F
fhansen
Guest
Like I said before, I don’t claim to know God exists by reason alone. My point is that such a belief is not unreasonable.
- Status
L
liquidpele
Guest
Then we are in agreement.
P
punkforchrist
Guest
If it’s rational to believe a person’s testimony, whether it be based on expertise, personal acquaintance, etc., it’s not blind. Blind faith lacks rationality. On the other hand, a man may have faith that his wife loves him. Does this mean he doesn’t have any good reasons to believe it?
That may be the private opinion of some, but it’s not what the Church herself teaches. The First Vatican Council states (Chapter 4: Faith and Reason):
“Not only can there be no conflict between faith and reason; but they also support each other since right reason demonstrates the foundations of faith and, illuminated by its light, pursues the understanding of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold insights.”
Earlier, we read (Chapter 2: Revelation):
“The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the things that were created, through the natural light of human reason, for ‘ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made’ [Rom 1:20] . . .”
So, we have both Biblical (Romans 1:20) and Magisterial support for the claim that faith and reason are complimentary, and that God’s existence can be demonstrated through the use of reason.
I think that’s a misreading of the passage I cited. The author of Hebrews doesn’t say that faith is acceptance of something that cannot be rationally demonstrated, but that it is acceptance of something we cannot see. These are two distinct statements.
This begs the question.
Why assume that knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive? In fact, most epistemologists I’m familiar with conclude that belief is simply a necessary condition of knowledge.
I don’t agree with the premise above. Aren’t you assuming that all rational demonstration must be empirically supported? If so, then I disagree with that, as well.
T
Thales
Guest
Originally Posted by Thales
It’s not as absurd as you might think. Homosexual behavior vastly increases the participants likelihood of getting a variety of diseases, like STD’s and AIDS. People who partake in homosexual behavior have a much lower life expectancy, are more likely to be in domestic violence situations, and for women, make up 50% of their prison population.
-The rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) is nine times higher than that of women and heterosexual men.
-50 percent of all new AIDS cases in 1999 were reported among young homosexuals
The CDC reported in its 1998 Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report:
-Approximately 15 percent of all new hepatitis B virus infections are among MSM
-Women who have sexual relations with women (WSW) are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: “BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls
According to J. R. Daling et.al, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.
Susan Turrell, “A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293):
-Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.
-Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.
There are many more resources on this, the CDC being one of the most definitive. It is also widely known the CDC has a “blood ban” on homosexuals donating blood because the high risk of the blood being infected with HIV and other diseases.
It’s not as absurd as you might think. Homosexual behavior vastly increases the participants likelihood of getting a variety of diseases, like STD’s and AIDS. People who partake in homosexual behavior have a much lower life expectancy, are more likely to be in domestic violence situations, and for women, make up 50% of their prison population.
onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614
- homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.
-the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
-The rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) is nine times higher than that of women and heterosexual men.
-50 percent of all new AIDS cases in 1999 were reported among young homosexuals
The CDC reported in its 1998 Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report:
-Approximately 15 percent of all new hepatitis B virus infections are among MSM
-Women who have sexual relations with women (WSW) are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: “BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls
According to J. R. Daling et.al, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.
Susan Turrell, “A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293):
-Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.
-Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.
There are many more resources on this, the CDC being one of the most definitive. It is also widely known the CDC has a “blood ban” on homosexuals donating blood because the high risk of the blood being infected with HIV and other diseases.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And just when did I say that anyone should have faith in ME?
You presume that NO ONE is smarter than you.
I merely pointed out that in the real world, there are smarter people, the “smart guys”, and the less smart, “stupid guys”.
Given that situation, how are the smart guys (whoever they are) to handle those who cannot think well?
You, in your willingness to be offended, diverted to not answer the question.
**Spock? **What would you have the smart people do since you admit that you cannot understand them?
L
liquidpele
Guest
correlation != causation, but props for at least having sources. I believe the STD/AIDS aspect, although I think this has changed a lot. Men having sex simply didn’t see a need for contraceptives since they can’t get pregnant. The suicide thing is interesting though…
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The Greek word in that passage, which your translation renders “being sure of”, is the hupostasis, something set under a person as a support. Perhaps a better translation would be “foundation” – and in fact, the term itself seems to suggest the modern word “hypothesis” (to place below, in Greek). The word for “certain” is ἔλεγχος, which means either “that by which something is tested” or “conviction”.
Thus, *faith is the foundation of our hope, the means of testing what cannot be seen.
- It is indeed a hypothesis, which – if true – is only testable by believing it first. If you say that this belief is impossible, Christian teaching responds that God provides the faith necessary. The fact that many reasonable people do have faith (which is, perhaps, what you don’t understand?) is an argument that they have tested it and found it reliable.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Thus, faith is the foundation of our hope, the means of testing what cannot be seen.
Emmm… “testing”?
Maybe; “Faith is the foundation of our hope and conviction to what cannot be seen”?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
“Conviction” might be more right; I’m no Greek scholar.Emmm… “testing”?
Maybe; “Faith is the foundation of our hope and conviction to what cannot be seen”?
Usually, it’s translated “evidence” – but there are two English meanings of “evidence”:
Faith is something that makes clear, or tends to prove. It is not proof itself.
Conviction seems a likely translation, as well, and doesn’t have the ambiguity of “evidence”.
M
Matthias123
Guest
You never gave me a proper answer to my argument – so I post it again.
I also add that faith is also required for things that are above human reason – such has the Blessed Trinity.
M
Matthias123
Guest
Suppose I am a person with a severe peanut allergy and I would like to eat a chocolate bar. I look in the chocolate bar aisle in the store for one that has the “peanut free logo on it”. Now I do not know for sure that, just because there is a “peanut free” logo on it that there will be no peanuts. However with my reason I come to hold the notion that the people that it is not in the companies best interest to kill customers, and there are most likely safety regulations in place.
So therefore I hold the notion that there are no peanuts in the chocolate bar on faith. Think about it now Spock, my life is depending on the fact that there are no peanuts in this chocolate bar. What happens if this chocolate bar was accidently made in the same machine that makes the Oh Henry bars. The answer is "surely they would have regulations to prevent that, especially if they were going to present it as “peanut free”, but these are the words of the faithful man.
This is not blind faith, because I use reason to decide whether such a notion is worthy of belief. Thus I trust my life to this notion through fides et ratio – faith and reason.
Thus we take the same approach to belief in God, yet there is a difference because we are supplemented by the divinely infused virtue of faith, and also we have the immediate experience of God that allows us to form a basic metaphysical belief.
So therefore I hold the notion that there are no peanuts in the chocolate bar on faith. Think about it now Spock, my life is depending on the fact that there are no peanuts in this chocolate bar. What happens if this chocolate bar was accidently made in the same machine that makes the Oh Henry bars. The answer is "surely they would have regulations to prevent that, especially if they were going to present it as “peanut free”, but these are the words of the faithful man.
This is not blind faith, because I use reason to decide whether such a notion is worthy of belief. Thus I trust my life to this notion through fides et ratio – faith and reason.
Thus we take the same approach to belief in God, yet there is a difference because we are supplemented by the divinely infused virtue of faith, and also we have the immediate experience of God that allows us to form a basic metaphysical belief.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
here is your premise
here is your conclusion
your conclusion doesnt follow from your premise. though im interested in why you dont think any of the arguments are sufficient or why thats necessarily so, its a rather broad statement here. if you care to give an example im sure that i can explain it to you.
B
Betterave
Guest
“It’s perhaps the same argument made by Spock, in fact: “why don’t you dumb religious listen to reason (i.e., to us “reasonable” atheists)?”; he just has evaluated who fills the roles of dumb and smart differently.”
Spock wrote:
Spock wrote:
Sorry Spock, I apologize, my wording was off. I’m not convinced, however, that a retraction is in order and at the very least I think you’re being just a tad melodramatic! Maybe part of the problem is your own insensitivity to the way you present yourself when you say stuff like “For the life of mine, I cannot understand you people!” To deny that you ever even insinuate that people you disagree with are stupid is a very bold claim, one with which I, for one, disagree. Maybe you are not the properly unbiased exegete to evaluate such a claim?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
why does the creator need a cause? G-d as the necessary being, is the maximal state of being, or as aquinas says the being whose essence is existence. where then would existence come from? from nothing? nothing doesnt exist, there is no such thing as nothing other than an artifact of human language, so there is only existence, ergo, the Creator needs no cause.
B
Betterave
Guest
It is a real problem. But the other other option, the always-option, is love. It’s rough, I know!Exactly. And thus;
“What would he propose we do?” The only tool available is dialog which obviously does not work in many cases.
The other option was named, “hands-on”.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Well “hands-on” might be in the form of a hug, or perhaps involve a rubber hammer (tough love). 
S
Spock
Guest
That is a circular argument. It presupposes what is portends to substantiate.
S
Spock
Guest
It depends on situation. If the man catches his wife in bed with someone else, it would not be reasonable to continue to have faith in her love. But we are not dealing here with such elusive things, we are dealing with the most fundamental questions of all: “existence”. One needs absolutely no faith whether his wife exists or not.
Of course such declarations carry no weight whatsoever. It is extremely vague, to begin with. And offers no reason why should one accept it.
Ah, so you wish to interpret it literally? On what grounds? How about “hearing”? How about “touching”? How about “tasting”?
The definition “knowledge is true belief” or its variant: “knowledge is justified true belief” originated with Plato. Admittedly he was a pretty smart fellow, but in the last few thousand years we made some progress. Plato certainly could not have known modern information theory. The correct definition of knowledge is “to have adequate, correct information about something”. And that does not imply anything about “beliefs”. Furthermore simple belief and faith are not synonymous.
No, I do not assume that. Mathematical proofs need no empirical verification. Also, in mathematics there are two kinds of proofs, “constructive” and “existential”. The constructive proof is of higher value, but sometimes we must be satisfied with an existential proof. (If you are not familiar with these terms, I will be glad to explain.) Of course mathematics is an axiomatic science, it only deals with abstract concepts.
For assertions that pertain to reality, an empirical verification would be nice. But I am not stubborn. I would be satisfied with an “existential” proof - which would be convincing. However, such existential proof would also render “faith” in God’s existence unnecessary.
S
Spock
Guest
I wonder why do we have to assume that the ancient Greek is more precise than modern English? What the quoted passage says is very clear about faith: to accept something because one hopes for it, or accept something that is not “seen” - for which we have no clear-cut evidence.
If the evidence is physical (constructive proof), there is no problem: we know about the phenomenon - not just its existence, but also the particulars. If the evidence is purely logical (existential proof), there is still no problem, we may not have knowledge about the particulars, but we know about the existence. In neither case is there a need for faith.
If there is neither physical nor logical proof, but there is some kind of circumstantial evidence, then the need for faith arises. One evaluates the existing evidence, assigns some “credibility” to it, and based on the credibility of the evidence - one either accepts or rejects the assertion. This is all well and good.
The problem I am trying to discuss in this thread is simple. If there would be physical or logical proof for God’s existence, then faith in God’s existence would not be necessary. Moreover, since the Bible prefers “faith” to “knowledge” (the wisdom of the world is folly with God, or you must become like children, etc…) it is very logical that the existence of any kind of proof is secondary, and thus it is not necessary to try to posit it. I have participated in many conversations where the theist eventually ran out of arguments, and said: “well, it does not matter, since I believe it anyway”. And let’s not forget that virtually everyone believed in God’s existence until some philosophers tried to “prove” it.
S
Spock
Guest
- Status