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

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Flying unicorns, extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, Yeti, tooth fairies and vampires have all hitherto been declared by the mainstream as false. There was a time when it was widely believed, but due to the emergence of reason, their respective existences have now been declared untrue. I think “God” is in pretty much the same category. With things like flying unicorns and the Yeti, there will always be at least one person somewhere that believes in it. And they will say to you, “all you need is faith”. Specifically with the Yeti, proponents will draw up all kinds of blurry videos to convince you that the Yeti exists.

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.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[WoundedIcon]

I’ve never really had to worry about it because I converted on the basis of a conspicuous supernatural occurrence, one which showed me God’s transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, and personal loving nature. I would have fallen away repeatedly had I not seen it and become rationally aware of a Deity beyond doubt. As it stands, after the fact, I would be stuck in absolutely irrational cognitive dissonance if I apostatized.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 12:9[/BIBLEDRB]

Philosophically however, I believe there must be a central principal in which all things converge and find their true purpose. I believe, as John says, that Christ the Logos is this principle. Something all things stem from and point to again. Without that, I see irrationality, dichotomy, and reductionism taking over. These days we can shatter reality in to a billion scientific fields of study and peer so deeply into them that we block out our sight of the big picture and how all things work together. Without God reality turns into confusing gobbledygook IMO.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Flying unicorns, extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, Yeti, tooth fairies and vampires have all hitherto been declared by the mainstream as false. There was a time when it was widely believed, but due to the emergence of reason, their respective existences have now been declared untrue. I think “God” is in pretty much the same category. With things like flying unicorns and the Yeti, there will always be at least one person somewhere that believes in it. And they will say to you, “all you need is faith”. Specifically with the Yeti, proponents will draw up all kinds of blurry videos to convince you that the Yeti exists.

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.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Who declared extraterrestrial life visiting Earth or Yeti to be false. I know tons of people who would delcare both of those things to be unknowns. Both of those things could easily be natural things which have not yet been discovered in a provable way.

Whether or not Flying unicorns, tooth fairies and vampires were ever “widely believed” is also debatable.

Where the line is drawn is up to each individual so there is no answer to where to “we” draw the line because it’s not a collective decision in the first place.

Most people accept belief in God because we all have an inborn sense of God, some people just deny that sense of God.

People DON’T have an inborn sense of ANY of the other things you mentioned.

 

[Luvya]

So, when it comes to faith, where do we draw a line. Where do we say, “this thing is too silly to be believed”?

It is all subjective. When we hear a claim, we evaluate it instinctively based upon our knowledge. We reach an informal “probability” for the claim, and when this probability falls below a specific value, we discard the claim as “silly”. The higher the probability, the more believable the claim becomes. This “line in the sand” is totally subjective, based upon the critical skills of the person. For a small child (before his critical skills develop) everything is believable. And if the claim is repeated many times, most likely it will never be questioned again. And that is called blind faith.

 

[graceandglory]

I have to apologize, I’m probably the last person who should be answering this thread. I was given a great measure of faith when I was young, and have never come up against an argument that has caused me to doubt. We speak of FAITH as being a GIFT of the Spirit, and some have little, and some have been given a LOT. We are to use the measure of faith that we have been given.

Other than faith being a gift of God, you might be interested in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of the Existence of God.
Here is one place where you can learn about it. This, honestly, is sort of over my head, but I’m guessing it might work for you.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Who declared extraterrestrial life visiting Earth or Yeti to be false. I know tons of people who would delcare both of those things to be unknowns. Both of those things could easily be natural things which have not yet been discovered in a provable way.

Whether or not Flying unicorns, tooth fairies and vampires were ever “widely believed” is also debatable.

Where the line is drawn is up to each individual so there is no answer to where to “we” draw the line because it’s not a collective decision in the first place.

Most people accept belief in God because we all have an inborn sense of God, some people just deny that sense of God.

People DON’T have an inborn sense of ANY of the other things you mentioned.

The problem I have with this post is that it basically implies that religious people will believe in anything. We can be agnostic about many things, but I believe that most people are certain that the tooth fairy and the Yeti do not exist. As for alleged extraterrestrial life visiting this planet, I highly doubt it because of incidents like Roswell. But again, many of these visits have been explained as being a country’s secret military operations testing the weapons of the future. Apparently, the B-2 Stealth Bomber was first seen around the 1970s and reported to be a UFO, so imagine the kinds of weaponry that are being tested today.

And I don’t think people have an inborn sense of God. It’s not instinctive, I’ll give you that. Even St. Thomas Aquinas believed that we didn’t have an inborn sense of God, but God was supposedly implicitly demonstrable in nature. So we knew God “a posteriori” rather than “a priori”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[babylonsfalling]

The problem I have with this post is that it basically implies that religious people will believe in anything. Really?! Where does it imply that? I don’t think I even spoke of religious people believing anything except in God. Where did you get religious people "will believe in anything?" We can be agnostic about many things, but I believe that most people are certain that the tooth fairy and the Yeti do not exist. <–My experience is that far MORE than most people are certain that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. My EXPERIENCE would tell me that zero adults believe it but I assume there are a few kooks who do. And in my experience, most kids don’t believe and are skeptical even if their parents play the tooth fairy game because there are always other kids telling them it’s a joke.<—My guess is that most people are skeptical of Yeti but allow it as something feasible, but not supernatural. The tapes are probably fake but the legend was there long before the tapes. As for alleged extraterrestrial life visiting this planet, I highly doubt it because of incidents like Roswell. <—Lots of people “highly doubt it”, that’s not the point. In your first post you said it was DECLARED FALSE BY THE MAINSTREAM and I asked you who did that? Who even has that authority? Who presumes that authority unto themselves? For you to now say you doubt it is much different than earlier when you said it was “declared false”. When did the “mainstream” do that? But again, many of these visits have been explained as being a country’s secret military operations testing the weapons of the future. <–Everyone knows that. The doubters obviously don’t beliee the explanations. Apparently, the B-2 Stealth Bomber was first seen around the 1970s and reported to be a UFO, so imagine the kinds of weaponry that are being tested today.

And I don’t think people have an inborn sense of God. It’s not instinctive, I’ll give you that. Even St. Thomas Aquinas believed that we didn’t have an inborn sense of God, but God was supposedly implicitly demonstrable in nature. So we knew God “a posteriori” rather than “a priori”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

In what quote did St Thomas Aquinas say we don’t have “an inborn sense of God?”
In what quote did he even address an “inborn sense of God?”

 

[Luke_K]

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.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

The line is where the opposite proposition becomes less silly. Yes, the idea of God has some difficulties, but the difficulties of a God-less universe are worse, in my opinion.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The line is where the opposite proposition becomes less silly. Yes, the idea of God has some difficulties, but the difficulties of a God-less universe are worse, in my opinion.

Please elaborate, especially on the part that a God-less universe has more difficulties. I don’t believe that at all.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

Flying unicorns, extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, Yeti, tooth fairies and vampires have all hitherto been declared by the mainstream as false. There was a time when it was widely believed, but due to the emergence of reason, their respective existences have now been declared untrue. I think “God” is in pretty much the same category.

You are wrong to put God in the same category. Your declaration that reason has just emerged is also wrong, reason has always existed. Modern man tries to claim reason as if he invented and all that went before were fools, this is pride at work not wisdom, we are no better at thinking than the philosophers of old, that we surpass them in some ways is possible only because we build on their work.

People declare God untrue because they do not like what he asks them to do. Reason supports the existence of God as is ably demonstrated by many philosophers throughout the ages. There is no good reasonable argument that shows that God does not exist.

As you mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas I wonder have you read Summa Contra Gentiles?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

In what quote did St Thomas Aquinas say we don’t have “an inborn sense of God?”
In what quote did he even address an “inborn sense of God?”

I study Philosophy as one of my courses. Forgive me that I haven’t read the Summa Theologica from front to back, but the general attitude from what we’ve studied is that he proved God from the external world. Hence if you look at many of his proofs of God’s existence, it’s always comparing one thing to another (analogy). He never started from the proposition that God existed, but on the contrary, started from the proposition that XYZ follows a certain law, and extrapolates the logic to mean God exists.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You are wrong to put God in the same category. Your declaration that reason has just emerged is also wrong, reason has always existed. Modern man tries to claim reason as if he invented and all that went before were fools, this is pride at work not wisdom, we are no better at thinking than the philosophers of old, that we surpass them in some ways is possible only because we build on their work.

People declare God untrue because they do not like what he asks them to do. Reason supports the existence of God as is ably demonstrated by many philosophers throughout the ages. There is no good reasonable argument that shows that God does not exist.

As you mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas I wonder have you read Summa Contra Gentiles?

Reason has always existed, but it hasn’t always been prevalent, has it? A simple glance at the Middle Ages will show people believing in all kinds of logically egregious things. Of course, I’m not blaming them for that; if I was born in that time period, I would have probably been the same way. But the fact is that for a big part of human history, superstition has often dictated discourse and public thought. It’s only until quite recently that humans (at least in the Western world) started to trust reason than legend, myths and superstition. And funnily enough, the time Atheism started to gain headway was the time the Enlightenment started.

As for the claim that “people declare God untrue because they do not like what he asks them to do”, well I agree with you to a certain extent. Some people want to justify their immorality. Yet, I believe that the Catholic Church has got a good grip on morality. For instance, I find it hard to believe that people think abortion is acceptable. I don’t believe that the Church’s stance on morality is due to the work of any divine being, but from the mere fact that the Catholic Church is a very old institution (about 2000+ years), and they have often had the biggest and best philosophers debate with each other about very old philosophical problems. I think the mistake lies that morality was divinely inspired, when it wasn’t. The Church just had very excellent philosophers and people with “common sense”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[babylonsfalling]

I study Philosophy as one of my courses. Forgive me that I haven’t read the Summa Theologica from front to back, but the general attitude from what we’ve studied is that he proved God from the external world. <—He PROVED God?! So you’re a believer? Hence if you look at many of his proofs of God’s existence, it’s always comparing one thing to another (analogy). He never started from the proposition that God existed, but on the contrary, started from the proposition that XYZ follows a certain law, and extrapolates the logic to mean God exists.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

How does proving God from the external world necessarily mean that someone didn’t have an inner sense of God beforehand? Did Aquinas actually SAY he didn’t already believe God existed before he “proved God from the external world”. I know lots of people who believed in God all their lives but ALSO believe He is proven in the world around us. They essentially believed BEFORE they had proof but try to USE proof to convince those who claim they don’t believe.

I don’t believe God IS provable because anyone can claim that the proof isn’t good enough, which means those believers who are trying to prove him to others are on a failed mission from the get go.

The knowledge of God “is manifest” in all men, with or without worldly proof. Some have more or less of this knowledge but all have it to one degree or another.

The anti God crowd deny’s the knowledge of God, and uses the fact that He can’t be proven in a worldly way to help them with their attempt at not believing in God.

Believers may have a weak knowledge of God and incorrectly try bolstering it with worldly “proof” which I believe is a mistake.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

No, I’m not a believer. I used to be, but not anymore.

I don’t believe the belief of God is manifest in all men. Not for one second. Let’s just suppose that God did exist, or something like God. How does that explain how men like Richard Dawkins started doubting God from a very, very early age? I don’t believe a child would honestly doubt God’s existence to justify any immoral action, do you? Richard Dawkins has a reasonably high intellect, and that led him to take a very pragmatic approach to this world.

Clearly it would also show that a malevolent entity exists in that He couldn’t impart faith (a theological virtue) to Richard Dawkins, yet you have people like St. Therese who reached sanctity when they were about 4. I think there’s a lot of predestination going around, and maybe Calvin was right: Maybe some are saved and some are damned (on the assumption that God exists)?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Betterave]

Reason has always existed, but it hasn’t always been prevalent, has it? A simple glance at the Middle Ages will show people believing in all kinds of logically egregious things. Of course, I’m not blaming them for that; if I was born in that time period, I would have probably been the same way. But the fact is that for a big part of human history, superstition has often dictated discourse and public thought. It’s only until quite recently that humans (at least in the Western world) started to trust reason than legend, myths and superstition. And funnily enough, the time Atheism started to gain headway was the time the Enlightenment started.

A simple glance at the Middle Ages? How much time have you sent studying the Middle Ages? (I’m pretty sure that it is not possible to take a “simple glance” at them, as you suggest - with due respect, it sounds like you may just be operating on good old cultural hear-say, which just happens to be pervaded by a lot of silly ideas about the Middle Ages.)

Let me suggest to you that post-Enlightenment societies are just as full as myths, legends, and superstitions as pre-Enlightenment societies, one of the main myths being that this is not the case, another being that they think they have good reason for thinking that this is not the case, and another being that the Middle Ages was an age that had no grasp of logic. …And funnily enough, Atheism started to gain headway at the same time as these modern myths about the ‘Enlightenment.’ Coincidence?

(A key point to remember: if a particular group of people start calling themselves ‘enlightened,’ be suspicious: this may well be an act of propaganda, or an act of self-delusion. It certainly doesn’t mean that they actually are enlightened.)

 

[babylonsfalling]

No, I’m not a believer. I used to be, but not anymore.

Originally Posted by Bohm Bawerk
but the general attitude from what we’ve studied is that he proved God

You keep responding without answering a LOT of questions in the posts you’re responding to…here they are again.

Where did my posts imply religious people would believe in anything? Where (in my post) did you get religious people "will believe in anything?

In your first post you said that extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and Yeti, was DECLARED FALSE BY THE MAINSTREAM and I asked you who did that.
Well…who did it and when did that happen?
Who even has the authority to make such a declaration and who presumes that authority unto themselves?

In what quote did St Thomas Aquinas say we don’t have “an inborn sense of God?”
In what quote did he even address an “inborn sense of God?”

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You keep responding without answering a LOT of questions in the posts you’re responding to…here they are again.

Where did my posts imply religious people would believe in anything? Where (in my post) did you get religious people "will believe in anything?

The fundamental part of your post was that we can only declare things like UFOs and the Yeti as “unknowns”. Yet, I’m sure you understand that in this world for many things, we either believe in something or we don’t. Even Jesus said that there was only hot and cold, never lukewarm. So to assert that a lot of people believe in those things necessarily implies that a lot of religious people believe in those things, as Atheists generally deny the existence of such claims (Atheists generally believe in a philosophy called empiricism, which basically means they require something to be able to be proved over and over again for it to be declared as worthy of belief). Now, I honestly hope I’m not making you angry, which I think is the case because you are writing in red. If so, please accept my apology.

In your first post you said that extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and Yeti, was DECLARED FALSE BY THE MAINSTREAM and I asked you who did that.
Well…who did it and when did that happen?
Who even has the authority to make such a declaration and who presumes that authority unto themselves?

I’m not sure if you’re going to accept this, but this is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“The scientific community generally regards the Yeti as a legend, given the lack of conclusive evidence,[5] yet it remains one of the most famous creatures of cryptozoology.” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti ).

I’ve also read a couple of those books containing all kinds of facts, and they also declare the Yeti as a legend, i.e. false. As for extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, it’s a little bit more of a complex matter, but a lot of “evidence” have eventually been found out to be proven as hoaxes.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
**

 

[babylonsfalling]

The fundamental part of your post was that we can only declare things like UFOs and the Yeti as “unknowns”. Yet, I’m sure you understand that in this world for many things, we either believe in something or we don’t. Even Jesus said that there was only hot and cold, never lukewarm. REALLY…Jesus said that? What verse was that? So to assert that a lot of people believe in those things necessarily implies that a lot of religious people believe in those things, as Atheists generally deny the existence of such claims (Atheists generally believe in a philosophy called empiricism, which basically means they require something to be able to be proved over and over again for it to be declared as worthy of belief). <—The problem is that you said belief in these things and others was declared false by the “mainstream” which I don’t think was ever the case. I don’t know of any Christian or anti God type who even presumed that type of authority. The people I know (Christian or otherwise) are mostly skeptical but ultimately, they don’t know. That’s not the same as belief in such things…it’s just healthy skepticism but definitely NOT a declaration of falsity. I’ve been asking you who actually made such a declaration and that’s one of the questions you’ve been constantly forgetting to answer. Now, I honestly hope I’m not making you angry, which I think is the case because you are writing in red. I use red with the quoted section to draw attention to certain parts of what you said in the previous post. Is blue better? If so, please accept my apology.

I’m not sure if you’re going to accept this, but this is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“The scientific community generally regards the Yeti as a legend, given the lack of conclusive evidence,[5] yet it remains one of the most famous creatures of cryptozoology.” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti ).

I’ve also read a couple of those books containing all kinds of facts, and they also declare the Yeti as a legend, i.e. false. <—REALLY, you think a legend is “i.e. false”? Do you think no legends have ever come to be proven or accepted as fact when proof or increased evidence came to light? Do you know the definition of legend? As for extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, it’s a little bit more of a complex matter, but a lot of “evidence” have eventually been found out to be proven as hoaxes.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
**

Here are all those questions from previous posts that you keep forgetting to answer.

Where did my posts imply religious people would believe in anything? Where (in my post) did you get religious people "will believe in anything?

In your first post you said that extraterrestrial life visiting Earth and Yeti, was DECLARED FALSE BY THE MAINSTREAM and I asked you who did that.
Well…who did it and when did that happen?
Who even has the authority to make such a declaration and who presumes that authority unto themselves?

In what quote did St Thomas Aquinas say we don’t have “an inborn sense of God?”
In what quote did he even address an “inborn sense of God?”

Here are new questions from this post…so you don’t forget

What verse did Jesus say “there was only hot and cold, never lukewarm”?

Do you really think a legend is “i.e. false”?
Do you think no legends have ever come to be proven or accepted as fact when proof or increased evidence came to light?
Do you know the definition of legend?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The fundamental part of your post was that we can only declare things like UFOs and the Yeti as “unknowns”. Yet, I’m sure you understand that in this world for many things, we either believe in something or we don’t. Even Jesus said that there was only hot and cold, never lukewarm. So to assert that a lot of people believe in those things necessarily implies that a lot of religious people believe in those things, as Atheists generally deny the existence of such claims (Atheists generally believe in a philosophy called empiricism, which basically means they require something to be able to be proved over and over again for it to be declared as worthy of belief). Now, I honestly hope I’m not making you angry, which I think is the case because you are writing in red. If so, please accept my apology.

I’m not sure if you’re going to accept this, but this is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“The scientific community generally regards the Yeti as a legend, given the lack of conclusive evidence,[5] yet it remains one of the most famous creatures of cryptozoology.” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti ).

I’ve also read a couple of those books containing all kinds of facts, and they also declare the Yeti as a legend, i.e. false. As for extraterrestrial life visiting Earth, it’s a little bit more of a complex matter, but a lot of “evidence” have eventually been found out to be proven as hoaxes.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
**

Just a quick note. From your quote says “general regards as legend”. Now I may not be the brightess buld on the chandelier, but I do not take that as the same as say " definately detrined False". I for one do not think that E.T.'s are real or that Yeti/ Bigfoot ETC… are real, howeveer I do not rule out that they could be.

Also just because something is said to be legend does not remove the possibility of its truth.

There are many thing that people accept as facts that there are no hard core physical evidence of. Black holes are one of those things. All the evidence points to them being there we just can not prove them. Plants in the Sirius star system, because of shadowing we have evidence that lead to beleive that they are there but, no phyical evidence as yet. Yet I know of no one that calls these thing into real question. One would have to ask Why? Answer because the new religion of the modern age science is saying them.

Just the same with climate change /global warming . The evidence shows that it happening , that it has also happened be fore happened before. long before Man. Yet many accept that man is causing now because the preacher of the modern religion say so. And not even all of them agree.

So to answer your question on where the line is drawn, I guess it becomes a personal choice as to where.

 

[Luke_K]

Please elaborate, especially on the part that a God-less universe has more difficulties. I don’t believe that at all.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Well if you’re willing to deny the existence of free will, binding moral values, and the possibility of miracles, then that significantly lightens the load on atheism. Alternative explanations for the historical evidence surrounding Jesus’ burial, empty tomb, and the rise of Christianity are more silly than God raising Jesus from the dead (unless you are really, really set against the possibility of God existing or acting in the world). God-less explanations for fine-tuning don’t satisfy me (see this article by Al Mortiz). The Kalam cosmological argument is a good one.