A few years ago Vox Day wrote a book called the “Irrational Atheist.” It is the most disjointed, disconnected, tragic argument against atheism I’ve ever read. It is devoid of love, devoid of theology, and devoid of logic, too. It is so nihilistic, cold, cruel, it had me thinking for the first time ever, if that is God, I don’t want him. Needless to say, choosing to reject a Supreme Being, all powerful, all knowing, simply because you disapprove, is a non rational act. Conversely however, embracing such a God who has no capacity for love and mercy, is even more non rational. It’s also immoral.
Then God quietly asked, why are you allowing someone who calls himself the Voice of God and a Supreme Dark Lord define what is rational? And in that moment I realized that atheism really is quite rational, logical, and reason based. It is actually Vox Day who is emotionally driven, irrational, his broken bits cloaked behind a mask of intellectualism, moral superiority, and reason. Trapped in a deception he cannot even see. Irrational, emotional, rhetorical.
Yes, indeed, non believers really are the reality based community. It is my faith that is irrational, illogical, devoid of reason. It is my faith that flies in the face of what I know to be true intellectually. God is a God of impossible things who doesn’t give a wit about what we think is “rational.” God says, step out in the midst of a storm and walk on water. God says, here’s a talking donkey, here’s a burning bush, here’s a disembodied hand writing on the wall, now suspend your disbelief. You do not know what you think you know.
To truly know God requires a leap of faith, surrendered disbelief. It is irrational, illogical, devoid of reason, a bit like falling in love. It demands intellectual surrender, complete humility, the removal of self, in order to truly hear Him, to draw close. Crushed, broken, “delusional” even, no longer firmly rooted in reality. Everything is an idol that gets in the way of that relationship, our faith in our own ability to reason, our faith in our perception of reality, our faith in our own intelligence, our confidence in our own perceptions. We must die to self, surrender all, slowly, painfully, a totally irrational act.
Peter had great faith when he stepped out of that boat, but he had greater faith in the in the laws of physics and quickly began to sink. Oh ye of little faith…
Scripture does not say, greater reason and logic hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Scripture does not say that because that is a lie and scripture does not lie. The verse is, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.“ Love! The ultimate act of non reason. Let me tell you, if you want to do something unprofitable, painful, that will cost you everything, try love. I can make absolutely no reason based argument for it. A few misfiring pheromones might give a partial explanation for romantic love, but sacrificial brotherly love, just defies all reason.
So atheists really are part of the reality based community, secularism being based on human logic and reason. It is rational and reason based to weigh the cost effectiveness of having a child and to chose abortion. It is rational and reason based to divorce a good man, in favor of one who offers you something better. It is rational to do a cost benefit analysis and determine that healthcare should be rationed. It is rational and reasonable to redistribute the wealth and to than enforce mandates so people are compelled to serve your cost effectiveness plan. It is rational to speak of banning sugar, of assigning sin taxes to anything that might harm human health, that might hurt the bottom line. Reason leads us to perceive human beings as nothing more than commodities, to assign worth and value to people based on their cost effectiveness, their ability to produce, or their ability to benefit our own perceived praxology.
These are all things devoid of love too, things that do not take human dignity into account, a bureaucratic nightmare that soon becomes immoral, heartless, disconnected from the human experience. There really is no sanctity of human life, there is only the sanctity of God. Perceiving people as bring created in His image manifests itself as our own respect and consideration for human dignity, the worth and value we assign to human life. In the absence of love we become commodities, having even less value than animals and the pets we actually admire because they show loyalty and need for us.
So, I am a firm advocate of the non reasonable, the illogical, the emotional, the Spirit led. Love. Our human ability to place undo value on our own capacity for reason and logic is what got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place. All it costs one to truly know God is to surrender pride, surrender the god of reason, and let go of what we think we know.
Atheists are quite rational. To worship at the foot of human reason however, is a recipe for disaster.
Paul said:
Well said IB
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
I agree with all of this, IB, but . . . God did make us with the capacity to reason. It’s only when we make reason an idol that we run into problems, I think. Sadly, that’s where our culture is.
I, for one, think reason serves to make sense of walking on water and raising the dead to life and bringing water from a rock and putting a coin into the mouth of a fish, and all the other miraculous happenings recorded in the Bible. I think it even makes sense of the Bible being infallible and inspired. It’s hinges on this one little thing: if God is omnipotent, what couldn’t He do? If God is omnipotent, it is completely reasonable for Him to stop a storm if He wants to or burn a bush without consuming it or stop the flow of the Jordan so His people could cross on dry land.
In other words, I don’t try to reason how it’s possible for things to defy physical laws. It’s not possible, if all that exists can be reduced to the physical. But if God exists, if He is sovereign, if He is omnipotent, what couldn’t He do?
I think of it like me telling a pilot he can’t fly a plane because I can’t fly a plane. (Or to extend the metaphor, that the pilot doesn’t exist because no one can fly a plane since I can’t fly a plane; anyone claiming to fly a plane, therefore, is a made up construct, a myth ). No, THAT is unreasonable. And that’s where I think a lot of atheists (or “Progressive Christians”) are. Saying, unreasonably, God can’t do that because I can’t do that. They have, in essence, brought God down and limited Him with the same limits we fallible, finite, fallen creatures have.
Becky
LikeLiked by 6 people
PARTNERING WITH EAGLES said:
Hmmm The translation of Rebecca (among others) is “ensnarer”
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_(given_name)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Is there a point there, Partnering? I kind of like “secured” which is one of the options offered in your link.
Secured (otherwise known as Becky 😉 )
LikeLiked by 1 person
PARTNERING WITH EAGLES said:
True; Please pardon the bit of satirical humor, the few Rebecca’s I have met in my life could fit any of those terms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
I loved your comment, Becky. It seems quite rational to me to believe in a God capable of doing “irrational” things, like parting the Red Sea or getting Peter to walk on water. I think the Creator if the universe gets to decide what is “rational,” not human reason.
I think you’re correct too, the modern world has some major idolatry around reason, as if science is god, as if human intelligence is more spectacular than it really is. Or maybe we haven’t changed much, I mean back in the garden we were questioning, “did God really say…” as if our own ability to rationalize and reason whether or not we should really eat the fruit was far superior to God’s.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Eavan said:
This is an interesting essay on CS Lewis’ book, Miracles. Lewis didn’t believe miracles defied the laws of nature or that God operates outside of the nature he created. From the essay:
“The Christian way of looking at things, Lewis suggests, leads us to believe in the “total harmony of all that exists.” Everything that happens within nature—including miracles, if they do indeed occur—must reflect and disclose that harmony. While miracles must, by definition, interrupt the “usual course of Nature,” they nevertheless reflect the “unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level.” There is indeed a “total harmony” within the universe, which is only partially accessible to science. “In Science we have been reading only the notes to a poem; in Christianity we find the poem itself.”
http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-miracles-possible/essays-and-opinions/alister-mcgrath-opinion
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you, that was lovely! CS Lewis has some real gems and just explains things so well.
“Total harmony,” indeed. I was trying to express something similar, God does not defy the laws of nature, He is the laws of nature. He doesn’t defy the laws of physics, He is the laws of physics, but those are very challenging ideas to wrap your brain around, let alone even find the words to describe it. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Eavan, Lewis may have influenced my thinking on this. I often find I have positions which I can’t trace to the day I learned them or embraced them. Consequently, I couldn’t tell you when I understood and accepted with my whole heart that God’s ways and thoughts are higher than ours. But that single fact revolutionizes everything else, especially when coupled with His omnipotence and with His goodness. In fact, I think accepting those qualities of God reduce life to a simple question: do I trust Him or not?
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
PARTNERING WITH EAGLES said:
Sigh…. You roped me in AGAIN. Why beat your head against the wall? (so to speak)
Instead of these continued responses/reactions to Vox, It would be well to organize your well thought out Christian observations [Re “critical thinkers”, pseudo intellectuals such as Vox] and publish your own book.
There are no shortage of Vox’s out there. Your resistance to his perverse idea of Christianity is the right thing to do; (there is though, the biblical passage about casting your pearls before swine) do you, in fact, post these on his blog?
Additionally, people like Vox act like existentialists, as if flawed human “rationality” is the answer, instead of contrition and submitting ones will to Him. They heap an even greater judgment on themselves by causing others to fall.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Ha! I love your comments Partnering, and your kind words. It’s always good to be reminded that I am indeed, casting pearls before swine and should not invest too much time in taking swings at lunkheads. No, I don’t post at VD’s blog, he immediately bans anyone who would question him.
The issue of the book came up again recently however, which is why I mentioned it. Somebody needs to read this post, don’t know who exactly, but God does. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
I recommend Saint John Paul’s tour de force, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).
He stands on the shoulders Saint Augustine from late Antiquity and Saint Thomas Aquinas of the Christian Middle Ages who ushered in the modern world by teaching Christians how to think.
Modern life is not possible without rational thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
A bit ironic, but I believe the author of this horrid little book is also a fan of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
You and I shall have to discuss it someday Silence, because I know you too are fond of the Greeks, Socrates, Plato, of logic, reason, and debate, and how civilization has reasoned itself into existence. All in good fun here, but I am more likely to say, “what civilization?”
I’m chuckling here too, but in the olden days, women never bothered with learning Greek or Philosophy, and while some would call that sexism, I think it speaks more to how our brains work differently, to the different roles we have within society, to perspectives that do tend to align themselves along gender lines.
You said, “Modern life is not possible without rational thought.” I would actually disagree and declare modern life is not possible without love. Without Christ’s love and the sacrifice He made on the cross, all our “rational thought” would be meaningless, Christianity would not have moved across the continents, and what we call Western civilization would not exist at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
IB,
I first studied Aristotle in a Catholic graduate school. The professor was a mom with three kids.
She, like bazillions of other modern, professional, educated women are trained to use reason as the common language of high-level human thought.
Also, I have also maintained that all civilizations were founded on religion.
Systematic reasoning is a Johnny Come Lately to the human race and finds its origin with the ancient Greeks.
Regarding Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Atheists say that Hitler was a Christian. Surely you don’t think like the atheists and believe that to be ironic since it is an obviously false claim.
Similarly, are the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas called to question because “the author of this horrid little book,” says he ascribes to Saint Thomas Aquinas?
Surely no.
So surely you see how your thinking on this matter displays a glaringly obvious error in reason.
Of course you don’t.
I am being ironic here because, like the atheist, you can’t see any error in your own thinking.
For like the atheist you commit the logical fallacy of citing yourself as the authority for your own argument:
“It must be true because I say so.”
Further, modern life is not possible without reason because modern life in our mega-civilization is based on science.
Also, the American Republic as originally founded was based on pure reason.
So, like the atheist, you reject reason and thus science and thus modern life, all made possible by the American Republic.
As a matter of reason, this all means that like the atheist, your thinking in this matter is severely retrograde.
Additionally, the claim, “modern life is based on love,” is preposterous.
Love is necessary to human life because human nature is what it is, not because of time or place.
Human nature is neither modern nor antiquated.
So “modern life is based on love,” is a claim that is not based on any sort of proper reasoning.
It is simply a personal opinion.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Oh, well now, I am rather disappointed in you, Silence! I had no idea you were so fond of human reason and our capacity to believe we are being rational when we are clearly not.
I certainly don’t hate Saint Thomas Aquinas, I just think he completely missed some major points and was never able to see the whole picture.
“Further, modern life is not possible without reason because modern life in our mega-civilization is based on science.”
Ha! Well now who’s the atheist? Science as God?
Let me try to explain it. Science, politics, gave us abortion, and reason has enabled millions to rationalize exterminating our own offspring. In the absence of faith, love, non rational things, that is where human reason takes us. So while I am not advocating abandoning all reason, it is a grave error to idolize human reason and to link it in any way to morality.
“So “modern life is based on love,” is a claim that is not based on any sort of proper reasoning.”
Personal opinion? So you say. However, I think I could make a reason based argument that if Christ’s love had not redeemed us all, there would be no “modern life.” I think even in a secular context that would make perfect sense, since according to secularists, the only think standing in the way of so called moral progress, is a bunch of stone age goat herders who stubbornly persist in believing in love.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
IB,
Your claim: “I just think he completely missed some major points and was never able to see the whole picture.”
Please give at least one example of “some major points” missed by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Further, neither he nor I ever claimed that he, Aquinas, could “see the whole picture.”
And your comment, “Ha! Well now who’s the atheist? Science as God?” is totally ridiculous since science is the study of the laws of nature created by nature’s God.
The postmodern atheist denies the existence of God by faith alone but seeks lend credence to his faith by hiding it behind science.
The postmodern Christian denies science because she believes the atheist.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Please give at least one example of “some major points” missed by Saint Thomas Aquinas.”
Well, Saint Thomas Aquinas himself said he intended the Summa Theologica to instruct beginners, quoting scripture, “as to infants in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat.” So, major points were deliberately missed, and he presents such a simplistic and sparse argument for faith, that hundreds of years later people are still trying to find the hidden intellectual meaning that just must be lurking somewhere in his words. There is none. He wrote exactly what he said he did, a simplistic explanation for beginners.
“Science is the study of the laws of nature created by nature’s God…”
Actually, science at this point is a heavily politicized bunch of rubbish, mostly influenced by funding and politics.
And truly, if one does not deny science, one is not a really a scientist, which brings us back to Saint Thomas Aquinas. He wasn’t investigating, researching, or questioning anything, he simply made a few declarations and went on to philosphize about them.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
IB,
The argument you presented against Aquinas concerns religious faith, not systematic, rational thinking.
Changing the subject as you’ve done throughout our discussion when each one of your claims was refuted is symptomatic of the irrational, untrained mind…
…and why Western Civilization is in such deep trouble.
Also, whereas my claim about Aquinas and Augustine incorporating systematic, rational thinking into Christianity is a fact, all of your own claims are simply your own personal opinion and not fact at all.
Without understanding how to think rationally, there is no way to consistently reason out what is true or false, fact or fiction.
Simply parroting Jesus of the Bible, “I am the Way, the truth and the life,” doesn’t mean you have any idea what the truth is or how to communicate truth to others in a way that they will understand.
Since we live in a civilization ruled by reason, Christians need to adapt themselves to a culture of reason just like Saint Paul did when he was evangelizing the Greeks and the Romans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
“To them He presented Himself alive after His passion by many proofs” (Acts 1:3)
It begs the question: if Jesus didn’t expect his own disciples to believe without evidence why then is “faith” (belief without evidence) the central tenet of Christianity? Look at the story and Jesus is in fact quite clearly antagonistic to Christian articles of faith, working instead to establish belief with evidence.
Faith, I’m afraid to say, contradicts the eight-letter word which Jesus quite conspicuously thought indispensable to belief: EVIDENCE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm said:
Hey john,may I politely correct you, as it is a matter of extreme importance.
The writer of Acts did not have at his discretion the choice to omit or add words. He was not writing a letter to the editor where HIS words could be substituted, omitted, or amended.
The text reads: ‘many infallible proofs…………..’ Will this help you see more clearly? Probably not, but the warp and woof of scripture adds up to a mighty bit of credibility when the word ‘infallible’ is considered in the context of the resurrection of the dead, specifically Christ’s.
According to the incomparable Mr Webster, infallible: ‘not capable of erring.’ ‘Not liable to fail, deceive, or disappoint.’
So read the text again, and you now have MANY infallible proofs. Of course you do. The written word proves the living Word.
Infallible proofs. It even rolls off the tongue quite nicely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Actually, the inclusion of “convincing” proofs (NIV) merely reinforces my point.
Cheers, well done!
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Yep, that’s why the scriptures are not to be tampered with………….
The monarch of books, the kjv 1611, has withstood all gripes and has been used far and wide as the standard from which all others are judged.
Quite a difference there fella between infallible and convincing……..
Anyway, if you had been alive at the time, the Lord would not have appeared to you AFTER he rose……for if ye believed not Moses………neither would you believe if one rose from the dead.
The scriptures cannot be broken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Like I said, thanks for reinforcing my point.
It appreciated.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
And thank you for proving the veracity of scripture. Men have been complaining about God’s word for thousands of years, (as it is written) and you are simply one more in a long train of antagonists.
Nothing new under the sun kinda thing.
It is much easier for you to believe the testimony of scripture……….than it is for you to believe you will live to see tomorrow. That’s a fact.
But do consider again the title of this post.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Zande, it is our faith in unseen things that brings them into existence. That is true in the secular world, too. We place our eyes on what is unseen, we dream of it and we make it happen. So while Christ was indeed working miracles, He tells us over and again, “by your faith you are healed.” Going back farther, Abraham is rightious man because of his faith. Faith is absolutely critical, but not the kind of faith that comes from witnessing miracles, or seeing the evidence before us, the non rational kind of faith that says in spite of everything I see and can’t see, I’m going to trust and lean in and put my hope there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
Zande,
“To them He presented Himself alive after His passion by many proofs” (Acts 1:3)
It begs the question: if Jesus didn’t expect his own disciples to believe without evidence ….”
The fact that Jesus did this is not strong support for your logical inference that Jesus didn’t expect his own disciples to believe without evidence.
Faith, I’m afraid to say, contradicts the eight-letter word which Jesus quite conspicuously thought indispensable to belief: EVIDENCE.
[John 20:29 NASB] 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Here Jesus states that those who have faith without visual evidence will be blessed. This infers that Jesus did not consider evidence to be necessary for faith, but I understand it does not prove it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theancients said:
Hi John,
your definition of faith is absolutely wrong.
Faith cannot be without evidence as faith is based on trust and reality stemming from the reliability of a person.
Do you trust or have faith in others without evidence? You have faith in others based on their reliability,trustworthiness etc. therefore, in situations where you’re not presented with physical evidence to satisfy your 5 senses, you still have faith in the person because of who they are/their track record so to speak [here your faith in the person is the evidence for the things you’re believing them for (results) that you have yet to see (or experience with your 5 senses).
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
If something can be believed based on evidence it cannot also be believed on faith. The two are antithetical. The minute evidence appears faith is cast aside in favour of evidence.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“If something can be believed based on evidence it cannot also be believed on faith”
I tend to agree with you there, Zande, although I believe ancients makes a good point too. We could write a whole thesis on Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith has an evidence and a substance, we are not just believing in fairies here or clicking our ruby slippers and saying there’s no place like home.
But you are right, faith often calls us to place our eyes on something we cannot see, to hope in spite of the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Faith and evidentialism cannot coexist. If you actually had evidence for something you simply wouldn’t require faith. Faith is always jettisoned the moment evidence comes available. Religion knows this, and that is why faith is promoted as a virtue whereby the faithful are rewarded for enduring what is called, “tests of faith.”
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
I think I was actually agreeing with you, Zande, “faith and evidentialism cannot coexist.” However, without faith and trust, all the evidence in the world does not matter.
You put your faith in things that don’t exist, don’t you? Things you have no evidence will ever work out? Writing books for example. Isn’t writing all about, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?” You don’t get the substance and the evidence before you take the leap of faith.
That’s how many things in life work. We all have faith, it is just that we put our faith in different things and we do so having no evidence or substance before us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
I understood you were agreeing with me. Thank you. To be fair, you can’t, however, lump religious belief in with, say, writing a book, to use your example. There is plenty of evidence available concerning the size of the potential market, and past book sales to gauge possible response.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“There is plenty of evidence available concerning the size of the potential market, and past book sales to gauge possible response.”
Well, than I’m afraid we’re going to have to say the same thing about the bible and faith. The most read book ever that has been embraced by a huge market, all through history.
So, either billions of people are wrong or non believers are resisting the evidence.
LikeLike
john zande said:
What evidence? A book that says it is itself true? Fine, so you must believe Islam is true then, too. It has the same amount of “evidence” as you’re presenting.
LikeLike
theancients said:
Zande, if you believe something based on the evidence, you have placed your faith/trust in the evidence that you are seeing/perceiving with 1 or more of your 5 senses. [i.e. you see it, therefore you believe it. This is one type of faith and really requires very little faith – you know- you have seen, therefore you believe]
If on the other hand you believe something, not because you have the physical evidence of it, but the reliable words of the individual; you believe, not based on the evidence you can currently see, but based on the evidence you have not yet seen. [Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe…this requires greater faith]
Ex: A parent promises a child a bike in 2 weeks. There is no evidence for the bike except the parents word. Do you think that child will wait until they physically receive the bike before they tell their friends or will they tell them immediately.
Of course they’ll tell them immediately they’re getting a bike (there’s no evidence for the bike) however, they have faith in the evidence not seen (currently unbought bike), because they believe and trust their parents (to perform what they have promised)which will eventually materialize into a bike they can see.
Aside: This is why our words are so important. God’s words must perform what He’s assigned it to accomplish, which is why we can have faith/trust in what He says. ie. What He says, he must do. The same goes for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Well said, ancients.
LikeLiked by 1 person
theancients said:
Let me refine what I’ve said using the same example:
A parent says to their child: we have a bike for you and proceed to give their child the bike. The child believes based on the evidence. This requires very little faith, as the physical evidence is right there. They see the evidence, therefore they believe.
If the parent had presented the child with a balloon, the child would have been disappointed and would begin to lose trust in the parent because the evidence does not match.
Same scenario, but bike is promised in 2 weeks. The child believes even though there is no physical evidence of the bike. This requires greater faith because they are believing the evidence (the soon to be received bike) even though they have not yet seen it physically nor received it as yet.
So the reality is, it takes much less faith to believe for something that you can see, than to believe for the exact same thing that you have yet to see. That’s all Jesus was saying when He said: you have seen and this is why you believe; but blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen.
There’s more blessing in going beyond the limitations of the 5 senses Zande 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fromscratchmom said:
I couldn’t get the reply button to work here today but I had time to read part of the discussion on faith versus evidence and wanted to quickly add a point in case it’s not there yet. In our language and culture we easily use the word proof in two different ways. In science a hypothesis must be continually challenged and the evidence that brings a certain conclusion must be a repeated able result. Nothing is considered really proven until it’s been repeatedly proven many many times over. Then it may eventually reach a status of being considered a fact backed up by incontrovertible proof. (Real science that is…nthis isn’t meant to open discussion of all things our society fallacious lay calls scientific proof which actually come closer to fitting the second definition of the word proof.) in a courtroom we seek proof but we never achieve absolute fact. We only look at evidence, evaluate it and come up with reasoned judgements based partly on the evidence and partly on our own thought processes and discernment. But we still call the outcome of a trial a proven conclusion. The first use of the concept of evidence and proof is one that eliminates the possibility of faith. The second is a judgement call. It is reflective of exactly what God asks of us, that we look at the evidence, that we carefully weigh all of it, that we believe in that reasoned conclusion and that we should be able to present our evidence and reasoning to others who challenge us. There is no conflict between evidence and faith. But there are differing viewpoints where some use their freewill and conclude that faith makes more sense than non-belief and others exercise their freewill and claim the opposite conclusion. It’s never a given. It’s a reasoned choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Thanks, you’ve made great points. In the legal system we make a reasonable presumption of guilt or innocence. In science we work with hypothesis and theories. There is an awareness that there are no absolutes because even in light of evidence and proof, we are still heavily influenced by human perception. The best we can aim for is an educated guess based on how we perceive the evidence. In both science and the law our perceptions can be wrong. The earth was once flat and innocent people have been sent to prison. Evidence, proof, is not always what it appears.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
And may I ask, please, exactly, when and where and through what medium has ”God” asked ”us”?
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
1 Peter 3:15
LikeLike
Pingback: the god excuse and other stories | Random thoughts
ColorStorm said:
Can I take a brief respite from myself to just mention that your observations regarding sacrificial love that defies all reason……….and that to prostrate before human reason is disastrous……..these are some seriously good truths.
As a matter of fact, if this were baseball, this would be a triple; much more exciting than a home run, even though you cleared all the bases. 😉 Tis truly rational to lay hold of the divine as you say. Great stuff ib22, this post will endure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sirius Bizinus said:
“So, I am a firm advocate of the non reasonable, the illogical, the emotional, the Spirit led.”
Considering what just happened in Brussels, I think it’s a good counterargument to your point here. So many people feel called upon to commit vile acts in spite of their reason. If your point is right, then they’re right for doing so.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, Sirius, I think an argument could be made that to attempt to strike a blow at your enemy when you do not believe people are created in His image is actually a rational act. Life has no meaning, human beings have no worth, and as such they become nothing more than obstacles in the way of your quest for power. Collateral damage.
You can rest assured that I do believe human beings are Created in His image and therefore have great worth and value and should be treated with dignity. I have heard many times that this is irrational and perhaps it is, but I believe it is also morally right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sirius Bizinus said:
Let me get this straight: you’re trying to argue that killing people is reasonable to justify your above assertions?
That is terrible.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
It’s not terrible at all. I’m not trying to justify anything, I’m just pointing out that human reason is what often leads to killing.
In the absence of a belief in the sanctity and dignity of human life, in the absence of an non-rational thing like love, what’s to stop anybody?
We see evidence of this all over the world, all through history. Human reason is more than capable of rationalizing murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sirius Bizinus said:
Making decisions based off of a prior belief is using reason as well. All you’ve done is selectively say that your reason is good while everyone else’s is bad. According to your above post, this is bad.
Congratulations at contradicting yourself. And all of this is before we even get to your habitual misrepresentation of secular viewpoints.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Here’s a a smart guy that writes more from a literary perspective than a faith based one, who happens to have just written a post that speaks to this same issue.
https://malcolmscorner.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/love-life-more-than-the-meaning-of-it/
LikeLike
Salvageable said:
The distinction between reason and faith is a well-worn road. Thank you for contrasting reason with love; I think you make a much clearer argument. Reason is a gift from God that often supports our faith, but I don’t think any person is ever persuaded to believe in God because of reason alone. (Note to John Zande and Colorstorm: Jesus presented evidence to his apostles, not to his opponents. The disciples were already believers, and he was strengthening their faith.) Reason without faith leads to many things, even violence, as you note above. The leap of faith is supported by reason only after the leap is made–not before. J.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sirius Bizinus said:
You need to read the Book of Acts, then. It’s filled with Apostles performing miracles in front of everyone, receiving direct visions and messages from the Christian deity, and even engaging in religious debates with scholars of the day. If you believe that Acts is an accurate depiction of how early Christianity spread, then yes, the Apostles used reason and evidence to spread the faith.
LikeLike
Malcolm Greenhill said:
IB, it’s so interesting that we often agree with each other even though I’m an atheist and an anarchist to boot. There are so many important areas of our life where reason is unable to help us. Reason for example, and I think you will agree with this, cannot help us choose between fundamental values just as reason cannot help us decide which is the best play writer, Shakespeare or Sophocles. We simply have no way to objectively compare a life lived according to the Sermon on the Mount to a life lived according to the Bushido code of the Samurai.
Furthermore, we live in a society run by moral rules and traditions which have evolved over time, with those groups surviving which had the most successful rules and traditions. For example, some groups accidentally developed a favorable tradition which we now call private property. These groups were very successful but the groups themselves have long since forgotten why they were successful, if they ever knew it in the first place. So we owe much of what we have achieved to a moral tradition which was never rationally designed nor indeed, intentionally created. Maybe faith in moral traditions is nature’s way of putting obstacles in the way of naive rationalists bent on replacing successful rules they have not designed with unsuccessful rules which they have? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Two Reasons to Marvel | The Ancients
Pingback: Not Reason, But Excuse | Amusing Nonsense
authorstephanieparkermckean said:
Brilliant! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! I was thinking these exact thoughts yesterday, but not so clearly. I love this: Peter had great faith when he stepped out of that boat, but he had greater faith in the in the laws of physics and quickly began to sink. Oh ye of little faith… Great example of why the Christian religion is NOT rational and logical. Appreciate the reminder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack Curtis said:
Seems right to me; we see our universe but from there, we have no knowledge, only theories … and beliefs. Theist/atheist are just opposite belief, not rational conclusions.
The problem for our time seems to me: How to shut down the insistence of one set of believers that they somehow are right to compel their belief onto others who do not share it.
Christians toasted the unorthodox until they lost the power to do so; Atheists are gaining political power and turning now to compelling Christians to act against their beliefs. Very human behavior, if not very edifying or much of an advertisement for a belief set.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oldpoet56 said:
Well written article, good work.
LikeLike
Grace and Truth Ministries International said:
Very enjoyable article IB. I enjoyed the insightful ways you convey your points refuting the arguments atheists cling to with arrogant blindness. It is always fun to debate with Atheist. They expect God to bow down to the demands of their big heads, while He expects them to bow their big heads to their hearts, in more ways than one. They also expect Christians to cater to their demands of “proof of God’s existence.” When I tell them that Christians are not obligated to prove anything to anyone, they get mad, because we will not jump into their rings of logic and throw blows with them. Why should we beat the air, when they need to learn to “reason” with their hearts instead of their heads, because that is where the truth is found.
The whole battle of faith is between the head and the heart. God is always leading us by our hearts and satan is always trying to lead us by our heads. Satan loves to build strongholds of logic in the head with the philosophies of men, and the only way out of that controlling spirit of pride is by humbling our heads to the knowledge of the truth God has put inside every heart.
There are two kinds of faith. Faith of the head, based on what the five physical senses can perceive and comprehend, and faith of the heart, based on absolute truth that cannot be contradicted. The latter requires humility to acknowledge, because it can’t be proven in a test tube, but it is self evident to anyone that is “truly reasonable and honest” in their hearts. True reasoning of the heart will always lead us to God and His truth. That is what the heart is for. However, before faith is birthed in the heart, humility of the mind to the truth take place first. That’s why Jesus said, repent first, then believe the Gospel second. We must repent of our beliefs, and agree with God’s truth, before the Holy Spirit gives birth to our faith in God.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)
“Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)
The strongholds of pride in the mind will always fight with strong reasons why it shouldn’t bow to the reasoning of the heart.
“Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4)
God absolutely refuses to perform for any man’s big head. He will always demand the humility of faith, which issues from the heart to know Him and walk with Him just like you said. This will be an eternal lifestyle. We will always live in faith, hope, and love. God will always challenge us to believe, trust, and obey with our hearts beyond the limitations of our five physical senses, because it is the sixth sense of mankind, and it is the only way to connect the heart of man with the heart of God.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Well said! Thank you for reading and for your kind words. I love what you have said, it is truthful. I sometimes say, “God must sneak in under the radar of our big heads to enter our hearts.”
LikeLiked by 1 person