Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

[scfire86]

There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.

But one has a reasonable belief that will happen based upon the history of the plane and the route taken.

The same can't be said for a supreme being that is not anthropomorphic.

[ChiefKN]

I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.

Is the test now "objective evidence"?

As for the definition of faith, it's merely believing in something for which you have no proof, or an alternate definition is to merely believe in god. I see no requirement in the definition that it's an irrational belief or that faith requires a lack of logic.

There are many examples in science where there is a lack of "objective evidence" and yet we wouldn't consider their theories irrational. Why are we applying different standards to a belief for which there is no "proof".

Other comments from the believers is that logic is a limited man-made process being applied to something supernatural. This is especially problematic when we are discussing science that cannot be proven through any replicable experimentation (macro evolution), but is accepted as good logical scientific theory.

The mere fact that "logic" is not black and white blurs the test you are applying here.

One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.

There is no no objective evidence that the plane will make it safely to your destination, either. Therefore, you rely on faith.

[Dickey]

What does that guy know?

He can't even talk.

[DeputyMarshal]

There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.

False. The existence of Julius Ceasar is recorded in numerous independent contemporary documenatry sources. There's also the supporting physical evidence supplied by contemporary artwork and coins with Caesar's image...

Sorry, but Julius Caesar's existence is far better documented than Ieshua ben Ioseph's.

[abeth86]

Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.

There's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed outside of Roman scrolls, yet we don't question his existence.

[DeputyMarshal]

By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.

I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.

Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.

Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?

One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.

There is no evidence either way.

Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.

Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist.

I think I stated as much several posts back.

So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence.

Not at all. Without taking a stand either way; not believing that something exists (i.e. because of lack of evidence, for instance) is not the same as claiming that it does not exist.

So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.

False. You are overlooking the neutral position. It is irrational to believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist. It is entirely rational to neither believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist.

[ChiefKN]

I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."

By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.

Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.

Just like getting on a plane and trusting that it won't crash requires faith (unless you are personally doing the pre-flight checks, maintenance log verifications, and interviewing the pilots). Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?

In addition, you can only have faith that there was no jesus and he didn't rise from the dead. There is no evidence either way. So, it could be argued that it is irrational to not believe in it.

It's not black and white, like a lot of issues in our world.

Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist. So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence. So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.

[DeputyMarshal]

We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.

I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."

I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.

Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's sure as hell not rational to run into burning buildings either but I'm not about to stop any time soon.

[ChiefKN]

With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.

I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.

[DeputyMarshal]

Would that make his point less valid?

Besides, infidels aren't allowed in Mecca.

[scfire86]

Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?

Would that make his point less valid?

[Acklan]

Faith is just that faith. It neither needs to be proved or disproved. It only needs to be believed. My faith is because I have chosen to believe. If you are concerned what others think maybe you should reflect own what you actually believe. Do you have faith because you believe in something great than yourself, or do you believe because of what others around you think?

[abeth86]

Here's a thought for those who challenge faith as silly outright -

Quantum mechanics suggests that the observer determines the outcome of any experiment, simply by choosing beforehand which outcome he wants to see occur. Schrodinger's Cat is the famous case explaining it - is the cat alive or dead? It's neither until observed.

It's (at least theoretically) possible that if everyone believed that God had ultimate control, that the universe would adapt itself to become beholden to the whims of a creator.

The universe is a much more interesting place than you could possibly imagine.

[DeputyMarshal]

Many people get strength from their faith, so irrational, stupid... all those judgemental words seem, to me, to ignore the positives of faith.

With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Belief can be divided into two broad categories: belief based on objective evidence (aka "facts") and belief without objective evidence (aka faith).

Everything we "know" is based on some extent on faith; the faith that we exist and that our senses are reporting a reasonably accurate impression of reality.

[doughesson]

Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?