Reason And Faith are Irreconcilable

Im going to leave this here...

Im interested to see what kind of arguement/debate comes of it...

Watch the video before replying please...9:00 mins long... IF you can't watch it....

Just wait and see...

Oh... and please try to keep it civil

Enjoy

I thought an explanation was required when posting a video

Surely an overview would have been nice

a reply to: Raggedyman

That would defeat the purpose of this thread

watch and respond

a reply to: Akragon

I watched 2.5 minutes of assumption, a man assuming that when the bible was written humanity were cave dwellers
We don't know that at all, in fact it seems to me that at some stage humanity could have been far more intelligent than us

What evidence does he have to support his little chat

The title of your post is misleading because literally he utters one line about reason and faith. The rest is about how all of the great astronomers have had faith because they were basically in awe of the universe and that he doesn't care what other people believe.

He ends by saying that basically if the entire summation of your faith is to help you fill in the gaps of things you don't understand then you will be disappointed.

so in conclusion the video is pointless

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

Nice little vid. From my perspective he lays out the fallacy of condemning any other belief system that lays outside of the realm of ones faith or religion..

Even science has its foundations built on half truths.. Our understanding of reality is an ever changing ever growing experience. One of the most dangerous aspects of most religions is the tendency to try and define reality with unmovable borders.. In the act of condemning other religions or cultures, religion opens itself up to so many horrible outcomes. Many many wars and deaths have been the result throughout history.. The attempt stalls any movement foreword..

I've always thought religions started by the act of creating rules/laws in the effort of self preservation of a society. The fallacy comes from condemning others attempts at the same thing..

Science is in part an effort of keeping the book open and growing in a dynamic fashion as opposed to trying to claim a static set of rules and guidelines..

a reply to: Akragon

Nice video and he certainly raises some good points. Like freedom of thought, religious texts aren't science books, the bible (and other religious books) are taken literally by the fundamentalists to superimpose their definition of God and many other points.

However, I don't think that the sentence "reason and faith are irreconcilable" is true for all religions and religious people. There are, and were, plenty of religious people (Darwin for example) who also used scientific reasoning to explain the world around them.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I watched 2.5 minutes of assumption, a man assuming that when the bible was written humanity were cave dwellers.

He said nothing of the sort. At least be honest in your attempt to assassinate the mans character.

a reply to: Klassified

lol... Knew it would be interesting

The definition of faith is believing without knowing for sure.

Which is not reasonable, by definition.

So faith doesn't want anything to do WITH reason if it means that what they believe ends up being wrong.

Although I can reconcile my faith with reason because it is based on reason to begin with.

My faith is always looking for new (to me) reasons for the way things are so.

It's capable of evolving with new information.

a reply to: Akragon

NOPE

. . . with a slight bit of yes.

1. Neil Tyson and certainly Bill Moyers were full of unmitigated HOGWASH in that video.

2. The literal interpretations of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures are doing just fine, thank you. Whenever there seems to be a problem between the Scriptures and observed "reality" . . . checking out better research into the original root word meanings usually clears it up.

3. The last 100-200 years included a host of "higher criticism" idiots claiming such things as were asserted in your video. Many times, the "experts" asserted that this place name or that place name or that historic event in Scripture COULD NOT have been real. Yet, many dozens, if not hundreds of times the naysayers were repeatedly proven wrong by archeology. The LITERAL interpretations won out as 100% accurate to the nth detail over and over and over again.

4. There is NO MORE RATIONAL-BASED-ON-SOLID-OBSERVABLE-EVIDENCE philosophical/religious system than Christianity. It is utterly unique in a list of ways. THERE ARE VERY SOLID, LOGICAL, REASONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR OUR FAITH. It is not merely based on some fantasized "sky hook." God is 'REALLY REAL' and makes HIMSELF KNOWN to THOSE WHO approach Him with sincere respect, honoring Him as God.

5. However, He does not suffer fools gladly. Rebels throwing rocks at His Word and at Him may find little to no confirmations even of His existence. Their blinders are too thick. Their assumptions are too pervasive and idiotic. Their biases rule out HIS realities as automatically "impossible" so they are unable to learn from His evidence and instructions. Their loss. He has provided plenty of opportunity to find Him--for those doggedly, tenaciously and sincerely determined to do so.

6. He has also seemed to set up reality with a razor's edge of evidence vs mystery. i.e. There IS plenty of emphatically solid evidence for those sincerely and persistently seeking God to find Him. He IS active in response to those of sincere heart who doggedly seek Him until they find Him. Dr Chuck Missler, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell et al provide an abundance of evidence of REASONS for FAITH.

7. Yet, He RARELY comes down in a fiery cloud or other supernatural demonstration so emphatic and stark that FAITH is blown out of the water by OBVIOUS DEMONSTRATED CERTAINTY about His being REAL AND INVOLVED in the affairs of men. However, even that does happen. It does NOT tend to happen to the Carl Sagans of the world who are far toooo wise in their own eyes.

8. It IS LOGICAL THAT HE WOULD SET REALITY UP IN SUCH A FASHION. OTHERWISE, HE'D HAVE MADE US MERE ROBOTS with NO CHOICE but to BELIEVE IN HIM. He did not and does not want that. He wants a A LOVE DANCE with us--wherein we have a huge amount of free-will in CHOOSING a LOVE RELATIONSHIP with HIM.

9. He's also not interested in any more rebellions in Heaven. So He will TEST our faith 'as though 7 times through the refiner's fires, like gold.' He wants believers who love Him enough to stand up and be counted on . . . enduring whatever tests and challenges as those who TRULY LOVE HIM, REGARDLESS. I'd want that, too, if I were raising up a crew of folks TO RULE AND REIGN with Him over countless worlds and eons future.

10. Neil T and Bill M can blather on as though they are sooooooo erudite and logical. Those who study the evidence and facts thoroughly and fair-mindedly enough see through their 'omniscient' arrogance and find they are listening to a couple of ignorant idiots who are seemingly totally oblivious to the very basic FACTS of existence.

They will discover that, far too soon, from their perspective.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Thank you!! Excellent response.

To say that reason and faith are at odds is to equate faith with blind faith. Christians, at least, are not called to blind faith. In fact, 1 Peter 3:15 instructs us that we are to always be prepared to give REASON for the hope in our hearts. We are called to a reasonable faith. Not blind faith.

a reply to: Akragon

I'm sure each person who watches the video will have their own favorite quotable quote, such as (paraphrase)"We live in a free country...we like to tell ourselves ..."

But on a personal level, my favorite is "I don't care. Go believe what you want..." (paraphrase because I don't have the transcript). So I flatout have to trust that people who hear what I say, or read what I write, whether they understand it and disagree with it, or don't understand it but think it's true, they have the capacity to do with it as they please. It's actually demeaning to think otherwise.

Messiah complexes, and similar delusions of grandeur, are not the final word. Brian said it very eloquently.

Larry Williams had Neil on his talk show and they were discussing God.

Neil's reason provided for his atheism was that the anus was too close to the penis and/or vagina.

A pleasure giving device being too close to a sewage factory was his logic.

I wanted to ask him how where he would have placed the anus if he was God.

The elbow? The back of the left knee?

I would like to have no anus because of the design of a human having no need to create excrement because all food was pure and didn't need to be excreted.

a reply to: Akragon

Im interested to see what kind of arguement/debate comes of it...

You seem to be giving us free reign here. Free reign to freely range?

So imagine a man. He reads the Torah, reads the Prophets, and feels a compulsion to make it so, a geas. He's out in the wilderness, and is tempted, all the kingdoms of the World to rule (exactly the post-exile view of the kingdom of God(OT version). What sort of violation would it be to claim he didn't turn it down if in fact he did. Wouldn't that be a slander against his character? Rhetorical question. I don't particularly want to debate it.

I wish Galadriel's final words were there. "I passed the test. I will go ..."

a reply to: BO XIAN

which is a skydiving priest more likely to take with him, a set of rosary beads or a parachute?

a reply to: Akragon

Here’s my answer to your OP…

The Double Standard of the “God of the Gaps” argument


- JC

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon
We don't know that at all, in fact it seems to me that at some stage humanity could have been far more intelligent than us

Considering the non-existence of evidence for this statement, you just helped confirm the OP's opinion.

So I should have faith in science but not in God?

originally posted by: cryptic0void
So I should have faith in science but not in God?

There's a difference with God and science.

You can prove science with tests.

You can't prove God exists.