Christian Handbook of Reason and Insight for Scientists and Technologists:
[size=13pt]Are Christians supposed to think for themselves about the basis for their beliefs?[/size]

This question can be answered "yes" with certainty.

Christian beliefs are generally products of:

[list]
[li]Blind faith in a learned person (authority figure)[/li]
[li]Hegelian synthesis based on feelings, intuition, and emotions[/li]
[li]Classical logic based on the evidence of Scripture, tradition and personal experience[/li]
[/list]

Which are acceptable; which are not?

The fundamental beliefs of Christianity should be the product of classical logic based on the evidence of Scripture, tradition and personal experience. Christian beliefs should never be based on blind faith in some authority figure or on Hegelian synthesis, which, no matter how cleverly disguised, is no more than a blind leap of faith based on someone's feelings, intuition and emotions.

Let us see why.

If the dentist informs you that one of your fillings is cracked and you allow him to replace it even though you don't have a toothache, then your belief in his truthfulness is based on blind faith in a learned person. In our complex technological society, we must base some decisions on blind faith because we can't become experts on everything.
However, we don't generally use blind faith as a basis for our beliefs if a mistake could be life threatening or financially ruinous. When a false belief can have grave consequences for ourselves or our loved ones, we may consult available experts or "learned persons" but, ultimately, we weigh the evidence ourselves and personally make a decision about what is true or what represents the best course of action.

Consider, for a moment, the interesting possibility that you, as a person, may continue to exist after the death of your physical body. Consider the additional possibility that this existence may be either meaningful or meaningless depending on what's in your heart when you die. Given these premises, a false belief about what should be in your heart will have grave consequences
If you deal with this possibility like you deal with other important issues, you will not blindly accept the opinion of a learned person. You might consult a parent, teacher, pastor, priest, rabbi, mulla or guru but, ultimately, you will personally weigh the evidence and personally make a decision. Blind faith in a learned person is not an acceptable basis for any religious belief because the stakes are too high.

Hegelian synthesis based on feelings, intuition and emotions is equally unacceptable as a basis for Christian beliefs because a very basic Christian belief is that the human heart is too deceitful to be trusted (Gen 6:5; Ps 14:1; Prov 12:15, 14:12, 20:9; Isa 32:6; Jer 17:9; Mat 15:19; Mark 7:21; John 5:42; Acts 28:27). The Bible never encourages us to trust the human heart.

What about classical logic based on the evidence of Scripture, tradition and personal experience? Some believe the Bible teaches us to replace reason with blind faith. In truth, the Bible encourages us, from cover to cover, to analyze the evidence using classical logic! The following examples will illustrate this point:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22
We are encouraged to use classical logic to distinguish between a false prophet and a prophet of God. "If a prophet makes one mistake then the prophet is not getting his or her information from God" or, what is the same thing, "If a prophet is of God then the prophet always speaks the truth."

Isaiah 1:18
We are told God wants to reason with us.

Hosea 4:6
We are informed that we can be destroyed by lack of knowledge.

Luke 7:19-23
John the Baptist sends two of his followers to Jesus with the following question, "Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" Instead of saying, "Yes, I am the one whom you have awaited," Jesus performs miracles in full view of John's followers. After a while, Jesus sends the followers back to John with information obtained by first hand observation. Jesus says for them to tell John what they've seen so he can deduce the answer based on the evidence of first-hand observation.

Romans 1:20
We are invited to look carefully at each of the things around us - an incredible level of information stored in the most primitive DNA, a universe expanding at nearly the critical rate to avoid recollapse, abstract thought along with love in the mind of man - and try to explain these things without invoking the existence of God.

1 Corinthians 14:20
Christians are advised to think like adults.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Christians are advised to carefully examine everything.

1 Peter 3:15
Christians are advised to always be ready to defend their beliefs by providing a sound basis.

1 John 4:1-4
Christians are advised to test every prophet to determine if he or she speaks for God.

Jude 3
Christians are encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith.

---

Culled from the free book "Christian Handbook of Reason and Insight for Scientists and Technologists", addressing 10 questions like the above with classical logic. Get it at at  http://www.christianapologetic.org/docs/Christian%20Handbook%20of%20REason%20and%20Insight%20for%20Scientists%20and%20Technologists.pdf

P.S.
Note carefully how
[list]
[li]Blind faith in a learned person[/li] and
[li]Hegelian synthesis based on feelings, intuition, and emotions[/li]
[/list]
are the order of the day in the church today, where we revere MOGs blindly and we accede to their emotional and intuitive synthesis. 

I may post more from the ebook on this thread later. ETA: I slightly rearranged the flow of the argument when I culled the article.

::raises his hand and waves so the teacher would allow him ask a question::
Uncle me! Uncle me!

Chrisbenogor:

::raises his hand and waves so the teacher would allow him ask a question::
Uncle me! Uncle me!

you dis sniper. If they allow you to ask a question now, that is how you will disappear again and we won't hear anything.

Pastor AIO:

you dis sniper. If they allow you to ask a question now, that is how you will disappear again and we won't hear anything.

It is ejiro that carries me out of school sir, he takes me to one place where I carry him on my shoulder and he peeps through the window. He says I would get my turn one day to see the divine. Can I ask now?

Reason, logic and critical thinking do not belong in the same sentence with christianity, inesqor. What are you trying to prove? The minute religions like christianity allow those three, they seize to be religions.

Jenwitemi:

Reason, logic and critical thinking do not belong in the same sentence with christianity, inesqor. What are you trying to prove? The minute religions like christianity allow those three, they seize to be religions.

U've made an assertion. could u be more elaborate by trying to prove the bolded?

toba:

U've made an assertion. could u be more elaborate by trying to prove the bolded?

I like your aptitude to false pretense. This is not an assertion but a well known fact, even to you, toba. The very foundation of religion like christianity is faith and faith only. That is how religions like christianity have been able to garner so many adherents to keep it alive and kicking for many centuries right up to today. It is very well known by all that the foundations on which a religion like christianity is based can never withstand reasoning, critical thinking/analysis and logic. So what is there to prove?

If all the adherents of this religion should start using all these three faculties to assess their beliefs, most of them would loose their religion pretty fast enough. That has happened in europe and what is left are large magnificent cathedrals that are always empty.

I knew Jenwitemi would show up here like jagunlabi used to do on any thread with Christianity and logic. And of course they never have
anything useful to say to the subject matter except to point fingers, twiddle thumbs and end up saying nothing.

I have carefully listed Bible verses showing how logic is required, and I have in the OP also used classical logic to disprove the
Hegelian synthesis and blind-appeal-to-authority systems popular, but definitely wrong, in Christianity today.

Even Jesus (our example) in his day was a radical apologist who used logic to defend his faith rather than the blind-faith system the Pharisees used, so what's the fuss here?

If you have anything useful to say, disprove the logic above or show how the attendant Bible verses are false. Dont show up on my thread or any thread and say the proposition is a lie cos thats not what you observe daily. That is very childish and shortminded in my opinion. Who told you that the ones you observe are doing it right? T[b]he problem here is NOT what people are doing but rather what they should be.[/b]

Note that the OP was culled. And speaking for myself, I know what I am doing with logic and Christianity irrespective of what whoever else does.

The day you guys understand that Christianity is a personal race is the day these nonsensical generalizing posts of yours will end.

christianity + logic =




infact, christianity + (0.0000000000000666)logics= disbelieve
disbelieve=atheism or something similar. okay, let's see:




@ OP, our minds are for thought not memorizing obscure outdated legends and metaphors so stick with good ol blind faith. remember, it moves mountains; logic aint that powerful anyways so i wonder what you're even killing your head for

@Inesqor Interesting post. Just have a few questions.

Do you think logic can tell us about past events? As in can I use logic to find out what you had for breakfast yesterday, what goes thru Chrisbenogor's head when that big booty chic in his office walks past? Can we use logic to discover who impregnated Mary, or if Jesus walked on water etc? stuff like that.

The reason I'm asking is because popular Christianity belief is based on faith in the person of Jesus, believed to have done many "amazing" things. He is believed to have been born of a virgin, never did a "bad" thing his entire life, walked on water, raised the dead, resurrected from the dead, and is also believed to have saved the souls of people that believe he did all these, and follow him, or sumn like that.

How does one use logic to verify these claims?

I don't think logic can do anything significant as far that that goes. At some point we have to use the evidence we have to check out how valid these claims are. From my own experience people can not do those things.  I dismiss other ancient stories on the grounds that they are too fantastic, and do not match my own experience of reality. 

Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin?
Do you believe he walked on water?
Do you believe his death saves your soul from burnin in hell for eternity?
DO you believe he turned water to wine?
Do you believe he healed a blind guy by rubbing spit and sand in the guy's eyes?
How do you make sense of all these claims?
How can you make sense of this, logically, to someone that does not share you faith, without special pleading. e.g I believe in an all powerful God that can make anything possible and did in the case of Jesus.

Is blind faith required, at least to accept the fundamental claims of popular Christian belief? If not how can one make sense of them?

@Mudley313: I can see your post.

@Krayola: Thank you. My post in the OP is not against faith, but is an argument against the abuse of Fideism (leading to blind "faith".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."

In the definition of Fideism above, I do not believe faith is independent of reason or that it is hostile to reason. It is superior at arriving at particular truths, however this is not to be abused. Superior in my opinion will mean faster and more accurate. But to avoid abuse, when someone makes a faith claim, it must be backed by reason IN THE SAME DOMAIN.

e.g. Making a spiritual claim and reasoning it out in the physical domain will get you nowhere. If you make a claim as a theist about my religious beliefs, it is in the same domain and we must reason it out. If you are an atheist and you say the spiritual domain does not even exist, there is little that can be done that will not be considered "special pleading" because one is attempting an interlocution across domains.

In essence, I am saying I believe faith is a platform to begin with. The logic I speak of is WITHIN the confines of this faith. We reason ON the platforms of faith.

Axiom: a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

Logic works with axioms that are not to be proven by the self-same logic, and so the axioms I employ in my logic with Christianity are founded in faith.

I (like some known apologists: C.S. Lewis, John Macquarrie, Karl Jaspers, etc) ardently and honestly subscribe to Christian Existentialism, of which the 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) is posthumously considered the originator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialist
Kierkegaard maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely,[7][8] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.

What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. . . . I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.
—Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835, emphasis added

In Christ's teachings, he always ensured that EACH INDIVIDUAL logically reasoned out the consequences of the matter at hand and how it related to their own lives. There was a spiritual undertone that was certain and declared, and that initial platform was one of faith.

That is what this thread is about. You have faith? Dare you to reason it out yourself? Or you want to blindly absorb some communal faith because someone absorbed it for themselves for reasons best known to THEM?

It is for this reason of[b] individuality[/b] and generalization that I found jagunlabi's jenwitemi's post out of place.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Christian Existentialism. I think it answers the questions you asked, if my explanation above has not sufficed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

The Bible as an existential writing

Christian Existentialism often refers to what it calls the indirect style of Christ's teachings, which it considers to be a distinctive and important aspect of his ministry. Christ's point, it says, is often left unsaid in any particular parable or saying, to permit each individual to confront the truth on their own.[5] This is particularly evident in (but is certainly not limited to) his parables. For example, in Matthew 18, Jesus tells a story about a man who is heavily in debt. The debtor and his family are about to be sold into slavery, but he pleads for their lives. His master accordingly cancels the debt and sets them free. Later the man who was in debt abuses some people who owe him money, and he has them thrown in jail. Upon being informed of what this man has done, the master brings him in and says, "Why are you doing this? Weren't your debts canceled?" Then the debtor is thrown into jail until the debt is paid. Jesus ends his story by saying, "This is how it will be for you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Often Christ's parables are a response to a question he is asked. After he tells the parable, he returns the question to the individual who originally asked it. Often we see a person asking a speculative question involving one's duty before God, and Christ's response is more or less the same question—but as God would ask that individual.

For example, in Luke 10:25, a teacher of the law asks Jesus what it means to love one's neighbor as oneself. Jesus replies by telling the story of the Good Samaritan. In the story a man is beaten by thieves. A priest and a Levite pass him by, but a Samaritan takes pity on him and generously sets him up at an inn—paying his tab in advance. Then Jesus returns the question, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?". Jesus does not answer the question because he requires the individual to answer it, and thus to understand existence in the Bible, one must recognize who that passage is speaking to in particular. To Kierkegaard, it is the individual hearing the passage.

A good example of indirect communication in the Old Testament is the story of David and Nathan in 2 Samuel 12. David had committed adultery with a woman, Bathsheba, then murdered her husband to cover up the incident. David initially thought he had gotten away with murder, until Nathan arrived to tell him a story about two men, one rich and the other poor. The poor man was a shepherd with only one lamb, which he raised with his family. The lamb ate at his table and slept in his arms. One day a traveler came to visit the rich man; instead of taking one of his own sheep, the rich man seized the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for his guest.

When Nathan finished his story, David burned with anger and said (among other things): "As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!". Nathan responded by saying "You are the man!". Realizing his guilt, David becomes filled with terror and remorse, tearfully repenting of his evil deed.

An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject, studying the words that God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[6] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside.

This is the task Kierkegaard takes up when he asks: "Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life, or the learner who should put it to use?"[7]

[size=13pt]Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority.[/size]

Cheers.

^^^ I hope you realize you said absolutely nothing to address that which Krayola raised.

Indirah?:

^^^ I hope you realize you said absolutely nothing to address that which Krayola raised.

I have instead shown him that this thread does not address what he thinks it does, and to forestall future derailments from another poster, I explained my own views on logic in Christianity.

The thread is titled: Christianity, Reason, Insight And Sound Classical Logic which clearly tells that Christianity is at least assumed. The Reasoning is done WITHIN Christianity and not outside it.

Thanks for your contribution.

InesQor:


Let us see why.

If the dentist informs you that one of your fillings is cracked and you allow him to replace it even though you don't have a toothache, then your belief in his truthfulness is based on blind faith in a learned person. In our complex technological society, we must base some decisions on blind faith because we can't become experts on everything.
However, we don't generally use blind faith as a basis for our beliefs if a mistake could be life threatening or financially ruinous. When a false belief can have grave consequences for ourselves or our loved ones, we may consult available experts or "learned persons" but, ultimately, we weigh the evidence ourselves and personally make a decision about what is true or what represents the best course of action.

I don't see how this example is Blind Faith,

1 When you visit your Dentist, it is based on the premise that you know what a Dentist really represents, [ LOGIC] that ( He/She is Educated, Skilled in Dentistry , Trained in a University, Licensed by both his Professional Body i.e Nigerian Dental Association and the Government) all this is done to prevent quacks and fraudsters.

2. You visit your Dentist for a reason ( though no toothache) to check the state of your Oral Health based on above ^^^^

3. Mr Dentist says you have a Cracked Filling, he would produce evidence i.e parts of the cracked filling, x-ray to convince the patient that he actually does have a cracked filling.Again Sir, this is [Logic]

4. Mr Dentist goes ahead to suggest course of action, e.g Refilled, Pulling out the Cracked Tooth etc. this also based on [Logic.]

Blind Faith is arriving for your Flight at MM2 airport and getting Informed that Adeboye and Pastor Chris would your Pilots for the Flight. Getting on board would be Blind Faith.

Logic and Faith can not exist in the same Time and Space

InesQor:



e.g. Making a spiritual claim and reasoning it out in the physical domain will get you nowhere. If you make a claim as a theist about my religious beliefs, it is in the same domain and we must reason it out. If you are an atheist and you say the spiritual domain does not even exist, there is little that can be done that will not be considered "special pleading" because one is attempting an interlocution across domains.

@Inesqor The  claims that most Christians make about Jesus doing those things are not spiritual claims IMO. They are understood as actual events that took place in history. He is not believed to have walked on spiritual water, or healed spiritual eyes, or raised dead spirits. He, according to the bible, was walking down the street, was approached by a blind man, and he healed the guy and told the guy to keep his mouth shut (amongst other "great deeds". What do these events have to do with a spiritual domain? Were Jesus, his disciples, his followers and his "patients" living in a spiritual domain, or in Israel on planet earth?

"Logic within the confines of faith."  So it seems a leap of blind faith is taken, and then logic is applied once you have accepted certain claims as true even though they go against all that you know, based on experience, about reality?

You said in your OP that we should check claims made by others by ourselves and not just follow the leader. If I told you I just saw a guy moonwalking on a live electric cable before disappearing into thin air and reappearing as a dog would you believe it? What if such a story was in the bible? I think the bible is filled with similar stories. How do you believe the ones in the bible and then dismiss the moonwalking electric-proof canine man?

@mrmayor: Are you trying to say that if any professional in a field tells you something, you must always believe them? Sorry if that's the case for you, but not for me if I have any REASON for reservations to the necessity or truth behind the operation.

@krayola:
Logic is ALWAYS within some confine or the other. I refer you to Axioms once again. I already explained this.

Krayola:
You said in your OP that we should check claims made by others by ourselves and not just follow the leader. If I told you I just saw a guy moonwalking on a live electric cable before disappearing into thin air and reappearing as a dog would you believe it? What if such a story was in the bible? I think the bible is filled with similar stories. How do you believe the ones in the bible and then dismiss the moonwalking electric-proof canine man?

In the light of my faith axioms, all Biblical events had a reason for being (no matter how absurd they may sound to you), and all were in line with a PLAN that clearly outlined Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelations in archetypes, semblances and real-time occurences of all sorts. Here, your claim has no REASON to exist within my foundational axioms of faith, no REASON to be so. So I do not REASON it to be so. I thus do not believe it. That's all.

As for other things you said concerning the Bible, let me say again what I already said above, quoted from wikipedia

Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority.

I have allowed it to be mine. And once again, that's my personal experience of faith. What's yours, if you have any?

@mrmayor:

Your post above, stating that an authority/professional is always right because you subscribed to their services ab initio CLEARLY shows the problem with the church today, where people do ALL KINDS of things just because a MOG says so.

InesQor:

@mrmayor: Are you trying to say that if any professional in a field tells you something, you must always believe them? Sorry if that's the case for you, but not for me if I have any REASON for reservations to the necessity or truth behind the operation.

InesQor:

@mrmayor:
Your post above, stating that an authority/professional is always right because you subscribed to their services ab initio CLEARLY shows the problem with the church today, where people do ALL KINDS of things just because a MOG says so. 

No Sir, I would not believe a Doctor who tells me that I'm Pregnant, I will however believe  him if he Produces Evidence[LOGIC} that though my Physiology is male, that Men can indeed get pregnant, He would have to prove with hard and corroborative evidence, Scan, X-ray and opinions from other doctors to prove that I'm indeed pregnant. I would also like to know how I got pregnant in the first place since I'm not gay. I would be a medical marvel to be probed and studied

You believe that a Virgin got pregnant without any male spermatozoa, that Sir is Blind Faith


The Trustworthy Index of a Professional body, Agency,Government is based on what You/We know,Raw Data, past experiences, etc. I do not trust EFCC any more than I trust the CIA.

@Inesqor. Ok. Whatever you say

InesQor:

@mrmayor:

Your post above, stating that an authority/professional is always right because you subscribed to their services ab initio CLEARLY shows the problem with the church today, where people do ALL KINDS of things just because a MOG says so. 

But apparently it's ok to believe and do all kinds of things just because the BIBLE says so.  I laugh in Bangladeshi pidgin.

Sharrap dia with immediate effect, you! Prostrate before me and thank me for ressurecting your dead thread.

InesQor:

I knew Jenwitemi would show up here like jagunlabi used to do on any thread with Christianity and logic.

What else do you expect me to say when you make spurious assertions out of confusion and ignorance. Christianity and reasoning? Be happy i even take you seriously enough to post on this thread.

Besides, i did say something, didn't i? Something along the lines of. . . religion is not compatible to logic, reasoning and critical thinking.

InesQor:
And of course they never have
anything useful to say to the subject matter except to point fingers, twiddle thumbs and end up saying nothing.

Inesqor, what you have observed without realizing that which you have observed from what you have posted is this,  one of the fundermental differences between spirituality and religiousity.
The difference between the two, put simply(by no means in detail) is thus;

Spirituality = Faith + Reasoning + Critical Thinking + Logic

Religiousity = Faith + faith + Blind Faith + Blind Faith

The mistaking of one for the other is what is wrong with you and the rest of your fellow christian brethrens as a whole. The indoctrination job you got from christianity has made sure of that. The fact that you have finally seen it only shows that you are making good progress in the right direction. Keep it up, brethren.

InesQor:

I have carefully listed Bible verses showing how logic is required, and I have in the OP also used classical logic to disprove the
Hegelian synthesis and blind-appeal-to-authority systems popular, but definitely wrong, in Christianity today.

That's because Jesus was teaching spiritual truths delivered in a coded fashion and not religious doctrines. Religious doctrines was only brought in after he was gone to be used to coopt and warp his true teachings. Teachings which, in their true form, gave every individual empowerment, something the church never wanted. That is the difference between what Jesus taught back then and what the christian clergy has been feeding you and your brethrens with all these centuries. Churchism, not Jesusism.

InesQor:

Even Jesus (our example) in his day was a radical apologist who used logic to defend his faith rather than the blind-faith system the Pharisees used, so what's the fuss here?

I have nothing to disprove here because you are on to something and it is definitely not christian wisdom, but something way beyond it. Yes, the bible is a spiritual book if one can quit reading and interpreting it on the superficial level. The bible is a multilayered book that caters for everyone of varying levels of spiritual development. The more spiritually evolved you are, the deeper you are able to look. That has been clear to me a long time ago.

InesQor:

If you have anything useful to say, disprove the logic above or show how the attendant Bible verses are false. Dont show up on my thread or any thread and say the proposition is a lie cos thats not what you observe daily. That is very childish and shortminded in my opinion. Who told you that the ones you observe are doing it right? T[b]he problem here is NOT what people are doing but rather what they should be.[/b]

Hope my contributions are better this time around, o brethren.

Krayola:

. . .
You said in your OP that we should check claims made by others by ourselves and not just follow the leader. If I told you I just saw a guy moonwalking on a live electric cable before disappearing into thin air and reappearing as a dog would you believe it? What if such a story was in the bible? I think the bible is filled with similar stories. How do you believe the ones in the bible and then dismiss the moonwalking electric-proof canine man?

I really laughed out loud when I read this.

@InesQor

I don't think just using logic to make valid arguments will actually get you answers that are true because, if your premise is false, your argument may be valid but unsound or false. This is where reason comes in. Reasoning critically using information that we actually have about the world and universe is essential in discovering whether or not your premises are true.

So, I think your premises would need to be assessed on whether or not they are true if you care about arriving at true conclusions.

And, as has been pointed out, religious claims are often open to proper evaluation as to their feasibility so the separate domain argument does not work.

Thanks for your posts, people.