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?

[DavidLeon]

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.

They should follow their own advice and look at prophecies more as something to be interpreted after the fact. Interpretation of prophecy should be conjectural, speculative.

However, I don't think "God works in mysterious ways" implies any need for revision or brings about any doubt.

When given as an answer it means the person is ignorant of God's works. If ignorance isn't cause for doubt what is? Revision would involve a more careful examination.

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.

But even an unbeliever can have doubts.

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.

[Laughs] Got a pretty good bead on that do we?

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

What they do with it depends upon what they want to believe.

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.

So what? To say that we share DNA is one thing, to say we evolved from a banana is quite another. How does one equate sharing DNA with being a relative of it? How much of the human, the banana, the fruit fly and the chimp have in water content? Is it reasonable to conclude the similarity is evidence of evolution and if so, why not creation?

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.[/quote]

That's your response? Okay. Let's have a look.

Introduction: The study of evolution is not only interesting for its own sake, but it’s also a fundamental part of the biological sciences. You can’t understand (or combat) disease, can’t understand the history of species (or the world, for that matter) — can’t do a lot of things, in fact, without understanding evolution. Simply put, evolution is the key scientific principle behind every substantive thing we know about biology, the study of living things.

Evolution as interesting is subjective. The rest of this statement is hyperbole.

[Miles]

However, I don't think "God works in mysterious ways" implies any need for revision or brings about any doubt.

When given as an answer it means the person is ignorant of God's works. If ignorance isn't cause for doubt what is? Revision would involve a more careful examination.

You're confusing "works," the verb, with "works," the noun.

.

[DavidLeon]

However, I don't think "God works in mysterious ways" implies any need for revision or brings about any doubt.

When given as an answer it means the person is ignorant of God's works. If ignorance isn't cause for doubt what is? Revision would involve a more careful examination.

You're confusing "works," the verb, with "works," the noun.

.

Theology, Miles. Theology. The noun.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

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?

Thanks for checking. I’m hoping to gain insight into the former, i.e. individual positions.

Perhaps it might help to provide some examples/analogies.
Here’s a recent scientific article:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... c-outburst

This sudden dimming has mystified astronomers, who scrambled to develop several theories for the abrupt change.

Until some actual evidence was obtained (by the Hubble Telescope), any scientist involved in studying this star must have experienced a degree of doubt about their own theory about how and why Betelgeuse was dimming. Such doubts would (I imagine) be usually tempered by a confidence in physical evidence to support (or refute) their theory becoming available in the future. A ‘true’ scientist would (I hope) be happier being proved wrong, than remaining in doubt.

Compare that ‘diversity of thought and doubt’ with a discussion on the Garden of Eden between a group of theists and non-theists. The former, ranging between 'hard-core' biblical literalists to those who believe it to be largely allegorical. You could perhaps consider these views as analogous to the ‘several theories’ of the scientists in the Betelgeuse star example.

Given that ‘future physical evidence’ to support either the ‘literalists’ or the ‘allegorists’ seems unlikely to eventuate, how might either group experience doubt, and how might they deal with it effectively?

I’m interested in people’s mindsets when confronting opposing views from those who might be considered ‘on the same side’. Scientists can always hold up evidence to support a particular position, but what can theists hold up to support theirs?

Slight tangent - to DavidLeon (Post #11):

To say that we share DNA is one thing, to say we evolved from a banana is quite another.

Maybe no-one else picked up on this, but this is a very common error in understanding. We never evolved from bananas (or chimpanzees, or any other extant species). Both bananas and humans share a (very distant) common ancestor, which would likely have been nothing like either of them.

That's not relevant to the main discussion though (better dealt with in the Science forum). More interesting (to me) was the comment:

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?

Is this sort of like, "I know the bible is correct, but I can't see how it's correct, because of <xyz>"?

[OnlySkyAbove]

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

Science is not an ideology, it's a process for ascertaining falsities to help discover that which is true. You may find fault with the scientific process (eg. regarding peer review and the so called "soft sciences") but science itself it not an ideology and therefore shares none of the trappings of faith.

Faith has no similar methodology for ascertaining falsities in pursuit of truth. A perusal of the myriad of xian sects and denominations would prove that. Xians can't agree even among themselves-which indicates rampant doubt. And this is lack of methodology is probably what makes so many susceptible to the wiles of faith healers and so called "prophets."

Faith/religion is an ideology and shares nothing in common with s science.

[nobspeople]

...
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.

Unfortunately, many Christians not only use the definitions of the words 'believe' and 'know interchangeably, but become offended when this is pointed out.

[Tcg]

...
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.

Unfortunately, many Christians not only use the definitions of the words 'believe' and 'know interchangeably, but become offended when this is pointed out.

It goes beyond this as well. Christians do claim to "know." Even during the turmoil of 2020, I've seen some claim to know what the future will bring.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

...
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.

Unfortunately, many Christians not only use the definitions of the words 'believe' and 'know interchangeably, but become offended when this is pointed out.

It goes beyond this as well. Christians do claim to "know." Even during the turmoil of 2020, I've seen some claim to know what the future will bring.


Tcg

To be fair, many people do that other than just Christians but yeah I've seen it as well.
Maybe it's their way of 'wishful thinking'? Hyper-faith?
Whatever it is, many sure seem to not like it when you point it out to the.

[Purple Knight]

I would be inclined to say, of course not, because you actually can study the whole religion and it gives certainty, not doubt. As Miles said, it's not really up for revision.

But regardless, there must be one position of weakness even if you accept Christianity fully: Whether or not God corresponds to what people think of as good. God can be good by definition; the entity is powerful enough to define itself into goodness. However, there is question as to whether its actions would be evil if people did them and whether actions that are holy in service of God would be horrid and evil if not in service to God.

[nobspeople]

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?

I think everyone has doubts no matter their belief system, though I know many believers probably won't admit to having doubts.
Faith is something people hide within when they don't know, even though they never tend to say "I don't know".
Have you seen any believer on this forum say "I don't know!"? While I'm sure there are one or two that have said it, I've never, ever, seen a believer literally say "I don't know" even with it's obvious they don't know. They spout a random verse or passage to prove their point - almost like they have no mind of their own. They must rely on faith. And that over reliance on faith is their weakness IMO. It tends to prevent them from searching for answers (or even admitting they need an answer) to many things. I find that scary and sad all at the same time.