Is evidence relevant to people of faith?

[WmJackP]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

 

[JerryZ]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

Uhmmm Examples?

 

[rscanl01]

Yes there are standards.

If I believe the sun will set tonight there is astronomical evidence, photographic evidence from space, and the evidence of common sense: “It always has set!”

If I believe that someone is my mother (for instance), then all the years I’ve spent with this person, and records of birth, and photographs, and the kind of relationship we have, are all evidence which make the statement worthy of belief.

There is evidence for faith too, but because faith in God is faith in an infinite and eternal person, the evidence is of a different order. Only God Himself can present the evidence necessary to believe in him, even though the whole created universe cries out in testimony, because there is no image, no concept and no experience (on the purely natural level) which can do any justice to God.

This is why we are asked by the new testament, to “live by faith,”–it is only by first opening our minds and hearts to the possibility of God’s existence, and entreating him in his utterly inaccessible infinity, to make himself present to us: which is prayer and petition (!!), that we can have “the instrument” to gather the evidence for right belief in God.

The instrument we use to believe in God is our very selves; the laboratory in which we conduct the experiment of divinity, is the whole of our being: body, mind, soul and humanity.

(( at the same time, right faith has the corollary persuasive evidence (not demonstrative) that it does not contradict the findings nor the principles of natural human reason–but in fact enlightens them.))

 

[WmJackP]

Uhmmm Examples?

Pick one of your choice and I’ll discuss it with you. three persons-one god? transubstantiation? virgin birth? Which one do you like?

 

[WmJackP]

Yes there are standards.

If I believe the sun will set tonight there is astronomical evidence, photographic evidence from space, and the evidence of common sense: “It always has set!”

If I believe that someone is my mother (for instance), then all the years I’ve spent with this person, and records of birth, and photographs, and the kind of relationship we have, are all evidence which make the statement worthy of belief.

There is evidence for faith too, but because faith in God is faith in an infinite and eternal person, the evidence is of a different order. Only God Himself can present the evidence necessary to believe in him, even though the whole created universe cries out in testimony, because there is no image, no concept and no experience (on the purely natural level) which can do any justice to God.

This is why we are asked by the new testament, to “live by faith,”–it is only by first opening our minds and hearts to the possibility of God’s existence, and entreating him in his utterly inaccessible infinity, to make himself present to us: which is prayer and petition (!!), that we can have “the instrument” to gather the evidence for right belief in God.

The instrument we use to believe in God is our very selves; the laboratory in which we conduct the experiment of divinity, is the whole of our being: body, mind, soul and humanity.

(( at the same time, right faith has the corollary persuasive evidence (not demonstrative) that it does not contradict the findings nor the principles of natural human reason–but in fact enlightens them.))

Faith is a substitute for evidence? Is that essentially what your position is?

 

[Della]

Pick one of your choice and I’ll discuss it with you. three persons-one god? transubstantiation? virgin birth? Which one do you like?

What are your objections to these teachings? We can’t help you if we don’t know what you know and how you are approaching them.

 

[JerryZ]

Pick one of your choice and I’ll discuss it with you. three persons-one god? transubstantiation? virgin birth? Which one do you like?

So exactly what evidence you need to believe in any of those tenets?

Seems to me that all are theological issues, that is they pertain to the relation of human beings with their Creator. Being so they cannot be proven with the material evidence that may be you are expecting or want.

Let’s take the most difficult item from most people to believe, Jesus death and resurrection. So what evidence do we have to prove to us that this event did happen?

Well we have they apostles account for starters and also we have the Church they founded on the command of Jesus.
How confident can we be that what they taught us is true and not a concoction?
:Hmmm:
Well lets see they (the Apostles) spread out all over the Roman Empire teaching this tenets, they all died horrible deaths, alone and far away from each other and never waved one bit on their beliefs.

If what they were teaching were lies, once caught and faced with certain death would have they not changed their story to save their lifes? But nope they preferred to die.
They were alone the other Apostles were thousands of miles away no one would have known…Except
We would not have the Church we have today.
Go and much on this…

 

[WoundedIcon]

As someone who struggles with doubt because I lean so heavily on my own logical processes, maybe I can shed some light here. Most of us don’t believe just because we believe. Most of us believe that something makes enough sense to put some stock in, either through inquiry or intuition, and then go from there in further propping up our beliefs. Some people just stick to the basics, but people like me often need to see scientific and maybe even especially philosophical arguments in order to fully believe. On top of that, there is an empirical element, not so much in the scientific sense, but in the sense of experiential knowledge. If you ask a deity to help certain highly-against-the-odds things happen and they do, over and over again, you tend to trust that you’re doing the right thing. Then there’s the realm of mystical and sacramental graces, charismatic gifts, miracles, etc. Some people never witness these things, but people who do are generally changed for life. For me, I used to be agnostic, and my way of thinking is really logical (over intuition) as an autistic individual. Well, I had something happen to me and now I’m a Christian. But I still have doubts. I bet what’s running through your mind is “well, how do you know it was the Christian God, other’s have had experiences in their religions” and honestly I struggle with that. But I tend to assume that, if I take communion and it consistently does what it says on the box (so-to-speak) then I can trust that everything else is in line as well.

 

[Della]

Faith is a substitute for evidence? Is that essentially what your position is?

Not to put words into anyone’s mouth, but the way I take that statement is one needs to believe in order to see, which is contrary to our way of thinking in our Western society, which, in and of itself is rather ironic considering it was Catholics who formulated the modern understanding of imperical evidence in the sciences.

Spiritual matters are not unreasonable, but they cannot be understood by reason alone–it’s insufficient the way we need a tank of oxygen to breath under water. We can understand that we can survive for a while on our own under water without it, but to work/swim in that environment for longer than a human can hold his breathe, we need more than mere human ability.

 

[WmJackP]

What are your objections to these teachings? We can’t help you if we don’t know what you know and how you are approaching them.

You say there are three persons which comprise one godhead. The statement makes no sense does it? It is much as if I said a square is a circle. Nonetheless, you accept it as a truth without it making any sense. How can you defend a proposition that makes no sense?

You say that some words uttered by a priest effectively transforms a material substance into something atomically molecularly different. You offer no proof of it. It corresponds to nothing in reality. The belief is even more bizarre because it purports to be the molecular equvalent of a specific human being yet is multiplied over the centuries like the fishes and loaves, apparently, and parced out to millions of believers. The notion is not even plausable.

Do virgins really give birth or is that just something you say?

I most certainly can tell you that the moon is made of green cheese or that circles are really squares, or, that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but, such propositions, you surely would agree, are simply unworthy of belief, and, you would also agree that such nonsensical statements cannot be sustained by rational argument.

 

[WmJackP]

As someone who struggles with doubt because I lean so heavily on my own logical processes, maybe I can shed some light here. Most of us don’t believe just because we believe. Most of us believe that something makes enough sense to put some stock in, either through inquiry or intuition, and then go from there in further propping up our beliefs. Some people just stick to the basics, but people like me often need to see scientific and maybe even especially philosophical arguments in order to fully believe. On top of that, there is an empirical element, not so much in the scientific sense, but in the sense of experiential knowledge. If you ask a deity to help certain highly-against-the-odds things happen and they do, over and over again, you tend to trust that you’re doing the right thing. Then there’s the realm of mystical and sacramental graces, charismatic gifts, miracles, etc. Some people never witness these things, but people who do are generally changed for life. For me, I used to be agnostic, and my way of thinking is really logical (over intuition) as an autistic individual. Well, I had something happen to me and now I’m a Christian. But I still have doubts. I bet what’s running through your mind is “well, how do you know it was the Christian God, other’s have had experiences in their religions” and honestly I struggle with that. But I tend to assume that, if I take communion and it consistently does what it says on the box (so-to-speak) then I can trust that everything else is in line as well.

Rational men and women form beliefs based upon consistent and plausable logic and facts corresponding to evidence and experience. Irrational beliefs are formed out of a deficit in knowledge or explanation, and, with resort to superstition, fable, or, legend to offset the deficit.

What is curious to me is how human nature so consistently and readily invented gods and ritual across cultures and across the eons of time before approximately 16th century when European science began to provide testable explanations. Before that we were entirely at the mercy of mythology to explain life’s mysteries. Even now, centuries after Francis Bacon, the great minds of the Rennaisance, after Europe crawled out of the dark ages following the collaspe of Roman, what life’s meaning is, and, what is a proper ethos still remain in the grip of rampart superstition or firmly in the grasp of materialistic decadence. The challenge for the 21st century will be developing a rational ethos free of medieval trappings and ambiance and free of the decadent cosumeristic culture in which we find ourselves.

 

[Angela77]

These may help with your queries: wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Faith-Clips-new.aspx

The fifth and seventh videos we be especially helpful with the Trinity.

I see that you sense what true faith is. Faith is believing what may seem unbelievable at first glance.

A couple notes on evidence:

1. All that we prove through science agrees with the existence of God. God made the world. He IS truth.
2. There actually is a fair amount of evidence for what you deem illogical. The Eucharist is supported by much tangible evidence.
   -Well documented miracles with many eye witnesses where the host levitated.
   -Bread that has been turned into the Body of Christ does not decompose. (There have been experiments.
   -Hosts have started bleeding.
   -Wine has turned to real blood.
   -People have lived for years on the Eucharist alone. This is a condition called inedia or inendia. I can’t remember which. Non-believing doctors studied and kept a constant watch on these people, observing no mal-effects on their health.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

Would you define what you mean by a " factual proposition " which I assume you think unseats the validity of " several of your doctrines." And which doctrines do you have in mind? And what do you mean by our standards which " disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant…?" You are making a lot of judgments and generalizations. Would you please clarify precisely what you are talking about? And to be perfectly frank, we do not need to " justify " our teachings and beliefs to anyone. Take them or leave them as you see fit.

But as a general statment for your benefit see the following:

Standards of belief for Catholics are spelled out in Part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Very simply, the Truths of Faith are made available to us through the Revelation of God who cannot lie or deceive. His revelation is credible because of His actions and guidance and covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the offspring of Jacob ( Israelites ), culminating with the birth, in time, of His Son, Jesus Christ, His final Revelation and Word to all mankind. This Revelation took place during a period of about 5,000 years.

His Son, Jesus founded a Church, with Peter as the Head and the Apostles as the first elders, from whom are descended, in direct line, the current Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in whom has been vested full authority over Doctrine, Ministry, and Discipline.

The Church is guided in all Truth necessary and felicitous for Eternal Salvation by the Holy Spirit, who will remain as the Infallible guide and protector of the Church until the end of earthly time and the Second Coming of His Son. Coming then in Glory on that last day He will render to all men the final judgment of their actions, which will determine their Eternal destiny.

 

[Della]

You say there are three persons which comprise one godhead. The statement makes no sense does it? It is much as if I said a square is a circle. Nonetheless, you accept it as a truth without it making any sense. How can you defend a proposition that makes no sense?

You say that some words uttered by a priest effectively transforms a material substance into something atomically molecularly different. You offer no proof of it. It corresponds to nothing in reality. The belief is even more bizarre because it purports to be the molecular equvalent of a specific human being yet is multiplied over the centuries like the fishes and loaves, apparently, and parced out to millions of believers. The notion is not even plausable.

Do virgins really give birth or is that just something you say?

I most certainly can tell you that the moon is made of green cheese or that circles are really squares, or, that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but, such propositions, you surely would agree, are simply unworthy of belief, and, you would also agree that such nonsensical statements cannot be sustained by rational argument.

You are simply using the wrong set of instruments for measuring/discerning these things.

Even in the natural world a thing can be three things and one substance. Water, for instance can be water, ice or steam, but it’s still H2O. An egg is a shell, a yolk and white and yet it is an egg. We humans are made up of millions of individual cells and yet we are each one individual. So, you see your objection falls flat using natural reasoning alone.

The same way with the substance of the Eucharist. It is the risen, glorified Christ we receive–the same one who walked through a closed and barred door and then simply disappeared into thin air, the one who and ascended into heaven without any physical aid.

And even in nature there are “virgin” births. Human vigin births aren’t usual, AFAIK, but that doesn’t preclude one happening.

You need to expand your thinking/your worldview. Materialism cannot account for a great many things, so why would you cling to it alone?

 

[JDaniel]

You say there are three persons which comprise one godhead. The statement makes no sense does it? It is much as if I said a square is a circle. Nonetheless, you accept it as a truth without it making any sense. How can you defend a proposition that makes no sense?

Wm:

You are certainly correct about one thing: “such a proposition makes no sense.” The question that then should be asked is, Why must it make sense to us? Think, for a moment: physical things make no sense either. How can that which consists of pure space, delineated by point particles that are dimensionless, possess actual mass and weight? That makes no sense either. Yet most of us - save for some bright physicist-minded people - believe that things actually possess mass and weight. And, to be honest, I live my life as if it is true.

How about “time?” By consensus, it is the measure of the motion of mobile being, measured usually in seconds, etc. Which “seconds?” The seconds on my watch? Or, the seconds on your watch? Or, the rate of decay of some radioactive substance? The only consensus one can draw is that there are many, many differing views of what a second is, and, therefore, what “time” is. Plus, many, many views that “time” is imaginary.

You say that some words uttered by a priest effectively transforms a material substance into something atomically molecularly different. You offer no proof of it. It corresponds to nothing in reality. The belief is even more bizarre because it purports to be the molecular equvalent of a specific human being yet is multiplied over the centuries like the fishes and loaves, apparently, and parced out to millions of believers. The notion is not even plausable.

I refer you back to my statement above. But let’s go a bit further. If matter is nothing more than different configurations of s-points (the dimensionless points I mentioned earlier) - yet to our eyes, each configuration of s-points appears to us as a separate species of matter, how is that plausible?

Do virgins really give birth or is that just something you say?

Can the universe create itself? Or, is that just something you say?

I most certainly can tell you that the moon is made of green cheese or that circles are really squares, or, that 2 plus 2 equals 5, but, such propositions, you surely would agree, are simply unworthy of belief, and, you would also agree that such nonsensical statements cannot be sustained by rational argument.

Yes. All of these last statements are really far-fetched.

By the way, what’s your purpose here? Are you seeking argument for argument’s sake? Or, are you here, in charity, to run ideas back and forth between us?

God bless,
jd

 

[Angela77]

Something else I meant to add:

Does one HAVE to “see it to believe it”?

How do you know the following for sure? You weren’t there/cognizant. Yet you accept them as true.

-Your mother birthed you.
-The world existed before you were born.
-The Aztecs sacrificed humans.
-The continents used to all be one landmass.
-The Universe started with the Big Bang.

You believe these because there is evidence for them. But you are trusting the sources of your evidence.

Likewise, we believe in God and the Church because there is evidence for them. It’s not the same sort of tangible evidence in all cases. It’s another sort of evidence: answers to prayers, the incredible profundity of the sacraments, the effects belief has on the lives of followers, the ecstatic joy that is derived from belief.

Evidence exists when you allow yourself to open your eyes and see it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

My take. I am reminded of the words of Bl. John Henry Newman:*For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.*As to doctrines, it would be related to what is contained in divine revelation. And as to why we believe in the sources of divine revelation is connected to God coming incarnate as Jesus Christ His Son and establishing the vehicles for the transmission of that revelation. This is attested to by witnesses who saw his miracles, and death and resurrection. They proceeded to accept martyrdom for that belief, and miracles continue to this day in His name. That’s it in a super nutshell. Some people face that evidence and find it compelling enough to believe. Some people don’t.

 

[Joe_5859]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

No, we don’t just make stuff up. If something were not true we would not believe it. Evidence can be obtained through reason and revelation, not just the scientific method. They never contradict each other.

 

[shoe]

Are there standards by which a factual proposition is worthy of belief? And, if the answer to that is “yes”, then how can people of faith justify belief in several of your doctrines? What are your standards for belief? Do any of your standards disregard evidence or render evidence irrelevant?

The early pioneers of modern science such as Isaac Newton (modern calculus); Louis Pasteur (bacteriology); Charles Babbage (computer science); Robert Boyle (chemistry) et al. created modern science based on the evidence of their Christian faith and doctrines. They had faith in the evidence that “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2). These founding fathers of modern science believed that the universe was created by the will of One God and not by the will of man-made theories. Before Christianity directed science into the analysis of experimentation, verification, falsification, and quantitative data, much of the scientific world believed that the earth was immovable, the sun was without blemish, and air fell upward. Just a cursory glance at history shows that almost every relevant branch of science can be traced back to those scientists who operated within the framework of their Christian faith and that the standards of modern scientific research are rooted in Christian theism’s belief in One God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A Bright Young Man

If you’re anxious for to shine in the high aesthetic line as a
man of culture rare,
You must get up all the germs of the transcendental terms, and
plant them ev’rywhere.
You must lie upon the daisies and discourse in novel phrases of
your complicated state of mind,
The meaning doesn’t matter if it’s only idle chatter of a
transcendental kind.

And ev’ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
“If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man
must be!”

-W. S. Gilbert