I was once told by a pentacostal minister “Athiests have a tremendous amount of faith. Much more than any believer alive. To look at the wonders of the universe, to see the things we can see and imagine the things we cannot see. To see the intricate balance and construct of all things. To view the miracle of life, in all forms great and small and still think that there could not possibly be any thoughtfullness behind any of it requires more faith than I will ever have.”
My position is that “Faith” in religion and “Faith” in God are two different things (often intersecting and coexisting but distinctly different). Do I have faith in God? Absolutely. Does that mean I automatically reject concepts like evolution? Absolutely not. The Big Bang? I see no reason to reject this. Young Earth? Absolute rubbish, somebody got something mixed up in translation from oral to written history or something allegorical was miscommunicated as literal or something. None of these and other theories and postulates conflict with my concept of and faith in my Creator. I have faith that something much larger than any of us can imagine created us. How He did it is His business, but I see value in studying that business.
Now “Faith” in Religion? Blindly following religious dogma? No, I do not have, nor have I ever really had this. Religion, belief systems, congregations, dogma etc. are all “Man Made” and thus are fallable. I do choose to study beliefs and practices, and adhere to a set of beliefs and practices, but I do not put much faith in the things men say about them.
As for “Faith” in Satan, or blind belief in an underlying evil out to turn the attention of man away from the adoration of God, I do not believe this is required. If one says that someone does not have to believe in God in order for God to believe in them then it must also follow that someone does not have to believe in Satan for Satan to believe in them. And, If my faith in God is well placed, and the final scripture plays out literally instead of figuratively, Satan will perform that which he is prophisized to perform thus Satan, going about his business of turning the attention of man, is actually performing the Lord’s work and fufilling his purpose anyway. This harkens back to the wonderful days of Job where Satan and God were all buddy buddy and Satan worked for the Lord in a more directly understandable manner. Nothing in scripture convinces me that this relationship changed.
So, do you have a layman’s understanding of the physical properties of that which comprises an electron? Or an empirical explanation of the mechanics of a graviton? Something replicable by application of the scientific method perhaps?
Or do you merely have some level of faith that such things exist in the first place? A level of faith that is not based on evidence and provability but on mathematics and observation of effects instead of direct observation and identification of the properties of the cause?
So you trust everything a person says, or do you have some criteria for believing them sometimes and not others? You trust people you consider to be experts on a subject. Someone who has experience, learning, etc. Do you trust your friend if he says there’s an elephant on the roof? Why not? He’s your friend, he’s trustworthy isn’t he?
So who do you trust to tell you that there’s an all powerful invisible being in the sky? Who has expertise on that?
She shared a powerful subjective experience, the only criteria I remember reading. I certainly wouldn’t trust someone purely on that basis.
Yes, I have examined religious faith to a large extent, and found that it usually includes a denial of evidence and/or a closed mind. This of course would not be something I hold true for reasons other than evidence, I have plenty of evidence for my conclusions.
It doesn’t have to be true, and I won’t say it’s 100% true, but from what I’ve seen it tends to be true. It’s one thing to hope, it’s quite another to insist that what you’re hoping is true.
What? I’ve taken martial arts, and (at one point in the past) could do things that might seem impossible to other people. I was able to do these things after being shown how, and practicing them myself. I only needed faith in myself, my own ability to learn and my body, I didn’t need to have some of kind of faith that something my master showed me was real.
But we have these beliefs because we have evidence of them. We think the sun will rise because it has risen every single day so far. We have no proof it will rise tommorrow, but I don’t see anyone voting against it. What are you basing your trust in when you have faith in god?
So, you’re saying that it’s okay to have faith as long as there is “real evidence behind it”? Is that what your saying?
Pick a feeling: excitement, suspicion, anger. Are they not all based on something that you somehow perceived? Why are you excited? Because you have evidence that you won the lottery. Why are you suspicious? Because you have evidence your friend is lying to you. Why are you angry? Because you have evidence that your friend claimed your prize and is keeping the money.
One doesn’t need to know all that to know that there are non-supernatural explanations for the existence of and order in the universe. Surely you don’t ask your pastor friend to know everything about Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Jewish and Roman history, etc., etc., etc. before he can have an informed opinion about Christianity.
This drives me nuts when people say this. I know facts about electrons not because I have performed the experiment myself, but because a bazillion other people have and I have their testimony that the electron has such and such properties. It is called the epistemic division of labor, and it is a feature of any society more complex than a single hermit living in isolation. My knowledge of certain claims is derivative from the knowledge of others. There is no correlate in religion–you can’t say, “Well, I know God exists, because even though I haven’t done the experiments, his existence has been repeatedly proved through intersubjectively verifiable, repeatable experiments.” There is a difference between faith and testimony of those who possess genuine scientific evidence.
If the point is to remove the protected status of religious belief systems then we must be willing to look at belief systems and faith as human experiences that we all participate in. IMO keeping religious faith as a separate category and remaining unwilling to look at the mechanics of faith that occur in all people is the opposite of, and just as incorrect, as giving it a protected unquestionable status.
My experience on the SDMB has been that atheists in their arguments very often resort to some belief without evidence that they hold. It seems that you just did that unless you’re going to present the evidence to back up your assertion.
This is not to excuse the outrageous claims that some believers make or the actions that spring from unsubstantiated beliefs. The point is to put all belief systems, religious or otherwise, on even footing in order to promote understanding. {and to fight ignorance of course}
That’s okay for the aspects of religion that can be objectively examined. It’s important to note that much of religion, spirituality, and belief systems in general, is not about what can be objectively examined. It’s like having apple standards for oranges. It just doesn’t work. We must look at the subjective part of our humanity. How value systems , our belief systems arise and flourish. How our judgment calls translate into actions that affect others.
I didn’t ask about everything, I only asked about two very specific things, things that are widely discussed in both the academic and layman’s world of physics. I don’t imagine that any cleric from any tradition would get very far if he did not understand two fairly familiar things about that tradition (or at the very least understand how to find out about those two things and point the accolite in the right direction).
I suspect it is the tiny man with the steering wheel in your pants that is driving your nuts, but I digress.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not accusing you of being an experimental physicist. I am mearly asking if you indeed know facts about electrons or do you know facts about the effects of electrons? What have the bazillion people come up with for the constructional makeup of an electron? Are any of their opinions based on hypothesis and conjecture? Are there any other opinions based on those hypothetical opinions that can only be held as valid because they fill in the blanks on some mathematical matrix? Do any of these opinions ever serve to fill in the blanks on two conflicting mathematical matrices?.
I can’t say the existence of God can be proven. In fact, I firmly believe that the existance of God cannot be proven. Proof is tangable, observable, replicable. These things are all manifestations of the physical. The nature of God rests in the spiritual. These things are intangable, unobservable and most likely nonreplicable. Kind of like a bozon. Why should one account for the testimony of those who possess genuine scientific evidence and discount those who profess a genuine spiritual experience?
Faith absolutely exists outside of the realm of religion and is intregal in science. It also exists as the cornerstone within the realm of religion. I see no reason, other than personal preference or narcissistic pride that the two should be exclusive.
It seems to me that there is a correlate in religion: People who appear to be trustworthy tell me that God exists. Almost everyone I know agrees with this conclusion. It seems that, in many ways, the government agrees with this conclusion. If I then believe in God, how is my “knowledge of certain claims” *not * “derivative from the knowledge of others”? Also, why must his existence be “repeatedly proved through intersubjectively verifiable, repeatable experiments”?
(FWIW, I do not believe in God, so I disagree with most of the people that I know.)
Well, because religious experience is contradictory among different experiencers, not intersubjectively verifiable, not repeatable, etc. Religious experience might be that way as a result of God’s nature, but whatever the reason is, it entirely undercuts the ability for religious experience to justify religious belief. To say otherwise is, IMO, to arrogantly elevate your experience above that of others who have had contradictory experiences, and to ignore the features of normal non-supernatural experience which makes it justification-conferring.
The difference is that the people who tell me electrons have a negative charge have evidence for this claim–repeatable, intersubjectively available evidence, which is precisely the kind of evidence which is unavailable to the religious person, as I argued in my last post. Whether the person is trustworthy is only part of the story: the quality of their evidence also matters. And this is what is lacking in the religious case.
As for why God’s existence must be proved by repeatable, intersubjective evidence, I think the onus is on the religious believer to argue why evidence which is in principle unavailable to others should carry any weight at all. You can’t just define ‘evidence’ however you want; that is unacceptable epistemic permissiveness.
There is strong scriptural support that people who know the true God and chose another path will have a far worse fate then those who don’t know God at all. But this does not mean that you can have Satan (or one of his forms or demons) as your god and never know the real God. I would WAG that many people who chose to worship Satan directly don’t really know who God really is.
There is a far worse fate for those who know God, actually receiving the Holy Spirit and using the power of God, then abandoning Him is quite possibly the only sin that can not be pardoned - and may cast one into ‘outer darkenss’ - which is though to be worse then Hell and the Lake of Fire.
There are only two points of this post that I disagree with. First, because some religious experiences is contradictory among different experiencers should not be used to imply that all religious experiences are contradictory. Nor should this be used to postulate that the different experiencers must view the experience the same regardless of circumstance whether cultural, educational, geographical etc. From without the constrictions of a particular dogmatic system it is easy enough to see the similaritys between various traditions. If one filters out the pridefullness in the professors of these traditions (as mentioned previously) underlying themes start to form. I personally wish that more “Religions” would focus on these commonalities than venerate the differences but, again I digress.
The other is that by accepting a supernatural explaination one automatically shuts off the possibility of any logical explaination. I suppose I have been guilty of this kind of bias in the past buy assuming that once the logical explaination has been taken to its limit there is no more room for the spiritual and vice versa. I have changed belief to encompass both explainations. Although I still hold a bias for the metaphysical I do not automatically reject the physical or the notion that what is unexplainable today may be grade school physics tomorrow.
Of course we don’t trust everything someone says. Certainly a lot of what we come to assume is true are things told or taught to us by others that we haven’t taken the time to test and verify. We learn as we go how much trust we should place in what others present as true. People have varying levels of skepticism which may be based on their experiences or their personality. We know some people are more trusting than others. We also know that even so called experts can be wrong so while we may be likely to believe what they tell us we are also open to new information. We learn that we can safely operate on certain assumptions until that new information comes along.
If one friend told me there was an elephant on the roof I wouldn’t believe it. If a dozen or more told me I’d certainly check it out. The god meme is pretty powerful and usually encountered at a young age in our culture. Something completely objective like your example can be easily checked out. The concept of God is connected to a lot of subjective issues. Our sense of purpose and living a meaningful life among other things. Faith as per the OP is not just about the purely objective.
Most people wouldn’t. I doubt that was the only criteria for her either. The extreme example didn’t add anything.
Since you used the term usually I take that to mean more often than not, or more than 50%. Right? You say you have plenty of evidence. Perhaps you’d share some here. I’m not saying you’re not correct. There are a lot of closed minds out there and I know plenty of believers deny the available evidence. However, if you’re going to casually throw out terms like usually then perhaps you’d support it.
I agree with this. The absolutism of religious beliefs really bothers me. The need some people have for their beliefs to be really true, and more true, than others causes a lot of problems. But even that aspect of faith can be found outside of religion regarding other things. Nationalism can be that way.
Isn’t part of the training to visualize yourself doing something you previously couldn’t do. You have faith that with effort you can accomplish something. My point is we go forward based on that kind of faith. We have faith that certain effort will yield certain results even though we’ve never done those things before. Isn’t that a form of faith? Isn’t that being sure of what we hope for? Certain of things unseen?
For a lot of people it’s trust in what others have taught them. I’ve never been to Australia but I still accept that it’s there. For many it’s also based on an interpretation of certain profound subjective experiences. A strong feeling if you will, but still, it’s their experience and they will interpret it within the boundaries of their own experiences, culture, and influences. It’s the same thing others do within their own belief system.
But this is exactly the crux of the issue. Electrons have the same charge whether you are American, Chinese, or Russian. Why should the religious person be allowed to say, “Oh, your perception of God will change depending on the culture you belong to”? It seems like the religious apologist is always trying to change the rules for himself: “You have to explain where the universe came from, but I don’t have to explain where God came from; scientific disagreement undermines scientific justification, but religious disagreement doesn’t undermine religious justification” etc. etc. etc. It all relies on special pleading. Too often, they just refuse to play on a level playing field.
I doubt it, I don’t think a Spirit filled believer (and one who has ‘used’ the power of God) can become a atheist - they are already aware of the power of God flowing thought themselves. They can deny God and follow other gods and be lost, but they would not be able to deny there is a God IMHO. Believers can be saved without experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit, or for that matter possibly not receiving Him as a indwelling at all. Either of these cases could exempt one from Outer Darkness.
Agreed. Science leveled the playing field cross culturally long ago. If it had not then we would still be trying to figure out when the Chinese moon probe launched by compairing the Chinese calendar with the Gregorian. Regardless of background, when discussing scientific issues, most even partially educated pundits will know the difference between a kilogram and two some odd pounds.
It’s not the same with religion. Christianity, Judiasm and Islam are all three based on the same original set of traditions and laws. They all three have the same roots and the same cast of charactors. They differ radically in their belief of these charactors but the roots remain the same.
The dogma of religion favors the church and it’s leaders. Sometimes it throws a bone to the faithful but most of the time it simply requires the fathful to stand on a ledge of faith on their own.
Before one can level the playing field between science and religion then an agreement must be made defining terms on both sides and while science has such definitions ready I seriously doubt that religion will ever achieve such a state.
I agree that we shouldn’t split faith into religious and non-religious types. What we’re actually doing here is discussing two types of faith - faith amenable to changing based on evidence, and that which is not. I’ve already given the example of the two types related to faith in a spouse. Even religious faith can be conditional. The Dalai Lama’s seems to be changeable based on evidence, as is that of Reform Judaism. We might push things back to faith that God exists in some way, so defined as to be unfalsifiable - once we do that, the two types of faith collapse into one. This kind of believer would say that he would stop believing in god given evidence against, but the god he believes in is so defined that it is not possible to provide evidence against him. It doesn’t have to be god - faith in theistic evolution is the same.
