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

[Prophesy]

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

I think our primary concern is the placement of God the same category as “creatures” like flying unicorns and Yeti. However, the philosophy (since we are in the philosophy section after all) around God is of a completely different nature.

If we were talking about a magic old man with a long white beard that lives in the clouds, I would certainly concede you your point. However, God isn’t (well hopefully) understood in such a way. But as the Divine Author of the universe, the necessary being to a contingent universe, the uncaused cause, the prime mover, etc.

One of the things that truly separates discussions of God from that of unicorns is the matter of proposition. I’ve never seen an argument in which the existence of unicorns is fundamentally necessary to the universe. And it would be hard to make a logical argument as such, especially arguing the significance of the unicorn compared to something like a gryphon (why could it not be a gryphon that was necessary in place of a unicorn, or even a horse).

However, I have seen arguments about God in such a way (primarily Thomas Aquinas’ argument based on contingency) in which God is discussed as a necessary being in broad terms (a particularly interesting exploration is done by C.S. Lewis in his book the Problem of Pain).

I hope this is helpful to this discussion.

-Prophesy

 

[Luvya]

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! ).

Oh, well, the mind reader strikes again. Seems you are obsessed with fishing, judging from the frequency of talking about “red herrings”. I prefer the “Blue Marlin” instead, but that is just a personal preference.

An open mind means that one should be ready to listen to arguments, ponder them, evaluate them, and accept them IF and only IF they are correct. To have an open mind does not mean unquestioning acceptance of any old nonsense that is thrown one’s way.

By the way, I made ONLY 2 very short posts in this thread. How did you deduce the state of my mind from them is beyond me. Maybe you could make good living as a psychic or palm reader.

 

[Prophesy]

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 **

I would like to respond to this post as well. I was just struck with the idea that, despite living on this planet earth for so long, I have never experienced many places (in Canada of all places). However, I have had relatives who have taken pictures of Australia. But I’ve never experienced it. So, short of getting the funds together to travel to Australia and say “Well, that proves that”, I can take them for their word because it seems to me much more reasonable than to say that Australia does exist than the alternative. And this is all a rather silly example yet.

But, if I were much more cut off from the rest of the world (though I’m not sure if one can be much more cut off than living in Canada), without the pleasure of the Internet or friends who travel to Australia. Without a map or globe or any idea of Australia, it would be immensely difficult for me to sit on a rock and think and think and philosophically discover that there must be an island located in the southern pacific ocean in which people through shrimp onto the barbie.

But I could sit on a rock and think and think and philosophically discover that there is a Creator.

-Prophesy

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I think our primary concern is the placement of God the same category as “creatures” like flying unicorns and Yeti. However, the philosophy (since we are in the philosophy section after all) around God is of a completely different nature.

If we were talking about a magic old man with a long white beard that lives in the clouds, I would certainly concede you your point. However, God isn’t (well hopefully) understood in such a way. But as the Divine Author of the universe, the necessary being to a contingent universe, the uncaused cause, the prime mover, etc.

One of the things that truly separates discussions of God from that of unicorns is the matter of proposition. I’ve never seen an argument in which the existence of unicorns is fundamentally necessary to the universe. And it would be hard to make a logical argument as such, especially arguing the significance of the unicorn compared to something like a gryphon (why could it not be a gryphon that was necessary in place of a unicorn, or even a horse).

However, I have seen arguments about God in such a way (primarily Thomas Aquinas’ argument based on contingency) in which God is discussed as a necessary being in broad terms (a particularly interesting exploration is done by C.S. Lewis in his book the Problem of Pain).

I hope this is helpful to this discussion.

-Prophesy

Thank you

 

[Betterave]

Oh, well, the mind reader strikes again. Seems you are obsessed with fishing, judging from the frequency of talking about “red herrings”. I prefer the “Blue Marlin” instead, but that is just a personal preference.

Are “Blue Marlins” stinky and misleading too?

An open mind means that one should be ready to listen to arguments, ponder them, evaluate them, and accept them IF and only IF they are correct. To have an open mind does not mean unquestioning acceptance of any old nonsense that is thrown one’s way.

Yeah, obviously! (Which entails what I said: honestly answering the critical questions that are raised against your position!)

By the way, I made ONLY 2 very short posts in this thread. How did you deduce the state of my mind from them is beyond me. Maybe you could make good living as a psychic or palm reader.

Or (actually) teaching critical thinking skills (no psychic skills were required or used in deriving my conclusions about your “state of mind”)! If you are open-minded enough to actually be interested in trying to understand the rational grounding for any of my claims, please just ask.

 

[Prophesy]

Thank you

You’re more than welcome. Glad I could help.

-Prophesy

 

[Betterave]

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.

See Eugen, that’s just you being closed-minded again! On what basis do you dismiss my analysis as “the standard anti-atheist rhetoric”? If you don’t deal with the closed-mindedness/irrational-mindedness issue, you simply won’t be able to address “what this thread is about.” Can you think about that and try to understand it?

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?

Put very simply: It starts with speaking the truth. And if our claims are questioned (as yours have been in this thread), then we have to answer those questions and we have to do so honestly, acknowledging when we have erred and modifying our claims accordingly. We can’t just ignore them, or change the subject, or dismiss them as “anti-whoever-I-happen-to-be rhetoric.” We have to be honest. How’s that sound for starters?

(By the way, I haven’t called you any names (except Eugen). What I have done is analyzed the logical form of your claims and arguments in this thread.)

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.

That seems to be a completely groundless assertion on your part.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

See Eugen, that’s just you being closed-minded again! On what basis do you dismiss my analysis as “the standard anti-atheist rhetoric”? If you don’t deal with the closed-mindedness/irrational-mindedness issue, you simply won’t be able to address “what this thread is about.” Can you think about that and try to understand it?

It’s the standard anti-atheist rhetoric that “atheists aren’t open-minded enough”. Yet, people of religion do not have a monopoly on open-mindedness (2 Cor 6:14-18). Would you consider me close-minded if I started preaching about the truth of the Catholic Church? Sounds a lot like “preaching to the choir” if you ask me. I hope you understand that a Catholic/Christian can read various amounts of literature and come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. In fact, it’s funny that this should be brought up - the times that I read the most were followed by the times I started doubting God exists, and the times I read the least were followed by the times this so-called ‘faith’ of mine was strong. Nowhere on this planet have I seen someone equate reading with close-mindedness. If you do, please explain why a consequence of reading is close-mindedness. Quite to the contrary, my very “open-mindedness” led to the ultimate conclusion that God doesn’t exist, and is simply a fabrication.

But, this isn’t a thread of whether God exists/God doesn’t exist. I’ve made up my mind, and I’m sure you’ve made up your mind. Let’s get back to the basics (only a few users have done this successfully so far): What makes the belief in God different from belief in the Yeti and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth?

It starts with speaking the truth. And if our claims are questioned (as yours have been in this thread), then we have to answer those questions and we have to do so honestly, acknowledging when we have erred and modifying our claims accordingly. We can’t just ignore them, or change the subject, or dismiss them as “anti-whoever-I-happen-to-be rhetoric.” We have to be honest. How’s that sound for starters?

I started the thread asking the question. I “posed the motion”. The responsibility is not on me, but on believers to explain why they believe in what they believe.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I would like to respond to this post as well. I was just struck with the idea that, despite living on this planet earth for so long, I have never experienced many places (in Canada of all places). However, I have had relatives who have taken pictures of Australia. But I’ve never experienced it. So, short of getting the funds together to travel to Australia and say “Well, that proves that”, I can take them for their word because it seems to me much more reasonable than to say that Australia does exist than the alternative. And this is all a rather silly example yet.

But, if I were much more cut off from the rest of the world (though I’m not sure if one can be much more cut off than living in Canada), without the pleasure of the Internet or friends who travel to Australia. Without a map or globe or any idea of Australia, it would be immensely difficult for me to sit on a rock and think and think and philosophically discover that there must be an island located in the southern pacific ocean in which people through shrimp onto the barbie.

But I could sit on a rock and think and think and philosophically discover that there is a Creator.

-Prophesy

Good response, but the difference is that if I wanted to go to Canada, or Australia, all I need is to purchase a ticket and meet the other few requirements, and I’m set to go. ‘God’ is not like that at all. If I wanted to experience God (via the Holy Spirit), and I asked Him (on several occasions), I will not get it. The classical response is that it’s “not God’s will”. I find it odd that God wouldn’t want to improve a person’s faith, but is in fact holding it back. The claim that it is not “God’s will”, in my mind at least, is just a lousy excuse to cover up the non-existence of a reported entity.

And as for human history, I actually don’t recall people believing that there was no such thing as other countries. Yes, people may not have known about the seas, geographical boundaries and so forth, but they had a good idea based on human intuition and observation that there was more land…somewhere. What was doubted was whether these lands were “distant utopias”, like say, El Dorado (a place full of gold).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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

Read post # 20.

 

[Prophesy]

Good response, but the difference is that if I wanted to go to Canada, or Australia, all I need is to purchase a ticket and meet the other few requirements, and I’m set to go. ‘God’ is not like that at all. If I wanted to experience God (via the Holy Spirit), and I asked Him (on several occasions), I will not get it. The classical response is that it’s “not God’s will”. I find it odd that God wouldn’t want to improve a person’s faith, but is in fact holding it back. The claim that it is not “God’s will”, in my mind at least, is just a lousy excuse to cover up the non-existence of a reported entity.

And as for human history, I actually don’t recall people believing that there was no such thing as other countries. Yes, people may not have known about the seas, geographical boundaries and so forth, but they had a good idea based on human intuition and observation that there was more land…somewhere. What was doubted was whether these lands were “distant utopias”, like say, El Dorado (a place full of gold).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

My apologies for perhaps not explaining my analogy well enough. When I meant cut-off from the rest of the world, I meant to include travelling as the restriction. Basically I was getting at, that if you were to live in a cave for your whole life. You couldn’t sit down and philosophically reason out the existence of an empirical being. Now, you may come up with a unicorn and say that it is awfully close to a horse (sans horn, magical powers and rainbow production), but it remains in the list of a contingent being. While God can be reasoned on based on your existence ( I really recommend C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity if you have not read it).

I can relate to the asking for faith and not receiving it. I commend you greatly for coming here with your questions though! Faith through grace, unfortunately, is often like St. Paul’s reception (based on my experience (and potentially a friend who converted to Catholicism) at least). Seem like a well-thought individual, perhaps, if you so desire, you can develop faith through reason (I like to think that I did that). But remember that faith isn’t 100% doubtless either.

I look forward to your response.

-Prophesy

 

[Luke_K]

Let’s get back to the basics (only a few users have done this successfully so far): What makes the belief in God different from belief in the Yeti and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth?

The difference is that Yeti and extraterrestrial life are material and therefore their existence should be confirmed by material observational instruments. The first cause cannot be material in principle because it cannot change (otherwise it would not be the first cause), and all material things necessarily change (because absolute 0 temperature is impossible). If the first cause were material and did not change, and material things cause their effects necessarily, then the universe would be eternal and have no beginning, but it does.

 

[Prophesy]

Read post # 20.

I hope number 42 helped as well.

-Prophesy

 

[Betterave]

It’s the standard anti-atheist rhetoric that “atheists aren’t open-minded enough”.

But that’s not what I said, so you’ve obviously just ignored what I did say and heard what you wanted to hear, which proves my point: you are (being) closed-minded (and/or irrational-minded). It’s pretty simple.

Yet, people of religion do not have a monopoly on open-mindedness (2 Cor 6:14-18). Would you consider me close-minded if I started preaching about the truth of the Catholic Church? Sounds a lot like “preaching to the choir” if you ask me.

Quite possibly I would consider you closed-minded if you did that. It would depend how you did it. Do you understand that? Closed-mindedness isn’t a matter of what you believe, it’s a matter of how you believe, and in particular how you respond to objections to your beliefs. (I am well aware that there are plenty of closed-minded Catholics around. You seem unaware that there are also plenty of closed-minded atheists.)

I hope you understand that a Catholic/Christian can read various amounts of literature and come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist.

I do. (It’s pretty obvious.)

In fact, it’s funny that this should be brought up - the times that I read the most were followed by the times I started doubting God exists, and the times I read the least were followed by the times this so-called ‘faith’ of mine was strong. Nowhere on this planet have I seen someone equate reading with close-mindedness. If you do, please explain why a consequence of reading is close-mindedness. Quite to the contrary, my very “open-mindedness” led to the ultimate conclusion that God doesn’t exist, and is simply a fabrication.

I have never suggested that a consequence of reading is closed-mindedness. It can be, though; it depends what you’re reading. If (only if)what you read presents models of thinking that are closed-minded, you may be susceptible to picking up those habits of thought.

But, this isn’t a thread of whether God exists/God doesn’t exist. I’ve made up my mind, and I’m sure you’ve made up your mind. Let’s get back to the basics (only a few users have done this successfully so far): What makes the belief in God different from belief in the Yeti and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth?

As I’ve already pointed out, and as you have (closed-mindedly!) chosen to ignore, I am addressing the basics.

I started the thread asking the question. I “posed the motion”. The responsibility is not on me, but on believers to explain why they believe in what they believe.

No, I think you are quite obviously mistaken. (And your claim here also obviously does not constitute an actual response to what I wrote, that is, one that would suggest that you actually read what I wrote.) You are a ‘believer’ as much as anyone, and you have a responsibility as much as anyone to defend the legitimacy of your beliefs. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I hope number 42 helped as well.

-Prophesy

 

[Windfish]

Your question is just a basic question of epistemology: how justified are we in believing X? That is really your question, and I think you are confusing it by attempting to compare known legendary and mythical entities with God.

We are not justified in holding to the existence of unicorns because there is no evidence of unicorns. Absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence for X if we expect to have evidence or more evidence than we have for X. For example, if there were an elephant in my room, I would expect to see its intruding mass. Since that evidence is absent, it is evidence of the elephant’s absence in my room. Someone may present a blurry video of an elephant in my room and I on my bed - and that is fine, let him do so - but that must be seen in light of the background evidence that is already established (i.e., that I did not see evidence that I should have seen in my room). In light of that, we have more reason to think the video is a fraud than that an elephant is in my room. So it is with unicorns or any other contingent thing.

As Catholics, we hold that the existence of God can be known with certainty through reason and that the fact of his Revelation in history can be known by all. What we have faith in is the content of that Revelation. That is very different from having faith that he exists. The truths of Revelation are not things that can be immediately or intuitively experienced, and so we must move our intellect with our wills to accept and trust in God and what he has revealed. Because our wills are involved, we can falter from that assent, just as you have. Hopefully, with the grace of God, you can make a recovery. This is the desert experience of the Christian spiritual life that all experience at one point or even many points along their lives. In the harshness of the desert, many Israelites remembered Egypt with fondness. But that is just a return to slavery, and I hope you will come back and sojourn with us in the desert.

 

[john_aurelius]

just wondering if you’ve read The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World by Alister McGrath (2004).

Fascinating bloke, Had a doctorate in Science and then got one in Theology also from Oxford Uni.

I had the pleasure of listening to him personally in Sydney, he came here for a conference on Apologetics called “Chalcedon 06”**

 

[samiam1611]

As Catholics, we hold that the existence of God can be known with certainty through reason and that the fact of his Revelation in history can be known by all. What we have faith in is the content of that Revelation. That is very different from having faith that he exists. The truths of Revelation are not things that can be immediately or intuitively experienced, and so we must move our intellect with our wills to accept and trust in God and what he has revealed.

Hi Windfish,
I was wondering if you could elaborate on this portion of your post, especially the blue part. It almost seems like you’re saying it doesn’t take faith to believe God exists bc it is known that God exists (because of Revelation). If that is what you’re saying, could you speculate on how it could be known with certainty through reason if Revelation did not happen? (or if you lived in the time before it had been revealed) Would you still believe in God but feel less certain about it, IOW, rely almost entirely on faith? In more other words, (and to try to tie in with the OP) do you think that would “move the line” so to speak? Move it father from reason and closer to “silly”?

I don’t know if any of that made sense, it is kind of off the top of my head. Any elaboration on your post above would be much appreciated