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?

[higgy1911]

[Replying to dianaiad]

I agree with so much of what you are saying

But I think believing things that can't be personally verified is unreasonable. And doing so is what I consider to be faith and what I mean in the OP.

Obviously we have had different experiences with talking to God. But I take you to be sincere in your belief that you have personal verification of various things about God. My question is what parts of your doctrine are taken on personal verification and what parts are taken on trust?

For instance, if you believe God speaks to you, what does he say that you have verified and what do you just trust him on?

I very much grow weary of atheists and theists talking around each other and I feel like that has been going on a lot in this thread. I very much see what you mean about taking science on trust. But I hope you also see the issue of possible verification and how important that is to the trustworthiness of an idea, especially to the science minded. Falsifiability would seem to me a very important component to any reasonable belief. What can I do that potentially disproves a theory. Without that a knowledge claim would be unreasonable, although a theory or weak belief or hunch might be reasonable.

Anyway, thanks for responding so much and thoughtfully, and same goes for the rest of the posters. Let's hang in there and learn from and about each other, and learn what we agree and disagree on and why

[Divine Insight]

Hi Higgy,

I can sympathize with your concern that atheists and theists are often talking around each other. This is an unfortunate result of the fact that these debates are indeed almost always "Theists versus Atheists", and specifically "Christians versus Atheists", and unfortunately quite often "Religion versus Science". Like as if these dichotomies are all that exist.

Take you concern and possible frustration in that area and multiple by infinity and you will get some idea of my frustration that it's not even possible to have meaningful discussions topics on outside of these limited boxes of dichotomy.

And I too can understand what Dianaiad is trying to say. The only problem is that what she is proposing isn't likely to be true for many people who value the methods of science. In other words, they aren't merely believing in science because they have placed their faith in the authority of some other persons.

In fact, that very claim is quite offensive to anyone who is truly into science because nothing could be further from the truth.

But yes, Dianaiad's point would be well-taken when applied to people who do just accept science without even questioning it. But that's probably not applicable to most of the atheists who post on this forum. Many of them seem to be quite knowledgeable of science.

In any case, if I could touch on a few things "outside of the Box" of the Atheism versus Christianity I would very much like to do this. With this in mind, I'll like to respond to your following quotes:

But I think believing things that can't be personally verified is unreasonable.

I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment in general. For example, I have my own personal reasons to believe in a mystical spiritual essence of reality. My reasons are not based upon Dianaiad's suggesting that some people merely believe what others have said. My beliefs in a spiritual essence to reality come from within, from personal experience and are in no way attached to anything anyone has told me from the outside world.

I even have scientific reasons to believe that this is the case, but I don't wish to go into that here.

Although, overall I cannot verify my innate feelings and belief of a spiritual reality. Thus I 'believe' in things that cannot be personally verified. Or at least I should say that I believe in their plausibility. And innately I intuitively feel that it is true. In other words, I intuitively believe that reality is indeed magical and eternal including my own essence.

I do not feel that this is unreasonable. On the contrary I feel that it would be unreasonable for me to reject my innate intuitions in favor of jumping to other conclusions that are equally unprovable.

I can't prove that reality is purely secular materialistic event either. Therefore by the same reasoning, for me to believe that to be the truth of reality wouldn't be any more reasonable than to believe that life is mystical.

Please note that this does not require placing my faith in anything anyone has told me. My spiritual beliefs are not dependent upon any religious dogma or specific philosophy. It is true that I often point to Taoism as being, what I believe to be, the most likely spiritual philosophy. But Taoism didn't inform me of this. On the contrary I simply recognized that Taoism is saying what I had already innately felt to be true. So I merely recognize this correspondence.

And doing so is what I consider to be faith and what I mean in the OP.

For me "Faith" is something entirely different. I wouldn't even call my belief in a mystical reality a "faith".

Here's how one passage from the Bible defines Faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I do not necessarily "hope" that reality is mystical. Sure, I think it would be cool if it is. I also feel that it would be a waste if it isn't. But neither of those sentiments mean that I "hope" it is mystical. And I certainly don't believe that it's mystical because this is what I hope for. I really have no problem with a purely secular reality. On that issue I take the view "Que Sara Sara, whatever will be will be". I'm cool with whatever reality turns out to be.

So I wouldn't say that I have "faith" that reality is spiritual. Thus my belief that it is, is not based upon faith. It's just a belief based entirely upon intuition and reasoning applied to everything I believe to know about life thus far.

Now there was a time in my life when I did have "faith" that an intervening God might exist and actually intervene in my own life in constructive and positive ways. But like Mother Teresa I found that asking God to intervene is a futile endeavor. I finally concluded that either there is no God, or if there is a God it either can't or won't intervene. Or perhaps there's something I'm doing wrong, and this is why God will not intervene in my life. Or perhaps God is intervening in my life in ways that I'm not readily able to recognize.

Whatever the case may be, the one thing I am confident about it that I am in no way "guilty" of having done anything to cause this. If I was to die and find myself before a God my very first question would be, "Ok what was it that I did wrong because I sure as hell don't know".

And I think using the term "hell" at that point in time would be quite appropriate.

Although getting back to my intuition about God I don't imagine that I would ask that kind of question because as soon as I die I'll understand everything completely and have a good belly laugh over the whole dream.

Because that's what I believe life to be. A dream.

But unlike Christianity I don't need to put down everyone who doesn't believe in my dream as being immoral heathens who have turned against God. Nor do I need to belittle science as having no more merit than my intuitive dreams.

And finally, I confess to everyone, especially to myself, that my intuition about an eternal life could indeed be a fabrication of my own imagination. I can't say whether my intuitions are trustworthy or not. How could I know?

All I can say is that I believe that reality is a mystical dream because I intuitively know that it is. But my intuition could be wrong for all I know.

And I wish that all religious people would take a similar position on their religions, then we could all believe whatever we like and no one would be telling anyone else that they are wrong.

Telling other people that their beliefs are wrong is the problem with religions in the first place.

~~~~

I know that this is going to come back on me so allow me to just make a quick clarification here:

I would never tell any Christian that their beliefs are wrong if they weren't constantly trying to justify them (and even evangelize them) onto me.

The reason that I argue against the Bible is precisely because it's a religion that condemns everyone who refuses to suck up to it.

So Christianity is a religion that begs for this kind of nonsense. You can't go around proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in your God is an immoral heathen who has turned against God and not expect them to offer a rebuttal to that charge.

And unfortunately this is precisely what the Bible does.

So my arguments against Christianity are in defense of it's constant proselyting and attempts to belittle things like science in order to further it's evangelical agenda.

I wouldn't even bother with the religion at all if it wasn't so accusatory toward non-Christians.

[higgy1911]

Thanks DI .

I think I share a certain nature of belief with you. While unlike you I believe the world is secular and materialistic, I don't have verification of this and am always open to being shown otherwise.

I am really intriued by this idea of personal verification however, and intend to start exploring my beliefs to determine what I believe based on faith/trust and what I believe based on direct personal experience.

I find that my core beliefs, the one's that determine how I behave on a daily basis seem to be primarily derived from personally verified beliefs. But the introspection here has only just begun.

Since I have no personal verification that reality is ultimately materialistic, I am going to say for the moment this is not a very reasonable belief. I intuitively feel that way, and think a lot of evidence points that way. But I can't be sure. So I am going to consider my belief in materialism a weak belief. I'm not sure I would be justified in making major life choices based on this belief. Further thought may be required.

[Clownboat]

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.

What should we trust more? Horoscopes or the scientific method?
Please pretend that you have the same person reading your horoscope to you as you do reading from a peer reviewed article.

Hopefully you will see why the person doing the reading is not the focus. This is about the method, not the person.

The scientific method is not perfect (nothing is), but it has a better track record than horoscopes and religious predictions and therefore is more trustworthy.

[Clownboat]

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

Odd. You see it as an accident, and I expect it (not 100% of the time of course. Like anything, mistakes can be made).

If someone read their horoscope and something happened that coincided with it. That, I would consider an accident.

If someone read a peer reviewed article, I would expect it to be correct (most of the time), not an accident.

Is this where the disagreement stems from? Some of us seeing expected results (do to a verifiable track record) while others chalk it up to being merely an accident?
If that is the case, I then understand your argument and will continue to disagree.

[connermt]

Because we don't know everything, there is a certain amount of 'trust' required in most aspects of life . However, to be fair, science has legitimately never claimed to tbe 'know all end all' savior like christianity has (alpha & omega, beginning & end, etc). Science allows room for itself to be wrong by its own method of testing, recording and peer review/verification.

That said, science is answerable to itself. Meaning, if done properly, it either proves itself or shows itself false within its internal checks and balances.

Christianity is, in theory, answerable to god, though god isn't tactile and thus, open for debate on it authenticity, accuracy and even existence.

And religion is a whole OTHER animal

In short, christianity is hope based while science is not.

[dianaiad]

What should we trust more? Horoscopes or the scientific method?
Please pretend that you have the same person reading your horoscope to you as you do reading from a peer reviewed article.

good question. we should trust the scientific method, and those who do are far better prepared.

However, the two men I'm talking about here?

You know, the one who trusted the information from the guy who read his horoscope,

And the one who trusted the guy who said his information came from the 'scientific method?"

No difference at all.

Because neither one of them was using the scientific method. They were both simply trusting the person who told them something.

Again, please do not argue about how much more trustworthy one source is than the other. What can I say to that? You'd be correct; like you, I'd be more likely to believe the guy who said he measured stuff than the guy who cast the horoscope, but the point is, if I don't do the measuring MYSELF, I'm basing my actions upon trust in the source, NOT the 'scientific method."

What's the difference between the guy who can't swim and the guy who can, but won't? No difference at all; neither one of them get in the water.

What's the difference between the guy who crosses the river because he trusts the horoscope caster, and the guy who trusts the one who claimed to have measured it, but doesn't measure it for himself? None. They both cross the river for exactly the same reason. They trust the guy who told them it was safe.

It does not matter whether they were correct to do so.
It doesn't matter how trustWORTHY their sources were.

It matters only that their reason for doing something was trust.

Their reasons for TRUSTING? Entirely different conversation. Don't confuse the two concepts.

Hopefully you will see why the person doing the reading is not the focus. This is about the method, not the person.

This is not about the method, at all, Clownboat. It's not about the source of the information. At all.

It's about, and only about, the person trusting the source.

The scientific method is not perfect (nothing is), but it has a better track record than horoscopes and religious predictions and therefore is more trustworthy.

Of course it does. I agree. The scientific method is the way to best examine and understand the natural world.

But most of the people who believe the things science comes up with are....and perhaps this time I can say what I mean more clearly...not using the scientific method. The sources they trust may be, but they are not.

THEY are using the 'I trust the information you are giving me because I trust you." method.

if they don't engage in the experimentation and observation required to confirm a scientific observation, then they are basing their beliefs upon trust in their sources.


Now.

For some odd reason, this statement is being taken as an attack upon the scientific method. It's not; not even close to one. I'm all for the scientific method. In fact, I'm all for trusting those who use it. I have no problem with this way of learning things and gaining information, and neither does the scientific world.

ALL scientists use the 'we trust you' method of getting information. The existence of peer reviewed journals is proof of this. Consider: what ARE peer reviewed journals?

They are methods of ensuring that the sources one trusts are actually worth trusting. An assurance that putting your trust in the information provided is not a mistake...but ultimately, unless you yourself are willing to repeat the experiments and studies, it's still you trusting your source, not you using the scientific method.

You simply are trusting that your source did.

It's still trust.


Finally...and here's the point I have been unsuccessfully making...

The debate between theist/atheist, objective scientists and subjective theists comes down to whether the sources are worthy of our trust, NOT whether believing something because someone we trust told us so is stupid.

I am really tired of that; this argument from atheists and other non-believers that theists are wrong because they go on 'faith alone.'

So do you, go on 'faith alone,'

the real question is....are those with whom we have faith worthy of it? Is the information we gain accurate or useful?

With science, usually yes.

With religion, often yes.

But I'm not going to put up with the non-theists making fun of theists for believing in things told to them by 'people they trust,' and bragging about how much better they are because they are using the 'scientific method,' when they doing EXACTLY the same thing that theists do; believing things because someone they trust told them so.

The only people using the scientific method, in science, are the scientists doing the experimentation/observation/reporting. Those who read and accept their information without confirming it with their OWN experiments and observations are not. They simply trust.

They SHOULD trust. We wouldn't be anywhere as a species if we didn't. I'm just tired of 'em pretending that this isn't what they are doing.

[dianaiad]

Because we don't know everything, there is a certain amount of 'trust' required in most aspects of life . However, to be fair, science has legitimately never claimed to tbe 'know all end all' savior like christianity has (alpha & omega, beginning & end, etc). Science allows room for itself to be wrong by its own method of testing, recording and peer review/verification.

That said, science is answerable to itself. Meaning, if done properly, it either proves itself or shows itself false within its internal checks and balances.

Christianity is, in theory, answerable to god, though god isn't tactile and thus, open for debate on it authenticity, accuracy and even existence.

And religion is a whole OTHER animal

In short, christianity is hope based while science is not.

Well, science, I think, is also 'hope based,' in that scientists who form a hypothesis are generally going 'I hope I'm right about this..." However, I do get your point.

But my posts here are not an attack on the scientific method, or at all a comment upon whether the information given by 'folks we trust' is accurate or trustworthy.

Of course we all believe that the information we get from those we trust is trustworthy. Of course we all have reasons for thinking that.

In terms of most science, I believe that trust is well founded...but that's not my point.

You, and others, keep confusing the issue...and the two topics. This is NOT about whether people are right to trust scientists and/or theists.

It's only a statement that they do...and those who trust the scientists (whether or not they are right to do so) without confirming the information for themselves by experimentation/observation, are not USING the scientific method.

They are simply believing in it. Big difference.

[Divine Insight]

The only people using the scientific method, in science, are the scientists doing the experimentation/observation/reporting. Those who read and accept their information without confirming it with their OWN experiments and observations are not. They simply trust.

Even when this is the case it still doesn't compare with religious faith.

Even those who trust the scientific community have good reasons for doing so. The scientific community has a very well-established method of inquiry. It has a very well-established history of success. It has also produces technologies that actually do prove that it's trustworthy. Science is proven through technology.

How does this compare with theology and theologians? Theology is based on ancient unverifiable rumors. Rumors that have clearly been invented by many ancient cultures many times over (i.e. Jesus is nowhere near being the first fable of a demigod).

Theologians do not test each others work. On the contrary when they disagree they simply start a new religious sect rather than attempting to discover some actual undeniable truth. This is extremely opposite from science.

In short, there is absolutely no reason to place any faith in theologians. Most honest theologians will confess that their beliefs are based entirely on faith and their own personal subjective feelings and experiences. Theologians who refuse to confess that their knowledge is entirely subjective and faith-based shouldn't be trusted at all.

There is no reason to trust a theologian. Moreover, if you were going to trust a theologian which theologian would you place your trust in and why? There is no reason to trust any particular sect of Christianity than there is to trust any particular sect of Islam. And those are only two of the Abrahamic religions.

And once again Dianaiad, if we accept your reasoning on this all you are really saying is that it's just as reasonable to be a Scientist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, an Atheists, or anything.

According to you these are all equally reasonable and therefore there is no good reason to place your trust in any one of these over any other one.

You see, this argument that you are making truly is one that theologians make to bring science down to the level so they can claim to be on a level playing field with science. However, in doing this they inadvertently also demand that every other religious belief in the world must also be on precisely the same footing as their Christianity. Otherwise their argument breaks down.

So theologians haven't helped themselves in this argument. Moreover, to show their hypocrisy to the extreme, if they can succeed in getting anyone to buy into this argument, their very NEXT TRICK will be to try to argue why Christianity should be believed above all other religions.

How can you not see the self-defeating hypocrisy of this apologetic argument.

Please note: I am not suggesting that you are the source of this hypocrisy. You did not invent this apologetic argument. It has been made by many theologians. But it's an argument of hypocrisy if the theologian then attempts to claim that there is something "special" about Christianity.

They want to bring everything else down to their level to create a level playing field, but then after they do that, they instantly set about making argument for why Christianity should trump all other beliefs.

This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

If you want to support an argument that it's just a reasonable to believe in Christianity as it is to believe in anything else, then you must also concede that there is no reason to believe in Christianity OVER anything else.

And then all you have done is concede that Christianity is nothing but a stab in the dark that has no more promise than any other stab in the dark.

So where does that even get you?

[Clownboat]

What should we trust more? Horoscopes or the scientific method?
Please pretend that you have the same person reading your horoscope to you as you do reading from a peer reviewed article.

good question. we should trust the scientific method, and those who do are far better prepared.

Great. Now, if someone claims to be following the scientific method, I would suggest you don't trust them. This appears to be your straw man IMO. You try so hard to keep your argument about someone telling you something. That is not my argument. I am talking about the different sources and the different levels of reliability that we both seem to agree is there between said sources. It's no surprise to us as to why you want to disregard the source and why you want to focus on it being all about claims.

People need to evidence their claims before they should be credible. And claiming to follow some method or another will not suffice. They need to show their work (point to said article, explain the "hows", etc...).

Why must we ignore the fact that the scientific method is more trustworthy and if you are simply believing someone when they tell you they followed the scientific method, you are in fact not trusting the method that we are arguing is so well established.

People cannot always be trusted, thus why when I read something that has passed peer review, or something that I know has passed peer review (like the earth's shape), I can take said claim more seriously due to the trust I have established with the scientific method.

However, the two men I'm talking about here?

You know, the one who trusted the information from the guy who read his horoscope,

And the one who trusted the guy who said his information came from the 'scientific method?"

No difference at all.

Yup, because this is all empty claims being made in your scenario. Unlike what I am trying to describe.

Because neither one of them was using the scientific method. They were both simply trusting the person who told them something.

Ding ding ding. Can we admit that empty claims are just that now? Show your work, religious or scientific if you want to be trusted.

Again, please do not argue about how much more trustworthy one source is than the other.

What! That is my argument. Doesn't seem fair if we can dictate to people that they cannot use their arguments now does it. What can I say, I don't have the trust in un-evidenced claims like some others seem to.

What can I say to that? You'd be correct; like you, I'd be more likely to believe the guy who said he measured stuff than the guy who cast the horoscope, but the point is, if I don't do the measuring MYSELF, I'm basing my actions upon trust in the source, NOT the 'scientific method."

If the scientific method is not the source, you are arguing a straw man from my point of view.

What's the difference between the guy who can't swim and the guy who can, but won't? No difference at all; neither one of them get in the water.

Only if you disregard the fact that one guy can swim and the other can't.

What's the difference between the guy who crosses the river because he trusts the horoscope caster, and the guy who trusts the one who claimed to have measured it, but doesn't measure it for himself? None.

Phew, good thing that is not our argument.
Claims about a source should not be taken very seriously. I know this because the Holy Spirit told me.

It does not matter whether they were correct to do so.
It doesn't matter how trustWORTHY their sources were.

I disagree. I find it more trust worthy to believe the claims if being read from a peer reviewed article than I would if the claim came from the Qu'ran for example. Like it or not, the source is what counts.

Of course it does. I agree. The scientific method is the way to best examine and understand the natural world.

If you observe someone arriving at an answer after reading from a peer reviewed source, would you find that more credible than if they were reading and arriving at an answer based off of the Qu'ran (again for example)?
I think we both agree what source is more credible and I hope you understand that if a person is merely claiming to be reading from a source, that is not the same thing as actually reading from a source. People can be lairs after all. What we need is a method that has a mechanism built in that will root out the falsehoods.

But most of the people who believe the things science comes up with are....and perhaps this time I can say what I mean more clearly...not using the scientific method. The sources they trust may be, but they are not.

I they know the source is using the scientific method or they are reading something that has passed peer review, what difference does it make? To trust a "claim to be following" a certain method is not the same thing as trusting the method itself. You want us to argue for the first, when in reality we are arguing to do the later.

THEY are using the 'I trust the information you are giving me because I trust you." method.

I would not advocate what you suggest here. A little skepticism is healthy IMO.

if they don't engage in the experimentation and observation required to confirm a scientific observation, then they are basing their beliefs upon trust in their sources.

we should trust the scientific method, and those who do are far better prepared.

Wait... Do trust the source, or don't trust the source? At least we got off talking about un-evidenced claims. That's a start.

For some odd reason, this statement is being taken as an attack upon the scientific method.

Nope, I call the scientific method here the source, you want the source to be someone telling someone something.

what ARE peer reviewed journals?

They are a check and balance system designed to find mistakes or to confirm the truth of a hypothesis. Do you think they are just one person trusting another or something?

They are methods of ensuring that the sources one trusts are actually worth trusting. An assurance that putting your trust in the information provided is not a mistake...but ultimately, unless you yourself are willing to repeat the experiments and studies, it's still you trusting your source, not you using the scientific method.

You simply are trusting that your source did.

You don't have to repeat the experiment yourself, but I would suggest checking for peer review and not simply relying on a person to be the source. After all, they might be lying about their source. Again, skepticism and all that.

It's still trust.

Didn't we establish that the scientific method is one of the most trust worthy sources already? Not someone claiming to follow it, really following it.

The only people using the scientific method, in science, are the scientists doing the experimentation/observation/reporting. Those who read and accept their information without confirming it with their OWN experiments and observations are not. They simply trust.

Dianaiad, don't do that. If you're not willing to do the tests yourself, like most, at least verify the source of the claim. As in:
- Is this source peer reviewed?
- Does the source follow a trusted method or is it a trusted method in itself?
- Is this source just the claim of a person?