Some people think faith and reason are intrinsically incompatible. Not so. Reason cannot tell us what we must accept on faith, but it does set the limits on what we can accept. We cannot accept that which is factually false or logically self-contradictory, and we make those determinations through reason. Acceptance of that which has been proven true does not require faith; acceptance of that which has been proven false (or self-contradictory) does not involve faith but delusion. Faith is belief in or acceptance of ideas that have not been proven true or false--not what must be true because it has been proven true but what might be true because it has not been proven false.

Some hard-core atheists say that faith is by definition irrational in that it is belief in the absence of evidence. I reject that stance because the term invokes pejorative connotations of mental illness. I also think it is as dogmatic (and thus as anti-rational) as religious dogmatism. I have no problem with someone who says "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God." I get annoyed (I know I shouldn't--it's a character flaw) at the person who says "I believe in God and you are a sinner damned to hell if you don't" or "I don't believe in God and you are an irrational and credulous fool if you do."

By the way, the article linked in the original posting purports to be about a minister who lost his faith in God; actually, what he lost faith in was conventional biblical notions about God.

I read the article.

Faith can confront all the reason in the world and still live. I think that what this guy lost faith in was not God but rather the generally accepted model of God.

But models are inadequate. Everything models say is just the mind conceptualizing God. What this guy needs to do is broaden his faith -- when I say faith, I mean his openness to what lies outside his mental conceptions.

I've heard probably every argument against God there is. I agree with many of them. The rest all have a certain amount of truth to them. But in the end, neither atheism, theism, reason, or faith will get you the answer. Your very Being is the single answer to the question.

And sometimes committed atheists become Christians.  They also feel better off for it.

 “I think that what this guy lost faith in was not God but rather the generally accepted model of God 

“. . .  actually, what he lost faith in was conventional biblical notions about God.” 

With all due respect, guys that is DWOD. What you guys are saying is that you make up your own idea of what “god” is and feel comfortable with that. Doubtless true and so wh-a-a-at? Your idea of “god” has meaning value and APPLYS only to you. So far as I am aware neither of you have any interest in making your god the foundation of national life. Nor do you claim any science connected with your idea of god that you insist the rest of us accept. Ditto any moral precepts you feel follow from your idea of god.

In short your god is your creation and you are content to leave it at that. About this the rest of us care not one whit. Nor should we.

This “god” question ONLY has import when it is brought into the public square. Until then it is your personal idea and of no concern to the rest of us. And we see what is brought into the public square is almost always bible god in one variation or another. Therefore, THAT idea of god is the ONLY one at issue. And it is only an issue because the believers in it are very certain that the rest of us ought to believe it also. And are hard at work to see that we at least act like we DO - no holds bared.

That this guy lost faith in "conventional biblical notions about God" is the point. That he may now have or in the future acquire OTHER ideas about "god" is his affair.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

No arguments from me Sera-except on one person knowing how another person feels, that part is ridiculous.

I don't think that Seraphim is presuming to say he knows how another person feels, Bob.  I think he's basing his statement upon former atheists who say, "I'm better for it".

It's not ridiculous to relay what someone else says s/he has personally experienced.  I, for one, feel better for having embraced EO.  I contemplated atheism, but found most atheists to be no less intolerant or narrow-minded than the theists they blamed for everything except global warming; therefore, I concluded that secularism contained no more enlightenment than any other philosophy.