Is Faith Inevitable? 2/7

Filling the gaps: Is belief a necessary consequence of our limited knowledge? Lifting our spirits: Is belief good for us? Guests: Filling the gaps: Is belief a necessary consequence of our limited knowledge? Lifting our spirits: Is belief good for us? Guests: Robert Buckman, Nada Conic, Ronald de Sousa, Michael W. Higgins, Nica Lalli, Jordan Peterson. Host Steve Paikin. Broadcast: March 27, 2008. For more videos like this, go to tvo.org/theagenda

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• commentary
• analysis
• steve
• paikin
• faith
• religion
• god
• existence
• robert
• buckman
• nica
• lalli
• nada
• conic
• michael
• higgins
• TVO
• TVOntario
• Canada

[spiritech999]

A panel with educated affiliations is divided into two opposing sets of two males to one female, as agents of belief systems.

The subject of marriage is immediately brought into the discussion by a "Christian" woman, a counseling representative of a Jesuit spiritual center, to an existential question: "Are people of faith better off?"

The moderator redirects a follow-up discussion to a second woman, an atheist author, on Parenting and Child-rearing. The response is of "Identity and security."

[adlerbr12]

and for her information i do know where im going in life and i do know who i am , and i don't depend of fake gods to  mislead me, as an atheist my life as grown and become richer for it , the fact that im not persecuted or judged is very peaceful for many atheist , you should try it .

[some1tookmynick]

Atheists & agnostics aren't the same.The latter don't know, but the former claim to know that there's nothing.That's what they believe in.And from what I gather, this debate is about belief vs. non-belief, while leaving out those who don't know.

So I think it's justified within the framework of this discussion to exclude agnostics;and atheists simply don't qualify to be described by her words, because they are presicely not open to "beyond" or unknown.Their answer is definitive:there's nothing.

[Toocold]

Atheists and agnostics are the ones who have truly come to grips with their own existence. By letting go of the fear-based drive to constantly justify and extend their own existence by believing in a variety of unprovable propositions, they have truly accepted that they can't know the important answers in life.

Thus, it seems that her answer better suits the atheist than the person of faith.

Therefore, I found her steering the statement to describe people of faith alone to be very dishonest.

[Toocold]

I found it possible to take Nada Conic's response in two ways at first. She responded by saying that, "People who have come to terms with their own existence, who are able to accept what they don't understand in life, and who are open beyond what they know and can control are definitely better off."

This could be a description of a religious person, or of a rational agnostic/atheist.

However, it seems that she only meant to include people of faith in that discription.

[plclemence]

Good question- he is trying to drag them deeper into the psychology then they are willig to go in this forum, and for good reason. The result is that he is just being the devil's advocate. Hmm..poor choice of words. Check his lectures- For you to call him names and say he is stupid? Such hostility-You remind me of Dawkins To enlighten the religious that god is myth? Admit the importance of the myth. Angry puppy-you will never convert the religous by crucifying them. Mellow ...

[mavaddat]

Jordan Peterson... you dolt. Religion makes ALL SORTS of factual claims. Geez, this guy is so stupid, why is he here?