Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

nicolaou

It's obvious right? Your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence. What kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?

Sure, you may have a theory, a suspicion, you may be strongly inclined towards a certain commonly accepted point of view but ultimately how do you defend it? Do you even feel that your opinion requires reasoning to support it? Maybe you think your convictions are 'above' any type of argumentation or logic?

About a month ago on JWD I got into a conversation with a lovely poster (no need to name her but the posts are all there if you decide to call me on this).

I asked her; "Can 1+1 ever equal 3?" to which she naturally replied "Of course I can accept that some things are unbelievable and impossible - and that 1 + 1 can never equal 3. I have faith in the God of the Bible, not in tomfoolery".

However, I reminded her of Jesus so-called miracle feeding of thousands with a few loaves and fishes - and that the subsequent gathering of many more fragments than the original food could have supplied was effectively the same as 1+1 equalling 3 (remember, the sum of the parts cannot be greater than the whole).

Well it took just 15 minutes for this charming and compassionate lady to literally abandon her Reason for the sake of her Conviction!

Her reply was; "I believe the Bible's statement that Jesus is the Creator. As such, He can multiply, divide, add, and subtract His creation in any way He sees fit. Neither I nor you can "explain' this; I simply accept it on faith that it was a miracle".

I like this poster, I really do, but I just cannot bring myself to engage with such non-reasoning individuals at the moment. They are, by the very definition of the word, 'unreasonable'.

.

Like I say, this happened about a month ago, I'm not sure why it's stuck with me so much but it really has.

snowbird

I am the poster of whom he speaks.

I'm glad that our exchange stuck with you, because it certainly has with me!

If you can accept the fact that you came from something smaller than the question mark at the end of this sentence, why can't you accept the fact that some things, from our standpoint, are simply inexplicable?

The example you cited of Jesus' multiplying the loaves and fish was a miracle - neither you nor I can explain it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't and didn't happen. I believe it happened. My convictions are that as Creator, Jesus could overwrite, as it were, the creative process. What seems like the end to us may be only the beginning for Him.

Compared to creating a universe, what's multiplying a few loaves and fish?

No, I haven't abandoned my reasoning abilities. I just know where to draw the line.

Sylvia

Awakened07

It's obvious right? Your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence. What kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?

I think you may find this thread helpful.

Fadeout

Your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.

Wouldn't it be great if that were the case? That's certainly the ideal behind the scientific method.

In reality, though, history and our own experiences show that humans arrive at convictions more through emotional intuition than through logic.

I don't know if this trend can be reversed... perhaps in the future, as society and humanity continues to evolve. The apparently growing amount of atheism and agnosticism is encouraging.

What kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?

What kind of person? Anyone. I was a JW, and I used false and shoddy reasoning to defend my convictions. It is simply a twisted way of thinking, and philospohers and scientists have taken thousands of years to realize that convictions should follow evidence and not the other way around.

We take that for granted now, but if you think about it, there is little reason to automatically suppose that is the correct method, other than the fact that it has proven more effective time and again in real-life applications.

If you are trapped in a burning building, you can pray to Jesus to save you. And if he doesn't save you, the onlookers can justify what happened by adding a new dimension to their belief, e.g., 'His faith wasn't strong enough,' 'God needed another angel,' etc. Ockham's razor obviously is not the principle being applied, as the convoluted web of beliefs must become ever more complex as it attempts to explain the world around us while remaining unwilling to examine its initial assumptions.

If you are trapped in a burning building, you can also put a damp cloth over your face, stay low to the ground, and try to find the exit. This will give you a better chance of surviving. Thus, the real-life experiment shows that this course of action based on reason is preferable to that based on faith. Still, the faithful onlookers tack on yet more addendums to their faith to make it compatible with reality... 'God makes the sun shine on the righteous and unrighteous,' 'He's in league with the Devil,' 'He's still going to hell.'

nicolaou

Hi Sylvia and thanks for posting!

First of all let me say that I both like and respect you (not your opinions though, I think they're plain daft!) I promise I won't go all 'nasty atheist' on you.

why can't you accept the fact that some things, from our standpoint, are simply inexplicable?

I do accept that! The key phrase though is 'some things'. Not all things are inexplicable, 1+1 must always equal 3 and I'm sorry, but to deny that does suggest that you have lost your ability to reason - at least where reason impinges on your faith.

Compared to creating a universe, what's multiplying a few loaves and fish?

This is what I mean, there is no reasoning here. Your conclusion follows from a premise you have merely asserted to be true - that the Universe was created.

snowbird

It's obvious right? Your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence. What kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?
I think you may find this thread helpful.

Awakened, the evidence for my convictions are all around. I haven't encountered any sound refutation of my beliefs.

That's why I choose to have faith in the God of the Bible.

Sylvia

nicolaou

I haven't encountered any sound refutation of my beliefs.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Awakened07

Awakened, the evidence for my convictions are all around. I haven't encountered any sound refutation of my beliefs.

Oh, I think you've encountered some. I've seen it happen. But there are various reasons why you feel they are not sound refutations. One such thing - I think - would be that you believe Satan is alive and well and is conspiring and making up stories and luring people away from God with more or less sophisticated philosophies etc.

But - believe it or not, I'm not here to try to take away your faith. I and others like me present our case, you present yours, and we all learn something (perhaps). If you end up keeping your faith in the end, I have no problem with that. If I end up getting a faith, it would be welcomed by me.

That's why I choose to have faith in the God of the Bible.

I'd dare say that would be a reason to have faith in a God. That you have faith in the God of the Bible is caused by your upbringing and what you have learned from studying it. Had you been born somewhere else, those same 'things all around you' would have been attributed to for instance Allah, with similar arguments, evidence (both scriptural, factual, and spiritual) and conviction.

IMO, of course.

nicolaou

Just feel like my time is running out around here . . .

trevor

Re: One Reason Why I Worship the God of the Bible

Snow bird. On your above thread, when asked to explain the logic of your assertions, you stated,

‘I've never questioned God's existence. Logic only takes me so far; faith does the rest.’

This seems to confirm that conviction comes first and reason remains absent!

Convictions or Reasons - which come first?

Share this