Genial:

Perhaps. But if we agree that faith is outside rationality, why should it be expected to have "any epistemological value", or indeed logical validity, in the way you refer to it? Logic presupposes that things operate according to specific laws, and so does not provide for phenomena that do not obey these laws. In that respect, logic is unqualified to explain faith and cannot be used to either validate or invalidate it.

The moment that faith based view touches on the material realm, it needs to follow the rules of that realm. In that regard, it may not be possible to validate or invalidate it, but it becomes completely devoid of meaning and validity in this world as it does not conform to it's rules

nferyn:

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. By denying the validity of rationality, it is denying freedom.

Christianity does not deny the validity of rationality. It declares the precedence of faith.

Any valid intellectual effort a priory requires rationality, therefore faith equals intellectual laziness.

In this context, perhaps. But Christianity, while not denying the value of intellectual effort, recognises its limitations. It is first and foremost spiritual, not intellectual.

How then would you define reality?

The truth of existence.

nferyn:

The moment that faith based view touches on the material realm, it needs to follow the rules of that realm. In that regard, it may not be possible to validate or invalidate it, but it becomes completely devoid of meaning and validity in this world as it does not conform to it's rules

In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

gbade. x:

Simply because you have to accept the basic elements of a religion by faith. It blocks that belief from rational enquiry.

actually it doesn't block the belief from rational enquiry, it encourages it. the Bible itself tells that the Word be researched. also you don't simply accept the basic elements of the religion. Christianity is accepted by a personal conviction by that same God, that's why i said you won't see the entity but would experrience him.

But still you cannot question the fact that:
- Jesus is the saviour of humanity
- He died for our sins
- Jesus is God
Without acceptance of these claims by faith, you cannot be Christian. Rationality is limited by these claims and thus becomes rationalisation.

gbade. x:

Have you really studied the sources of that experience? Basic research in sensory perception and memory have shown both to be extremely open to suggestion and error.

and what basic research has been shown? source please. error on what? and being open to suggestion bespeaks the fact that the subconscious mind is being told what to do. On the contrary, it's a personal conviction.

Go to http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/ and especially follow the session by V.S. Ramachandran.

gbade. x:

They're intellectually lazy because they refuse to examine the basis for their beliefs. they rather shelter their beliefs and rationalise them. That's being intellectually lazy in my mind.

please read my first response again. like i once said, how can you know they've refused to examine the basis of their beliefs if you haven't experienced the basis of that belief and then exsamine it?

Simply because they refuse to entertain the hypothesis that their beliefs are not valid or could have another source. Your position does not change that basic fact.

Genial:

Christianity does not deny the validity of rationality. It declares the precedence of faith.

And thereby effectively limiting freedom

Genial:
In this context, perhaps. But Christianity, while not denying the value of intellectual effort, recognises its limitations. It is first and foremost spiritual, not intellectual.

And it also declares, by fiat, the validity of faith as a means of arriving at truth without even trying to establish it's epistemological validity.

Genial:

The truth of existence.

You have no valid epistemological system to arrive at that statement when basing your discourse on faith. Can you show how exactly faith can possibly arrive at truth without being self-contradictory?

Genial:

In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

If you cannot determine the characteristics of a phenomenon, that what sets it apart from the non-phenomenon, it has effectively no meaning.

nferyn:

Genial link=topic=31314.msg722484#msg722484 date=1164490117:
Christianity does not deny the validity of rationality. It declares the precedence of faith.

And thereby effectively limiting freedom

Yes, much in the same way marriage limits freedom.

And it also declares, by fiat, the validity of faith as a means of arriving at truth without even trying to establish it's epistemological validity.

I do not see that it does so. If logic does not recognise the spiritual, how do you expect a spiritual event to have epistemological validity?

Quote from: Genial on Today at 10:14:06 PM
The truth of existence.

You have no valid epistemological system to arrive at that statement when basing your discourse on faith. Can you show how exactly faith can possibly arrive at truth without being self-contradictory?

And how do you conclude that I base my discourse on faith? Truth is independent.

If you cannot determine the characteristics of a phenomenon, that what sets it apart from the non-phenomenon, it has effectively no meaning.

I refer to my previous post:

In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

I think you missed the point here. The issue is not the existence of the phenomenon, but its interpretation, and hence its perceived validity.

Genial wrote,

" Logic presupposes that things operate according to specific laws, and so does not provide for phenomenom that do not obey these laws. In that respect, logic is unqualified to explain and cannot be used to either validate or invalidate it."
,

gbade. x wrote,

" , Imposing your own view of logic and understanding does not make it seem illogical, rather it is seeing things from your own perspective that makes it illogical to you. "


i love how these two statements align. With logic not being able to validate or invalidate nor explain faith, you can't in the same way use ur logic or perspective to understand or explain that which is alien to that logic. To understand, then seek knowledge from that perspective alien to your logic.

The word "religion" itself has been bastardized and dragged to the mud. Now, it means everything.

The scene is similar to the world of MARRIAGE. Note: Marriage is not Merry - Age. This is because a husband and wife, leave their old lives behind, leave their own lives behind and begin to live together as one. In a sense, they are not free anymore. For the husband to suddenly take off to his buddy's house as before is not acceptable. He has to inform his wife. This works, ideally vice-versa. In decision making, both come together and decide, twill be no more the decision of one-while he/she just feels good about it. This cuts across every stage of their life, eating, friends, worship, career, goals, finance etc, (you can name the rest), why? because one is committed to the other and vice-versa. So yes, religion doesnt spell freedom - as I likened it to a married couple.

On the Christian note: Christ came to set all free, all who would believe in his death on calvary. The world, man, was in bondage before he came - the bondage to sin and self. Isnt it bondage to be doing what your conscience tells you is wrong? It is bondage to find yourself doing what you didnt want to do.

Now, Christ came and put away religion - which was what the pharisees and saducces were all concerned about. He came to give us Life, the life of Liberty in Jesus Christ. There is no other liberty, except through Jesus Christ.

To find your 2-feet going to church on sunday or whateva day of the week you find them going without a purpose to receive or commune with God is the definition of religion. Its more like saying one is so used to something, that you find yourself doing it without previous purpose to do such - that is religion.

God doesnt demand our religion, he demands us and our faith.

kimba:

God doesnt demand our religion, he demands us and our faith.

That's exactly why religion, in any of the forms you describe, is exactly the opposite of freedom. It's submission.

Genial:

Yes, much in the same way marriage limits freedom.

We agree then. I'm not saying freedom is the end and all of everything, but you cannot deny that religion is the opposite of freedom in some very fundamental ways.

Genial:

And it also declares, by fiat, the validity of faith as a means of arriving at truth without even trying to establish it's epistemological validity.

I do not see that it does so. If logic does not recognise the spiritual, how do you expect a spiritual event to have epistemological validity?

Why would logic deny the spiritual. If the spiritual could be defined in a consistent, non-contradictory way, there is no need to deny it, only I haven't seen any such definition.

Genial:

You have no valid epistemological system to arrive at that statement when basing your discourse on faith. Can you show how exactly faith can possibly arrive at truth without being self-contradictory?

And how do you conclude that I base my discourse on faith? Truth is independent.

Can you establish your discourse not to be based on faith? Truth is is independent of what exactly?

Genial:

If you cannot determine the characteristics of a phenomenon, that what sets it apart from the non-phenomenon, it has effectively no meaning.

I refer to my previous post:

In the sense that validity is dependent on interpretation, its validity is questionable where it is not understood, but inability to correctly interpret a phenomenon does not render it completely devoid of meaning.

I think you missed the point here. The issue is not the existence of the phenomenon, but its interpretation, and hence its perceived validity.

I'm affraid I don't see any point at all. When defining a phenomenon, you're subjecting yourself to the laws of logic. Any discourse and meaning ultimately depends on logic. Are you saying that an interpretation of a phenomenon does not have to subject itself to logic or is based only partially on logic? If so, what else does it depend on?

maybe we should try consience instead of religion.

@Michelin89

I never thought I would see the day that someone who mention what the word religion derive. i wrote a paper on why religion is no good for my speech class last year and I brought up what the word religion derived from just like you did, naturally, no one believed me even when I pointed them to the sources to prove it, they still did not believe me. Anyway, I got an A in that class but I would not have gotten that A if my teacher was not his self a free thinker. Believe it or not. most white people re free thinkers even when they proclaim to be religious.


@Exu

Fact is there are a lot of people who would argue that religion is a useful tool to maintain order in society.

To keep who's order?

If people trusted their self, they wouldn't be so busy making rules for other people that they don't apply to their self. Or, they wouldn't be making rules at all if they trusted their self. Those religious fanatics, they are the ones who commit the most sin and they are the ones who invent religions as well as keep religions going. They are not free people because they are to afraid of what they are capable of.