@j.a.m. it is unfortunate that you find it necessary to make false claims about what Ken has written. It is always curious that a self professed Christian would have no problem in ignoring the commands of his god in order to make false claims.

What “reason” do you use to believe in your god that other theists do not use to believe in their god? Why don’t you believe their gods since they do use the same supposed reasoning as you do? What evidence do you have that your beliefs influence a “better” life for you and how does your life differ from others? Please do also define what you mean by “better”.

I haven’t for a moment argued either of those things. No wonder we go around in circles.

@Ken: At this point we’re just rehashing your position that reason is madness and observation is infallible. With respect, I remain unpersuaded that such is the case, or that such a viewpoint is the basis for a better life.

@j.a.m “A key criterion for me (again) is whether a set of beliefs actually enhances my ability to engage the central questions of life, or not.”

how does believe in your version of your religion “enhance” your ability to engage with the ‘central questions of life’ (something you have yet neglected to explain) and how do those other sets of beliefs fail?

all I’m seeing is one more theist who wants to pretend that his religion is better than anyone else’s and has nothing to support that claim. Most, if not all theists, want to pretend that their religion and theirs alone is the only one that can answer these mysterious questions “correctly” and all try to make the same claims e.g. that the universe is evidence for their god and their god alone, that the “right” morals come from their god and their god alone, etc.

The difficulty (again) is that anyone can say that about anything they want to believe and the madness (again) is obviously NOT being kept at bay. You describe a process that may be satisfying for you and relatively safe for the rest of us (though I’ve heard enough of your political views to be very unsure of that), but which cannot be generalised to the world at large, because it is entirely subjective.

People have enough trouble with actual facts. Once you dispense with all grounding in objectivity, you won’t get them to agree even on the central questions of life, let alone what might be very bad answers.

@Ken: Yes (again), we really can keep madness at bay! Notwithstanding the fact that people hold a variety of opinions, judgments, convictions and beliefs about God and everything else, we really can differentiate and evaluate philosophical doctrines or beliefs and assess their validity rationally. A key criterion for me (again) is whether a set of beliefs actually enhances my ability to engage the central questions of life, or not. I’m not sure I can put it any plainer. Where is the difficulty?

The context has ALWAYS been about belief in god and how we avoid the madness of everyone’s different beliefs being equally valid. You know that and I wouldn’t be wasting my time otherwise. Even if your examples were valid, it would say nothing about that question. You’re just avoiding the issue, as you have all along.

No, that’s not the one I was thinking of. I don’t think that one’s been on here – I don’t recognize it anyway. Thanks.

“All circles lack angles.
– Every finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts.
– Everyone is born with equal and inalienable rights.
– All ballet performers have the ability to dance.
– All things considered, it is better to be happy than sad.
– Everyone is innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers.
– Torture is wrong.
– The right to vote cannot be denied on account of sex.
– The means ought to be proportionate to the end.
– Truth exists and can be known.”

this is quite a mix of things that can be known by reason *and* physical evidence and things that are subjective values.

There is still no evidence for a god as claimed by j.a.m. the Judeo-Christian god from the bible. There is no evidence that his version of hi religion is any more true than any other religion or even sect of his religion.

Like so many other theists, j.a.m., you want to pretend that your god is equivalent to truth. You have the presupposition that only your god is the real one and that there needs to be a god. You cannot show that either is based on reality.

The search for truth is not a prayer. A prayer is the useless action of beseeching an imaginary being to do something or even more pointless, thanking an imaginary being for doing something when it evidently ignores the prayers of others who are in far direr situations. The search for truth is following the facts where they lead, not coming up with a fairy story and trying to force everything to fit it. Most, if not all, theists try to do this, insist that the universe is evidence for their god and only their god. Surprise, none of you can show this to be the case. Your faith is just like the faith of the other theists you insist are wrong. There is no reason to believe any of you.

Still waiting for evidence for your version of your go, j.a.m. Still waiting for you to support your claims that there is good reason, e.g. facts observed to support a position, to believe in your god and not the thousands of others. You have yet to show your god “trustworthy” and that it exists at all. I have shown by your own bible and its failures that your god is not trustworthy and the stories are nonsense. Your claim ““The most rational and responsible response is to place one’s trust in God.” At the moment is entirely baseless.

@heather
Would this be the documentary series you were thinking of: The Brain with David Eagleman? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06y8hyr

@Ken: You asked for examples of beliefs whose validity we can establish by reason without reference to physical evidence. I gave more than ample examples to underscore the absurdity of the self-refuting assertions that every assertion must be justified by “evidence”, and that reason never suffices to protect us from falsehoods.

You can judge a belief system by whatever criteria you choose. For my part, I want to understand whether and how it enhances my ability to engage the central questions of life and gain wisdom.

Re your second comment, I don’t believe in “a god”, let alone your god. I do take for granted that truth is really real, and finally is of one whole non-contingent essence traditionally identified with God. I’m not sure how it could be otherwise, but I’m more than happy to discard that idea if a better one comes along. You read in a contradiction that isn’t there.