smith: "Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason."
Voltaire: “Faith consists in believing, not what appears to be true, but what appears to our understanding to be false."
Sam Harris: "Faith is the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail."
Richard Dawkins: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification.
John W. Loftus: “Reasonable faith is an oxymoron.”
Matt McCormick: "The overcoming of doubts or counter-evidence is the essential feature of faith."
From Christians -
Tertullian: “Just because it is absurd, it is to be believed."
Martin Luther called reason “the Devil’s Whore.”
William Lane Craig: "Should faith and reason conflict, it is reason that must submit to faith.”
Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
You can read more at DebunkingChristianity.
Working to better our lives is good. Before we attribute any influence, want or personality to a deity, we need to demonstrate he/she/it exists first, and is not only a character of mythology (the first item in my OP).
RubberyCat Glad you agree on the analogies. :)
Atheos Nous
There is a common misunderstanding, among christians and atheists alike, based on One Single Comment from Jesus, to Thomas:
"You believe because you have seen, blessed are those that believe without having seen."
...or something to that extent.
This were spread, or even used, to propagate the "Bind faith" version of Faith, when it instead was practically a burn towards the other disciples, as _they_ hadn't believed the two women that had seen Jesus first.
This contradiction of what Faith really is has also been described in a pretty funny way by Douglas Adams in one of his Hitchhiker novels, In that God cannot prove God's existence, because faith allegedly relies on not knowing, but doing anyway, and thus, if God proved God's existence, then there would be no more faith, and God would vanish.
That statement shows how ludicrous the sentiment that Faith cannot be connected to knowledge is.
There is a far better description in the Bible about how Faith truly works.
A kind of military officer, or equivalence of it at that time, I don't remember if one of his men or one of his friends were sick, but he said something to Jesus, like:
"I have men under my command, if I tell them to do something, they do it.
Jesus told him his Faith(?) was great, and told him that he had been helped.
....This might be very shortened, but it is what I remember without looking it up.
This is Faith, if the officer had been used to his men all-too-often disobeying orders, he would not have said that, so his Faith in his soldiers were great.
The soldiers may have blind or semi-blind faith in their commander, but this was the commander himself, I doubt he would have gone to anyone for help without checking up if they actually could help first.
Of course, one may claim that that part of the bible is a fairytale and/or a severe exaggeration like most of it, but to me it shows that knowledge is indeed required for Faith to be True.
RubberyCat
There are also equivocation and confusion on the terms "faith" (including in the Bible) and "reason". From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Reason
1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
When critical thinkers use the word, the justification and logic must be valid and sound. The psychological need for the false certainty religion offers is a reason, but not a sound one. Bad reasons could be worse than no reason at all.
Faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
People often interchange the meaning of "faith" in usage. In the example of the commander, the soldiers had _confidence_ in their commander because 1. they were ordered to. What happens to a soldier if he disobeys even today? 2. the commander may have proven himself in prior actions to *earn their trust*.
Why did you agree with me that car and air travel were bad analogies? We have strong confidence they are quite safe based on voluminous evidence and reason. Yet the video subtly equivocated to the second meaning of the word. You instinctively knew the two usages were different.
Referring to the second definition pertaining religion, faith is based on absence of proof, justification or sound reason. Jesus praised those who had blind faith instead of Thomas who had to have proof. That was the point of the Doubting Thomas story. As Dawkins said, many, if not most, Christians glorify such blind and "true" faith over reason.
Finally, I constantly encounter the No True Scotsman fallacy when speaking with believers who claim others misunderstood, misinterpreted the texts and were doing their religion wrong, that others were not _true_ believers. What makes one reading and interpretation truer than another? Would a real god, if there were one, rely on ambiguous texts and hermaneutics to convey his message?
I don't think it's even remotely legitimate to directly compare the evidence one would have for lasting marriage with a significant other or the safety of plane travel with Supernatural memes existing and their alleged Wheels being adhere to
...So, in a video that's intended to look at the relationship between reason and faith from a philosophical linguistic perspective, the word "faith" is not used once.
Clickbait. Nothing to see here /s
Excellent presentation. Thank you very much Professor for your time, and nice explanation about this complex subject.
I think we all agree there is A LOT of evidence of a) people having car crashes and b) people making it to their destinies unharmed.
To be able to even reason.... you have to have faith that whatever action or process you are using is justified, in other words reason presupposes faith or faith is need as a prerequisite to make certainty claims....
Ex: There is grass outside on my lawn right now
It may be obvious to most of you, but here are three things that I think should be pointed out :
1) "faith", or the term "I believe", is not a necessity. If an orange is orange, I'm not going to say "I believe this orange is orange", that's just not true. I THINK it is orange, I have reasonable claims about it being orange, evidence supporting it, and I don't have to involve belief as long as the orange itself is not a product of my imagination. Which I can test in the physical world (provided that "faith" does not disrupt your understanding of the physical world)
2) contrary to what is said in the video (and with all due respect to its creator), we don't have the slightest evidence that god exists, and it is completely unreasonable to bring up. It's like saying "we maaayyyyy have evidence that middle earth exists", which is also unreasonable to think.
3) hasn't faith always been by definition the denial of physical observations (or rather the denial of the absence of physical observations) and therefore the denial of reason ?
I think it's true that some people find comfort, peace, and balance believing in the idea/concept/feeling of the existence, presence, and influence of an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent entity whose existence can't be proven by any rational observational method ... as He/It happens to be empirically invisible, both for believers and, obviously, agnostics, skeptics and atheists.
This is probably the weakest video of this series. The criticism of religious belief is not that they must commit themselves with certainty less than 100%. It's that the certainty is very low (
You've provided no evidence that the "certainty is very low" that God exists--you've merely asserted it. Many people, included brilliant scientists and philosophers like Francis Collins, Edward Feser, John Lennox, and David Oderberg think the probability is close to 100%. Some people think it's 50/50 and some people think it's near 0. We could discuss and analyze some of the arguments for and against, but until we do so, you can't just claim it's very low without qualification.
@@michaelnelson3652 The gods of religions are certainly false, there is no doubt about that. A more general idea of god could still be possible, but we have no reason to think it is indeed truth. Also, we have no reason to think it isn't, but then, why should we believe it's true? Even if it did exist, it's a thought that only limits our knowledge about the world. We don't have any information about that yet and we shouldn't care. But we do. That tells us that it is most likely an idea that we desire to be truth. We do know about our psychology and that desire probably comes from the almost-need for our existence to have any kind of "meaning" or "trascendence". Study fields like the terror management theory illustrate the idea in a quite clear way. Our mental weakness leads us to want to believe we are not futile. The idea of god has provided that solution for most people throughout history. That doesn't mean it's a false idea, but knowing it's probably just a human construct born from wishful thinking (as that's the case for most people) it would just too convenient for that specific limited idea to be real. It has indeed a very low chance to be true as it's just one option from almost infinite stuff we could think about reality and existence. With the information we have right now it has a very low chance and the more we get to know about the universe, the more that chance loses the possibility to increase.
I have to disagree strongly with you here. It's true that the sentence "I believe in god" presupposes reasoning to a certain degree and that we can never be 100% sure of stuff but still commit to them. The problem with god is that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that belief in him becomes what any critical person would call unreasonable. Also your last bit about the idea that you wouldn't go into a marriage with only facts about the other person doesn't work. The moment god becomes a scientific question there cannot be any other consideration but hard facts.
+Edwin Spellcaster there is evidence against the biblical god, he's been pretty much disproven.
In your opinion, are the established moral codes handed to us by religion (such as the Ten Commandments) incompatible with human reason?
I believe _in_ the scientific process for its ability to determine what is reality based on data we can obtain. I believe _that_ religion is hokum. Did I do that right?
No, no, no. Just realise that 50% is the pivot point at which God's existence becomes likely, and then realise that when religious people say that they have faith, they mean that they have below 50% certainty (thus making the belief in a god irrational) but they believe anyway. This is the problem people have with faith. Once you're past 50%, that is once you have determined that the existence of god is more likely than the non-existence of god, then nobody has a problem with you believing. It is just that nobody has demonstrated that the existence of god is more likely.
Also, you don't base your relationships on evidence? Of course you do. Not basing your relationship on evidence would be proposing to a girl as the first thing you say to her. Once you start dating, you are gathering evidence all the time.
+Thomas Bridgewater Probability doesn't quite work that way. Probability works with repeated trials, not one time events. So there is either a 1 out of 1 chance god exists, or there is a 0 out of 1 chance god exists. 100% or 0%, it does or it doesn't, there is no 50%. In order to have 50% you would have to have at least 2 trials. Having 2 possibilities for one outcome is not two trials.
It's funny, I was waiting for the analysis of the ice cream example but it never came. "Ice cream tastes good" is closer to "I believe in God" and "I believe in Recycling" is closer to "I believe Washington existed".
Recycling can be shown to be objectively good* (*for most items) so adopting the practice is something you can say is reasonable.
On the other hand what evidence can you show for ice cream being tasty for me? Other than whether or not I find it tasty? You can say lots of other people like it, but maybe they have poor taste. People like lots of things I find horrible (like Kim Kardashian). Whether or not ice cream is tasty for me is something I can only find out through direct experience. Reason is a tool for making objectively true statements. "Ice cream is tasty" rests on this totally subjective base. That's not to say I won't want to eat ice cream but my like or dislike for it isn't rational. And that's fine. It's totally fine to do things that aren't rational. Rationality is overrated.
'Believe in' is ambiguous in that it holds reasonable meaning and a commitment. The amount of reason in the meaning is not the point, the point is, when you say you believe in recycling, that means you are committed to the practice of recycling, AND that you believe *that* recycling is good for the planet. When you believe in god, that means you are commited to serving him, AND that you believe he exists. The amount of reasonal evidence is not the point in the phrase, just its ambiguity.
Yes it's ambiguous, that's my point! It can refer to both actions based on reason/objective facts and to actions wholly based on subjective criteria.
You say that the amount of reasonable evidence is not the point but the interaction between reason and faith is the entire point of the video.
I'm saying that faith in God is like taste in ice cream. There is no scope for a reasonable justification of either. That doesn't invalidate them, it just puts them in a class of human activity we don't use reason to deal with.
***** I understand, I was just elaborating on what he meant.
However, on your point, I dislike relating believing in god to believing ice cream tastes good. You have personal evidence of the later(and perhaps all your friends like it as well for additional instance confirmation), but the first relies on commitment to mask reason. You do not believe ice cream tastes good because you have eaten it sense birth, and no longer can taste it without an acquired taste ;)
Good analogy. But some religions demand faith of all and warn all of punishments if they don't believe. So it must be something which is objectively true (from religious point of view). Otherwise why religion doesn't allow people to choose his/her own religion without fearing any punishment? So I think, religion is not totally comparable to ice cream tasting which is a subjective choice.
Funny, whenever I tell someone I don't believe in god, those people don't assume that I'm saying that I don't trust god; they assume that I don't believe god exists.
Exactly !!!
Like it for the most part, not sure if the analogies are the best though.
What was the point of this video? He does assume that there is evidence that god exists but we just can't be 100% sure. He make it sound like we have evidence to be something like 99% sure. In this case I would agree that it is reasonable to believe in god. But were are in the reversed case where we can be 99% sure that there is no god. So it is reasonable to believe that there is no god.
This is what I dislike in Wireless Philosophy videos. They present opinions but try to make them sound as objective neutral statements. Not cool at all.
well, now there's the problem that all religion/beliefs can't be true at the same time, yet all belief are 100% committed to it.
so....
Jordan Filipovski but there's more, since we can create an infinity of possible true religion.
like FSM, or Pink Unicorn.
therefore the chances are of 0,0000000000000000000000...(infinity)...0000000001 %
+Luca Hulot (Akle) That's equal to 0.
It might pose sort of a challenge for the seeker of truth, yes. But at least your analysis is quite reasonable; because contrary to some liberals religions do not all teach the same, and therefore cannot all be equally true. Oh, and I guess you are correct in saying it is a problem given one religion is true... then all who believed otherwise would have a problem.
Winchester1979 meh, I'll just continue praying to FSM.
after all, It's not as if God would punish you in a lake of fire for the rest of eternity just because you did not believed in his crazy book, right ?
Winchester1979 Imagine we had 4200 different "Laws" of gravity. It would be madness. Yet in the spiritual world people seem to ignore disagreements quite liberaly. If you can discuss your beleives then there must be something wrong with your justifications.
Interesting point, but yet I think that it's more of a play of words. This video can justify the belief in god on a personal level, but can't justify the actions many religious people do. And also can't explain the necessity of god in the first place.
This video is not trying to do the things you are asking of it. And I rather doubt that the video's creator would want to defend the actions many religious people do. But it is definitely talking about more than a play on words (See Simmo's comment above).
Faith in God is part of the hard evidence of God's existence because it's impossible to believe in God without God's provision of that faith. The evidence of this is found both in believers and non-believers of God.
How about someone that believes that god exists but doesn't believe in god?
Interestingly enough, the Bible speaks of demons believing that God exists... (James 2:19). But according to the Biblical storyline one can't say that they believe in God; they are said to follow their lord, satan.
Equally, someone could have a certain conviction that God is real, but still not care about Him enough to bow their knee... So, now how about such a person? They exist. Even in churches.
+Sagefox, Certainly that exists. In fact it's a surprisingly common phenomenon, particularly among those transitioning away from religion. People will often spend a time believing in a capricious, impotent, or even malicious God before they entirely leave behind their belief in the existence of that particular god.
.....And of course i'll have to comment on this ... I have the impression that God exist, but that do not mean that I believe in God, because I have learned the hard way to not believe in everything I hear. However, despite God seeming to be frequently be uncaring, I do tend to have Faith in God(or trust God, in other words). Do notice, that I neither equal "belief" with knowledge nor faith/trust. Nor do I see Faith as Blind faith, it requires true experience of that something improved, if only a little.
Faith in my partner, driving on I95, or flying in an airplane, have far better epistemic support than a supernatural deity. The concepts of a supernatural god and the other concepts I mentioned, occupy very different categories and equating them is foolish. These are not like the other.
With such faith and predictability in material objects like cars and planes how are they subject to immaterial laws that follow abstract mathematical equations ? !) Do u think such laws were invented or discovered? 2) without an immaterial cause, would u like to maintain such immutable, metaphysical concepts created themselves? Hawking said *"because there is a law such as gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing."* Such is the realm of fantasy that some atheists need to embrace to commit to the philosophy of Scientific naturalism.
@@truthsayer6414 How do people assert something can come out of nothing and how do they make it a coherent logic
@@idrismasumi9582 both naturalism and theists have account for the finitude of past time and why there is something rather than nothing. It's a religiously neutral scientific discovery. Hawking wants you to believe that "a law such as gravity created the universe out of nothing". This is how atheists explain something from nothing. 10th grade science however, taught us that gravity only exists when two masses exist. So how does an abstract law stand in causal relationships with matter and energy?
Only within theism do we have a cause that is necessarily timeless, spaceless and immaterial. So do u think a finite rationally-intelligible, abstract law-abiding, life-supporting universe needs a rationally intelligent cause?
The ending had a reference to Animal Farm. About the pig: "Indistinguishable from a person sometimes"
But what does it mean that you used reason to make this distinction?
I don't see how the examples used in this video are applicable to the topic. Boarding a vehicle and understanding there are risks involved is not really a commitment of faith, given the common usage of the word. I don't drive a car with "faith" that I will not get into an accident, I'm pretty aware of the risks but deem them negligible. According to this argument however, this is somehow acting on faith.
If you believe something to be true, yet lack evidence to back it up, that is faith. This usage is not compatible with the examples provided.
If we swap "faith" with "confidence", then all we've done is change definitions to make the conversation pretty meaningless.
If someone told me, "I have confidence that god exists" my response would be, "I don't care." because confidence doesn't necessarily imply reasoning or evidence of any sort. You can be confident for terrible reasons, or no apparent reason at all.
Ah jeesh. A few minutes of research shows that this guy is a Christian, and is here using classic equivocation to shoehorn a belief system in as being reasonable. Come on WP!
Well the Greek word in the Bible "pistis" is translated to faith in the ESV.
-conviction of the truth of anything. In the NT, it's in regards to the belief of man's relationship with God and divine things.
If your definition of faith is, a belief not based on reason. Then yea there's a problem.
Great video and discussion, but it would great to also address the most common form of the reason vs faith polemic. That takes one of these forms: 1. Calling on faith to justify a belief or action in spite of evidence to the contrary, whereas the claim is falsifiable and reason would have shown it to be false. 2. Calling on faith to justify a belief or action in spite of a lack of sufficient evidence, like say below 50% probability of confidence in the claim, whereas reason indicates that due to such lack of confidence the said action should not be undertaken.
I've got some thoughts on the "below 50%" idea. In my opinion, we never just weigh the percentage chance of something being true in order to pursue it. Among other things, we chiefly weigh the cost/benefit of following something. For instance, if I'm in a company that has a 15% chance of getting bought out by Google and making me fifty million dollars, I'm going to stick with that company despite the fact that it is more likely that will not happen. Furthermore, the alternative is not that bad. I need a job anyway, I like what I do there, and I don't have enough information on other startups to know whether or not their chances are better. Perhaps there are better examples, but this is off the top of my head.
this video very wrong in most claims.
you cannot use the car analogy (because you actually know a car exists) its more like a are you going to commit to not grabbing a cab because you belive you are going to teletransport to a certain place.
theres more wrong thinking in this video, i guess the best one is the marrige and its kind of wrong to.
This could be the best video I've watched on CZcams in years... I have to watch more of this
😍 😍 Indeed
You can only be absolutely sure of your that consciousness exist. For everything else there is a certain level of faith.
I'm not at sur I understand the example given at there video regarding why one ought commit themselves. why wouldn't someone commit themselves relative the proportion of evidence that they would make a good partner?
Using assertions of probability is the opposite of certainty, probability statements have no grounding or standard to appeal to its justisification, therefore it's just an opinion that you make based on past experience, if I were to say "it is not probable that God created the universe," how did I form that conclusion, is there something that I am comparing that statement to to be able to justify that claim of mine?
"So there are classes of beliefs that seem to be foundational and others that build on foundational beliefs. " Right. That is what call "Foundationalism". In one case, some of our beliefs are justified on the basis of our other beliefs. In such cases, our belief is justified in virtue of, or because of, certain other things we believe. What the critics say, In that case, we have a problem with infinit reasoning. If, a belief A, is built on a belief in B, which in turn have to have justification in belief C.... and so on, then there is no end of justification, and it may go on forever.
Some philosophers would say ‘‘no.’’ They hold that some beliefs are justified basic beliefs. A
justified basic belief has some degree of justification that is independent of the justification, if any it gets from other beliefs. Then you have come to the bedrock. There is no other justification needed than the basic belief self which justify a belief.
the only reason making the decision to get into the car or plane is reasonable is because of the knowledge that we can weigh the dangers through using empirical odds: 8000/1 die in road accidents (2/5ths of deaths included are pedestrians) and 11000000/1 plane accidents. The problem with comparing these decisions with the decision of whether god exists or not, is that god is a supernatural claim, which by definition evades reason by claiming that god is outside of the laws of nature (or just as bad 'god is nature'), in other words, the claim was made untestable so it could never be solvable by reason, and most importantly, it is protected from the possibility of being disproven. A theory that can not be tested and can not make predictions otherwise unattainable, can not be called a theory, it is a guess. Faith is essential to the perpetuation of this guess and the claim that god is supernatural is vital to separate the idea from logic, and thus from reason. the claim that your car probably won't break down on the trip isn't an extraordinary one.. it is most likely that most peoples cars won't break down along the way, but the claim that anything supernatural exists is a huge claim. You'd assume for this huge claim to be believed, the believer would demand a huge amount of evidence, but no, blind belief is seen as a virtue in all religions. Why? because it's the only way anyone would believe it.
So by which of these standards do you believe that god exist? There sure as hell does not appear to be any evidence to back up his existence so I don't see how you can believe THAT god exist. But you seem to have been arguing that the detractors of the Christian faith are misapplying the term when we understand it to mean believe IN god.
Years ago I generally stopped using "I believe" and switched to "I think". And there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any god; so I find I don't need either "I believe" or "I have faith" for anything.
^Sigh...another person who hasn't taken a basic epistemology course
Rene Descartes
Guilty as charged. My degrees are mostly in the sciences.
Well the natural sciences are predicated on philosophical principles. Nice try though
Rene Descartes Care to explain your sigh, and assumption about philosophy courses?
Rene Descartes
While there may not be much difference between "believe" and "think" in one sense, the usage of these terms by the public is different. "Think" implies... thinking, reasoning. "Believe" implies wanting.
Wow, less than certain is putting it generously. Considering that there is no evidence at all. A better analogy would be "jumping off a cliff because a blind man told you that there is something at the bottom that will break your fall."
Or if you really believe you will just float there. Isn't there a story about a dude floating on something that usually doesn't support the weight of a human because he believes real hard?
I disagree with a certain part of what you said. At 3:57, "I believe that God exists and somehow I make God an important part of my life....Reason applies mostly to one [of these sentences]" (the first one)
Surely, this is wrong? Reason applies to both. You need evidence to believe that God exists AND you need evidence that you should worship him / her / it.
It seems to me like, if a God did exist, then it would entail that you should worship him / her / it, which isn't the case. Just because a God exists, doesn't mean that you should worship it.
Also your analogy doesn't explain why believers say they believe 100%. People driving in cars do not claim they believe with 100% certainty that they will arrive at the destination without crashing.
Also you say somethings you either do it, or not do it. Either drive a car, or not drive a car. And either worship God or not worship God. But I don't agree with the second part. If you were convinced 100% God existed, surely you would devote 100% of your life to him / her / it? Or certainly all the time you could do. Which would mean becoming a priest, a monk, a nun, a shaman, a holy man. Whereas if you had 50% belief God existed, you would dedicate 50% of your life? Or some factor of how much time you could give.
Do you agree? Or am I missing the point of the analogy?
This was eight years ago but I will reply. Believing in God creates a 100% relationship. Its not part time. Every action you take is within this relationship.
I reject faith of any kind. I don't have "faith" that my car will start next time I go to drive. I _trust_ that it will. What is the difference between faith and trust? Imagine you are being guided through a beautiful jungle. You and your guide come upon a rickety rope bridge across a deep chasm. Your guide says "Cross, it's safe." The difference between faith and trust lies in which side he's saying that from.
100% commited to getting in my car? Don't I have a spare parts and an insurance etc. I'm damn well prepared for my car to break down.
Seems like you're missing the point. For the car to break down, you must have first gotten in and driven it. Insurance or not.
And if it breaks down I take out my cellphone and call the mechanic. I got in the car. Is that 100% commitment? But I payed the insurance, that then surely is 100% commitment to the car breaking down. That's just stupid.
Let me make your argument for you:
(I) If you go on a plane, you have to commit (your life) 100% to the whole system that makes plane fly from A to B.
(II) Sometimes people still die from planecrashes.
?(C) Going on a plane is unreasonable?/ Is based on faith?
Is that right?
My objection would be that beleif doesn't equal commitment. I can commit 100% to something I know might not be true. That's the only way you're getting past the "problem of scepticism".
"What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?" - If some one asked you this threatening to kill you. Would you need to beleive that the coin's going to land heads 100% to call heads? No. You could hope, guess or just take your chances. I'd certanly not call that faith.
You can't have spare body or insurance for not getting killed in a car accident
5:39 No. If I had 100% faith in this drive, I'd keep driving even if I was having a stroke or if a blizzard hit. Faith is, in this respect, a form of insanity divorced from reason.
AWESOME
I have to disagree with the way this speaker is defining "believe in". If I say, "I believe in the Loch Ness monster", I am saying nothing more than if I say, "I believe that the Loch Ness monster is real." It does NOT have to imply that it is in any way important to me or my life.
It CAN mean something different from "I believe that", but it doesn't necessarily. "Son, I know you have had your confidence shaken recently, and you are feeling doubt about the big race today, but I believe in you."
I think the problem is "believe in" itself can have multiple connotations.
This is a bit of a semantic argument that is specific to the English language. Apart from that, the position to believe in God becomes less reasonable when such a position also requires holding such a position without evidence and even by rejecting evidence to the contrary, as Christianity specifically does (John 20:29). Rejecting all evidence for evolution because a belief in God is dependent on the Bible being taken as the literal word of God is irrational, and these sorts of conflicts are where reason and religion break down.
What this guy is trying to explain: Assumptions on the base of evidence is something different than blind faith or the believe in something without good reasons.
+Funnysterste thanks for your comment I now understand a little better why so many of those who one might label with the guise of the "new atheism" make so many bad arguments and otherwise reason so poorly. Apparently even when given the chance to become a little more philosophical astute it is resisted. It is really a bizarre commitment to irrationality, not unlike one sees among Fundamentals Christians. It actually an act of willful ignorance that is just crazy to witness. It is really kind of funny even, except that such people are also so obnoxious in their certainty and abuse of reason.
***** Do you understand, that your comment does not contain one single argument but only a series of accusations? All you are doing is to claim, that "your opponents" cant reason, are irrational and even ignorant. Couldnt I use exactly what you wrote and address it towards you and having proven not a slightest thing? You are calling others idiots in a seemingly creative way. Why shouldnt you just be called back an idiot?
***** Are you now ignorant on purpose? (Maybe I have gotten you wrong, because my first language is not english, but arent you calling the "new atheists" irrational and ignorant?)
+Funnysterste huh, why would you expect that a comment thanking you for an insight should or would contain any arguments?
Funnysterste yes it is my opinion that the new atheists are irrational. As I've put it elsewhere they seem driven by a practically pathological emotionalism. I also believe that my opinion on this matter is well supported, but I have no interest in arguing this with you.
You may characterize my additional comments as accusations, however from my perspective I was attempting to provide a context for my appreciation.
If you happen to disagree with me I would certainly find your own opinions on the matter inexplicable, and to be frank I would likely just dismiss them as a product of your bias; but I either way, again, it was not my intention argue the point with you.
You are certainly free to regard mine likewise.
What if someone believes God both does and doesn't exist? i.e. God transcends duality
Then that person logically contradicts themselves, as even if God transcends duality, you do not.
All the evidences that we require to believe in something are based on our previous experiences and aim to predict something that we can verify. When we leave NH to NY, we base our faith on the records of accidents on the route 95 and when arrive in NY, we can verify if we suffered an accident or not. But when we have faith in the existence of God there is not previous experience nor anything that we can predict to confirm or not our faith. That's why having faith in God is opposed to reason and having faith that we can get to NY from NH is reasonable.
A plane may crash, but i know a plane can transport me to another place. Sitting on a "magic carpet" and having faith, does absolutely nothing.
thats because many have been deceived. God does exist. its a spiritual connection many fail to understand that. we are living souls and we need connection with our creator. that connection is with Jesus. One needs to be humble and open minded. there's literally no other way than through Christ. its not about seeing, but having faith and I was shown that there is a God. Also, the faith of being in a plane crashing down and then being transported is exactly what is wrong with people who teach prosperity and wrong faith and such when Jesus taught about suffering and being persecuted by many because they hated him first. Its a lack of knowledge and lack of spiritual connection, and that is what leads others to question God when they see themselves not getting what they want
@@KingJonathanThe1st How do you know all this?
@@Funnysterste because all our problems are internal. it is Sin thats makes the spirit sick. With a loving connection with God and a trust in him, he goes to the root of our soul and cleanses us. That is the answer. we can search and search and search, the problem lies inside of us. One must develop a relationship with Christ. He changes the heart. I chose to believe and have faith. Seeing does nothing, it is believing and when you feel the change, you begin to truly see with your spiritual eye, the lies and deception of this world.
@@KingJonathanThe1st Who are God and Jesus and how do you know?
@@Funnysterste How are we created then? Theres a creator. We are fully aware that we Sin and the detriments of sin. we are aware of our morality. why do we sin? why has sin caused so much chaos in the world? why were we created that way? When we were young, why did our parents chastise us? or why didn't our parents chastise us so that we did not fall in the traps of the world? Thats because We need connection with our creator, so we know which way and which way not to go. Our creator is our father. You dont know by actually seeing, you know by believing. If you devote your life by wanting to see, you will never find it. its inside you. When believing produces many Good fruits, you know you've found the answer. Theres no other way.
I think god description being "OOO" is not sufficient. He should have more features to be a "GOD"
Faith is merely assumption, and contradicts reason.
Theists use sophistry to hide the truth behind their unwarranted convictions.
If two people use the same method and arrive at contradictory conclusion, the method is flawed.
P1. Assumes God exists.
P2. Assumes God does not exist.
Very good.
Marraige is based on the present fact and evidence of common emotional compatibility i.e Love, extrapolated into the future, in which the future is just a concept. In which case we say I Do which actually means, I can Live with that. Comparing the 'reasoning' of using an aeroplane or a trip via a motor vehicle is based on probability factors with reasonable proven factual outcomes i.e arriving at your destination . The earoplane and vehicle are real and tangible. Hence the thousands of trips and flight's undertaken every hour world wide. The argument are incompatible for a supernatural agent and are just religious 'feelings' that can be experienced by secularists too.
Excellent point. But this got me thinking about Atheism. Does an atheist believe THAT god doesn't exist? Or does she believe IN the non existence of god? Is atheism commited to the idea that there is no god? I think the suggestion that it is, is a clear case of projection on the part of theists who have't seen this video.
Faith and reason are in conflict in every way. Faith literally means to believe without reasons. The video seems to be saying that somehow 'trust' and 'confidence' are different than belief that. But the are not different in the respect of reasonableness. I actually take exception to the whole video. Point being: You could just as easily say 'I believe that god is trustworthy'. That may be exactly what you are saying. The video is drawing vague grammar/semantic distinctions that are not essentially informative to the discussion of Faith vs Reason. It is just as unreasonable to trust in god as it is to believe in god. The video seemed to be illustrating some other things that are not really relevant to the 'core' point.
"Faith literally means to believe without reasons." Well, maybe it does for you but that is a terrible definition. If I thought that was what faith was I would reject it too. But that isn't what faith is, at least certainly not the faith of historic Christianity or the Bible.
By fearing whom I trust I find my way To Truth; by trusting wholly I betray The trust of wisdom; better far is doubt Which brings the false into the light of day.
Or wilt thou commerce have with those make
Rugs of the rainbows, rainbows of the snake, Snakes of a staff, and other wonderous things
The burning thirst a mirage can not slake.
Al-ma'rri Philosopher
God, I love you very much.
I don't think people who believe in god assess whether or not it is a good idea to commit to god. They just commit.
Indeed because the almighty God gave us the 10 commandments, we have to obey Him.
@@Shindler39 i do obey god but in a reasonable way.
@@aymin1750 Can you explain your reasoning?
A positive psychology / thinking requires faith... "...have faith; that your faith be steadfast as a rock that no storms can move, that nothing can disturb, and that it endure through all things even to the end. As ye have faith so shall your powers and blessings be. This is the balance, this is the balance, this is the balance." ~ Baha'i Faith
Wo. I'm saving this one
Except that anyone can demonstrate that both cars and planes exist. Further, cars and planes are necessary for their respective modes of transport. God is yet to be demonstrated with anything approaching the same level of confidence I have in my car.
The fact that you can living care free in this planet without any worry is an ampliative arguement for God bro.
There s also a valid deductive arguement too for God existence ... if you just honest seek it.
8:05
Unrelated: can I be the wingman for that hippo and pig?🥹
This analogy would be apt if you replaced NYC with Narnia. Also, if you didn't try to drive or fly but rather believed someone that told you Narnia existed and then told you they could get you there if you would put on a blindfold and lay down in and then be sealed inside a shipping container. It's a lot more like that.
I don't think that this video quite hits the point. When religious people say that they have faith in god/religion, they are often arguing that their belief is not based on reason at all, but on something different.
Moreover, the car/airplane analogy is exaggerated. You may have a car crash today, but it is very unlikely. Moreover, it is objectively true that you have a very high chance of reaching your destination. With religion this is not the case. Religious faith is not betting on a probability, but a case of making reason itself irrelevant.
Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. Bertrand Russell
If god exist then i am and we are not needed but if god does not exist then we need god to exist...in order word we need to stop bad action and aim for higher more worthy goald
You r wrong. We have to believe when we try to solve the math science etc with the help of believe suppose. So have to believe to solve real problem to solve them
One simple fact rips this videos message apart: you don't have to be 100% faithful or not, for example, if I pray to god every single night, clearly I have faith, but I also clearly don't have *as much* faith as some one who doesn't bring their kid to the hospital because "god will heal them" And if god is not a binary, then you can still argue that some ones level of faith =/= level of evidence
I disagree. It is a much more popular idea in America that faith and reason can co-exist and indeed are logically connected. The beauty of faith is that despite the fact that it is unlikely that God does exist, the fact that he would not exist has zero consequences to the believer. So there is no risk in falsely believing God exists, contrary to the risk of driving to NYC. For driving to NYC one would not choose to do so light-heartedly - say for pizza -, if the risk of not making it safely were too high. Only because we believe - and the word assume might be more accurate altogether - that we will make it in good health, do we commit to driving down.
If we had reasons to assume that we might die, pizza would not provide sufficient reason to get us into the car.
Contrarily faith brings zero risk to the believer in being wrong, which is why acting against one’s own appropriate rational evaluation/assumptions - which suggest God not to exist -, it is so attractive to claim to assume God to exist. Faith provides risk free freebies, how could anybody resist?
I agree with E. Brown's comment (below, somewhere): The car analogy is not as good as he thinks it is. It's simply not true that if one believes in god, one is 100% committed to that belief. And I think that is mostly a good thing for the rest of us.True, there are chr1stians who would never miss church, but will knowingly sell you a car with a bad transmission. This is nasty, but not as bad as when a believer acts with 100% conviction. That kind of devotion makes people behead anyone who doesn't have the same mind virus they do; or put their women in bags; or insist they have the right to rule non-believers.The truth is, his binary "must get in the car 100% or NOT get in the car 100%" is an oversimplification.
Universal constant
God is "something" which is 'absolute' and 'perfect'.
We understand the concept of 'absolute' from our understanding of the concept 'relative' which we observe everyday in our daily life. We never seen the 'absolute', yet we see the 'relative' everywhere.
The same goes with the concept of 'perfect' , which derived from our understanding of the concept 'imperfection' . We never seen anything 'perfect', yet we see 'imperfection' everywhere.
Something which is 'relative' and 'imperfect' must be derived from something which is 'absolute' and 'perfect'.
Now remove 'the image' God from our imagination and replace it with this "something" which is 'absolute and 'perfect'
If perfection exists and all imperfections are derivative of that perfection, does that mean the imperfections will eventually have to reunite with the beginning perfection?
Way to conflate the 2 definitions of faith. Yes one is trust. The other is a belief held without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. The later is the one often implied to be in these reason vs faith debates as it is in direct opposition to reason.
If you place your [trust] in God when there is a 1/1000^10,000 chance that a god might exist then it flies directly against reason. Why? Because the odds are clearly against you, overwhelmingly so. But that is faith. The denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
Yep. When they are denying reality in favor of their fiery godfather, they are almost ALWAYS using at least 7 logical fallacies.
-Argument from Ignorance
-Argument from (personal) incredulity
-Special pleading
-Begging the question
-God of the gaps
-Shifting the burden of proof
-Circular reasoning
If you dare to question them on any one of these fallacies, or the validity of their arguments they respond with a Red Herring, or a Ad Hominem fallacy.
You have given no evidence that your probability of God existing is correct: you've merely asserted it.
Wow... What a stretch. You are trying to compare taking a calculated risk to attain a desired result, like car/plane crashes to faith. How on earth are these things even remotely related to each other?! Do you think that cute illustrations while you speak will make it somehow more believable? There was not a single point made here. This is just another attempt to justify your belief in something that hasn't a single shred of proof to support it.
What about being a believer in God despite the fact that the evidence to believe otherwise is close to certain if not certain?
What evidence is there that anything or anyone does NOT exist? What does that look like?
Sounds like you are ignoring the contrary evidence. Is that an accurate assessment?
Ammon Nelson
There are two problems inherent in your question.
First, the proper general question is not whether any particular thing exists. Instead, the question is whether we should behave as though such a thing exists, despite the lack of reason (evidence) to do so. The answer is of course no (and even if such behavior is desirable, the answer is STILL no, because you can skip the god part and get to the good result without it).
Second, we're not just talking about generalities. There are specific things which have been claimed to exist. It is not necessary to prove that the entire class (anything) doesn't exist. We only have to show that each candidate doesn't exist, and that's pretty easy for the popular deities.
Ammon Nelson for example if you define a God which is omnipotent. It cannot exist. This sort of God is logically incoherent. Ie Yahweh as described by the old testament cannot exist.
Sean Davison First of all, thank you for the respectful tone of your comment. It's rare on CZcams comments, so I appreciate it.
That claim (an omnipotent God is logically incoherent) depends on the assumption that we agree on the definition of omnipotence. We likely don't, based on your conclusion. I see a difference between the concepts of "all powerful" and "can do anything." The difference is subtle, but important. I don't believe that God "can do anything" - for example, I don't believe he can support a logical contradiction. However, I do believe he is all powerful - if there is something to accomplish that serves his purposes and fulfills his work, he can accomplish it. "le Yahweh of the Old Testament", using that definition of omnipotence, is logically coherent. That whole "He can't create an object which he is not able to lift." doesn't prove he doesn't exist, it merely proves he can't support a logical contradiction. Existence does not depend on the ability to support a logical contradiction.
FYI for anybody expecting a response from me. I won't be baited by taunts or insults. If you obfuscate, use insults or condescension, or ask questions that imply my intelligence is less than average, you will not get a response from me. Of course you are free to make those types of comments if you wish; thereby demonstrating your own intellectual depth - after all, it's still a freedom based internet despite attempts by some governments; but I will ignore such comments and questions. Intelligent and respectful disagreement is always welcome, however, and I will respond as my time and priorities permit - assuming, of course, a response is desired.
Sadly any belief is based in the scientific process. Because our brains work by the scientific process. The problem is some people have not been taught how to check the process to make sure errors have not crept into it. Peer review is a great method to make sure your scientific process is correct but most people never listen to a peer review of their beliefs.
"Because our brains work by the scientific process."
I assure you, they do not. This is why it is easy to convict a person in the "court of public opinion" but not so easy to do it in a court of law, where the jury is required to listen to and weigh both sides.
Our brains most certainly do not work by the scientific process. Our brains work through pattern recognition. If the scientific process was the default methodology for thought we would have far more accomplishments under our belt as a species.
First part of science. "pattern" recognition. Observation of an event. This happens as soon as we are born and are exposed to the same stimuli repeatedly. The brain makes the hypothesis that this happens when it cries, it tests and confirms that hypothesis. Just because the baby does not consciously do this doesn't mean anything. The problem comes when the subconscious conclusions are translated into conscious beliefs. For instance, my parents took care of me, thus they are trustworthy, they are trustworthy and answer all my questions which seem to be correct answers thus they must know everything. I bet you both can remember when in your life you realized your parents did not know everything, or even most things. When it comes to stuff like court, people are taking beliefs they have developed based on a lifetime of scientific reasoning, and they are confronted with knowledge they do not have and lawyers trying to play off their faulty beliefs to steer them to a wrong conclusion. The problem is so few people are actually trained in the scientific method, they have no way to analyze the scientific method their brain used to come up with a conclusion and whether that conclusion is correct.
I was along for the ride until the I95 analogy. There's absolutely no 'reason' to suppose that religious beliefs MUST be either 0% or 100%. You can raise other analogies as much as you want (airplanes/marriage/etc) but you need to first justify why religious beliefs MUST be either 0% or 100% beyond simply saying you think that's just the way they are. Also, I'd suggest that in every one of those analogies you don't address the fact that although physically you may need to either DO it or not, most people would get married or ride an airplane with at least a few worries or fears or nervousness about whether they are doing the right thing/they will be safe. This suggests that although some actions seem to be binary in nature, the emotions and personal beliefs regarding them are certainly not necessarily so. Nice try though...
The idea is there are 3 states. Belief, suspension of judgement, and disbelief in some propositions x. You can believe, and have doubt. There's the "God exists" part, which can have the 3 prepositional attitudes discussed earlier. But then, there's "I believe IN God." Which has a lot of other baggage. Some people say they believe in god, but they don't really. They were just raised to say that, but never really reflect on their beliefs, or practice faith, etc.
Similar to the recycling analogy, belief in god requires action. If God is a big part of your life, you act in accordance with their ideals, pray to them, and give them time and attention (I'm using "them" because it's considered an appropriate way to refer to gender non-binary persons, but this works if you're polytheistic or Hindu which is technically monotheistic... I'm not getting into that). When it comes to commitment in belief (i.e. belief in your car's reliability, belief in your partner, belief in the Constitution), if you don't have enough belief in these things, you won't act accordingly, meaning you don't really believe in them. The same is said for God.
This is wrong on so many levels.
(1) Religious people often use "I believe in God" to (also) say that they 100% believe that God exists, so the irrationality holds.
(2) Religious people often appeal to irrational "ways of knowing", such as Faith, instead of rationality to justify their belief in god, hence again the irrationality charge sticks.
(3) Believing IN god, in the sense discussed in the video, is not disconnected from reason. If you caught your husband cheating on you a dozen time, saying "I have faith in him, faith that he is not cheating on me" is irrational. Given the Problem of Evil, and other atheistic arguments, believing IN god is also irrational.
(4) This is doubly so as, again, people use irrational reasons to believe IN god, e.g. equating God's actions in the Bible with Good rather than judging them based on "human standards".
I believe IN God, presupposes, I believe THAT God. Claim 1 is reliant on claim 2 being true. Since that cannot be proven, you can not associate reason with your argument without first proving Claim 2 correct. No one has ever done so. You may not hijack reason in such a way, it does not belong to you, unless you earn it.
+Michael Orlinsky Especially if you would like to affect the world which I live in by promoting your religious ideals on to politics. I'm not saying that you do, but by selling this convoluted framework, you are strongly supporting those who do.
Prove to me rationally, that your responses are not a very complex computer program responding to my comments - prove to me that you exist as an individual, and not some elaborate collection of individuals coming up with responses, posing as an individual making posts on CZcams.
Very good chain of logic to discuss a non-logical thing!
No no no. The argument is *inasmuch as* you do have faith, you are being irrational. And *inasmuch as* you are being rational, you have no faith.
Both forks of the "believe in God track" are subject to rational analysis. It's not too difficult to show there simply is no rational reason to believe God exists to any degree of certainty approaching >50%. And I think their trust in God can also be shown to be irrational unless their God actually exists.
Everyone is religious.
Do I BELIEVE that George Washington existed or do I KNOW that he existed? Do I BELIEVE he was a good president or do I BELIEVE he was a good president? Do I Believe in God or do
There have been millions of people who completed that distance with no problem - proved its possibility and probability - but there hasn't been a single one who proved god.
And you have disproven God?
exceland
But the chance of god being real is far far far off from 100%. This analogy collapses under the slightest examination.
WOAH!!!
Semantics. People belief THAT God exists.
My commitment to God is 47%
How did you measure that?
when you have any evidence that god exists, let me know. nobody has presented me with any yet.
I am an atheist and probably the only reasonable person I have heard who says God exists and gives some reasonable claims is Dr William Lane Craig but even him it's just philosophical arguments and not evidences but still worth the time hearing it for a different perspective rather than the normal religious take... I suggest you hear some of his debates if you haven't already
Sacred geometry
Randy Osgood you are sating that confirmation bias is necessary, which makes it unreasonable. accirding to 1 peter 3 15 yoyr job is not just to inform, nor have you informed us of anything.
Edward Feser "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" is the clearest explanation of the contemporary evidence. William Lane Craig makes some good points, but it isn't cutting edge stuff anymore (it may have been back in 2006, but not anymore).
Michael Nelson wlc is an idiot, there is no proof in there, not even evidence, just some assertions and logical falllacies.
Sorry, but who says reason has to be 100% certain?. Reason just asks that the claim be reasonable. This is touching more on pragmatism. it's pragmatic for me to drive a car or take a plane despite the small chance of it crashing, why?, because it's pragmatic. It doesn't have to be 100%. Faith in and of itself is defined as a suspension of reason in favor of complete belief with is not very reasonable.
But how? You know who David Hume is?
The analogy of I95, marriage n "faith in god" is problematic. Evidence of god is problematic. The problem is not "requiring 100% certainty of evidence", the problem is "strength n reliability" of the evidence.
*Will* The evidence is not problematic, it is just passed over, written off or simply deemed "not good enough" by those who refuse to accept. No different than in a courtroom when e/one sees the same evidences/proofs, yet some weigh in differently on how the verdict should be. It's one thing to say there is *NO* evidence, and another to say the evidence is not adequate to persuade me.
I have listened to a lot of religious apologists over the years. Their arguments invariably devolve to the supernatural and faith. That is not good evidence. That is believing in the absence of evidence afterall.
@@willsims6748
*1* "Devolve"? You've already written off evidence you've seen & believe your findings trump e/thing else.
*2* You, by *FAITH* have elected to *BELIEVE* in s/thing that has framed your worldview.
*3* The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The analogy doesn't work. It is flawed. When i commit to driving to New York I may not have a 100% justification in believing i will get there but I do have a100% belief that, at that time of departure, New York does actually exist. Not so with destination sky daddy. The better analogy would be- I'm getting in my car to drive to Atlantis. Then the absurdity of the notion reveals itself in far more clarity.
you know what metaphysics is?
Dude, you just make an absurd analogy.
Fascinating.
He somewhat glossed over an important distinction. When you get in your car to make a road trip, you can say, with the support of unambiguous data, that you have a 99.x% chance of arriving at your location safely, and a YY% chance of arriving on time. And you are making your decision based on those. You're not assuming that because 99.x% and YY% are kinda close to 100% that they ARE 100%. You're merely saying that they're high enough to make it worth committing and getting in the car.
With the belief in god example, he said explicitly that people who have whatever REAL justification to believe that their god exists (Let's call thix ZZ%) will SAY that they have 100% confidence that their god exists. And they are either epistemologically really far off, or simply dishonest, or both. This is very different from how we evaluate the car example.
Further, people DO NOT commit to the idea of the existence of their god at the 100% level. It's not like the binary decision to get in the car or to NOT get in the car. People will SAY they are 100% committed, yet not DO obvious things, like reading whatever holy books, or obeying the edicts therein.
In conclusion, people don't have supporting evidence for their belief in god, they assert to have 100% confidence in their god's existence and they often claim they have 100% infallible evidence for their belief, yet they don't commit to it at any noticeable level.
To me, it appears mostly as a social in-group identification exercise, where in order to be in the group, you must identify yourself as being in the group, assert that you have 100% certainty that you're in the group, and then do some of the actions associated with being in the group. And thus you've established yourself as a trustworthy member of the group. And after enough of this, the brain starts to somewhat believe all the stuff you've been professing in order to avoid being an outcast.
You can have a logical cause. You know what rationalism is?