Is faith justifiable?

[mchale]

Just an observation, but outside of mathematics, proof of anything is a relative term. In reality, almost everything is taken on the basis of faith. After all, as Descartes proved, we can’t even be sure that our senses provide anything resembling accurate information about the world we live in.

Therefore, whether we are talking about history, science or religion, our conclusions (belief if you will) are based on how we interpret the evidence that is presented to us. From that perspective, while I can’t speak for everyone’s faith, I can say that my faith is based upon reason.

I believe in God for many reasons, one reason however is essentially an update of Aristotle’s first cause argument. Modern Cosmology strongly indicates that the Universe came into existence essentially out of nothing roughly 12-14 billion years ago. This suggests the existence of a creator.

Now the leap from God as a creator to Jesus is naturally tougher, but I don’t think it is impossible by reason. For me, the truth of the Gospel is affirmed by what happened after the events of the Gospel. We have several basic facts to start from. 1. A group of Jewish men made a radical departure from what all Jews have believed. 2. More over they were willing to maintain that belief even in the face of persecution and death. 3. Paul, formerly one of the early Church’s greatest persecutors, suddenly converts to become one of the Church’s greatest exponents. All of this leads to the logical conclusion that these men experienced something extraordinary. Now there are several possible conclusions but I think it is as rational as any to assume that the claims made by Jesus about who he was were in fact true. After all, if Jesus died and stayed dead, it would have made no sense for Peter and the other Apostles to continue to preach that Jesus was the messiah unless they actually believed he was raised again. But they would probably have been as skeptical as we would be if someone told us a relative near and dear to us who had died had come back to life.

Thus, while I can’t prove faith, it is also true that I can’t prove relativity either. I can show however that such faith is reasonable.

–
Bill

 

[Linkowski]

If you are chosen by God, He will give the His gift of faith…otherwise you will be passed over.

Romans 9:11-23 NAS95 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

Ephesians 2:8-9 NAS95 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Romans 11:5 NAS95 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

You will not be argued into salvation ever…you must have revelation…

Matthew 11:27 NAS95 27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

John 6:65 NAS95 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

 

[paarsurrey]

Faith, by definition, is not defensible by reason. If it were, it would be knowledge, not faith. No matter how a person argues that a given list of reasons may lead one to the likeliness of faith, nonetheless, at some point one accepts beliefs that are not proveable.

In such a case, a person accepts beliefs soley on the word of a person, or group of persons, witch cannot be known to be true. Mormon’s, Jehova’s Witnesses’, Muslims, and all adherents of religious faiths do this and are criticized for it by apologetics arguments from their religious opponents (for example: Catholic Answers). But everyone does it, it’s just a matter of calling your opponents contradictions, “contradictions”, and one’s own contradictions are called “mysteries”.

Is this true? Any thoughts?

Hi
I don’t believe that. I would believe what is reasonable, rational, knowledge based and research oriented, whatever its cost. I won’t harm anybody. I donot believe in mysteries. GodAllahYHWH, the All-Wise who has created the humans on his image, and He made humans wise and intelligent; then why should we not use such faculties?
Thanks

 

[MarcoPolo]

Mormon’s, Jehova’s Witnesses’, Muslims, and all adherents of religious faiths do this and are criticized for it by apologetics arguments from their religious opponents (for example: Catholic Answers).

Are you sure Catholic Answers criticizes the faith of these other religions? Apologetics, which is the business in which Catholic Answers thrives, involves defending one’s own faith. In other words, they tend to defend Catholicism, not criticize someone’s faith.

I can’t recall anyone from Catholic Answers who actively criticized the faith of another religion, and not some form of reason instead. Maybe you can provide an example?

 

[basser]

If you only believe things you’ve seen yourself, you must not believe very much.

The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a human being without faith.

And it takes a load of credulity to believe that miracles are impossible - there’s simply no evidence for that at all.

But it sounds to me like you had your mind made up before you asked your original question.

I believe many things that I haven’t seen or personally verified, and no one ever could verify everything they believe. But that doesn’t mean the floodgates should be open to believe anything at all. This has already been covered and doesn’t really speak to the point anyway because the issue is supernatural events, not natural events.

 

[basser]

Just an observation, but outside of mathematics, proof of anything is a relative term. In reality, almost everything is taken on the basis of faith. After all, as Descartes proved, we can’t even be sure that our senses provide anything resembling accurate information about the world we live in.

Therefore, whether we are talking about history, science or religion, our conclusions (belief if you will) are based on how we interpret the evidence that is presented to us. From that perspective, while I can’t speak for everyone’s faith, I can say that my faith is based upon reason.

I believe in God for many reasons, one reason however is essentially an update of Aristotle’s first cause argument. Modern Cosmology strongly indicates that the Universe came into existence essentially out of nothing roughly 12-14 billion years ago. This suggests the existence of a creator.

Now the leap from God as a creator to Jesus is naturally tougher, but I don’t think it is impossible by reason. For me, the truth of the Gospel is affirmed by what happened after the events of the Gospel. We have several basic facts to start from. 1. A group of Jewish men made a radical departure from what all Jews have believed. 2. More over they were willing to maintain that belief even in the face of persecution and death. 3. Paul, formerly one of the early Church’s greatest persecutors, suddenly converts to become one of the Church’s greatest exponents. All of this leads to the logical conclusion that these men experienced something extraordinary. Now there are several possible conclusions but I think it is as rational as any to assume that the claims made by Jesus about who he was were in fact true. After all, if Jesus died and stayed dead, it would have made no sense for Peter and the other Apostles to continue to preach that Jesus was the messiah unless they actually believed he was raised again. But they would probably have been as skeptical as we would be if someone told us a relative near and dear to us who had died had come back to life.

Thus, while I can’t prove faith, it is also true that I can’t prove relativity either. I can show however that such faith is reasonable.

–
Bill

Thank you Bill. That is a direct and honest answer to the question.

 

[basser]

Are you sure Catholic Answers criticizes the faith of these other religions? Apologetics, which is the business in which Catholic Answers thrives, involves defending one’s own faith. In other words, they tend to defend Catholicism, not criticize someone’s faith.

I can’t recall anyone from Catholic Answers who actively criticized the faith of another religion, and not some form of reason instead. Maybe you can provide an example?

I think you interpreted the word “criticized” too harshly. If you said that 2+2=5, I would criticize your answer, but that doesn’t necessarilly mean that I would be beligerent in doing so.

 

[basser]

Linkowski,

If I ever want to be buried in scripture quotes, you are the man!

 

[Maranatha]

You wouldn’t think that an infinite number of infinite god’s contradicts reason?

Anyway, if–by definition–faith cannot be proven, then on what basis would you place faith in either one of those positions? On the credibility of the person telling you? What if I listed a litany of offences against common desency committed by the Catholic clergy? Would you then tell me that the Church is not to be judged by its sinful members, but then tell me I should trust those same people to define my beliefs?

The Catholic faith is not based on the claims of it’s members but on it’s originator - Jesus. If you believe in what Jesus said, then you have faith that what he said is true. Jesus has more credibility then any other originator of any other religion. He has more cred ability then those who propose no religion.

 

[Maranatha]

I donot believe in mysteries.

A mystery is something that is beyond our capability of understanding. If you believe that everything that is real is understandable by humans, then please give me some justification for this faith of yours.

 

[VociMike]

Everyone’s philosophy of life contains faith. But does this justify claims of “absolute truth” based on only the fact that someone somewhere said so?

What makes you assume that religious faith is based on nothing more than that someone somewhere said so? And what makes you assume that any other “philosophy of life” is based on more?

A close examination of both of these questions may be revealing about the assumptions you are bringing to your question.

 

[VociMike]

…the issue is supernatural events, not natural events.

Science can deal with natural events - but only in terms of describing them. The real issue (for religious and non-religous alike) is the world outside of natural events and their descriptions. The world outside of the purvey of science. And every human who has a spark of human curiosity and wonder has to arrive at conclusions regarding this world outside of natural events. So yes, the issue for us all is the supernatural, or if you like, the extra-natural, world.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you said that 2+2=5, I would criticize your answer, but that doesn’t necessarilly mean that I would be beligerent in doing so.

I don’t follow the analogy. Do you feel someone at Catholic Answers inappropriately criticized another faith? If so, please give an example. If not, then I don’t understand you bringing up Catholic Answers in post #1.

 

[paarsurrey]

A mystery is something that is beyond our capability of understanding. If you believe that everything that is real is understandable by humans, then please give me some justification for this faith of yours.

Hi
Belief in the unseen is , to me , different than the mythical mysteries. Now say there is a city called Moscow, I have not yet visited, even then there is no doubt that it exists. It is yet unseen by me yet I believe that it exist, I could go there if I choose to. But if one says to me that since you believe that Moscow is a city in the world, you have not seen; I tell you that Cowmos is a city, that you should also believe in, by the same reason. To me the first is the case of believing in the unseen, while the later is just a mythical city I am tricked in to believe. Please don’t mind, I am expressing my mindset to understand, others could continue what they believe in, no compulsion.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between the religions

 

[neophyte]

I believe many things that I haven’t seen or personally verified, and no one ever could verify everything they believe. But that doesn’t mean the floodgates should be open to believe anything at all. This has already been covered and doesn’t really speak to the point anyway because the issue is supernatural events, not natural events.

There’s no difference in evaluating the evidence for supernatural vs natural events in the determination of whether or not the event actually happened. The difference comes in whether or not there’s any natural explanation for the event. If there isn’t any, and the only possible explanation involves the supernatural, it’s illogical to conclude that the event cannot have happened. To do so presumes that all causes are observable and that there is no God, which is not provable.

Again, the act of faith is not involved in deciding whether or not there’s a God so much as it’s involved in deciding to turn toward him because you know who he is. Just as we decide to turn toward each other. That’s why we say things like “faithful to your spouse”.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science can deal with natural events - but only in terms of describing them. The real issue (for religious and non-religous alike) is the world outside of natural events and their descriptions. The world outside of the purvey of science. And every human who has a spark of human curiosity and wonder has to arrive at conclusions regarding this world outside of natural events. So yes, the issue for us all is the supernatural, or if you like, the extra-natural, world.

Hi
To me, all what is out the purview of science is not necessarily supernatural i.e., it is not carved out of just human imagination, myths and mysteries. There could be things that are real yet being unquantifiable and unmeasureable, and hence outside of the realm of science, that does not mean that these are not natural. Everything created by GodAllahYHWH is natural, it may be within the realm of science or not in this realm, nevertheles it could be natural as against those things which could be unnatural,mythical,imaginary having no reality.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between religions

 

[Contarini]

Faith, by definition, is not defensible by reason.

False.

If it were, it would be knowledge, not faith.

No, if it had absolutely conclusive reasons, it would be knowledge. Faith, as Aquinas defines it, is opinion (based on probable but not absolutely irrefutable evidence) plus an act of will.

Edwin

 

[paarsurrey]

Faith, by definition, is not defensible by reason.
it’s just a matter of calling your opponents contradictions, “contradictions”, and one’s own contradictions are called “mysteries”.
Is this true? Any thoughts?

Hi
Faiths based on myths, sentiments and mysteries are not defensible by reason,yes, as they are not on the very outset based on realities and facts, this is their weakness. Faith in the unseen is though a different thing. When we travel on a road in a car we can see only a portion of the road ahead, mybe a kilometer , as we travel, the unseen part of it continues unfolding. There is no mystery in it, it is a reality.
Thanks
Bridging gaps between the religions