Positions of weakness

[Diagoras]

Throughout this forum, we see many oft-repeated criticisms of biblical passages from skeptics, as well as of scientific theories from theists. In some cases, the more popular and well-known arguments (e.g. the Flood on the one hand, the Theory of Evolution on the other) carry on for hundreds of pages without resolution. Those engaging in such debates are usually pretty firm in their convictions and would likely feel they argue from a position of strength.

Given the nature of science (a vast and ever-changing endeavor), it’s impossible for any one scientist to ‘know with certainty’ everything about even a fairly narrow field. He or she inevitably must live with a measure of doubt, and have ‘positions of weakness’, in which their honest answer must be “I don’t really know”.

What corresponding positions of weakness do Christians hold? In other words, where does a measure of doubt exist for them?

Not every single Christian has studied the bible sufficiently to be an expert, so there must exist Christians who are in a similar position to the scientist in their own ‘narrow field’.

Is someone declaring that they ‘have faith’ simply a more acceptable way for them to admit that doubt exists?

[bjs1]

I am confused by what you are asking.

You talk about individuals (“one scientist”) having “positions of weakness.” That is certainly true. There are many areas that I personally know very little about.

But then you ask “What corresponding positions of weakness do Christians hold?” Now you are addressing a group of about 3 billion people. While each of those individuals has positions of weakness, it would be virtually impossible to identify a position of weakness shared by all of them.

Are you seeking to discuss individual positions of weakness, or are you trying to identify what is unknown to all people regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation?

[Miles]

Throughout this forum, we see many oft-repeated criticisms of biblical passages from skeptics, as well as of scientific theories from theists. In some cases, the more popular and well-known arguments (e.g. the Flood on the one hand, the Theory of Evolution on the other) carry on for hundreds of pages without resolution. Those engaging in such debates are usually pretty firm in their convictions and would likely feel they argue from a position of strength.

Given the nature of science (a vast and ever-changing endeavor), it’s impossible for any one scientist to ‘know with certainty’ everything about even a fairly narrow field. He or she inevitably must live with a measure of doubt, and have ‘positions of weakness’, in which their honest answer must be “I don’t really know”.

What corresponding positions of weakness do Christians hold? In other words, where does a measure of doubt exist for them?

Of course, there is none. I don't believe any religion holds that its pronouncements, assertions, edicts, etc, are ever up for revision or ever subject to doubt.

Not every single Christian has studied the bible sufficiently to be an expert, so there must exist Christians who are in a similar position to the scientist in their own ‘narrow field’.

Is someone declaring that they ‘have faith’ simply a more acceptable way for them to admit that doubt exists?

Where matters of faith are concerned I believe doubt seldom, if ever, enters the mind of the typical Christian .

I think someone declaring they ‘have faith’ is, in essence, using it as an excuse for trusting a belief for which they have no evidence.

.

[1213]

...
What corresponding positions of weakness do Christians hold? In other words, where does a measure of doubt exist for them?
..

Science people say they know, Christians say they believe, I think that tells a lot about the doubt factor. Believing is not as strong as knowing.

[DavidLeon]

Having faith implies more than not knowing. In science a person will not know what the certainty may turn out to be, but in faith, the certainty is the outcome. A person of science won't say "I know it going to work out like this." A person with faith will. Faith isn't a religious concept, it's a practical fact of life. You know your spouse will be faithful, you know your money will be good, you know you can trust your friend. Faith is saying "I know you'll do the right thing."

[DavidLeon]

Of course, there is none. I don't believe any religion holds that its pronouncements, assertions, edicts, etc, are ever up for revision or ever subject to doubt.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have the term "the light gets brighter." Christians say things like "God works in mysterious ways." Both imply that they are subject to error.

Where matters of faith are concerned I believe doubt seldom, if ever, enters the mind of the typical Christian .

I personally have doubt all the time, but the doubt always comes from myself, as in a lack of faith in myself rather than a lack of faith in Jehovah or the Bible. Am I wrong on this? Am I not seeing something here? Have I been mislead by influence?

I think someone declaring they ‘have faith’ is, in essence, using it as an excuse for trusting a belief for which they have no evidence.

Having evidence means nothing. Two people, a theist and an evolutionist can look at a platypus and one can say it is evidence that God must have a sense of humor and the other that things evolve. One can look at the similarities in nature as evidence of either evolution or creation. An animal that has no supposed evolutionary connection to a plant can have similarities. All evolution does is isolate some of those similarities and then perceives them as evolution. What perplexes me the most, and I've said this many times here, is that scientific atheism will deny the existence of concepts they perceive as religious in nature when they are practical concepts outside of religiosity. Terms like sin, faith, gods, prophecy, soul, spirit. Simultaneously seeing things like evidence as exclusively secular certainty.

[DavidLeon]

...
What corresponding positions of weakness do Christians hold? In other words, where does a measure of doubt exist for them?
..

Science people say they know, Christians say they believe, I think that tells a lot about the doubt factor. Believing is not as strong as knowing.

I don't necessarily agree with that but it would depend upon the context. Evolutionists can say they know evolution is a fact and be wrong just as a believer can say they have faith that can not be deterred. Both positions are natural to human nature. They're pretty much the same. If the theory of evolution were proven false it would continue on in some fashion as useful science. If a person of faith realizes that their beliefs were pagan myth they could correct them to a more accurate knowledge according to the Bible.

I could be wrong but I think a lot of Christians don't believe in God, the Bible and Christ. They simply believe in a positive outcome of the universal good vs. evil which it seems to have come to represent.

[Tcg]

Two people, a theist and an evolutionist can look at a platypus and one can say it is evidence that God must have a sense of humor and the other that things evolve.

The flaw in this scenario is that many theists accept evolution. You could very well be describing two theists.

However, given that there is no clear point this scenario is presented to address, I'm not sure this flaw matters much.


Tcg

[DavidLeon]

Two people, a theist and an evolutionist can look at a platypus and one can say it is evidence that God must have a sense of humor and the other that things evolve.

The flaw in this scenario is that many theists accept evolution. You could very well be describing two theists.

However, given that there is no clear point this scenario is presented to address, I'm not sure this flaw matters much.

It could be two theists or two evolutionists. Evolution through creationism or creationism through evolution. What's the difference. I was describing one of each to make the point that evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Really simple if you think about it.

[Miles]

Of course, there is none. I don't believe any religion holds that its pronouncements, assertions, edicts, etc, are ever up for revision or ever subject to doubt.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have the term "the light gets brighter." Christians say things like "God works in mysterious ways." Both imply that they are subject to error.

I was unaware that JWs were open to revising their beliefes---but thinking about it, what is one going to do with all the failed JW prophesies if not revise them. However, I don't think "God works in mysterious ways" implies any need for revision or brings about any doubt.

Where matters of faith are concerned I believe doubt seldom, if ever, enters the mind of the typical Christian .

I personally have doubt all the time, but the doubt always comes from myself, as in a lack of faith in myself rather than a lack of faith in Jehovah or the Bible. Am I wrong on this? Am I not seeing something here? Have I been mislead by influence?

I'm in no position to judge.

I think someone declaring they ‘have faith’ is, in essence, using it as an excuse for trusting a belief for which they have no evidence.

Having evidence means nothing.

Sure it does. For one thing, it's the basis for understanding reality.

Two people, a theist and an evolutionist can look at a platypus and one can say it is evidence that God must have a sense of humor and the other that things evolve. One can look at the similarities in nature as evidence of either evolution or creation.

That evidence can mean different things to different people doesn't rob it of its informational aspect. What people do with it makes it worthwhile evidence or not

An animal that has no supposed evolutionary connection to a plant can have similarities.

ALL life forms have an evolutionary connection with one other. Just as an FYI, we share 50-60% of our DNA with bananas.

All evolution does is isolate some of those similarities and then perceives them as evolution. What perplexes me the most, and I've said this many times here, is that scientific atheism will deny the existence of concepts they perceive as religious in nature when they are practical concepts outside of religiosity. Terms like sin, faith, gods, prophecy, soul, spirit. Simultaneously seeing things like evidence as exclusively secular certainty.

Here's an online source to bring you up to speed on evolution EVOLUTION FOR DUMMIES part of the "For Dummies" series.


.