What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

[jgh7]

Thomas in the bible wanted proof that Jesus had been resurrected. I think the story goes he wanted to stick his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hands to make sure it was the same Jesus who was crucified and thus now resurrected.

He is referred to negatively throughout history as doubting Thomas. There are numerous sayings in the bible along the lines of it being better to believe without seeing than to see and believe. I equate this to mean that faith without absolute proof is more righteous than belief from absolute proof, and that desiring absolute proof in order to believe could be viewed as sinful.

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting proof, although I'd probably use the term evidence, but I suspect we are referring to the same thing. It seems that it is only in dealing with religious or spiritual ideas that some laud belief or trust in the absence of evidence.

I've never heard someone recommend that we trust that the emails we get from foreign princes promising to share millions of dollars with us are true in absence of evidence. I can't count the number of times I've seen folks recommend we accept without evidence the claims of a wondrous afterlife if we just do X or Y.

We expect evidence when it comes to somewhat ordinary claims, why shouldn't we expect the same when it comes to extraordinary ones?

[liamconnor]

Thomas in the bible wanted proof that Jesus had been resurrected. I think the story goes he wanted to stick his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hands to make sure it was the same Jesus who was crucified and thus now resurrected.

He is referred to negatively throughout history as doubting Thomas. There are numerous sayings in the bible along the lines of it being better to believe without seeing than to see and believe. I equate this to mean that faith without absolute proof is more righteous than belief from absolute proof, and that desiring absolute proof in order to believe could be viewed as sinful.

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

There is nothing sinful about requiring evidence. Perhaps there is something sinful (or at least intellectually dishonest) to tip the scales so that demonstration becomes logically impossible. I consign to this category demands such as "If God will raise a dead corpse in the company of 100 atheist doctors, surrounded by cameras" to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

Thus, the language of "proof" in the OP may be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Christianity is based on an historical proclamation; as it belongs to history, it cannot offer "proof"; any more or less than the proposal that Caesar crossed the Rubicon can furnish proof.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

I suppose at least that the evidence required was something which is within the realm of possibility in relation to the situation.

I think intellectual dishonesty is when 'evidence' is demanded (such as for the existence of GOD) and not one reasonable example of what might constitute evidence which would convince those doing the demanding is ever forth-coming from them.
Whether that type of thing constitutes 'sinfulness' is besides the point. The fact that it is glaringly dishonest is the point.

Me: The universe has to have been created either directly or indirectly by creative entities.

The demanding: I find that absurd. Where is your evidence for this being the case?

Me: The universe existing and us existing within it.

The demanding: THAT is not evidence!

Me: Okay then. If you don't consider THAT to being evidence, what then would you accept as being evidence?

The demanding: *silence*.

Go figure!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by William]

I suppose at least that the evidence required was something which is within the realm of possibility in relation to the situation.

rather vague.

I think intellectual dishonesty is when 'evidence' is demanded (such as for the existence of GOD) and not one reasonable example of what might constitute evidence which would convince those doing the demanding is ever forth-coming from them.

As already stated, I think intellectual dishonesty exists when the skeptic's criterion for belief is NOT reasonable. It is easy to speak vaguely of "reasonable" and "unreasonable"; the critical point comes when concrete examples are given. Hence the demand given above that God (like some performing magician) perform a miracle in the laboratory manner.


I am not sure which of the following represents "you".

Me: The universe has to have been created either directly or indirectly by creative entities.

The demanding: I find that absurd. Where is your evidence for this being the case?

Me: The universe existing and us existing within it.

The demanding: THAT is not evidence!

Me: Okay then. If you don't consider THAT to being evidence, what then would you accept as being evidence?

The demanding: *silence*.

Go figure!

I have missed your point. I would however agree that a person skeptical about anything should have some reason for his skepticism; and this should at least imply a criteria for assent, which should be given when the criteria is satisfied.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by liamconnor]

rather vague.

I was referring to the OP example - although not so sure that Thomas was demanding evidence but more to the point evidence was provided in that circumstance to help alleviate his doubts.

I am not sure which of the following represents "you".

The "Me:"

I have missed your point.

Apparently.

I would however agree that a person skeptical about anything should have some reason for his skepticism;

Naturally.

and this should at least imply a criteria for assent, which should be given when the criteria is satisfied.

Assent for what though? I was speaking to the demand for evidence. If I were to claim I had been healed of some terminal disease, then I think it acceptable that any demand for evidence to support the claim be acknowledged as acceptable (assent given).

In relation to the idea of a creator being though, unless I am making claims to do with breaking the laws of physics (as one such example of type of claim which can be evidenced) I think the one making the demands has to inform the other as to what kind of evidence they would accept as legitimate for the claim that a creator GOD must exist.

If my reasons for thinking this is the case (that a creator GOD must exist) are pointed out, while they are not necessarily acceptable to those demanding evidence, this in itself does not mean that my reasons are incorrect. Rather, it simply means that those demanding do not see things the same way.

They interpret the same data differently 'tis all. They do not see the necessity of a creator to explain the existence of the universe and us within it.

The discussion between myself and member Kenisaw starting here examples such difference in which argument becomes circular and thus pointless. A stalemate of opinion.

I would suppose at that rate the whole question boils down to one's subjective experience which of course is next to useless in scientific terms, but what of that?

Science has the affect of strengthening my understanding of a creator GOD existing, but the opposite affect on others. I don't judge those others as I feel they are free to make their choices as they will. I can only ask the same in return.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

I suppose at least that the evidence required was something which is within the realm of possibility in relation to the situation.

I think intellectual dishonesty is when 'evidence' is demanded (such as for the existence of GOD) and not one reasonable example of what might constitute evidence which would convince those doing the demanding is ever forth-coming from them.
Whether that type of thing constitutes 'sinfulness' is besides the point. The fact that it is glaringly dishonest is the point.

Me: The universe has to have been created either directly or indirectly by creative entities.

The demanding: I find that absurd. Where is your evidence for this being the case?

Me: The universe existing and us existing within it.

The demanding: THAT is not evidence!

Me: Okay then. If you don't consider THAT to being evidence, what then would you accept as being evidence?

The demanding: *silence*.

Go figure!

I always find it funny that people who claim that something exists want to be told what evidence is reasonable to show that the something exists. If you don't know what is reasonable evidence, why are you accepting something as true in the first place?

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Kenisaw]

If you don't know what is reasonable evidence, why are you accepting something as true in the first place?

Now now - there is no need for that Ken.

As far as I can tell, we have already taken this as far as we can. Reasonable evidence wasn't the issue. The issue was clearly the implied call for unreasonable evidence, because those like yourself, making the call, think it reasonable that if there exists a GOD the GOD should be able to provide unreasonable evidence to support Its existence...this was your contention and your criticism against my own argument in the other thread.

As said - generically those who believe their must be a creator GOD do so based on the same evidence we all have access to - NOT unreasonable evidence. The difference between you and I is simply that you do not regard that same evidence as GOOD enough for you and you require BETTER evidence before you can accept that.

That is really the crux of it. We disagree. So what!!! Should we waste any more time on that merry-go-round or just accept it?

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

There needs to have a few of your terms defined to a clear and concise answer. Unfortunately, this can't be done to appease everyone so you'll have differing opinions.
I suppose it's "sinful to doubt" or 'want proof' because that's not having faith, but I never have heard of that, itself, being sinful.
I suspect this concept, if true by the original authors of said book, was likely to discourage independent thought.
Seems to me, if something is TRUE, it/they would encourage independent thought and doubt as that would cause one to investigate and find out "oh guess what? This is true?"
Something that says "do as I say because" or "believe because I say" seems to be the opposite of that and suspect at least.

[ttruscott]

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

To believe by proof is to not believe by your free will but by the will of the one who coerced you with the proof.

If you are to chose life or death, the red marble or the blue one, you have no choice if you know which one is which...your choice has been removed from you by the proof.

Such a choice by faith, an unproven hope, exposes our heart's desire in a way no other method can provide. Therefore if GOD asks us to choose to be HIS Bride and we accept without proof, HE knows that the heavenly marriage is really what we want. If we will only choose to be HIS Bride because HE proves HIS deity to us, then HE knows we will only accept HIM if our choice is coerced.

What kind of person refuses to choose without proof? Who demands they be coerced before they accept? One who rejects the proposition out of hand; one who is inclined to repudiate HIS claims and HIS promises and HIS offer of marriage.

One who is willing to take HIM at face value by faith needs no proof; they are happy for it to work out and if it does not, too bad, very disappointing, it would have been so nice. The sin is therefore obvious - it is in the rejection of HIS deity since HE is probably a false god, the rejection of HIS promises as lies and the rejection of HIS offer of marriage as a manipulation of innocents to seduce them to HIS control.

Only by putting one's faith is these sinful interpretations of HIS claims could one reject HIS claims because when the choice is put, the answer must be given...saying I will not decide is not an option as it proves a rejection of HIM as righteous. If you thought HE was righteous, you would put your faith in HIM without proof.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 19 by ttruscott]

To believe by proof is to not believe by your free will but by the will of the one who coerced you with the proof.

I'm not sure that tracks.

By having free will you can believe in what you want no matter the proof (or lack of proof). Thus, if someone provides you proof, and you choose to believe whichever way, it's still your choice.
So if you give me an apple and supporting documentation, but I needed an orange, and I want to believe the apple IS an orange, I can believe it's an orange because it fits me needs at the time, no matter what your books/experts/etc say.

The power isn't in the truth or the facts, but the belief. Belief makes people do weird things.