Scientists who identify as Christians struggle with this issue constantly. I think in some sense there really is no reconciliation, ay least not one that satisfy you logically. It's one of those paradoxes that life is full of. We have two hemispheres in our brain-one loves reason and logic and the other likes color, music, poetry, and art. In most people, one is more dominant than the other. I'm either lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view in having more balance than most people. I can function in a profession that requires me to use logic and reason to do research, write, and argue effectively on my clients' behalf.
At the same time, I can have religious beliefs that I will admit have no basis in either fact or logic. A lot of people can't live with that kind of paradox. For some reason, I can. Unlike most of the people here, I'm an esoteric Christian, not an exoteric Christian. I interpret the Bible symbolically and not as the literal word of God because it makes no sense to me whatsoever to interpret it literally. I don't think interpreting it symbolically lessens its value as a code of living. Heaven and hell are states of mind, not literal places. If I do something wrong, I did it. Satan did not "tempt" me or make me do. That kind of lack of responsibility is one of my biggest issues with many "Christians".
That's an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as "balanced", (still searching for a more apropos description ...). The point you raised about the lack of responsibility, (implicitly, palming it off on a supernatural cause), is one I'd agree with, as well as not taking metaphysical metaphors literally.
As far as the mutually-exclusive positions of logic and illogic; my view is that it's not a matter of "balance" per se but, a matter of switching selectively back and forth between them, (rather than holding mutually-exclusive viewpoints simultaneously). It's my further observation that we all tend to be both 'selectively' logical and illogical, depending on various parameters, (which will vary from person to person - some preferring to base such parameters on previous;y-held irrational persepectives and others, upon previously-held rational perspectives). Situational irrationality isn't exactly
choosing to be illogical sometimes but, more of a 'mindset'. For instance, I've chosen to be illogical before however, I'd done so as a reasoned choice, (which I realize by now is not the most common way of thinking and usually not during a nominal 'debate').
Sometimes I question my own beliefs. Since I do believe in God (or a Supreme Creator regardless of the name used), I like to exercise the reasoning capacity that I was born with and constantly re-examine my beliefs. If beliefs are worth living by, they should hold up to some scrutiny. If you go into a frenzy anytime someone points out an inconsistency or a flaw, then on some level, you are not that sure of them yourself.
It's good to question assumptions, (especially your own), in order to reveal any inherent "flaws". Applying rational skepticism to religious beliefs is nominally problematic for a 'believer' because most tend to equate skepticism with a doubt which undermines "faith". There's an implicit dilemma in questioning 'a belief for which there is no evidence', (something lawyers normally concern themselves with as part of their job), and retaining a 'blind faith' unquestioningly.
Those of you who get steamed at falcon9 should actually be glad that he's around to question your beliefs. If nothing else, he makes you try to articulate why you believe in what you believe. Try resist the urge to go along with the herd mentality and just gang up on him.
A few have done as you've suggested and the remainder may be afraid of questioning their own "faith" or, simply aren't able to articulate any rational reasoning to support it, (there may be other reasons however, it seems those two are the predominate ones). Thusfar, no religious adherent has posited any actual
reason, (as in logical line of reasoning, in lieu of 'rationales'), for their religious beliefs. They've tossed out several unsupported supernatural attributions, (unsupported by evidence themselves), as religious opinions but, no logical reasons. Some non-religious posters have speculated that this is due to there being no logical reasons for holding illogical superstitious beliefs.
Naturally, the 'believers' themselves speculate otherwise, but, not logically. Thus they've essentially held that they're illogical for illogical non-reasons.
So I don't have a logical explanation that will really satisfy you, falcon9. All I can tell you is that there are Christians who actually think for themselves (even if we are in the minority). Some of us actually use words rather than pictures to convey our thoughts.
I appreciate the refreshing difference in your approach, though. It may be that you are unable to articulate a logical explanation because, (as some have postulated), it's an 'experiential' thing. I disagree with such a postulation since it is possible to determine that being under water for an hour will cause drowning - without having to experience drowning before arriving logically at that conclusion. Similarly, it's possible to examine the illogic, (and any extant logic), in a religious belief. Before the 'flame-wars', that's what I arrived on FC doing and there are many lengthy discussions on these matters in the archives. What happened all too quickly was that the religious adherents reverting to 'bible thumping' when asked to produce substantive evidence, (and this was rejected on the basis of attempting to use unsupported hearsay/unsubstantiated religious claims to support religious claims - which is circular and not rational). If I, (or members who'be been here much longer than I), can recall those old threads for reference, that'll be done.
Community Forum
Topic: Subforum suggestion (Read 13917 times)
January 16, 2009, 01:21:08 pm
