Knowledge and Reason
Posted by Mattlockhart from dailyatheistquote.com
Pin it! duncanfj, punkdaddie, nsyrax and 3 others like this
Added in Intellect
duncanfj, punkdaddie, nsyrax and 3 others like this
10 comments
Login to comment →
ahnyerkeester 11 years, 4 months ago
Well, only if knowledge and reason are opposed to faith, which they are not. At least not in the Christian tradition.
Reply
Mattlockhart 11 years, 4 months ago
Knowledge is absolutely opposed to faith. Faith is believing in something that cannot be known or is not known. Reason is a mechanism we can choose to use that helps us sift through the bullshit. Or we can choose not to use it, sadly.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 11 years, 4 months ago
Well, that's the narrative the New Atheists are using but that isn't how faith has historically be treated. Christianity is based on historical facts. You can believe those facts or not. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical event that has attestations outside the Bible. If you don't believe that happened, fair enough, but it is inaccurate to pit faith against reason.
Reply
Mattlockhart 11 years, 4 months ago
It is completely reasonable to believe in a historical Jesus. To think that he is the direct offspring of a god, performed miracles, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven is completely faith based and backed by no evidence whatsoever. It is our duty as reasonable, knowledgeable human beings to discern fact from fiction, real life from story telling, and to not believe things whole-heartedly based on faith alone. We must ask questions and seek truth to oppose the unreasonable.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 11 years, 4 months ago
I get that Matt. But we have to face the historical Jesus and make sure we're not dismissing the parts of history we don't like or that we don't agree with. Jesus was the direct offspring of a Hebrew girl, he didn't spring from the thigh of Zeus. He was born naturally, though conceived supernaturally. Just because that hasn't happened before or since doesn't make it unreasonable to believe. If you start with a materialistic presupposition, surprise surprise, you'll come to materialistic conclusions. The question then is whether materialism is a valid presupposition or not. But that's a different discussion.
Reply
Mattlockhart 11 years, 4 months ago
That's 100% unreasonable! Not only is it unreasonably to think that EVERYTHING in those "historical" books is 100% accurate and devoid of embellishment, but it's also unreasonable to think that there was a child born of divine seed. That was what, 2000 years ago, give or take? There is the same story that shows up in Greco-Roman mythology about Dionysus who was the son of Zeus, was killed by man then resurrected. Look at Horus or Osiris. These are essentially the telling of the same story only thousands of years before the christian story of Jesus. It's not taking a materialistic presupposition, it's a rational one. Why is it that we can read Ancient Egyption and Greek writings and accept them as mythology, but then argue that the modern christian rendition is somehow different?
Reply
ahnyerkeester 11 years, 4 months ago
Matt, it seems like we've reached a point where we simply disagree and the internet is a HORRIBLE place to try to carry these kinds of discussions beyond that point. So I'll be content to let you have the last word on this.
Reply
Mattlockhart 11 years, 4 months ago
Ahhhh... I so like a good debate! :)
I guess I'll leave on this note. I understand the necessity of passing down knowledge to each new generation in the hopes that what we have learned throughout our lives can help to further the advancement of those who come after us and ultimately the human species as a whole. The christian teachings should be about spreading knowledge of living a good healthy life and loving others. The parables and stories, in my mind, are not literal and should not be taken as such. They are mechanisms that were employed to convey certain messages about love, kindness, forgiveness, truthfulness, etc to the proceeding generations. I choose to use logic when attempting to interpret this world around me and not build my life around blind faith. I guess you could say I'm a natural skeptic.
Reply
ben.terry 11 years, 4 months ago
As I see it science (where knowledge comes from directly or indirectly) is a reflection of our current understanding of the universe. Science changes as our understanding changes. Faith, is believing without a complete understanding. So, one could say that to believe only in science is to have faith in it. Faith is faith.
Reply
Mattlockhart 11 years, 4 months ago
One could say that, sure. However, "science" is the process by which we gain knowledge about the universe around us by way of systematically testing and either proving or disproving predictions and theories. In my experience, religious faith simply disregards science or the scientific method so as not to disrupt the monotheistic regime. It's easy to just simply follow in the footsteps of the generations that came before us. To have "faith" in what religious figures tell is is "truth" just because they say so, with no systematically testable evidence to back any of it up, will be the downfall of humanity. Imagine how easy it will be to control a population that doesn't question the teachings of it's leaders. Faith is ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
Reply