Can Faith Insist on Evidence

[bentcurve]

We can never fully prove anything besides our own existence, so therefore faith is the nature of our reality. I have faith that yellow looks like yellow, even though I have no way of proving it. I have faith that I am here typing this, and not in a coma, but no way of proving it.

All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.

So looking for final valid proof of anything is not possible. Therefore, science is no more solid than religion. So on and so on.

Also, I think it is important to make a difference between the idea of knowing something, and proving something. I can know God, and I can experience God, without having proof of God. Experience and proof, or evidence, are different things.

Kierkegaard- “God is indirectly experienced in the experience of the absolute dependency of our own existence.”

He argued that we could know God by experience him, and that the simple act of existence allowed us to do this. Through this process of experience we can form a knowledge of God, how we he works, and how we relate to him. Obviously, this is what theology does, it complies the revelations and knowledge of those in the faith before us so we might have a better place to start.

So you can know something, even if you cannot provide evidence for it. I think faith needs knowledge, and justification, but not evidence or proof.

 

[bentcurve]

Also, I think it is important to make a difference between the idea of knowing something, and proving something. I can know God, and I can experience God, without having proof of God. Experience and proof, or evidence, are different things.

Kierkegaard- “God is indirectly experienced in the experience of the absolute dependency of our own existence.”

He argued that we could know God by experience him, and that the simple act of existence allowed us to do this. Through this process of experience we can form a knowledge of God, how we he works, and how we relate to him. Obviously, this is what theology does, it complies the revelations and knowledge of those in the faith before us so we might have a better place to start.

So you can know something, even if you cannot provide evidence for it. I think faith needs knowledge, and justification, but not evidence or proof.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We can never fully prove anything besides our own existence, so therefore faith is the nature of our reality. I have faith that yellow looks like yellow, even though I have no way of proving it. I have faith that I am here typing this, and not in a coma, but no way of proving it.

All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.

So looking for final valid proof of anything is not possible. Therefore, science is no more solid than religion. So on and so on.

Also, I think it is important to make a difference between the idea of knowing something, and proving something. I can know God, and I can experience God, without having proof of God. Experience and proof, or evidence, are different things.

Kierkegaard- “God is indirectly experienced in the experience of the absolute dependency of our own existence.”

He argued that we could know God by experience him, and that the simple act of existence allowed us to do this. Through this process of experience we can form a knowledge of God, how we he works, and how we relate to him. Obviously, this is what theology does, it complies the revelations and knowledge of those in the faith before us so we might have a better place to start.

So you can know something, even if you cannot provide evidence for it. I think faith needs knowledge, and justification, but not evidence or proof.

Dead on.

 

[James1215]

Bentcurve:

’All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.'

Warpspeedpetey:

’Dead on’

Me:
I second this, but with the proviso that perception may be fallible. Certainty is not the order of the day from the first statement. Perception tells us that perception seems inaccurate at times.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…'All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.'

By reality I mean everything that exists, that includes any number of things that atheists must reject by definition. You seem to be using the word differently. By perception I mean knowing by means of the senses or of the mind. Since you use the word observation as though it is something different than perception, I think you mean something different by “perception”. Since you have previously refused to use the standard dictionary definitions of words and insist on making arguments misusing words, I am not sure that what you are saying actually has any epistemic content.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Bentcurve:

’All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.'

Warpspeedpetey:

’Dead on’

Me:
I second this, but with the proviso that perception may be fallible. Certainty is not the order of the day from the first statement. Perception tells us that perception seems inaccurate at times.

Why are you telling me this?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Bentcurve:

’All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.'

Warpspeedpetey:

’Dead on’

Me:
I second this…

No you don’t. In the thread we are having this same conversation, here, you have repeatedly refused to use the standard definitions of these words like perception and reality. You have refused to even use a dictionary. You do not use these words in your arguments as he does here. I agree with his usage of these terms, in the context of the post. So unless you are converting to theism, you cannot mean the same thing he does. What you are doing here is called cherry picking.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We can never fully prove anything besides our own existence, so therefore faith is the nature of our reality.

I have faith that yellow looks like yellow,

You have succeeded in getting me angry, and this is the first time we have spoke.
If you perceive the color yellow, then that is what you are perceiving. The epistemological dilemma confronting Kant and Descartes is not if you are really perceiving the color yellow, but rather it is the question of whether or not you are truly perceiving it as something that exists outside of your mind as opposed to it being merely a projection of your mind. Either way, you are still perceiving the color yellow.

Otherwise, the rest of your post is good, even though i am not sure i totally agree with it.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

You have succeeded in getting me angry, and this is the first time we have spoke.
If you perceive the color yellow, then that is what you are perceiving. The epistemological dilemma confronting Kant and Descartes is not if you are really perceiving the color yellow, but rather it is the question of whether or not you are truly perceiving it as something that exists outside of your mind as opposed to it being merely a projection of your mind. Either way, you are still perceiving the color yellow.

Otherwise, the rest of your post is good, even though i am not sure i totally agree with it.

Not if someone is colorblind! One would be perceiving wrongly. But it is true that Descartes and Kant, and others, separate the subject from the object by a rejection of universals.

The seemingly accurate way we process reality is what Scholastics call Moderate Realism. It fits more accurately with what we know of natural theology and the metaphysics of Divine Revelation in that we have a spiritual nature, a soul, and the powers of this soul are intellect, will, and the passions. It is the spiritual nature of the intellectual soul that reasons what we perceive, so that a bent pencil seen in a glass of water is known by reason that light refraction causes an optical illusion and is not really bent.

The essence or substance of something is “in” the intellect according to the mode of the knower ST. 1.12, a.4, and since the essence of God is above our mode of knowing, His Grace is necessary to perceive His effects on us. But these effects are known by us and faith is not just blind acceptance.

Our spiritual nature is not satisfied by any lesser good but only by the Perfect Good that created our spiritual nature. The end, the perfection, the finality of man is to be perfected and this only happens by God. When we fail or accept lesser goods as the perfection or beatitude of our nature, we are unhappy in our soul but we avoid this by pouring more lesser good into us and distracting ourselves by actions. We thus perceive wrongly.

 

[Luke_K]

From the Catechism: "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

Yes, faith does require evidence of one form or another. You cannot believe in a being who has not revealed himself in any way, shape, or form. Without evidence of the being you worship, you would be worshiping your own creation.

The fact that you asked this question I think shows that you are unaware of the fundamental dependence of your Christian faith on evidence. Would you believe in Christianity if there were NO records of Jesus’ existence, either in the written or oral record? Of course not!

 

[Jesus_123]

+Believing faith is a holy gift of God imparted . . . in God’s perfect timing . . . to receptive souls for their salvation . . . :bible1: For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory. - Ephesians 2:8-9

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

​

​

- Fides et Ratio
Blessed Pope John Paul the Great​

**​

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

The Holy :bible1: Bible
John 3:1-12

[1] And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. [2] This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. [3] Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.

[7] Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. [8] The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[9] Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? [10] Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? [11] Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. [12] If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you** heavenly** things?​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . the Blessed Christ of God+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Dear Lord Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did a clown explode in here?

 

[PJM]

=warpspeedpetey;8175237]Faith is all we actually have. All axioms are inductions and as such no knowledge is certain. What you are calling evidence is just faith you feel comfortable with asserting as true.

No, actually not.

Many it seems on this FROUM will not take Gods teaching soley because they ARE a Perfect God teaching. They REQUIRE evidence that is seeable and tanagable. Do such folks actually have “faith” is my question.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, actually not.

That’s a pretty basic epistemological statement, I don’t know why you disagree

Many it seems on this FROUM will not take Gods teaching soley because they ARE a Perfect God teaching. They REQUIRE evidence that is seeable and tanagable. Do such folks actually have “faith” is my question.

God Bless,
Pat

Those are empiricists, empiricism is a logical contradiction and therefore false. Those people are generally atheists, I don’t know any Catholics that feel that way myself.

 

[PJM]

=warpspeedpetey;8180557]That’s a pretty basic epistemological statement, I don’t know why you disagree
Those are empiricists, empiricism is a logical contradiction and therefore false. Those people are generally atheists, I don’t know any Catholics that feel that way myself.

We agree on that. It seems to be MORE in the Non-Catholic Christian communion. Yet look at the number of "catholics"m who do not understand or believe in the Real presence.A condition of post Vatican II changes, combined with poor, improper or no Cathechsis.

I Read somewhere that it could be as high as 75%. GOD FORBID!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We agree on that. It seems to be MORE in the Non-Catholic Christian communion. Yet look at the number of "catholics"m who do not understand or believe in the Real presence.[A condition of post Vatican II changes, combined with poor, improper or no Cathechsis.

I Read somewhere that it could be as high as 75%. GOD FORBID!

God Bless,
Pat

The education system teaches science and not philosophy, thus the high number of people who implicitly accept empiricism.
[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Faith is a gift from God but He would not give it to those who refuse to accept Christ’s teaching because it conflicts with their goals and way of life. The fact that He forgives us as we forgive others implies that we have to be receptive in order to receive!

He also expects us to be reasonable and not have faith simply because it is passed on to us by our parents. An unexamined faith is not worth having because it amounts to rejecting our God-given power of reason. We need evidence because otherwise faith is irrational but the most important evidence is not empirical but moral and spiritual. To an unbiased person the teaching of Jesus is sufficient evidence - regardless of anything else. What more do we need than His message of love incarnated in His life and death? The truth shines by its own light…

 

[PJM]

=bentcurve;8177030]We can never fully prove anything besides our own existence, so therefore faith is the nature of our reality. I have faith that yellow looks like yellow, even though I have no way of proving it. I have faith that I am here typing this, and not in a coma, but no way of proving it.

All reality is based on perception and observation, and those are a fallible source. All we can do is use reason to process our observations, and make assumptions based on these.

So looking for final valid proof of anything is not possible. Therefore, science is no more solid than religion. So on and so on.

Also, I think it is important to make a difference between the idea of knowing something, and proving something. I can know God, and I can experience God, without having proof of God. Experience and proof, or evidence, are different things.

Kierkegaard- “God is indirectly experienced in the experience of the absolute dependency of our own existence.”

He argued that we could know God by experience him, and that the simple act of existence allowed us to do this. Through this process of experience we can form a knowledge of God, how we he works, and how we relate to him. Obviously, this is what theology does, it complies the revelations and knowledge of those in the faith before us so we might have a better place to start.

So you can know something, even if you cannot provide evidence for it. I think faith needs knowledge, and justification, but not evidence or proof.

Thanks,

I’d like to discuss your first statement. “We can never fully prove anything besides our own existence, so therefore faith is the nature of our reality”

I think it depends on what finds “acceptable as proof.” For example 1+1 always equals 2
It may not proveable, yet it is not able to be disproven. Therein is the proof.

Science tells us the the Universe consist of BILLIONS of stars, planets, and galaxies. These same scientiest can only PROVE that one of them; EARTH, can support life as we know it.

On this planet Earth there are many HUMDREDS OF THOUSANDS of living 'Things". BUT only ONE; Humanity has what is needed to “Love.” Inorder to LOVE requires a mind, a intellect and a freewill.

Were I to ask you to qunatify for us your “freewill” for example: size, weight, shape, color. You would be unable to do it. WHY? Despite the fact that these attributes can be proven to be present; they are “part of us” and are “SPIRITUAL THINGS”

Science has determined that “Like MUST orginate from like.” We inherit our hair and eye color, perhpas even our temperment from out biological parents. BUT these 'Spiritual things" MUST come from a 'Spiritual Source." The Only Spiritual source we are aware of [acknowleded or not] is what we term God. Therefore we can KNOW that a source greater than us exist. That source we call our God.

This God has also created “Natural Law”. Throw a rock into the air and it will fall everytime. RAIN is always wet. The Sun rises and the moon sets. All of these are FACTS that cannot be disproven. Again evidence that “God exist.”

Back to humanity. because ONLY humanity has the potential to love; we can reasonably assume that is what we are created to do. The question then becomes to love “what” or “whom”? In this example Faith is still required to reach the Correct answer.

I certainly agree with your final comment. BUT, does it apply to ALL, Many or some?

WELCOME TO THE FORUM! THANKS FOR JOINING US:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[bentcurve]

No, actually not.

Erm, this is a pretty well defended idea that nothing is 100% knowable. Even in the realm of science, quantum mechanics claims that the mere observation of an experiment changes it outcome.

The fact is that all we have is observational data, and our own mind. However, because our minds are fallible we have no way of knowing what is truth and what is not.

How do you know you are not asleep? What if color blind people are the ones who are right? So on and so forth. If you really look at it you realize that Cogito Ergo Sum was a pretty good answer.

 

[PJM]

Erm, this is a pretty well defended idea that nothing is 100% knowable. Even in the realm of science, quantum mechanics claims that the mere observation of an experiment changes it outcome.

The fact is that all we have is observational data, and our own mind. However, because our minds are fallible we have no way of knowing what is truth and what is not.

How do you know you are not asleep? What if color blind people are the ones who are right? So on and so forth. If you really look at it you realize that Cogito Ergo Sum was a pretty good answer.

OK you win this one