A thought I had concerning religion & reason

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

Hi All,

I drank a strong mug of coffee while watching last night's UFC fights- probably wasn't a wise idea.

I began contemplating an idea that crosses my mind often. It concerns religion & reason and my justification for believing in God and Goodness despite my education in philosophy (just a B.A with Philosophy as one of my two majors, nothing fancy).

I justify my belief in God and an afterlife through an analogy (which is a poor way of reasoning through anything in the mind of a physicist [disapproved by first principles, no?]

The analogy follows this train of thought:

• You are crossing a street, and suddenly you notice a car rushing towards you at an incredible speed.
• By the time that you're aware of it, it is 10 feet away from you and is likely to close that distance within 2 seconds.

Operating within those 2 seconds before the car closes the distance, are you likely to decide your next set of actions through reason or through intuition & instinct?

My thinking leads me to suppose that almost everybody will be propelled through intuition & instinct, despite reason & logic being supreme in all matters of abstract thinking.

The implication of this analogy is that our application of reason, on an individual level, is limited by time.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, that any one of us will be able to answer the fundamental questions of theology within the lifespans that we have in the material world:

• Does God exist?
• Is there an afterlife?

The greatest minds of history had debates and conversations concerning these questions for thousands of years, and yet we have not inherited reliable proof for either case.

That means that when forced to answer these questions in our personal lives, it might not be insensible to side with our gut feeling, as it would be the analogical equivalent of going with our instincts when we have a car that is about to hit us.

Of course, when reason fails to provide a sufficient answer, skepticism might just be the rational way.

And thus, agnosticism would be the reasonable stance on religion.

Does God exist? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Is there an afterlife? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

But could it be that choosing to be agnostic is equivalent to standing still and deciding nothing when the car is about to hit you?

Let me know what you guys think.

Best regards,
TheLastEmperorRe[t]urns

 

[HHJ]

But could it be that choosing to be agnostic is equivalent to standing still and deciding nothing when the car is about to hit you?

That seems like a negative view of Agnosticism,sir,and I don't like it

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

That seems like a negative view of Agnosticism,sir,and I don't like it

I suppose that the proper thing to do when arguing against a case supported by an analogy is to explain the differences between the actual case and the analogy illustrated and explain how the parallel drawn is insufficient because it fails to consider X, Y, or Z or presupposes something that is unnecessary in the case of the real subject matter that we are discussing.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

I'm emailing this post to 1 of my college philosophy professors.

I feel like I wrote something deep and thought-provoking but it's possible that I'm just being a cracked-out dumbass again lol

 

[HHJ]

I don't view Agnosticism as "standing still" and I don't see Atheism and Theism as "sides" that a man must choose. Can someone not be wise and spiritual and still be humbled by the heights we may not fully reach in our current state? We are limited by time,but it doesn't mean it is wasted on not "knowing for sure" We can still connect to life in ways that have rang true for us as individuals.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

Agnostics are pussies and the whole concept of "agnosticism" is fundamentally flawed and dumb. It's really just a way for religious people to feel more comfortable because lots of them are too intimidated by the word "atheist" since it feels like such a definitive opposition towards their religious beliefs.

Regardless of anything, you're either a theist or an atheist. You either believe in a deity (theist) or you don't believe in a deity (a-theist.) That simple.

 

[snakedafunky]

You still use reason to get away from the car. Because you don't try to jump over it or do something else you know will kill you.
You try to the shortest way away from the car.

 

[Mae]

Your example shows that there are sometimes cases where we have to act swiftly, with no time to weigh pros and cons, or to think out the long term consequences of our actions. That is certainly true. But we can list so many counter examples where relying on our gut instinct would be a terrible idea. So what you need to do is show why believing in God or religion would be in the category of things good to believe without using reason, as opposed to the category of things that it would not make sense to believe without reason.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Hi All,

I drank a strong mug of coffee while watching last night's UFC fights- probably wasn't a wise idea.

I began contemplating an idea that crosses my mind often. It concerns religion & reason and my justification for believing in God and Goodness despite my education in philosophy (just a B.A with Philosophy as one of my two majors, nothing fancy).

I justify my belief in God and an afterlife through an analogy (which is a poor way of reasoning through anything in the mind of a physicist [disapproved by first principles, no?]

The analogy follows this train of thought:

• You are crossing a street, and suddenly you notice a car rushing towards you at an incredible speed.
• By the time that you're aware of it, it is 10 feet away from you and is likely to close that distance within 2 seconds.

Operating within those 2 seconds before the car closes the distance, are you likely to decide your next set of actions through reason or through intuition & instinct?

My thinking leads me to suppose that almost everybody will be propelled through intuition & instinct, despite reason & logic being supreme in all matters of abstract thinking.

The implication of this analogy is that our application of reason, on an individual level, is limited by time.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, that any one of us will be able to answer the fundamental questions of theology within the lifespans that we have in the material world:

• Does God exist?
• Is there an afterlife?

The greatest minds of history had debates and conversations concerning these questions for thousands of years, and yet we have not inherited reliable proof for either case.

That means that when forced to answer these questions in our personal lives, it might not be insensible to side with our gut feeling, as it would be the analogical equivalent of going with our instincts when we have a car that is about to hit us.

Of course, when reason fails to provide a sufficient answer, skepticism might just be the rational way.

And thus, agnosticism would be the reasonable stance on religion.

Does God exist? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Is there an afterlife? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

But could it be that choosing to be agnostic is equivalent to standing still and deciding nothing when the car is about to hit you?

Let me know what you guys think.

Best regards,
TheLastEmperorRe[t]urns

Some people will argue that the 'gut feeling' is based off of the need for comfort when regarding the inevitable.


And this is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain.


Not saying it's my opinion, but..

 

[Grob]

Your analogy would be better if you change it to:
You are crossing the road and there is a person screaming at you from the other side that there is a car about to hit you. But you don’t see or hear one.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

my view on this?
I don't know and i dont care.

 

[bolly32]

Hi All,

I drank a strong mug of coffee while watching last night's UFC fights- probably wasn't a wise idea.

I began contemplating an idea that crosses my mind often. It concerns religion & reason and my justification for believing in God and Goodness despite my education in philosophy (just a B.A with Philosophy as one of my two majors, nothing fancy).

I justify my belief in God and an afterlife through an analogy (which is a poor way of reasoning through anything in the mind of a physicist [disapproved by first principles, no?]

The analogy follows this train of thought:

• You are crossing a street, and suddenly you notice a car rushing towards you at an incredible speed.
• By the time that you're aware of it, it is 10 feet away from you and is likely to close that distance within 2 seconds.

Operating within those 2 seconds before the car closes the distance, are you likely to decide your next set of actions through reason or through intuition & instinct?

My thinking leads me to suppose that almost everybody will be propelled through intuition & instinct, despite reason & logic being supreme in all matters of abstract thinking.

The implication of this analogy is that our application of reason, on an individual level, is limited by time.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, that any one of us will be able to answer the fundamental questions of theology within the lifespans that we have in the material world:

• Does God exist?
• Is there an afterlife?

The greatest minds of history had debates and conversations concerning these questions for thousands of years, and yet we have not inherited reliable proof for either case.

That means that when forced to answer these questions in our personal lives, it might not be insensible to side with our gut feeling, as it would be the analogical equivalent of going with our instincts when we have a car that is about to hit us.

Of course, when reason fails to provide a sufficient answer, skepticism might just be the rational way.

And thus, agnosticism would be the reasonable stance on religion.

Does God exist? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Is there an afterlife? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

But could it be that choosing to be agnostic is equivalent to standing still and deciding nothing when the car is about to hit you?

Let me know what you guys think.

Best regards,
TheLastEmperorRe[t]urns

I do believe that reason has provided a sufficient answer in denying the existence of a theistic God at least. One of the only things keeping religion afloat in regards to truth is the ambiguity surrounding the Universe's origins.

Whilst I understand by nature that reason cannot conclusively answer these questions, it indicates a very strong probability based on what we currently know that these deities do not exist.

I would consider myself as atheistic as an agnostic can be.

 

[Striderxdj]

A proper analogy would be:

You are standing in a long hallway with thousands of doors. In front of every door is a person, each of them tells you that you should really go through their door, and give various arguments and reasons why theirs is the right door. Some are hostile, some simply try and guilt trip you, some act genuinely concerned if you don't pick their door. Some of them tell you that before you can go through their door you have to change a lot of things about your life, almost all of which are things you find enjoyable.

There are two things you notice when talking to them that they almost all have in common; They want you to give them money and they don't have a shred of proof about whether their door goes anywhere, or what would happen to you if you remain in the hallway.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Sounds like a murky version of Pascal's wager.

Btw, if a car moving at incredible speed was 10 feet away, youd have milliseconds to react (ie, you couldn't).

The question also presumes that a theoretical creator requires an affirmative belief in 'him'. But, even assuming his existence, this is no more likely than his not caring or requiring a non belief in him.

It's silly, imo.

 

[NHB7]

Agnostics are pussies and the whole concept of "agnosticism" is fundamentally flawed and dumb. It's really just a way for religious people to feel more comfortable because lots of them are too intimidated by the word "atheist" since it feels like such a definitive opposition towards their religious beliefs.

Regardless of anything, you're either a theist or an atheist. You either believe in a deity (theist) or you don't believe in a deity (a-theist.) That simple.

I disagree. Rather, it’s either that you think you know the truth (There is a God and God is truth) or you think you know the truth (There is no God, and that’s the truth) or your’re not so arrogant to believe that you know absolute truth (agnostic).

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

I disagree. Rather, it’s either that you think you know the truth (There is a God and God is truth) or you think you know the truth (There is no God, and that’s the truth) or your’re not so arrogant to believe that you know absolute truth (agnostic).

You are either a theist or an atheist regardless. Theism/Atheism has to do with belief and non-belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Personally, I'd prefer not to use labels but if we're going to, that's what it boils down to.

 

[IloveTHIS]

Your analogy would be better if you change it to:
You are crossing the road and there is a person screaming at you from the other side that there is a car about to hit you. But you don’t see or hear one.

I was thinking about the best way to respond to TS and then this post LMAOd me. Perfect.

 

[TSO]

You are either a theist or an atheist regardless. Theism/Atheism has to do with belief and non-belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Personally, I'd prefer not to use labels but if we're going to, that's what it boils down to.

Funny how hard it is for most people to get this.

Just to add one thing, there's no such thing as being an "Agnostic". You're either an Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, or Gnostic Theist.

 

[IloveTHIS]

A proper analogy would be:

You are standing in a long hallway with thousands of doors. In front of every door is a person, each of them tells you that you should really go through their door, and give various arguments and reasons why theirs is the right door. Some are hostile, some simply try and guilt trip you, some act genuinely concerned if you don't pick their door. Some of them tell you that before you can go through their door you have to change a lot of things about your life, almost all of which are things you find enjoyable.

There are two things you notice when talking to them that they almost all have in common; They want you to give them money and they don't have a shred of proof about whether their door goes anywhere, or what would happen to you if you remain in the hallway.

Another great post. It probably wouldn't change even 1% of them, but I wish every single religious person would read this

 

[NHB7]

You are either a theist or an atheist regardless. Theism/Atheism has to do with belief and non-belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Personally, I'd prefer not to use labels but if we're going to, that's what it boils down to.

Semantics I suppose. I see theism as a spectrum. Like 1) I’m atheist to 7) I’m a true believer. In the middle is 4) Im agnostic.