About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/irrational.html

Here is an article I found where a Christian tried to make the irrational rational.  Didn't work for me but how the hell do you fight against such largely illogical people who refuse to accept a world without the use of the bible and a large unknowable creature to worship?

 To assert that Eternal Being could and would take physical shape in time, and allow itself to die a terrible death, was the “absolute paradox” according to Kierkegaard. That one could be infinite and finite, eternal and temporal, God and man at the same time, could only be impossible, illogical and absurd – an “offense” to human understanding.

What Kierkegaard called the “absolute paradox” results when reason collides with itself in logical contradictions. But according to Kierkegaard, this did not necessarily result in non-sense. Human reason must accept its limitations, the objective and empirical parameters of its capability, and allow the illogic of paradox to remain. When reason collides with something foreign, something outside of its realm of understanding, it must, to remain true to the scientific objective of seeking to know and perceive, admit and accept consideration of that which transcends its comprehension.

The supernatural “other” which reason collides with is revelation – the Self-revelation of a transcendent God who created human reasoning, transcends human reasoning, and surprises human logic with the revealing of Himself within the natural context. Reasoned Christian faith must, therefore, embrace the paradox of logical contradiction and the tension of dialectic, recognizing that Christianity will always be illogical and absurd when considered only at the level of natural, human logic. Human reasoning will always be insufficient for becoming or being a Christian, for it cannot comprehend what faith perceives and receives.


Post 1

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eric,

Someone said, "faith is an agreement with one's self not to learn anything new," which fits most cases. I also like these from the Autonomist Notebook:
 
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." —Mark Twain

"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." —H. L. Mencken

Whenever I run across an argument like this for, "faith," Human reasoning will always be insufficient for becoming or being a Christian, for it cannot comprehend what faith perceives and receives, I propose the following question:

Here are two men of faith; one believes in Allah based on what he perceives and receives by faith, and believes so completely he straps explosives to his body and blows himself and as many others as he can to kingdom come. The other believes in a God suffering from multiple personality disorder, (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), and based on what he perceives and receives by faith, he willingly sacrifices all to that belief. The question is, how does one decide which faith is the right one, since both of these, "believers," got to their faith the same way, that is, without human reason?

That puts you in a position to reject any argument made to justify one faith above another faith by simply saying, "oh, that's just human reason." Even if it does not work, it's fun to watch them squirm.

Regi



Post 2

Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eric:

A wise man once said, "You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not first reason himself into."

All such arguments as the one's you cited are at root the argument from ignorance. They  point to some phenomena and state, "Explain that phenomena to my satisfaction or I will assert that your inability to do so is proof that god exists!"

This is an attempt to use an absence (the lack of an acceptable explanation) to prove a presence (the existence of god). It is an attempt to assert that since man is not omniscient there must exist a being who is omniscient.

These people are beyond persuasion. I would not waste my time on the irredeemable.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.