Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[CSVol]

I remember this one dude was like "the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure". That dude was right on.

 

[rjd970]

No objection. The objection was to your claim that faith and logic are at odds. I think that has been thoroughly refuted. The real issue, i imagine, is how you are reading the term faith. If you are defining faith as believing in something contrary to the evidence, then i would agree that faith and logic are contradictory. However, in classical theology this NOT what faith means. Faith, in this context, is synonymous with trust or confidence in something or someone. If I say i have faith in my wife, i'm not saying i believe she exists even though it is contrary to the evidence. I'm saying i trust her. What i know about nature, humanity, morality, etc., gives me a myriad of reasons to trust that God (specifically the god of the bible) exists. It's not as if i don't have questions, i do. The difference is from which side i'm asking these questions.

Ultimately, the point in providing the article was to answer the issue of contingency and the free will of man, which as i recall, he definitely addresses.


I would say they have discovered or had revealed, but whatever.


Not sure what you mean by untouched?
Pair bonding is one issue, but there are others. Not sure that i would deem it as 'primary.' Also, when we move to an issue of morality we are venturing into different territory. I'm just amazed at how people are so quick to discard the biological conflicts that homosexuality presents.

No, it doesn't rely on procreation. Yes, humans are biologically designed for the opposite sex. This is a fact of nature, not an opinion. And, ideally, that would lead to procreation and a complementary family unit, which is optimum for raising children. Whether humans procreate is certainly necessary for the continuation of our species, but i fail to see how childless straight couples fall in the same category as same sex unions. I think you are incorrectly shifting the burden of proof. As i stated earlier, it's a fundamental issue. Fundamentally, a childless couple has not failed in regards to design and function. Now, if you've ever met a couple that wants children and is incapable, you know the difficulties and disappointment this presents. Is it bigoted to say they are deficient or defective? No, although it might be insensitive. But, They are dissappointed for this very reason.

Also, I think you need to be careful when you accuse of discriminating against homosexuals. I think all people have inherent value and worth. And unlike the atheist, i have an objective standard (not just an opinion) from which to ground that belief.

Objective truth? Smh.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Its an extremely rare occurrence for anyone to advance beyond basically paraphrasing everything they say from someone else. Not sure what the big about that is.

It's a far more rare occurrence today than has historically been the case, primarily due to the cultural loss of critical thinking skills.

 

[Roustabout]

Settle down. You have no OBJECTIVE truth. Again, who are Michaelangelos offspring. You are starting from a place of "truth" of which i disagree. I've met people that couldn't make the nfl and though they seemed disapointed i didn't find them defective. I assume you do.

If the primary purpose of a couple is to procreate, then a childless couple has failed. The primary purpose of procreation was for no other reason than to fund the cult. That is no longer a valid reason.

Whether the couple has failed or not doesn't change the facts of whether their union is biologically compatible and fulfilling the ends of their own physical and social natures.

Regarding the NFL thing. Not all anecdotes are analogous.

A place of truth? Define truth then?

Oh, let me add, that it really is awesome when I directly answer one of your questions (primary purpose), and then you respond as though you either didn't read or completely ignored the answer I just spelled out.

 

[MercyPercy]

So, let me get this straight(no pun intended). Homosexuality is wrong because is violates natural law- as in, it does not fulfill the purpose of procreation. The can of worms being opened using that logic is essentially a bottomless pit of contradictions, considering the numerous sexual acts between man and woman that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation are often not included in the "gays are icky" rhetoric.

Not to mention it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word natural even means; if homosexuality is not a choice(it isn't), it is in fact natural. It just isn't common. These shallow attempts to create "natural" arguments against homosexuality crumble under legitimate scrutiny and only really exist so an intelligent person of faith(that's a compliment, Roust!) has something to defend their beliefs without invoking the tried and true "because the bible said so," which I really do appreciate, but must conclude the argument falls short. Whether or not gay sex can produce a child has nothing to do with the morality of the act, unless you presume some objective sanctity in a male/female pair.

 

[LouderVol]

So, let me get this straight(no pun intended). Homosexuality is wrong because is violates natural law- as in, it does not fulfill the purpose of procreation. The can of worms being opened using that logic is essentially a bottomless pit of contradictions, considering the numerous sexual acts between man and woman that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation are often not included in the "gays are icky" rhetoric.

Not to mention it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word natural even means; if homosexuality is not a choice(it isn't), it is in fact natural. It just isn't common. These shallow attempts to create "natural" arguments against homosexuality crumble under legitimate scrutiny and only really exist so an intelligent person of faith(that's a compliment, Roust!) has something to defend their beliefs without invoking the tried and true "because the bible said so," which I really do appreciate, but must conclude the argument falls short. Whether or not gay sex can produce a child has nothing to do with the morality of the act, unless you presume some objective sanctity in a male/female pair.

If I may add to the "natural" conversation you have to consider that any homosexual creature comes from a heterosexual setting. Its not that homosexuality doesn't exist in the natural world but that homosexuality isn't sustainable, and effectively ends with the individual. It can't reproduce itself, which is fundamentally a requirement for all things living and natural. Its a reoccurring phenomenon (wrong word but don't know what else to use) but it is incapable of procreation and dies out with each generation. its the same as a straight couple who can't have kids, its a trait that is weeded out as it is impossible to pass on by its definition.

 

[The Ron Mexico]

If I may add to the "natural" conversation you have to consider that any homosexual creature comes from a heterosexual setting. Its not that homosexuality doesn't exist in the natural world but that homosexuality isn't sustainable, and effectively ends with the individual. It can't reproduce itself, which is fundamentally a requirement for all things living and natural. Its a reoccurring phenomenon (wrong word but don't know what else to use) but it is incapable of procreation and dies out with each generation. its the same as a straight couple who can't have kids, its a trait that is weeded out as it is impossible to pass on by its definition.

Homosexuality and the inability to procreate are being weeded out? How long, in your estimation, will it take for the weeding out to complete?

 

[rjd970]

Homosexuality and the inability to procreate are being weeded out? How long, in your estimation, will it take for the weeding out to complete?

Exactly. Lesbian's can get artificially inseminated, gay men can donate sperm, gay men and women still procreate, there are bisexuals, etc. The list is long.

Beside the fact that the argument is wrong, it also carries the title of stupid.

 

[Roustabout]

So, let me get this straight(no pun intended). Homosexuality is wrong because is violates natural law- as in, it does not fulfill the purpose of procreation. The can of worms being opened using that logic is essentially a bottomless pit of contradictions, considering the numerous sexual acts between man and woman that have absolutely nothing to do with procreation are often not included in the "gays are icky" rhetoric.

One, you haven't shown a contradiction. Whether other such acts are right or wrong has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether same sex attraction is rightly directed or whether it's a defect or a deprivation. Also, depends on what you mean when you say wrong. I would say that homosexuality is wrong as it is contrary to our directed biological ends. But that isn't a moral claim per se.
Yes, i also see it as a moral deprivation. This is the gist of Paul's argument in Romans. If Christians or skeptics say "because the bible says so" (which i've already critisized btw) then they are missing the very argument Paul is putting forth. On the other side of the coin, critics can't prejudicially dismiss an argument simply because it is outlined in a biblical text. That is akin to saying you shouldn't do unto others.........because it's in the bible.

Not to mention it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word natural even means;

I've already addressed this on numerous occassions. The term 'nature' has different meanings. Occurring in nature is one of them, no argument. But it isn't the only. I demonstrated this on a previous discussion and it was met with crickets chirping. So, if you have evidence to the contrary please put up or shut up. I'm tired of repeating myself only to have you guys act as if this has never been answered.

if homosexuality is not a choice(it isn't), it is in fact natural. It just isn't common. These shallow attempts to create "natural" arguments against homosexuality crumble under legitimate scrutiny and only really exist so an intelligent person of faith(that's a compliment, Roust!)

You are committing an equivocation, and it undermines your entire argument. We also see evidence of animals eating their young in nature. Would you thus argue that it is 'natural' just not common for humans to eat their offspring. But, at least you provided the perfect example i was needing. We could go on. Forcible copulation? Male dominance?

I'm not even arguing whether it's a choice. So, if you are saying it's shallow based on that, then you are attacking a straw man. In fact, I believe that same sex attraction is not a choice. I don't think people consciously choose to be attracted to this or that sex. However, i do believe that same sex attraction is a perversion of natural attraction. Whether it's genetic or environmental doesn't change this.
I remember watching a study of people who have an innate desire to eat detergent. They don't choose to have this desire. They do choose to battle this desire because they know it is wrongly directed. Sure, it can have health consequences and even death. But what if those consequences didn't exist. Would it suddenly be OK to eat detergent? Would that be the same as those who don't have a desire to do so? Of course not. Yet, when we ge tto the issue of sexuality, it becomes a hot emotional mess, which in my opinion is pretty shallow.

 

[The Ron Mexico]

Exactly. Lesbian's can get artificially inseminated, gay men can donate sperm, gay men and women still procreate, there are bisexuals, etc. The list is long.

Beside the fact that the argument is wrong, it also carries the title of stupid.

Your first couple of sentences are just the tip of the iceberg of ignorance. There are so many things factually inaccurate about his post that it falls in the category of "is this guy serious?"

#dunning-kruger-effect

 

[rjd970]

One, you haven't shown a contradiction. Whether other such acts are right or wrong has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether same sex attraction is rightly directed or whether it's a defect or a deprivation. Also, depends on what you mean when you say wrong. I would say that homosexuality is wrong as it is contrary to our directed biological ends. But that isn't a moral claim per se.
Yes, i also see it as a moral deprivation. This is the gist of Paul's argument in Romans. If Christians or skeptics say "because the bible says so" (which i've already critisized btw) then they are missing the very argument Paul is putting forth. On the other side of the coin, critics can't prejudicially dismiss an argument simply because it is outlined in a biblical text. That is akin to saying you shouldn't do unto others.........because it's in the bible.

I would still like to know, and don't believe it has been answered since the last time you said this, that if that is where Paul is coming from, what makes that his relativistic opinion only, and not any different then myself or somebody else saying it? It's his opinion, and nothing more.

Why do you even care what Paul is saying? Because its in the Bible? This looks like you want your cake and to eat it too.

You are also stressing this biological ends justification, which doesn't mean anything. Just because an action is maladaptive in the biological sense, doesn't mean that action will preclude the biological end. Bi-sexual's can achieve the biological end, yet still engage in non-evolutionary and non-biological necessities.

However, i do believe that same sex attraction is a perversion of natural attraction. Whether it's genetic or environmental doesn't change this.

Why do you believe it is a perversion of natural attraction? Based on what? "Natural law" simply doesn't cut it and doesn't mean you are coming from an objective stance. If its your opinion, then just say it.

 

[rjd970]

Your first couple of sentences are just the tip of the iceberg of ignorance. There are so many things factually inaccurate about his post that it falls in the category of "is this guy serious?"

#dunning-kruger-effect

EDIT: nvm, lol

 

[SergeantVol]

Y'all did it now. Ron is about to lay some truth on you!

 

[The Ron Mexico]

The point was that maladaptive behaviors don't preclude a biological end. If you see it different, please expand and correct my illusion of genius.

My post was poorly written. I agree with you. But I believe there are more things he was trying to include. The "gays can't reproduce to make more gays" argument goes beyond maladaptive behavior, in my opinion. In short, I agree with you but I just happen to think he's dumber than you think he is.

 

[rjd970]

My post was poorly written. I agree with you. But I believe there are more things he was trying to include. The "gays can't reproduce to make more gays" argument goes beyond maladaptive behavior, in my opinion. In short, I agree with you but I just happen to think he's dumber than you think he is.

I just re-read your post. My bad, I read too quick.

 

[Roustabout]

I would still like to know, and don't believe it has been answered since the last time you said this, that if that is where Paul is coming from, what makes that his relativistic opinion only, and not any different then myself or somebody else saying it? It's his opinion, and nothing more.

Opinions either correspond to reality or they don't. You are the one implying that i am wrong and you are right. On what grounds?

Why do you even care what Paul is saying? Because its in the Bible? This looks like you want your cake and to eat it too.

This just demonstrates you can't be reasoned with. Prejudicial.

You are also stressing this biological ends justification, which doesn't mean anything. Just because an action is maladaptive in the biological sense, doesn't mean that action will preclude the biological end. Bi-sexual's can achieve the biological end, yet still engage in non-evolutionary and non-biological necessities.

I'm not a consequentialist. I evidenced that in my previous post example. Being able to work around naturally directed procreation doesn't validate the outcome.

Why do you believe it is a perversion of natural attraction? Based on what? "Natural law" simply doesn't cut it and doesn't mean you are coming from an objective stance. If its your opinion, then just say it.

Seriously? If it's just my opinion and it's just your opinion, then on what grounds do you even care??
Are you seriously trying to argue that biologically speaking the human species is not normally attracted to the opposite sex? Have we truly ventured into bizarro world?

 

[Septic]

Exactly. Lesbian's can get artificially inseminated, gay men can donate sperm, gay men and women still procreate, there are bisexuals, etc. The list is long.

Beside the fact that the argument is wrong, it also carries the title of stupid.

Saw this the other day, moderately relevant.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If I may add to the "natural" conversation you have to consider that any homosexual creature comes from a heterosexual setting. Its not that homosexuality doesn't exist in the natural world but that homosexuality isn't sustainable, and effectively ends with the individual. It can't reproduce itself, which is fundamentally a requirement for all things living and natural. Its a reoccurring phenomenon (wrong word but don't know what else to use) but it is incapable of procreation and dies out with each generation. its the same as a straight couple who can't have kids, its a trait that is weeded out as it is impossible to pass on by its definition.

Exactly.* Lesbian's can get artificially inseminated, gay men can donate sperm, gay men and women still procreate, there are bisexuals, etc.* The list is long.

Beside the fact that the argument is wrong, it also carries the title of stupid.

Aside from modern medicine, another reason seemingly defective traits don't weed themselves out in an evolutionary sense is that they are genetically linked to benefical traits. In the case of homosexuality, it has been linked to increased fertility in females.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I remember watching a study of people who have an innate desire to eat detergent. They don't choose to have this desire. They do choose to battle this desire because they know it is wrongly directed. Sure, it can have health consequences and even death. But what if those consequences didn't exist. Would it suddenly be OK to eat detergent? Would that be the same as those who don't have a desire to do so? Of course not. Yet, when we ge tto the issue of sexuality, it becomes a hot emotional mess, which in my opinion is pretty shallow.

Why wouldn't it be OK?

 

[rjd970]

Opinions either correspond to reality or they don't. You are the one implying that i am wrong and you are right. On what grounds?

This just demonstrates you can't be reasoned with. Prejudicial.


I'm not a consequentialist. I evidenced that in my previous post example. Being able to work around naturally directed procreation doesn't validate the outcome.


Seriously? If it's just my opinion and it's just your opinion, then on what grounds do you even care??
Are you seriously trying to argue that biologically speaking the human species is not normally attracted to the opposite sex? Have we truly ventured into bizarro world?

You're the one claiming objective truth. Not me. Eating processed foods is unnatural. Circumcision is unnatural. Homosexual behavior is experienced by animals in the natural world. That is all "reality". So what. The OPINION that it violates natural law is subjective. Where is the natural law guideline on what is against the rules? Pointing to Aristotle and Aquinas does nothing, because they are no more the bearer of objective truth than you or I.

I'm fully aware that I am stating an opinion, and it is different from yours. I ask again, why does it matter what Paul is saying on this subject? His statement is opinion, just like mine. You harp on this relativistic morality yet fail to recognize you are doing the same thing. Unless you are claiming divine relevance, which you have clearly stated Paul is not, then your/his opinion of this being natural perversion is opinion just like everything else. There is nothing objective about it at all.

My issue is not with your stance on this. My issue is with your insistence on it being objective. If I'm wrong, then please correct me. Otherwise just admit that this is morally wrong per whatever your reason is and drop this objective/logic nonsense.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

No objection. The objection was to your claim that faith and logic are at odds. I think that has been thoroughly refuted. The real issue, i imagine, is how you are reading the term faith. If you are defining faith as believing in something contrary to the evidence, then i would agree that faith and logic are contradictory. However, in classical theology this NOT what faith means. Faith, in this context, is synonymous with trust or confidence in something or someone. If I say i have faith in my wife, i'm not saying i believe she exists even though it is contrary to the evidence. I'm saying i trust her. What i know about nature, humanity, morality, etc., gives me a myriad of reasons to trust that God (specifically the god of the bible) exists. It's not as if i don't have questions, i do. The difference is from which side i'm asking these questions.

I disagree with your assertion that it has been thoroughly refuted that faith and logic are at odds. I understand, but disagree with your arguments and conclusions.

There is zero evidence that God of the Bible exists. There are simply unanswered questions that you (and billions of others) have chosen to believe that man's inability to answer prove that a deity must exist. For thousands of years people believed that a god caused the sun to rise and set. This wasn't logic talking, it was a leap of faith that allowed the people of the time to answer an unanswered question.

Also, I think you need to be careful when you accuse of discriminating against homosexuals. I think all people have inherent value and worth. And unlike the atheist, i have an objective standard (not just an opinion) from which to ground that belief.

Do you believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples including the right to marry?

What is the objective standard you speak of?

 

[Roustabout]

You're the one claiming objective truth. Not me. Eating processed foods is unnatural. Circumcision is unnatural. Homosexual behavior is experienced by animals in the natural world. That is all "reality". So what. The OPINION that it violates natural law is subjective. Where is the natural law guideline on what is against the rules? Pointing to Aristotle and Aquinas does nothing, because they are no more the bearer of objective truth than you or I.

Are you denying that there is objective truth? You do understand that every claim a about objective reality is not a moral claim?
An opinion is I like vanilla better than chocolate. An objective fact is that there are varieties of Ice Cream. Now, if you are saying that Ice Cream having varieties is an opinion, then there is really no point in having this discussion.
Homosexual behavior happening in the animal world is an opinion. I've actually spent some time on the subject and it's a sham. Of the top 10 animals (The Ram being #1) claimed to demonstrate homosexual tendencies, none of them attempt intercourse with the same sex. NONE.
This is anthropormphizing behavioir in the animal kingdom. It's unjustified and unscientific. Example. Humans demonstrate sexual attraction by showing affection through holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. So, if you see a parent holding their child's hand, hugging and kissing, would you automatically assume these are sexual beahviors? Just because a certain beahvior (necking among giraffes for example) is evidenced during mating rituals doesn't mean that same behavior isn't completely benign in other contexts.

When it comes to human behavior either we beleive that there is a way humans OUGHT to behave or we don't. We may disagree on the details but we either hold one position or the other. If logic and morality are simply a by-product of human evolution then there is no fixed point on the compass to measure anything against. It's all arbitrary. Morality is this, but prior it was something else, and later it will evolve again. It's self-defeating.

The comment about eating processed foods demonstrates your disconnect. What does it have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. I can provide a list of things that occur in the natural world that you wouldn't advocate humans doing. I already provided the example of animals eating their young, forced copulation and male dominance. Stop being selective.

It isn't a matter of whether something does or doesn't happen in the natural world. That's not how you deterine any behavior or method of thinking is right or wrong. This is a major problem with the comprehension on this forum. You can't say something is normal/natural simply because it occurs in nature. That is the epitome of the is/ought problem. Well, unless you are a postmodern, then it isn't a problem.

I'm fully aware that I am stating an opinion, and it is different from yours. I ask again, why does it matter what Paul is saying on this subject? His statement is opinion, just like mine. You harp on this relativistic morality yet fail to recognize you are doing the same thing. Unless you are claiming divine relevance, which you have clearly stated Paul is not, then your/his opinion of this being natural perversion is opinion just like everything else. There is nothing objective about it at all.

You don't have to have divine revelation to know objective truth.
Let me ask you a question. Does a person who is color blind have a defect or deficiency? yes or no.

My issue is not with your stance on this. My issue is with your insistence on it being objective. If I'm wrong, then please correct me. Otherwise just admit that this is morally wrong per whatever your reason is and drop this objective/logic nonsense.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

This just demonstrates you can't be reasoned with. Prejudicial.

I find this comment the most hilarious thing you've posted, given the post you just made where you declare how you've determined all research on homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is a sham.

I've seen a freakin male dog try to have intercourse with another male dog right before my eyes, so pardon me if I file your "research" into the "Bullsh##" category.

 

[rjd970]

Are you denying that there is objective truth? You do understand that every claim a about objective reality is not a moral claim?
An opinion is I like vanilla better than chocolate. An objective fact is that there are varieties of Ice Cream. Now, if you are saying that Ice Cream having varieties is an opinion, then there is really no point in having this discussion.
Homosexual behavior happening in the animal world is an opinion. I've actually spent some time on the subject and it's a sham. Of the top 10 animals (The Ram being #1) claimed to demonstrate homosexual tendencies, none of them attempt intercourse with the same sex. NONE.
This is anthropormphizing behavioir in the animal kingdom. It's unjustified and unscientific. Example. Humans demonstrate sexual attraction by showing affection through holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. So, if you see a parent holding their child's hand, hugging and kissing, would you automatically assume these are sexual beahviors? Just because a certain beahvior (necking among giraffes for example) is evidenced during mating rituals doesn't mean that same behavior isn't completely benign in other contexts.

When it comes to human behavior either we beleive that there is a way humans OUGHT to behave or we don't. We may disagree on the details but we either hold one position or the other. If logic and morality are simply a by-product of human evolution then there is no fixed point on the compass to measure anything against. It's all arbitrary. Morality is this, but prior it was something else, and later it will evolve again. It's self-defeating.

The comment about eating processed foods demonstrates your disconnect. What does it have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. I can provide a list of things that occur in the natural world that you wouldn't advocate humans doing. I already provided the example of animals eating their young, forced copulation and male dominance. Stop being selective.

It isn't a matter of whether something does or doesn't happen in the natural world. That's not how you deterine any behavior or method of thinking is right or wrong. This is a major problem with the comprehension on this forum. You can't say something is normal/natural simply because it occurs in nature. That is the epitome of the is/ought problem. Well, unless you are a postmodern, then it isn't a problem.


You don't have to have divine revelation to know objective truth.
Let me ask you a question. Does a person who is color blind have a defect or deficiency? yes or no.

Again, and again, you bring up objective standard, your coming from a position of objectivity, then when challenged on that, you simply ask if I'm denying objective truth exists. It's a clever schtick, but I'm still waiting on an answer as to where you are getting it. You emphatically stated it wasn't the bible, and then played your hand on this natural law bit, but still have not answered where it states homosexuality violates it. What is natural anyway?

Yes. It is my opinion that color blindness is a biological defect. People are born with it and/or develop it. Whether it is an objective violation of some natural law I don't know. All I have is my opinion.

 

[Roustabout]

I disagree with your assertion that it has been thoroughly refuted that faith and logic are at odds. I understand, but disagree with your arguments and conclusions.

There is zero evidence that God of the Bible exists. There are simply unanswered questions that you (and billions of others) have chosen to believe that man's inability to answer prove that a deity must exist. For thousands of years people believed that a god caused the sun to rise and set. This wasn't logic talking, it was a leap of faith that allowed the people of the time to answer an unanswered question.

Do you believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples including the right to marry?

What is the objective standard you speak of?

Zero evidence? Ok.
Now you are committing chronological snobbery. People back then were stupid, knuckle draggers.

When you use the term "the is sun rising", are you saying the sun revolves around the earth? Perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty to judge those from history.

Homosexuals already have and had the same rights, including the right to marry (someone of the opposite sex.) Do i think they SHOULD have right to marry the opposite sex? No, i don't. But this then gets to the question of where these 'rights' come from. If they are arbitrary, majority opinion, or court opinion, then so what. I don't think there is any intrinsic right any person should be denied.

And that brings us to the issue of objective standard. Humans either have obejctive value or they don't. This came up in another post. I challenged someone to kill themselves if i could demonstrate that their humanity was causing more damage to the earth than good. If humans have no objective value then this argument shouldn't offend in the least. If there is no diety than human existance has no more signifcance than a fruit fly's. Any notion to argue with that is self-delusion and arrogance. But are you arguing with me because you think your opinion doesn't MATTER? You think it does. You think logic matters, but why should we trust logic? On what grounds? You see, you are stealing from God to deny him. If our logic is only the result of unguided, unintelligent, material processes, then why should we TRUST it? You are saying you trust (have faith) in logic. Fine, provide a material explantion and grounding for this immaterail subject of logic. Where does it exist? Does it govern thought? Please speak up. Perhaps you should be less hasty to condemn faith, since ultimately you need it as well.