What do you think of agnosticism?

Originally posted by finnegan
Maybe I am devoid - maybe that is my own point - maybe though it was not for the want of trying.

"...do you honestly think that Christianity would have survived--- let alone thrived--- for two millennium based solely on its adherents enthusiasm? Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position i ...[text shortened]... lective choice from many different attempts to influence me. What informs your belief?[/b]

Maybe I am devoid - maybe that is my own point - maybe though it was not for the want of trying.
I didn't say you were devoid: I did, however, say the formula you employed was fatally flawed, an inevitable result of frustrating religiosity.

... though it was not for the want of trying.
That's kinda the nature of religion, dontcha think?

I do not believe that we can arrive at wisdom in one perfect step.
Amen, brother.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.

Personally I would prefer to point out its close association with power and wealth. It served powerful interests very well and that is what survived.
I'm with you on this one.

Many years of education, reading, discussion, debate and thought. Interesting test of this is as follows. What I believe today bears no resemblance to my early indoctrination and is a very selective choice from many different attempts to influence me. What informs your belief?
My query was more along the lines of what gives you the idea that reason is the preferred method of thought?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

My query was more along the lines of what gives you the idea that reason is the preferred method of thought?

Ah that's an easy question. I got sick of being taken for a ride. So I asked the question many better people have done before me - how can I base my life on something that I trust?

Originally posted by finnegan
Ah that's an easy question. I got sick of being taken for a ride. So I asked the question many better people have done before me - how can I base my life on something that I trust?

Dig a little deeper, if you don't mind. On what basis are you now conferring reason as the final authority--- and you can't use reason as the 'reason.'

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Dig a little deeper, if you don't mind. On what basis are you now conferring reason as the final authority--- and you can't use reason as the 'reason.'

Check out my profile! I am the final arbiter of what I believe - Reason is just a tool.

If we have the possibility of knowing the truth, why would we choose to be deceived? (Isiah Berlin)

By this I understand that people have accumulated, over centuries, not only a body of knowledge that appears increasingly to satisfy our curiosity about the nature of our universe, but also a way of asking questions and a way of investigating possible answers that is very powerful and can be employed to ask new, different questions with some hope of achieving further insight. The possibility is so exciting that it seems to me not foolish but perverse to reject this opportunity and this challenge.

When you want to know the truth, you do not care who is right. (Richard Feynman)

This seems very penetrating to me. I believe that for many people, the truth has to be acceptable - it has to comply with what they already believe in order to be acceptable. However we learn most when we discover that we are wrong and when we accept the need to seriously rethink our existing beliefs. This has certainly happened to me a number of times in my life. It can be a deeply upsetting experience. But the alternative is I was born knowing everything, or my Dad was always right, or my priest was always right, or the Bible / Koran was always right, or the crowd was always right.


A man may imagine things that are false but he can only understand things that are true. (Isaac Newton)

It is important to accept the capacity of humans to swallow whole all sorts of undigested opinion and belief. We are all victims of this folly - I am certainly. Over history, the list of incredible beliefs is endless. I am no longer satisfied with being told - it's a mystery. Mysteries may be true or false or may live in a state where it does not matter (e.g. aesthetic decisions are not true or false) but they are mysteries - we do not understand them. Well, there is lots I don't understand but I am no longer prepared to trust my life to claims by other people until I understand them to my satisfaction and I am no longer terribly easy to satisfy. What does it mean to understand? There are various criteria of course. I understand Bach's music in a way that I would not articulate. I understand the way the moon orbits the Earth because it fits a very simple equation.

Originally posted by finnegan
Check out my profile! I am the final arbiter of what I believe - Reason is just a tool.

If we have the possibility of knowing the truth, why would we choose to be deceived? (Isiah Berlin)

By this I understand that people have accumulated, over centuries, not only a body of knowledge that appears increasingly to satisfy our curiosity about the nature ...[text shortened]... ulate. I understand the way the moon orbits the Earth because it fits a very simple equation.

Well, I guess the easy answer is that we are all the final decision makers. However, you can surely appreciate the fact that faith enters the realm of all decision makers' decision about their lives, whether they describe themselves as believers or unbelievers. We're all believers: it's just a matter of what we believe in.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, I guess the easy answer is that we are all the final decision makers. However, you can surely appreciate the fact that faith enters the realm of all decision makers' decision about their lives, whether they describe themselves as believers or unbelievers. We're all believers: it's just a matter of what we believe in.

Well it is a matter of what we believe in - ok.

It's also a matter of how well founded our beliefs may be, as judged by ourselves of course, but also as judged by others. Are we each lost on our own island or part of a wider community?

Then it's a matter of what consequences follow from what we believe - what we do or omit doing.

Here's an example. For centuries people have observed the stars and taken records and made measurements. But such extensive observation was not capable of providing a clear description of their path through our skies nor predicting where they would turn up next (quite important for astrologers of course). What was required was a useful theory - a hypothesis - which could then be tested by observation. For example, a big stumbling block was the notion that planets must move in circles - then there was a debate about what alternative might work - then the idea of an ellipse was tested and that finally established a pattern to explain the centuries of recorded observations and deal with the important and significant errors in earlier predictions.

You can believe what you like but your beliefs will not help you nor anyone else if they are not well founded.

You are being slippery here. You alleged that I consider Reason to be the final decision maker and I said, in reply, that Reason is only a tool. In my example (hardly a contentious one) you will see, in addition, the value of theories and hypotheses which were intuitive and inductive, and the need for empirical testing. I am not a Rationalist in the sense that, say, Descartes was - I do not believe nor argue that we can arrive at wisdom by means of Reason alone. Intuition and creative thinking are far from Rational. It is how we work with those ideas, and what weight we attach to them, that requires Reason as a tool.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well it is a matter of what we believe in - ok.

It's also a matter of how well founded our beliefs may be, as judged by ourselves of course, but also as judged by others. Are we each lost on our own island or part of a wider community?

Then it's a matter of what consequences follow from what we believe - what we do or omit doing.

Here's an examp ...[text shortened]... hat you like but your beliefs will not help you nor anyone else if they are not well founded.

I like your last line the best.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I like your last line the best.

To be fair I was busy editing while you were busy replying. I like my last line but it is not, I accept, the last line to which you referred prior to my edit.

Originally posted by finnegan
To be fair I was busy editing while you were busy replying. I like my last line but it is not, I accept, the last line to which you referred prior to my edit.

True. I was referncing this one:

You can believe what you like but your beliefs will not help you nor anyone else if they are not well founded.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
True. I was referncing this one:

[b]You can believe what you like but your beliefs will not help you nor anyone else if they are not well founded. [/b]

Fine and do you like or wish to debate the last line now that it is edited, which reads "You are being slippery here. You alleged that I consider Reason to be the final decision maker and I said, in reply, that Reason is only a tool"?

Originally posted by finnegan
Fine and do you like or wish to debate the last line now that it is edited, which reads "You are being slippery here. You alleged that I consider Reason to be the final decision maker and I said, in reply, that Reason is only a tool"?

I don't know that you wouldn't call it merely semantics, but I submit that despite your insistence that you are the final arbiter, your use of reason for your source of value essentially demands that your decisions are seen through that prism. Thus, tool or otherwise, reason is your basis of belief.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know that you wouldn't call it merely semantics, but I submit that despite your insistence that you are the final arbiter, your use of reason for your source of value essentially demands that your decisions are seen through that prism. Thus, tool or otherwise, reason is your basis of belief.

No, I do not accept your assertion at all.

It is my responsibility as an individual to make moral decisions. Unless you are a strict determinist, which most Christians are not, you will acknowledge the role of free will and it is hard to see how a just God can be reconciled with any other proposition than that. So I am anticipating your agreement.

However, let us imagine (hypothetically) that there are competing religions which each make strict prescriptions for what we must do to be saved. Imagine that one requires us to face Mecca five times daily, another requires us to stand facing a wall in Jerusalem and wail, another .... Oh you get my point. Let us imagine this being so. Even imagine living in the Middle Ages, say in England between Henry VIII and Willaim of Orange - as each King / Queen in turn imposes a new set of religious demands with awesome consequences for non conformity.

How am I to be saved? There is no point saying that I must comply with the demands of religion or even those of God until you first explain how I get access to these demands in the correct form. How do I choose the right set of rituels?

If it is predestined I am not free. If it is a matter of luck - being born to the right family or in the right part of the country or the right part of the World - I am not free. If I simply conform I am not free. If there is no choice, I am not free.

Let's imagine also that I regard this choice as very important - so much so that I do not want to make the wrong choice. How would I go about that? And how would I check if I was making a good or a bad choice?

Originally posted by finnegan
No, I do not accept your assertion at all.

It is my responsibility as an individual to make moral decisions. Unless you are a strict determinist, which most Christians are not, you will acknowledge the role of free will and it is hard to see how a just God can be reconciled with any other proposition than that. So I am anticipating your agreement.

H ...[text shortened]... hoice. How would I go about that? And how would I check if I was making a good or a bad choice?

Okay, I'll accept your scenario. Can I be William O' Orange?

Is your view obscured? God sees that.
Is the truth veiled? God knows that.
Is the light hid? God shines through that.

Think of the ignorance prevalent today. Churches on a wide scale have totally abandoned the Scriptures in favor of appeasement. Leaders use their pulpits for nothing more than advancement of their own power lusts. Itching ears will only accept their desired salve. And yet, the truth goes out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, I'll accept your scenario. Can I be William O' Orange?

Is your view obscured? God sees that.
Is the truth veiled? God knows that.
Is the light hid? God shines through that.

Think of the ignorance prevalent today. Churches on a wide scale have totally abandoned the Scriptures in favor of appeasement. Leaders use their pulpits for nothing ...[text shortened]... power lusts. Itching ears will only accept their desired salve. And yet, the truth goes out.

I think we just lost contact there. Is the line dead?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, I'll accept your scenario. Can I be William O' Orange?

I have thought about this remark about William of Orange. I have an Irish flag on my profile and have referred to my Catholic background.

In Irish politics, which is a very strange beast, King Billie has a powerful resonance. People making your remark have literally and brutally had a bullet through the head for their pains. You may need to refer to Wikepedia on this but a bullet through the head is violent.

I am not sure that a Catholic bullet is better or worse than a Protestant one - they seem pretty much alike to me. I hate sectarian violence - I hate sectarian thinking. I am no Irish nationalist - my allegiance is to James Joyce and Samuel Becket.

Choosing among the English monarchs in the period I proposed, I would choose Elizabeth 1 for her famous declaration - I do not want windows into men's minds. People did burn for heresy in her very long reign - not nearly as many as in the very brief reign of her Catholic sister Mary Tudor.

And on the whole I recognize, as many do not, that in setting up William of Orange the English rejected sectarian violence and voted - acted - for tolerance.