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?

[Clownboat]

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.'

Not the same thing though as you seem to admit here in post 21:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

Science and religion use very different methods of discerning truths, and have very different truths to discern.

You keep trying to equate this with the trust of people, yet you admit the methods are very different and ignore that we are placing trust in the method and not the people.

A claim made by a human, let's say for example someone is claiming to have found golden plates that can be deciphered by using special glasses and reveal a special message from a god is not the same as believing a scientific claim that has passed peer review. The person telling us about said peer reviewed claim is not as relevant as the fact that said claim has passed peer review and peer review should be found more credible than claims of magic (or the supernatural or whatever you would like to call it) made by men. Especially if said person is religious IMO, since many a religion has been used to control the masses.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Is said to have made this statement).

[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.

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.

In science, yes...but...if the parameters of the experiment are faulty, or the premise is, you have a great many people 'doing it wrong,' and getting the same wrong answer until someone finally figures out the 'wrong' thing, does it right and then has to buck the establishment to get that corrected. You and I both know many examples of just this.

The rest of us simply have to trust that what they say is true is true. Sometimes we're wrong because they are.

What IS the difference between a belief that cannot be verified, and one that simply is not verified?

I contend...not a whole lot. This is neither a good thing nor a bad one; we cannot verify every bit of physical fact that we think we know ourselves; it's impossible. We must trust folks. Our future as a technological species absolutely depends on it.

What is the difference between someone who believes in some scientific principle that he could verify for himself easily (like the roundness of the earth, for instance) because he's been told it's round, shown pictures, and had a whole lot of people claim that they did the verification and it's OK to believe that the earth is round) but does not, and a belief in a philosophical/religious concept based upon what he's told by those he trusts, seen pictures, had concepts explained, and a whole bunch of other people he trusts tells him that it's OK and that the belief is true?

Basically, Higgy, there ain't any.

BTW, most religions have a way to confirm their teachings. Some experimental parameters that can be used to find out if what they are teaching is true.

Mine, for instance, says that if one reads the material, studies the concepts, and prays to God about them, that the Holy Ghost will 'witness' the truth of it.

That's what I did. I think it worked just fine.

But my experiences with this are mine; I can tell you until we are both more wrinkled than a Shar Pei, but you have to get your own.

Until then, any beliefs you have in any scientific fact (that you do not confirm on your own) or any philosophical ideal, are based upon the trust you have in the folks who told you.

You know, faith.

[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.

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.

If you don't follow the instructions, how do you know it works? I repeat: having a whole bunch of people tell you that THEY did only means that there are a bunch more 'bodies' in the 'everybody believes it' part. You are still basing your belief on the trust you have in them.

You are probably right to do so, but it's still trust on your part.

...................and sometimes they, and therefore you, can be wrong.

That is not true for religious faith claims. You don't have a 'cook book' that can be objectively examined.[/qipte]

Some do. Of course, religion isn't really an objective field. That's not the idea.

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.

What's the difference in believing something that can't be verified, and a belief in something that can be, but isn't?

I submit; there isn't any, to the believer.

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.

that's just it. I'm not the one doing the equivocating.

I'm not the one equating the belief one has, and the reasons one personally has for believing something, with the trustworthiness of the source of said belief.

Two men are standing by a river. Both cross safely. When asked why they thought it was safe to do so (since it looked pretty dangerous), one said that he had measured the depth of the flood, the velocity of the water, had experience with such things, and knew that there was a raised path just inches under the water.

The other said, well, my daughter said it would be OK because she cast my horoscope and I'm not going to drown today.

Now, they were both right; they crossed safely.

However, what's the difference between believing that the river was safe because of a horoscope, or believing that he could pretty much do anything around water because 'he wouldn't drown today?"

The river doesn't give a hoot.

But really, what's the difference between the guy who crosses the river because someone gave him a lucky horoscope reading...and the one who crossed it because some guy told HIM that there was a secret path...and he didn't personally check that out before he stepped in the water?

Not a flippin' thing, Goat,

.........and the fact that the path really was there is absolutely irrelevant.

[Zzyzx]

.

Two men are standing by a river. Both cross safely. When asked why they thought it was safe to do so (since it looked pretty dangerous), one said that he had measured the depth of the flood, the velocity of the water, had experience with such things, and knew that there was a raised path just inches under the water.

The other said, well, my daughter said it would be OK because she cast my horoscope and I'm not going to drown today.

Now, they were both right; they crossed safely.

However, what's the difference between believing that the river was safe because of a horoscope, or believing that he could pretty much do anything around water because 'he wouldn't drown today?"

The river doesn't give a hoot.

But really, what's the difference between the guy who crosses the river because someone gave him a lucky horoscope reading...and the one who crossed it because some guy told HIM that there was a secret path...and he didn't personally check that out before he stepped in the water?

Not a flippin' thing, Goat,

This hypothetical example demonstrates something significant – that a single test is not reliable indication of truth and accuracy.

If a test of knowledge vs. horoscope (using the same scenario if you wish with different water conditions) is conducted a hundred or a thousand times would you (generic term) bet on knowledge or the horoscope?

.........and the fact that the path really was there is absolutely irrelevant.

I disagree. Knowledge of a safe path is not irrelevant even in the hypothetical example. That knowledge plus information about existing water conditions and real world experience allows an informed person to make a sound "go or no-go" decision.

[dianaiad]

[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?[/qipte]

"shining" is a present tense verb, connermt. Without modifiers that change the time, like 'was' or 'will be,' then shining does indeed mean 'right this second." This is especially true since the example being referred to is the fact that we can only know that the sun was shining (see the modifier there?) eight minutes ago, but we don't know that it is shining right now.

In other words, I was clarifying and referring back to the example he referred to himself. Your response, here, is illogical, fallacious and ungrammatical.

...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).

Beliefs always are.

Sometimes those beliefs are based upon good, solid, scientific experimentation. Sometimes they aren't. But the reasons for the beliefs are not 'belief' itself.

Do not equate the evidence for your trust with the trust itself.

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.

I wasn't challenging scientific principles and methods, connermt. But feel free to show me (in context, if you please) where I have said, in any way, that the scientific method is invalid.

G'head.

My point is only about those who, quite honestly, don't actually use it.

I see no difference at all between the guy who believes in plate tectonics because he saw a documentary on TV (and read a chapter in a general science book) and the guy who believes the bible is true and has never actually asked God about it.

No difference at all.

Just because you and I (I think that you and I believe this...I do, anyway) accept plate tectonics has nothing at all to do with the idea that someone might do so because he trusts someone who told him so.

Now me, yeah, I read the book and saw the documentary too. I also live on the San Andreas fault and have made a few field trips to watch the plates, quite literally, move.

I believe that Mojave Green rattlers are poisonous not only because I've been told so, but also because a good friend of mine was bitten by one and I had to take her to the ER where she got a LOT of anti-venom and it still was touch and go for a couple of days.

On the other hand, I believe that the duck billed platypus is poisonous because I read the information and someone I trust told me so.

I believe in my own religious teachings because I read, I studied, I thought hard...and I prayed to God and asked Him. I believe I got an answer.

and I'm fine with that. I THINK that's one more step than most high school kids take in science class, and I'm sure you don't have much problem with the stuff they learn there, as to the validity of the information.

For the record, neither do I. I'm simply pointing out that individually, belief is belief; it doesn't matter WHAT is being told to us, if we believe it because we trust the speaker, then it's faith.

Even if that information is 'science based.' Yeah, there can be a whole lot of experiments and people who claim to have performed them. Until WE have, personally, it's still, and I'll whisper this if you want to, because someone we trust told us so.

[Divine Insight]

For the record, neither do I. I'm simply pointing out that individually, belief is belief; it doesn't matter WHAT is being told to us, if we believe it because we trust the speaker, then it's faith.

Even if that information is 'science based.' Yeah, there can be a whole lot of experiments and people who claim to have performed them. Until WE have, personally, it's still, and I'll whisper this if you want to, because someone we trust told us so.

This is a totally false impression of science on your part. Scientists don't believe other scientist simply because they have faith in the speakers. On the contrary they pay very close attention to all the evidence being presented and they are more than prepared to challenge any evidence they question.

This is extremely different from placing faith in religions.

Moreover scientist actually present evidence in their talks and documentaries along with the historical reasoning that lead them to come to the conclusions they are proposing.

This is extremely different from what theologians and clergy to. Theologians and clergy (if they are honest) will confess that the have no evidence for their beliefs and that they are indeed asking people to place faith in ancient unsubstantiated dogma.

Sure, there are religious fanatics who lie to people and claim that there is evidence to support the supernatural claims of the Bible, but in truth no one has ever been able to provide any such evidence.

What they might be able to provide is non-supernatural correspondences between Hebrew mythology and possible real events in Hebrew history. But the same thing has been done for Greek mythology and Greek history too, yet no one believes that this gives any credence to Greek mythology.

There is no evidence for the supernatural claims being made by any of the Abrahamic religions. Period.

And this is sufficient reason for many non-theists to dismiss it as having no more merit than Greek mythology.

Science, on the other hand, isn't remotely close to being in this same category.

The evidence for science is overwhelming. And even people who are too lazy to look into the evidence for science themselves is no excuse. The evidence is all around them in the technologies that science has made possible. The degree of denial required to not believe in the evidence for science is extreme.

But there isn't any evidence for believing in the supernatural claims of religious mythologies.

None whatsoever.

[ttruscott]

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

...

I agree with all who suggested that belief is based upon evidence but I doubt if any Christian belief is based upon 'scientific' evidence which demands a repeatable process that gives the same predictable result...which is outside of my experience of the evidence and even most Christians I know.

Peace, Ted

[connermt]

[Replying to post 45 by dianaiad]

I wasn't challenging scientific principles and methods, connermt.

You're entire tirade was just that - the fact that you won't acknowledge it is telling in of itself. You were making claims of scientist and scientific methodology which shows an extreme lack of knowledge of science and desperation to prove a point which is, as best, trying.

My point is only about those who, quite honestly, don't actually use it.

Why would one use your point when it's irrelevant and wrong?

I see no difference at all between the guy who believes in plate tectonics because he saw a documentary on TV (and read a chapter in a general science book) and the guy who believes the bible is true and has never actually asked God about it.

That's the problem. Beliefs causes people to do weird and odd things - justify what they want, ignore what bothers them, etc.
You referenced the guy who never really asked god about it....what about the guy who did ask god and got nothing?
What about that guy?
What about the guy you asked god and got no response?
Or a different one than you?
What about him
I stress these questions as you tend to 'overlook' them from time to time and wanted to ensure you didn't 'miss' this one.

No difference at all.

Between one who tests what they experience and try to understand it and one who lives by faith of an invisible cloud riding jin?
Is that the different you don't see? If so, I see an enormous difference.

I believe that Mojave Green rattlers are poisonous not only because I've been told so, but also because a good friend of mine was bitten by one and I had to take her to the ER where she got a LOT of anti-venom and it still was touch and go for a couple of days.

Did you create the anti-venom? Likely not. Then how can you be sure the anti-venom they were given was accurate based on what they said it was? Based on your logic of testing things, you should test the anti-bodies and make sure they are what they say they are and are working as they say they are said to be working.
What's that?
You can't? So you accepted they're working based on what another one said and based on the SCIENCE that was used to understand the venom and create the anit-bodies? You just accepted that fact without testing it in detail like it seems everyone should in order to accept a 'truth'?

I believe in my own religious teachings because I read, I studied, I thought hard...and I prayed to God and asked Him. I believe I got an answer.

Of course you did - you provided your own answer to justify you faith. It happens all the time to all kinds of people. That only means you provided yourself an answer, not that a deity did. So your 'god' is actually yourself, not a magic jim with a beard and an ego.

Even if that information is 'science based.' Yeah, there can be a whole lot of experiments and people who claim to have performed them. Until WE have, personally, it's still, and I'll whisper this if you want to, because someone we trust told us so.

That's a poor understanding of science and its practices. If it works for you, but all means continue.
Just don't expect not to get , &

[connermt]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

Scientists don't believe other scientist simply because they have faith in the speakers. On the contrary they pay very close attention to all the evidence being presented and they are more than prepared to challenge any evidence they question.

That has been said several times in this thread that I've seen and I haven't read the whole thing...
It can't be said any more clear.

This is extremely different from placing faith in religions.

Hope is not needed when data and facts are available. The christian religion is based on faith, which is hope by the modern bible's definition. Thus, it's logical to conclude that christianity only survives in the absence of data and facts.

The evidence [for science's existence] is all around them in the technologies that science has made possible.

Very true. No god made my computer, car or TV. These were made be the trial and errors of MEN - no deity involved.

[dianaiad]

For the record, neither do I. I'm simply pointing out that individually, belief is belief; it doesn't matter WHAT is being told to us, if we believe it because we trust the speaker, then it's faith.

Even if that information is 'science based.' Yeah, there can be a whole lot of experiments and people who claim to have performed them. Until WE have, personally, it's still, and I'll whisper this if you want to, because someone we trust told us so.

This is a totally false impression of science on your part.

I'm not attempting to give any impression at all of science.

Nor am I, in any way, criticizing the scientific method or those who use it. I am simply commenting upon those who do not use it, but who believe in those who do.

Scientists don't believe other scientist simply because they have faith in the speakers. On the contrary they pay very close attention to all the evidence being presented and they are more than prepared to challenge any evidence they question.

Of course they do.

You are, again, confusing belief with the reasons for that belief. Scientists do indeed believe other scientists 'because they believe them.' Scientists in the SAME FIELD have the resources to investigate for themselves, to study the actual evidence (rather than the evidence as presented by others)...but a biologist is not going to give the same level of scrutiny to a vulcanologist as another vulcanologist would, and most of the population of the world does NOT consist of scientists. Exactly how carefully could I, for instance, investigate the claims of a molecular biologist or an astrophysicist?

We trust these people because we deem them trustworthy. That they happen to BE trustworthy is beside the point, which is not about how good the evidence is, or how it is examined or even who examines it. It's about why we believe it.

....and we do not believe it because the evidence is so incontrovertible; we have no way of testing the evidence, more often than not. Scientists tell us that the evidence is incontrovertible, and we believe the scientists are trustworthy (for whatever reason) so we believe what they say.

I repeat; this is not, repeat, NOT, a criticism of science or the scientific method or of the scientists who go looking and making discoveries.

It's an examination of the reason we, as people who cannot (or do not) repeat those experiments for ourselves, believe what they came up with.

................and please. Do not keep telling me that we believe these guys because the evidence is so good, or because it's testable or the instructions for experiments are out there. The evidence may well be good; probably is. It may be testable. mostly it is. The instructions for experiments may be out there; often they are.

But we believe that the 'evidence is good' BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD SO, not because we have seen it. We believe that these things are testable BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD SO, not because we have tested it. We believe that the experiments, the instructions for which are 'out there,' will work BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD SO, not because we have actually run the experiments.

I have, as far as I remember, always believed that the world is round...because I was told so. Because people showed me pictures. Because ways to confirm this are 'out there.' That's fine.

But it was belief because someone told me so.

Then I actually performed one of the experiments/observations; a very simple one involving a beach, a ship with a mast, a piece of paper rolled into a tube and a crayon. So now I know, not only because someone told me, but also because I, personally, did the work to confirm it.

the only difference between belief in religious ideas, and belief in scientific ideas, and belief in ET, is the quality of the evidence as perceived by others.

For the believer, it is exactly the same.

You believe something because someone you trust tells you.
You CAN sometimes confirm this belief through scientific experimentation/observation.
Theists claim that you can sometimes confirm their belief through study and prayer, with direct confirmation from God.
I dunno what to say about ET.

But for the believer, the reason for the belief is the same.
\
THEN you can start talking about why you trust the source of your information. But that's an entirely different conversation.

And no. I am not making a claim that the scientific method is inadequate or wrong or anything like that. It's how we find out things about the natural world. It works.

But it's only the 'scientific method' for the scientists actually engaging in it. For those who simply believe what they report, it's 'we believe you because we trust you."

And I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of being 'anti-science' or whatever it is you are doing here. I'm not. Not even close. I'm discussing this 'more reasonable than thou' attitude those who tie their belief systems to science...when they no more engage in the 'scientific method' than the most meditative monk in a Himalayan monastery. They simply believe what they are told.

That they are told true things is, as far as most of 'em are concerned, a flippin' accident.