Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[Hieronymus]

I don't think it's the peoples fault for not accepting religious arguments.

I'm not talking about religious arguments, unless you dismiss every argument in favour of the existence of God as a religious argument of course...

 

[variant]

I'm not talking about religious arguments, unless you dismiss every argument in favour of the existence of God as a religious argument of course...

I wouldn't dismiss them purely because they were religious.

The arguments in favor of the Gods are quite free to be fairly unconvincing.

 

[Hieronymus]

I wouldn't dismiss them purely because they were religious.

You implied they were unacceptable.

The arguments in favour of the Gods are quite free to be fairly unconvincing.

Maybe every argument by itself is not convincing, but there a whole bunch of them to build a case with.
This is how people get convinced by reason and research, because it's where the evidence leads to, if you can allow that.

 

[variant]

You implied they were unacceptable.

They are bad arguments in my experience. Which is what I meant to imply.

Maybe every argument by itself is not convincing, but there a whole bunch of them to build a case with.

This is how people get convinced by reason and research, because it's where the evidence leads to, if you can allow that.

Yes, when you have evidence.

 

[Hieronymus]

They are bad arguments in my experience. Which is what I meant to imply.

Okay.

Yes, when you have evidence.

You'll find enough evidence when you seek truth.
But i guess you consider that to be rhetoric..

 

[Silmarien]

No, I don't think you've told me about that dream just yet. It sounds rather ... liberating? I had a dream like that, except the entity involved came from below...I think.

Off with the chains of religion!

In the end... no, I wouldn't really say it was liberating. Kind of damning, probably. I'll PM you the details.

Somehow again, I have a difficult time seeing you as a rebel, Silmarien. Somehow, I affiliate you with flowers, chirping birds, and sunshine.

Oh, I suspect now that I was rebelling against modernism, and got a little bit overzealous and took down everything else too.

I apparently need to start channelling Nietzsche, though. Kill off some of those flowers.

Maybe every argument by itself is not convincing, but there a whole bunch of them to build a case with.

It doesn't really work like that, though. A whole bunch of bad arguments would still be a whole bunch of bad arguments, even if there were a hundred of them.

I find a couple compelling. The others I ignore. Or attack.

 

[Moral Orel]

and I'm pretty sure that St. Thomas DOES NOT count, for specific reasons I can spell out if needed.

I'd like to hear them. You know I'm not one to read between the lines of the Bible.

There also needs to be some kind of logical fallacy about falsely assuming that the human mind will acquiesce to Jesus as Lord and Savior in all counts where an encounter is had with supposed "sufficient" evidence, and this can be the case for all kinds of mitigating reasons.

Who ever made this claim though? There are unreasonable people who never change their mind about anything. I know what would convince me, and if I had it, my mind would change.

 

[Hieronymus]

It doesn't really work like that, though.

It does work like that.

A whole bunch of bad arguments would still be a whole bunch of bad arguments, even if there were a hundred of them.

I didn't mean bad arguments of course.

 

[variant]

Okay.You'll find enough evidence when you seek truth.
But i guess you consider that to be rhetoric..

Yes I do. Rather than pointing to a specific flaw in my approach, or demonstrating some truth, you've chosen to hide behind a quip that automatically assumes you are both correct and hold the truth.

Since that was the point of the discussion you are again posturing via rhetoric yes.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes, I'm sure. You know why? Because if it is not a fact that Jesus KNEW what is in men's hearts when He referred to belief through a resurrection of Lazarus, then Jesus is false. So, it's not that 'I' know this; it is that Jesus says HE knows this. It's one of the epistemic indicators--those little things in the N.T. I keep talking about.

Well then, like I said, Jesus would be logically, demonstrably wrong about telling someone "what's in their heart", poetic anatomical nonsense aside. For example, if I feel that I'm happy at this moment in time and someone says to me "Deep in your heart you're sad", they're wrong because I, and only I, define how "I" define "feeling happy at this moment". And this is the case no matter if it's my next door neighbor saying this or a god.

It's the same with belief. If a recently converted Christian tells me they converted because they were "given enough", then only they get to define what that means for them.

 

[Silmarien]

Well then, like I said, Jesus would be logically, demonstrably wrong about telling someone "what's in their heart", poetic anatomical nonsense aside. For example, if I feel that I'm happy at this moment in time and someone says to me "Deep in your heart you're sad", they're wrong because I, and only I, define how "I" define "feeling happy at this moment". And this is the case no matter if it's my next door neighbor saying this or a god.

It's the same with belief. If a recently converted Christian tells me they converted because they were "given enough", then only they get to define what that means for them.

This seems to presume that we have full and complete knowledge concerning ourselves and our motivations, which would be a very difficult claim to make. Either that or it reduces the whole question to a matter of semantics and we're talking about different things altogether.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This seems to presume that we have full and complete knowledge concerning ourselves and our motivations, which would be a very difficult claim to make. Either that or it reduces the whole question to a matter of semantics and we're talking about different things altogether.

I have full and complete knowledge of how I would define "happy at this moment in time" for myself.

Don't you?

 

[Silmarien]

I have full and complete knowledge of how I would define "happy at this moment in time" for myself.

Don't you?

That is worse than meaningless. It's actually potentially harmful. One of the most troubling aspects of depression, for example, is the fact that you often do not realize you have it because you do not feel sad in the traditional sense. If someone spends half the day sleeping and has no interest in anything, I am not going to trust that they do not have a problem simply because they are defining their current state as "happy at this moment in time" and insist upon playing games with semantics.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes I do. Rather than pointing to a specific flaw in my approach,

I already did that.

or demonstrating some truth,

How can i demonstrate truth in a forum post?

you've chosen to hide behind a quip

No, you're hiding behind your excuse that it's just religious rhetoric.

that automatically assumes you are both correct and hold the truth.

I said i followed the reasonable evidence i found on my search for truth, and it lead me to Jesus Christ.

Since that was the point of the discussion you are again posturing via rhetoric yes.

So you only accept things that haven't been said too often in reply to your OP?
You now seem to disagree that through research and reason you can pursue the truth, by following the evidence, because it's "just rhetoric".

 

[variant]

I already did that.How can i demonstrate truth in a forum post?No, you're hiding behind your excuse that it's just religious rhetoric.I said i followed the reasonable evidence i found on my search for truth, and it lead me to Jesus Christ.
So you only accept things that haven't been said too often in reply to your OP?
You now seem to disagree that through research and reason you can pursue the truth, by following the evidence, because it's "just rhetoric".

Yes it's just rhetoric to declare the truth without anything to back it up. If you've got some reason or research to lay on me feel free.

 

[bhsmte]

I already did that.How can i demonstrate truth in a forum post?No, you're hiding behind your excuse that it's just religious rhetoric.I said i followed the reasonable evidence i found on my search for truth, and it lead me to Jesus Christ.
So you only accept things that haven't been said too often in reply to your OP?
You now seem to disagree that through research and reason you can pursue the truth, by following the evidence, because it's "just rhetoric".

If you claim to have truth, you should be able to demonstrate it. Anyone can claim to have truth, claims are a dime a dozen.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

It seems that just as there are prerequisites for most college classes, so to for a cogent discussion on the weightier issues of philosophy of religion. I will let WLC make my case.

World-renowned apologist and Philosophy of Religion Professor, William Lane Craig, makes the case for a philosophical foundation when discussing religion:

"By employing the high standards of reasoning characteristic of analytic philosophy we can powerfully formulate apologetic arguments for both commending and defending the Christian worldview. In recent decades, analytic philosophers of religion have shed new light on the rationality and warrant of religious belief, on arguments for the existence of God, on divine attributes such as necessity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness, on the problem of suffering and evil, on the nature of the soul and immortality, on the problem of miracles, and even on peculiarly Christian doctrines like the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, original sin, revelation, hell, and prayer. The wealth of material which is available to the Christian apologist through the labor of analytic philosophers of religion is breath-taking."

I was unfamiliar with William Lane Craig until I came upon this thread, but have done a bit of reading the past few minutes. It's very late here at present and I have an early morning so I can't devote much time but I'll read more at a later point. This was the top result on Google about him:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I'm curious about your thoughts on the article, if you've read it.

I just bought this book but haven't yet delved into it due to time restraints, but it's received positive reviews and accolades. You may be interested in it: The Religion of Existence: Asceticism in Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is worse than meaningless. It's actually potentially harmful.

Dangerous to me is insisting someone is sad when they continually report being happy. I've seen a therapist do this and absolutely destroy someone to the point where they contemplated suicide. Once friends and family insisted that they stop seeing this therapist, they returned to the self-reporting happy person they were all along.

But my original statement was in regards to this:

'But, look out! Here come's the Modern Mindset saying, "No, No, you're wrong! We'd believe if just given ENOUGH ...!" And Jesus and the Apostles say, "Yeah....right!"'

In this case, since I've met people who have become believers because they say they were "given ENOUGH", and since they alone define what that means for them (since the phrase is subjective after all), the idea that someone else, god or not, defines it instead is logical nonsense. It's as silly as telling someone they don't actually like chocolate, "deep in their hearts", after they insist that they do.

 

[bhsmte]

I was unfamiliar with William Lane Craig until I came upon this thread, but have done a bit of reading the past few minutes. It's very late here at present and I have an early morning so I can't devote much time but I'll read more at a later point. This was the top result on Google about him:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I'm curious about your thoughts on the article, if you've read it.

I just bought this book but haven't yet delved into it due to time restraints, but it's received positive reviews and accolades. You may be interested in it: The Religion of Existence: Asceticism in Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre

You wont see willie craig and intellectual honesty in the same sentence.

 

[Silmarien]

Dangerous to me is insisting someone is sad when they continually report being happy. I've seen a therapist do this and absolutely destroy someone to the point where they contemplated suicide. Once friends and family insisted that they stop seeing this therapist, they returned to the self-reporting happy person they were all along.

It can go both ways, sure. We don't have windows into each other's heads.

But my original statement was in regards to this:

'But, look out! Here come's the Modern Mindset saying, "No, No, you're wrong! We'd believe if just given ENOUGH ...!" And Jesus and the Apostles say, "Yeah....right!"'

In this case, since I've met people who have become believers because they say they were "given ENOUGH", and since they alone define what that means for them (since the phrase is subjective after all), the idea that someone else, god or not, defines it instead is logical nonsense. It's as silly as telling someone they don't actually like chocolate, "deep in their hearts", after they insist that they do.

I agree with @2PhiloVoid there as well.

I was hostile towards Christianity for a very long time, and that impacted my objectivity towards the religion well after the point where I thought I had made peace with it. (And continues to do so, to be honest.) I know now that I would have rationalized away any piece of evidence, though I would not have seen it in such a light at the time. The same piece of evidence doesn't become more or less powerful over time--it's our position in relation to it which changes, and there are motivations and other considerations at play there which we are not necessarily aware of.

I do not think that God is defining what is and isn't sufficient evidence for a particular person. The point is rather that God would have perfect knowledge of those very motivations that we are ourselves blind to.