Faith question for Christians

[higgy1911]

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

For instance YEC Christians claim scientific evidence for the flood. I have seen many posters argue that there is scientific and historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Christ.


So what elements of CChristianity are taken on faith alone?

[dianaiad]

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?

Nobody believes anything just because they up and decide 'today I'm going to believe that fricklefraks obverate petenias.

There is ALWAYS a reason. That reason may not be enough for anybody else to believe it, but there is always a reason. There is no such thing as 'faith alone,' even if 'faith' really did mean 'belief without any foundation whatsoever,' as so many here seem to believe.

Here is what people use as foundations, almost always: people they trust tell them. Mom does. Dad does. Their teachers do.

For crying out loud, children are taught on this principle of 'someone I trust tells me so" from the beginning, and the vast majority of us continue to believe things because 'someone they trust told them so,' even when those things are considered to be scientific facts, verifiable through experiments.

The thing is, most of us don't actually do those experiments ourselves. We trust those who have...or who have told us they have.

For instance, it is considered pretty standard; accepted...that the earth is round. You believe it. I do. Pretty much everybody does.

How many of us have done the observational experiments ourselves to confirm that? It's a pretty easy thing to do, after all, especially if we happen to live by the sea, or on the great plains. It's a little harder more complicated if you live in the mountains, but not by much.

But we accept the word of all those folks who tell us that the earth is a globe spinning through space, around the sun.

By the same token, theists first take the word of those they trust for religious truth. JUST like children take the word of their math teacher that the times tables actually are useful. (I never swallowed that one, myself.)

The difference that I can see is pretty simple: in religion one can rest on the testimony of those one trusts, or one can ask the relevant deity for confirmation of religious truth, and accept one's experiences as a good basis for belief. Please note: neither one of the above things are 'faith alone.' There is a REASON.

A student learning math or science or whatever FIRST learns about science through listening to teachers; taking the word of someone he trusts. Unless this student does each and every single verifying test to confirm scientific truth for himself, he will continue to base the majority of his knowledge upon the word of people he trusts.

Yes, I suppose he CAN do all those experiments himself...but most of the time he won't. If this student is a scientist, he'll confine himself to the experiments in the area of his personal interest. A vulcanologist isn't going to worry about the classification of the platypus and worry about the evolutionary cul de sac it finds itself in. If that information becomes important, he'll ask an expert in that field and trust the information he gets, because he trusts the person giving it to him.

Long winded, I know. The point is this:

Nobody believes anything, scientific, religious or philosophical, 'just because.' There is always a reason for it. Always. This does not mean that this reason is acceptable to others. It simply means that there is one.

And it begins, EVERY time, no matter what field of human investigation there is, with the word of someone you trust. What you do with it after that varies according to what you are looking at, but it always begins there.

Don't believe me?

Come up with a field...any field, and I'll show you.

[Divine Insight]

The thing is, most of us don't actually do those experiments ourselves. We trust those who have...or who have told us they have.

For instance, it is considered pretty standard; accepted...that the earth is round. You believe it. I do. Pretty much everybody does.

How many of us have done the observational experiments ourselves to confirm that? It's a pretty easy thing to do, after all, especially if we happen to live by the sea, or on the great plains. It's a little harder more complicated if you live in the mountains, but not by much.

But we accept the word of all those folks who tell us that the earth is a globe spinning through space, around the sun.

This is a really bad example Dianaiad.

To begin with if a person is even remotely educated in the very basic principles of physics (even on a high-school level) it actually makes perfect sense that the world would be a sphere.

Far more importantly, why would there be any reason to doubt it? What other shape would make any sense? It's a very reasonable reasonable thing that makes perfect sense. And this is actually true of many things that are scientifically known.

So how is that a fair comparison with being asked to believe in something like the Bible. Things that truly do not make sense. Also when asking, "Could it be some other way?", the question is clearly yes. Religious people are even aware that there are many other religions and philosophical beliefs about reality. Pure secular materialism is certainly one of these.

In short, there is no good reason to just believe one particular thing. At best all humans should be agnostic.

Your argument is basically to claim that it's just as reasonable to believe in religions as it is to believe in scientific knowledge. But that is clearly a false claim.

You don't even need to believe in science at all. Just go to the store and look at all the technological marvels you can choose from. Science is proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. You don't need to take anyone's word for it, you can see the results for yourself daily.

It in no way compares with believing in Santa Claus and flying reindeer.

But that is actually a very good analogy for belief in religions. Believing in a religion is precisely the same as believing in Santa Claus. And we even have Santa Claus as a prime example of how humans can make up elaborate fairytales like this.

~~~~

Finally, save for a few dishonest preachers, no reputable theologian or decent clergy would ever tell anyone that they know that the Bible is true or that there is a God. If they are truly honest they will confess that even they believe it as a matter of pure faith. So we don't even have anyone telling us that they actually know there is a God. At least no honest people are telling us this.

Sadly it is true that there are religious fanatics who are more than willing to lie like hell and claim that they know Jesus is real. But that's a whole other story.

[dianaiad]

The thing is, most of us don't actually do those experiments ourselves. We trust those who have...or who have told us they have.

For instance, it is considered pretty standard; accepted...that the earth is round. You believe it. I do. Pretty much everybody does.

How many of us have done the observational experiments ourselves to confirm that? It's a pretty easy thing to do, after all, especially if we happen to live by the sea, or on the great plains. It's a little harder more complicated if you live in the mountains, but not by much.

But we accept the word of all those folks who tell us that the earth is a globe spinning through space, around the sun.

This is a really bad example Dianaiad.

To begin with if a person is even remotely educated in the very basic principles of physics (even on a high-school level) it actually makes perfect sense that the world would be a sphere.

And yet, children are taught that the world is round a whole lot earlier than high school....and don't look now, but not everybody takes physics in high school. I took geometry, but it was a struggle and I sure don't remember the teacher working on stuff like proving the world is round with it.

In fact, 'the earth is round' is pretty much an accepted premise for school kids, not a 'thing to be proven."

How many, do you suppose, simply 'take it for granted,' and think it makes sense because one is told that it makes sense? that it happens to be true doesn't make their first introduction and acceptance of the idea any different; they believe the world is round because people they trust told them so. They CAN go on to do their own observations. Most don't.

No, I think this is a great example.

I actually HAVE done the observational experiment that illustrates the roundness of the earth, but I didn't do it until I was, what, forty or so? I didn't really think I had to; 'the world is round' is one of those things that 'everybody knows' without having to go out and prove it to themselves.

Far more importantly, why would there be any reason to doubt it?

(snerk) Now THAT'S faith. Why does there have to be 'another shape?' Round, not round...establish 'not round' and then worry about another shape. The point is, nobody DOES doubt that the world is round. Everybody says so. Everybody is RIGHT about it, of course, but that doesn't mean that the reason most people believe it isn't because they were told so.

Which is rather the point.

What other shape would make any sense? It's a very reasonable reasonable thing that makes perfect sense. And this is actually true of many things that are scientifically known.

So how is that a fair comparison with being asked to believe in something like the Bible. Things that truly do not make sense.

They don't make sense to you. You don't trust the folks who tell you. They do make sense to those who do trust them.

Just like you trusted your grade school teacher when she told you that dinosaurs lived a very long time ago, were cold blooded animals and lived for a very long time upon the planet. I rather doubt that, as a grade schooler, you did a whole lot of climbing in the Utah badlands looking at fossils and figuring out how to do carbon dating. You trusted the word of those who did.

Also when asking, "Could it be some other way?", the question is clearly yes. Religious people are even aware that there are many other religions and philosophical beliefs about reality. Pure secular materialism is certainly one of these.

In short, there is no good reason to just believe one particular thing. At best all humans should be agnostic.

Your argument is basically to claim that it's just as reasonable to believe in religions as it is to believe in scientific knowledge. But that is clearly a false claim.

No, I made no claims as to how reasonable this may be. I am simply pointing out that it is illogical to criticize, or characterize, those who believe in religious things as illogical when people believe in scientific things for the same reason.

They take the word of people they trust. It doesn't matter if the thing they believe is true, reasonable, untrue, fantastical or scientifically valid and verifiable; if the person doing the believing doesn't actually DO the experiment that verifies that knowledge, he's using exactly the same method of gathering knowledge as does the theist: believing people he trusts when they tell him something.

It's a vital part of human knowledge gathering, DI. I am not, here, disparaging science; without using the information we get from people we trust, we'd be challenging the chimpanzees for tree space. We DEPEND on it.

What I'm saying here is that by dismissing this method of knowledge gathering simply and only because you don't like the field in which such knowledge is gathered is denying that vital method of information gathering in science.

The word of people we trust.

We believe because those we trust tell us that it is true....and religion or not, science or not, this his how we all, personally, learn. We may go on and personally verify some of that information for ourselves, but mostly? We don't.

......and frankly, I predict that theists are more likely to try to do that than non-theists are.

After all...most theists do pray for guidance, and most of us figure that we'll get some.

Just how many people, I mean, really....how many people have done the experiment that proves to them that the earth is round?

I have.
Have you?

You don't even need to believe in science at all. Just go to the store and look at all the technological marvels you can choose from. Science is proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. You don't need to take anyone's word for it, you can see the results for yourself daily.

I'm not making any claim that 'science' is not true. I'm claiming that MOST of us haven't learned what we know through personally investigating and experimenting. It's impossible. Yes, there are technological wonders out there. We all use them. Goodie...

But have you taken your cell phone apart and figured out how it all works? Gone to and climbed all the local cell towers and done the experiments to see how the signal works? Examined the satellites?

Have you done all the experiments, personally, that teach you how a car works, in all it's mechanical glory...especially the new ones with all the bells and whistles, from aerodynamics to emissions?

No?

Then you understand them because someone you trust told you.

This isn't about facts. It's not about the scientific method. It's about each one of us, personally, and how we, individually, know what we know and believe what we believe, personally.

It in no way compares with believing in Santa Claus and flying reindeer.

But that is actually a very good analogy for belief in religions. Believing in a religion is precisely the same as believing in Santa Claus.

Only because you don't believe in a deity. For those who do, that's a pretty lousy analogy: right up there with comparing believing that the aurora borealis is caused by solar disturbances with believing that infections are caused by 'ill humours.' Your opinion of the evidence doesn't alter the reason people believe; they trust the folks who told 'em so.

And we even have Santa Claus as a prime example of how humans can make up elaborate fairytales like this.

~~~~

Finally, save for a few dishonest preachers, no reputable theologian or decent clergy would ever tell anyone that they know that the Bible is true or that there is a God.

No?

Well, if your definition of 'reputable theologian' or 'decent clergy' is 'someone who would never tell anyone that they know that the Bible is true or that there is a God,' you might be right.

If they are truly honest they will confess that even they believe it as a matter of pure faith.

The problem here is, your definition of 'honest' seems to be 'they agree with me."

So we don't even have anyone telling us that they actually know there is a God. At least no honest people are telling us this.

Sadly it is true that there are religious fanatics who are more than willing to lie like hell and claim that they know Jesus is real. But that's a whole other story.

That is, however, about as pure and sneaky an ad hominem as I've seen; if one claims to know that the bible is true or that Jesus is real, they are dishonest?

Goodness.

[Divine Insight]

That is, however, about as pure and sneaky an ad hominem as I've seen; if one claims to know that the bible is true or that Jesus is real, they are dishonest?

Goodness.

Yes, absolutely. They are being dishonest with themselves if they have convinced themselves that they know Jesus is real.

They may perceive themselves to highly honest people and not think of themselves as telling "lies". In a sense they aren't telling "lies" insofar as they know because they have basically already convinced themselves of their own lies.

Unless you have actually had a clear and unambiguous encounter with a magical divine entity named Jesus, then you are kidding yourself to claim that you know he exists. And therefore to tell other people that you know he exists is equally dishonest.

[higgy1911]

I believe the world is round because of the pictures. I believe pictures because I can take pictures myself. I don't doubt that the world being round could be faked or a trick and I don't believe in a round world the way Christians believe in Jesus. I think its probably round. Is that the most Christians say about Jesus?

Philosophically I'm tending towards nihilism. I don't think this is in anyway based on trust in anything I've ever been told. Does that answer your challenge?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by higgy1911]

There is no such thing as faith alone. There is evidence that is weighed and acted upon. That process is called faith. All our beliefs are based on faith.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by higgy1911]

There is no such thing as faith alone. There is evidence that is weighed and acted upon. That process is called faith. All our beliefs are based on faith.

Can you provide the objective evidence that shows that the supernatural claims in the bible are correct? If you can't , then the faith you have is not the same as the faith of a lot of beliefs that can tested.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 2 by dianaiad]

Nobody believes anything just because they up and decide 'today I'm going to believe that fricklefraks obverate petenias.

Perhaps not in that exact manner, but one can convince themselves of anything they want to believe. For some, it eventually becomes true to them.

There is ALWAYS a reason.

Including 'just because': just because it feels good, just because I want to believe, just because they said so, etc.
From what I can see, the only things needed for a belief to exist is someone to believe IN IT and the IT in which belief is placed.

[connermt]

That is, however, about as pure and sneaky an ad hominem as I've seen; if one claims to know that the bible is true or that Jesus is real, they are dishonest?

Goodness.

Yes, absolutely. They are being dishonest with themselves if they have convinced themselves that they know Jesus is real.

They may perceive themselves to highly honest people and not think of themselves as telling "lies". In a sense they aren't telling "lies" insofar as they know because they have basically already convinced themselves of their own lies.

Unless you have actually had a clear and unambiguous encounter with a magical divine entity named Jesus, then you are kidding yourself to claim that you know he exists. And therefore to tell other people that you know he exists is equally dishonest.

You touched on a very good point - the difference between beliving and knowing. While it can be argued no one 'knows' anything 100% (and has been argued here) it's very true that knowing requires a lot more data than believing.
So many times, people use 'know' instead of 'believe' when witnessing god. And that, IMO, is dishonest.