Faith question for Christians

[higgy1911]

Christians, what parts of your beliefs are based on faith and what parts are based on scientific evidence.

For instance YEC Christians claim scientific evidence for the flood. I have seen many posters argue that there is scientific and historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Christ.


So what elements of CChristianity are taken on faith alone?

[mwtech]

There is ALWAYS a reason. That reason may not be enough for anybody else to believe it, but there is always a reason. There is no such thing as 'faith alone,' even if 'faith' really did mean 'belief without any foundation whatsoever,' as so many here seem to believe.

Here is what people use as foundations, almost always: people they trust tell them. Mom does. Dad does. Their teachers do.

You say here, and then base your entire argument on the fact that faith is not actually "believing something for no reason at all" like we all think it is. That is not what faith is said to be though. Faith is beleieving without evidence. Someone you trust telling you, is not evidence. Not all reasons equate to evidence. You are still operating on faith (belief without evidence) even if you have a reason to do so.

Also, the examples with the earth being round and other scientific knowledge most people have is not very good to compare with religious knowledge. I had a discussion yesterday with a christian. He was trying very hard to convince me that Christianity was the TRUTH, no way around it. When I would ask if he has any evidence, he would say "No, I can't prove this to you, you just have to ask for understanding and then you will get it." His argument amounted to...'this is all the truth and there is no way I'm wrong. If you just believe anyway, your belief will be confirmed. You used to believe and still never felt the spirit? Well, you just didn't wait long enough.'

This kind of certainty without evidence (not without reason, he did have a reason for his faith) is so strong that every time I would say I didn't believe something he said, he would say "okay. but I hope you will accept the truth. God is sovereign and you can't expect to understand him. You might as well just humble yourself and accept the truth." There was no doubt, or even a display of doubt just to humour me and look less than 100% gnostic about something, like Divine pointed out, that you cannot know 100% for sure.

Things like the Earth being round are never taught in school without an explanation as to why we know this, nor is anything else (in my schools anyway). The whole point of the lesson is always to teach us what we know and how we find out things like that. A child as young as 7 or 8 could easily understand the reasoning behind the Earth's shape. All you need to do is explain inertia and gravity, and it makes sense, if only on a rudimentary level. The same goes with math, or chemistry, or biology. And these higher concepts are built on smaller concepts, each of which you can see for yourself when you build off of one another. You don't go into algebra 2 not knowing basic math and just trust the teacher that she knows what she's doing. You think she is right because you are doing the math yourself and you have been building on basic knowledge sincce first grade.

Even if young children couldn't understand fully the reasons behind the science we give them and just "trusted us" as you say, would that be a free pass to keep being ignorant when they reach a level of understanding? If a kid can't understand why the Earth is round until he learn physics in middle school, does that mean he never has to question it? Certainly not. He should evaluate that once he gets to middle school. Sam goes for religion. IF you start out just trusting that it's true, that doens't mean you can just keep trusting all your life. Once you reach a point where you can evaluate the claims, just trusting it is no longer a free pass.

[dianaiad]

That is, however, about as pure and sneaky an ad hominem as I've seen; if one claims to know that the bible is true or that Jesus is real, they are dishonest?

Goodness.

Yes, absolutely. They are being dishonest with themselves if they have convinced themselves that they know Jesus is real.

They may perceive themselves to highly honest people and not think of themselves as telling "lies". In a sense they aren't telling "lies" insofar as they know because they have basically already convinced themselves of their own lies.

Unless you have actually had a clear and unambiguous encounter with a magical divine entity named Jesus, then you are kidding yourself to claim that you know he exists. And therefore to tell other people that you know he exists is equally dishonest.

You touched on a very good point - the difference between beliving and knowing. While it can be argued no one 'knows' anything 100% (and has been argued here) it's very true that knowing requires a lot more data than believing.
So many times, people use 'know' instead of 'believe' when witnessing god. And that, IMO, is dishonest.

Oh, don't get into the 'believing' vs 'knowing' thing with me. guys. You both know me well enough to know better than that.

If there was anybody on this forum who understands the difference between 'believing' and 'knowing' better than I do, feel quite free to point him or her out.

Remember me? I'm the one who claims that 'knowledge' (in the way you all are using it in this context) is absolute; knowing something at that level means that there is absolutely zero chance that the thing you know is incorrect. As in, as I am typing right this second, I only believe that the sun is shining. All I KNOW is that it was shining eight minutes ago. Everything else is 'belief,' and it's on a continuum; from an acknowledgment that something might be true...perhaps...but probably not, to a belief so strong that it could almost be 'knowledge,' if the evidence supported it.

Another continuum is the level of evidence supporting belief; from the whispiest of "my cousin's babysitter's uncle who works in an oncologist's office read in a magazine in the waiting room that...." to "the sun is presently shining, and there's absolutely nothing going on to predict that it will stop shining in the next billion years or so."

The two continuums sometimes go together, but not always...belief is often disproportionate to the evidence supporting it. But there is always evidence to support it. One has an extremely strong belief that he will win the lottery this time. Another will refuse to go anywhere near the pyramid at Giza because he's afraid it will fall on him any minute.

The problem here is that y'all are equivocating; you are judging the level of evidence and assigning it to the level of belief. One of you calls anyone who places more belief than he does on evidence a liar. Can the rest of us make the same claim about him? We have the same reason to do so: he places a different level of belief on evidence than we do.

Let's stop equivocating. I do not, unless i forget myself, claim that I 'know' that God is, that Christ is the Savior, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is the true church. What I have is an incredibly powerful and strong belief in these things, and when I slip and say 'know,' (as we do in church) I still understand the difference. I believe in the above things to about the same level as I believe that the sun is shining right this second.

But I don't KNOW either one.

However, most people (and that includes all the Mormons who go around saying "I know the church is true.) understand that, unless they are getting into a conversation such as this one, where, in order to beef up the argument, the continuum of belief is discarded, so that it becomes a binary set: 'belief' is stupid and always based upon nothing, and 'knowledge' is what you get when the evidence pleases you.

But 'belief' is the human reaction to evidence. It is not the evidence. Please stop equating the two.

[Clownboat]

It's not about the scientific method.

This is where I disagree. Believing what people tell you compared to believing what the scientific method tells you is not equal due to the much better track record of the scientific method.

If I read a scientific article that has passed peer review, I am not believing what some random person tells me, I am believing that the scientific method is a better way to get to the truth when compared to just believing what people tell you.

Apples and oranges for me.

[dianaiad]

It's not about the scientific method.

This is where I disagree. Believing what people tell you compared to believing what the scientific method tells you is not equal due to the much better track record of the scientific method.

Actually, this is true. If, indeed, one actually uses the scientific method. My point here is, though, that most people DON'T...even scientists.

They believe others who tell them that they did, but they don't use it themselves.

If I read a scientific article that has passed peer review, I am not believing what some random person tells me, I am believing that the scientific method is a better way to get to the truth when compared to just believing what people tell you.

You are still believing other people who tell you, and trusting that the journal and the peer review process is unbiased and accurate.

...........................and we all understand that it has flaws. Just look at the number of people, brilliant scientists, have been refused publication because they didn't pass 'peer review' and ended up being right, and the number of peer reviewed folks who ended up being wrong.

It's the best way we have so far, and we'd not be anywhere near as advanced, scientifically, as we are without it, so please don't get me wrong here. I'm not criticizing it as a method of learning. I am, however, going to point out that it's STILL 'believing someone you trust,' not the 'scientific method.'

Apples and oranges for me.

All you have done here is defend your position by pointing out how trustworthy you believe your sources to be. This is fine and all, but it is STILL 'believing folks you trust."

[Divine Insight]

You touched on a very good point - the difference between beliving and knowing. While it can be argued no one 'knows' anything 100% (and has been argued here) it's very true that knowing requires a lot more data than believing.
So many times, people use 'know' instead of 'believe' when witnessing god. And that, IMO, is dishonest.

The whole idea that Christians can be a "Witness for Christ" is a dishonest notion at its heart. The very use of that kind of language reveals the inherent dishonesty of Christendom itself.

And again, this kind of dishonesty may actually not even be seen as being dishonest by the people who have deluded themselves into believing that they know something that they can't truly know.

All they can truly "witness" is their own faith (i.e. hopes and dreams) that some ancient rumors might possibly be true.

~~~~~~~~

The same is true of "confessing" that Christ is Lord. No one can "confess" this because they can't know it. To confess to something you can't know is again dishonest. Ironically to even confess that Jesus is Lord is to tell a lie. You'd be confessing to something that you can't possibly know to be true. And therefore your confession would be a lie.

In fact, if believes in a God were truly interested in being honest with the God they hope exists, they would really have no choice but to confess to this God that they can't know whether Jesus was Lord or even that this God they are desperately hoping to confess to even exists.

In other words, an honest believer would have no choice but to confess to God that they are necessarily agnostic (without knowledge of truth in this matter), because that would be the only honest thing to say.

Because of this agnostics and atheists are actually displaying more honesty than theists. Theists are not only lying to themselves, but they are also lying to any God that might exist. Because even if the Christian God exists the Christians are still lying to him in an effort to appease him. And that's the greatest irony of all.

Every theist should be required to confess that they do not know whether God exists or not, and that they do not know whether Jesus was the son of God or not. Only after they have confessed this should they be viewed as someone who is willing to tell the truth.

So ironically all theists must confess to being agnostics if they want to prove that they are capable of being truthful.

And then start their discussions on the solid ground that everything they have to say from the point forward about a God is indeed a faith-based hope and dream.

Any theist who is not willing to start out this way should not be trusted as they are already exhibiting extreme dishonesty, even if that dishonesty stems from self-delusion.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

With good science, it's been tested by others and agreed upon by the majority. While you're playing semantic games that's far more than 'what others tell you'.
You're making it sound like scientist "A" is walking down the street and tells scientist 'B' something and scientist "A" accepting it as fact with no other meathods of verification.
Surely this does happen - there's extremes in all camps - but it's not the norm with reputible scientists.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

The whole idea that Christians can be a "Witness for Christ" is a dishonest notion at its heart. The very use of that kind of language reveals the inherent dishonesty of Christendom itself.

I can see that, though most would likely call it 'hope' and not 'dishonesty'.

And again, this kind of dishonesty may actually not even be seen as being dishonest by the people who have deluded themselves into believing that they know something that they can't truly know.

I have a cousin like that. He tells so many stories he forgets what's true and what's not But I would say that, while perhaps not a majority, a good portion of christians know deep down they aren't being honest with themselves. People will say, do, think, accept, believe anything to make them feel good.

The same is true of "confessing" that Christ is Lord. No one can "confess" this because they can't know it. To confess to something you can't know is again dishonest. Ironically to even confess that Jesus is Lord is to tell a lie. You'd be confessing to something that you can't possibly know to be true. And therefore your confession would be a lie

Technically, couldn't they confess to believe? That seems reasonable, no?

Because of this agnostics and atheists are actually displaying more honesty than theists.

Ironically, amen Beyond that, with few exceptions, this seems to spread throughout the lives of the individuals outside their religion

Any theist who is not willing to start out this way should not be trusted as they are already exhibiting extreme dishonesty, even if that dishonesty stems from self-delusion.

I've agreed with that concept for years.

[KenRU]

[Replying to dianaiad]

This is fine and all, but it is STILL 'believing folks you trust."

Doesn't the fact that one method is verifiable make all the difference in the world? To equate the two is to, in my opinion, purposefully cloud the waters.

The fact that someone may or may not make that extra effort to prove on his or her own the veracity of a claim/assumption/belief, makes no difference to said claim's truth or believability.

To illustrate:

I believe my car is going to start this morning. vs. I believe god answers prayers.

These are not equal claims. And, no, they are both not equally "believing folks I trust".

I don't have to disassemble and reassemble my car to ensure all parts are working in order to justify my belief (though I could, and I know this, and that makes all the difference in the world).

It is a far cry from reality to claim that this statement (believing my car will start) is just 'believing folks you trust" and warrants the same merit as "God answers prayers."

It is indeed apples and oranges as Clownboat says. To put these two claims on the same level of believability is simply ludicrous.

Just my two cents.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

With good science, it's been tested by others and agreed upon by the majority. While you're playing semantic games that's far more than 'what others tell you'.
You're making it sound like scientist "A" is walking down the street and tells scientist 'B' something and scientist "A" accepting it as fact with no other meathods of verification.
Surely this does happen - there's extremes in all camps - but it's not the norm with reputible scientists.

I guess I'm still not communicating well. It doesn't MATTER how well the other guy did with the scientific process. It doesn't matter how true, or factual, the information is that he is giving you.

And it SURE doesn't matter how many people agree with him. You really should know better than that one. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the topic involved is 'true' or not, or factual. It has everything to do with why YOU accept it as fact.

Because you trust the one who told you. That's it. You, here, are simply giving me reasons why that person might be trustworthy in your view, but that is irrelevant.

As in, not the point.

As in, you are accepting something as truth because you trust the source of your informant.

Again. It has NOTHING to do with how trustworthy that source is. It has nothing to do with whether the information is factual.

It's all about that you accept the information because you trust the source.

you realize that people who trust ALWAYS have a reason to trust that seems perfectly adequate to them, but it all comes down to: you believe because you trust the source. It's about why you believe, not how trustworthy the source is.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 14 by dianaiad]

With good science, it's been tested by others and agreed upon by the majority. While you're playing semantic games that's far more than 'what others tell you'.
You're making it sound like scientist "A" is walking down the street and tells scientist 'B' something and scientist "A" accepting it as fact with no other meathods of verification.
Surely this does happen - there's extremes in all camps - but it's not the norm with reputible scientists.

I guess I'm still not communicating well. It doesn't MATTER how well the other guy did with the scientific process. It doesn't matter how true, or factual, the information is that he is giving you.

And it SURE doesn't matter how many people agree with him. You really should know better than that one. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the topic involved is 'true' or not, or factual. It has everything to do with why YOU accept it as fact.

Because you trust the one who told you. That's it. You, here, are simply giving me reasons why that person might be trustworthy in your view, but that is irrelevant.

As in, not the point.

As in, you are accepting something as truth because you trust the source of your informant.

Again. It has NOTHING to do with how trustworthy that source is. It has nothing to do with whether the information is factual.

It's all about that you accept the information because you trust the source.

you realize that people who trust ALWAYS have a reason to trust that seems perfectly adequate to them, but it all comes down to: you believe because you trust the source. It's about why you believe, not how trustworthy the source is.

On the contrary.. When it comes to science, you don't have to trust the source. Science works if you believe it or not, or if you trust it or not. It doesn't matter what your belief is, if you drop a brick, it will fall.. and if you are not careful, it will fall on your foot