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?

[Divine Insight]

[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.

How in the world can you make statements like the above Dianaiad?

Why should we ignore the trustworthiness of the source? Just because you demand that it shouldn't matter?

It does matter.

Science has proved that it is a trustworthy source of information.

Theology has not.

And therein lies a huge and significant difference that you are pretending has no merit.

But it has all the merit in the world.

You need to pretend that it has no merit to justify your support of untrustworthy sources (i.e. theology and ancient superstitious rumors that cannot be verified).

[connermt]

[Replying to post 19 by dianaiad]

It doesn't MATTER how well the other guy did with the scientific process.

If you're looking for a reliable outcome, it surely does

It doesn't matter how true, or factual, the information is that he is giving you.

If you're looking for a reliable outcome, it surely does

And it SURE doesn't matter how many people agree with him. You really should know better than that one.

When it comes to the scientific field, it surely does in as much as it's peer reviewed. Surely you know that, yes?

has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the topic involved is 'true' or not, or factual.

Yes it does and you explained why it does by saying "It has everything to do with why YOU accept it as fact."
You can accept that 1+1= elephants if you want, that doesn't change the fact that it 1+1=2, not elaphants.

Because you trust the one who told you. That's it.

Again, semantics. SMaybe you do, but you don't speak for everyone. Of course, we can't prove everything that exists to ourselves by ourselves. We do, however, use personal experience and (in some cases) experts to decide what's true or not. That said, even when experts made grand seemingly supernatural claims, we and don't believe them simply because they're experts and they said it.

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

AND because you verified it yourself. If one dioesn't verify it yourself, themselves, they're a mindless robot. And, according to the christian meaning of 'free will' we aren't robots, yes?

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

Perhaps some do trust the source and don't verify it for themselves. I feel sorry for them as they would be simple 'going along with the bandwagon' and not being an individual. That's (one reason why) brainwashing is so successful for some of these people, unfortunately

..you believe because you trust the source.

No. You believe because you WANT to believe - trust isn't necessary.

[dianaiad]

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

Indeed...but you know that how?

Because you have dropped things. You may even have dropped things on your foot. You have performed the experiment yourself.

However, there are many things 'scientific' that we all trust to be true that we have not, personally, done the confirming experiments for.

In other words, I agree with you. Science works whether one believes it or not, or trusts it or not.

That is entirely irrelevant when one is talking about why one believes, or doesn't.

After all, I have a rock in my front garden that my mother 'stole' from a national park over fifty years ago. It's not all that big a rock, but it's fairly obvious, and she has moved it from garden to garden almost her entire married life.

Now that rock is either there or it isn't. It's either there, or it's not there, no matter what you think about it. It happens to be there, as I describe it, but...how do YOU know that?

It's not about how good science is, or how trustworthy those scientists are who report their findings. Really. When we are talking about how we know things,..about belief, it's about the person who believes, not the truth of the belief; it's about whether one trusts, not how trustworthy the source.

This entire topic of 'faith only' and this (and I'm sorry, but I was laughing as I read the OP, it is SO over-the-top biased) idea of why atheists and Christians are 'mad at each other,' would calm down if we could figure out that our belief, and the reasons for it, aren't all that different.

Perhaps, if the atheist types could figure out that they, too, place a great deal of their personal trust in 'what they are told,' over personal investigation and experimentation, they might be a little more understanding of the theist?

I dunno, it's just a thought.

Because yes, the scientific method is the way to find out stuff regarding the world around us. It works. It has advanced our human knowledge base incredibly.

However, unless you, personally, have built the gieger counter, understand (through dangerous, Marie Curie methods) personally what radioactivity is, have seen, though autopsies and done all the medical tests yourself using equipment that you not only understand but have built yourself, your understanding that certain minerals on earth emit invisible particles that can kill you is based upon what others have told you.

Anyway, I sure hope it is.

It does not mean that you are wrong to believe this. It doesn't mean that those who told you did not use scientific methods themselves. It doesn't mean that they are wrong.

It only means that you trust them when they tell you this stuff, and so believe them.

[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.

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.

How in the world can you make statements like the above Dianaiad?

Why should we ignore the trustworthiness of the source? Just because you demand that it shouldn't matter?

It does matter.

Science has proved that it is a trustworthy source of information.

Theology has not.

And therein lies a huge and significant difference that you are pretending has no merit.

But it has all the merit in the world.

You need to pretend that it has no merit to justify your support of untrustworthy sources (i.e. theology and ancient superstitious rumors that cannot be verified).

As I said before, people will believe in what they want. They will accept false teachings and shun facts; they will make their own definitions and ignore actual definitions - all in the quest to fill the void. It all comes down to what one wants to believe.
The need - the want - to believe by no means makes a person stupid or the like. It takes all kinds to rotate this (elongated) sphere, as they say.
That's one of the main reasons why, IMO, faith is so heavily relied upon with christians: they have nothing else in which to adhere.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 23 by dianaiad]

Dianaiad

Perhaps, if the atheist types could figure out that they, too, place a great deal of their personal trust in 'what they are told,' over personal investigation and experimentation, they might be a little more understanding of the theist?
To equate the two as equal is preposterous. One is verifiable, the other is not. Whether one chooses to verify is unimportant to understanding what you are putting your "faith/belief/trust" in. And the fact that you can verify makes all the difference in the world when deciding what to "believe".

Because yes, the scientific method is the way to find out stuff regarding the world around us. It works. It has advanced our human knowledge base incredibly.

However, unless you, personally, have built the gieger counter, understand (through dangerous, Marie Curie methods) personally what radioactivity is, have seen, though autopsies and done all the medical tests yourself using equipment that you not only understand but have built yourself, your understanding that certain minerals on earth emit invisible particles that can kill you is based upon what others have told you.
Once again minimizing the fact that this knowledge is verifiable, and therefore, more valuable then non-verifiable claims.

I'm baffled how anyone can assert that a verifiable claim is equivalent to a non-verifiable claim.

[Divine Insight]

I'm baffled how anyone can assert that a verifiable claim is equivalent to a non-verifiable claim.

This is actually an open "testament and witness" by many people of faith that they cannot make a distinction between verifiable claims and non-verifiable claims.

This whole approach to theism is nothing more than a truly lame attempt to reduce scientific knowledge to have no more basis than theology for the sole purpose of attempting to put theology on a level playing field with science.

It's utterly absurd because all it truly amounts to is a "Testament and Witness" by theologians that their hopes and dreams have no merit. And all they are doing is attempting to reduce science to their level.

I'm quite sure that Dianaiad didn't invent this approach to apologetics as it is a very common approach. All she has done is buy into it. But the bottom line is that it has no merit.

People who buy into these kinds of theistic arguments are being seriously duped by theologians who ought to know better. They are victims of an extremely desperate and failing theology.

I mean truly, these kinds of arguments are scraping the very bottom of the apologetic barrel. They can't show where their faith-based beliefs have any credibility so instead of simply confessing this truth they try desperately to renounce all knowledge to having the same worthlessness of their own theology.

How can they expect to prop up their theology by basically destroying the value of all knowledge in the process.

Any theology or philosophy that needs to proclaim that all knowledge is merely unverifiable guesses, is in deep trouble for sure.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 26 by Divine Insight]

Divine,

You're absolutely right. I never thought of the argument that way before. It, in essence, trashes all forms of knowledge, just to create an "even" playing field.

Well said.

-Ken

[dianaiad]

I'm baffled how anyone can assert that a verifiable claim is equivalent to a non-verifiable claim.

This is actually an open "testament and witness" by many people of faith that they cannot make a distinction between verifiable claims and non-verifiable claims.

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

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.

Yes, the claim that plants produce oxygen is verifiable...but if you don't verify it yourself, IS there any difference, to you, between the two beliefs?

Remember, God's existence does not depend upon your belief. Neither does the fact of oxygen producing plants. They either are, or they are not, no matter what you think.

It doesn't matter, either, how many OTHER people go out and test the plants and use the scientific method to verify that they do, indeed, produce oxygen. That simply increases the number of people you trust. More 'bodies' in the 'everybody knows that."

But "everybody knew" for a very long time, that God existed, too. Lots of bodies to trust.

Unless you, personally, go do the experiment to verify that plants give off oxygen YOURSELF, your basis for this knowledge/belief is that someone told you.

I will say this: with religious belief, at least it's possible for everybody to go and ask God themselves; it might hot result in consistent results, but generally one gets an answer of some sort. With science, especially when things get complicated and expensive, this isn't possible. We have to base our scientific understanding upon what others tell us, without the possibility of confirming/verifying things ourselves.

Interesting irony here, come to think of it.

[higgy1911]

When I abandoned my faith I felt a freedom and a sense of potential I never felt with it. I believed Jesus listened to my prayers as much as I believed the sun is shining.

I didn't just change faiths. I have no faith in what any scientist says and I rarely get into debates about human origins and such.

I think evolution the way its described by modern science is reasonable but I don't believe it the way I believe the sun is shining. Abandoning faith didn't lead me to believe in evolution. It just made me unafraid to consider it. I really don't care much about science though. I agree with a lot of theists that people put too much faith in scientists and appeals to authority.


I could know almost nothing about science. My faith was broken entirely by introspection and logic, where I found faith to be almost entirely useless.

I don't know whether or not the world is round. I suspect it is but knowing is not necessary for any of my core beliefs. If I ever need to know I will look into it just like I did with my faith that Jesus loved or that I should love him or accept the sacrifice it is claimed he mad .

[Divine Insight]

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 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.

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

There is no contest here Dianaiad.

These things aren't even remotely similar.

What you are arguing for here actually exposes precisely how lame religious beliefs truly are.

~~~~

I mean, hey, if you want to believe in religious myths as a matter of pure faith for you own personal enjoyment, satisfaction, hopes and dreams, or whatever, then fine. That's not a problem.

But if you are going to debate the idea that it's just as reasonable to believe in these things as it is to believe in scientific knowledge, then you're making an argument that necessarily fails big time.

I have no problem retaining mystical beliefs of my own. I confess that they are entirely faith-based. I will argue that my mystical beliefs are both rational and even compatible with all known science. And therefore I don't need to belittle science in order to support my mystical beliefs.

Even so, I don't pretend that anyone should accept my mystical beliefs. And if someone tells me that they are an atheist I can't even argue with them that they are being unreasonable.

I confess to the truth that I'm ultimately agnostic with respect to a mystical nature of reality. I would necessarily need to become a liar to do otherwise. Not only would I need to lie to the atheists, but I would also need to lie to myself and any supernatural entities that might exist.

Your argument that believing in Christianity is just as rational as believing in science is absurd. It's not. Religious beliefs are entirely faith-based. And therefore any truly religious person should confess to being an agnostic right up front. It's the only honest way to go.

This is not true of science. Although, I will grant you that it may very well be true of people who are so extremely lazy or uninterested in learning about truth that they don't even lift a finger to try to understand science.

Those are the only people your argument would apply to. But if those were the only kind of people that existed there would be no such thing as science and we'd all still be living in the dark ages thinking that the Gods are causing lightening and thunder, etc.

We'd even still believe that sickness and plagues were curses of God.

Just look at all the science you need to deny in order to make an argument that science is only believed on pure faith.

That's simply not true. Period.

These arguments are being made by truly desperate theologians and apologists and unfortunate their "flocks" are buying into their nonsense.

But it is definitely nonsense. It's absolute nonsense.