Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[ricmat]

… but that’s trust, that’s not the same as faith. Faith is believe contrary to available evidence

You are confused. Please read Fides Et. Ratio.

…a virtue in most religions, and the primary cause of terrorism.

You’ve been reading too much Harris. As a counterbalance, you should read:
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization - T. Woods.
It’s at your local library, you wouldn’t even need to buy it.

 

[Camron]

Faith is believe contrary to available evidence…

Um…no…that’s not what faith is.

 

[Mersenne]

Evidence often consists of things that other people tell you that you haven’t actually seen for yourself. Your above quote refers to Thomas, who refused to believe the word of the other apostles who had previously seen the risen Christ.

For us, we can only see the risen Christ through the word of others.

I never met Abraham Lincoln, or Ghengis Khan personally, but I know they existed because of the word of others. Wouldn’t it be silly to say that you don’t believe they exist because you have no personally verified evidence?

If everyone disagreed on the basic facts about Ghengis Khan or whether he really existed, sure, that would be stupid to believe in it just based on the word of a few people. Especially if no one was claiming to have anything that could be called real evidence, and especially if the claims about Ghengis Khan were ridiculous, like he could fly, or transmute water into gold, or something extremely crazy like that he came back from the dead or created the universe. If you believed someone who told you that simply because they told you that, it would probably be reasonable to put you in the nuthouse.

Word of mouth is a terrible way of finding the truth. We do it only when we have to and only when the information is indisputable, and even then, I wouldn’t rely on it for something really important.

 

[Mersenne]

You are confused. Please read Fides Et. Ratio.

No, I’m not. I’ve read a number of religious writings and arguments, they all use faith by that definition where it suits them. Ordering me to read a 100 page document that might have some kind of point it in somewhere is not going to convince me.

You’ve been reading too much Harris.

I’ve never read any Harris. That is the definition of faith. If that’s not the definition you are using, you’re talking about something else. We have plenty of other words you can use instead: trust, conviction, or belief, just to name a few.

 

[reggieM]

That is the definition of faith.

I’d love to see the scientific proof of that.

Actually, I’d be happy to see any kind of proof that your definition of faith is “the right one” and all others are not correct.

Just show the sources that say that “Faith is believe contrary to available evidence”.

You’re posting on a Catholic site so you may want to use the definition of faith that we accept. You can find it in the papal document already posted for your review.

 

[Ender]

"ricmat:

Please read Fides et Ratio.

No, I’m not. I’ve read a number of religious writings and arguments, they all use faith by that definition where it suits them. Ordering me to read a 100 page document that might have some kind of point it in somewhere is not going to convince me.

I can help with this.

(FR 43) Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God … hence there can be no contradiction between them (Aquinas). … Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it.

(FR 79) To believe is nothing other than to think with assent … Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe … If faith does not think it is nothing.

Perhaps you can cite one of the writings and arguments you have read that supports your claim.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Faith is believe contrary to available evidence

Here is a comment by Cardinal Bellarmine about the claims of Galileo (Bellarmine was theological advisor to the Vatican).

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

Given that this is a direct contradiction of your claim it will be interesting to see if you renounce your position - or cling to it and demonstrate that your statement defines your faith, not ours.

Ender

 

[wildleafblower]

First off, to the OP - I think you might be trying to find an optimal solution to view *evolution - science *as a programmer. Stephen Wolfram thinks a search through “program space” is likely to result in a complex phenotype, according with the Principle of Computational Equivalence, which is counter to design or optimality.

Faith is believe contrary to available evidence, a virtue in most religions

Here’s a snippet from BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE Saint Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 that I found to be most helpful and agree with:

[snip-please read]

A second intervention by Thomas is recorded at the Last Supper. On that occasion, predicting his own imminent departure, Jesus announced that he was going to prepare a place for his disciples so that they could be where he is found; and he explains to them: “Where * am going you know the way” (Jn 14: 4). It is then that Thomas intervenes, saying: “Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” (Jn 14: 5). In fact, with this remark he places himself at a rather low level of understanding; but his words provide Jesus with the opportunity to pronounce his famous definition: “I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14: 6).

[snip - please read]

Then, the proverbial scene of the doubting Thomas that occurred eight days after Easter is very well known. At first he did not believe that Jesus had appeared in his absence and said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe” (Jn 20: 25).

[snip]

As we know, Jesus reappeared among his disciples eight days later and this time Thomas was present. Jesus summons him: “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing” (Jn 20: 27). Thomas reacts with the most splendid profession of faith in the whole of the New Testament: “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20: 28). St Augustine comments on this: Thomas “saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other”* (In ev. Jo. 121, 5).

The Evangelist continues with Jesus’ last words to Thomas: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20: 29). This sentence can also be put into the present: “Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe”. In any case, here Jesus spells out a fundamental principle for Christians who will come after Thomas, hence, for all of us.

It is interesting to note that another Thomas, the great Medieval theologian of Aquinas, juxtaposed this formula of blessedness with the apparently opposite one recorded by Luke: “Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!” (Lk 10: 23). However, Aquinas comments: “Those who believe without seeing are more meritorious than those who, seeing, believe” (In Johann. XX lectio VI 2566).

In fact, the Letter to the Hebrews, recalling the whole series of the ancient biblical Patriarchs who believed in God without seeing the fulfilment of his promises, defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11: 1).

**The Apostle Thomas’ case is important to us for at least three reasons: first, because it comforts us in our insecurity; second, because it shows us that every doubt can lead to an outcome brighter than any uncertainty; and, lastly, because the words that Jesus addressed to him remind us of the true meaning of mature faith and encourage us to persevere, despite the difficulty, along our journey of adhesion to him. **

A final point concerning Thomas is preserved for us in the Fourth Gospel, which presents him as a witness of the Risen One in the subsequent event of the miraculous catch in the Sea of Tiberias (cf. Jn 21: 2ff.). On that occasion, Thomas is even mentioned immediately after Simon Peter: an evident sign of the considerable importance that he enjoyed in the context of the early Christian communities. Indeed, the Acts and the Gospel of Thomas, both apocryphal works but in any case important for the study of Christian origins, were written in his name.

Lastly, let us remember that an ancient tradition claims that Thomas first evangelized Syria and Persia (mentioned by Origen, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3, 1) then went on to Western India (cf. Acts of Thomas 1-2 and 17ff.), from where also he finally reached Southern India.

Let us end our reflection in this missionary perspective, expressing the hope that Thomas’ example will never fail to strengthen our faith in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Our God.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060927_en.html.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060927_en.html.

For those who pray, please pray for me. My computer is under attack. May peace be with you and me too!

 

[Mersenne]

Given that this is a direct contradiction of your claim it will be interesting to see if you renounce your position - or cling to it and demonstrate that your statement defines your faith, not ours.

That’s not a contradiction of my claim. That assumption is still, without reason, that the scripture MUST BE correct. That’s exactly the definition of faith I gave.

 

[Mersenne]

Here’s a snippet from BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE Saint Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 that I found to be most helpful and agree with:

That doesn’t contridict anything I have said. Doubting Thomas is a prime example, in fact. An example you have yet to address. Also there is Abraham getting struck blind for making a rational assumption, Abraham being rewarded for ignoring his reason and almost killing his son. All over the bible faith is defined as belief without evidence, as it is churches all over the country and often in this forum, whenever a religious person gets corned by the evidence “it doesn’t matter what evidence you have, this is about faith”

 

[wildleafblower]

Mersenne, as a mature Roman Catholic woman I provided you in my message 108 a legal document written by BENEDICT XVI on 27 September 2006(1) which contains evidence that you made a fictitious claim when you stated, “Faith is believe contrary to available evidence.” My belief in God - The Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit is based on eye-witness accounts. The Bible is filled with eye-witness accounts of miracles and historical events. And last but not least, I have deep admiration and respect for my parents, relatives, ancestors, and friends who are/were deeply loved as Catholics by their community of family, friends, and business associates. Respecting each other is essential while *dancing *through life even when the shoes become worn out and age sets into your bones. Insulting people as you have Mersenne doesn’t really produce any blooming flowers in my garden so to speak. Furthermore, maybe you would like to contribute something worthy of consideration by the OP. I didn’t notice you doing that yet. Thanks. And, may God tickle your mind and heart when least you expect it! D Bless you. I honestly don’t have anymore time to waste on this topic.

1. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060927_en.html
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060927_en.html

 

[Ender]

Mersenne post 109:

That’s not a contradiction of my claim. That assumption is still, without reason, that the scripture MUST BE correct. That’s exactly the definition of faith I gave.

Mersenne post 99:

Faith is believe contrary to available evidence

Not only are these two definitions not “exactly” the same, they aren’t even remotely the same.

The question of Thomas is irrelevant to your point. He refused to believe on faith; he required proof. Faith is believing in things unproven. It is not on faith that I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

You use the term evidence rather loosely; it could mean any number of things. Evidence itself can be conflicting: is Dan Brown’s interpretation of the Last Supper correct? There is some evidence to support it but the overwhelming evidence says it is bogus. What exactly do you mean when you say “evidence”?

Understand also that there is a great difference between believing something in the face of great evidence to the contrary and believing something despite the absence of evidence. I have already said proof eliminates the need for faith but I have also said (and proved) that the Church rejects the notion that faith can ever oppose truth.

If your definition is that people believe the Bible on faith, you are correct. When you say they do so without reason (or imply that it is contrary to reason) you are incorrect.

Ender

 

[Mersenne]

(FR 43) Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God … hence there can be no contradiction between them (Aquinas). … Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it.

Which proves my point exactly. Faith isn’t reason. It’s not trust one finds due to the evidence, it’s trust one finds without evidence. Aquinas is simply claiming that faith and reason will always lead to the same answers, which is clearly wrong, faith doesn’t even always lead to the same answers. But the fact that he separates the two proves my point that they are separate.

 

[Ender]

Faith isn’t reason. It’s not trust one finds due to the evidence, it’s trust one finds without evidence. Aquinas is simply claiming that faith and reason will always lead to the same answers, which is clearly wrong, faith doesn’t even always lead to the same answers. But the fact that he separates the two proves my point that they are separate.

No one has ever argued that faith and reason are the same; the argument is whether faith is ever contrary to truth and the Church has been clear that they do not contradict one another. Nor has anyone claimed that faith and reason lead to the same answers; do not conflate reason with truth. Faith and truth do not conflict. You seem to make the assumption that reason alone will always find the truth but that clearly is not true. Aquinas’ point is not that reason is always true but that faith is never unreasonable.

Ender

 

[Mersenne]

No one has ever argued that faith and reason are the same; the argument is whether faith is ever contrary to truth and the Church has been clear that they do not contradict one another.

But they make it clear that when faith contradicts the evidence, the evidence must be wrong. That’s exactly what I’m talking about, and as we established earlier, it’s an absurd way to function. We’re talking about evidence and reason, not “the truth”. Of course they claim evidence never contradicts the truth, that’s just a fancy way of claiming that faith is never wrong. But faith is still a value if held in opposition to the evidence.

 

[Ender]

We’re talking about evidence and reason, not “the truth”.

I’m not. Normally one associates evidence and reason with truth or at least a search for the truth; I don’t think I’ve ever seen a remark like yours that dissociates truth from evidence and reason.

Of course they claim evidence never contradicts the truth, that’s just a fancy way of claiming that faith is never wrong.

Faith would be wrong if it claimed something contrary to the truth. Is this what you are claiming? If the truth of a question cannot be conclusively determined (does God exist?) then it must be because there is insufficient evidence or evidence for more than one conclusion. In such a situation why is the position taken by the faithful less valid than the opposite position taken by the faithless?

But faith is still a value if held in opposition to the evidence.

Can you provide even one concrete example to support this claim? You feel very strongly about this so it must be based on … evidence. Where is yours?

Ender

 

[wildleafblower]

The Roman Curia PONTIFICAL COUNCIL COR UNUM for Human and Christian Development:

*Charity enables us to see in the poor and needy the face of Jesus Christ, who reminds us, "I was hungry, thirsty, lonely, and you helped me (cf. Mt. 25:36).

Through faith in Jesus Christ*, who “gave his life for us” (1 Jn 3:16), the history of the Church gives evidence of the springing forth of countless initiatives of Charity. To this very day, Christians around the world care for the poor and the needy in ways ranging from the simple witness of the many faithful to the activity of large Catholic Organizations. This splendid diversity of initiatives and actions of Christian charity is to “bear the mark of a commitment of the whole Church and full faithfulness to the whole evangelical Message” (Paul VI, 1972). vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/corunum/corunum_en/profilo/istituzione_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/corunum/corunum_en/profilo/istituzione_en.html

While compiling my notes for a large article I got a big tickle from the Pope, thinking he must have read my last two messages and needed some help. :

**IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION IN PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY **
VATICAN CITY, 5 NOV 2008 (VIS) - Continuing his series of catecheses on Pauline Christology, in today’s general audience Benedict XVI considered the importance given by the Apostle to the resurrection of Jesus, as evinced in his First Letter to the Corinthians.

In the resurrection “is the solution to the problem posed by the drama of the Cross”, said the Pope. “The Cross cannot of itself explain the Christian faith. The Paschal mystery consists in the fact that the crucified One ‘was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’. … This is the key to Pauline Christology, everything revolves around this centre of gravity. … He Who was crucified - and who thus expressed God’s immense love for man - rose and lives among us”.

“The originality of this Christology never comes at the expense of faithfulness to tradition. The ‘kerygma’ of the Apostles precedes Paul’s individual re-elaboration. All his arguments are rooted in the shared tradition in which the faith of all the Churches is expressed. In this way St. Paul offers us a universally-valid model for theology and preaching. Theologians and preachers do not create new visions of the world or of life but remain at the service of transmitted truth,… of the real fact of Christ, of the Cross, of the resurrection. Their task is to help us understand today, behind the ancient words, the reality of God-with-us, and thus the reality of true life”.

“In announcing the resurrection St. Paul is not concerned with presenting a comprehensive doctrinal exposition, but approaches the subject by responding to the concrete doubts and queries that were put to him by the faithful”. He concentrated "on essentials: we have been ‘justified’ - that its made just, saved - by Christ Who died and rose for us. What emerges above all is the fact of the resurrection, without which Christian life would be simply absurd.

“On that Easter morning”, the Holy Father added, “something extraordinary yet at the same time very real happened, something marked by specific signs recorded by numerous witnesses. For Paul, as for other authors of the New Testament, the resurrection is linked to the testimony of those who had direct experience of the Risen One. This involved seeing and feeling, not just with the eyes or with the senses, but also with an inner light that compels us to recognise what the exterior senses record as objective fact. Paul, then, gives … fundamental importance to the apparitions, which are a condition for faith in the Risen One. … Thus that chain of tradition came into being which, through the testimony of the Apostles and the first disciples, reached down to later generations and to us”.

“The first way to express such testimony is to preach the resurrection of Christ as a summary of the announcement of the Gospel, as the culmination of an itinerary of salvation”. For the Apostle, the resurrection is of fundamental importance because “it consists in the fact that Jesus, elevated from the humility of His earthly existence, was declared to be Son of God ‘with power’”.

“With the resurrection begins the announcement of the Gospel of Christ to all peoples, the Kingdom of Christ begins … which has no other power other than that of truth and love. The resurrection, then, definitively reveals the true identity and extraordinary stature of the Crucified One. … Jesus is God, … Lord of the living and the dead”.

“The theology of the Cross is not a theory, it is the reality of Christian life. Living in faith in Jesus Christ, living truth and love, involves daily sacrifices, it involves suffering. Christianity is not the easy path, rather it is a demanding climb illuminated by the light of Christ and His great hope”.

“True believers obtain salvation by professing with their mouths that Jesus is the Lord and believing with their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. In this way they become part of the process by which the first Adam, worldly and subject to corruption and death, is transformed into the ultimate Adam, celestial and incorruptible. This process began with the resurrection of Christ, on which is founded the hope that we too may one day enter with Christ into our true homeland in heaven”.
212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c0_en.htm
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c0_en.htm
Alleluia I’m on FIRE!

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, wildleafblower. Clarity is needed. Defined truth is needed. Too many live in a world without definite truths or with truths that are subject to change, and which stay for a while, but change again and again.

Each of us needs the foundational truth. Building our lives on this foundation is the basis for growth, the basis to discern for ourselves, this is right and this is wrong.

Human experts and philosophers, though highly educated, need a firm foundation or only temporary ideas about fundamental questions of life will exist, to be replaced time and time again by some ‘new’ idea.

The “wisdom of the ages” is not called that for no reason. Man, himself, has changed little over the centuries. Take away his sources of electricity and gasoline and his gadgets, and the man of today is little different regarding day to day living than his ancient counterparts.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

I’m not.

Well, you were criticizing my definition of faith, which was about evidence, not “truth”, so it doesn’t make any sense for you to simply declare that we are now talking about “truth” and not “evidence”

Normally one associates evidence and reason with truth or at least a search for the truth;

With the search for the truth, that’s a very distinct thing from “the objective absolute truth.” Evidence and the truth are not synonymous. I do think evidence is the best way to reach the truth, my point is the church does not. Saying “faith never contridicts truth” isn’t the same as saying “when faith contridicts evidence, go with evidence” it’s saying “faith is never wrong” which actually supports my point.

Faith would be wrong if it claimed something contrary to the truth.

Which it does all the time. Faith even contridicts itself.

Is this what you are claiming?

I’m claiming that for the majority of religious people, faith in the face of evidence is a virtue. And that is a dangerous evil practice and the primary cause of terrorism.

If the truth of a question cannot be conclusively determined (does God exist?) then it must be because there is insufficient evidence or evidence for more than one conclusion. In such a situation why is the position taken by the faithful less valid than the opposite position taken by the faithless?

Yes, as no question can be 100% conclusively determined. That’s not a justification for throwing your brain out the window and simply declaring the truth to be whatever you want it to be, especially when you declare it with 100% certainty.

Can you provide even one concrete example to support this claim? You feel very strongly about this so it must be based on … evidence. Where is yours?

I’ve provided several. Why don’t you address them?

 

[edwest2]

“primary cause of terrorism”?

Can you go to a Catholic Church and identify the terrorists? The Priests? Nuns? Who are they?

It may surprise you to know that the supernatural exists and that science has limits. If you are not Catholic and do not accept this, that’s up to you, but please do not come here and make such a false accusation.

Peace,
Ed