If there is a god I don't think he can be encompassed by the terms "rational or irrational". Was God being rational when he asked for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? I think there is more to life than logic, and some things which are not very logical may have more reality than what is logical, like love, art, Pascal's Wager >:O

Faith cannot consist in infallibility; that is it's very point. Faith is neither fallible nor infallible, it is outside that context altogether. That is why it does not consist merely in intellectual or reasoned belief.

So who endowed humanity with the capacity to reason and be rational if not god?

And if god does not will or intend for us to use this capacity then why does he not rid us of these things?

If this is true then no faiths, even those that are different from your own, are wrong or bring about spiritual consequences.

The goal in Buddhism is nirvana, which is the end of suffering and the liberation of one from samsara (the cycle of birth and death). I never said anything about eternal life.

the Christian promise of eternal life does not explicitly promise an end to suffering — John

That would be news to me. Source?

a christian — Cavacava

Not a believing one, at the moment, but I don't mind the label.

a theist — Cavacava

No.

do you believe in a god? — Cavacava

As I've told you before, this depends on what you mean by "God."

Come on m-theory, I did not imply that that we can't use our reason, only that reason, logic are not everything that is important in life.

Can you cite a Christian text that explicitly promises an end to suffering? Also Buddhism doesn't promise Nirvana, so there is no question of a wager in that context. And even if it did promise Nirvana it doesn't promise it for you.

I disagree, I think it is important.

Again I value reason and rationality though, and like I said before I don't see these things as something that must conflict with the other values in life.

Can you cite a Christian text that explicitly promises an end to suffering? — John

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

Buddhism doesn't promise Nirvana — John

This is highly debatable. What do you mean by this and by "promise?"

Yes, reason and rationality are important but they are important in their own way, just like love and art.

Part of what I tried to post as an aside apparently got cast aside regarding God's power. I think I know St. Augustine's answer to this if you are interested.

Sure, let me know your thoughts.

He thought that God's existence is outside the universe, that we can't know him as he is, only as he is revealed. But regarding his power, he said that for God it has all occurred, everything past present and future. For him the universe is a memory and since he is perfect he can't change what he remembers any more that we can change what we remember. Therefore we are free to act without his interference.

I believe that if god does exist.

It is no accident that we have a capacity for reason and rationality and it seems to me that if god exists then god also intends for us to use these capacities as best as we are able.

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4). — Thorongil

No specific mention of suffering here.

This is highly debatable. What do you mean by this and by "promise?" — Thorongil

Please specify what you think is debatable. By "promise" I mean "guarantee". There is no simple faith that one might hold that is held to guarantee Nirvana. And as I said Nirvana cannot be a promise to you in any case.

Do you believe God exists? I am not sure.

I am a pantheist.

No specific mention of suffering here. — John

I can't tell if you're being serious here. It's a really irritating response in either case.

By "promise" I mean "guarantee". — John

Then most Buddhists would probably say no. However, certain sects might say otherwise. Chan/Zen Buddhism would say that one is already enlightened, one simply doesn't realize it yet, owing to the defilements (greed, hatred, and delusion) clouding the mind. The Pure Land school gives virtually a guarantee of enlightenment if one is reborn in Amitabha's Western Paradise.

And even if it did promise Nirvana it doesn't promise it for you. — John

Yeah, Buddhism teaches anatman, but there are sects like Yogacara that do posit something like a permanent self.

I can't tell if you're being serious here. It's a really irritating response in either case. — Thorongil

Your irritations are a matter for you. Tears, mourning, crying and pain do not exhaust what suffering is. There is suffering involved in striving to become ever better, for example. Nowhere that I am aware of does the Bible say that once you die, your efforts are at an end. Who would want that, anyway?

Then most Buddhists would probably say no. However, certain sects might say otherwise. Chan/Zen Buddhism would say that one is already enlightened, one simply doesn't realize it yet, owing to the defilements (greed, hatred, and delusion) clouding the mind. The Pure Land school gives virtually a guarantee of enlightenment if one is reborn in Amitabha's Western Paradise — Thorongil

That's true, I had forgotten about Pure Land. It is closer to Christianity and is like a kind of training heaven. One issue I have with Buddhism is that it posits no beginning. Time stretches back into the past forever. Which means that we have all been deluded forever or if we at some point fell into ignorance, no explanation for how that is possible is given. If we fell into ignorance we must necessarily have been enlightened for an infinite amount of time before that. IF we have always been in ignorance literally for an infinite amount of time then what chance do we have of escaping it and becoming enlightened, and if we can fall from enlightenment what guarantee could there be that we would not fall again or an infinite number of times? I like aspects of Buddhism but the cosmogony makes no sense to me.

Your irritations are a matter for you. Tears, mourning, crying and pain do not exhaust what suffering is. — John

I wouldn't claim my irritation is anything other than my own. As for your other claim, I think you're being wildly pedantic.

There is suffering involved in striving to become ever better, for example. Nowhere that I am aware of does the Bible say that once you die, your efforts are at an end. — John

So? Nowhere does it say that you will suffer. But if one suffers in heaven, then there isn't much to distinguish it from hell. And it doesn't seem like Adam and Eve before the Fall suffered much in the Garden of Eden. The implication is pretty strong, therefore, that God promises freedom from our afflictions. Are you trying to say there is good suffering and bad suffering? That wouldn't make much sense to me. Suffering is sometimes necessary for improvement, I agree, but then it is being used as a means, not an end. Suffering in and of itself is always bad.

what chance do we have of escaping it and becoming enlightened — John

As good a chance as the Buddha or countless other buddhas and bodhisattvas, the Buddhist might say. The point of their hagiographies is to show that becoming enlightened is indeed possible if one tries to emulate them. Nirvana is unconditioned, which means that nothing can cause its occurrence, however, the claim is that the Middle Way provides a sure enough path that tends to this goal. Correlation, as opposed to causation.

I like aspects of Buddhism but the cosmogony makes no sense to me. — John

Okay. And you're more attracted to Christianity, I take it? If so, what prevents you from formally converting?

Suffering is sometimes necessary for improvement, I agree, but then it is being used as a means, not an end. — Thorongil

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

But if one suffers in heaven, then there isn't much to distinguish it from hell. — Thorongil

It depends on whether the suffering is gratuitous or not.

Okay. And you're more attracted to Christianity, I take it? If so, what prevents you from formally converting? — Thorongil

I don't feel particularly attracted to any Christian denomination. I don't see or feel any need to join a Church. I am not a believer, not as yet, in any case. I think that if salvation is granted by God; there is no reason why good atheists should not be saved; so I don't think there is a need to espouse any particular beliefs. As I already said I don't believe merely intellectual assent to the existence of God constitutes faith in the sense that is intended by Christianity. I haven't been arguing for the soundness of Pascal's Wager; I think it is an example of simplistic thinking; I have only been arguing for its rational validity. If you accept the premises the argument is valid is all.

I'm assuming you're going to respond to my post to you above, but I had some other things to say about this below:

Either way you roast — Cavacava

What if God privileges honest disbelief in him as opposed to dishonest belief for the sake of personal comfort, as your wager would have it? In that case, I ought to wager that he doesn't exist.

Moreover, you assume doxastic voluntarism, a topic I actually made a thread about a while back. What this means is that you assume I can choose what I believe. I have my doubts that this possible, as it seems apparent that I can't just will myself to believe something, like flipping on a light switch. This is true even if I want to believe something. Wanting to does not mean that one does or will believe.

Whether a faith or even a merely intellectual belief brings about spiritual consequences has nothing to do with its fallibility.

Tomorrow

So it would be interesting for you to explain how there are consequences but that there is no fallibility.

Beliefs can only be sensibly counted as fallible if they can potentially be shown to be wrong. Think of the Tai Chi practitioner who believes in the power of chi. Her imagination is inspired by this belief and she imagines she feels the chi flowing through her body as she practices. As a consequence she becomes a much greater practitioner than she might otherwise have been.

The belief in chi is not fallible because it can never be demonstrated to be false.

I believe we have different criterion for justified beliefs.

It is a fallacy to say a claim is true as long as it has not been proven false.
This is called an argument from ignorance.

Also you don't explain any consequence.
You basically just say that if a person believes in chi, the consequence is they believe in chi.

I didn't say the belief in chi is true. The consequence is that they may become a better practitioner.

No becoming better is a consequence of practice, not belief.

It may be more a consequence of how you practice, which in turn may be influenced by a belief if that belief inspires to practice, and to a particular kind of practice.