Faith. Bad? Good? (a bit long)

[AtheistArchon]

- This one ought to get people talking. :smile:

- My question to those who profess religious beliefs based on faith is "how do you know your beliefs are true if they're based on faith?". Think about that question... it's hard to answer if you're a believer. How many beliefs out there are faith-based? A lot! How many are true? We can't say, because faith does not provide any means for learning whether the belief is actually true or not. Is something true just because you'd like it to be true?

- Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In science, I can come up with a hypothesis and then test it. It might be a hypothesis that I really want to be true! If it is, I will revolutionize my industry and make millions, solve world hunger, and so on. It's a really great hypothesis. I can't think of a single person who would not want my hypothesis to be true... who wouldn't want to solve world hunger? So I begin testing, and guess what? The tests show that my hypothesis is false. It doesn't work. No matter how much I want to believe that my hypothesis is true, physics and reality will show that it isn't. My wants and desires do not make the hypothesis true or false.

- Religious beliefs, however, do not allow themselves to be tested; they are faith-based. How much do you want your religious beliefs to be true? That's how true they turn out to be for you. How much do you want other faith-based beliefs to be false? That's how false they are for you. Faith makes anything you like "true" for you, but it does not allow any way of knowing whether or not it is true outside your own mind. There are simply no constraints; purple unicorns are real because I have faith in them, and nobody can ever prove that they don't exist (because they're shy, don't you know!). I've always wondered why Christians mock Muslims (and vice versa) for having misplaced faith. Which group is willing to lay their beliefs out to genuine un-biased scientific testing and scrutiny? Neither. Both rely on faith. So basically this is pure arrogance, and nothing more.

- Now, if you've read my other essay, you basically know the kind of tests you're about to take. The object of these tests is to see whether or not you can tell anything about reality by believing via faith. Are you ready?

- Somewhere on my website, I've put a picture. The picture is very easily recognized. It does not change, it's not randomized... each and every person who reads this essay will see the very same picture. Nobody (besides me) has the power to change or adjust what they'll see when the picture is revealed; the picture is reality. If the picture is of a cat but you want to see a dog, you're still going to see a cat, no matter how much you want to see something else. Here's the first test: by using faith, tell me what the picture is. Don't peek! If you peek beforehand, then you're not using faith, you're using direct observation (science).

- Seriously, try this out. If you're a believer, then you have faith that your beliefs are true. If you value the bible, then you have faith that what the bible says is correct. You don't know that it's true, you simply have faith that God is real, that heaven exists, and so on. You cannot directly observe these things. There is no way to test these beliefs to see if they're true or not, but we can test your belief about what my picture is. How accurate is your faith? How accurate is anyone's faith?

- Click this link, and find out: http://www.the-archon.com/images/arch.jpg

- Did your faith tell you what the picture was? You didn't have a clue in the world, did you? How can faith tell you anything that is actually true in reality, and not just your own wishful thinking?

- Now, some of you are crying "foul!". Faith, you're saying, is evidence of things unseen, not things we can see. Well that certainly is convenient I suppose, but if your powers of faith cannot tell you something at least as simple as a picture on my website, then how is it going to tell you about the mysteries of life, death, and the universe at large? Basically you're telling me that your faith is always right whenever the answer cannot be externally determined, but always wrong when we do have a way to test for it empirically. Even if this is truly your position, then you're still stuck trying to convince me that your faith is the truth. How can we know, if by definition we cannot know? Why is your faith the truth, and someone else's faith is blasphemy?

- Let's try another test. Tell me, using faith, what color my living room is painted (I'll even give you a big hint, it isn't white or off-white). Can you tell me? Why not? Why is faith suddenly NOT a good way to know the truth about something? Why is it only okay to use when we have no other way of testing the claims? Doesn't this strike you as a little bit suspicious?

- I know what you're thinking now... this is too much like asking you to have psychic powers. Well, yes. Isn't that what faith is? Knowing something that you cannot otherwise discern? Evidence of things unseen? Miss Cleo claims to do this for a living (she claims it for a living, she doesn't actually do it, just like you couldn't actually tell me anything about my picture or my living room).

- Now then, the more advanced of you out there already know the most common tactic when faced with these problems: but science relies on faith too!

- Firstly, this is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. It means "you too!". Sure, I may actually be a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that gets you out of your predicament. It happens that in this case I'm not a hypocrite, but even if I were, this accusation doesn't help faith believers.

- Secondly, yes I do take some things on faith. Not scientific theories, but certainly there are some things I have faith in. For example, I have faith that human beings are basically good in nature. The difference here is that I don't claim that humans are good in nature as a fact; I don't claim that this is the truth. It is simply my hope. It isn't "gospel". I don't preach it.

- Thirdly, science makes the following assumptions:

1. I exist.

2. The universe exists.

3. I can interact with the universe in a meaningful way (meaning that we are not living in the Matrix and are being fooled by everything we see and hear, etc).

- One and two are what I call self-evident. You might disagree. If you don't agree that these two things are true, then you've removed yourself from the discussion anyhow. Poof!

- Number three is interesting. If pressed on the issue, I'll probably agree that science assumes this to be true a-priori. Theists may think this is a victory for faith! But not so: remember that God is said to routinely perform miracles. He is said to be able to do things which are physically impossible, like turn people into pillars of salt. How can you say you know anything about the universe when you have no idea when or if God is making magic at that particular moment? There is another essay on this topic ( http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/sciencevstheism.htm ) which goes into detail, but the conclusion is that if a theistic God exists, you can never do science. Why? Because premise #3 is void. You cannot interact with the universe in a meaningful way, because you cannot explain miracles... because... well, because they're miracles.

- Science takes these three things as true a-priori, yes. Chances are, unless you're a solipsist, you do too (how many of you actually believe we're brains in vats, being fed artificial stimuli? How could you ever convince me that such a thing is true?), but scientific theories are not based on faith. They're based upon lots of empirical evidence and testing. A scientific theory is not a guess.

- "Aha! See, science is faith-based, you admit it! Science assumes that we're not living in the Matrix. Therefore my faith is just as justified as yours!" Not quite. Science works. Faith, as you have been able to see here by my tests, does not. How can your faith be justified when it can't tell us whether it's true or not? Maybe we are living in the Matrix. If we ever find out that we are, then I'll abandon science; it would be worthless. Until then, it works. What reason do we have to think that our observations are tricks? The same goes if you could show me that the universe doesn't exist, or that I don't exist. Good luck.

- It's true that science is not perfect, because we who practice it are not perfect creatures, but nobody can argue that it has not produced the very best answers thus far by a long shot. When someone can show me a better way to learn objective truths about the universe and demonstrate it, then perhaps I'll think about adopting your method. As we can see here, faith ain't it.

- In closing, I find it interesting that so many people (including the current president) assume that it's a compliment to say things like "we are a nation of strong faith", or "we will rely on our faith". Horse puckey, say I. When the president can use his powers of faith to heal the economy, I'll be impressed. When he can tell me what color my living room is, I'll be impressed.

- Sadly, the world does not actually conform to what we wish were true.

[johnransom]

Complete drivel. What a waste of time. Yet again you demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend...er...well, pretty much anything. You assume that religious faith is always a faith based on no evidence whatsoever. Which, being unprovable, is a faith-based commitment given your own definition. It also happens to be totally untrue. Evidently you have never heard of of the triad notitia (scientia) assentia fiducia. And how about you check out some definitions here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith), which includes an extended entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary as well as standard dictionary definitions. At least do some minimal research before spouting off.

[Sher]

:thumb: Hey! I was right on the money with the picture ... might have been more effective if you wouldn't have use arch.jpg in your url :poke: It was kinda obvious after that.

As for the rest .... :zzz: John pretty much summed it up.

[Solly]

Today @ 04:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76175#post76175)
AtheistArchon:
- My question to those who profess religious beliefs based on faith is "how do you know your beliefs are true if they're based on faith?". Think about that question... it's hard to answer if you're a believer. How many beliefs out there are faith-based? A lot! How many are true? We can't say, because faith does not provide any means for learning whether the belief is actually true or not. Is something true just because you'd like it to be true?



AA, your idea of faith does not conform to the Christian understanding of "faith" or its role, nor even to the everyday use of it. The problem is that you are using it in a cognitive sense that is similar to believe, and applying it to information gathering - which it never was meant for. This is not Christian faith, which is about "trust". A Christian believes (we don't have a verb for faith, hence the confusion) in God, because God is trustworthy. A Christian believes certain things that are propounded, yet beyond immediate verification, not because we like believing six impossible things before breakfast, but because the one who propounds them is a trustorthy source - that is difficult for you to follow, I realise, since you don't have "faith" that we are trustworthy sources.

More importanty, we trust ourselves to him, which is what the core message of Christianity is about, not gaining cognitive information about the physical nature of the universe. The Gospel message has been heard, we have seen ourselves described in it as sinners, we have felt the moral force of that fact, we have heard the account of what Christ did for sinners - which is verifiable in its outward aspects - and we believe God when he says that it was done for our eternal salvation, and to be received "by faith" - in other words, casting ourselves upon his mercy. While some like to discuss creation issues, etc, this is where it is at for most Christians.

When the writer in the letter to the hebrews says:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
We believe it, because God said it.

You are also mistaken about the idea that we "want our beliefs to be true", since that is bad reasoning; our beliefs are garnered out of the Scriptures, not made up willy-nilly - we are not gullible in the way you seem to think, since we don't also believe in UFOs, leprachauns, or alchemy. Some of the things we do believe are very hard to believe, such as the resolution of the problem of evil, the fate of millions who have never heard the Gospel, etc. Some of them have taxed the minds of the greatest theologians, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But these things are believed, because he is trustworthy, and good.

And finally, though I hate the pragmatic argument, the fact is Christianity "works". It is not self-deception. I would not have become a Christian if it did not "work" and produce the results it professes to - which is a heart transplant.
Despite the constant flag waving for the scientific method, even scientists don't live in the lab all their lives. A Christian, however, is expected to be on 24/7.

[seer]

AA, my faith is certainly base somewhat on the subjective. It is also based on the historical death and resurrection of Christ. That the NT writers were honest, and had no compelling reason to lie. And the fact that I find it impossible to believe that this universe came about be accident.

[Blake Reas]

Archon,

Do you not have faith in the inductive principle? For instance you have faith that the sun will rise tommorow that science can be done because things have always happened the way they do today? You will say that this is different and I agree to an exteny but faith is faith. The scientist must have a certain degree of faith when he wakes up in the morning that the sun will be their or that the universe does not go crazy. I think you have discussed the TAG argument with 5solas though I have not seen you discuss lately he would be good for this conversation.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Archon,

There is one problem I have with your post. You say a Theist cannot be a scientist (i am not for otehr reasons:lol: ) but I have read a few articles by non-christians who would agree with the assesment that if not for Christianity there would be no science as we know it today. Christianity gave the grounds for Europe to start doing the act of science because they believed God had created a rational and intelligible world (which is from Scripture). You will probably dispute this but I will post a bibliography later if I have the time. :cheers: :spam:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Mikeb]

I too have a great deal of trouble with faith. To me it seems an odious residue of paganism that Paul utilized in his singleminded drive to spread the Gospel.

In your post you demonstrate that you are as much a victim of Pauls work as the most dogmatic literalist the fundamentalist movement ever spawned.

You are obviously as ill equiped to deal with the concept of faith as you are the Philosophy of Science.

If I were you I would revisit my faith that we are not in the "Matrix."

Have a nice day :eek:

Mike

[AtheistArchon]

- Very interesting replies so far.


Complete drivel. What a waste of time. Yet again you demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend...er...well, pretty much anything. You assume that religious faith is always a faith based on no evidence whatsoever. Which, being unprovable, is a faith-based commitment given your own definition. It also happens to be totally untrue. Evidently you have never heard of of the triad notitia (scientia) assentia fiducia. And how about you check out some definitions here, which includes an extended entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary as well as standard dictionary definitions. At least do some minimal research before spouting off.

- Nice rant. Did you guess my pic?


Hey! I was right on the money with the picture ... might have been more effective if you wouldn't have use arch.jpg in your url :poke: It was kinda obvious after that.

As for the rest .... :zzz: John pretty much summed it up.

- Somehow I doubt you guess my pic... but okay. How did you do with the color of my living room?


AA, your idea of faith does not conform to the Christian understanding of "faith" or its role, nor even to the everyday use of it. The problem is that you are using it in a cognitive sense that is similar to believe, and applying it to information gathering - which it never was meant for. This is not Christian faith, which is about "trust". A Christian believes (we don't have a verb for faith, hence the confusion) in God, because God is trustworthy.

- Circular. Bremf the Blue Goblin is trustworthy too (because I have faith he is), so therefore my faith in him is justified...


A Christian believes certain things that are propounded, yet beyond immediate verification, not because we like believing six impossible things before breakfast, but because the one who propounds them is a trustorthy source - that is difficult for you to follow, I realise, since you don't have "faith" that we are trustworthy sources.

- Ehh and you don't see the circle here?


We believe it, because God said it.

- You have faith that what you've read is the word of god. Further, you have faith that there is a god to give you words.


You are also mistaken about the idea that we "want our beliefs to be true", since that is bad reasoning; our beliefs are garnered out of the Scriptures, not made up willy-nilly -

- Eh, I think you're missing the point. A holy text is not automatically the truth just because it claims, in the text, that it is the truth.


And finally, though I hate the pragmatic argument, the fact is Christianity "works".

- Does it? Do you mind if we try it out and see? You know, for empirical verification.


I would not have become a Christian if it did not "work" and produce the results it professes to - which is a heart transplant.

- In other words, it makes you feel good. That's exactly what I meant by wanting it to be true.


AA, my faith is certainly base somewhat on the subjective. It is also based on the historical death and resurrection of Christ. That the NT writers were honest, and had no compelling reason to lie.

- Well that's a whole different thread, I think. One I'd be happy to participate in again.


Do you not have faith in the inductive principle? For instance you have faith that the sun will rise tommorow that science can be done because things have always happened the way they do today? You will say that this is different and I agree to an exteny but faith is faith. The scientist must have a certain degree of faith when he wakes up in the morning that the sun will be their or that the universe does not go crazy. I think you have discussed the TAG argument with 5solas though I have not seen you discuss lately he would be good for this conversation.

- Certainly I have faith, but there are differences. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, sure, but I do not claim absolutely that it will (as opposed to Christian absolutism), and I have an excellent empirical track record (pragmatism) combined with first-hand knowledge about how the Earth orbits the sun.


There is one problem I have with your post. You say a Theist cannot be a scientist (i am not for otehr reasons:lol: ) but I have read a few articles by non-christians who would agree with the assesment that if not for Christianity there would be no science as we know it today. Christianity gave the grounds for Europe to start doing the act of science because they believed God had created a rational and intelligible world (which is from Scripture).

- Then you're a fan of science? Excellent. Why can we not apply it to your beliefs?


In your post you demonstrate that you are as much a victim of Pauls work as the most dogmatic literalist the fundamentalist movement ever spawned.

You are obviously as ill equiped to deal with the concept of faith as you are the Philosophy of Science.

- Oh, obviously. Because you say so. :ahem:

- Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much?

[Solly]

Today @ 05:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77233#post77233)
AtheistArchon:
- Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much?

No it should not, because Faith is not about intelligence gathering, nor telepathy. Faith is specifically geared to our relationship with God, and our acceptance of things he has said; that goes on to include things said about the nature and history of the world, but not first an foremost. You are committing the old category error. Tell me, does the love you have for your partner, or parent, tell you what colour my front room is?

/me wonders why nonChristians come on this board without bothering to do the slightest amount of study about Christian doctrine and experience before hand?

[Bob Jenkins]

\\
No it should not, because Faith is not about intelligence gathering, nor telepathy. Faith is specifically geared to our relationship with God, and our acceptance of things he has said; that goes on to include things said about the nature and history of the world,

Comment:
God has lead us to believe in His written word That the earth is flat and some birds have four legs. So much for nature..

Christianity has said in scripture that the nativity was prompted by a census. History tells us that no such census was ever ordered.

\\
but not first an foremost. You are committing the old category error. Tell me, does the love you have for your partner, or parent, tell you what colour my front room is?

Comment:
Are you equating faith with emotion? I would say that emotion is a stronger precurser of probable outcome!

* Solly wonders why nonChristians come on this board without bothering to do the slightest amount of study about Christian doctrine and experience before hand?

Comment:
Some of us have a background in doctrine and mydraid experiences in Christianity and find that knowledge and experience is only required to "preach to the choir". A grounding of reason is what is brought by those who reject subjective (individual or mass) mythology..

[Solly]

Welcome to TWeb Bob

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77343#post77343)
Bob Jenkins:

BJ--Comment:
God has lead us to believe in His written word That the earth is flat and some birds have four legs.

--Does it?

Christianity has said in scripture that the nativity was prompted by a census. History tells us that no such census was ever ordered.

--There are those that will dispute that "fact"

BJ--Comment:
Are you equating faith with emotion? I would say that emotion is a stronger precurser of probable outcome!

--Not in saying "this is that" but "this is like that". Faith is trust, which is a similar state to love.

BJ--Comment:
Some of us have a background in doctrine and mydraid experiences in Christianity and find that knowledge and experience is only required to "preach to the choir". A grounding of reason is what is brought by those who reject subjective (individual or mass) mythology..

--1. Good to hear it. Most of the one's I have encountered seem to have read the devastating critiques, but never the stuff we write.
2. Who else would we preach to in church (other than the fact that we don't have a choir).
3. Reason is not a philosophy, it is a tool that is used by all alike. Reason does not guarantee that one will be a skeptic.
4. Define "mythology" in this context please; that is a throwaway label used by skeptics, but doesn't usually have much intellectual content. Part of the skeptic "mythology" no less.

[jpholding]

Archon,

Have you seen my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/whatfaith.html

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77233#post77233)
AtheistArchon:
Nice rant. Did you guess my pic?
Translation: I'm going to dismiss your point out of hand because it completely defeats my laboriously constructed straw man argument at the most basic level. And as for your pic, who cares? Even by your definition, faith cannot tell us anything about what is not yet known, only about the truth value of what is already known.


Somehow I doubt you guess my pic... but okay. How did you do with the color of my living room?
That is, I have so much faith in the validity of my argument that I deny the truth claims of others, regardless of how obvious they are.


Circular. Bremf the Blue Goblin is trustworthy too (because I have faith he is), so therefore my faith in him is justified...
No it's not, other than in your mind. Let's go over the basic flaw in your argument once again, in upper case so maybe you'll actually notice it: FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE.


Ehh and you don't see the circle here?
Other than the one created by your head spinnng, no.


You have faith that what you've read is the word of god. Further, you have faith that there is a god to give you words.
More of the same silly error.


Eh, I think you're missing the point. A holy text is not automatically the truth just because it claims, in the text, that it is the truth.
No one said this. Quit trying to build straw men when the barn's on fire.


Does it? Do you mind if we try it out and see? You know, for empirical verification.
So 19.5 centuries of cultural improvement is not enough empirical evidence for you? Skepticism for skepticism's sake. A philosophical dead end.


In other words, it makes you feel good. That's exactly what I meant by wanting it to be true.
Which has nothing to do with what was said. No one said anything about feeling good.


Well that's a whole different thread, I think. One I'd be happy to participate in again.
Masochist.


Certainly I have faith, but there are differences. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, sure, but I do not claim absolutely that it will (as opposed to Christian absolutism), and I have an excellent empirical track record (pragmatism) combined with first-hand knowledge about how the Earth orbits the sun.
What about your apparent and utterly misplaced faith in your own competence in so many areas?


Then you're a fan of science? Excellent. Why can we not apply it to your beliefs?
To the extent that the scientific method can be applied, it has been. You merely refuse to concede that FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE.


Oh, obviously. Because you say so.
No, because you have amply demonstrated it.


Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much?
And so we come full circle. Why should anyone defend an idea they do not believe? This is the same as your idiotic claim that Christians believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the source of free will. Your insistence that we respond to your straw men by buying into them is inane. Instead we frustrate you by burning them to ash. For some reason you expect the phoenix to rise. Your faith is commendable.

[Bob Jenkins]

[Quote]
God has lead us to believe in His written word That the earth is flat and some birds have four legs.

--Does it?

[comment]
Yes! Isaiah 11:12* , Revelation 7:1, Matthew 4:8, Isa 40:21-22.. I'm sorry to say the reference for four-leged birds escapes me.

[quote]
Christianity has said in scripture that the nativity was prompted by a census. History tells us that no such census was ever ordered.

--There are those that will dispute that "fact"

[comment]
There is no historical Roman record of such a census. The rulers mentioned in the gospels were not contemparies. There was no Roman authority for the census in the Roman custom of ruling occupied lands. Census' are made of people in the place of thier occupancy. and not the location of thier birth.

You wouldn't happen to be one of those who dispute that fact, would you? If so, please, and using other than biblical fable, substantiate your historical knowledge

[quote]
4. Define "mythology" in this context please; that is a throwaway label used by skeptics, but doesn't usually have much intellectual content. Part of the skeptic "mythology" no less.

[comment]
I offer this unscholary definition to abuse you of the mistaken application of the term referring to skeptics:

Mythology is the lore of a people to expain life and to proscribe life's transitional rituals. It is also used to enforce community standards of behavior.

I also wish that I not be included in a grouping labeled skeptics. I take that label as a negative slam. I have absolutely no doubt. I would wear the name tag of a "non-believer" with pride (along with "humanist", "individual spiritalist", "reasoner")

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
No it's not, other than in your mind. Let's go over the basic flaw in your argument once again, in upper case so maybe you'll actually notice it: FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE.

[comment]
Faith can certainly be based on evidence - I have faith that the sun will rise above the horizon tommorow with ample scientificevidence to support that faith.

However, faith in the supernatural is an other matter and requires and lacks objective evidence.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]

“ Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much? ”


And so we come full circle. Why should anyone defend an idea they do not believe? This is the same as your idiotic claim that Christians believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the source of free will. Your insistence that we respond to your straw men by buying into them is inane. Instead we frustrate you by burning them to ash. For some reason you expect the phoenix to rise. Your faith is commendable.

[comment]
I see no answer here - just a general slam in the defense of unaswered question.

He askes "tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not" and not one coherent response.

[jpholding]

Bob Jenkins,

Your bit about flat earth, etc., is off topic so I will only mention that others have dealt with these issues, myself included. If you want to start another thread that would be nice; though there is one already on flat earth somewhere here.

I'd like your thoughts then on the article of mine I linked to earlier.

[Blake Reas]

Then you're a fan of science? Excellent. Why can we not apply it to your beliefs?

I did not mean science cannot be applied to my faith or the Bible. For instance I believe Textual Criticism, and the other Criticisms when used in the right context which is to get to the meaning of the text is very important. Also I think that science is an important indeavor for the Christian and I have no problem with Science being looked at as Evolution(Even though I do not believe it is true in the full sense). Maybe I am misunderstanding you if I am restate your question I do not think that I implied that science could be used. What I said was that Christianity gave the fundamental grounds for scientists to do there art which is that the universe is rational and can be tested because it is created by God.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77704#post77704)
Bob Jenkins:

[quote]

“ Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much? ”


And so we come full circle. Why should anyone defend an idea they do not believe? This is the same as your idiotic claim that Christians believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the source of free will. Your insistence that we respond to your straw men by buying into them is inane. Instead we frustrate you by burning them to ash. For some reason you expect the phoenix to rise. Your faith is commendable.

[comment]
I see no answer here - just a general slam in the defense of unaswered question.

He askes "tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not" and not one coherent response.

Even if the Bible does presuppose a flat earth which I do not believe it does it would not matter. Calvin actually said that many things in the Bible where written to the ancient peoples. The Bible was written in a time and place which was very early and before the rise of science so why would we not expect God to Accomodate His language to the people in which he was speaking to? If He was talking in Modern Scientific terms then the Bible would have been unintellible to the first readers.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77223#post77223)
Mikeb:

I too have a great deal of trouble with faith. To me it seems an odious residue of paganism that Paul utilized in his singleminded drive to spread the Gospel.

In your post you demonstrate that you are as much a victim of Pauls work as the most dogmatic literalist the fundamentalist movement ever spawned.

You are obviously as ill equiped to deal with the concept of faith as you are the Philosophy of Science.

If I were you I would revisit my faith that we are not in the "Matrix."

Have a nice day :eek:

Mike


Just a point of clarification. It was really literalists who spawned Fundamentalism, not vice versa, which was mostly a response to Neo-orthodoxy IIRC.

[johnransom]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77704#post77704)
Bob Jenkins:

[quote]

“ Come on guys, someone tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not. My living room is a specific color; faith should be able to tell us at least this much? ”


And so we come full circle. Why should anyone defend an idea they do not believe? This is the same as your idiotic claim that Christians believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the source of free will. Your insistence that we respond to your straw men by buying into them is inane. Instead we frustrate you by burning them to ash. For some reason you expect the phoenix to rise. Your faith is commendable.

[comment]
I see no answer here - just a general slam in the defense of unaswered question.

He askes "tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not" and not one coherent response.
Then you are reading as poorly as AA reads and writes. I had clearly articulated earlier in the post that FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE. How this is not a "coherent response" is beyond me. It couldn't be any clearer, or more devastating to AA's straw man argument. Also, AA in his confusion seems to think that faith should be able to tell us facts not already known and that this is the same thing as informing us as to the truth of an already known proposition. All of this has also been shown elsewhere in the thread, so your charge is utterly without substance.

And again, why should I defend a statement I have already said I disagree with?

[Defenestrator]

AtheistArchon:

- This one ought to get people talking. :smile:


It got me to stop lurking (which probably isn't a good thing :frown: ).



- My question to those who profess religious beliefs based on faith is "how do you know your beliefs are true if they're based on faith?". Think about that question... it's hard to answer if you're a believer. How many beliefs out there are faith-based? A lot! How many are true? We can't say, because faith does not provide any means for learning whether the belief is actually true or not. Is something true just because you'd like it to be true?

- Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In science, I can come up with a hypothesis and then test it. It might be a hypothesis that I really want to be true! If it is, I will revolutionize my industry and make millions, solve world hunger, and so on. It's a really great hypothesis. I can't think of a single person who would not want my hypothesis to be true... who wouldn't want to solve world hunger? So I begin testing, and guess what? The tests show that my hypothesis is false. It doesn't work. No matter how much I want to believe that my hypothesis is true, physics and reality will show that it isn't. My wants and desires do not make the hypothesis true or false.

The first thing I have to ask you is: Do you know anything to be true that isn't based on science? I would say you do and I'll leave you to come up with examples on your own. (Actually, one of your assumptions of science, by definition, you take to be true even though they are based on science or testable.) In other words, just because something isn't science doesn't mean that it can't be true. What's more is I can have sure, certain knowledge of truths that aren't based on science (e.g., your example, "I exist" or my example from now on, "God exists").



- Religious beliefs, however, do not allow themselves to be tested; they are faith-based. How much do you want your religious beliefs to be true? That's how true they turn out to be for you. How much do you want other faith-based beliefs to be false? That's how false they are for you. Faith makes anything you like "true" for you, but it does not allow any way of knowing whether or not it is true outside your own mind. There are simply no constraints; purple unicorns are real because I have faith in them, and nobody can ever prove that they don't exist (because they're shy, don't you know!). I've always wondered why Christians mock Muslims (and vice versa) for having misplaced faith. Which group is willing to lay their beliefs out to genuine un-biased scientific testing and scrutiny? Neither. Both rely on faith. So basically this is pure arrogance, and nothing more.

What is your definition of religious belief? Do only some people have religious beliefs or does everybody have religious beliefs? Do you have to be aware that you have a religious belief in order to have a religious belief?



- Now, if you've read my other essay, you basically know the kind of tests you're about to take. The object of these tests is to see whether or not you can tell anything about reality by believing via faith. Are you ready?

My seatbelt is securely fastened. :smile:



- Somewhere on my website, I've put a picture. The picture is very easily recognized. It does not change, it's not randomized... each and every person who reads this essay will see the very same picture. Nobody (besides me) has the power to change or adjust what they'll see when the picture is revealed; the picture is reality. If the picture is of a cat but you want to see a dog, you're still going to see a cat, no matter how much you want to see something else. Here's the first test: by using faith, tell me what the picture is. Don't peek! If you peek beforehand, then you're not using faith, you're using direct observation (science).

I'm going to say its a screen shot from X-Men 2. Note, however, that I didn't come about this answer by "using faith." You said there was a picture, I don't know what this picture is, you told me to tell you what the picture is, and so I had to guess. That's all it was was a guess. That is not a synonym for faith. Well, okay, it is a synonym for one kind of faith, but not the kind that we see in the Bible. To make your argument stand, I would appreciate if you could tell me where in the Bible it says that we are supposed to believe with no evidence? (BTW, another thing to remember is that faith is not belief. The former is dependant on the latter, but they are not equal).



- Seriously, try this out. If you're a believer, then you have faith that your beliefs are true. If you value the bible, then you have faith that what the bible says is correct. You don't know that it's true, you simply have faith that God is real, that heaven exists, and so on. You cannot directly observe these things. There is no way to test these beliefs to see if they're true or not, but we can test your belief about what my picture is. How accurate is your faith? How accurate is anyone's faith?

- Click this link, and find out: http://www.the-archon.com/images/arch.jpg

- Did your faith tell you what the picture was? You didn't have a clue in the world, did you? How can faith tell you anything that is actually true in reality, and not just your own wishful thinking?

I didn't have a clue what the picture was beforehand. I failed miserably. But the only thing that I gather from this experiment is that wild guesses cannot be considered knowledge - but that's something I already knew.



- Now, some of you are crying "foul!". Faith, you're saying, is evidence of things unseen, not things we can see. Well that certainly is convenient I suppose, but if your powers of faith cannot tell you something at least as simple as a picture on my website, then how is it going to tell you about the mysteries of life, death, and the universe at large? Basically you're telling me that your faith is always right whenever the answer cannot be externally determined, but always wrong when we do have a way to test for it empirically. Even if this is truly your position, then you're still stuck trying to convince me that your faith is the truth. How can we know, if by definition we cannot know? Why is your faith the truth, and someone else's faith is blasphemy?

Faith is not some magical "power." And faith has nothing to do with propositional statements. Okay, here is where I have to distinguish "faith" from "belief." Lot's of people define faith as "Believe without evidence" or "Belief in spite of the evidence" or something similar to that. That's just false. Those definitions say that belief emerges from faith. In reality, it is the other way around. Faith emerges from belief.

Before I explain that last sentence, I have to define my terms. Belief, for the time being, I will define as adherence to a propositional statement. Any statement that someone makes you will either say "True," "False," or "I don't know." If you say true, that is a belief. (You might have different degrees of certainty of that belief, but it is still a belief.) Faith, on the other hand, (and I'm talking about what I see as the Christian view of faith) is what you do with your belief about God. Faith assumes that you already believe that God exists. Faith says, "Alright, I believe in God! Now what?! Do I sit around and do what I would do as if I didn't believe in God or do I change what I'm doing and start living every moment as a servant of the Lord?" How one answers that question is a sign of whether someone has faith or not.

But now you are probably saying, "So you've just changed some of the terms around. You still have to account for how someone believes in God." You are absolutely correct. Using my new terms, your questions basically boil down to, "1) Why do Christians believe in God with no evidence? 2) If science cannot make a test to detect God, how can Christians justify belief in Him?"

To answer question 1, I'll ask, "Who says they do?" Granted, there probably are some Christians who have no evidence, but I would venture to say most Christians do have evidence. Almost every Christian I've known has had some sort of "religious experience." No, I'm not talking about burning bushes and the like. I'm talking about a situation or event in which the "presence" of God is felt. A situation or event in which the existence of God just seems obvious. And I think that just answered question 2.

For me, it comes down to this. I can't make myself not believe. I've heard every argument against God that there is (and some of them are pretty strong arguments), but I just can't shake the fact that I have experienced God.



- Let's try another test. Tell me, using faith, what color my living room is painted (I'll even give you a big hint, it isn't white or off-white). Can you tell me? Why not? Why is faith suddenly NOT a good way to know the truth about something? Why is it only okay to use when we have no other way of testing the claims? Doesn't this strike you as a little bit suspicious?

I think I've sufficiently explained why a test of this sort says nothing about faith - it relies on a faulty definition of faith. However, I'd like you to take a test. Look at this picture (Google image search is a wonderful thing): http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/stairc.gif

What do you see? I'll tell you what I see. I see a staircase and every so often it switches from being right-side up to upside-down. I'm guessing that you see something similar, also. (Maybe you see it upside-down most of the time - who knows?) But, what do you think someone who has never seen a staircase sees? They see a bunch of lines, thats what. They don't see a staircase at all. They don't see any switching from one perspective to another. The point is, though, that observation - empirical observation - is not some neutral thing. Observations are theory-dependent. Preconceived notions of what something should look like actually do influence what that something does look like. What's my point in this experiment? Well, its to get rid of this idea that we can take a "neutral" position and come to some sort of set "objective facts" about reality. (Note, lest you take that last sentence the wrong way, that I abhor postmodernism and that I do believe that science can tell us true things about reality.) But even starting at the bare minimum of, "What I observe or can test is real" is a theory about reality and thus colors one's observations. (Not that that is a bad assumption, its just that we can't pretend that it is a "neutral" assumption.)



- I know what you're thinking now... this is too much like asking you to have psychic powers. Well, yes. Isn't that what faith is? Knowing something that you cannot otherwise discern? Evidence of things unseen? Miss Cleo claims to do this for a living (she claims it for a living, she doesn't actually do it, just like you couldn't actually tell me anything about my picture or my living room).

- Now then, the more advanced of you out there already know the most common tactic when faced with these problems: but science relies on faith too!

Science doesn't rely on faith the way you or I have defined it. It does rely on assumptions, though, which I see you talk about below.



- Firstly, this is a logical fallacy called tu quoque. It means "you too!". Sure, I may actually be a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that gets you out of your predicament. It happens that in this case I'm not a hypocrite, but even if I were, this accusation doesn't help faith believers.

- Secondly, yes I do take some things on faith. Not scientific theories, but certainly there are some things I have faith in. For example, I have faith that human beings are basically good in nature. The difference here is that I don't claim that humans are good in nature as a fact; I don't claim that this is the truth. It is simply my hope. It isn't "gospel". I don't preach it.

- Thirdly, science makes the following assumptions:

1. I exist.

2. The universe exists.

3. I can interact with the universe in a meaningful way (meaning that we are not living in the Matrix and are being fooled by everything we see and hear, etc).

- One and two are what I call self-evident. You might disagree. If you don't agree that these two things are true, then you've removed yourself from the discussion anyhow. Poof!

I pretty much agree with you, but I might add an assumption or two. But that is beside the point, I think.



- Number three is interesting. If pressed on the issue, I'll probably agree that science assumes this to be true a-priori. Theists may think this is a victory for faith! But not so: remember that God is said to routinely perform miracles. He is said to be able to do things which are physically impossible, like turn people into pillars of salt. How can you say you know anything about the universe when you have no idea when or if God is making magic at that particular moment? There is another essay on this topic ( http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/sciencevstheism.htm ) which goes into detail, but the conclusion is that if a theistic God exists, you can never do science. Why? Because premise #3 is void. You cannot interact with the universe in a meaningful way, because you cannot explain miracles... because... well, because they're miracles.

I take issue with you saying that a miracle is the ability "to do things which are physically impossible." Basically, you are saying that a miracle is a physical action in which is physically impossible (e.g., walking on water, etc.) I'm saying that if something physically happens, it can't be, by definition, physically impossible. If Jesus walked on water, it is physically possible to walk on water. If Jesus rose from the dead, it is physically possible to rise from the dead. That just seems obvious to me, I guess.

But maybe what you were saying is that a miracle cannot break the laws of physics or something like that. If that is the case, I disagree again. The laws of physics describe what the physical world is really like, they don't tell the world how to act. In other words, they are tentative.

But I do realize that many Christians say that a miracle is when a law of nature is "broken" or "violated." All I can say is that I think they are wrong. I don't know if it even makes sense to say the law of nature are violated. I prefer the definition of miracle that John Frame puts forth in his debate with Michael Martin. He defines miracles as "unusual events in which God reveals himself with remarkable vividness."



- Science takes these three things as true a-priori, yes. Chances are, unless you're a solipsist, you do too (how many of you actually believe we're brains in vats, being fed artificial stimuli? How could you ever convince me that such a thing is true?), but scientific theories are not based on faith. They're based upon lots of empirical evidence and testing. A scientific theory is not a guess.

- "Aha! See, science is faith-based, you admit it! Science assumes that we're not living in the Matrix. Therefore my faith is just as justified as yours!" Not quite. Science works. Faith, as you have been able to see here by my tests, does not. How can your faith be justified when it can't tell us whether it's true or not? Maybe we are living in the Matrix. If we ever find out that we are, then I'll abandon science; it would be worthless. Until then, it works. What reason do we have to think that our observations are tricks? The same goes if you could show me that the universe doesn't exist, or that I don't exist. Good luck.

- It's true that science is not perfect, because we who practice it are not perfect creatures, but nobody can argue that it has not produced the very best answers thus far by a long shot.

"The very best answers" Is that all? The very best answers to what? I would append your statement to read "... but nobody can argue that it has not produced the very best answers to questions about physical reality thus far by a long shot." It certainly hasn't provided the best answers to all questions and it is incapable of even attempting to answer some questions.



When someone can show me a better way to learn objective truths about the universe and demonstrate it, then perhaps I'll think about adopting your method. As we can see here, faith ain't it.

- In closing, I find it interesting that so many people (including the current president) assume that it's a compliment to say things like "we are a nation of strong faith", or "we will rely on our faith". Horse puckey, say I. When the president can use his powers of faith to heal the economy, I'll be impressed. When he can tell me what color my living room is, I'll be impressed.

If they were using the definition of faith that you put forth you might have a point, but they aren't.

Now see what you've made me do? Do see how long this post is?!?!? I knew I was going to regret signing up here! :smile:

[johnransom]

Today @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77967#post77967)
Defenestrator:
Now see what you've made me do? Do see how long this post is?!?!? I knew I was going to regret signing up here! :smile:
Excellent post (pearls before swine though, I'm afraid) and you're a welcome addition to TWeb, Deffy.:thumb: Now all you have to do is figure out who around here has already been thrown out the window so as not to waste your evident talents.:teeth:

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 06:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77676#post77676)
Bob Jenkins:

--Flat Earth. As JPH says, this is another topic, I merely express my disbelief that the Bible teaches it.

-Census. I am sure others can point you in the right direction. This also is not the place for it.

Your definition
Mythology is the lore of a people to expain life and to proscribe life's transitional rituals. It is also used to enforce community standards of behavior.

--As for your definition,
1. Philosophy and Literature are then also mythology, since they seek to explain life, since neither have a "grounding" in an objective analysis of reality.
2. You are confusing Christianity with religion. Christianity in esse does not propose "transitional rituals" for life in a sociological sense, though some attempt to do that. there is no automaticity to what happens in the Christian liturgy, niether are we tied to any one particular expression - perhaps you could give an example?
3. Enforcing community standards. Then Politics and ethics are also mythology, with, for Americans, the mythology of the Founding Fathers, or for the Brits, the mythology of the Magna Carta, providing the input; but I and those like me, enforce nothing; the behaviour standards of the group of Christians I belong to are voluntarily entered into, just as are the standards of behaviour at TWeb, the Sports track, or anywhere else humans gather together uncoerced, even an Anarchist society!

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
If He was talking in Modern Scientific terms then the Bible would have been unintellible to the first readers.

[comment]
So it becomes for us unitellible for modern readers. You'd think that in 2000 years or so we might have a revision.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
Your bit about flat earth, etc., is off topic so

[comment]
It certainly is! It is only mentioned in my post as an example of the "nature" portrayed in the bible.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
He askes "tell me how faith can tell us anything that we can know is true or not" and not one coherent response. ”


Then you are reading as poorly as AA reads and writes. I had clearly articulated earlier in the post that FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE.

[comment]
only certain faiths - as I said earlier. There has been no respose from you affirming that spiritual faith can be based on evidence.

[quote]
How this is not a "coherent response" is beyond me. It couldn't be any clearer, or more devastating to AA's straw man argument.

[comment]
hardly devistating when no evidence is supplied and I suppose that makes it as clear as mud.

[quote]
Also, AA in his confusion seems to think that faith should be able to tell us facts not already known and that this is the same thing as informing us as to the truth of an already known proposition. All of this has also been shown elsewhere in the thread, so your charge is utterly without substance.

[comment]
The question was put concerning whether facts NOt YET KNOWN and told by faith. It brings "verifyible" facts into the equation. You've misinterpreted the question.

[quote]
And again, why should I defend a statement I have already said I disagree with?

[comment]
You shouldn't - nobody has aked you to defend such a position.
But we have asked you to present some evidence of faith ( the spiritual king) based on evidence.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
Your [Bob Jenkins' ]definition
Mythology is the lore of a people to expain life and to proscribe life's transitional rituals. It is also used to enforce community standards of behavior.

--As for your definition,
1. Philosophy and Literature are then also mythology, since they seek to explain life, since neither have a "grounding" in an objective analysis of reality.

[comment]
I guess you'd throw in all of the arts as well. That and your confusion about philosophy, literature and mythology would be wrong.

Elements do not define the more general catergorization. You seem to be saying that purple and green should be classified as blue because blue has elements of itself in both purple and green.

[quote]
2. You are confusing Christianity with religion.

[comment]
I thought Christianity WAS a religion. Is this not true?

[quote]
Christianity in esse does not propose "transitional rituals" for life in a sociological sense,

[comment]
Baptism and marriage seem to be Christian. Baptism is totally Christian. Civil marriage in society is greatly performed by clergy.

[quote]
3. Enforcing community standards. Then Politics and ethics are also mythology, with, for Americans, the mythology of the Founding Fathers, or for the Brits,the mythology of the Magna Carta, providing the input;

[comment]
You have seemed to add confusion about what mythology is to your error of categorizatin. There is nothing mythological about the Magna Carta nor American political philosophy.

[johnransom]

Today @ 01:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78630#post78630)
Bob Jenkins:
only certain faiths - as I said earlier. There has been no respose from you affirming that spiritual faith can be based on evidence.
And faith applied to spiritual matters differs from faith applied to other matters exactly how? Even AA in his pathetic confusion didn't commit that boner.


hardly devistating when no evidence is supplied and I suppose that makes it as clear as mud.
Evidence? That faith can be based on evidence? Or evidence on which one can base a faith? You're sinking in your own mud. Not that it matters; the point is so obvious that only an atheist could miss it.


The question was put concerning whether facts NOt YET KNOWN and told by faith. It brings "verifyible" facts into the equation. You've misinterpreted the question.
Ungrammatical garbage. And evidently you don't comprehend the obvious. It is impossible to apply faith to something one has not heard. The verifiability of the unknown fact is irrelevant. Faith will assist in determining the truth or falsity of a claim of fact. It won't tell you what the fact is. AA's picture idea was so far off the mark it was ridiculous.


You shouldn't - nobody has aked you to defend such a position. But we have asked you to present some evidence of faith ( the spiritual king) based on evidence.
Yes, AA did the former, and no, no one has done the latter. But since you now do - let's pick the most blatantly obvious example, since even this apparently escapes you: the Bible. What the bleck do you think the word Testament means if it is not intended to announce evidence?

[jpholding]

Today @ 07:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78609#post78609)
Bob Jenkins:

[quote]
If He was talking in Modern Scientific terms then the Bible would have been unintellible to the first readers.

[comment]
So it becomes for us unitellible for modern readers. You'd think that in 2000 years or so we might have a revision.

That's what commantaries and new translations are for. :smile: You don't mind being allowed to think for yourself, do you?

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
So it becomes for us unitellible for modern readers. You'd think that in 2000 years or so we might have a revision. ”



That's what commantaries and new translations are for. You don't mind being allowed to think for yourself, do you?

[comment]
I do believe that commentaries are somebody's thinking for themselves and essentially tell others how to inetrpret original source material. I separate opinion from fact quite easily on my own, so I do not mind being allowed to think for myself.

New translations are still based on the old material and in the theme of my comment, do not clarify scientic fact.. A new translation would not alter the biblical value of pi nor, I think, change the bias of rendering woman subservient. Slave holding is another that could use a new "translation", if possible.

The point is the cultural bias of the bible makes it quite unsuitable in many areas of current society. Great parts of the bible thus become irrelevant - hardly a good thing in the strongly held belief of inerrancy promoted and believed by some Christians.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
And faith applied to spiritual matters differs from faith applied to other matters exactly how? Even AA in his pathetic confusion didn't commit that boner.

[comment]
Because faith in science is based on evidence You have been given examples of such faith but you can not yet provide on example of evidence for a basis of spiritual faith... Put up or shut up. I resent your comments about AA and your characterization of me as being beneath that.

[quote}
Evidence? That faith can be based on evidence? Or evidence on which one can base a faith? You're sinking in your own mud. Not that it matters; the point is so obvious that only an atheist could miss it.

[comment]
Either or both - both would be nice if you think there is a difference.

Your use of atheist is quite negative and is meant to belittle.. Hardly a defense for not suppling evidence...

[quote]
It is impossible to apply faith to something one has not heard

[comment]
Ah then you've heard from God. Have you seen him too? (assuming that you have faith in God)

[quote]
Faith will assist in determining the truth or falsity of a claim of fact

[comment]
How? And how does that apply to the truth of a supernatural being. Can you supply objective evidence of God based wholly apart from subjective faith?

[quote]
//cut// What the bleck do you think the word Testament means if it is not intended to announce evidence?

[comment]
well, according to Webster - testament means
1. a covenant
2. either of the two parts of the bibe
3. a statement or act testifying to the fact.

You will probably grasp #3 ( the others don't apply) and be wrong in doing so. No amount of writing can ever prove the existence of a supernatural being. without suppling concrete, verifyable fact.. Even in court testimony, the witness can be discounted if the testimony contains falsities. A discounted witness may thus provide no evidence.. And the bible, my dear man, is rife with falsity.

[Defenestrator]

johnransom:

Excellent post (pearls before swine though, I'm afraid) and you're a welcome addition to TWeb, Deffy.:thumb:

Thanks, glad to be here.



Now all you have to do is figure out who around here has already been thrown out the window so as not to waste your evident talents.:teeth:

What! Are you saying that things are being thrown out windows without me! The outrage! :teeth:

PS - This is also a bump for AA.

[Defenestrator]

Bump for AA.

[Defenestrator]

Ohh, good AA, you're still online. (Maybe you're replying to this as I write?)

[AtheistArchon]

Ohh, good AA, you're still online. (Maybe you're replying to this as I write?)

- Yeah, I'd composed a biiiiig long response a couple of days ago, but the boards ate it (argh!) and I got frustrated. I'm pressed for time now, but let me cover some of the main points (if I can remember them) later this evening after I get back from dinner.

[johnransom]

04-26-2003 @ 02:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79248#post79248)
Bob Jenkins:
Because faith in science is based on evidence You have been given examples of such faith but you can not yet provide on example of evidence for a basis of spiritual faith... Put up or shut up. I resent your comments about AA and your characterization of me as being beneath that.
So, in your resentment, instead of correcting the boner you merely repeat it. Great tactic. Faith is faith; its object is immaterial. There is no such thing as "spiritual faith", as if there were some form of faith unique to spiritual matters. The only difference between faiths is the degree of evidence supporting them. And just because you see no evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. It just means you reject it. Out of hand, most likely. See below for evidence of both items.


Either or both - both would be nice if you think there is a difference.
Are you so blinkered that you cannot see the yawning chasm between the two concepts? Sheesh.


Your use of atheist is quite negative and is meant to belittle.. Hardly a defense for not suppling evidence...
Based on the above statement, quite accurate as well as negative.



Ah then you've heard from God. Have you seen him too? (assuming that you have faith in God)
Yes, and since he's invisible, no. Now who's trying to belittle? Not that this has anything to do with my point.


How? And how does that apply to the truth of a supernatural being. Can you supply objective evidence of God based wholly apart from subjective faith?
Of course I can. So what? You continue to commit the same dunderheaded boner that faith supplies objective data. It doesn't. All faith is subjective, because it's a response to data.



well, according to Webster - testament means
1. a covenant
2. either of the two parts of the bibe
3. a statement or act testifying to the fact.

You will probably grasp #3 ( the others don't apply) and be wrong in doing so. No amount of writing can ever prove the existence of a supernatural being. without suppling concrete, verifyable fact.. Even in court testimony, the witness can be discounted if the testimony contains falsities. A discounted witness may thus provide no evidence.. And the bible, my dear man, is rife with falsity.
Again, so what? False evidence would still be evidence. On what authority do you establish your criteria for truth? Objectively, that is, and not by faith? And on what basis do you declare it false, hmmm? Other than a priori rejection? That is, a faith in your existing worldview?

[Bob Jenkins]

from an earlier post by me to clarify the next quote from johnransom

[quote]Evidence? That faith can be based on evidence? Or evidence on which one can base a faith? You're sinking in your own mud. Not that it matters; the point is so obvious that only an atheist could miss it.

[comment]
Either or both - both would be nice if you think there is a difference.



“ Either or both - both would be nice if you think there is a difference. ”


Are you so blinkered that you cannot see the yawning chasm between the two concepts? Sheesh.

[comment]
You not only do not explain the differance but you don't supply the evidence either


from the same post to clarify what johnransome writes
It is impossible to apply faith to something one has not heard

[comment]
Ah then you've heard from God. Have you seen him too? (assuming that you have faith in God)




“
Ah then you've heard from God. Have you seen him too? (assuming that you have faith in God) ”


Yes, and since he's invisible, no. Now who's trying to belittle? Not that this has anything to do with my point.

[comment]
I have mentioned in other threads I will reply in kind

Hearing from God is evidence only when there is a third party witness

You have NOT supplied any evidence for faith



“ How? And how does that apply to the truth of a supernatural being. Can you supply objective evidence of God based wholly apart from subjective faith? ”


Of course I can. So what? You continue to commit the same dunderheaded boner that faith supplies objective data. It doesn't. All faith is subjective, because it's a response to data.

[comment]
You say you can supply objective evidence but you don't.

So what??? you ask so you can "win" your point. But I think there YOU DO NOT HAVE ANT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and you are afraid of "losing' your point if you tried to enunciate what is totally unclear to you..

You have the cart before the horse - objective evidence creates belief, belief supplies subjective faith The objective evidence comes first

And you seem not to have an understanding of the relationship of data subjective thought.. Data is based on the real world which is objective.



Again, so what? False evidence would still be evidence. On what authority do you establish your criteria for truth? Objectively, that is, and not by faith? And on what basis do you declare it false, hmmm? Other than a priori rejection? That is, a faith in your existing worldview?

[comment]
False testimony is not evidential If you lie on the witness stand, you give NO evidence. Remeber Forman in the OJ trial?

My criteria for truth is that which exists in the real world and derived from evidence, my man, evidence.

Since you refuse to cite some objective evidence for your spiritual belief/faith I have decided not to respond to you in this thread until you do..

[johnransom]

Today @ 05:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86240#post86240)
Bob Jenkins:
You not only do not explain the differance but you don't supply the evidence either
If you really cannot see the huge difference between evidence that faith can be based on evidence and evidence on which faith can be based, then there is no point in engaging you.



I have mentioned in other threads I will reply in kind

Hearing from God is evidence only when there is a third party witness

You have NOT supplied any evidence for faith
So evidence is dependent on the existence of a third party? Drivel. Evidence either exists or it doesn't. It is not dependent on someone's sayso. Especially yours.

And I also said your question was irrelevant to the point anyway.


You say you can supply objective evidence but you don't.
I did. You merely rejected it. Apparently you think that's enough to disqualify it.


So what??? you ask so you can "win" your point. But I think there YOU DO NOT HAVE ANT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and you are afraid of "losing' your point if you tried to enunciate what is totally unclear to you..

You have the cart before the horse - objective evidence creates belief, belief supplies subjective faith The objective evidence comes first

And you seem not to have an understanding of the relationship of data subjective thought.. Data is based on the real world which is objective.
I lost count of the boners in this rant. First, evidence is by definition objective. That it is experienced subjectively is the issue. That you don't hear what I interpret as the speech of God does not disprove the fact that some phenomenon occurred. All you have done is put my interpretation in question. And in fact, you end up agreeing with me that faith does not supply evidence, because you said "objective evidence comes first." So your claim that I was putting the cart before the horse is completely turned around, because I said, time after time, FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE. Moreover, you disagreed with AA's basis thesis also, by stating that belief provides "subjective faith" (a blatant redundancy); as far as AA is concerned, the two are the same. But you were wring anyway, belief does not produce faith, it merely precedes it. An error of post hoc ergo propter hoc.


False testimony is not evidential If you lie on the witness stand, you give NO evidence. Remeber Forman in the OJ trial?
Fuhrman, actually, and yes it is evidential. It's just evidential of something else. And besides, your claim of falsity must itself be based on evidence. otherwise it's just a faith-based claim.


My criteria for truth is that which exists in the real world and derived from evidence, my man, evidence.
Let me guess - by "real world" you mean the natural world as opposed to the supernatural, thereby eliminating a priori any supernatural evidence. How convenient. The Humean tactic of defining the inconvenient out of existence. but therein lies an assumption - that what you observe is indeed the real world. Well, tough, because by your own rules, I as a third party can object that your observations are not evidence.


Since you refuse to cite some objective evidence for your spiritual belief/faith I have decided not to respond to you in this thread until you do..
IOW, I don't like playing by these rules. Well, wah wah. But since you have refused to define "spiritual faith", how am I supposed to respond? And again, I gave you evidence, you merely reject it based, so it now seems, on your own ludicrous claim that as a "third party" you have the right to determine what is and is not evidence. IOW, you define the terms in such a way as to make it impossible to refute you. Sorry, pal, I'm not playing that shyster game.