Predestination and Free Will

[Mr. Tweedy]

I don't think this really off-topic: If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless.  If everybody doesn't live in the same Reality, then it's silly to even discuss what Reality is like, since we'll each have our own equally-valid version: I could say something like "You might have free will, but my life is predestined."


The sky is not blue because people call it "blue."  It is what it is.  "Blue" is just an arbitrary label to describe what we see.  A blind man will not have a name for it; the word "blue" means nothing to him, but his lack of a name does not change the sky itself.  The sky is the same color no matter who is or is not looking at it at any given time.

[slic]

So many threads, so little time:

The difference between "dissolves everything that we know of" and "dissolves everything" is the same as the difference between "knows all that is knowable" and "knows everything"

Yes, we agree.

Well, I'll admit that I've never gotten into a debate about Perception versus Absolute Truth but my immediate thought is "how can someone who believes in an all knowing/infallible God NOT believe in an Absolute Truth, since anything God knew would be true (by definition) and therefore be absolute?"

This is getting blurry because of a lack of definition.  We still haven't defined what we mean by Absolute Truth.  And for the record, I'm a spiritual agnostic - I don't believe in the Christian-Judea-Muslim All Father type.

If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless

It all depends on your perception

It's already obvious that everyone perceives the world differently.  The question is, are their any Truths that remain unchanged Absolutely.  We have formulas that express how objects react (gravity from mass, phase changes in water, visible light spectrums, etc) but we also see that Newtonian physics doesn't work in Einsteinian space or at the quantam level, so they are not Absolute either.

So, yes, the sky is blue even if you close your eyes, unless you are travelling at near light speed

[ClintMemo]

Ah you beat me to it...
I'll still offer my version:

"If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."

LOL
I have two friends I need to send that to.

[ClintMemo]

I don't think this really off-topic: If there is no single, absolute truth, then this whole topic is kind of meaningless. 

A couple of years ago, I had an email debate with one of my atheist friends and in the argument, I was on the side I suspect you would be on.  I tried to explain to him that if he denied the existence of God, then he was denying the existence of an absolute definition of Good and Evil because, without an absolute being to create these definitions, there can be no "absolute" to it.  Everything was relative because it would be a matter of perception. He was unwilling to accept that, but also unable to come up with any kind of counter argument.

[slic]

He was unwilling to accept that, but also unable to come up with any kind of counter argument.

he should read parts of the Tolerance thread.  Specifically the parts around the Darleks

[JaredAxelrod]

The sky is not blue because people call it "blue."  It is what it is.  "Blue" is just an arbitrary label to describe what we see.  A blind man will not have a name for it; the word "blue" means nothing to him, but his lack of a name does not change the sky itself.  The sky is the same color no matter who is or is not looking at it at any given time.

But see, that color (blue, green, whatever) has no meaning to our hypothetical blind man.  You saying that the sky is blue--or even, that there is a sky at all--has no use to him.  Because it is outside his perception it is useless to him.  It may comfort him if you say it's there, it may annoy him, but he does not have any use for it in his practical life.

Likewise, if an almighty being exists, and if it has a plan for everything, and if that plan is outside our comphrension--and why wouldn't it be? This is plan involving every living thing on every planet in the entire universe, after all--it has as much relevence to our lives as the color of the sky to blind man.  Whether it's there or not is irrelevent.  It cannot possibly affect our conscious decision-making as we go through our lives, becuase it is beyond our comphrension.  We can look at it after the fact, say a car accident is part of "god's plan" the same way a blind man says the water hitting his head is rain.  But it could just as easily be water spilling off a roof.

I tried to explain to him that if he denied the existence of God, then he was denying the existence of an absolute definition of Good and Evil because, without an absolute being to create these definitions, there can be no "absolute" to it.  Everything was relative because it would be a matter of perception.

Naturally.  Nature has no absolutes, so why should we believe there are any?

[Mr. Tweedy]

Nature has no absolutes?  How about e=mc²?  I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.

The plan of God is interesting because you can decide to opt out of it.  It's like a train you can jump on, or not.  Do as you please, the train goes on regardless.  The fact that humans cannot comprehend the whole plan is unimportant: I do my job here at the newspaper without knowing all the details of how the paper is run.  I understand how to do my part here in advertising; it isn't my job to worry about what they're doing downstairs in the newsroom or across the hall in marketing.

It wouldn't do me any good to understand the whole Plan of God.  I've only got a little part to play, and knowing everything would not help me play my part any better, even if I were able to understand it all.

[Heradel]

Nature has no absolutes?  How about e=mc²?  I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.

Well, this is science, and all evidence shows that e=mc² or something very close, there's some internal debate in the physics community that the 2 might be a little off, but I haven't seen it published/widely publicized. And if tomorrow some experiment comes along that shows definitively that instead of the speed of light you need the gravitational constant, well, that's ok. Or if it's a 2.5 or 1.5 or 300. It changes, and science continues on. Everything is based on observations, and if a new observation comes it that chucks a theory out the window, well, it's expected.

In religion, if something is proved to be wrong... Well, the initial reaction has been fairly uniformly to deny whatever is proving something wrong and keep going with that something.

That is what is meant by absolutes. Religion has thought A, and if a thought B is right-er and contradicts A, than B is thrown/suppressed/burned/censored instead of A changing. In science, no A is above being supplanted by a B if B is right. If gravity is indisputably found to be caused by invisible greenish aliens holding us down by our feet, well, goodbye theory of gravity.

If someone goes back in time, proves that there was no immaculate conception by showing Mary sleeping with a shepherd (and then DNA testing Jesus against that shepherd), I doubt the Catholic Church (or any other) is going to accept that prima facie. In any time before ours they'd be suppressing it with a great deal of speed and ability. These days they would have a lot more trouble doing that.

Science has laws. They can be disproven. They are not absolute. They are not above question. Same goes, even moreso, for theories.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Saddly, your criticism of religion is apt, generally speaking.  I wish it weren't.  There are many exceptions to that rule, though, even if we have not been the historical majority.

But I would extend your criticism out to belief in general, not just those beliefs classified as religious.  People are very, very reluctant to give up ideas that they have believed for a long time, espcecially when those ideas are a source of pride or identity for them.  Often, abandoning an idea means admitting that you, your friends and you ancestors have all been badly mistaken, and thay you've been teaching you own children a lot of nonsense.  That's a tough pill to swallow and many decline to do so, no matter how demonstrably wrong they might be.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with me about absolutes in nature.  You examples actually show that there are absolutes, because our theories have to change to accomodate them.  Reality is concrete and our explanation of it must adapt to meet the facts.  That is what science is all about.  Science is about pruning and refining belief so that belief matches truth.  Religion is (regretably and avoidably) often used as an excuse to believe in spite of truth.

[Bdoomed]

First, id like to say... YAY this thread is alive again!!! I like this thread!
and second,

Religion is (regretably and avoidably) often used as an excuse to believe in spite of truth.

which is one reason why i've opted out of religion.  I'll find my own truth if i want to, and i dont need anyone telling me what to believe.  I believe in God, but ill do it in my own way.

Nature has no absolutes?  How about e=mc²?  I'm not sure what you mean: It seems to me that the whole "science" thing is all about discovering the absolutes in nature.

but see, as sure of ourselves that that is true, we cannot ever know for certain.  there are allways [at least] 2 perspectives to everything.  Who knows, some alien species in some distant galaxy might think of energy differently than we do, and they might be just as right or just as wrong as we are.  we'll probably never know.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Wow, I could go so many places with that.  Um...

I have heard it argued that because we cannot perfectly perceive or know reality, it means there is no reality; because our descriptions of reality must necessarily be approximations, it shows that there is nothing concrete behind them.  This is counter-logical.  Rather, I see our inability to perfectly understand as proof that things do have objective, absolute existence.

Take the example of physics: There are absolute Natural Laws which guide the movements of celestial objects.  We used to not have any idea what those Laws were.  Then Newton came along and gave us a very good approximation, an approximation so good that 's it's still all we need most of the time.  Then Einstein came up with a better theory that more accurately described the Law, and for a while we thought it was a perfect description.  Now Heradel tells us that Einstein's perfection is in doubt and we might eventually get a new theory that is even better.

In this process, we see theories advancing, getting better with time.  This progress is an advance toward understanding the Law which has always been there, acting, keeping the universe working long before anyone thought to look for it.  The Law is absolute and objective.  The fact that our theories change over time is evidence of this.  If the Law were not absolute, we would have nothing to advance towards; there would be no criteria by which to classify one theory as superior to another.

If we could describe reality perfectly, that would be an indication that is was mutable.  If we could simply make up our own laws, then every description would be perfectly accurate and every theory would be totally true.  Our inability to pin nature down shows that it is real, and this it true (it seems to me) of all things.  Things which are made-up we can understand.  Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp.  I don't completely understand my wife, and I never will: That's part of the fun.  Perpetual discovery, always learning more but never quite getting everything.

As an outgrowth from that idea, I say the notion of finding one's own truth about God is not credible.  If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas, anymore than we are free to just make up our own ideas about how physics works.  I exist.  I go by "Mr. Tweedy," but there's a real Josh Hugo sitting here, typing this stuff.  Because I am real, you can't just make up your own conception of me: You have to deal with the facts of my existence or else be wrong, incorrect and mistaken.  God is no different.  If He is real, then you've got to deal with Him as He is.

The only way we are free to make up our own truth about God if we first posit that God does not actually exist.  If God is a fictional character, just an imaginary friend, then of course we can make anything we want, because there isn't any Fact to measure our fancy against.  If God is real, then our freedom to do this disappears.

I hold that there are only two credible options when it comes to God: We can say He exists, in which case it is our job to learn about Him.  Or we can say he does not exist, in which case there is nothing to learn and we are free to make up whatever idea tickles our fancy.  I don't see any logical room for a middle ground, one that says "I believe in God but I will make up my own idea of Him."  That's like saying "I believe that Josh Hugo exists, but I believe he is a telepathic purple octopus."  Sorry, that's wrong: I'm nothing so exotic or interesting.  The only way you can say I am a purple octopus is you deny that I have any real existence.  If you accept that I exist, you've got to deal me as I am.

[Bdoomed]

I don't see any logical room for a middle ground, one that says "I believe in God but I will make up my own idea of Him."

umm isnt that the ENTIRE basis on EVERY theistic religion?  Their own interpretations of God?  To say that means your saying that only your religion is right and everyone else is plain wrong and thats all there is to it.  Who knows, maybe your religion IS right, but maybe its wrong.  But it does not matter who is right and who is wrong.  The central idea is the same: there is a God/are gods.  From there it will branch out depending on the religion.

[slic]

Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but on it's face this is ridiculous.  What do you mean by real, what level of understanding are you meaning?  What do I have to know about my tablecloth to understand it?

That's like saying "I believe that Josh Hugo exists, but I believe he is a telepathic purple octopus."  Sorry, that's wrong: I'm nothing so exotic or interesting.  The only way you can say I am a purple octopus is you deny that I have any real existence.  If you accept that I exist, you've got to deal me as I am.

Sure, but what about me believing that Josh Hugo is a white guy who likes comic books and goes to church every Sunday?  Probably not 100% true, but close enough that it would be very hard to convince me otherwise. 
How can I tell the difference btwn what I "Know" to be true, and what I have learned incorrectly.  This is exactly why I will never follow an organized religion - too many people are sure they Know God - and turn out to be hypocritical lying jerks (just check the news).  Why spend time "trying to get to know Him"?  Just live your life, follow the rules as best you can and let others do the same.

[wakela]

For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?

This is not intended to be pejorative, I really want to know.

[Rachel Swirsky]

If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas

If one grants this, then one would expect there to be concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about God, in the same way that one uses concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about nature.

Which is to say: if God existed, and existed in the same way as physical law, then he would be researchable.

There is no evidence that such a god or gods exist; there is no evidence that any god or gods exerts influence on the universe in the ways claimed by religion. (Frex: prayer does not work more than placebo.)

So, if you're going to say that God can be known in teh same ways as scientific knowing, then you end up binding God within that paradigm of knowledge. Within that paradigm of knowledge, your position as a theist is extremely tenuous, unless you worship the non-interventionist watchmaker version of god.

You're better off arguing from faith sans scientific metaphors.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Once again I find myself seemingly alone in disagreement with everyone, which is cool: I'm used to that, but it makes the logistics difficult.  I'm going to pick slic's post to respond to because I like his references to comic books and tablecloths.  I own neither of these items, so they strike me as slightly exotic

Things which are real are always just a little beyond our grasp...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but on it's face this is ridiculous.  What do you mean by real, what level of understanding are you meaning?  What do I have to know about my tablecloth to understand it?

I simply mean that we can't know everything.  I think it's what Carl Sagan means when he talks about the "wonder" of the universe.  There is always more to find out, and that's a big part of what makes the universe so cool.  We are blessed with infinite potential for growth and discovery: You can keep learning, every day, for the entire 80+ years of your life and never run out of material.

Take your tablecloth for exmample.  You can take it as merely functional, and that's fine, but you if take the innitiative to really study your tablecloth, myriad paths of learning unfold.  You can go from there out into ecconomics and trade: How did my tablecloth get here?  History: Who first used these?  How have they evolved over the centuries?  Textiles: What is this made of and how?  Physics: Why does this weave hold together?  Etc.  Every topic, even one so mundane as a tablecloth, offers great depth, if one exerts themselves to learn about it.

God is like this also: I never expect to know everything about God, and I think anyone who claims to know everything about God is fooling themselves quite baddly.  But that isn't the same as saying that I know nothing about God.  I do know something, and I expect to continue learning more, forever.

Sure, but what about me believing that Josh Hugo is a white guy who likes comic books and goes to church every Sunday?  Probably not 100% true, but close enough that it would be very hard to convince me otherwise. 
How can I tell the difference btwn what I "Know" to be true, and what I have learned incorrectly.  This is exactly why I will never follow an organized religion - too many people are sure they Know God - and turn out to be hypocritical lying jerks (just check the news).  Why spend time "trying to get to know Him"?  Just live your life, follow the rules as best you can and let others do the same.

You can assume that I'm a white church-goer who likes comic books.  That's fine, as long as you keep in mind that your assumptions are just that.  Keep a distinction in mind between what you know about me (which is simply that I have published certain statements on the web) and what you speculate.  If you really want to know me better, you can take steps to do so, or you can decline to take those steps and not know.  But you can't just make up stuff about me and pretend like it's true.  That, I think, is the fault many of your see in "organized religion": You're expeceted to swallow a bunch of made-up stuff and not question it.

Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up.  Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system?  Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference?  (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)

If God actually exists–if God is real–then there are facts about Him just like there are facts about the universe, and we are not free to just make up our own ideas

If one grants this, then one would expect there to be concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about God, in the same way that one uses concrete evidentiary methods for gathering information about nature.

Which is to say: if God existed, and existed in the same way as physical law, then he would be researchable.

There is no evidence that such a god or gods exist; there is no evidence that any god or gods exerts influence on the universe in the ways claimed by religion. (Frex: prayer does not work more than placebo.)

So, if you're going to say that God can be known in teh same ways as scientific knowing, then you end up binding God within that paradigm of knowledge. Within that paradigm of knowledge, your position as a theist is extremely tenuous, unless you worship the non-interventionist watchmaker version of god.

You're better off arguing from faith sans scientific metaphors.

And as to that, I'll simply have have to say I disagree.  I see ample evidence of God, in all spheres of my experience, and I think He has provided us with the means to do a little research, should we be so inclined.  You deny my evidence and my sources of information, and so we are are at a simple impasse.

[eytanz]

For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?

I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.

I do not belong to any organized religion because I am unwilling to take the next step and ascribe motives and actions or values to God. Religions are a way to reduce God into everyday terms we can handle. I have no need to handle God, I just know It is there.

I don't know if this is a helpful response, but it is the only one I can give. Religious people, like Mr Tweedy above, have the ability to say things like "[God] has provided us with the means to do a little research, should we be so inclined" - that makes no sense to me, because for me there is nothing that is *not* evidence of God, and as such research is meaningless; God is not something I am capable of questioning, nor do I have any desire to do so. And at the same time, I don't have any desire to convince anyone else of the correctness of this - how you respond to your experience of the universe is your business, not mine. If you can feel the same things I do and choose to name them something else, that doesn't matter. If you truely can't feel the same, then I don't know why, nor do I particularly care - even if I am totally deluded about the nature of the universe, I don't see how I can change that without becoming a totally different person, and I like being me.

[slic]

Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up.  Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system?  Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference?  (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)

How is my fabricated system baseless?  You have no idea what I am basing my beliefs in.  How is it you know so certainly that the 2000 year old dead guy isn't full of balony?

This is where we will forever disagree because from my perspective you may very well have swallowed a bunch of made-up stuff.  The very definition of Faith is that you don't question it - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Proof negates Faith.  I don't have Faith in gravity working, it just does.  I don't worry that gravity has foresaken me as I jump into the air.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up.  Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system?  Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference?  (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)

How is my fabricated system baseless?  You have no idea what I am basing my beliefs in.  How is it you know so certainly that the 2000 year old dead guy isn't full of balony?

This is where we will forever disagree because from my perspective you may very well have swallowed a bunch of made-up stuff.  The very definition of Faith is that you don't question it - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Proof negates Faith.  I don't have Faith in gravity working, it just does.  I don't worry that gravity has foresaken me as I jump into the air.

I do not presume to know whether or not your beliefs are baseless.  I was making a general statement.  Sorry if it sounded like a criticism of you specifically, because I didn't mean for it to be.

I was criticizing the idea that making up your own ideas is somehow better than accepting someone else's made-up ideas.  Unless you are appealing to an absolute Truth and saying "my ideas are right," then you're just adding your own fantasy to the already heaping pile of fantasies, and I don't see any point in that.  If there's no Truth to be known, then making up your own ideas is not better or different than swallowing someone else's.

As to faith, I'd say you're 180 degrees wrong; at least, your description of faith and my understanding of faith bear no relation to each other.  I don't remember where, but I once read the statement, "Faith, by definition, is impervious to fact."  I remember thinking, "Wow, this writer doesn't get it."

I understand faith in the sense of being faithful, like a faithful spouse or a faithful dog or the Marine slogan, "semper fidelis."  It means you stick with something through thick and thin.  It means loyalty.  Anyone's who read many of my posts probably knows by now that I think C.S. Lewis was just about the smartest guy who ever lived.  I can't improve on the way he put it so: "I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us."

And that definition goes right in line with what I see in the Bible.  I am never asked, by God or anyone, to put my mind aside and believe something that I know to be untrue.  No one in the Bible is ever asked to believe something in spite of the evidence.  What you do see is persistent demands for people to stick with what they know to be true and not dump out the moment things get rough.

It can be very difficult to retain an unpopular belief, in anything, not just in religion.  It's easy to go with the flow and believe what is convenient or expedient at the time.  It's hard to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition.  I think that's what faith is about.  Faith is not credulity combined with stubbornness.  Faith is faithfulness.

[eytanz]

I was criticizing the idea that making up your own ideas is somehow better than accepting someone else's made-up ideas.  Unless you are appealing to an absolute Truth and saying "my ideas are right," then you're just adding your own fantasy to the already heaping pile of fantasies, and I don't see any point in that.  If there's no Truth to be known, then making up your own ideas is not better or different than swallowing someone else's.

True enough.

But the question remains - you and I (for a conrete example) both believe different things. Both of us, in this thread, have appealed to an absolute truth. I happen to think that what you think is an absolute truth is wrong. Which means you must think the same about me (since otherwise you'd have to share the belief that you are wrong). However, your belief, at least from what I can gather from this thread and others on these forums, is one that is shared by others and has an established history, while mine does not, or at least I'm not aware that it is. Yet, still, I maintain that I am right, in the absolute sense. And I am not just making a rethorical point, I truely believe this, with the sort of faith you describe so well in the rest of your post.

So, what now? We can't both be right, so (at least) one of us must have a mistaken notion of what is an absolute truth. Obviously, my ideas are not preferrable *because* they are not part of an organized religion. But the point I think slic is trying to make - is that just because yours *is*, that doesn't make it more likely to be the right one. I don't know whether or not you disagree with this, actually - you and slic, at least, seem to be arguing somewhat at cross-purposes, or at least that's what it looks like to me from reading the thread.

[ClintMemo]

Looking up Faith at dictionary.com yields (among others, including loyalty)
2.   belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

In other words, faith means believing something even when there is no evidence to support it.  I think the problem is that people take that a step too far and continue to believe something despite all evidence to disprove it.  If they don't like the evidence, they either ignore it or discount it.

And that definition goes right in line with what I see in the Bible.  I am never asked, by God or anyone, to put my mind aside and believe something that I know to be untrue.  No one in the Bible is ever asked to believe something in spite of the evidence.  What you do see is persistent demands for people to stick with what they know to be true and not dump out the moment things get rough.

but people are asked to believe in things that are in the Bible, in spite of the evidence. They are also told to believe things that may not be in the bible, but are would have to be true if what the bible says is true.  For example, they just opened a creationist museum not too far from where I live, where, apparently, the guides think that T-Rexes ate coconuts.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts?page=5

[Mr. Tweedy]

Ah!  Sweet refreshment!  Finally, someone understands the point I am trying to make.  Thanks, eytanz!

I agree with you totally: The fact that a belief is popular or old does not make it more likely to be true.  It has to stand on its own merits in the here and now.

So, we disagree, but we both, at least, agree that there is an Answer to be found.  We now have solid ground on which to discourse.  We can talk to each other.  Where do we go from here?  We talk.  We reason.  We learn.  It might take a long time, but that's okay, because the journey is rewarding.

I don't want to start that journey here: My point here was that we need to agree that there is an Answer before we try to find out what it is, and, at last, someone seems to get what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Tweedy]

For example, they just opened a creationist museum not too far from where I live, where, apparently, the guides think that T-Rexes ate coconuts.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts?page=5

Ouch.  That's a bit embarrassing.   

I, for one, am confident that T-Rex ate overconfident paleonologists and lawyers.   

[ClintMemo]

There is an evil part inside of me that really wants to go visit that museum, just for that laugh factor.   

[slic]

I waited too long and everyone pretty much made my answers for me - thanks eytanz and ClintMemo.

"I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us."
In response to Mr. Lewis' quote - it's a personal definition of cogent, so, clearly, you could believe whatever the heck you want.  This is the arguement of supremicists who say - "I believe These People to be superior to These Others, and here are my documented reasons for believeing so.  I will believe this until you can prove otherwise."  Whether this is Catholic vs. Protestant, Jew vs Muslim, White vs Black, Yellow or Red.

I get the feeling you are a good person, who tries hard at do good things, so please don't take this the wrong way. 
I really have trouble with people who blindly believe something so powerful.  I fear what they might do in the sense of righteousness.  I love the fact that you are happy that eytanz has an Answer, however the subtext is you can now more work to convince him how wrong he is.

On a previous thread you talked about the immorality of homosexual behaviour; you also mentioned how you we friendly and got along with gay people - that's great.  But how little would it take for you to decide you shouldn't be friendly, then shouldn't even associate with them - that they shouldn't be in your neighbourhoods, etc. etc.
You've already decided their behaviour is immoral and after all you are Right - you have learned this from God.
It's the external validation/rationalization that I find disturbing.  "I do whatever I do because of God, even though I'm pretty much interpreting /guessing as to what He wants based on some stuff some guys wrote down a long time ago. But I know I'm Right!"

Strangely enough, all this talk makes me believe more in the atheist's symbol of the invisible pink unicorn.  How is it any less believable/realistic?