Might I point out that the topic of the OP is neither theism nor atheism?
MrVisible, I think you’re misrepresenting the facts. I cited a clear example of a gun found at an alleged murderer’s home. Anyone can see that the gun constitutes evidence, but not proof. This alone is sufficent to show that the two are not identical.
Your question was a separate one altogether – namely, “When does evidence become proof?” One might debate the answer, but the fact remains that the two are not equivalent to each other. Evidence is required to constitute proof, but evidence is not proof itself.
Or do you still believe that the two terms are synonymous?
Ben, apparently I misunderstood you. In my last thread, I thought that when I asked you what you wanted to debate, and you said Christianity was illogical, you would want to debate it. If that’s not the case, then fine. But I have decided that I want to debate it, and if you don’t like that, don’t participate. I was just personally inviting you.
I am still curious about how I broke the rules of the forum. If there is anyone else out there who can tell me if I’ve broken the rules, please let me know and I will not do it again.
Don’t take this personally, but I think that you comparing yourself to a great teacher like Jesus (say what you will about his teachings, but he WAS a good teacher if his teachings last 2,000+ years) is a little ludicrous when you raise a remark that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and then refuse to answer it. To me, it makes you look like a troll.
OK JThunder, you say my definition of faith is a strawman.
Lets just be sure I know what you mean by that. The strawman fallacy is me purposefully mistating the facts about an argument, attacking the weakened argument, and then declaring victory of the original argument which I intentionally misrepresented. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way… Please, educate me.
How is my definition of faith a strawman? You have no qualms telling me that I’m wrong. Tell me what is right. Tell me how you would define faith. As for debating the semantics of evidence vs. truth-- I don’t really see what you are trying to prove. Would you mind ellaborating?
I misspoke. I meant “proof” rather than “truth” in the above post. While I’m here anyway…
JThunder, tell me how one can logically know something is true without the benefit of scientific methods or derivatives thereof.
I will oblige you, with great pleasure.
Your exact words were,
Note the clause “completely unsubstantiated.” This is simply false. Faith does not mean that you have no substantiation whatsoever. While some people do choose to hinge their faith on absolutely nothing, many others have faith because they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant that trust.
In fact, when it comes to Christianity, we can explicitly show that faith need not be based on nothing. Consider the vast number of books written on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection, for example. Now, you might disagree with the conclusions that they draw (though it sounds to me like you haven’t investigated the matter much), but that does not mean that these people “consciously” believe something that is “completely unsubstantiated” (again, to use your own words).
Also consider the Gospel of Matthew, which repeatedly appeals to prophetic fulfillment, rather than saying “Just believe me!” Then there’s St. Peter, who said, “Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is within you” (1 Peter 3:15). And Acts 17:17 says that the Apostle Paul “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers.” Obviously, the New Testament writers did not consider faith to be merely belief without any substantiation.
Even in day-to-day matters, we see this borne out. I have complete faith that my co-workers will help me on an emergency project tomorrow, because they have demonstrated their reliability. I can not prove that they will, but I can substantiate that belief, based on their character and past performance. Similarly, I have faith that my mother would give up her life for me and can substantiate that belief, even though I can not prove it completely.
Okay, let’s go over this. One. More. Time.
Several posters said that faith is belief without evidence (or in your case, belief in what is “completely unsubstantiated”).
Faith is no such thing. Faith is belief in that which does not have proof.
Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Not even remotely, even though some posters insist that they’re the same thing.
BTW, you haven’t answered my question. Are you truly suggesting that science is the only way to discern the truth?" After all, you said that (a) faith is illogical, and (b) faith is believing in things that are unsubstantiated by science. Just do you really mean that science is the only way we can know the truth?
Well, if you want to read some debates on the matter (as engaged in by various atheists and a Christian professor), I recommend http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html
substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
competent is a good word to not here. Beside the fact that you seem to be ignoring my caveat that the lack of substance is scientific in nature… lets pretend that isn’t an issue.
You mention that they “believe” (more faith for you) that there is “sufficient evidence.” You represent this sufficient evidence with a couple of references.
First, books written on the history of the resurrection of Christ. This is certainly evidence-- but as you have pointed out, evidence and proof are two very different things. In the same sense, Dianetics is evidence that Scientology is a valid religion. And yes, I still maintain that no matter how many books there are about the resurrection that it has never been substanciated. (By the way, there really isn’t any need for you to attack me based on whether or not you think I’ve looked into the matter.)
Second, the Bible-- if the Bible didn’t offer substantiation for the validity of faith, it wouldn’t be doing its job. This evidence may be “sufficient” in the eyes of Christians, but its not in mine. Chalk it up to a difference of opinion.
In essence, you seem to be saying that while many hinge their faith on nothing, many others hinge their faith on faith their “evidence” is actually valid.
As for your examples of modern-day faith-- I don’t see the correlation. If the bus comes past my house every day a 12:30, I will naturally assume that tommorow, the bus will be somewhere around my house at 12:30. Calling my perception of a common event faith seems to trivialize the notion. Besides, how many Christians can say, “I have faith in God because I have experienced <insert Biblical event here>.”?
(Incidentally, you never did give me your definition of faith.)
OK, so you did define faith while I was typing. Thank you. Since faith is belief in that which does not have proof and substance by definition, demands proof-- why is it unreasonable for my to say that faith is belief in the unsubstantiated?
As for your question… since we are having a semantics war, how do you define truth? Are we talking absolute empirical truth? Philosophical truth? Saying “The only way we can know the truth is by science” is terribly provincial. I said no such thing. However, science has proven itself time and time again to be a reliable way to arrive at a variety of (at least in my opinion) truths.
Because (a) substantiation is not the same as proof, and (b) logical, reasonable people believe in unproven things all the time. Anyone who claims to believe only in what’s proven is deluding himself.
Once again, I think you’re erecting a strawman. Contrary to your claim, people of faith do not “consciously” believe in what’s “completely unsubstantiated (at least as far as science is concerned)”. They believe in what’s unproven, and your own definition demonstrates that substantiation and proof are not identical. You might disagree with their logic, or their conclusions; however, it is simply disingenuous to suggest that they are deliberately believing in matters for which they ahve not substantiation.
Truth: That which is true. That which is consistent with reality.
Those were not your exact words, but you did say that faith is illogical because (according to your definition) it requires belief in matters that are unsubstantiated by science. It sounds to me as though you are now backing off on that claim.
So tell me, is it REALLY illogical to believe in things which are unsubstantiated by science? Because if you really believe that, then I have a few questions for you.
Because (a) substantiation is not the same as proof, and (b) logical, reasonable people believe in unproven things all the time. Anyone who claims to believe only in what’s proven is deluding himself.
Once again, I think you’re erecting a strawman. Contrary to your claim, people of faith do not “consciously” believe in what’s “completely unsubstantiated (at least as far as science is concerned)”. They believe in what’s unproven, and your own definition demonstrates that substantiation and proof are not identical. You might disagree with their logic, or their conclusions; however, it is simply disingenuous to suggest that they are deliberately believing in matters for which they ahve not substantiation.
Truth: That which is true. That which is consistent with reality.
Those were not your exact words, but you did say that faith is illogical because (according to your definition) it requires belief in matters that are unsubstantiated by science. It sounds to me as though you are now backing off on that claim.
So tell me, is it REALLY illogical to believe in things which are unsubstantiated by science? Because if you really believe that, then I have a few questions for you.
First of all, I don’t see how Dianetics is evidence of anything. Dianetics expounds on the beliefs proposed by L. Ron Hubbard. This does not constitute evidence at all – that is, it does not provide evidence for WHY we should accept those tenets as being factually correct.
Second, it sounds to me as though you’re taking issue with the evidence for Christianity. That’s your prerogative, but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand – namely, your claim that
Note the word “consciously.” Even if the evidence for Christianity turns out to be erroneous, this would only mean that Christians are in error. It would not mean that they are consciously believing in matters for which there is no substantiation. In other words, it would not mean that their “faith” is the kind that you describe in your (erroneous) definition.
It seems to me that you’re struggling mightily to defend the claims that faith is inherently illogical, and that people of faith (Christian or non-Christian)
are consciously advocating beliefs which are “completely unsubstantiated.” Neither claim is true, as can be seen using reflection and a modicum of research.
Quite simple, people. God is, if one takes the Bible literally, not self consistent(Re: problem of evil). Either:
The problem of evil is reconciliable ( Free will doesn’t work. Nothing is stopping God from parting the clouds and saying, “EXCUSE ME, MR. BURGLER. WHILE THE DOCTRINE OF FREE WILL PREVENTS ME FROM SMITING YOU WITH HOLY FIRE, DO REMEMBER THAT I AM WATCHING YOU. THAT IS ALL.”)
The Bible is mistaken, and God is actually self-consistent. Of course, we have no way to know about him, since Christianity posits the Bible as the source of info about God.
The Bible is inerrant, and science and logic are flawed.
Then there is nothing to debate.
Please show us how religious faith* is a reliable method of adquiring knowledge rationally. IOW, is faith a valid epistemological procedure?
Isn’t reason – man’s ability to conceptualize, what qualifies him as a rational animal – the only rational way of arriving at knowledge?
Faith has long been posited as a recourse to “know” the “unknowable” by theologians. Problem is, that all theological propositions of faith, by definition, lack rational demostration, thus find themselves in direct conflict with reason. If they didn’t faith wouldn’t be a requirement for any belief.
And one only need take a summary look at history to see how faith has had to constantly retreat when faced with rational demostration. Theologians have understood this ongoing conflict for ages. Martin Luther, German leader of the Protestant Revolution, founder of Lutheranism, Protestant theologian, seemingly understood this principle quite well when he wrote the following in “Luther’s Table Talk”:
**
Thanks, Martin. Well said 
*****Any other notion of faith is irrelevant to the existance of god/s and the truth of Christian dogma.
Of course reason is the only rational way of arriving at knowledge. That’s a tautology, not an argument.
It doesn’t follow that other ways of arriving at knowlegdge are in direct conflict with reason. They are arational rather than irrational.
I think the statement quoted in the OP which is the subject of this thread would be much easier to defend if it was that faith is alogical, rather than illogical.
**
It would appear, then, that this was a case of miscommunication.
**
As I said before, you can’t create a GD thread specifically challenging someone else, unless you have their permission to do so.
Sigh…
Let me explain more fully, since you didn’t get it the first time.
I began my argument with a question.
You criticised me for doing so.
I pointed out that it can’t be bad of me to use questions as part of my argument, since JESUS HIMSELF USED QUESTIONING AS A FORM OF ARGUMENT. Say what you like, but if the great teachers of the world have been using questions as a form of argument for MORE THAN 2,000 YEARS, it must be ok for me to do it too.
Even now, you aren’t listening to what I really said. Instead of saying to yourself, “Ok, I guess his question must have been relevant, just as Jesus’s apparently irrelevant question about the coin was really relevant,” you accuse me of comparing myself to Jesus, even though obviously I have done no such thing. I haven’t said that I am a better person than Jesus. I haven’t said that I’m smarter than Jesus. All I’ve done is to point out the entirely reasonable fact that I am using a time-honored rhetorical device which Jesus himself used. At this point, I have to wonder whether you have some kind of chip on your shoulder, since you’re nitpicking my post in order to find something to criticise me over.
How on earth can you possibly claim that my question is irrelevant to the subject at hand? The subject is whether Christianity is illogical. The question I asked is, why do you believe Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah? That seems pretty relevant to a discussion of Christianity, if you ask me. But if you were still confused, all you had to do was to read my further explanation, in which I point out that I DO NOT THINK THAT JESUS BEARS ANY RELATION TO THE MESSIAH DESCRIBED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. So naturally, if I were going to argue that Christianity is illogical, a starting point might be to SHOW THAT YOUR REASONS FOR IDENTIFYING JESUS WITH THE MESSIAH ARE FALLACIOUS.
It’s quite puzzling to me that even when I’ve pointed all this out, you still accuse me of trollishness on the grounds that
a) I compared myself to Jesus (when I clearly didn’t,)
b) I raised a remark which had nothing to do with the subject at hand (when it obviously did,) and
c) I “refused to answer it.” (Huh? I’m expected to answer my own questions now?)
Well, that’s just the point, isn’t it? What other ways are there outside of reason? Ultimately, you’ll need a rational demostration for any proposition to become “knowledge.”
Can we say that “arational” or “above reason”, is what reason and science cannot define? IOW, if it cannot be currently proven nor can it be disproved, it is “arational”? The concept of a ‘soul’ surviving death comes to mind. And that sounds an awful lot like the Christian definition of ‘faith’…and back to irrationality.
Again, seems to me that all religion keeps positing is that theirs is a way of “knowing the unknowable though faith” without explaining the epistemology of said knowledge. Not to mention the inherent absurdity contained in such a claim.
Newborn infants are incapable of reason, but they undoubtedly acquire knowledge.
I’d say “arational” means “not depending on reason”.
Why “back to irrationality”? Are you saying that any proposition which does not depend on reason is, ipso facto, contrary to reason?
Let me try and put it another way (perhaps I’m not being to clear, either). Think of someone important to you, who you would consider to be a “good” person. Your best friend or signifigant other would probably be good examples of what you would consider to be a “good” person. Now think of someone of which you’re not particularly fond. Perhaps that bully who used to make fun of you in the 3rd grade, or that girl who dumped you for the varsity quarterback in high school. You would probably think of these people as “bad”. Now consider that they both sin. Both have sinned and will both continue to sin. This doesn’t make them “good” or “bad”. But it does make them both sinners.
Well, I have some problems with the Catholics in general, and it is important to not group them together with all Christians, the same way it would be a mistake to assume that a Protestant has the same beliefs as a Mormon.
IMHO, the Catholics made up a bunch of rules that don’t matter, the same way they came up with Purgatory. I don’t buy the idea of Purgatory, nor do I buy the idea that I’m not allowed to eat meat on Friday. I do not see it as violating any of the commands that God gave me directly in His word. (Before you say it, I know that the Catholic dogma says that whatever the church says is the word of God, but I don’t buy that either. Nobody tells me what God has to say except God.)
So, you are equating me and the Catholics with yourself and Christians, right? I understand that analogy. You don’t consider yourself a sinner, since you don’t follow the same rulebook as I. Fair enough.
To me, this is kind of like when you ask your dad if you can taste his beer when you’re nine years old, and he tells you no. “But you get to do it! Why can’t I?” Same kind of thing. I don’t agree with your analogy of the president being allowed to rape with God being allowed to do things we are not. The president is not a parent figure. There is a reason He is refered to as God the Father. Some people (myself included) had/have a hard time deciding what kind of relationship we need to have with God. When you put it in the context of father/child, I believe it explains why He lays down certain rules, and then seems to break them, the same way your dad wouldn’t let you taste the beer, because he knew it wasn’t good for you to be drinking alcohol at age 9.
I believe you misunderstand. You see, if you deny God’s existance, than it is impossible to ask His forgiveness, right? Now, once you acknowledge Him, and ask Him to forgive all your sins, you are forgiven. Simple as that. It’s not that it’s an “unforgivable sin” so to speak (and that’s my fault, since I used the wrong word there).
As for the reference to scripture for which you asked, I’m afraid I don’t know the exact book/chapter/verse, but I do have:
I interpret this as meaning that all sin is equal. Do you disagree with that interpretation?