by Hortensia 52 Replies latest jw friends
Faith is a "knowing within the heart", that has excelled beyond the reach of doubt
.....much like trying to explain falling in love romantically ..... it is more like something you experience not try to explain
...To have faith is to defy logic by it's very definition
I will answers your questions as I am able, Zound... but I think I am going to bed now. No need to add my crankiness to your bad mood ; )
I would like to point out that this thread is about a book called, a manual for creating atheists. It is for atheists to convert theists.
Unforunately for the author and those who want to create atheists... and not one word of this book is going to convine me that he does not exist. I do not 'think' that Christ exists. I know Him, though He still teaches me more all the time... and hear Him; and you cannot know someone who does not exist. I cannot... deny Him... not unless I am lying to myself.
Peace to you,
tammy
All human knowledge and reason can be seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith can be seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to Rene Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am," which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.
When you hear a news story from another country, or of an event that you did not personally witness, do you take it at face value as an absolute fact, or do you need some degree of faith in order to believe that the account of the event actually happened and is true? And even if you did witness an event, do you not require some degree of faith in your own senses and memory in order to form an account of the event?
For example, how does one person arrive at the conclusion that Jesus, as a historical figure, did not exist - yet Socrates did?
Okay so you don't have evidence - unless you dramatically redefine the the word 'evidence' just as you did with 'faith'.
I am truly not the one redefining the word evidence, limiting it to its scientific definition. There are all kinds of evidence.
Nor did i redefine the word faith... others did that long before me. If we are speaking of faith... as in faith in Christ... then others with faith in Christ (as written) shared their understanding from Him before I did, and before the dictionary definition emerged.
This is kind of what I was talking about. "I can encourage people to have faith and just believe - I can show that it works wonders for me - but what others do with that is up to them."
So condone faith and even encourage it to others, and then in their susceptable mind frame if they then believe JW's, Scientologists, Mormons, Jim Jones, Catholics etc etc "What others do with that is up to them."
Nice.
You did not use my words... because I do not state the above... have faith and just believe. You also left these words out that I DID say:
Might I add that I have stated that faith is based on evidence...it is not blind... what others state (including myself), from Christ or from themselves or from religion or from the bible... SHOULD be tested. Always. Against Christ, against love, against what is written (beginning with Christ... since He is the one God said, even in that book, to listen TO... so even according to that book, Christ is the authority)
Okay, that is all for tonight. I am going to bed now, lol.
Peace,
tammy
It's the certainty of believers (most, perhaps not all) that winds me up. No room (or very little) for error. They don't think something, they KNOW something. If you asked me about evolution or something similar, I don't KNOW it is absolutely true, just as I don't absolutely KNOW that there is no God. I like to think I will change my position if the evidence indicates I should. It is the TRUEST position I want to find myself in given my knowledge.
As to the title of the book - I don't particulary like it, I think the title may be more for shock value. It's really just critical and rational thinking - which generally will lead to atheism.
I'm just trying to understand you tammy. Good night. Thanks for your input and answering Q's etc.
Regards
Zound
Chapter Four
Refers to evidence that people don't change their minds because of evidence. Presenting facts won't convince a person because their belief isn't based on facts. They start with a belief - Jesus was divine, for instance -- and then use that belief to understand ideas like Jesus walking on water. Of course he did that, he is divine.
So don't attempt to change someone's mind by deluging the person with facts. Circular nature of justification, one's beliefs are justified because of feelings, experiences, ancient documents or new revelations, without any outside support.
Coherentists believe a statement is supported if it agrees with other statements within the belief system. Uses the Matrix as an example.
Foundationalists believe a statement is supported if it can be inferred from other statements within the belief system. Refers to Descartes's famous statement "I think therefore I am," which Descartes used as a foundation to infer other statements or beliefs about his perceptions of the world.
It doesn't work to focus on coherentist beliefs, you just wind up in circular discussions. The author prefers foundationalist discussions instead. Focus on how they think, how they come to conclusions. There are foundational beliefs that hold up the whole structure of faith. Focus on the foundations of faith, not on religions.
Also many people experience religion as a social network, friends, families, community and relationships, so attacking religion can be perceived as attacking a person's social network, family and community.
Focus on how a person claims to know his faith is true, not on what that particular faith is. Don't argue about whether god exists, but ask how a person knows that god exists.
Separate faith from morality, by asking if you can think of anyone who does not have faith but who is a moral person. The author uses Bill Gates and Specialist Pat Tillman as examples of people who do not believe, but who are/were moral in their behavior. Then ask, "can you think of any person with faith who is immoral?"
other questions: what would it take for you to believe your faith is wrong?
reverse question: what would it take to convince me there is a god?
Refers to Motivational Interviewing (Miller and Rollnick, 2002) for suggestions to help create nonadversarial relationships.
Don't become frustrated, even if the person you are talking with exhibits anger and hostility.
Don't make a judgement that a person is in denial. The author prefers the term "precontemplative" for someone who doesn't yet see that he or she could change opinions and beliefs. The anger and hostility are symptoms of this stage of change.
What am I thinking as I read the book? Well, I like the idea of not being invested in the results, not attacking religion, doctrine, politics, whatever, but instead just focusing on evidence for faith, whatever the faith is. Asking questions and listening carefully to the answers, being willing to admit myself that someone might know stuff I don't know, that I don't know everything. In fact, the whole idea of the book is that a person who thinks critically starts from a position of knowing that he/she doesn't know much at all. Then the critical thinker looks for information, examines competing ideas, looks for reasonable evidence. Faith is different, they seem to be immune to evidence, and not willing to consider that they could change their minds.
I have been thinking, while reading, of a book that convinced me all religions are wrong. It is called Women Saints East and West. Ironically, it isn't about atheism at all, but a series of short biographies of women saints, mainly Catholic, Islamic, and I think Hindu or Buddhist. It has been a while since I read it, but the conclusion I drew from it I'll never forget. What I noticed was that all these women believed different things, that their religious doctrines contradicted the other religions. BUT, the women did similar things. They all meditated or prayed about six hours a day, gave away material possessions and lived a life of service to others. I realized that doctrine doesn't matter. It isn't a matter of one religion being true and others being wrong. They're all wrong. Doctrines don't matter. That isn't why people join religions.
Thank you Hortensia, for your excellent Book Review, you have persuaded me that I really need to get hold of it and read it.
I find I am not very good at helping believers (in anything), to take a look at their beliefs in a way that will make them see such beliefs for what they are.
For example, I have a friend from my childhood who has always believed in Fate, and has lived his life in a somewhat non-productive, aimless way because of his belief. Using some of the methods outlined in your post, and no doubt others I will glean from the book, I maybe will be able to help him.
He has immense musical talent, but has never really used it.
Mind you, it could just be that really he is simply a lazy sod.
Thanks for the Thread too, it has brought some gems of posts from Zound and others, I love Cofty's "Faith is brain rot" for example.
Thanks everybody.
It's not much of a review, just notes I'm taking while reading it. I'm enjoying the book and getting some ideas for talking to people about some of their beliefs. It's not my style to challenge people a lot, but I'm so surrounded by people with crazy beliefs, and I figure if I listen politely to what they say, they can listen to my doubts too.
I should have put Book Review in quotes, my dear, because I meant it tongue in cheek in a way, I know you did not set out to do a proper Review, but you have done such a good job of explaining the value of the book that I mean it when I say I shall get it and use it.
Like you, I constantly encounter these people who have unfounded, unprovable beliefs and ideas, and any way we can help them has to be a good thing.
Getting them to listen, really liisten, to our doubts is the hard thing, they rarely seem to know how to listen.
I finished reading this book and enjoyed it, but I have to say evangelical atheism isn't my style. Nonetheless, the author's point that there is a serious lack of critical thinking in the world is valid. I have tried some of the ideas in this book on neighbors who are true believers in just about anything absurd and have seen cognitive dissonance kick in briefly. That's a good result, I think. I don't want to be the person who challenges EVERY absurd belief or idea out there, but occasionally you just have to say something and this book gives you some ideas about what to say to get people to question their beliefs.
My neighbor who believes in anything visited yesterday. I mentioned the terrible storm in the Phillipines and she said, "well, that's what you get for living on an island." I persisted, mentioning how awful it must be to see your entire life smashed into matchsticks, and what they must be going through right now. She mentioned karma. I just looked at her and she started back pedalling. She doesn't see what good it would do for her to get upset about what people on the other side of the world are going through. She's praying for peace and happiness in her own little part of the world (her words), and that's all she can do. I said, no point in getting upset about what is happening in the Phillipines, but as humans we can't help feeling sorry for their suffering. They are just like us, and we would be suffering terribly if it happened here. She decided to leave about then.
I think the notion of karma excuses people from feeling sorry for others, from feeling empathy or compassion. Like JW doctrines, it teaches people it's OK not to love. They need to think about that. It's a heartless world in many ways, and it's not good for us to just decide the suffering of others is their own fault and they have lessons to learn from it. I'm going to ask her to explain the Buddhist idea of taking on the suffering of others, how exactly do you do that and why?
