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]

Again, I agree with you.

The OP I had in mind is figuring out what elements of Christian theologyare based on faith and which upon personal verification.

Fact is i have never done an experiment to prove the world is round. I have taken it on fait , as you point out. If I were going to sail around the world I would do the experiment first. I might nothhave before this thread. Its pointed out to me the importance of verification and how prevalent the appeal to authority fallacy is in a lot of debates.

But you point out that verifying the world is round is easy. So if I were to sail around the world without first verifying that I would be behaving unreasonably.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate what faith is, I accept your definition. The purpose is to explore what we have faith in, and then possibly to debate whether or notthat faith is reasonable.

[dianaiad]

Now me, I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.

And I am really tired of critics telling people that if they believe in God because someone they trust told them He exists, they are stupid, ignorant, and a whole bunch of other insulting and demeaning terms, when they turn around and claim superiority in thought, intellect and reason if they believe something 'scientific' when a person they trust tells them so.

The next atheist who tells me that I'm a nutcase because I believe someone I trust about a religious thing, and then turns around and brags about how HIS belief is based on the 'scientific method' when he himself hasn't done thing one to confirm the information he has is going to get an earful.

Or an eyeful.

Whichever.

Because if you don't confirm the information for yourself, 'scientific' or religious, your reason for believing is EXACTLY the same thing' you trust the guy what told you.

And yes, it is important for those who hold to science to understand this; if you don't confirm this information yourself, you are behaving exactly like the religious you so despise.

And the religious see that, and wonder at the hypocrisy.

It's not that we theists think that trusting others is a bad thing; it's not. It's that the science only types DO think that it's a bad thing, and are pretending that they don't do it even as they criticize those who do.

I DO do my best to confirm what scientists claim. This consists primarily of understanding what is being said and analyzing it for reasonableness, internal consistency and explanatory power for the world I see. And I do these things in depth, inventing ‘lectures’ for an imaginary audience and answering questions that ‘they’ ask. (OCD can be quite useful. Or at least fun. ) Sometimes I am able to directly confirm claims. The night sky is a great laboratory. If what I have been told about the solar system were substantially wrong I would notice! I have measured the speed of light with marshmallows in a microwave within 4% of the book value. I have seen orbiting satellites exactly where they ought to be.

Everything I see about the world is in line with the explanations I have been taught and/or read. And all scientists agree in detail about these explanations. Beyond that point I see explanations that vary in completeness and reasonableness from very good to rather speculative. But until you get to the most abstruse (e.g., follow-ons to quantum theory, itself extraordinarily successful) there is still strong agreement on the essentials and even good agreement on most of the fine details. And above all, scientific knowledge is ultimately based on confirmation. Recently the Large Hadron Collider confirmed the existence of the predicted Higgs Boson, completing the Standard Model. But the LHC also failed to find the predicted particles to support the most popular forms of supersymmetry theory even though they should have appeared. Scientific theories stand or fall on evidence.

You are correct in saying that many people have only faith in science. But it is not a bind faith. They see and use technologies every day that came out of scientific investigations. They have good reason to believe scientists. Do religious people have good reason to believe what they are told? My own investigations into the Bible led me to my current state of mind. Oh, not any nonsense about ‘contradictions’. Who cares, really? I am talking about reading the Bible with a genuinely open mind and finding that the story it tells is rather different from what I had been told. Not at all what I expected to find. How many religious people really delve into their religion? Have you given the religious blind faith crowd ‘an earful’?

Yes, actually, I have.

And thank you. You are not the sort of 'science believer' I'm talking about. You are the sort of believer in science that I wish believers in God were.

but yes, I do give theists who do not test things an 'earful.' You would not BELIEVE how many theists simply take what they are told and 'don't worry about it."

They should at least, if all the stuff they read is about God, ASK Him...and I will always remember the televangelist who held up the bible and said "if Jesus HIMSELF came down and told me that the bible wasn't true, I'd turn my back on Him and hold to the bible!" (shudder).

People like him....and people who are NOT like you (the kid who never does the 'rolled paper' test for 'is the earth round?" but believes it anyway and sees no need to confirm that for himself) are alike.

Just alike.

Except that the televangelist is probably richer.

You don't see me do that so much in here, though, because 'giving them an earful' is a bit close to the 'preaching' and proselytizing' line.



http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... #670427You are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as you do not hurt anybody. (And I do not mean silliness like ‘brainwashing’.) One would have a hard time proving that democracy is a good thing without some non-evidential assumptions. Yet I continue to believe in democracy. Why? Because I want to. But claiming that belief in scientific matters is no different than belief in religious matters is simply not the case. Believers in science have reason to believe. It hits them in the face every day in the form of technology. Believers in religion have rather less to go on.

My $.02 anyway.[/quote]

Do they?

Yes, people use technology all the time...but if someone had told them from the get-go that all of it worked by 'magic,' how many people would believe it?

More than is comfortable for all of us, I'm afraid.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Again, I agree with you.

The OP I had in mind is figuring out what elements of Christian theologyare based on faith and which upon personal verification.

Fact is i have never done an experiment to prove the world is round. I have taken it on fait , as you point out. If I were going to sail around the world I would do the experiment first. I might nothhave before this thread. Its pointed out to me the importance of verification and how prevalent the appeal to authority fallacy is in a lot of debates.

But you point out that verifying the world is round is easy. So if I were to sail around the world without first verifying that I would be behaving unreasonably.

Oh, I dunno....I'd say that circumnavigating the planet is one way to confirm that it is round, myself. A little more time consuming and expensive than the rolled paper thing, but it would work.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate what faith is, I accept your definition. The purpose is to explore what we have faith in, and then possibly to debate whether or notthat faith is reasonable.

Ah, if you are talking about whether something is reasonable? Well, now you are getting into the realm of opinion. My 'reasonable' may not come close to yours.

The problem is, the question in the OP was 'What....is taken by faith alone?"

It's begging the question, actually, because NOTHING is taken by faith alone, since faith and trust are synonymous; and we must have trust IN something, and faith IN something.

I submit that the slimmest evidence possible is 'trusting your source" and not verifying either the information or the trustworthiness of that source. I was pointing out that we all do it, and when we do it for a bit of 'scientific' fact, or a religious principle, it's the same thing.

So...well,,,,'faith alone?" nope. Ain't no such animal. Trust in something that isn't all that trustworthy? Now that happens all the time...and not just in religion.

The abused wife trusts that this time he means it when he says he's sorry and won't ever do it again.

The mother trusts her son when he says he's really off drugs.

The lottery player trusts that THIS time he'll win.

The scientist, after 1000 tries, trusts that THIS time he'll succeed.

...........and though most of the time they are wrong, sometimes they are right.

Does the accuracy of the information make the trust any different, or based on something different?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 58 by dianaiad]

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..."

I can't agree with that. Scientists don't 'hope' they're right in the manner in which you refer as a general rule. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. With evidence/data, there's little need for hope.

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.

I don't recall seeing anyone saying that a person who trust a SME is using the scientific method...

They are simply believing in it. Big difference.

Their beliefes are typically based on the work of others who DID use the scientific method. Whereas the belief in religious leaders are NOT based on those who used the scientific method.
No one is saying the scientific method is perfect or delivers all the answers. It's simply a method to get answer based on data, test and peer review. That's not the case with religion. Science is a system of fact, religion is a system of beliefs. That's about as simple as it can be made.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 58 by dianaiad]

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..."

I can't agree with that. Scientists don't 'hope' they're right in the manner in which you refer as a general rule. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. With evidence/data, there's little need for hope.

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.

I don't recall seeing anyone saying that a person who trust a SME is using the scientific method...

They are simply believing in it. Big difference.

Their beliefes are typically based on the work of others who DID use the scientific method.

And how do the believers know that? Because they said so?

Whereas the belief in religious leaders are NOT based on those who used the scientific method.

Of course not. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. The problems happen when either one thinks that their method works in the other field.

No one is saying the scientific method is perfect or delivers all the answers. It's simply a method to get answer based on data, test and peer review.

OK, I agree, but in case you haven't been paying attention, I'm not against the scientific method. I'm all for it. I wish all who believed everything they are told about anything remotely scientific would actually use it. That's not the point.

That's not the case with religion. Science is a system of fact, religion is a system of beliefs. That's about as simple as it can be made.

And simply wrong. Science is not a 'system of facts.' It is a system of determining physical facts through systematic, logical and objective examination. Facts are facts. Science is the way one examines them.

Religion is about subjective things that cannot be observed 'scientifically.' The scientific method won't work with religious Truth. Perhaps someday, a very long time down the road when science can encompass a bit more, it might, but right now?

No.

The difference between us is that I don't think that's a bad thing. Use the measuring cup to measure flour for the recipe...use science to examine the physical properties of the world. Us an anemometer to measure wind speed; use subjective means to examine religion. Use the proper instrument/method for the proper field.

Your problem is that you want to use an anemometer to figure out how much flour to put in your bread. THAT'S what trying to use the scientific method with religion is like.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 75 by dianaiad]

And how do the believers know that? Because they said so?

Reasons the religious belief:
because they were told so
because they read so
beacause they want to believe
due to a personal interpretation
Reasons people believe in science:
experts in the field have tested and verified XYZ
because people can do many of the experiements themselves
because they can see how things work

Of course not. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. The problems happen when either one thinks that their method works in the other field.

Agreed. Which is why it's easier to be 'religious' than 'scientific'

I agree, but in case you haven't been paying attention, I'm not against the scientific method.

My sentence you quoted didn't make that claim.

Science is not a 'system of facts.' It is a system of determining physical facts through systematic, logical and objective examination.

Correct - I left out a couple words in error

Facts are facts.

Are facts facts if we dont' know them?

Religion is about subjective things that cannot be observed 'scientifically.'

Yes and no. Science can, has and will continue to erase religious 'claims'. Now rather or not those 'things' (thunder, plagues, etc) should be attributed to religion is another question

The difference between us is that I don't think that's a bad thing.

So long as the religious keep their religion to themselves (meaning, not visiting it on other without being asked) and doesn't hinder scientific progress, no it's not a bad thing IMO.
Unfortunately, religious people tend to do just that. And that's a problem.
To the religious I say: "Keep your faith to yourself unless asked. Live your lives with your faith. Don't force your faith onto others for many reasons, but the main reason is forced faith does not benefit you or your faith."
To the non-religious I say: "Keep your secular ways out of the lives of the religious if you're not asked about them. Let the religious people live their lives as they see fit so long as that life doesn't impact your lives without your permisson."

Your problem is that you want to use an anemometer to figure out how much flour to put in your bread.

I will understand here the 'your' isn't referring TO me but ABOUT the topic, less you're breaking a forum rule and should be reported, yes?

[Clownboat]

My argument isn't that the reasons for faith in God and faith in science are the same. My argument is that faith in science doesn't become 'not faith' because you like the reasons, and faith in religion doesn't become 'based on faith alone' because you DONT like the reasons.

They are both faith.

The reasons are a different topic. Some reasons are a lot better than others.

The problem is that your argument is then meaningless. What would be the point to this argument?

The issue of which reasons are better would then be the more meaningful discussion, and once we go their science wins by a landslide. Even in spite of your example of climate change and supposedly falsified data. A few fraudulent individual scientists who haven't been properly peer-reviewed do not topple the trustworthiness of the larger scientific community.

Moreover, if you're going to discredit science due to possible fraudulent individuals, then the same would need to be done for theology, and I'm quite sure you'd have a whole lot of weirdos teachings different things there.

In fact there is not single "theological community". Even the theologians are highly divided. The Abrahamic religions are divided into Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Islam and Christianity are then each subdivided into a myriad of disagreeing cults.

But the time they are all done disagreeing with each other it's hard to even point to a single body that amounts to anything significant. Catholicism and the Vatican with it's Papal authority is probably the single largest theological sect of the Abrahamic religions, and even it has internal disagreements.

So it's not even rational to even compare something like the scientific community with all these rebel and protesting theologians.

OK, imagine this (it's not difficult to imagine it; happens all the time right here on this forum)

Atheist (or other non-believer):

Theists (usually Christians) go on 'faith alone:' They have no reason to trust, so their trust is based upon nothing at all; believing something because someone told you so? Rubbish! (or words to that effect.)

While WE, who believe in science, have 'real' trust because of the scientific method and because we like what the people we believe have to say. It's not really faith, because it's belief supported by "Real" evidence.

Therefore what we have is not faith or trust, it's something else. What you have (aimed at the theist) is ludicrous, since believing something simply because they 'said so' is pretty stupid.

Now me, I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.

And I am really tired of critics telling people that if they believe in God because someone they trust told them He exists, they are stupid, ignorant, and a whole bunch of other insulting and demeaning terms, when they turn around and claim superiority in thought, intellect and reason if they believe something 'scientific' when a person they trust tells them so.

The next atheist who tells me that I'm a nutcase because I believe someone I trust about a religious thing, and then turns around and brags about how HIS belief is based on the 'scientific method' when he himself hasn't done thing one to confirm the information he has is going to get an earful.

Or an eyeful.

Whichever.

Because if you don't confirm the information for yourself, 'scientific' or religious, your reason for believing is EXACTLY the same thing' you trust the guy what told you.

And yes, it is important for those who hold to science to understand this; if you don't confirm this information yourself, you are behaving exactly like the religious you so despise.

And the religious see that, and wonder at the hypocrisy.

It's not that we theists think that trusting others is a bad thing; it's not. It's that the science only types DO think that it's a bad thing, and are pretending that they don't do it even as they criticize those who do.

What makes more sense here? Believing a person that provides information from a peer reviewed source (that you take the time to verify), or believing things from a source that also claims animals can talk, that the earth once flooded, that there is a being that cares about how you have sex and is willing to send you to hell (this varies from version to version) if you are not OK with a specific instance of human sacrifice?

The OP:
So what elements of Christianity are taken on faith alone?

Animals talking (not a dog saying "hamburger") and the earth flooding, etc..., there just isn't any evidence and the source has not been shown to be credible. Therefore it must be believed on faith. It matters not who is telling you these claims.

Science is evidence based. If you want to be diligent, it will require work to check results for yourself, but claims coming from a book that has talking animals and claims coming from a peer reviewed source in no way require remotely the same kind of "faith" to be believed.

You seem to get uptight when people lump all the different versions of Christianity together, yet you seem to be doing just that by acting like no one verifies the source of the information they have been given. Perhaps you are a trusting person, but the ability to trust seems to vary from person to person.

IMO, it's the source that matters. Talk is cheap and people lie, therefore you should verify the source of your info (if it's a claim you care about).

[ThatGirlAgain]

To save eyesight I cut the post down to the latest stuff.

Yes, actually, I have. [given the religious blind faith crowd ‘an earful’]

And thank you. You are not the sort of 'science believer' I'm talking about. You are the sort of believer in science that I wish believers in God were.

but yes, I do give theists who do not test things an 'earful.' You would not BELIEVE how many theists simply take what they are told and 'don't worry about it."

They should at least, if all the stuff they read is about God, ASK Him...and I will always remember the televangelist who held up the bible and said "if Jesus HIMSELF came down and told me that the bible wasn't true, I'd turn my back on Him and hold to the bible!" (shudder).

People like him....and people who are NOT like you (the kid who never does the 'rolled paper' test for 'is the earth round?" but believes it anyway and sees no need to confirm that for himself) are alike.

Just alike.

Except that the televangelist is probably richer.

You don't see me do that so much in here, though, because 'giving them an earful' is a bit close to the 'preaching' and proselytizing' line.

How would you expect a believer to research religious/theological matters? If one is already a believer, asking God might work as you allude to, although literal definite undeniable answers seem to be in short supply. Is the absence of such an answer evidence of anything?

Concerning that televangelist, he is going even further than Luther who said that “God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.� (Book of Concord) Luther was echoing Paul of course.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

But claiming that belief in scientific matters is no different than belief in religious matters is simply not the case. Believers in science have reason to believe. It hits them in the face every day in the form of technology. Believers in religion have rather less to go on.

Do they?

Yes, people use technology all the time...but if someone had told them from the get-go that all of it worked by 'magic,' how many people would believe it?

More than is comfortable for all of us, I'm afraid.

People hear about scientists and their ongoing work, their successes and failures, their discoveries and backtracking, all the time. They do not need to understand any science to grasp that point. They know that science is the work of humans trying to gain knowledge of physical reality, not magic. Science progresses by fits and starts and restarts. Science changes as we discover more. Magic would work by the intercession of supernatural entities and would not change. People would be likely to believe in magic if science were hidden from them…and come to think of it many do.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 75 by dianaiad]

And how do the believers know that? Because they said so?

Reasons the religious belief:
because they were told so
because they read so
beacause they want to believe
due to a personal interpretation
Reasons people believe in science:
experts in the field have tested and verified XYZ

They have, as a general rule...but the guy who believes them knows this, how, exactly?

because people can do many of the experiements themselves

yes. They can...but those who can, who simply take the word of the guy that told them.

because they can see how things work

If they do the work themselves, yes. Most don't.

Of course not. Religion is not science. Science is not religion. The problems happen when either one thinks that their method works in the other field.

Agreed. Which is why it's easier to be 'religious' than 'scientific'

I really hate to tell you this, but being religious is considerably harder than being scientific. After all, after you figure out a truth 'religiously,' then you have to do something about it.

With science? Not so much. Consider what the scientific method is used for: no ethical or moral considerations involved there...it simply establishes facts; doesn't tell anybody what to DO about them.

I agree, but in case you haven't been paying attention, I'm not against the scientific method.

My sentence you quoted didn't make that claim.

No, THAT sentence did not. I was simply making a statement of my own.

Science is not a 'system of facts.' It is a system of determining physical facts through systematic, logical and objective examination.

Correct - I left out a couple words in error

Facts are facts.

Are facts facts if we dont' know them?
[/quote]

Why, yes, amof. God is, or God is not, no matter what either you or I think. The rock in my yard either is, or is not, granite, no matter what either one of us think, and whether you have seen it or care about it.

Really. Being shocked by that won't change anything.

Religion is about subjective things that cannot be observed 'scientifically.'

Yes and no. Science can, has and will continue to erase religious 'claims'. Now rather or not those 'things' (thunder, plagues, etc) should be attributed to religion is another question

The difference between us is that I don't think that's a bad thing.

So long as the religious keep their religion to themselves (meaning, not visiting it on other without being asked) and doesn't hinder scientific progress, no it's not a bad thing IMO.
Unfortunately, religious people tend to do just that. And that's a problem.
To the religious I say: "Keep your faith to yourself unless asked. Live your lives with your faith. Don't force your faith onto others for many reasons, but the main reason is forced faith does not benefit you or your faith."

Define 'forced.' Do you meant that people shouldn't force others to participate in religious rituals to which they object? OK. Do you mean that people should not discriminate against others in areas that do not involve religion because of their religion?

OK.

However, if by 'force' you mean "my non-belief trumps your belief anywhere within my eyesight or earshot, so if I can see you, you have to put your religion away and do it my way' I have a problem with that.

To the non-religious I say: "Keep your secular ways out of the lives of the religious if you're not asked about them. Let the religious people live their lives as they see fit so long as that life doesn't impact your lives without your permisson."

Your problem is that you want to use an anemometer to figure out how much flour to put in your bread.

I will understand here the 'your' isn't referring TO me but ABOUT the topic, less you're breaking a forum rule and should be reported, yes?

I wish English had a plural 'you.' Since it does not, It would behoove you...and be far more accurate an assumption...to figure that unless I am making it EXTREMELY clear that I am referring to you, connermt, specifically, that I am indeed using the general 'you.'

[connermt]

[Replying to post 79 by dianaiad]
[
quote]the guy who believes them knows this, how, exactly?[/quote] Via the brain

...those who can, who simply take the word of the guy that told them.

A problem religion faces that can't be silenced or changed

If they do the work themselves, yes. Most don't.

Which is why christianity is filled with lazy people

...but being religious is considerably harder than being scientific.

No, no it's not because religion is based on HOPE which anyone with a brain is capable of. Religion is seriously easy to accept IF you want to accept it. Anyone can believe anything they want.
Christianity is one (if not the) easiest religion to believe in: nothing tactile, an ever changing belief system, leaders who can't be trusted, text that can be doubted, an ever easy forgiveness concept....It's only as 'difficult' as one makes it.

I was simply making a statement of my own.

Then you MUST state it that way

Being shocked by that won't change anything.

Who said anyone's shocked?

Define 'forced.'

Demanding through legal, economic or social means to accept one's religion as truth and/or worship it as such.

..unless I am making it EXTREMELY clear that I am referring to you, connermt, specifically, that I am indeed using the general 'you.'

Then we are in agreement you have much to work on in regards to your communication here.