Copper Scroll

If things are ethically neutral before God wills, then God is presumably as likely to be lying as telling the truth. ...based on what? When people lie, they lie for certain reasons. There is no reason within reason to think that God would have a reason to lie. Further, for Christians, God has demonstrated his love and "goodness" in our lives. In scripture, He fulfills His promises. Again, there is no reason to believe that He would lie. He has always told the Truth.

"So saying that He is moral is not really saying much..." Exactly. With your position, all it says is something like "God wills in keeping with what he wills". No doubt God is "moral" on this definition, but it is an empty tautology. The theist has no basis to praise God for his goodness. How much damage does that do to Christianity? I'm sure you will enough damage for Christianity, but conclusion that there is "no basis to praise God for his goodness" could not be drawn from what I wrote. You have mistakenly drawn an equation between "moral" and "good". "Good" could mean a number of things depending on the context. "Moral" could be one of those things. If what you mean is "good" meaning "moral", then saying "God is good" loses much of its meaning. But this is not the way most Christians mean "God is good" when they say this. They usually say "God is good" because they acknowledge blessings that have come from God--not because God is "moral". On faith, Christians believe that God would not lie to us... and there is no reason to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent and eternal being would have any reason to lie. Am I wrong?

First, God's Word is universal law, so it cannot defy universal law. The reason why it is universal law is because God is all-knowing, eternal, and (yes) created everything. All of this makes God a far better judge of what is "harmful" than us. The mature among us can very easily accept that sometimes we must take a painful means to a certain end. Well, it is also true that we cannot see every end. We can't see past a certain point. God can. And I think my point was missed: God's actions cannot "contradict the morals he has given to humankind", because he gave them to humankind. God can do what He wills with His creation. We believe that His will is what is good for His creation. We see no reason to doubt Him. He can make decisions that we are not equipped or qualified to make, because we cannot simply do anything we want with His creation. In humility, we can accept this. Calling this "arbitrary" is misleading. It suggests that the commandment to love God and to love your neighbor and what "love" in these instances mean change all the time. They don't. In faith, yes, we believe what God says--but God really doesn't say all that much about Himself. God speaks and acts in the Bible and in our lives, and we walk away from the experience having learned something about His character. Saying "God is love", for me is not just a statement of faith; it is not based solely on the Bible but it is partially based on experience. What use would God have for rules? Would an omnipotent and omniscient being need to be managed in such a way? The Gospels, raise the question of how useful these rules are even for humans. Jesus' main conflict with the religious authorities of his time lies in their mis-application of the rules God set up for them. He frequently looks past the rule itself to the intent behind or meaning underlying the rule--which, ultimately, is love. He cuts past the rules to the love that underlies the rules. If we really and fully understood what love was and how to practice it, we wouldn't even need rules at all. God does understand what love is--not because He says He does--because He has demonstrated it in the person of Jesus. So what use would He have for rules?

What is moral is what is obedient to God and what is loving of God. All God has to do in order to be moral is to obey Himself. I think it is safe to assume that He always obeys Himself--so He is, in a sense, always moral. But at the same time, it is absurd that He would disobey Himself--so it would be absurd for Him to be immoral. So saying that He is moral is not really saying much... and saying that He is immoral is absurd. When I say "God is love", it is not a value judgement. It is a description. It's like this... You might encounter someone and learn some things about him through this encounter. Then you read something that describes him perfectly and then goes on to teach more things about him. You don't have any reason to doubt what you are reading. You assume that you are reading about that person you met, because the description there is so true. Or... You read something about a person and then meet a person who fits that description perfectly. Again, you think "That's him." That's how it is with God and the Bible. The Bible says "God is love" and that describes my experience with God too. We do not have knowledge of all the factors involved in God's actions--that might elicit those actions or that might result from those actions. God has all knowledge of all factors, period--so we are in no position to judge Him. I don't judge "the ethics of Allah". I'm not sure even what "the ethics of Allah" is.

You listed a number of your objections to Christianity. I addressed #2 in my post.... God did create us with the ability to uphold His standard. Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, and we have not stopped disobeying Him since. When you say that His standard is perfection, it is true but it may be misleading. His standard is righteousness. The point I made is that even within righteousness, choice exists. My choices are not always between good and evil or right and wrong. There are multiple good choices and multiple bad choices with each passing moment. It is pretty much pass or fail, but there are multiple right answers and multiple wrong answers. It is always possible for us to choose the right, and sometimes we do. But we often choose the wrong too. So it's not like the SATs. That's oversimplification. We've been given the correct answers to the test, but we still frequently choose the incorrect ones.

Here are at least some of my objections, in no particular order. 1) All who don't believe or damned. This includes all people who have never even heard of Jesus. All people living in most areas of the world before, say, the 1500's. All non-Jews predating Christ. All people growing up predisposed to a different religion because that is the religion of their family, community or nation. If God really wants everybody and Christianity is "The One True Way", then it would have to be equally accessible to ALL people. Unless God doesn't actually want everybody, which is the idea behind Calvinism. 2) God can't tolerate sin, but he set up the system in the first place. It makes no sense to say God created us with choice, because he doesn't want robotic servants with no choice, yet He can't tolerate the sin of even the tiniest sinful choice. So, he has to arrange a murder to "pay" for our sins? How does the death of an innocent "pay" for the sins of others, anyway? And if it was death He needed, why not just have Jesus die in his sleep? Does the Bible say, "The wages of sin is torture?" No. So, why is torture necessary? Besides, if sin was impuned to everyone by Adam's choice (another non-sensical idea), why wasn't salvation impuned to everybody by Jesus' death? Everyone is stained by Adam, whether they have heard about it or not, but people only get the pardon of Jesus, if they know and embrace this idea. 3) Punishment in hell for eternity is pointless, unless God enjoys inflicting suffering. If a parent punishes their child, why do they do that? Because they hope to impress upon the child that a bad result will come from this choice, but hell is not like that. Even if tortured in hell for 10,000 years, goes the doctrine, you can never say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Hell was devised as a fear tactic by the church. 4) The Bible is full of horrifying things. I don't care if the Egyptians were the enemy. That God slew the firstborn is repugnant. I have lost a child...no parent, enemy or friend should have to go through this. The Egyptian families who lost their firstborn were victims who had no say. They did not necessarily thwart the release of the captive Hebrews, yet they suffered. The Bible even says that God hardened Pharoh's heart. And that isn't the end of the horrors in the Bible. Drown the whole earth, except for one family. God brags about how great a servant Job is and baits Satan to wreck his life. God gives orders to murder every Cananite, even babies and donkeys...donkeys??? Would his will surely be upset by allowing a donkey or an infant to live??? 5) The Bible is full of confusion. Even if you ignored the horrifying stuff, you still have to deal with the confusing stuff. People debate endlessly on whether God really meant for women to be submissive to men, for children to be beaten with rods, why slavery was not condemned, what are valid reasons for divorce, whether or not there should be capital punishment, baptism necessary or symbolic, when will the tribulation occur, etc., etc., etc. If this was really God's Word, there should be NO confusion. 6) Christianity encourages judgmentalism. Because the basis for salvation is exclusive, it cannot simultaneously be accepting. No matter how much you like me, (if you did ), you willl still see me as an "unbeliever". I am still not on your team and damned in your eyes. There's more, but that'll do for now. After nearly 10 pages, this might be the first post that actually answers the question. Thanks, emeraldgirl. For the record, I believe in Jesus but you are not damned in my eyes. Following Jesus has not led me to be judgemental. I won't make any more presumptions about your fate than you would make about mine. To answer #2, if each moment presents infinite choices--it's not like only one of those choices is the right one. I do tend to agree that the righteous path is a narrow one, but I think there is still room for choice even within that narrow path. Also, I don't think that Adam's sin determined that we would sin. It was just the establishment of a bad habit within our race that grew and grew and stays with us to this day. We are bound to sin no so much because we can't be righteous--because we won't be righteous. As illustrated in the story of Adam and Eve, we suffer and die and are separated from God because we sin. We all sin, so we all deserve to suffer and die and to be separated from God. Jesus was a man without sin who did not deserve to suffer and die--our fate. But in sharing our fate, He shares with us the reward of being without sin--relationship with God. True love is demonstrated and actualized through sacrifice. If you love someone unconditionally, you will give your life for them. Ritual sacrifice in the OT and the sacrifice of Jesus in the NT are illustrations of that principle.

So God could do anything at all, and it wouldn't be wrong for him? Anything that God does is automatically good? If that is what you are saying, does it not become a bit meaningless to say that God is good? Do we not need a difference between the behaviour of a good God and a bad God, to say that a particular God is "good"? This is one of my biggest problems with Christianity. "Good" is what God says good is. If this is true, there can be no absolute definition of Good and Bad, only moral rulings ex cathedra. This is what I mean when I say religion undermines morality, it doesn't create it. God has killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of people in the Bible. (Whereas Satan has only explicitly killed a handful) So killing is a sin for humans, apparently, but not for God. This is when my moral alarm goes off. What is being missed in this whole discussion is that trying to evaluate and judge God's actions is a little crazy. God is the omniscient and eternal one. How can we judge anything that He chooses to do as good. God is love, unconditionally. Seeing this work in my life, I find can find no fault with God. What I have read and heard in His Word has rung true for me in my life and in my reflections on life. So, to me, yes--God is good and God never lies.

Of course every ideology is corruptible. And teleological ideologies like Christianity are especially corruptible. That said, I don't think corruptibility is what's special here; it's the amazing extent of Christianity's corruption. If you consider violence and war to be a corruption of Christianity, then Christianity is the most corrupt religion on Earth, more so even than Islam, whose violence is at least partially rooted in doctrine. Mohammed killed; Jesus did not. Jihad is a part of Islam and Christianity doesn't have an equivalent doctrine. So how is a self-proclaimed religion of peace one of the most violent religions on Earth? Other religions of peace, like Buddhism, actually do have peaceful histories. Is it just a coincidence that Christianity is particularly abused, or is there actually some feature of Christian doctrine which enables violence? I don't know the answer--maybe you can help me--but I think I would be remiss to ignore this phenomenon. Again this is not about what Christianity is supposed to be or even about what it is or what it was. This is about Christians who killed and exploited and used the name of God and Christ during their misdeeds. Misdeeds are not the sole property of Christians. You can make arguments on why Christians have historically been worse than people of other religions based on your own criteria of what is right and good. But to generalize about all Christians or to project the misdeeds of some Christians onto the true standard for all Christians--Christ--is foolish. If you are not generalizing and projecting, then mind the topic of this thread. I do, but I'll save that for later. So you are beating around the bush. So far you have only claimed to judge Christians on Christian standards, which is a little arrogant for a non-Christian. I haven't read any posts of yours that focus on Christian doctrine. You do know that that is what this thread is supposed to be about, right?

Runner's high, I haven't read all of your posts on this forum, but this is by far the most substantial out of the one's I've read. No more complaints about beating around the bush from me.... I pretty much agree with all of this. Jesus Christ, however, cannot be blamed for any of this--including the abuse of his name. Christianity is supposed to be (as it has pretty consistently claimed it is supposed to be) about following Christ. You have pointed out instances when Christians have clearly not followed Jesus' example and have decided what God's Word should say on their own. It is obvious (to us, anyway) that these Christians have failed in their role. Let me say, though, that it is (understandably) much easier for a Christian to accept criticism based on Christ's teachings from a Christian than from someone who doesn't even claim to be a follower of Christ. How can a non-Christian judge a Christian on Christian standards. It's like someone who is not in your industry trying to tell you how to run your business, or someone with no kids at all telling you how to raise kids. It's arrogant. I found the next part of your post more interesting: I don't know of any place in the Bible that says that we should abuse nature or that animals are worthless. In Genesis, the human is charged with taking care of the natural world. On the part about devaluing the natural world in favor of the afterlife: In the Gospels, the "world" we see devalued in favor of "eternal life" or "heaven" is the man-made world--society as made up of (man-made) social statuses and material possessions and material wealth. Jesus doesn't tell the rich man that cutting down a tree and polluting the ocean was righteous. He told the rich man that giving up his material wealth and material possessions and his high place in society was righteous. In this context, the world is not the mountains, the seas, the birds, and the trees--It is the cars and clothes we use to prove ourselves worthy... when our true worth lies in how close we are to God. God is eternal, loving, and all-powerful. Societies and material possessions are anything but. But I think most people love their material possessions and their social rank (their ability to place themselves above and apart from others) more than they love God. Most people love what other people can do for them more than they love the people themselves. So, yes, I value the world less than my eternal relationship with God. Characterized, as a thing... as a religion, Christianity is corruptible. But name anything that is not corruptible. Ideally, though, Christianity is more than a religion... more than a thing. It should be a relationship with God, which a free person can be led astray from and can turn is back on... and can be tricked or trick himself into thinking that he has not been led astray or turned his back. But as long as Christians claim the Word of God to be the foundation of their faith and relationship with God... and as long as Christians claim Jesus Christ as their savior and their guide, honest and open Christians can only stray so far. They may stray much of the time, but ultimately they will be directed back to the Gospel. You find no fault in the Gospel, as far as I can tell. You find fault only in the imperfections of humans who call themselves Christian. Calling oneself Christian is not a claim to being perfect. So ultimately you are judging people with a bad standard. Judging people itself is un-Christ-like, so judging Christ's followers without claiming to be one yourself is particularly ironic.

The difference between what and what? You don't do it as much here, but in your previous post you implied that people who take a stand against stem cell research and the morning after pill are immoral. You said that religion can stifle morality, and these were your examples. So you were more or less guilty of the same thing you accuse many Christians of--judging others as immoral. Now you are saying (additionally) that religion can stifle rationality--can lead to unreasonable legislation on stem cell research and can lead people to irrationally ignore "the science" behind the morning after pill. That's a different issue.

I thought you said that you were an atheist. If you do not believe that God exists, how can you have a relationship with Him and how can you ever become closer to Him? I believe that the essence of human religions is relationship with God. If we build upon this relationship and become closer to God, we stand a better chance at knowing what His purpose for us is--and we each very well may have our own... So I won't pass judgement on any pagans, Hindus, or Jews. True, and very unfortunate. What does Hollywood have to say about it? But, yes, I agree that anyone can be moral at times. Well, I have no way of proving this given the pervasive influence of religion throughout the world, but socially and culturally, religion has made morality important for us. Morality is not just another consideration but (at least ideally) the first consideration precisely because most of us (currently and historically) do not consider it a human construct. For many people, many of these situations present great moral dilemmas. The presence of these dilemmas and the fact that different people have different senses of what is moral and what is not might suggest that morality is a human construct... or it might suggest that the world is difficult to navigate morally and this is the reason why most people are morally confused much of the time. In the situations you describe above, you implicitly take the position that the morning-after pill and embryonic stem cell research are not immoral and offer reasons (based on the circumstances) for why they are not immoral--the position that true morality is relative. Because, for you, true morality is relative and the morality presented in a certain religion is absolute, you see that religion as stifling morality in some situations (like these). But you are just as morally confused as anyone else, so it would be wrong for you to assume that that is the case. You (rightfully) remind Christians not to pass judgement on others, but you implicitly pass judgement on someone who refuses to support the morning after pill or stem cell research on moral grounds.

This is a theory which, while possible, makes little sense to me. Why, if the Israelites were God's chosen people, would he reveal anything at all to other groups/cultures/nations? If God's word is perfect enough to transcend a human scribe, why would all these other religions have gotten the wrong idea? Why even prophecy to such nations, if you knew that they would turn your words around and make idol gods out of them to later tempt the nations of Israel? Why sow the seeds for rival religions? Why not give the commandments to more people than the Israelites, the better to spread your word, if you're going to take the time to reveal certain things to other nations - why ensure instead that confusion reigns not just then, but in later centuries? I just can't see this happening. What made Israel "chosen" was the faith and humility and obedience of their patriarchs, who were able to pass on their knowledge of and relationship with God to their children and so on--which allowed their culture to provide the proper context for the person and event of Christ. They were not "chosen" because they were the only people who knew anything about God or anything True. God's Word means essentially the Truth. I can't see one people having a monopoly on that. I sorta explained why "other religions" might have "gotten the wrong idea"--the same way the Israelites did... over and over again througout the OT. People--regardless of ethnicity--are fallible. The Israelites certainly weren't perfect--far from it. They weren't any more perfect than anyone else. Confusion and rivalry are only products of our fallibility and freedom--our humanity. If God were to prevent these, we would cease being human--cease being fallible, yes, but also cease being free and conscious and ourselves. There would be no us and no such thing as relationship with God. In short, the person and event of Christ is the Truth eternally. I can conceive of a people at a time and in a place revealed this Truth by God (who is the God of all--not just the Jews) and choosing to express it in the ways you've described. I choose to express it in my way. I certainly would not be one to pass judgement on these people and say anything about their eternal fate. Only God judges rightfully. How good "the odds" are is completely relative. If there is any chance of failure--meaning, if failure is at all possible--someone will complain that it ain't easy enough to choose the right or that it's too easy to get confused.

Khalou, I can appreciate much of what you wrote in that post. But, clearly, there have been religious people who have hold the same attitude you hold and had the same understanding you possess without abandoning their religiosity or spirituality. Their openness and compassion and humility and wisdom didn't place them above religion. By all indications, these were the fruit of their religion and they drew these people closer to God. I guess what you're saying is that you enjoy the fruit of religion without having to practice religion. I can dig that. But without relationship with God--that eternal and intentional and purposeful power--how strong can your openness and compassion and humility and wisdom possibly be? Meaning--you change your mind all the time, you act on a whim here and deliberately there, you have successes and failures, you are prone to error but may get some things right by chance, you (like me) are a complete flake and a goof who only has brief moments of positive brilliance. You can decide tomorrow that you will not be compassionate or humble... and no one can stop you from changing. What happened to your compassion and humility? God was not there to ground these for you. You didn't have the relationship with One who is eternal and who loves you, which you needed to reinforce these qualities. This is what the faithful have that atheists lack.

This is interesting. Care to start a thread to share this "profound truth" about "the dynamics of how religion works," or do you think sharing this knowledge is too dangerous--that it would violently rip the blinds off the heads of the faithful on this forum and create cataclysm that would ripple throughout the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu worlds destroying everything in its path? (Sorry if you answered this already. I haven't been following this thread.) First of all, I LOVE the way you turn a phrase! I'm not sure I want to go into it on a Christian board. Not necessarily for the reasons you describe, but because it is my truth, and my truth only. Others may share it, but none here wil, so it would only be fodder for negative reactions that I couldn't possibly counter. k But you said "once you understand the dynamic of [how religion works]", implying that anyone who knows what you know cannot be fooled by religion... like knowing how a magic trick works makes it so that it isn't magic for you. Sure--if you share this secret knowledge and understanding you possess that places you above religion, then you will get a negative reaction... but I doubt it will be any more negative than the reaction you've already gotten....

Have you considered the possibility that those pre-Christian cultures received divine revelation from God about what would unfold in the life, death, and resurrection of our Savior--the same way Israel did--and practiced their cults or worship or what have you in their own way in light of that revelation? Keep in mind, that after God had revealed Himself to the Israelites in delivering them from Egypt, the Iraelites too turned to idol worship--because they lacked the proper guidance at the time. Could the same thing have occurred in those cults you describe?

This is interesting. Care to start a thread to share this "profound truth" about "the dynamics of how religion works," or do you think sharing this knowledge is too dangerous--that it would violently rip the blinds off the heads of the faithful on this forum and create cataclysm that would ripple throughout the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu worlds destroying everything in its path? (Sorry if you answered this already. I haven't been following this thread.)

...And what conclusion do you draw?

Am I the only one who doesn't really "get" the OP? I particularly don't understand what is being asked above. Can I get a little clarification? Are you saying that circumstances determine a person's choices in life? What else? Life teaches us what works and what doesn't. As we learn, we learn how to interpret the place in which we find our selves, and how to determine the "best thing to do" at any particular time. NO ONE decides to do the second or third best thing according to their intellect. Some decide to rob banks, some decide to kill all the Jews in Germany. Whatever they decide, they absolutely believe that it is the "best thing to do". Since no one is born evil, what had to happen to these people during the course of their lives to make this decision? Whatever those things were, they didn't happen to me because I don't see things like this a being the "best thing to do". Thanks for the clarification. Circumstances influence how a person acts, but they don't determine how a person acts. You can have two people from the same environment that grow up and lead completely different lives as a result of very different decisions they've made. The "best thing to do" is not something that is chosen for a person from without. The person decides what the "best thing to do" is. Sometimes the person decides that the "best thing to do" is the right thing and sometimes he/she decides in favor of the wrong thing. Whether the person who consistently chooses the wrong thing is deliberately trying to be evil or not doesn't matter. Evil is what he/she is being, because he/she is putting non-moral motivations before his/her moral sense. Have you never had a dilemma and had to choose between two things that seemed equally the "best thing to do"? Do you honestly think this decision was left up to anyone or anything else but you? Being a person means being free. Circumstances do not determine actions. I agree. Love cannot be legislated.

Am I the only one who doesn't really "get" the OP? I particularly don't understand what is being asked above. Can I get a little clarification? Are you saying that circumstances determine a person's choices in life?

Typing on the keyboard is not a function of the senses. It's a goal-oriented motor process. Knowing that I am typing on the keyboard does involve the senses Indeed That was the point. Awareness of self is obviously a perception. You feel that you're thinking in the same way you feel your butt is on the chair, it's your brain working. But let's forget about feeling for a moment; how do you know that you are thinking at all? Just try to answer this one question, if you will. If you classify all forms of self-awareness as "perceptions", then you are working with a different definition of "perception" than me. My definition: Perception is awareness via the senses. The argument can be made that part of our self-awareness comes through the senses, but clearly not all. Thoughts and emotions and decisions don't come from the senses, for example, but they all play a part in self-awareness. I don't feel that I am thinking the same way I feel my butt on the chair. Feeling my butt on the chair comes from a cutaneous sense and a sense of physical pressure. "Feeling" that I am thinking comes from thinking--thinking necessarily involves awareness/consciousness--it's part of what "thinking" means. So asking how I know that I am thinking is like asking how I became aware that I am aware. One of the points I've been trying to make for a while now is that even if faith was required to trust into the outside world rather then just your existence, that doesn't make it logical in every situation. The questions asked here, though, were What is faith and is it rational? The questions don't specify objects or content for said faith. They ask about faith in general. My answer is that some faith is required before reason and logic can happen, so what is reasonable or logical largely depends on faith--the basic unproven assumptions one starts with. If one person starts with one set accepted on faith and another starts with another set--the one person might say that the other's faith is irrational or illogical. If neither set of basic assumptions has "proof", who is to say who is being rational and who is not? We've discussed this before (I think), and I don't think this criticism applies to me. I don't doubt the empirical factuality or literal actuality of any folklore or myth. Mainly because empirical factuality and literal actuality do not apply to folklore or myth. Folklore and myth does not seek to present historical data. Their purpose is to present truths about our place in the world and our condition and our relationship with the divine in a way that transcends the situation portrayed in them. Imposing the requirements of the scientific method on them is what is really "pointless and totally illogical."

Your examples are not about doubting what our senses tell us--they are about changing, usually broadening, our perspective so that our senses tell us more and/or tell us truer. In science, the work of the senses cannot be doubted or denied. They are what the scientific method is completely based on--observation via the senses. When an astronomer sees the sun rising, he does not doubt what he sees any more than a caveman did. The difference is that the astronomer's perspective is broader. Typing on the keyboard is not a function of the senses. It's a goal-oriented motor process. Knowing that I am typing on the keyboard does involve the senses; that's a slightly different story. I know that I'm thinking because I'm thinking--not because I see, hear, feel, smell, or taste myself thinking. So, there is more to knowing that I exist than what my senses tell me. All my senses give me is information about the external, natural world. They tell me that an external, natural world exists. Trusting them in this requires faith. So faith is more fundamental than science.

That, I understand perfectly.

I can appreciate this, but I have trouble with the notion that faith is the work of God alone. Does it mean that I have not chosen faith at all--that faith has been chosen for me? And, for those who do not have faith in Jesus, does it mean that God has decided not to give them faith--that they couldn't have faith even if they wanted to?

Thought, imagination, action are not functions of the senses. No, I don't think that if I accept my perception of myself then I have to accept my perception of anything else. That's the point. I can accept my own existence without accepting the existence of anything else. I can decide that it makes the most sense for me to regard everything I perceive in "the external world" as a mere projection of the internal world--that everything around me is a product of my own unconscious. If I took this view, logic and science, to me, would be largely ineffective means of determining what is true and what is not. You keep saying that the only thing I have to accept without "proof" is my own existence in order for logic and science to work. The point I'm trying to make is that in order for logic and science to work, I also have to accept the existence and truth of everything I perceive. I have to trust my senses--not only with regards to myself, but also with regards to everything else... in order for logic and science to even get started.

Sure, but once again thinking that way won't lead you anywhere. It's fine to not believe everything you perceive is real, but when it comes to your own existence you have to accept your perceptions as sufficient evidence - proof - of your own existence. If you don't then you'll be stuck forever, unable to take any step in any direction because you can't possibly know if there's anything around you worth believing in. I'll stress that if the perception of your own existence is the only thing you accept on faith, than logic is based on faith in yourself, not on faith in general as in "faith is required for logic to work". Saying "faith is required" implies that you're going to see things like "it's this way because we have faith in it being so" written in school textbooks, which doesn't happen. Faith exists only at the base of logic as a necessity and is never used anywhere else. Of course, if you don't have faith in your existence then logic is of no use and you may as well forget it. Once that one thing is settled, you may proceed in your pursuit of knowledge using whatever means you deem worthy of being used, although you'll get very different results depending on your choice. Nowadays it's settled that the scientific method is the most mistake-proof method we have; after all, requiring evidence - together with other important things - before believing in something is the most obvious way to make sure we're not being fooled and we're not fooling ourselves. That's the one reason why you won't find any example of faith being used in logic and why you got stuck with the "you have to have faith in your existence" argument. It's true, if I don't have faith in myself then logic is of no use, but in that case religion is useless too. Religion requires you to have faith in the existence of mythological entities like a god, souls, miracles, supernatural stuff etc. Believing in such things is not logical because it means accepting something without any evidence and without anything else that is required by the scientific method. Such tall tales must be discarded as folklore and myth. I didn't fail to notice your comment about disbelief in God not leading anywhere but it's incorrect. Disbelief in God simply leads to the absence of God from one's worldview. Belief in God isn't really needed for anything, while belief in self is needed for everything else. You still seem to be equating trusting my senses with trusting that I exist. They are not the same. I do more than perceive. I remember, I think, I imagine, I act, etc. All these function as "evidence" that I exist. Further, trusting my senses means more than trusting that I exist. It means trusting that everything I perceive exists too. So I have to go a step beyond accepting my own existence without proof. I have to accept the existence of everything I perceive without proof. In fact, perception is the foundation upon which all empirical proof stands. If my perceptual processes are suspect, all empirical proof is suspect. My perceptual processes have been known to fail and mislead from time to time. I imagine yours have too. The question is Why do you trust them so much that, for you, all truths must be verified by them? You wrote that the scientific method is the most mistake-proof method we have for gathering knowledge or truths (about the natural world--I presume). But the scientific method can't work until we decide to trust our senses, which requires faith. You wrote that we have to trust our senses but we don't have to trust that God exists. Counterexample: Some variations of some Eastern religions hold that all human experience is an illusion. Adherents to these religions don't trust their senses as means of acquiring truth--and they're fine with that. I trust that these people live lives that are coherent and that make sense to them. So, no, we don't have to trust our senses. We decide or conclude that it makes the most sense to trust them. I have concluded that it makes the most sense to trust that God lives. God's existence is needed for me to live a coherent and sensible life. You have come to another conclusion and, I'll assume, have found coherence therein. Now, almost by definition, asking for empirical evidence of mythological entities completely misses the point. That is not what the scientific method is for and that is not what myth is for. If the reason why myth means nothing to you is because it has had no scientific empirical verification, then I'm sad for you. Scientific method is about the natural world and how it works. It is a means to acquiring a certain type of truth--not all truth. Myth is about the meaning of human existence, experience, relationships, values, and the like. It is a means to acquiring an almost completely different kind of truth. Reading myth for empirical factuality and nothing else is folly.