![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 79. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2002, at 6:52:54
In reply to The one and only truth, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:12:50
Fred Potter,
You wrote that "I think the one and only truth that we all recognise.....even though we may not admit it to ourselves, is that (we) do not know." And also that you state that it takes courage to aknowledge that.
Could you clarify what you mean by "we"? Are you sayiug that the "we" are:
1) all of the people in this discussion?
2) only the people that are in this discussion that agree with you?
3) all the people alive today?
4 all the people that ever lived
5) some other group of people
If you could clarify that for me, then I could better communucate with you in regards to the topic presented in this thread. For as of now, it could mean that you are including me in the "we" in your post. I (do) know from the experiance that I had that I have been writing about on this board that there is a God.
Could you also clarify what your last statement that "The faith that whatever is really true is OK ." could mean in relation to your first statement that ...the one and only truth... is that we do not know. If you could clarify what you mean by that, then I could be better able to understand what the two statements together mean and then I could better communicate with you in this thread. Are you saying that:
1) the only true faith is the faith that says that you do not know?
2) there are other faiths that are really true and they are OK
3) there is a faith that is really true, but I do not know of it
4) some other explanation
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2002, at 7:35:12
In reply to The one and only truth, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:12:50
Fred,
You wrote that the one and only truth is that we do not know. Then you wrote, "Yes it does take courage to aknowledge it."
Could you clarify what you mean by ...it takes (courage) to aknowkedge it? Are you saying that:
1)all those that beleive in God are (wrong)because there is only one truth-the truth that we can not know if there is a God or not?
2)those that say that they beleive in God are cowards because they will not admit that the only truth is that we can not know if there is a God or not?
3)those that have faith are really deluding themselves, for the only truth is that we can not know if there is a God or not and thearfore all people that believe in God are having delusions?
4) there is only one way to beleive, and that is to believe that you can not know God. and thearfore if you have an experiance that gives you faith in God, you should ignore it because it can not be true because the only truth is that no one can know God?
5) some other explanation
If you could clarify that for me, then I would be better able to communicate with you in regards to the discussion on this thread.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 8:06:58
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
Obviously there are areas in my faith life where I have chosen to take leaps of faith. I just choose them carefully.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 9:51:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Liz's post: an example » fachad, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:05:37
> 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.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to overgeneralize, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
> 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.
Hey, great to see you here, after all! :-)
> 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 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.
>
> IsoM> 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?
>
> DinahI see what you're saying, and like the black holes analogy, and don't mean to imply that faith is totally irrational or illogical, or necessarily "blind", but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
Hmm, "preponderance" is to some extent subjective, what's convincing to one person isn't always to another. Maybe a better way to see this is as objective beliefs vs. subjective ones? Rather than as beliefs with evidence vs. those without?
And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
Bob
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 14:30:53
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » FredPotter, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 9:51:08
> > 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.
>
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to overgeneralize, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
>
> Bobsorry - it's not just that organised religion sometimes uses faith to apparently get things wrong or not wholly right, but that there is evidence that its adherents have been and can be so horribly cruel to anyone who dares to disagree.
Posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 16:09:53
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
I’d like to make clear, Bob, that I’m not talking about rationalism, a philosophical belief, but about rationality & logical thinking from gathered evidence of the world around us, & the resulting faith.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
“…but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?”Yes, it’s possible that it is something else but it wouldn’t be so very off target. Let’s get back to the black hole analogy (not the best one but I grabbed it out of the air quickly). Because there’s no real proof that there’s black holes, in the future as more evidence is gathered (& possibly a grand unifying theory is reached), we’ll find that this phenomenon that was believed to be black holes isn’t. But if it isn’t, it won’t be radically different. What’s discovered will still fit the data that’s been gathered & the math describing it. If it’s not a black hole, it’s going to be something awfully similar. We won’t find that it’s some huge orbiting dog in space.
Evidence should lead to a logical conclusion. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth wasn’t flat. They used evidence about of what they could see & study – the Moon & Earth. They noticed the different phases of the Moon, & how the shadow of the Earth looked on its surface. During half-moon phase, the demarcation between lit & unlit was a straight line down. If the Earth was just a flat disc, it would’ve thrown a shadow of the curve of the disc on the Moon, but it didn’t. Any child with a flashlight & two spheres can check it out for themselves to understand. Ancient societies that thought the Earth was a flat disc didn’t take the evidence before their eyes into consideration. We find it amusing now how evident certain things were that primitive societies didn’t bother checking out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -“And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?”
Blind faith doesn’t mean a stronger belief – it means shutting your eyes to evidence, hence the term blind, rather than unseen faith. There’s very little that doesn’t have some sort of evidence about; it just depends on whether people will bother checking it out or not.
Blind faith is about insisting that the Earth is still flat:
http://flatearthsociety.com
http://flat-earth.org
Or saying that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Or saying that Man has never landed on the Moon & it’s all a conspiracy.
Or believing every urban legend or piece of gossip that comes along. I could offer sites on all these ideas but I doubt that anyone would get much out of it other than a good laugh. Why? Because we know better than that. We don’t have their blind faith.
And that’s where blind faith leads!And if you say that everyone’s views & opinions should be given equal credence, then why isn’t an equal amount of money used to back these theories too? Because it’s obvious after reading what’s shown, that it’s illogical & ridiculous. For something to be taken seriously & believed, there should be some basis, some *sensible* reason to believe in it. If we have no evidence, then maybe each of us should just make up any silly fairy tale as the basis of our belief system.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -What bothers me is the fact that faith has become a ‘dirty’ word. People’s opinions have become clouded about faith because it’s been presented over & over that there doesn’t have to be a rationale for it. Faith NEEDS rational evidence to be real (though not necessarily everything is completely understood, but then we don’t completely understand everything around us yet, let alone the universe). The word blind is an adjective to describe a faith without logic or reason – it’s a set of credulous beliefs.
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 16:21:16
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
>
> I see what you're saying, and like the black holes analogy, and don't mean to imply that faith is totally irrational or illogical, or necessarily "blind", but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
>
> Hmm, "preponderance" is to some extent subjective, what's convincing to one person isn't always to another. Maybe a better way to see this is as objective beliefs vs. subjective ones? Rather than as beliefs with evidence vs. those without?
>OK, Agreed. Someone else may look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion. And the evidence is open to interpretation. That's why I have no problem with anyone coming to a different conclusion than I have. It's also why I always hope that those who have come to a different conclusion than I have also respect my conclusions and the fact that I have put thought and effort into it.
> And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
>
> Bob
>
I certainly don't think it's a lesser kind of faith. I know many many people with blind faith, and I respect their beliefs, although I don't always completely understand them. However I also don't think it is necessarily a stronger belief. God gave us brains for a reason, and I don't think He requires that we put them aside in matters of faith.Perhaps faith can't be quantified or evaluated. Perhaps believers are just different, with differing spiritual gifts. And perhaps that's what makes the whole endeavor so fascinating and rewarding. :)
Dinah
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 16:54:39
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 16:21:16
Dinah wrote
>God gave us brains for a reasonThere's a lot of faith in that phrase
By the way Newton's theory of gravity was useful rather than true. It worked very well for over 200 years, and continues to do so. Einstein however got closer to the truth with a notion that was totally different to Newton's. In time Einstein's theories will be replaced by more useful theories I expect. However there may be no truth - just ever more useful theories. Which brings us to Karl Popper . . .
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 19:36:39
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 16:54:39
> Dinah wrote
> >God gave us brains for a reason
>
> There's a lot of faith in that phrase
>Why, thank you. :) I do try.
Dinah
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.