Why does faith not need scientific evidence to be certain?

[Trinopus]

@monavis

. . . Once faith is proven then it is no longer faith,but fact. . . .

And, even worse, once faith is disproven, it may remain faith, but is folly.

In wisdom, one should never undertake to have faith in a matter that may be subject to either verification or falsification. It is well enough to have faith that God is Love, or the God is Three, or that the Soul is Indestructible, or whatnot. But, for instance, to have faith that the Shroud of Turin was woven in A.D. 25 is absurd and foolish.

The “non-overlapping” part of NOMA is key. As the joke has it, Science measures the Age of Rocks; Religion celebrates the Rock of Ages. Unlike some popular candies or fruit-juices, mixing the two does not lead to anything good.

[monavis]

@GlassSlipper

I’m not personally a fan of militant atheists and militant [insert religion here], and so I choose not to engage. I do not fault people for seeking truth, but I’m not one for having conversations if there is a lack of civility.

If you’re really interested in delving into this sort of thing, I have a few thoughts:

1. Both religion and atheism make the assumption that something does or does not exist without hard evidence - which has been discussed. I would argue that some atheists make the same argument as you, though worded differently. You say, “I have the feeling.” Some atheists say, “I don’t have the feeling as there is no evidence for me to do so.” Both rely on a feeling, if you think about it. Admitting you’re making the leap (loose Kierkegaard reference there) will make you look more reasonable. To some. If that is you’re intent.

2. Some atheists assume an objective reality, and some theists assume a subjective reality. Look into arguments against an objective reality.

3. I’m not sure how you interpret the Bible. I will say that there are some beliefs that a third or so of Christians adhere to (that’s one stat I’ve read, likely biased) that are relatively new in terms of Church history. Start with some Plato, read notes on the Torah by rabbis, and kind of work your way down from there to get a sense on how Christian theology has evolved. Atheists read religious texts and commentary, too. And hey, it might make for good conversation.

4. While you’re reading, note the slew of scientists who have been OK with the idea of a higher power. Heck, exploring the world might even be how they express spirituality. Or it might just pay the bills. Whatever. The thing here is that there isn’t much of a conflict between faith and the natural world, because hey, we’re talking about two different things (another loose Kierkegaard reference).

Although in the end, if people judge you, they judge you. And if you’re trying to convert, eh, in the end we all have some level of free will (Well, some argue against that but that line works for the sake of this post) and people need to figure out what is true for them. Just as well, even if they decide on Christianity, there’s a chance that the only thing they’ll with which they’ll agree with you is the existence of God.

One thing in the Atheists favor is that they see the contradictions of how the Abrahamic god is described, and see they the writings are contradictory. Such as He knows all things ahead of time, but lets a monster he created destroy what is called his children, He kills many innocent children because the adults were bad, He gives them a choice,but if it isn’t his choice he kills them or has them suffer for all eternity,He choose one family and then tells them to kill others that aren’t his favorites, He regrets he created man, when he should have known ahead of time (as is taught about him) what would happen, so drowns all living things except a few humans and animals even though there would be no plants that could survive that much water for nearly a year or the pressure would also be a factor. If a human father was that way we would put him in jail for child abuse. Such a being would not be a loving, caring being, who feels the need to test the faith of one of his favorite children to please the monster or prove the monster’s thinking to be wrong. To me it makes no complete sense. He makes commandments then tells Josua to go into a town and kill every one, take the town,but not the grain?

[Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco]

@cougar58

Because he made this comment at the time of his first book:

“If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.”

I think that indicates he may have been a deist, rather than agnostic, since strict agnosticism claims that metaphysical truth claims are unknowable. Unless of what Der Trihs said is true.