Morality of the religious without faith

[janie48]

On the basis that the only rational conclusion is that Christianity is entirely man made.

 

So people who are generally quite rational, but are still Christian, must therefore 'compartmentalise' their faith in a region of their mind that is not rational.

Don't be so convinced.

[Cyclone]

Why, and on what basis in reality, do you make that assumption?

 

It's not an assumption, it's an application of logic.

 

There is no evidence to support the idea that any religion (and there are many to choose from) has any claim to represent reality, therefore, they're not real. To go further, there is no evidence of any of the variously claimed gods existing, rationally therefore you can only conclude that they don't exist.

[SnailyBoy]

On the basis that the only rational conclusion is that Christianity is entirely man made.

 

So people who are generally quite rational, but are still Christian, must therefore 'compartmentalise' their faith in a region of their mind that is not rational.

 

Don't be so convinced.

 

There's no other rational explanation, unless you know something else.

[janie48]

There's no other rational explanation,unless you know something else .

Since it seems so clear and obvious to me, i suppose I must do.

[SnailyBoy]

Since it seems so clear and obvious to me, i suppose I must do.

 

Obviously a secret.

[MrSmith]

There's no other rational explanation, unless you know something else.

 

Faith is most likely a shared psychotic disorder, it occurs when someone begins believing the delusions of someone with whom they have a close relationship; the source of the delusion is most often in a position of strong influence over the other person, parents for example, this allows them, over time to force their strange belief onto their offspring. This is repeated generation after generation resulting in a shared global psychotic disorder.

[Phanerothyme]

It's not an assumption, it's an application of logic.

 

There is no evidence to support the idea that any religion (and there are many to choose from) has any claim to represent reality, therefore, they're not real. To go further, there is no evidence of any of the variously claimed gods existing, rationally therefore you can only conclude that they don't exist.

 

 

That's an incredibly narrow view that doesn't engage with the category problem we are addressing.

 

I can look at the world around me, understanding it through the lens of science, and see it as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

 

Whether you think that is rational or not is totally irrelevant, it's compelling and convincing evidence for my belief.

 

You seem to believe that the relationship between belief and direct experience is causal. But direct experience is shaped by belief as much as belief is shaped by direct experience.

 

You also seem to believe in some kind of absolute objectivity that doesn't exist.

 

Are you "compartmentalising"?

[SnailyBoy]

That's an incredibly narrow view that doesn't engage with the category problem we are addressing.

 

I can look at the world around me, understanding it through the lens of science, and see it as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

 

Whether you think that is rational or not is totally irrelevant, it's compelling and convincing evidence for my belief.

 

You seem to believe that the relationship between belief and direct experience is causal. But direct experience is shaped by belief as much as belief is shaped by direct experience.

 

You also seem to believe in some kind of absolute objectivity that doesn't exist.

 

Are you "compartmentalising"?

 

Why would you come to that conclusion?

[RootsBooster]

That's an incredibly narrow view that doesn't engage with the category problem we are addressing.

 

I can look at the world around me, understanding it through the lens of science, and see it as evidence of the existence of a creator God.

 

Whether you think that is rational or not is totally irrelevant, it's compelling and convincing evidence for my belief.

 

You seem to believe that the relationship between belief and direct experience is causal. But direct experience is shaped by belief as much as belief is shaped by direct experience.

 

You also seem to believe in some kind of absolute objectivity that doesn't exist.

 

Are you "compartmentalising"?

I don't think that "stuff exists so a god must have created it" counts as science

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2013 at 20:27 ----------

 

How so?

 

I just pointed out simply that science does not entertain the supernatural and is not set up to do so as it only can deal with what it can observe.

 

Some atheists really do give me the impression that they hold some monopoly over science- but science is purely neutral.

 

If you fall in to the group who argue/believe that science replaces God, then that’s rubbish-since science is merely an understanding of the universe around us.

 

Why shouldn't the supernatural world, if it exists, be observable?

[Phanerothyme]

I don't think that "stuff exists so a god must have created it" counts as science

 

It's a bit pointless if you go deliberately misunderstanding stuff.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that it is not a matter of compartmentalisation (whatever it means) for a rigorous, leading scientist to hold deep Christian beliefs and self-identify as a Christian (or a Muslim, Hindu etc).

 

It's not an either/or choice, faith and scientific brilliance are not mutually exclusive. Some brilliant theist scientists even credit god with their discoveries and inventions. (of course, others namecheck LSD & warm beer)

 

The second point I'm trying to make is that belief in a deity is not the same as a belief in Paris or believing in the existence of the moon. It is belief of a different category altogether.

 

My third point is that what counts as evidence depends entirely on your standpoint in the first place.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2013 at 21:17 ----------

 

Why would you come to that conclusion?

 

see point 3 above.