If no evidence can change your mind, no argument assail your logic, you've left the realm where reason can aid you and you're flying on blind faith.
Which was, actually the whole point.
Here
So when I am asked to justify this belief, as you reasonably do, I am at a loss. At this layer of faith, the first critical layer, the layer that includes all religious people and many who call themselves spiritual rather than religious, I can offer no justification as such. I have just never experienced the ordeal of consciousness without it. It is the air I have always breathed. I meet atheists and am as baffled at their lack of faith - at this level - as you are at my attachment to it. When people ask me how I came to choose this faith, I can only say it chose me. I have no ability to stop believing. Crises in my life - death of loved ones, diagnosis with a fatal illness, emotional loss - have never shaken this faith. In fact, they have all strengthened it. I know of no "proof" that could dissuade me of this, since no "proof" ever persuaded me of it.
Faith is a very human thing, and every single person has faith in something (or someone). It's not a rational thing, but an emotional one. I have, in general, no problem with people having faith in things. It's when you start trying to rope reason in to "justify" faith that I step off the bus. Reason is ultimately a tool of proof, of habeus corpus, or finding what's wrong and fixing it. No matter how elaborate the argument, convoluted the logic, or loud the proponant, the existance of god cannot be justifed by reason without evidence. And, as any preacher will tell you, if you only believe because of evidence, it isn't faith.
"Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen, Yet Believe" John 20:19-31*
*this is also what god said to me during my first NDE when I was a kid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
You ask for habeus corpus, But it is lack of a corpus that drives our faith. And, while not repeatable, Does have a lot of evidence to back it up. You pick your battles wisely. Or not. Trying to "prove" faith is like trying to fill a bucket that is upside-down. It's not what a bucket is for.
"Trying to "prove" faith is like trying to fill a bucket that is upside-down. It's not what a bucket is for. "
Yes, that's my point exactly. But some folks want the comfort of faith with the added assurance that they are, in some way, "right" to believe what they do.
Actually I would say that people without faith are the ones who want the proof. We just try to defend what we already have. Faith is what brought me to GOD. Evidence keeps me there.
"Faith is what brought me to GOD. Evidence keeps me there."
Great! Present your objective evidence. Thats all I'm asking.
You're missing the point. Evidence is not going to convince you of anything. It only causes arguments. Faith is it's own evidence. "faith is evidence of things not seen". You have a sceptical mind and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have faith. Everyone does. It's only when people place their faith (voluntarily) with GOD, that others want evidence.
"Faith is it's own evidence."
So here's an experiment you can try on your own. Pick a number, say 217. Think about it a while and, for 1 day only, try to count the number of times you see the number 217. Surprisingly, you will find 217 everywhere! everywhere! It's not a magic number, it's not special in any way (it's not even prime! pffft!). But because you're looking for it, you'll see it all over. Worse, for weeks after, it will jump out at you. You'll start to notice it even when you're not looking or when you dont expect it. Thats because thats what the human brain does, it seeks out novel things and makes patterns out of the random.
I beleive the type of evidence you are refering to is much the same. You see what you're looking for precisely becuase you're looking for it. I admit it can be very persuasive subjectively, but it isn't evidence and you're right it wouldn't convince me. I would need something more objective, something repeatable or even something statitical before I'd concede that the supernatural was quantifable.
And frankly, I don't think folks are much interested in that kind of god.
It's very difficult for me to distinguish between "Faith in tings unseen" and a garden variety internet scam, without some kind of guide or evidence.
"I beleive the type of evidence you are refering to is much the same. You see what you're looking for precisely becuase you're looking for it."
Couldn't the same be said for evolution or global warming? Or anything. This is why faith based on sight is not faith. Besides, aren't we all, in a way, "looking for it"?
The supernatural is by definition, Not "qualifiable". If it were, It wouldn't be supernatural, now would it?
"Couldn't the same be said for evolution or global warming? Or anything."
Yes and no. Yes, people are looking for it, but no, they don't just stop questioning when we think they've found it. For example, in the 217 experiment I proposed, if you beleived ahead of time 217 was special, this would serve as evidence. If, OTOH, you weren't sure, you might try again with another number to see if it's repeatbale. The difference between these views is that one stops, the other doesn't.
"The supernatural is by definition, Not "qualifiable". "
Everthing that exists physically in the universe has some effect on it and, at least in theory, could be measured directly or indirectly. If the supernatural is physically real, it should be detectable. I'm assuming we've been talking about a real, physical god.
"Yes, people are looking for it, but no, they don't just stop questioning when we think they've found it."
Why do you assume I have stopped questioning? I don't go to church anymore but when I did, The place was full of people who were 'questioning their faith'. It's not unusual. I've asked more questions (on both sides of the issue) after coming to faith than I ever did before. There are however folks who just accept whatever they are told w/o question. Whether by a politician, a pastor or a professor.
"Everthing that exists physically in the universe has some effect on it and, at least in theory, could be measured directly or indirectly. If the supernatural is physically real, it should be detectable. I'm assuming we've been talking about a real, physical god."
GOD doesn't exist in the universe. HE exists outside of the universe. HE doesn't exist in time and space HE CREATED time and space and placed us in them.
"I've asked more questions (on both sides of the issue) after coming to faith than I ever did before"
Fair point, however you said earlier, "Evidence keeps me there", and this comment discussion has been based on my asking to see the evidence.
"
GOD doesn't exist in the universe. HE exists outside of the universe. HE doesn't exist in time and space HE CREATED time and space and placed us in them. "
To which I would first say, show me evidence this is true.
Second, I would ask if you believe in prayer. If you do, then there must be some kind of physical communication mechanism to communicate with god, and that mechanism is subject to inspection, directly or indrectly. If not, well thats a different conversation.
I won't get into the whole "miracles" debate, experience has show that degenerates rapidly.
MH:"...this comment discussion has been based on my asking to see the evidence."
anon:The modern scientific method starts with the premise that everything is demonstrable in the physical world. Where is the evidence for this? It is a non provable concept and therefore, moot. Reread my initial post.
-------------------------
anon:"GOD doesn't exist in the universe. HE exists outside of the universe. HE doesn't exist in time and space HE CREATED time and space and placed us in them. "
MH:"To which I would first say, show me evidence this is true."
anon:Let's take a trip outside the universe.
-------------------------
MH:Second, I would ask if you believe in prayer. If you do, then there must be some kind of physical communication mechanism to communicate with god, and that mechanism is subject to inspection, directly or indrectly. If not, well thats a different conversation.
anon: again, Supernatural is by definition, not natural. It does not have to be physical. Kinda like dark matter. The only real evidence for dark matter is that we can't explain gravity in natural terms. (yes I understand the limb I am crawling out on by talking about DM with an astronomer.) :/
Mark, You are not going to see the evidence you want. And even if you do it won't convince you of anything. Look at the story of Moses and the Exodus. The jews looked for their redeemer for 400 years. He came and they first tried to kill him. Then he came back and accurately predicted 10 plagues. He showed many signs and never once took credit for any of this himself. He led them out of bondage with fire and a cloud. Provided food and water for nearly Two Million people. Parted the Red Sea. Closed it up on the Egyptians. And when they were within sight of the Promised Land, what did they do. They built a cow out of gold and called IT god. Now even if you think that this is just a story or a legend. It's Still one hell of an illustration. And remember, this is a story that a people wrote about Themselves, not someone else.
MH:"...this comment discussion has been based on my asking to see the evidence."
anon:The modern scientific method starts with the premise that everything is demonstrable in the physical world. Where is the evidence for this? It is a non provable concept and therefore, moot. Reread my initial post.
That’s not quite right. Science is based on making models of physical phenomena, then testing those models against the real universe and adjusting them (or throwing them out) based on how well the describe the results. There is plenty of evidence that this works very well. You’re using some of it right now.
-------------------------
anon:"GOD doesn't exist in the universe. HE exists outside of the universe. HE doesn't exist in time and space HE CREATED time and space and placed us in them. "
MH:"To which I would first say, show me evidence this is true."
anon:Let's take a trip outside the universe.
If god exists and interacts, there should be evidence, even if that evidence is the suspension of other physical law. If he exists and cannot interact with the universe in any way, well, that seems pointless.
Either way, proposing a god that exists outside the universe is an unanswerable question. I could make the same argument for the Devil or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe they exist outside the universe too. It’s pointless to propose such things.
-------------------------
MH:Second, I would ask if you believe in prayer. If you do, then there must be some kind of physical communication mechanism to communicate with god, and that mechanism is subject to inspection, directly or indrectly. If not, well thats a different conversation.
anon: again, Supernatural is by definition, not natural. It does not have to be physical. Kinda like dark matter. The only real evidence for dark matter is that we can't explain gravity in natural terms. (yes I understand the limb I am crawling out on by talking about DM with an astronomer.) :/
Dark Matter is a theory, one which is certainly flawed. Some evidence exists that parts of the theory might be useful in describing the universe. I would venture that there is more physical evidence of dark matter than there is of god.
Mark, You are not going to see the evidence you want. And even if you do it won't convince you of anything.
Utterly untrue. I have had my mind changed on lots of things I didn’t think were true, but when there was evidence, I had to rethink my worldview and changed. Ask my son. I could easily do the same on god given some evidence.
Look at the story of Moses and the Exodus. The jews looked for their redeemer for 400 years. He came and they first tried to kill him. Then he came back and accurately predicted 10 plagues. He showed many signs and never once took credit for any of this himself. He led them out of bondage with fire and a cloud. Provided food and water for nearly Two Million people. Parted the Red Sea. Closed it up on the Egyptians. And when they were within sight of the Promised Land, what did they do. They built a cow out of gold and called IT god. Now even if you think that this is just a story or a legend. It's Still one hell of an illustration. And remember, this is a story that a people wrote about Themselves, not someone else.
It’s a story. Lots of non-Christian people tell similar ones with very different details and moral codes? Which should I believe, and why?
I'll try to edit this down to only the latest branch.
MH:That’s not quite right. Science is based on making models of physical phenomena, then testing those models against the real universe and adjusting them (or throwing them out) based on how well the describe the results. There is plenty of evidence that this works very well. You’re using some of it right now.
anon: like I said and you are confirming,The scientifc method works on "physical Phenomena". GOD is not Physical Phenomena. He is supernatural. Therefore the same rules don't apply. As much as I would like to, I can't change that . My question was, what proof is there that GOD must be proven in a physical way?
-------------------------
MH:If god exists and interacts, there should be evidence, even if that evidence is the suspension of other physical law.
anon:When GOD does suspend physical law, (You said you were going to stay away from miracles) Scientists and sceptics feel it is their duty to find a physical explanation for it. No matter how convoluted the logic.(it wasn't the RED SEA, it was the REED sea. Moses and the gang walked across on reeds that the wind blew over. Manna was mushrooms. Jesus didn't walk on water, he swam. Nobody else knew about swimming so they thought it was a miracle. He changed water into wine with powdered grape concentrate, the "kool-aid theory". And fed 5000 people with fish soup. He rose from the dead because he wasn't dead to begin with.) etc.,etc.
MH:....proposing a god that exists outside the universe is an unanswerable question. I could make the same argument for the Devil or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe they exist outside the universe too. It’s pointless to propose such things.
anon:I don't propose GOD, I believe in HIM. I also believe in the devil. The flying spaghetti monster turned green in the back of my fridge so I threw him out.
-------------------------
anon:Mark, You are not going to see the evidence you want. And even if you do it won't convince you of anything.
MH:Utterly untrue. I have had my mind changed on lots of things I didn’t think were true, but when there was evidence, I had to rethink my worldview and changed. Ask my son. I could easily do the same on god given some evidence.
anon: What I am saying is that the type of evidence you seek does not exist. You want physical evidence for a supernatural being. I could give you a couple of books to read, where the case is laid out but you would still try to explain eveything by physical means. It's like trying to catch water in a net. sooner or later you have to realize that it can't be done without changing one or the other.
BTW: I have tried to access your son's blog from your link. Can't.
---------------------
anon:.... Now even if you think that this is just a story or a legend. It's Still one hell of an illustration. And remember, this is a story that a people wrote about Themselves, not someone else.
----------------
anon:It’s a story. Lots of non-Christian people tell similar ones with very different details and moral codes? Which should I believe, and why?
----------
anon: I allowed that it could be a story. You claim that it is. What is your evidence?
anon: like I said and you are confirming,The scientifc method works on "physical Phenomena". GOD is not Physical Phenomena. He is supernatural. Therefore the same rules don't apply. As much as I would like to, I can't change that . My question was, what proof is there that GOD must be proven in a physical way?
MH: Your claim seems to be that god exists and exerts force in the physical universe, that would require some evidence. If, on the other hand, your claim is that god only exists as a meme or idea in the minds of believers, that’s a lesser and much more reliable claim, one I might fully concede as having met the burden of evidence.
You’re avoiding having to produce direct physical evidence by, essentially, claiming that god is magical and therefore outside the prevue of proof. The problem with that is, the last 10,000 years of human history have been filled with claims of “magic” which eventually turn out to either be natural physical phenomena or scams. To be fair, some of the things which turn out to be scams were sincerely believed by a lot of folks participating and did not all contain malice (although somewhere someone always seemed to derive an economic or social benefit). We’ve build an advanced technical society based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable, even if we don’t know what that explanation is at a particular moment. To attempt to hide god under the label of magic is something of a cop-out at this point. If, as you suggest, god acts in the lives of people, there should be evidence.
anon:When GOD does suspend physical law, (You said you were going to stay away from miracles) Scientists and sceptics feel it is their duty to find a physical explanation for it.
yes, exactly. That’s what we do. That’s why it’s reason and not faith. Your example is a good one. You see it as a complex rationalization to avoid the obvious power of god faithfully documented. I see the story of a genius philosopher embellished with special effects to appeal to the masses to sell the philosophy. I apply Occam’s razor given what I know about sales and marketing and conclude my explanation is more likely. Further, having read the stories, I conclude that the special effects are superfluous and actually detract from the message. My explanation seems reasonable but could be blown completely apart by yours if you could demonstrate magic. Until then, Occam’s razor holds.
MH: Your claim seems to be that god exists and exerts force in the physical universe, that would require some evidence.
anon: you are right. And there is evidence. Just not the kind of evidence that you are looking for. And I know from experience, That skeptics will use the most convulted logic to prove that the events have natural explanations, as I stated above. Just as you would say that I believe this stuff only because I want to believe it, I could also say that you don't believe it, because you don't want to. It is a matter of will, and GOD gives us free will. You are free to believe or not believe. JESUS compares himself to a door, (among other things) that you can open or not open.
--------------------------
MH:...the last 10,000 years of human history have been filled with claims of “magic” which eventually turn out to either be natural physical phenomena or scams. To be fair, some of the things which turn out to be scams were sincerely believed by a lot of folks participating and did not all contain malice (although somewhere someone always seemed to derive an economic or social benefit).
anon:This can be said as much for folks in the scientific community as with anyone else. If someone has a few letters before or after their name we are supposed to stand in awe of whatever they say, but history has shown that they can be just as wrong as anyone else. And money IS an issue. how many researchers hold a certain viewpoint because they can get bigger grants?
---------------------------
MH:We’ve build an advanced technical society based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable, even if we don’t know what that explanation is at a particular moment.
anon: That is not necessarily true. This idea of explainability is relatively new. Perhaps since Darwin. Many of our foundational scientists were Bible believers. Nowadays, a scientist can be marginalized for the same thing no matter what evidence they present.
-----------------------
MH:Your example is a good one. You see it as a complex rationalization to avoid the obvious power of god faithfully documented. I see the story of a genius philosopher embellished with special effects to appeal to the masses to sell the philosophy.
anon: Are you saying that JESUS rose from the dead by magic?
---------------------
JESUS compares himself to a door, (among other things) that you can open or not open.
--------------------------
MH: Just to be clear, I think Jesus had important things to say, I just don’t believe he was magical or divine or anything.
MH:...the last 10,000 years of human history have been filled with claims of “magic” which eventually turn out to either be natural physical phenomena or scams. To be fair, some of the things which turn out to be scams were sincerely believed by a lot of folks participating and did not all contain malice (although somewhere someone always seemed to derive an economic or social benefit).
anon:This can be said as much for folks in the scientific community as with anyone else. If someone has a few letters before or after their name we are supposed to stand in awe of whatever they say, but history has shown that they can be just as wrong as anyone else. And money IS an issue. how many researchers hold a certain viewpoint because they can get bigger grants?
---------------------------
MH: The difference is that with science, the system is self correcting. No one believes anything because someone with PhD says it’s true. Claims are tested, theories modified then retested. Science is built around the central idea that the state of knowledge at anytime is incomplete. Scientists expect to eventually be superseded by superior knowledge and better theories. While people do compete for grant money, their results have to withstand the scrutiny of other scientists over time. Mistakes are corrected and science progresses. Science is completely different from religion in at least this one aspect. Wiki has a great explanation of what a scientist means by the use of the word “theory”, better than I can add here. A scientific theory is more than a guess or one persons opinion, it’s the temporary result of a process of reasoning which continues.
MH:We’ve build an advanced technical society based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable, even if we don’t know what that explanation is at a particular moment.
anon: That is not necessarily true. This idea of explainability is relatively new. Perhaps since Darwin. Many of our foundational scientists were Bible believers. Nowadays, a scientist can be marginalized for the same thing no matter what evidence they present.
-----------------------
Explanation goes back in written history to the beginning. What’s changed is the elements of the explanations. In the remote past, things were explained by supernatural forces. As knowledge grew, the elements of explanations grew in sophistication. Plato is a great example, as is Ptolemy an others. Newton added the rigor of advanced mathematics to some aspects of science, but by the time of Darwin modern scientific inquiry had been in play for centuries.
Anyone with a bright 4 year-old knows you have to explain *everything*
Many scientists have been “Bible Believers” without being bible literalists. And again, it doesn’t matter what they believe, what matters is how well their science holds up.
anon: Are you saying that JESUS rose from the dead by magic?
MH: Thousands of people die and “rise” again every year. It’s happened to me twice. It’s a not uncommon medical phenomenon. To people of the first century, someone doing this might very well have seemed like magic. Again, I don’t believe in god or the divinity of prophets. I do believe in some of their ideas though, and Jesus had some great ones. I think the miracles of the bible detract from those messages.
The wiki link didn't resolve after I spell checked, so I am adding it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
In re-reading this, I think I can distill out a simple point that's a major difference between the schools of thought we are debating:
Science isn't personal. While individual scientists might get notoriety, they are really judged professionally by their science. Decisions about science aren’t generally based on the personal strength of the individual. Scientists aren’t pastors or preachers to be believed because of the quality of their conviction, but by the quality of their science. I know lots of scientists with odious personalities who I can’t stand, don’t’ trust and would cheerful mow down in a parking lot if I had half a chance, but I read their papers, look at their results and judge based on the results. Personally, I might want them to be wrong and humiliated, but professionally, I don’t have the option to engage at that level. If Dr. Obnoxious has real results on Alvan Waves promoting the spiral structure of galaxies, I have to find the flaw in her data or theory, not in Dr. Obnoxious grotesque eating habits.
Much as that might give men some personal satisfaction.
Mark,
I only wish that I could believe this. And in your case I can believe that you are sincere in what you say. But by saying that all scientists are this way towards all other scientists only illustrates my point that we are supposed to stand in awe of what these people say because they are all brimming with integrity and they would never allow personal views, awards or monetary gain to stand between them and indesputable facts. The truth is there are scientists who believe in the fact that JESUS died, was buried and rose after three days. now obviously this was not captured on video and broadcast on the evening news but there is plenty of corraborative evidence. Writings outside of the Bible. Eyewitness accounts. But most scientists would dismiss evidence simply because "people don't rise from the dead" "Virgins don't give birth" "Men don't walk on water" "Can you change water into wine ? No. Therefore, neither did JESUS."
This is what I mean when I say that Evidence can be dismissed out of hand BECAUSE it defies natural laws.
“ we are supposed to stand in awe of what these people say because they are all brimming with integrity and they would never allow personal views, awards or monetary gain to stand between them and indesputable facts”
No, that is exactly backward. You shouldn’t stand in “awe” of any scientist because they’re a scientist, and you shouldn’t believe what they say just because they are the one’s saying it. You should believe what they say because you can independently verify it if you wanted to.
“But most scientists would dismiss evidence simply because "people don't rise from the dead" "Virgins don't give birth" "Men don't walk on water" "Can you change water into wine ?”
You seem to believe these things because you want to, or because you believe someone will reward you with eternal life if you do. How does that make your evidence more credible than independent confirmation?
Some of the ideas of jesus are credible and have a lot of evidence to support them. I'll buy those. The miracles do not, and I set them aside.
Post a Comment