![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:08:53
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy « celesteloveage, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 17:29:46
> > > When I was a teenager, I discovered philosophy, and after much study and serious thought, self honesty, and rational thinking, found that religion was just not true. Others may disagree, but I am convinced that if you take an honest, rational look at religion, you will come out agnostic or atheist.
But isn't faith not about being "rational", but about believing? Is the former necessarily better?
> > > Phaedo is a record of the conversation Socrates had with his friends in jail on the day he was executed by the Athenians... He explained that it is better for a man to die with dignity, than to live badly.
> > >
> > > fachadAnd that was a conclusion he arrived at through rational thinking?
Bob
Posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:08:53
I believe rational thought to be superior to faith. Just believing in something for belief's sake is absurd and its the easy way out. It is important to be educated about philosophy and to be honest with oneself. The fact is that religion has to be based on blind faith and in many cases ignorance to exist. Wishful thinking sums up faith in my mind. For instance, "I hope there is a God (Christian) up in heaven so I will be rewarded for being a good person during my lifetime and won't have to fear the end of my existence/ death."
It takes much more courage to take a rational approach in looking at religion. Religious dogma fears rational thought and education because if people subscribed to thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their actions on this earth, they wouldn't need the infrastructure of a religious belief system. Organized religion would fall.
Liz
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 8:57:12
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
Liz,
I am delighted to read your post. You stated that , "I believe rational thought to be superior to faith."
Could you give an example of a thought that you deem as "rational" and why that thought is "superior to faith"? If you could do that, then I will be able to discuss it with you and, perhaps, our discussion will be of some enlightenment to those that are reading this thread.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 9:06:40
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
Liz,
In your post, you used the phrase, "easy way out". Could you explaine what the "out" is in your use of the formentioned phrase?
If you could do that, then I would be able to discuss that with you and, perhaps, some enlightenment will come from our discussion to those that are following this thread.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 9:25:28
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
Liz,
You stated in your post that,"The fact is that religion has to be based on blind faith and in many cases ignorance."
When you say that religion (has) to be based on blind faith, are you saying that religion can (never) be based on something that is real to a person, such as the answer to a prayer, or the visit to that person by God in the form of a human, or a vision , or a miracle in the life of a person? Could you also give me an example of what you consider to be "ignorance" in the "many cases" that you are referring to? If you could do that, then I could have a better idea of what you are referring to and, perhaps, we could have a discussion that would be of some benifit to the readers of this thread.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 9:44:17
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
Liz,
You stated in your post, "Wishfull thinking sums up faith in my mind. For instance, "I hope there is a God (Christian) up in heaven so I will be rewarded for being a good person during my lifetime and won't have to fear the end of my existance/death."
When you use the phrase, "wishfull thinking", are you saying that you know for sure that:
1) There is no God in heaven?
2) People that have faith in an afterlife are just deluding themselves because you know that it is a fact that there is no afterlife?
3) That people that live their lives to do good works are doing doing them in vain because you know for a fact that there is no reward for them in an afterlife?
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 9:59:14
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
Liz,
You stated in your post, "It takes much more courage to take a rational approach in looking at religion."
Could you clarify your statement? If you could clarify that for me ,then I could have a better discussion with you about your statement above. Could you explain in more detail what you mean by the "courage?" and the "rational approach?"
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 10:22:17
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
> Just believing in something for belief's sake is absurd and its the easy way out.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, and not to post anything that could lead them to feel put down, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 10:31:49
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by jamesdean on October 16, 2002, at 7:18:31
> It takes much more courage to take a rational approach in looking at religion. Religious dogma fears rational thought and education...
Doesn't it take courage to make a leap of faith? Without the safety net of logic? And doesn't rational thought also fear religion?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2002, at 11:28:51
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 10:31:49
> > It takes much more courage to take a rational approach in looking at religion. Religious dogma fears rational thought and education...
>
> Doesn't it take courage to make a leap of faith? Without the safety net of logic? And doesn't rational thought also fear religion?
>
> BobUnless I misunderstand you both, both of you seem to feel that faith cannot be compatible with rational thought or logic. I assure you that this is untrue. A faith based on reason and logic can be deep and meaningful. There are many different levels of faith, and many different roads to a relationship with God or a higher power, or whatever your reason, tradition, and faith leads you to believe in.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 12:51:02
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2002, at 11:28:51
Dinah,
I am interested in what you just posted. Could you, possibly, tell of an experiance that you had , or that you know of , that enables you to state what you said in your post? If you could, then I could understand better what you mean and further discuss it with you.
Best regard,
Lou
Posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 14:40:40
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 15, 2002, at 22:08:53
>> But isn't faith not about being "rational", but about believing? Is the former necessarily better?
"Better" depends on what you want out of the activity.
If you are looking for truth, in the sense of beliefs that correspond with reality, and are independent of subjective factors, then the application of reason to sense experience is the best hands down.
>> And that was a conclusion he arrived at through rational thinking?
Well, Socratic dialectic is a more free form type of rational thought than modern scientific method, but yes, Socrates argues, in a rational fashion, that it is better to face death with dignity than to live in an unethical way.
> > > When I was a teenager, I discovered philosophy, and after much study and serious thought, self honesty, and rational thinking, found that religion was just not true. Others may disagree, but I am convinced that if you take an honest, rational look at religion, you will come out agnostic or atheist.
>
> But isn't faith not about being "rational", but about believing? Is the former necessarily better?
>
> > > > Phaedo is a record of the conversation Socrates had with his friends in jail on the day he was executed by the Athenians... He explained that it is better for a man to die with dignity, than to live badly.
> > > >
> > > > fachad
>
> And that was a conclusion he arrived at through rational thinking?
>
> Bob
Posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 14:52:41
In reply to Lou's response to Liz's post » jamesdean, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 8:57:12
>>Could you give an example of a thought that you deem as "rational" and why that thought is "superior to faith"?
Lou,
I will take a crack at that for you.
One example would be when we talk about the nature of the solar system.
Galaleo looked through his telescope and saw the moons of Jupiter. He observed their movement relative to the planet and reasoned to the conclusion that they were revolving around Jupiter.
The Catholic Church knew that their faith told them that the Earth was the center of the universe, that God had created it for man, and that everything revolved around the Earth.
They refused to even look through the telescope, because they KNEW, by faith, the nature of the universe. The tortured Galaleo until he recanted, but he muttered under his breath, "they still move!".
Now today we know from modern astronomy and fly by photographs that Galaleo was right, and the "infallable" Holy Catholic Church was DEAD WRONG! And the history of science is filled with simialr examples, where faith was WAY OFF, and empirical observation, integrated by reason, has been correct.
It is in this sense that I say with confidence that reason is superior to faith.
> Liz,
> I am delighted to read your post. You stated that , "I believe rational thought to be superior to faith."
> Could you give an example of a thought that you deem as "rational" and why that thought is "superior to faith"? If you could do that, then I will be able to discuss it with you and, perhaps, our discussion will be of some enlightenment to those that are reading this thread.
> Best regards,
> Lou
Posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 15:02:09
In reply to Lou's response to Liz's post-part 2 » jamesdean, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 9:06:40
> In your post, you used the phrase, "easy way out". Could you explain what the "out" is in your use of the aforementioned phrase?
Lou,
I cannot speak for Liz as to exactly what she meant, but I can give you my interpretation.
Examining all the evidence for and against a particular belief, and evaluating that evidence by rational criteria, and being committed to finding the truth, even if it does not turn out the way you wanted, is a tremendous effort.
Believing what you want to believe, or what you were always taught to believe, or believing what makes you feel comfortable about your place in the universe or you fate after death, is much easier. It does not require any effort. It does not take any courage. You just go along with whatever you want to believe, or what you were taught.
That is why Liz called it the easy way out. But realistically, the first method tends to weed out irrational beliefs, and will guide a person to truth, while the second method only perpetuates dogma.
> Liz,
> In your post, you used the phrase, "easy way out". Could you explain what the "out" is in your use of the aforementioned phrase?
> If you could do that, then I would be able to discuss that with you and, perhaps, some enlightenment will come from our discussion to those that are following this thread.
> Sincerely,
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 16:10:10
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Liz's post: an example » Lou Pilder, posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 14:52:41
Fachad,
Thank you for "taking a crack" at what Liz was referring to. I appreciate your response.
But could you give an example that is (now) a thought that you deem rational and why that thought is superior to faith?
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 16:27:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response part 2 - easy way out » Lou Pilder, posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 15:02:09
Fachad,
Could you clarify what you mean by:
1)Examining all the evidence for and against a particular belief...
I would like you to clarify what "evidence" would be that one could examine. If you list those factors that you use, then I will be better able to communicate with you in regards to your interpretation of what you thought that Liz meant by the phrase, "easy way out".
2) "...weed out irrational beliefs..."
I would like for you to clarify what you include to be "irrational" beliefs. Could you give an example of an "irrational" and a rational belief? If you could do that, then I would be better able to discuss further with you on this topic.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 16, 2002, at 16:46:37
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 12:51:02
I am afraid I have had no particular experience, Lou. I don't think I'm the sort of person who has direct contact with the sacred, although I have great respect for those who feel and experience their faith more than I do.
My faith came through study. Study of science and study of the religions of the world. I just came to believe through my studies, that the idea that this world was created through random chance was far less credible than belief in a higher power that guided its creation through the laws of physics. My beliefs about God and God's relationship to man are mainly influenced by Rabbinic Judaism, although I am Christian. I find Judaism to be an extremely rational and sensible faith.
This is just a description of my faith journey.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 16:57:45
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2002, at 16:46:37
Dinah,
Thank you for your caring response. Your thoughts about creation vs. chance also were something that we share.
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 21:59:37
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 16, 2002, at 16:46:37
> > > It takes much more courage to take a rational approach in looking at religion. Religious dogma fears rational thought and education...
> >
> > Doesn't it take courage to make a leap of faith? Without the safety net of logic? And doesn't rational thought also fear religion?
>
> Unless I misunderstand you both, both of you seem to feel that faith cannot be compatible with rational thought or logic. I assure you that this is untrue. A faith based on reason and logic can be deep and meaningful...I certainly didn't mean to imply that religion is totally irrational or illogical, or never deep and meaningful...
> My faith came through study. Study of science and study of the religions of the world. I just came to believe through my studies, that the idea that this world was created through random chance was far less credible than belief in a higher power that guided its creation through the laws of physics...
What I meant was, faith at some point comes down to, well, faith, right? As opposed to evidence?
> faith
> 2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?faithWould you say it was evidence of some sort that made the one belief more credible than the other?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 22:01:33
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 14:40:40
> >> But isn't faith not about being "rational", but about believing? Is the former necessarily better?
>
> "Better" depends on what you want out of the activity.
>
> If you are looking for truth...If people are looking for "objective" truth, maybe so. But that might not be what they want most out of this activity...
> >> And that was a conclusion he arrived at through rational thinking?
>
> Well, Socratic dialectic is a more free form type of rational thought than modern scientific method, but yes, Socrates argues, in a rational fashion, that it is better to face death with dignity than to live in an unethical way.He was able to prove that? That conclusion was supported by evidence?
Bob
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:05:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Liz's post: an example » Lou Pilder, posted by fachad on October 16, 2002, at 14:52:41
Fachad I thought Galileo said, "It still moves" meaning the Earth. Anyway he was a great and brave man. I agree with you basically. But it's not just that organised religion uses faith to get things wrong, but that its adherents are so horribly cruel to anyone who dares to disagree. I think that is what is so very, very bad about organised religion, particularly, it would seem, Christianity.
However I think we should watch we don't get too naive about this "reality" business. Let's keep in mind Kant's (or was it Plato's?) distinction between Phenomenal and Noumenal
Peace
Fred
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:12:50
In reply to Lou's response to Fachad's second post » fachad, posted by Lou Pilder on October 16, 2002, at 16:27:36
I think the one and only truth that we all recognise, deep inside, even though we may not admit it even to ourselves, is that we do not know. Yes it does take courage to acknowledge it. Strangely it then gives a sense of freedom and a true faith. The faith that whatever is really true is "OK". It must be. That to me is real faith
Posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 0:58:52
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 21:59:37
Okay, Bob, I said I wasn't going to add anything to the PB Faith board but I'd like to point out something about the definition of faith.
Faith as defined by a dictionary is different than the way the Bible defines faith at Hebrews 11:1. There is says that "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for (or the substance of things hoped for - KJ version), the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld (the evidence of things not seen - KJ version).
This meaning is different than a dictionary's definition as it doesn't imply blind faith at all, but suggests reasoning or rational thought - looking for evidence of the said unseen things. For faith to be worthwhile, it should be based on demonstrative evidence of the unseen. Maybe there's not hard proof but there should be sense & logic backing up a person's faith. There should be tangible evidence that can be shown to back up one's beliefs - much like black holes are unseen but there's strong evidence to back up a belief in them. That's the sort of faith that's meant in the Bible.
So faith is NOT credulity. Much like a scientist has faith in the reliability of the laws of physics & chemistry so when he/she bases the results of his/her experiments, he/she is relying on the demonstration of these laws without needing to redo each step along the way over & over. There's been evident demonstration of these laws for thousands of years now.
Why did churches ever come up with the idea of blind faith or unconditional faith? I suppose if one claims to use the Bible as the basis for a belief system but then adds or distorts what's in it, it may be a very good idea to change or cloud the definition of faith. Stops people from questioning what's taught & merely accepting that what is taught must come from the Bible. It pays to check things out whatever it is.
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 2:58:23
In reply to Re: Rational Thought and Faith » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 0:58:52
You expressed that much better than I could, but you summed up my thoughts on the matter beautifully.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2002, at 21:59:37
>
> What I meant was, faith at some point comes down to, well, faith, right? As opposed to evidence?
>
> > faith
> > 2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
> > http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?faith
>
> Would you say it was evidence of some sort that made the one belief more credible than the other?
>
> BobChuckle. :) I had understood there would be no math. (Sorry, old Saturday Night Live joke). You do ask tough questions.
I think IsoM explained it much better than I could. Absolute proof? No, I suppose not. How about the preponderance of the evidence as a standard? I think I summed up how I came to find one idea more credible than the other in this post.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20020527/msgs/416.html
But if we were going to use absolute proof as a standard, then perhaps the meds board should be merged with this one. There is no proof that the current theories of how the brain works or how psych meds work is true. But that doesn't mean that the theories are irrational or lack evidence.
Now, admittedly, if you start thinking about the specifics of any given religion, there is less evidence than in there is in a guiding force or power. And I'm sad to say I'm not nearly as good at belief in the specifics. I'm open to seeing biblical truths as more profound than merely history. I guess I choose to believe in the more logical parts, and I choose not to believe in the more far-fetched ones. But I'm open to changing my mind should new evidence appear. I tell you, it leads to some dissent in sunday school, and I spend a fair amount of time there studying my nails and keeping my mouth shut. I admire those who *can* make a leap of faith. I find it easier to build a bridge of logic.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.