Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

[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.....

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

[chriss]

Many men believed that the writers of the Bible had a real contact with God. Therefore they provide support for the truth of the Bible.

No. This provides support only that many men believed that the writers of the Bible had a real contact with God. Their belief isn't evidence that these authors had contact with God and it certainly isn't evidence that there is a God to have contact with.

People believe a great many things.


Tcg

Sometimes men can be right in what they believe, so I would still maintain that their belief provides support for the writers of the Bible having contact with God. Of, course, sometimes men can be wrong so it is not conclusive support. However it is still support as far as I am concerned.

Their belief is irrelevant to determining reality. As you have admitted, they could be right or they could be wrong. It would require something beyond their belief to determine if they are right or wrong. Until that happens, their belief is evidence only of their belief.


Tcg

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.

[chriss]

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.....

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

I have joined theis discussion at the end and I have not really dealt with the original question above. Having faith cannot mean not seeking knowledge since faith is an essential requirement in the search for knowledge. I am here not talking about faith in the Bible though I do have that. I am talking about faith in a more general sense. I would include the following in the list of things I have faith in:

I can think.
The laws of classical logic are valid.
Other people exist.
The earth exists.
There is an absolute truth though it is not possible to be certain we have attained it.
Scientists have a good idea about how the laws governing the earth work and are fairly trustworthy in that area.
Certain writers of religious, philosophical and historical works seem to me to have good ideas regarding the way human beings should live their lives. For me, the Bible is prominent here.
My own internal sense of what is right and wrong is valuable.
God wants us to seek knowledge in all its forms.

The questions about Adam and Eve are admittedly difficult. What God, Adam and Eve wanted are lost in the midst of time. It is difficult to determine what any individual might want, let alone God or people in a totally different situation from us.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to chriss in post #173]

Thanks for the input.

What God, Adam and Eve wanted are lost in the midst of time.

I find that a difficulty. Why? Because, if it's included in the bible, it must be pertinent; it must be valuable. If it is, indeed, lost in the midst of time, why even include it at all? And what else in the bible is 'lost in the midst of time'? This idea of things 'being lost', if true, is problematic for both the bible and God. If God can't keep valuable ideas and their reasoning valid, God's not worth my time, at the very least. That's not 'god-like' to me. I suppose to some it's fine, however.

It is difficult to determine what any individual might want, let alone God or people in a totally different situation from us.

Perhaps, but not for God I'd wager.

[William]

[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.

[chriss]

[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?

[William]

[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?

No of course not. This is because things are not ideas. Things are facts of matter.

Ideas are things which don't exist anywhere except in ones mind and the mind itself is not a thing but still interacts with that which is a thing...namely brains.

We know ideas exist because we consciouly experience them existing. But they don't exist as tangible until they are transferred into matter. Then we can study them as concepts and see if the concepts we come up with are real/realistic and go from there.

In any case I think that anything that consciousness experiences is what determines experience as being real and in that, faith is not required as far as I can tell - unless it has to do with concepts.

Also there is the element of alternate experience (such as oobe) in which consciouness experiences as real (and in many reported cases even "more real" than this physical reality" ) ...( and other than perhaps calling on higher powers to protect one while one is having said experience which is personal preference rather than standard requirement) but in all cases faith is not of any necessity in realtion to anything one experiences. We can experience realitie(s) without invoking faith to do so.

Where faith appears to be important might be in regard to how the one who has experienced alternate reality(s) decides to interpret their experience while having it and also when reporting it and whether those who read the report decide to accept the report as being true. Faith is then activated.

[chriss]

[Replying to chriss in post #173]

Thanks for the input.

What God, Adam and Eve wanted are lost in the midst of time.

I find that a difficulty. Why? Because, if it's included in the bible, it must be pertinent; it must be valuable. If it is, indeed, lost in the midst of time, why even include it at all? And what else in the bible is 'lost in the midst of time'? This idea of things 'being lost', if true, is problematic for both the bible and God. If God can't keep valuable ideas and their reasoning valid, God's not worth my time, at the very least. That's not 'god-like' to me. I suppose to some it's fine, however.

It is difficult to determine what any individual might want, let alone God or people in a totally different situation from us.

Perhaps, but not for God I'd wager.

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.

I am undecided whether the events in the Garden of Eden literally happened or whether it was a simpliified version which the hearers would be able to understand. My view is that God wanted people to do only good to each other but people, realising that they had been given a choice, chose to do evil to each other. The overall message of the Bible is, in my view, that God has made this world temporary by introducing death so that it can be followed by a world which is inhabited only by people who will only do good things to each other. The future world appears in every Christian creed and is in my view an essential belief for every Christian.

However, I repeat, that i am only guessing the mind of God. My guess is based upon my interpretation of information in the Bible. God has not told me directly what he is doing and why he is doing it. Also I do not believe that the Bible tells us what God was thinking when he made Adam and Eve. It only tells us what he did, not why he did it. I do believe that God knows what he is doing but I am afraid that I, in the main, do not really know. I have decided to trust him though.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to chriss in post #178]

I personally am glad he chose to do that or we would not have existed.

What do you mean?

It (the bible) only tells us what he did, not why he did it.

For me, that's a problem. I want to know the 'why' behind things. Anyone can see 'what' happens and made a decision based on the 'what' but I want to make a decision based on the 'why'.

I do believe that God knows what he is doing but I am afraid that I, in the main, do not really know. I have decided to trust him though.

While I can respect that, that's not something I'm willing to do based on my decades of being a practicing Christian and never having my questions answered.
I know I've been told so many times 'have faith'. But I can't have faith when things are hidden from me, it's just that simple.

[William]

[Replying to chriss in post #173]

Thanks for the input.

What God, Adam and Eve wanted are lost in the midst of time.

I find that a difficulty. Why? Because, if it's included in the bible, it must be pertinent; it must be valuable. If it is, indeed, lost in the midst of time, why even include it at all? And what else in the bible is 'lost in the midst of time'? This idea of things 'being lost', if true, is problematic for both the bible and God. If God can't keep valuable ideas and their reasoning valid, God's not worth my time, at the very least. That's not 'god-like' to me. I suppose to some it's fine, however.

It is difficult to determine what any individual might want, let alone God or people in a totally different situation from us.

Perhaps, but not for God I'd wager.

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.

I am undecided whether the events in the Garden of Eden literally happened or whether it was a simpliified version which the hearers would be able to understand. My view is that God wanted people to do only good to each other but people, realising that they had been given a choice, chose to do evil to each other. The overall message of the Bible is, in my view, that God has made this world temporary by introducing death so that it can be followed by a world which is inhabited only by people who will only do good things to each other. The future world appears in every Christian creed and is in my view an essential belief for every Christian.

However, I repeat, that i am only guessing the mind of God. My guess is based upon my interpretation of information in the Bible. God has not told me directly what he is doing and why he is doing it. Also I do not believe that the Bible tells us what God was thinking when he made Adam and Eve. It only tells us what he did, not why he did it. I do believe that God knows what he is doing but I am afraid that I, in the main, do not really know. I have decided to trust him though.

In that case The Church has failed to provide you with that information and you will have to seek it elsewhere...Jesus did in fact pass on that information in private, so perhaps a 'private place' is where you can find it?

For my part, any creator would create [what we experience as creation], "just because a creator can." There is no need for a Creator to have to have any other reason to create a creation, other than that. Therefore one does not need to ask the question "Why?" because to do so implies that a Creator perhaps shouldn't have created a creation....see?

[brunumb]

Having faith cannot mean not seeking knowledge since faith is an essential requirement in the search for knowledge.

Faith is the antithesis of knowledge. Faith is the fallback position when you don't have knowledge. When you have faith there is no reason to search for knowledge. Your faith tells you that you already know.