Faith: Where do we draw a line when it comes to believing in things we can't prove?

[Brendan_McCabe]

Everyone has faith in something.

Atheists believe in a good many things that cannot be proven, for example they believe there is no God even though they cannot prove that there is not, if they were truly sticking only that which can be scientifically proven they would not make a declaration one way or another.

At the moment you are putting your faith in men that deny the existence of God. Why do you have faith in such men?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Everyone has faith in something.

Atheists believe in a good many things that cannot be proven, for example they believe there is no God even though they cannot prove that there is not, if they were truly sticking only that which can be scientifically proven they would not make a declaration one way or another.

At the moment you are putting your faith in men that deny the existence of God. Why do you have faith in such men?

I’d much rather have faith in men than in God. The former I’ve seen face-to-face, the latter I’ve only read about .

And Atheists don’t believe in God simply because there is no proof. They do not believe in God because personal empirical evidence has taught them that. Most atheists were religious at one point, and experience - grounded with logic - eventually taught them that there is no such thing as God, or a god. “Answered prayers” for instance, are merely the probabilities being stacked in your favour. If I prayed that the coin in my hand would land on Heads, I would have a 50% chance of being correct. When it lands on Heads, should I shout “Hallelujah”? “Miracles” are in the same boat; they are those events with very small probabilities that are bound to occur anyway. There is no need to attribute these things to a divine deity when all it is is a mere mathematical function.

Now, if you’ve had a personal spiritual experience (for example, you saw the Blessed Virgin Mary), then you aren’t at fault for believing in God. As a matter of fact, that would be the rational thing to do. What is wrong is trying to convince someone that God exists when the chances are, that person will probably never have an experience like that. I think Atheists would convert if they had a spiritual experience like the one described above. If God wanted everyone to come back to Him, what’s stopping Him from performing such feats?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[tonyrey]

So, when it comes to faith, where do we draw a line. Where do we say, “this thing is too silly to be believed”? This isn’t meant to be inflammatory but it is meant to understand where people of religion draw the imaginary line.

Eugen, there are** fundamentally** only two types of faith - if faith is commitment to what we are convinced is true, good, right and just:

1. Faith in Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Love and Perfection - which all converge in One Supreme Being.
2. Faith in a multitude of atomic particles which lack awareness, insight, autonomy, purpose, value, meaning or love.

I know which I think is to silly to be believed. Take your pick!

 

[tonyrey]

If God wanted everyone to come back to Him, what’s stopping Him from performing such feats?

Love on His part and lack of love on our part. What is the point of revealing oneself to those whose minds are closed? All love presupposes the willingness to take the risk of venturing into the realm of the Mysterium tremendum et fascinans… As Pascal said:

“The heart has its reasons which reason does not know.”

Do you accept the teaching of Jesus?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Eugen, there are** fundamentally** only two types of faith - if faith is commitment to what we are convinced is true, good, right and just:

1. Faith in Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Love and Perfection - which all converge in One Supreme Being.
2. Faith in a multitude of atomic particles which lack awareness, insight, autonomy, purpose, value, meaning or love.

The thing is, no one has faith in particles. If I saw a person grieving over a parent who is dying, I wouldn’t say, “put your trust in a bunch of electrons, and she’ll be okay in the cosmos”. No. I would try to console the person, but eventually my consolation would converge to the fact that sooner or later, we are all going to have to go. And that is a biological fact of life unfortunately. We should at the very least be grateful however, that advances in science have meant that the average person in the West lives anywhere from 75-80. And that’s just the average. This kind of life expectancy was virtually unheard of in the ages before us.

What people of religion do is quite different. They make up claims that there is this place called “Heaven” (a place which quite frankly no one has seen or experienced, and I don’t even think the saints had much to say about it). So, for the most part, it’s conjecture. They instill high expectations into the person. I think it’s wrong. No one has seen Heaven and no one has a shred of evidence for it.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Love on His part and lack of love on our part. What is the point of revealing oneself to those whose minds are closed?

My mind wasn’t closed when I sought Him. I can assure you that. I was an Agnostic/Atheist before that because of some books I read. I thought I was called back to the Church, but I think it was a case of looking too deeply into things. Eventually, we all have to taste bitter reality that when we pray, we’re basically talking to thin air and hoping for the best; to quote St. Padre Pio: “Pray, hope and don’t worry”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[tonyrey]

The thing is, no one has faith in particles. If I saw a person grieving over a parent who is dying, I wouldn’t say, “put your trust in a bunch of electrons, and she’ll be okay in the cosmos”. No. I would try to console the person, but eventually my consolation would converge to the fact that sooner or later, we are all going to have to go. And that is a biological fact of life unfortunately. We should at the very least be grateful however, that advances in science have meant that the average person in the West lives anywhere from 75-80. And that’s just the average. This kind of life expectancy was virtually unheard of in the ages before us.

**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **

They don’t realise they have faith in particles but that is what it boils down to… and in their own “personal judgment”, of course, but that is worthless if it is derived from particles which lack awareness and insight…

What people of religion do is quite different. They make up claims that there is this place called “Heaven” (a place which quite frankly no one has seen or experienced, and I don’t even think the saints had much to say about it). So, for the most part, it’s conjecture. They instill high expectations into the person. I think it’s wrong. No one has seen Heaven and no one has a shred of evidence for it.

You might as well say no one has seen, heard, tasted, smelt, tasted or touched a mind or Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Love and Perfection!

 

[Luvya]

My mind wasn’t closed when I sought Him.

Dear Eugen, I am sure you know what the next round of “answers” will be: you did not really have an open mind, or you did not seek long enough, or hard enough… because if you had you would have had your positive experience. You lied to yourself when you thought you had an open mind. But in reality it is your own pride which prevents you from accepting God. It always the skeptic who is at fault. And this kind of “argument” is being presented ad nauseam. Don’t these people ever think?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

They don’t realise they have faith in particles but that is what it boils down to… and in their own “personal judgment”, of course, but that is worthless if it is derived from particles which lack awareness and insight…

You might as well say no one has **seen **or experienced a mind or Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty, Love and Perfection!

I don’t have faith in particles. I don’t expect electrons to grant any of my wishes. I merely believe that the laws of nature are always at work, and that has been demonstrated through the tireless works of a multitude of scientists.

You capitalize the abstract concepts of “Truth”, “Goodness”, “Freedom” etc. Well, you are basically imparting God into those concepts. Plato had his Theory of Forms that there was some perfect world (which he called the “Forms”) where those exist. But that was his own philosophical opinion. No one has experienced the ideal of the concepts you listed, but hopefully, and with the great participation of society, we may not achieve experiencing those ideal concepts, but we will be quite close to it.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Dear Eugen, I am sure you know what the next round of “answers” will be: you did not really have an open mind, or you did not seek long enough, or hard enough… because if you had you would have had your positive experience. You lied to yourself when you thought you had an open mind. But in reality it is your own pride which prevents you from accepting God. It always the skeptic who is at fault. And this kind of “argument” is being presented ad nauseam. Don’t these people ever think?

I sort of was expecting the “you didn’t seek long enough” claim. If God gave me a brain, then I’d think He would want His creation to use it. I used it, and I eventually came to the conclusion that this whole God business was just a mind game. If further facts come to light that show His existence, then I’ll change my mind. But for the past few months, I’ve come to believe that God was a mind game. That’s all it ever was, and I seriously regret that I read more into Catholicism, because if Hell did exist, then I wouldn’t be spared by “invincible ignorance”. Like I said in my previous post, there is a lot of predestination going around, and no doubt God reveals Himself more to those He wants to be in Heaven, and hides Himself from those He wants in Hell. Clearly goes against Church teaching that God desires all men to be saved.

I would want God to exist, and I’m sure a significant number of atheists do. I don’t really gain anything (maybe perhaps rationality) by arguing that God doesn’t exist. But like I said, I merely speak of reality as it is. And there was no reality with “God”. It was just a twisted joke.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[john_aurelius]

You were expecting it? entertaining… BTW Calvin got most of his arguments from Augustine (the doctor of grace) and was supported by Aquinas and are therefore completely in line with Church teaching.

Besides, if you were asking to find out a real answer and not just be antagonistic then perhaps you should consider that your journey is not yet over, or if you were led here that it may be by God - greiving over you, not wishing that you should perish but have faith.

After all, Jesus said to Thomas that he had only believed because he had physical evidence but for those who could only read about God, like you and me, we are the more blessed.

Don’t give up… we’ll pray 4 u

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You were expecting it? entertaining… BTW Calvin got most of his arguments from Augustine (the doctor of grace) and was supported by Aquinas and are therefore completely in line with Church teaching.

Besides, if you were asking to find out a real answer and not just be antagonistic then perhaps you should consider that your journey is not yet over, or if you were led here that it may be by God - greiving over you, not wishing that you should perish but have faith.

After all, Jesus said to Thomas that he had only believed because he had physical evidence but for those who could only read about God, like you and me, we are the more blessed.

Don’t give up… we’ll pray 4 u

The Church does not agree with Calvin. They consider him to be a heretic. Predestination is a complex topic, but I think where the Church disagrees with Calvin is that Calvin believed God damned some people. Whereas, the Church believes some people - by virtue - are predestined to be saved, but no one is really predestined to be damned. That was my understanding whilst I was looking into the matter.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[john_aurelius]

The Church disagrees with Calvinism but not with Predestination.

The council of Organge 450 AD was the first conciliar expression of support for Augustines doctrine (cf. On the Predestination of the Saints 418 AD). and as I noted, Aquinas supports him (cf Summa Theologica q110 Art 1-10)

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The Church disagrees with Calvinism but not with Predestination.

The council of Organge 450 AD was the first conciliar expression of support for Augustines doctrine (cf. On the Predestination of the Saints 418 AD). and as I noted, Aquinas supports him (cf Summa Thologica q110 Art 1-10)

But isn’t Calvinism essentially based on the idea of Predestination (i.e. they could even be synonymous). You know - TULIP?:

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional elected
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the saints

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[john_aurelius]

TULIP was the Dutch response to Arminianism in 1610. Calvinism is much more than the narrow neo-calvinist position you are putting forward.

Cf John Calvin, The necessity of Reforming the Church.

Even though Calvin did believe in double predestination. So did Luther &c… it is not the centre of Calvin’s thought.

Anyway, i’m not arguing in favour of reprobation but asking you to consider that in the providence of God he is leading you to rethink your lifestory.

St Catherine of Siena said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind." Dialogue on Providence as quoted by the CCC 313.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

Since there is no scientific explanation for the miracle of the sun I suppose we should deny that it ever happened despite the multitude of witnesses then?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

 

[tonyrey]

They don’t realise they have faith in particles but that is what it boils down to… and in their own “personal judgment”, of course, but that is worthless if it is derived from particles which lack awareness and insight…

There is no guarantee that the laws of nature won’t cease to work! They also require explanation unless you believe this is the only possible universe…

You capitalize the abstract concepts of “Truth”, “Goodness”, “Freedom” etc. Well, you are basically imparting God into those concepts. Plato had his Theory of Forms that there was some perfect world (which he called the “Forms”) where those exist. But that was his own philosophical opinion. No one has experienced the ideal of the concepts you listed, but hopefully, and with the great participation of society, we may not achieve experiencing those ideal concepts, but we will be quite close to it.

If you reject the reality of Truth you are undermining all your arguments and conclusions! Truth is the correspondence of beliefs or propositions to reality. Can you observe correspondence with your senses?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It would be much appreciated if someone could try their hand as answering Bohm’s original question.

 

[Betterave]

Dear Eugen, I am sure you know what the next round of “answers” will be: you did not really have an open mind, or you did not seek long enough, or hard enough… because if you had you would have had your positive experience. You lied to yourself when you thought you had an open mind. But in reality it is your own pride which prevents you from accepting God. It always the skeptic who is at fault. And this kind of “argument” is being presented ad nauseam. Don’t these people ever think?

Luvya,
I think it is very obvious just from this thread so far that Eugen’s problem is not that he didn’t have an open mind - it’s that he doesn’t have an open mind. (And judging from this post of yours, you probably don’t either.) That, or the open mind he does have is spinning its wheels ineffectively because it does not operate logically. (Eugen’s discussion with babylonsfalling has made this very evident.) You can seek “long and hard” all you want, but when you refuse to either (a) stop making inaccurate statements, or (b) to start answering the hard questions that are posed to you about your position (as opposed to introducing red herrings), it seems perfectly clear that you are lying to yourself if you sincerely think you have what deserves to be called an “open mind.” And it probably *is *your own pride that prevents you from recognizing that you don’t have an open mind - and prevents you despite, Luvya, your rather transparent appeal to the kind of self-serving closed-minded rhetoric about open-mindedness that you’ve offered us in this thread (“Don’t these people ever think?” - good one! ).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Luvya,
I think it is very obvious just from this thread so far that Eugen’s problem is not that he didn’t have an open mind - it’s that he doesn’t have an open mind. (And judging from this post of yours, you probably don’t either.) That, or the open mind he does have is spinning its wheels ineffectively because it does not operate logically. (Eugen’s discussion with babylonsfalling has made this very evident.) You can seek “long and hard” all you want, but when you refuse to either (a) stop making inaccurate statements, or (b) to start answering the hard questions that are posed to you about your position (as opposed to introducing red herrings), it seems perfectly clear that you are lying to yourself if you sincerely think you have what deserves to be called an “open mind.” And it probably *is *your own pride that prevents you from recognizing that you don’t have an open mind - and prevents you despite, Luvya, your rather transparent appeal to the kind of self-serving closed-minded rhetoric about open-mindedness that you’ve offered us in this thread (“Don’t these people ever think?” - good one! ).

Whether I have an open mind or not is not what this thread is about. I think one poster was quite correct in asking if can we solve the real issue at hand, rather than diverging into the standard anti-atheist rhetoric.

Whilst I believed in God, I remember asking myself this very question: What if vampires and the Yeti really do exist? This isn’t a matter of me being a non-religious person or not. It’s something that was on my mind for quite a while. What’s really stopping me from believing in things like the Yeti (which I’ve never seen), if I believe(d) in God, whom I’ve never seen nor experienced. I also recall thinking from the perspective of someone who claims they saw a spaceship. What makes it right for me to say he didn’t? What makes it right for me to say that spaceships from outerspace don’t exist?

You can call me whatever name you wish, but thus far, no one has really solved the problem: How exactly do we collectively differentiate between God and all of these other things; in other words, how do we separate fact from fiction. Whilst someone may claim they saw a spaceship from outer space, that may not necessarily be the case. It might have been the government secretly testing some weaponry. But how do we go about reaching a universal standard, such that we can weed out the wheat from the chaff?

There seems to be a sort of “methodological spiral” when it comes to this topic. Either you believe in God, and generally believe in all of those things out of “open-mindedness”, or you do not believe in God, and so do not believe in all of those things.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **