Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Recently someone said, when discussing knowledge, "It would have been much easier, less painful, to know by listening to God and by letting him explain it." Outside of God never explaining much of anything, it got my mind wondering if faith, itself, equates to (at least partial) lack of knowledge or the need to understand more.

A few things people don't know but accept by faith:
how God came to be
what God is
how God forgives
what lies beyond the reached of our universe
how God created all things - even things we don't know about yet
how can all of the earth save for one family be guilty enough to drown in a flood (even babies that were just being born - as it's a good assumptions that this was happening without the bible specifying)
why animals need to suffer for what people did and be drowned in the flood

The list can continue but this one is what I want to discuss:
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the knowledge of good and evil?
Christians say God doesn't want robots, but when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't acting like robots, but pure individuals. Yet, they (the story goes) condemned mankind for wanting to know the knowledge the tree held.
People could counter by saying they simple wanted to disobey God - they would have eaten from any tree - but because the bible points to this particular tree and its title or name, I don't believe it was simple rebellion.


God doesn't seem to want us to know more as outlined by this story of the tree, but he does want faith. So it seems, at least in part, God doesn't want us to know certain things and rely almost strictly on faith in him.
If that doesn't sound like robots..... :shock:

So what did that tree hold, exactly, that God didn't want them to know?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #191

Post by Tcg »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:16 pm
Tcg wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:04 pm Of course, as I have admitted that explanation may be flawed in which case my conclusion based on it would also be flawed.


Tcg
Fair enough. You can usually minimize your explanations being flawed by asking for rather than assuming the needed information for your premise.

JW
No need to ask for what has already been provided. My conclusion is based on the explanation you have already given. If my conclusion is flawed the source of that flaw is the explanation (from you) which it is based on.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #192

Post by William »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:00 pm
Tcg wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:51 pm ... You trust yourself as the final authority to decide what to believe. ...


Tcg

Unless you are employing your mind reading abilities, I cannot see how you can tell me who or what I trust as the final authotity as to what to believe. But yes, many people I have spoken to do indeed tell me they trust themselves as the final authority in this area, arguably making themselves their "god".

JW
Actually - every time one takes someone out of context through the tactic of only quoting part of what they wrote and commenting on that part one shows ones intention is to distract rather than debate.

"If this is true, then you are your own god. You trust yourself as the final authority to decide what to believe. " [was the full sentence.]

To reply to that by arguing;

"Unless you are employing your mind reading abilities, I cannot see how you can tell me who or what I trust as the final authotity as to what to believe. "

Is deflection in order to distract.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #193

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

I am late to the thread (and I have not read through so I apologize if I am repeating anything already stated).
[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The list can continue but this one is what I want to discuss:
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the knowledge of good and evil?
Because God knew what would happen if they ate from that tree: they would die.

That does not mean that they would never have been permitted to eat from that tree... but certainly not before they were ready.

Neither God nor His Son does withhold from us something they know we need. We must exercise faith in them, remain loyal to them, listen to them, remain in them. Adam and Eve did not do that. They turned and listened to someone else (someone who told them what they wanted to hear, rather than what was true). God told them the truth.

Christians say God doesn't want robots, but when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't acting like robots, but pure individuals.


Perhaps, but that does not mean that pure individuals are free from consequences to their choices and actions. A pure individual can choose to drink poison, disregarding the poison warning on the bottle. But that pure individual is still going to get sick, and maybe even die.
Yet, they (the story goes) condemned mankind for wanting to know the knowledge the tree held.
Not just for wanting to know, but for actually knowing good(life) and bad(death). Adam is the one who subjected this world (and the life in this world, including his own offspring) to Death.

God doesn't seem to want us to know more as outlined by this story of the tree, but he does want faith. So it seems, at least in part, God doesn't want us to know certain things and rely almost strictly on faith in him.
We are supposed to have (and exercise) faith in God, yes. But faith does not mean 'not having knowledge'. Faith is the assured expectation of things not yet seen, but that does not mean there is no evidence for faith. There are examples of faith in Hebrews chapter 11. Such as:

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family.

Noah acted in faith, based upon what he heard from God, though Noah did not yet see the thing (the flood) that he was warned about. Because Noah exercised faith in God, he and his household were saved.


By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

Abraham believed God and obeyed.


So what did that tree hold, exactly, that God didn't want them to know?
Bad/Death.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #194

Post by William »

tam wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:01 pm
Peace to you,

I am late to the thread (and I have not read through so I apologize if I am repeating anything already stated).
[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

The list can continue but this one is what I want to discuss:
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the knowledge of good and evil?
Because God knew what would happen if they ate from that tree: they would die.
To elaborate from said story...the God knew that if they ate from the knowledge tree, he would make sure that they would never get access to the life tree...and in that way, they would surely die.
That does not mean that they would never have been permitted to eat from that tree... but certainly not before they were ready.
Indeed. "When they are ready".
Since they were eating of the life tree, their bodies were imbued with something which gave said bodies longevity. It sustained said bodies as long as there was continued access to it.
How long would it take until they would be ready for the correct use of the knowledge? What determined when they were ready?
Neither God nor His Son does withhold from us something they know we need.
Did they not need to know that they were not ready to eat from the knowledge tree?

"You are not ready to go out into the traffic"

Perhaps God and his Son knew that there was only one way the pair could know [just as God and his Son already knew] that they were not ready for the knowledge,
God told them the truth.


True that. But not The Whole Truth. There was stuff withheld from them which had them believing that if they ate from the knowledge tree, then it would kill them. The whole truth was, that it wouldn't do anything more than give them the knowledge they did not have. It was subsequently being forbidden to eat of the life tree, which eventually made sure that they died.

Christians say God doesn't want robots, but when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't acting like robots, but pure individuals.

Perhaps, but that does not mean that pure individuals are free from consequences to their choices and actions. A pure individual can choose to drink poison, disregarding the poison warning on the bottle. But that pure individual is still going to get sick, and maybe even die.
Yet, they (the story goes) condemned mankind for wanting to know the knowledge the tree held.
Not just for wanting to know, but for actually knowing good(life) and bad(death). Adam is the one who subjected this world (and the life in this world, including his own offspring) to Death.
Yes. Adam was the first to sin...

God doesn't seem to want us to know more as outlined by this story of the tree, but he does want faith. So it seems, at least in part, God doesn't want us to know certain things and rely almost strictly on faith in him.
We are supposed to have (and exercise) faith in God, yes. But faith does not mean 'not having knowledge'. Faith is the assured expectation of things not yet seen, but that does not mean there is no evidence for faith. There are examples of faith in Hebrews chapter 11. Such as:

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family.

Noah acted in faith, based upon what he heard from God, though Noah did not yet see the thing (the flood) that he was warned about. Because Noah exercised faith in God, he and his household were saved.


By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

Abraham believed God and obeyed.
This appears to be the same faith in which Christians place their hopes in, re the return of Jesus...to fix a world that others were commissioned to heal...only those others would have to fail in their task in order for Jesus to return and do it for them...faith is a fickle thing...
So what did that tree hold, exactly, that God didn't want them to know?
Bad/Death.
Nothing. It held nothing. It was simply a prop in which to entice whatever crap the human had within him, out into the open where it might be evaluated. If Adam had of eaten of it when he was ready, he would not have reacted as he did, to not being allowed something.

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #195

Post by Haven »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #191]

I haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if my response is a bit out of sync :).

With that said, I have a few thoughts on this, but keep in mind that my definition of faith and knowledge is quite different from the Christian one. For me, faith means two things:

1. A spiritual or religious belief or practice.

2. A trust in some non-propositional expression, based not in logic or observation, but a leap to a deep conviction based on sentiment, made within the bounds of practical reason. This definition is very similar to Søren Kierkegaard’s treatment of faith.

It is definition (2) with which this thread is concerned, so I will discuss (2) in this post.

Under this definition, faith is both apart from and in tandem with knowledge. My definition of knowledge also differs from the Aristotelian / popular Western definition (“justified true belief”), so I should briefly define it.

For me, knowledge is coherent belief rooted in “what works,” that is, pragmatic utility. Note that this definition is coherentist, not foundationalist like the common Western one. Coherentism vs. Foundationalism is beyond the scope of this debate, but if you want to learn more, see here: http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... rfound.htm

So is faith against knowledge, that is, “coherent belief rooted in what works?” Certainly not. By many definitions of pragmatic utility, mental health and aesthetic wholeness are included, and since spiritual practice (and the leap to trust that facilitates it) is linked to higher levels of mental health and aesthetic wholeness, it can be said to have pragmatic utility, which is the better part of knowledge.

Still, many spiritual beliefs are out of step with perhaps the most prominent exercise in pragmatic utility: modern science. Knowledge, in this case, would tell us that the cosmos is material, and that anything numinous, spiritual, or animistic, or transcendent is at best unknown and at worst nonexistent. So, with that said, is faith inherently against knowledge?

No, and remembering my definition of faith will show exactly why. Faith is not concerned with propositional claims, while knowledge and science clearly are. It is not against knowledge, rather, it is unrelated to knowledge, as two different fictional universes are unrelated to each other. They are, as Stephen Jay Gould said, “non-overlapping magisteria.”

With that said, I do think there is still a role for knowledge in faith. Remember that faith, untethered to and divorced from reality, can lead to fundamentalism and very irrational, harmful actions. Viewing one’s faith-based convictions in light of reality, knowledge, and science will help someone avoid being carried away, and make sure that—even though one has taken a leap of faith—one never fully leaves the sure ground of known reality. Because ultimately, I think that both are needed for a healthy, moral life.

Faith gives us the essence, the aesthetic spark to appreciate what and who is beyond ourselves, as well as ourselves. Knowledge tells us which practical actions, functions, and systems will best help us actualize our aesthetic hopes and transcendences. Even though they do not overlap, they work in tandem, both striving for the same balance, beauty, and yes, truth.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #196

Post by nobspeople »

Haven wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:23 am [Replying to nobspeople in post #191]

I haven’t read the entire thread, so forgive me if my response is a bit out of sync :).

With that said, I have a few thoughts on this, but keep in mind that my definition of faith and knowledge is quite different from the Christian one. For me, faith means two things:

1. A spiritual or religious belief or practice.

2. A trust in some non-propositional expression, based not in logic or observation, but a leap to a deep conviction based on sentiment, made within the bounds of practical reason. This definition is very similar to Søren Kierkegaard’s treatment of faith.

It is definition (2) with which this thread is concerned, so I will discuss (2) in this post.

Under this definition, faith is both apart from and in tandem with knowledge. My definition of knowledge also differs from the Aristotelian / popular Western definition (“justified true belief”), so I should briefly define it.

For me, knowledge is coherent belief rooted in “what works,” that is, pragmatic utility. Note that this definition is coherentist, not foundationalist like the common Western one. Coherentism vs. Foundationalism is beyond the scope of this debate, but if you want to learn more, see here: http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... rfound.htm

So is faith against knowledge, that is, “coherent belief rooted in what works?” Certainly not. By many definitions of pragmatic utility, mental health and aesthetic wholeness are included, and since spiritual practice (and the leap to trust that facilitates it) is linked to higher levels of mental health and aesthetic wholeness, it can be said to have pragmatic utility, which is the better part of knowledge.

Still, many spiritual beliefs are out of step with perhaps the most prominent exercise in pragmatic utility: modern science. Knowledge, in this case, would tell us that the cosmos is material, and that anything numinous, spiritual, or animistic, or transcendent is at best unknown and at worst nonexistent. So, with that said, is faith inherently against knowledge?

No, and remembering my definition of faith will show exactly why. Faith is not concerned with propositional claims, while knowledge and science clearly are. It is not against knowledge, rather, it is unrelated to knowledge, as two different fictional universes are unrelated to each other. They are, as Stephen Jay Gould said, “non-overlapping magisteria.”

With that said, I do think there is still a role for knowledge in faith. Remember that faith, untethered to and divorced from reality, can lead to fundamentalism and very irrational, harmful actions. Viewing one’s faith-based convictions in light of reality, knowledge, and science will help someone avoid being carried away, and make sure that—even though one has taken a leap of faith—one never fully leaves the sure ground of known reality. Because ultimately, I think that both are needed for a healthy, moral life.

Faith gives us the essence, the aesthetic spark to appreciate what and who is beyond ourselves, as well as ourselves. Knowledge tells us which practical actions, functions, and systems will best help us actualize our aesthetic hopes and transcendences. Even though they do not overlap, they work in tandem, both striving for the same balance, beauty, and yes, truth.
Thanks for the response. While I agree with a lot of what you said, the main point of the thread - the reason why I started it - was because I have seen people of faith say something akin to 'I have faith* in (this or that), so I'm content with that and I won't be seeking any further information on it, nor am I concerned with any new info about it.'
Over time, knowledge gained by society will eventually replace some held beliefs once believed due to faith (history has shown). In today's world where so much info is thrown around and at people, I suspect this will either expedite the process of replacing things 'known via faith' or be too much too fast and cause a 'shut down', where people will latch on to their faith blindly no matter what.

*Faith here being used as a belief in something in which their belief has already sufficiently answered for them.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #197

Post by Haven »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #197]

I agree with this completely, and think this process is on the whole good.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #198

Post by Clownboat »

1213 wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:30 pm
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:33 pm ...
Which claims are more believable?
Claims made by scientists that can be verified and are falsifiable, or claims made by followers of the many god concepts available that make claims on behalf of their said god concepts that cannot be verified nor are they typically falsifiable?
...
I personally choose to believe claims that can be supported by reason and logic. I have no problem with scientific facts that can be proven experimentally or can be supported by reasonable logic.
If this includes claims of global floods, talking donkeys, snakes and/or a man living in the belly of a whale for days, then you will need to define what you mean when you use the words 'supported by reasonable logic'.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #199

Post by Clownboat »

chriss wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:59 am
William wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:18 am [Replying to chriss in post #172]
If belief is irrelevant to determining reality, how can we determine what reality is? Please give an example of something that is real which is independent of one's belief that it is real.
Well if "consciousness" can be referred to as a "thing" then that would be the example I would give to answer your question. It is certainly real though.

So yes - "Consciousness" is how we determine what reality is, and in that we can only determine for sure, that the only "thing" which can be determined as real is Consciousness.
Actually, I think we may agree on this. My argument is that everything else apart from our consciousness has to be believed by faith. I am not sure whether you agree with that?
To the bold:
You have knowledge that the sun will 'rise' tomorrow morning and you have the knowledge as to why (earth's rotation).
If you want to believe in Bigfoot, Nessy, Allah or Yahweh, then faith is require. Faith is required to believe in something that is false ironically. You could try to have faith that the sun will not 'rise' tomorrow. Knowledge combats faith though. Example, the knowledge of the earths rotation will combat the faith you are trying to employ.

Admittedly, faith could lead to a true belief, but it is still a mechanism that is required to belive in something false. A God would have a better mechanism.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

Post #200

Post by Clownboat »

Chriss wrote:I can make guesses but I cannot claim to know why God made Adam and Eve rather than not making them. I personally am glad he chose to do that or we would not have existed.
As a previous Christian of 2 decades, this troubles me.
The idea of never existing would cause no harm to anyone. Assuming the Christian god explanation is true for a moment, there are billions of humans that will suffer in hell for eternity. As a Christian, you should wish your god concept didn't create humans to avoid all the suffering that comes about as a result.

It seems selfish to me to be ok with the idea that billions are suffering for eternity just so you can have a shot at an afterlife.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply