I am a theistic prover because believing on faith is WRONG, as Douglas Krueger has shown in his book What is Atheism? A Short Introduction
Faith, in effect, is an unreliable method for selecting beliefs, because we know that this method does fail in most cases. And how do we know it? Because there are faiths in many religions, but only one religion can be true (or none). Regardless of what is the true faith, it is a fact that most faiths are false, and that if we arrive at true by mere faith, it would be nothing more than much luck.
Relying on faith to know what is true would be quite similar to relying on a stopped clock to know what time it is.
The Christian holds that faith is false regarding other religions, but when it comes to his religions, he makes an arbitrary exception.
Faith, in effect, is an unreliable method for selecting beliefs, because we know that this method does fail in most cases.
Beliefs are never “selected”. The process by which one comes to believe is beyond rational description, if description is meant to include objective justification.
There is sometimes a process of belief selection, when many competing religions are known and want us to believe in them.
In such cases, the degree to which one believes is not selected. You may select to put yourself in an environment where it is likely that certain beliefs may arise, but you may not “select” to believe.
Anyway, what matters in my point is that faith is a poor guide to truth.
Anyway, what matters in my point is that you are operating under the illusion that rationality rests upon rationality. Faith in the coherence of somatic states is what governs all beliefs. This “faith” is the only guide to truth that we have.
i dont have to have faith in somatic coherence, because i observe its effects directly, and make no assumptions as to its origin.
my knowledge does not rest on a foundation that i accept on ‘faith’.
if belief is beyond rational description, how come it follows such predictable patterns?
Lots of theists can mark the point at which they became theists, and some can give reasons. How is this not a rational description?
The quoted sentence has attracted my attention, actually. So I’d like to add a comment if you don’t mind:
If you are talking about this “what is true” regarding mathematics and physics, then yes I agree with you that faith will not help us to perform numerical simulation for optimization the amount of CO2 emission due to Oil compustion! On the other hand, I disagree with you, if you are talking about how faith and religions have affected our social aspects in this life including ethics, morality, and personal relations.
i dont have to have faith in somatic coherence, because i observe its effects directly, and make no assumptions as to its origin.
This of course can just as easily describe a theists experience of “God” in their life.
my knowledge does not rest on a foundation that i accept on ‘faith’.
Your knowledge certainly does not rest on rationality, for rationality has no rational foundation.
if belief is beyond rational description, how come it follows such predictable patterns?
Patterned prediction does not mean “reducible to”. “Beyond” is meant to indicate, “not reducible to”.
Lots of theists can mark the point at which they became theists, and some can give reasons. How is this not a rational description?
These reasons are simply reconstructions of events, something everyone does to narrate their lives. The “decision events” are not reducible to such descriptions. In fact no “decision” can be shown to be reducible to any particular description. You can rationally describe anything you like, that is make it fit into your world view and dominant vocabularies. It still is just a description.
Do you dare imply that philosophers’ atheism is as groundless as blind faith?
I am not implying, I am stating that blind philosopher’s athiesm is as groundless as blind faith, if blind means, “not seeing things as they actually and objectively are”. Each are subjective interpreations of somatic coherences as mediated by cultural and linguistic practices.
I know that this might be a shock to you who it seems likes to see him/herself as superior in your “version of the world” to others. But they are equally grounded.
Anything of mind is a construct. Any part of such a construct that has a 1:1 relationship to objective reality is first, more likely an accident than purposeful, and second, can only be seen through the construct itself.
All said and done. all you have is faith - faith that your particular constructs, no matter how complex and elegant, match with objective reality as close as possible.
It’s all illusion, Sam. Pick the illusion you like best, but you’d better have faith…
Any part of such a construct that has a 1:1 relationship to objective reality is first
I would tend to agree in spirit, but I will say that the very idea of an “1:1 relationship to objective reality” is problematic at several conceptual levels. I believe I know what you are trying to say, but there is no “objective reality” state for which things to “correspond”, except in the most posited and mythological of senses.
You may provide any sort of construct you like. It may have the greatest of internal consistency, and any and all of the contents of that construct are subject to debate and logical proofs, but the foundation of all contained within the construct is grounded in faith. Your ‘belief’ in the correctness of any construct is of duality, and has no connection to objective reality.
There are faiths which are less rational than others.
I have no idea what you mean by “rational”. Do you mean that they fit into your worldview and vocabularies, and attempt to bring about the same aims as you do? Rationalization is a cultural practice.
Either you are rational or you are irrational: if you are irrational, I won’t listen to you. If you are rational, so teach us how to get out of the hole and to become rational.
Either you are rational or you are irrational: if you are irrational, I won’t listen to you.
All you are saying is that you only listen to people who make enough sense to you that the differences between you may prove instructive. This does not mean that those that fail this threshold are irrational and you are rational, but only that effective communication between you is not possible. Both are “rational”, but your rationalities, that is the manner in which your beliefs are said to cohere, may be incompatible.
