Moreoever, you might want to quote the specifics of my faith that I posted above:
But no data with which I can reliably predict the future. I can only have faith in a possible outcome. Just as trust is faith in a person’s character/future actions.
Trust in future events may be based on certain objctive (or subjective) observations, but it is still an act of faith when one leaves the realm of probability and believes it as a certainty. “I know my best friend, and he would never do anything like that.” is an article of faith, not objective truth.
Is it religious faith? No. Nor is science a religion, as if often claimed by some apologists. But, neither is science or epistemology free from faith. One must, for instance, first have faith in the integrity of our senses, in the capacity of the human mind to know the Truth about things, or that Universe itself can be understood in any great detail in the first place.
Do with that what you will.
poly and dan, I’ll work on a response in the next 24 to 48 hours and get back to you, thank you for your patience.
As I recall you telling me you were born into a Christian family, later did some questioning, but never abandoned the core of you Christian beliefs. However, I can think of absolutely no rational examination of evidence (nor do I recall you ever citing any) that would lead you to believe in any of the Christian miracles or the divinity of Christ.
My comments don’t require you to respond, and due to our prior discussions I have my doubts that you will be any better able to substantiate your beliefs or be any better at explaining away your religious inconsistencies.
I haven’t paid that much attention to him as of late. By citing a few verses of my own I was able to get Bible man to say he will no longer correspond with me, so in that, you are similar. You both cherry pick your bible verses but you do it much more selectively than he. You both claim you can back up your arguments, but really don’t. As such I think the two of you use similar methods but just come to different conclusion.
Hardly. In putting ones trust in an individual, you are doing it based on behaviors you have observed and even then it is often tentative. What you are doing with faith in your god is putting complete, non-tentative, trust in a being that is wholly indistinguishable from an imaginary friend.
So are you saying that Jesus is really a metaphor for god and not really god? Are you saying that when Jesus tells us to do things that today we, and you, don’t consider right or moral, that we are disobeying the will of god?
Goddamn that’s only one sentence. Don’t you think the best skeptical analysis is that you survived a heart attack, and felt a euphoric feeling while singing a hymn in church would suggest that you just hung your “mystical” experiences on the belief system most proximal to you? Being as you are American, don’t you think that when you discussed your “theophanies” with others you were subject to even more cultural bias?
This is simple. The more extraordinary the claim, the more and better, evidence is necessary to rationally believe it. The more a witness has displayed a history of being reliable, the more we should trust him, but I dare say that no witness is so reliable that we should believe him regarding all claims. In this case it is also worth mentioning that your subjective testimony that says you experienced god, is of the same kind as when you told us that Jesus had already returned and was an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune.
Would you have us believe Polycarp that as you go out of your way trying to prove that said verse does not mean what it says, that you completely forgot that Jesus was even more clear in other verses and that these verses very much do say what the evangelicals suggest?
*“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14*
I think if the studies for the answering of prayer actually showed it worked, you would consider them of great value.
This is akin to saying; that we have no reason to think prayer works but rather than admitting as much we just define the concept in such a ways as to pretend we can’t tell if prayer works.
For the record, knowing a criticism is coming, in no way insulates you from it.
Sorry, I missed the above part. Regarding your fiancée, I would have to ask if you have any reason/evidence to think she will love you till your death? Also, based on this do you consider your belief in this love till death a certainty or a probability? If you respond that you don’t have much reason/evidence for your belief and yet you hold it as a certainty that your belief is true, then I would agree that it is faith you are using and the trust you put in your fiancée is irrational. I think one would be incorrect, however, to imply that all people do this in their relationships.
I agree. Given the frequency (divorce, infidelity, lying, etc.) in which people are wrong in their assessments of others desires, particularly in the long term, this certainty, is particularly irrational.
I have nothing to add to this ahem dialogue, but this phrase reminded me of Real Ultimate Power, which got me thinking about totally flipping out and killing kittens…
Now I can’t think about Bible Man, or badchad, without giggling like a schoolgirl.
Seriously. I’m all for creating a True Bible Knowledge website. Who’s with me?
Unlike you or Bibleman I have repeatedly admitted to interpreting the scriptures.
Thats exactly the question I’m trying to answer and the point you continually miss.
I’m a fan of sarcasm as a form of humor in a discussion. That wasn’t the point of my comment to** Bibleman**
I’m aware of your opinion and interpretation. You seemed to have completely missed the point of my posts. It’s not the first time.
Please see previous sentence.
Again, It’s in my posts. If you don’t get it or don’t find it meaningful I’m okay with that. IMO If you comprehended the posts you wouldn’t ask that question.
I pointed out in another thread that you yourself holds certain beliefs without evidence and presented them as true. That’s the point I’m presenting here.
Again it appears you missed the point
You seem pretty certain of your opinions. Can you see them?
Faith in the future seems far different from faith in the present, which is what religious faith is. Since none of us can know the future, planning based on what the future is going to be like requires some degree of expectation of what will happen - but I’m sure you admit the possibility, however small, that things won’t work out. If you had religious-like faith in the future, even if things didn’t you wouldn’t admit it, and I’m sure you’re not like that. So I think the faith you’re talking about here is one we all have more or less, and which doesn’t have a lot to do with religion or religious faith.
Hinckley’s faith that Jodie Foster loved him is more like that faith. (That’s a joke, son.)
Other than Bibleman and a few others don’t you suppose most people religious faith would admit they don’t really know with 100% surety.
I think if we focus on whatever the emotional and mental mechanism is that makes up belief in something we can’t be sure of, rather than what that something is, it is pretty much the same faith.
The difference is that all of us must act with some faith in the future - if just that the world will still be here tomorrow. We have lots of evidence that our faith is not misplaced - that our plans from the past have worked out, that the wife we married decades ago still loves us, etc. Some people, like someone whose wife did not love him, might lose some of this faith.
None of us needs religious faith, not really. I’d also say if measured by the same criteria as faith in the future, religious faith falls short, at least in this life. For every instance of god providing there is one of god not providing, and the result is the non-falsifiable belief that whatever happens is gods will and for the best just because it is.
I agree that for some people their religious faith tells them what their future will be like - sometimes to absurd levels, like the people who let their pastor convince them not to pay their mortgage. But not even these people consult the Bible on the need to go shopping to buy food for the week - which involves some sort of faith that we won’t keel over dead, or that Jesus won’t be coming back before the food is used up.
So who gets to determine when a claim is “extraordinary”? Aren’t there certain scientific standards for presentation of evidence? I don’t believe that the person presenting the evidence is responsible on some sliding scale. Am I mistaken?
Of course, the person receiving the evidence may be rational or irrational, open-minded or close-minded. That is not the responsibility of the presenter of the evidence.
Speak for yourself! Lots of things can insulate people from the sting of criticism. Emotional intelligence helps. What someone thinks of me is none of my business even when they tell me. And what I think of other people is none of their business. We don’t have to buy into others’ opinions of us.
The Christians here have suggested different things. Primarily they have asked him to get his factual information straightened out and to practice the things that he says he believes in.
If you knew “your” Sir Francis Bacon, you would know how devout he was. He certainly wasn’t skeptical about God or the value of faith and religion. (Besides, why not “inquire within” rather than depend on Francis Bacon to instruct you upon the value of hope?)
I don’t care for Bacon very much, but these three quotations do speak to the discussion here:
As for his thinking on “hope,” he knew that you couldn’t live endlessly on hope alone, but he did recognize it for the comfort that it provided in times of difficulty.
Your quote from Francis Bacon is a quote from another human being,I would hardly consider him an authority on a religion anymore than any person.
Faith. Religious or other, is born out of desire. We believe what we want to be, A person can believe their spouse is faithful when it is not, What ever brings us peace. Faith is a choice.
The believer or non believer may have misplaced or irrational faith as well.
I think I know what you mean about nobody needing religious faith to function on that moment to moment basis. I just think it’s so ingrained in some folks you couldn’t separate what they need from what they don’t. It would be great if they would actually take the time to think about it.
When I think of our common subjective faith I think of what moves us to make moral and ethical decisions. Not just the big ones but ones like how do I respond when someone pisses me off. When do I confront others and in what manner? When do I go out of my way to help? When am I butting in? Much of it may be subconscious but if we think about it isn’t it a part of our subjective faith that a certain course of action from us will lead to better results? Do we choose kindness because of how we want to view ourselves or because we have faith that in our society it is the best course of action?
the difference between faith and reality this: faith in something may affect you if you believe in it enough. reality will affect you regardless of whether or not you believe it.
the difference between knowledge and faith is this: if a person experiences an event that he remains conscious throughout, that person knows what has transpired. Any person that he tells may choose to believe or disbelieve his account for they were not there and did not share in that experience so therefore cannot know what happened.
Well, my accusation wasn’t that you interpret scripture but that you, as you put it: “cherry pick the scriptures to fulfill your needs with little regard for the truth as far as I can see.” I guess now that I think about it, what you have called “interpreting scripture” and this cherry picking as you describe, are pretty much one and the same.
Ok, no answer, that’s fine.
Ok, so when Bible man is sarcastic, it’s a bad quality and disappoints Jesus, and when you do it, it’s all well and good. Since you asked Bible man how snide sarcastic comments fit with being a representative of Jesus, how do you think yours do? Also how do you think Judging Bible man by a standard, that you don’t think you need to follow, sits with Jesus?
Great, so you accuse Bible man of not following the will of god, and even cite a verse demonstrating it’s necessity to reach heaven, and then when challenged that you, and others, neither know the will of god, nor put much effort into following it, you come back with this weak answer. I guess your warning to Bible man didn’t mean much then.
Right, if didn’t want admit I had a good response, I’d clam up in such a way too.
Cite, where you have defined what this “kingdom of heaven,” in this context, means? I will admit that much of your posts are incomprehensible, that’s why I’m asking for further clarification.
Actually you just asserted that I hold certain beliefs evidence. But now it seems you are simultaneously trying to say that I was wrong for doing so, while defending that holding beliefs without evidence is good.
My opinions are merely statements about my beliefs.
This is your citation defining faith cosmos…
… I bolded the parts that indicate 100% surety seem to be necessary. Also it has been my experience that most Christians, while they will occasionally admit doubts, do give considerable lip service to being 100% certain of their beliefs in god.
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Regardless of what emotional or mental mechanisms might make up belief, some beliefs are reasonable and rational, and some are ridiculous and irrational. Those beliefs commonly appealed to under the name of faith (as you defined in your Hebrews verse) generally fall into the latter category.
I’m not sure what you mean by your questions. I would say that assessing the rationality of believing claim is more in the eye of the beholder than in the person making the claim. One can claim anything they wish and then back it up as best they can. Whether the claimant can back up his claim well enough to make impartial observers believe it, is another matter. I would say the extraordinariness of claims is on a sliding scale.
I was speaking for myself. Polycarp’s knowing my criticisms were coming did not make them less meaningful. I wasn’t referring to his emotional ability to handle them.
I’m not sure what you’re refuting, but it doesn’t look like anything I said. I just said the Christian’s (criticizing Bible man) follow a pretty watered down version of scripture.
Well, as I recall he was Anglican, and I did not in anyway say he wasn’t. I was just referring to his comments about (from memory) “what a man wishes were true he more readily believes.”
I’m really waiting for you to criticize me on something I have actually said. Since you seem to be having difficulty with that it really looks like you are reaching. As for why I would cite Bacon? Well if I didn’t someone might, and you did, try to criticize me by making the claim that I’m not well read.
To each their own, from what I know of him, I like him. I make certain amount of theistic allowances for some of the pre-Darwin philosophers. Voltaire’s my absolute favorite and he wasn’t an atheist.
There is a difference. I’m willing to admit other interpretations may be reasonable even if I don’t agree. I don’t offer my interpretations as “proof” of anything other than just that. They are a reasonable interpretation, but not the only interpretation. ** Bibleman **presents his as the only valid interpretation and the will of God. You simple deny that you interpret which , IMHO, is just as wrong and just as goofy.
No answer that you understood or bothered to think about.
I repeat “That wasn’t the point of my comment to Bibleman”
Call it weak then. It was accurate. You missed the point. You still do.
You might want to rethink that sentence.
[bolding mine] incomprehensible by you.
Another poster accused you of not listening to those you spar with. You assured them that you do listen. IMO you don’t. It seems you’re not trying to understand their point but only trying to find fault with it. If you can’t find any clear fault you discard it and refer to it as meaningless or incomprehensible. That’s not what I call listening.
Is that what it seems like to you? Really? Look again. I pointed out that while repeatedly criticizing others for being irrational and illogical and believing things without evidence , just because they wanted them to be true, you were doing exactly that. It wasn’t the believing that I implied was wrong, but your constant criticism of others. See the difference? It’s really quite obvious.
I see. You indicated yours are rational while the beliefs of those you love to criticize are not. Do you now admit not all of yours are rational?
Bold the part that says subjective and think about that for a while.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. I’m not sure irrational is the right word for the common type of faith shared by believers and non believers. If it is then it’s something all humans do.
Those who think they are all about being reasonable and rational need to at least recognize that they are not…all the time.
Those who think faith means never seriously questioning what their church taught them need to realize that true faith means having the courage to look within and decide what you believe as an individual regardless of tradition. I like Finns idea of a third realm.
Finding a common ground of respect and consideration between believers and non believers doesn’t seem irrelevant to me. YMMV
I don’t care how you justify it. The fact is that you accused Bible man of cherry picking the scriptures to fulfill his needs with little regard for the truth. You do the same. That you may protest that you are less sure in your “certainties” does not change the fact that you cherry pick according to your selfish needs with little regard for truth, at least as far as I can see.
If you can’t articulate, or rather don’t have a consistent belief system, don’t go blaming others for failing to understand it.
Oh, I’m sorry, so you were criticizing Bible man’s use of sarcasm for what reason?
It was accurate? How so? You challenged Bible man for not following the will of god, but you don’t even know what the will of god is. As much as god’s will is put down in the bible, you and other Christians here profess to follow it to a much lesser degree that Bible man from what I can tell. So what point am I missing?
I’m sorry but again I think you are either being very inarticulate at describing a coherent belief system, or more likely from what I can tell, your belief system is incoherent. You describe yourself as a non-Christian and what you say suggests the existence of a non-personal god that we are all equally part of, which I would say most resembles pantheism, though I don’t know if you consider inanimate objects, animals, etc. as part of god as well. However, sometimes you point to some outside “source” as being god or most of god which sounds mostly like deism. However what screws this up is that you have made a lot of conflicting comments about Jesus, him being no more godly then us, and also of him being above us in some way. You also seem to hold that his teachings are of inordinate value as compared to other humans, which I think is not only irrational from my perspective, but should be to yours as well, since the vast bulk of Jesus’ teachings are commands to worship a personal god, who you claim not to believe in and describe as a metaphor. You can pretend I’m not listening, and maybe even think that others understand you just fine, but I would wager money that no other doper could characterize your beliefs much better than I just did.
Well regardless of what you thought you were pointing out, I believe what I believe, because of evidence and reasons, not for what I wish is true. If I were believing something just because I wish it were true, then you should be criticizing me for that because I already got you to admit that believing something just because you wish it true is irrational here…
…and as such you yourself refute half of your Hebrews quote defining faith on your own.
I might hold an irrational belief and am unaware of it. For the most part, my beliefs and opinions if stated, and definitely if argued, have been pretty well thought out and are held based evidence, logic, etc.
The “subjective” part is the part that you tagged onto the end of the verse and not what any Christian reads when they open their bible. Certainty is what is called for in matters of faith to Christians be it objective or subjective. You seem to be arguing that by applying this to only subjective beliefs that this certainty is necessary, but I would argue again that even for subjective stuff (whatever you mean by that) that certainty in belief where evidence is lacking is still dumb.
I don’t either. This “common type of faith” that you describe here seems most in line with what I would describe as tentative belief in things based on a given number of reasons, which is not irrational at all and does not fit with the definition of faith as put forth in the bible. That is why I would say we should not call this stuff faith, else we side track our conversation trying to make two differing concepts similar, and then different again, when more precise terminology, as I have called for, would have eliminated the confusion that you are having.
I don’t think anyone would argue that they are always reasonable or rational all the time.
Believing without or in spite of serious questioning is faith, as is taught in the bible, and as most Christians will grudgingly admit. Questioning and changing beliefs based on evidence and logic is reason. They are different.
(That’s a joke, son.)