Originally posted by Coletti
Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are ...[text shortened]... No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Look up "parsimony".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Science" )

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM


You might read the encyclical first .... It usually helps.

I have no interest in the piece ivanhoe, (which I have now read) all I want to know is why you think it remarkable that the Encyclical opens with an introduction titled "Know Yourself", and why you believe self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science. Also claiming that they often do not look upon themselves as entities to be known by themselves.

So, rather than just referring me to previous posts, thread, online references, etc. why not just answer the question.

And please don't ask me a deflectory question about the article in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have no interest in the piece ivanhoe, (which I have now read) all I want to know is why you think it remarkable that the Encyclical opens with an introduction titled "Know Yourself", and why you believe self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science. Also claiming that they often do not look upon themselves as entities to be k ...[text shortened]... please don't ask me a deflectory question about the article in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Starrman: "I have no interest in the piece ivanhoe, (which I have now read)"

You have read the whole encyclical ?

Starrman: " .. why you believe self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science ..."

My experiences lead to that conclusion.

Starrman: "Also claiming that they often do not look upon themselves as entities to be known by themselves.

Same answer.

You cannot possibly know yourself if you deny the most important relationship you have and that happens to be the relationship with your Creator.

Because all of the above I find the title of the introduction "Know Yourself" to the Encyclical "Fides et Ratio", an Encyclical on the relationship between Faith and Reason, remarkable and worth noting.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have no interest in the piece ivanhoe, (which I have now read) all I want to know is why you think it remarkable that the Encyclical opens with an introduction titled "Know Yourself", and why you believe self-knowledge is grossly neglected by those who prefer to rely on Science. Also claiming that they often do not look upon themselves as entities to be k ...[text shortened]... please don't ask me a deflectory question about the article in an attempt to avoid the issue.

Starrman: "And please don't ask me a deflectory question about the article in an attempt to avoid the issue."

Faith and Reason, the subject of the Encyclical, is the issue. (See the thread's title).

Originally posted by Coletti
Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are ...[text shortened]... No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Thanks for this well balanced and well thought through post.

Originally posted by Coletti

So I prefer the Christian worldview over skepticism and randomness and uncertainty. At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe. I mean, what's not to like? Christianity meets all the desiderata of a coherent and comprehensive worldview.

You telling me that's unreasonable? ...[text shortened]... orks. Do I know it's true? No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

So I prefer the Christian worldview over skepticism and randomness and uncertainty. At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe. I mean, what's not to like? Christianity meets all the desiderata of a coherent and comprehensive worldview.

I think this is the most important paragraph in your entire post. Now I'll share my experiences to explain why I find religion unreasonable and skepticism to be certain.
I have this condition. Well, not so much a condition as a series of abnormal occurences in the brain. As a consequence it becomes difficult to disentagle dreams from reality. I also can abruptly develop memories which soemtimes I know cannot possibly correspond to reality. However, sometimes they can be very convincing.

I find the position of the skeptic more valuable when dealing with my experiences. I do not trust them and as a result I could never trust any revelation of God. There are constraints imposed by my "condition" which prevent me every being absolutely certain. Thus, the christian worldvied becomes inherently uncertain.

Originally posted by Coletti
Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are ...[text shortened]... No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

Excellent post Coletti, this forum would be a much better place if all posters were to read it.

One question. In the sentence "At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe." You imply that non-Christian / non-religious worldvievs are inherently irrational. Why do you believe this? Why would the atheistic viewpoint notmake as much sense? Why can morality not just be a product of evolution? Why does there have to be meaning?

I realise that this may be difficult to answer, as I think it is at the heart of whether a person believes in God or not. This was practically the only sentence in the whole post that I did not feel the same way as you about, yet you are a Christian, and I am an Atheist.

~corp1131

Originally posted by Conrau K
It seems to me that faith is untenable from a logical perspective. God's existence is often described as unverifiable. I tend to agree. BUT...

Why is that most theists (endowed with such astute intellects) could succumb to such a weakness of intelligence? If its so obviously untenable and unverifiable why believe in God?

I was discussing this with a ...[text shortened]... an "transcend" the logical barriers of theism and/ or how non- theists could reject it.

Because, the Lord Jesus has moved men's hearts. Men will not readily die for a lie. But, hundreds, thousands, have died for their messiah, Jesus Christ, because they know He died for them and rose from the grave in three days. He's coming soon! Watch! The signs are there!

Originally posted by powershaker
Because, the Lord Jesus has moved men's hearts. Men will not readily die for a lie. But, hundreds, thousands, have died for their messiah, Jesus Christ, because they know He died for them and rose from the grave in three days. He's coming soon! Watch! The signs are there!

Aack!

Originally posted by powershaker
Because, the Lord Jesus has moved men's hearts. Men will not readily die for a lie. But, hundreds, thousands, have died for their messiah, Jesus Christ, because they know He died for them and rose from the grave in three days. He's coming soon! Watch! The signs are there!

Don't you think Jesus would have been a whole load more proud if people had LIVED for him instead of dying for him?

Anyway, people die for lies all the time. Unless you're stipulating that suicide bombers are correct? GWB invaded iraq on a lie, and look how many have died for that? No, people will line up to kill themselves for any variety of stupid reasons, if only you'll let them.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Don't you think Jesus would have been a whole load more proud if people had LIVED for him instead of dying for him?

Not if living meant denying what they knew to be true.

Anyway, people die for lies all the time. Unless you're stipulating that suicide bombers are correct? GWB invaded iraq on a lie, and look how many have died for that? No, people will line up to kill themselves for any variety of stupid reasons, if only you'll let them.

Slight difference. The early martyrs died defending something they had witnessed, unlike the suicide bombers.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not if living meant denying what they knew to be true.

[b] Anyway, people die for lies all the time. Unless you're stipulating that suicide bombers are correct? GWB invaded iraq on a lie, and look how many have died for that? No, people will line up to kill themselves for any variety of stupid reasons, if only you'll let them.

Slight diff ...[text shortened]... ce. The early martyrs died defending something they had witnessed, unlike the suicide bombers.[/b]

Bunk. The suicide bombers are sacrificing themselves for a cause they believe to be true. They have witnessed the oppression of their people first hand, so there is no difference except modern suicide bombers are more proactive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bunk. The suicide bombers are sacrificing themselves for a cause they believe to be true. They have witnessed the oppression of their people first hand, so there is no difference except modern suicide bombers are more proactive.

But suicide bombers are not eye-witnesses to Heaven, or Gabriel's recitation of the Quran to Mohammed etc.

The early Christian martyrs were eye-witnesses to the life, death and (at least what they thought was) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's a huge difference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But suicide bombers are not eye-witnesses to Heaven, or Gabriel's recitation of the Quran to Mohammed etc.

The early Christian martyrs were eye-witnesses to the life, death and (at least what they thought was) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's a huge difference.

Plus, their families receive, what, something like $25,000?

Originally posted by powershaker
Because, the Lord Jesus has moved men's hearts. Men will not readily die for a lie. But, hundreds, thousands, have died for their messiah, Jesus Christ, because they know He died for them and rose from the grave in three days. He's coming soon! Watch! The signs are there!

Come on Powershaker!?! I try to stay out of the Spirituality arguments as these debates go nowhere and I find I can't learn anything from the such blind devotion to one side or another. No one here seems to be truly interested in the Spiritual growth of anyone else, just fixated on their own perception of the truth.

My comment is that you can't assume something is true to prove its true, this is circular reasoning. You can't assume Jesus has moved men's hearts to prove that he has. This is faulty critical thinking.

Plus, men fight and die for trivial crap all the time: drugs, oil, money, women, land, poverty, starvation, taxes, greed, politics... For example, I would hazard a guess that a good many men have died for political reasons. Using your argument as a model, a conjecture could be made that not only do politicians not lie, but, they are somehow divine for bringing war to the world. From what I have read, Jesus and his followers were politicians of the first order. Hell they brought the Roman Empire to its knees and ultimately dominated the Western world for 2000 years.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but, please, I'm begging you, cease and desist with the circular arguments your frigging killing me.