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?

[dianaiad]

What is the difference between a verifiable claim and a non-verifiable claim if the believer doesn't verify either one?

I agree. But what's the excuse for a believer to not bother to verify anything?

Other than extreme laziness or a total lack of intelligent curiosity what possible excuse could they have?

What excuse do those folks who believe 'scientific' stuff without verifying it themselves have? I mean, if we are going to change the subject, we may as well go all the way.

BTW, this is quite a red herring you are throwing in the path.

What is the difference between believing that God exists, and believing that plants produce oxygen if the reason you believe both things is because a: you read about them in a book, your teacher told you, everybody believes it?

I submit; not a whole lot, actually.

I submit to you that there is an enormous difference. In science books they don't merely say, "Plants produce oxygen, believe it or go to hell". On the contrary they explain in detail precisely how this occurs. They describe the experiments that were done to show that it occurs. And unless you are a totally uninterested non-curious wart on a frog's behind you can see that the evidence along with the explanation makes sense. Moreover, if you don't believe it then surely you'd have something to offer that makes more sense.

Uh huh, and there have been many, many books on science that do the same thing...and are utterly and completely wrong. I have a geology book that belonged to my father when he went to college after WWII, that made an excellent and detailed case for a sort of 'static' earth, explaining how the continents are what they are without any reference to tectonic movement. Very interesting. Full of exactly the sort of evidence you describe; well accepted...standard opinion of the day.

And dead wrong.

Now let's look at various scriptures and religious books; once you accept the premise that (like the geology book) it is authoritative, the explanations of what is contained within them generally make sense, depending on who's interpreting them for you.

The above doesn't say anything about whether either book is 'correct' or not. Now you would claim that they both are. I believe that at least one of them is...

but then I've gone out and done some of the fieldwork that provides evidence for tectonic movement. I wonder how many other people, who simply watch the documentaries, have done the same?

In the case of religion things are quite different. You are being asked to believe in absolute absurdities.

Ah, you are letting your opinion of the evidence interfere, here. Don't do that. This, I repeat, is NOT about how trustworthy your source is. It is simply and only that, if you don't verify things for yourself, your belief in 'scientific' stuff is exactly the same as someone else's belief in religious stuff, if you both believe because someone you trust told you so.

All you are doing by making fun of the folks the theists trust, and telling me how trustworthy the folks YOU trust are, is confirming my point: you believe what you believe because you trust the guys what told you so.

Doesn't matter if you are correct to do so. Doesn't matter if they are indeed trustworthy. Doesn't matter if what they are telling you is dead bang fact. If YOU don't verify this stuff for yourself, then your reason for believing is simply and only because someone told you so and you trust him or her.

Exactly the way you make fun of theists for doing.

You are being asked to believe lest you'll be condemned not only by the God of the Bible, but also by the religious community. They too will socially condemn you for not embracing and supporting their dogma.

Moreover, if what they tell you doesn't make sense and you have something to offer that makes far more sense, they don't even want to hear about it.

I can explain away the entire biblical paradigm quite easily leaving nothing unexplained.

Can you do that with science?

Why should I? I have no problem with science. I believe in the scientific method, and I actually have no problem with the idea that we 'stand on the shoulders of giants.' that we trust those who have done the work, and build on it.

That's not the point here. The POINT is that I am so sick and tired of folks who are convinced that global warming is absolute gospel because they've been told so (and haven't done a lick of research themselves to confirm it) make fun of theists because, they claim, theists believe for no better reason than someone 'told them so."

The POINT is that trusting the source is a perfectly reasonable and logical method of learning things. If you cannot verify something yourself, then trusting a good source may be your only option.

The POINT is that since this is so for science, then for the love of all that is logical, stop making fun of people who do the same thing you do for DOING the same thing you do.

[Divine Insight]

The POINT is that since this is so for science, then for the love of all that is logical, stop making fun of people who do the same thing you do for DOING the same thing you do.

I'll answer your second point first.

To begin with I am a scientist, or at least was one. I'm retired now. So I have done many of the experiments myself. So you're barking up the wrong tree here in thinking that you are talking to someone who hasn't verified scientific facts.

I also know the difference between scientific facts, and scientific predictions. You bring up global warming, and I'll be the first to agree that science can't say with absolute certainty what the future will bring. But till they have a track record worthy of paying attention to.

And now let's look at your second point:

The POINT is that trusting the source is a perfectly reasonable and logical method of learning things. If you cannot verify something yourself, then trusting a good source may be your only option.

The Bible is NOT a good source of truth. On the contrary the Bible is filled with lies, as well as blatant contradictions.

The Bible claims that all atheists are no good. Not a single one is good or has done good works. I know this is a lie. It's clearly false. My very own sister is an atheists and she is a very good person who cares deeply about other people as well as animals too. She has become a social worker because she wants to help people. Yet she is a convinced atheist. So the Bible is flat out wrong.

It's not that I merely don't see a reason to trust it. I can actually see that it's flat out wrong.

Not only that but the Bible also claims that if I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God I'll be damned. And that's absurd. Not believing that Jesus is the son of God does not have anything at all to do with morality. Not believing in Jesus does not make a person immoral or bad.

The bible is clearly a LIE. Period amen.

There is nothing there to trust. I can clearly see that it is indeed filled with lies.

It even has Jesus proclaiming that God feeds the birds, which is clearly false. Even Jesus had no clue what was going on.

If you had a science book that told you that you could hit yourself in the face with a 20 pound sledge hammer and not hurt yourself would you believe that book?

The Bible is filled with lies Dianaiad. This I know for the Bible has told me so.

I don't need to turn to apologists or evangelists to interpret the Bible for me. I can see for myself that it's filled with lies.

Why should I trust a book that is clearly full of lies?

~~~~

And even if it wasn't clearly filled with obviously lies, why should I believe that I was created by a God who would have his own corrupt priests crucify his son on a pole to make salvation possible for humanity?

I mean for crying out loud. If I was created by a God like that I would throw up.

I certainly wouldn't rejoice and celebrate it.

[dianaiad]

The POINT is that since this is so for science, then for the love of all that is logical, stop making fun of people who do the same thing you do for DOING the same thing you do.

I'll answer your second point first.

To begin with I am a scientist, or at least was one. I'm retired now. So I have done many of the experiments myself. So you're barking up the wrong tree here in thinking that you are talking to someone who hasn't verified scientific facts.

I'm not a scientist...and I have done the same thing. But...as a scientist...have you verified, personally, by experiment and direct observation, every scientific truth you believe from every single field?

Because that is, frankly, not really possible.

I also know the difference between scientific facts, and scientific predictions. You bring up global warming, and I'll be the first to agree that science can't say with absolute certainty what the future will bring. But till they have a track record worthy of paying attention to.

It was an example...one that has rabid fans and rabid detractors on both sides (as the 'big bang' theory did at one time). It wasn't meant as a ploy to start talking about global warming.

And now let's look at your second point:

The POINT is that trusting the source is a perfectly reasonable and logical method of learning things. If you cannot verify something yourself, then trusting a good source may be your only option.

The Bible is NOT a good source of truth. On the contrary the Bible is filled with lies, as well as blatant contradictions.

ah, but here you are switching gears again, talking about the qualifications of the source. That does not matter for the point I'm making here.

You do not trust the bible as a source because, in your perceptions, it isn't accurate. Others trust it because they think it is. You may (or may not) trust the sources which give you information about global warming or any number of other theories...and others don't.

I keep trying to make this point here; It does not matter whether anybody else at all thinks a source is trustworthy. Really. It doesn't.

The point is, for things which you do not verify yourself, your belief is based upon EXACTLY what belief in religion is based; trust in a source.

Whether a source is worthy of that trust is an entirely different conversation. Whole 'nuther topic. Different debate.

This is about epistemology, how we learn what we learn, not about what it is that is learned, or how trustworthy the teacher is.

The Bible claims that all atheists are no good. Not a single one is good or has done good works.

Actually, the bible has a verse that says nobody is good, not one. I don't see anything in there that specifically targets atheists. I'd be glad to have you point one out.

I know this is a lie. It's clearly false. My very own sister is an atheists and she is a very good person who cares deeply about other people as well as animals too. She has become a social worker because she wants to help people. Yet she is a convinced atheist. So the Bible is flat out wrong.

OK, in your view, it seems to be. I have a different take on it, but it seems that I don't think that scripture is quite so condemning as you think it is. Ah, well.

It's not that I merely don't see a reason to trust it. I can actually see that it's flat out wrong.

Not only that but the Bible also claims that if I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God I'll be damned. And that's absurd. Not believing that Jesus is the son of God does not have anything at all to do with morality. Not believing in Jesus does not make a person immoral or bad.

The bible is clearly a LIE. Period amen.

There is nothing there to trust. I can clearly see that it is indeed filled with lies.

Which is for the purpose of the point I'm making, irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter.

As in, stop equating your opinion of the trustworthiness of a source with personal verification of a truth, scientific or other.

It even has Jesus proclaiming that God feeds the birds, which is clearly false. Even Jesus had no clue what was going on.

If you had a science book that told you that you could hit yourself in the face with a 20 pound sledge hammer and not hurt yourself would you believe that book?

The Bible is filled with lies Dianaiad. This I know for the Bible has told me so.

I don't need to turn to apologists or evangelists to interpret the Bible for me. I can see for myself that it's filled with lies.

Why should I trust a book that is clearly full of lies?

~~~~

And even if it wasn't clearly filled with obviously lies, why should I believe that I was created by a God who would have his own corrupt priests crucify his son on a pole to make salvation possible for humanity?

I mean for crying out loud. If I was created by a God like that I would throw up.

I certainly wouldn't rejoice and celebrate it.

You have your opinion, based upon an interpretation of scripture with which I disagree. I trust my opinion and therefore the scripturs upon which I base it.

You don't get to give me grief and tell me that I'm basing my belief on 'nothing,' when you are basing yours on the same 'nothing.'

[higgy1911]

[Replying to dianaiad]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about personal verification of the truth. But I don't know what the concept of faith even means or why it comes up in debates if this is what it relies on.

However, with most science, if I want to verify it, I can look into it and a means for verification is presented. I would submit that if some accessible means of verification is not presented then skepticism is the reasonably appropriate response.

You mentioned the sun shining. Obviously we can verify that. I may base desicions on that information. I don't base any on the shape of the world. So I haven't verified that the earth is round. I suspect it is, but that's just trust as you say. If I was choosing commandments to live by based on the shape of the world, basing that belief on trust would be foolish.

The problem for me is I don't believe any scientific facts that you and I can't verify easily together. I believe plants need sunlight and wate. I trust the folks who tell me about photosynthesis but that's just esoteric speculation. I believe they need water and sunlight because of personal verification. And I can show you.

How do I verify God or that Christ has anything to do with him?

[Goat]

The POINT is that since this is so for science, then for the love of all that is logical, stop making fun of people who do the same thing you do for DOING the same thing you do.

I'll answer your second point first.

To begin with I am a scientist, or at least was one. I'm retired now. So I have done many of the experiments myself. So you're barking up the wrong tree here in thinking that you are talking to someone who hasn't verified scientific facts.

I'm not a scientist...and I have done the same thing. But...as a scientist...have you verified, personally, by experiment and direct observation, every scientific truth you believe from every single field?

Because that is, frankly, not really possible.

And, that doesn't matter. You know why?? Because, the instructions on HOW to verify it, and the data for many of the experiments is available. If multiple people can , and do replicate the original claim in an attempt to falsify it, that shows it can be reasonable.

That is not true for religious faith claims. You don't have a 'cook book' that can be objectively examined. You can only have 'testimony' filled with confirmation bias and unsupported claims. There is a difference between accepting it blindly, and knowing that there are very testable and repeatable instructions to confirm it independently. EIther that, or there is data that can be examined for accuracy. That's a big difference when it comes from science when compared with religion.

The ability to have tangible and objective instructions to reproduce the results makes your claim the logical fallacy of equivocation.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about personal verification of the truth. But I don't know what the concept of faith even means or why it comes up in debates if this is what it relies on.

However, with most science, if I want to verify it, I can look into it and a means for verification is presented. I would submit that if some accessible means of verification is not presented then skepticism is the reasonably appropriate response.

You mentioned the sun shining. Obviously we can verify that.

....actually....we can't.

Given the speed of light, there really isn't any scientific way for us to verify that the sun is shining right this second.

Just sayin'.

True, 'that's the way to bet," but still.

I may base desicions on that information. I don't base any on the shape of the world. So I haven't verified that the earth is round.

I have. ...and it doesn't matter whether you 'base decisions on it." This is a very narrow point I'm making here, but an important one, and those who are arguing here keep trying to conflate the trustworthiness of the source with the fact that you trust it, rather than verifying the information for yourself.

I suspect it is, but that's just trust as you say. If I was choosing commandments to live by based on the shape of the world, basing that belief on trust would be foolish.

That depends on how deep your trust is. There is nothing wrong with basing decisions upon information you get from truly trustworthy sources. The point, however, is that if you don't verify the information yourself, it IS 'trust,' (or...whisper this...faith) not knowledge, and beating theists up over trusting their sources when you trust yours because of the trust they show, rather than the trustworthiness of that source, is rather annoying to the theist. He sees you doing exactly the same thing with the knowledge you like, after all.

....and you do base many of your decisions upon whether you think the world is round; more than you think you do, I suspect. It is a fundamental bit of information. Just the time zones and seasons have a lot to do with the shape, position and whirling of a round earth, after all.

The problem for me is I don't believe any scientific facts that you and I can't verify easily together. I believe plants need sunlight and wate. I trust the folks who tell me about photosynthesis but that's just esoteric speculation. I believe they need water and sunlight because of personal verification. And I can show you.

How do I verify God or that Christ has anything to do with him?

Well, I went and asked Him. I got what I believe to be an affirmative answer. Anything I say to you would be 'hearsay,' though...and yet another example of 'believing someone you trust." In this, as in few other areas of human learning, you really do have to go find out for yourself.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 36 by dianaiad]

....actually....we can't.

Given the speed of light, there really isn't any scientific way for us to verify that the sun is shining right this second.

The statement was "You mentioned the sun shining. Obviously we can verify that." nothing mentioning 'this very second'. Placing a qualifier on one's claim then shouting it's not true seems dishonest means of arguing and invalid, no?

...those who are arguing here keep trying to conflate the trustworthiness of the source with the fact that you trust it, rather than verifying the information for yourself.

That's not true. Several, including myself, haven't said anything of the sort. Again, you're adding qualifiers to argue when that's not appropiate.

...you really do have to go find out for yourself.

True. However, when it comes to things that seem 'unworldly' or just down right weird/odd, you must also question yourself because, in the case of god, it's a belief. Beliefs are personal and, as such, can be anything you want them to be (or not to be).
In that regard, you're right. However, your arguing of challenging scientific principles and methods are trite last-ditch efforts that have shown to be false for decades if not centuries.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Sure, but I don't need to trust your hearsay. If you tell me the means to verify it I can see for myself. Just like you don't need to trust me that plants need watering.

I totally agree we atheists in general put too much trust in science as its told to us. But any system that says look see for yourself is a lot more trust worthy in general than one that says take my word for it.

I asked Him too. But I don't get an answer. If you didn'tget that aaffirmative answer, personal verification, would you still believe?

[Divine Insight]

I'm not a scientist...and I have done the same thing. But...as a scientist...have you verified, personally, by experiment and direct observation, every scientific truth you believe from every single field?

Because that is, frankly, not really possible.

Why would I need to do that?

You're right that it wouldn't be possible, but it also wouldn't be necessary.

To begin with science does not claim that every little thing scientists propose is absolute truth. So clearly your view of science is not a rational view to begin with.

Secondly, we don't need to believe every little part of science to see that the overall picture and method works and is indeed trustworthy. As a scientist there are many hypotheses in science that I myself disagree with. But these are hypotheses that have no yet been proven to be true.

On the other hand other theories such as Evolution, General Relativity, Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, have been proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.

So your complaints only reveal that you don't understand science as a whole.

I also know the difference between scientific facts, and scientific predictions. You bring up global warming, and I'll be the first to agree that science can't say with absolute certainty what the future will bring. But till they have a track record worthy of paying attention to.

It was an example...one that has rabid fans and rabid detractors on both sides (as the 'big bang' theory did at one time). It wasn't meant as a ploy to start talking about global warming.

Well, you're the one who brought it up as an example. I personally feel that scientists do have a compelling case for global warming and that it is human activity that is causing it. But then again I've heard their evidence.

What you seem to be claiming is that a lot of people are arguing that global warming is real even though they have never heard the evidence for it. That wouldn't have anything to do with science anyway.

That would just be an example of how some political activists join a cause without doing proper research. That has nothing to do with science.

And now let's look at your second point:

The POINT is that trusting the source is a perfectly reasonable and logical method of learning things. If you cannot verify something yourself, then trusting a good source may be your only option.

The Bible is NOT a good source of truth. On the contrary the Bible is filled with lies, as well as blatant contradictions.

ah, but here you are switching gears again, talking about the qualifications of the source. That does not matter for the point I'm making here.

The qualifications of the source are paramount. For you to dismiss that is absurd.

You do not trust the bible as a source because, in your perceptions, it isn't accurate. Others trust it because they think it is. You may (or may not) trust the sources which give you information about global warming or any number of other theories...and others don't.

I keep trying to make this point here; It does not matter whether anybody else at all thinks a source is trustworthy. Really. It doesn't.

Apparently you are talking about air-heads. People who don't even bother to look into the credibility of their sources.

I would agree completely that your claims do indeed apply to air-heads. But everyone isn't an air-head so your claims do not apply to everyone.

The point is, for things which you do not verify yourself, your belief is based upon EXACTLY what belief in religion is based; trust in a source.

Whether a source is worthy of that trust is an entirely different conversation. Whole 'nuther topic. Different debate.

I disagree it's not a different debate at all. If you have a book that tells outright lies about you that you know perfectly well are false then dismissing that book is perfectly reasonable.

This is about epistemology, how we learn what we learn, not about what it is that is learned, or how trustworthy the teacher is.

In that case, my argument stands. I've learned science through understanding how science is done and recognizing that the conclusions of science are indeed true. Not all of them, but then again I don't believe things just because someone who claims to be a scientists has a hypothesis.

Again, this comes down to understanding how science works.

You don't just believe anything anyone says and claims it to be science. Even within the scientific community we have scientists taking different views on different hypotheses. It's up to you to pay attention and to recognize which theories and hypotheses actually have evidence to back them up, and which ones are merely speculations based upon previous ideas.

Science isn't a completed field and it doesn't have answers to everything.

Also, science is NOT in competition with the Bible. The Bible is cultural mythology that has nothing to do with science or the scientific method of inquiry.

The Bible claims that all atheists are no good. Not a single one is good or has done good works.

Actually, the bible has a verse that says nobody is good, not one. I don't see anything in there that specifically targets atheists. I'd be glad to have you point one out.

Psalms.14
[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It is specifically referring to those who say, "There is no God". That would be what we today call atheists. People who don't believe there is a God.

And in the New Testament we have Paul regurgitating this sentiment, no doubt inspired by the Psalms:

Romans 1
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Again, Paul is referring to people who "Did not like to retain God in their knowledge". Those would be what we today call atheists. Only Paul takes this to extremes calling atheists all manner of disgusting things.

And we see this today in many Christian communities. They proclaim that those who take God out of the schools, and out of their life will indeed end up as Paul describes here.

But we know that this is untrue. It's simply not true. There are many atheists who are very good people who do good works. So the Bible is a lie, and those who follow the Bible support and perpetuate these lies in the name of the Bible.

I know this is a lie. It's clearly false. My very own sister is an atheists and she is a very good person who cares deeply about other people as well as animals too. She has become a social worker because she wants to help people. Yet she is a convinced atheist. So the Bible is flat out wrong.

OK, in your view, it seems to be. I have a different take on it, but it seems that I don't think that scripture is quite so condemning as you think it is. Ah, well.

John 3
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to John anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as the only begotten son of God is condemned.

I don't believe that Jesus was the only begotten son of any God. Therefore according to the Bible I'm condemned.

And I ask you, "What in the world would this have to do with morality?"

It doesn't add up. It makes no sense.

It's not that I merely don't see a reason to trust it. I can actually see that it's flat out wrong.

Not only that but the Bible also claims that if I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God I'll be damned. And that's absurd. Not believing that Jesus is the son of God does not have anything at all to do with morality. Not believing in Jesus does not make a person immoral or bad.

The bible is clearly a LIE. Period amen.

There is nothing there to trust. I can clearly see that it is indeed filled with lies.

Which is for the purpose of the point I'm making, irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter.

As in, stop equating your opinion of the trustworthiness of a source with personal verification of a truth, scientific or other.

Why should I stop? This religion is not only telling lies about me personally, but it's telling lies about everyone who doesn't join this religious cult.

I see it as precisely that. It's a manmade cult Dianaiad. I'm not about to pretend that it has anything to do with any God.

It even has Jesus proclaiming that God feeds the birds, which is clearly false. Even Jesus had no clue what was going on.

If you had a science book that told you that you could hit yourself in the face with a 20 pound sledge hammer and not hurt yourself would you believe that book?

The Bible is filled with lies Dianaiad. This I know for the Bible has told me so.

I don't need to turn to apologists or evangelists to interpret the Bible for me. I can see for myself that it's filled with lies.

Why should I trust a book that is clearly full of lies?

~~~~

And even if it wasn't clearly filled with obviously lies, why should I believe that I was created by a God who would have his own corrupt priests crucify his son on a pole to make salvation possible for humanity?

I mean for crying out loud. If I was created by a God like that I would throw up.

I certainly wouldn't rejoice and celebrate it.

You have your opinion, based upon an interpretation of scripture with which I disagree. I trust my opinion and therefore the scripturs upon which I base it.

You don't get to give me grief and tell me that I'm basing my belief on 'nothing,' when you are basing yours on the same 'nothing.'

When it comes to personal beliefs I'm not interested in what you believe. If you want to believe that the Bible is the word of God then by all means please be my guest.

But if you are going to debate with me that believing in the Bible is as meaningful as believing in the achievements of science, then I'm going to expose the absurdity of your claim.

And I have.

[KenRU]

Dianaiad,

So, in short, you assert that verifiable claims/assertions are just as believable as non-verifiable claims, correct?

If no, please explain what makes them different, in your view. Otherwise, I'm at a loss to understand your point.

If yes, then wouldn't you basically be arguing that nothing can ever really be known? Think about it, everything you would do, even trying to verify a claim, would force you to still have an assumption or two, which by your argument would invalidate it.

You could never really verify anything for your self. Somewhere along the way, you would have to rely on someone's else's knowledge or technology or equipment, and that in turn would force you (by your own argument) to assume that it was working correctly. So, knowledge would never ever be verifiable, according to this logic.

-all the best