Is religion/faith merely Philosophical?

[smokey888x2]

Greetings! This is a little convaluted but stick with me please, we’ll get there. In order to understand this post, it’s a little important that you might look at another thread of mine, first. So,

I’ll give you the url below and if you will give it a good look and then come back to what is below – I would appreciate it a lot. Below is post number 33 from the other thread; but you do need to look around there firrst, before you go on here, ok? Here’s the url and topic name - then, please come back:

name of other thread is:
Why doesn’t God eliminate Evil
(started by smokey888x2) (please review it first, thank you)

url:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=651502&mode=linear#post651502

Then, the last post from there is here below. I putting it hear as a new thread because most people don’t follow up on where they have already posted, and I don’t blame them. But here’s the continuance of that, my friend’s response to the other thread’s postings – this is all he said:

"I guess I’m just not very philosophical…"

then, I have put the following below:
**

Maybe some background might help but my friend is a retired electirical engineer so just maybe he’s also looking for ‘some’ factual information to also be included?**

Which isn’t a bad point totally. I sometimes think the same thing. For instance, think about the John Doe on the street who is older, average education who hasn’t looked at all at this yet but sets out to do so. Those first few steps – isn’t there something before you get wished deep into the thrust of the matter?

Below are just some examples, the real question is stated above, but please read on. Just remember, you don’t have use these items or address these specifically, their just examples to illustrate the above:

*As an example, after Christ died or during it even and on into his burial for three 3 days and his resurrection and sightings in and with others … didn’t anyone else write about this?

If it’s all based on faith, please don’t be very wordie about it, just blunt it out, I understand that aspect or maybe I don’t, my friend recall just isn’t moved by a lot of philosophical poetry, you understand.

I think that about 95% of church goer’s are in this same boat. They really very much ‘wonna believe’ but aside from ‘faith’ there just isn’t much there or is there?

Like the Bible talks about all kinds of miracles but 95% + of chruch goer’s really haven’t seen one, you know what I mean?

For the most part, wasn’t a lot of what followed, after Christ’s resurrection, underground? You know, the kinds of things that are underground and what we think of them today. Their usually a little ‘different’ but again, were looking for something other than merely tooting a horn.

And then, you might be thinking some things like ‘blessed is he who believes but doesn’t see’ or however that goes; but then, (don’t forget to respond to the above though) why is it so weird? What’s all the mind games about? Yes, it would be great to ‘believe’ in the unannounced unknown millionare’ and have him reward you later on; but, why the simple mind game, what’s really going on here?

I think these are some serious questions and the church should spend ‘more’ time on them (don’t just focus on this though in response).
_______________________ cont:

Will appreciate your time to this subject, thank you very much and if you think that you do need to hit the faith thing harder, please feel fee but if it also runs along the philosophical, I’m not sure what I’ll be left with but thanks, take care.

 

[Liberian]

Smoky,

I’m a little confused as to exactly what you and your friend are looking for. Is it factual evidence for Christianity? If so, let me give a few pointers.

First, you mentioned miracles. The miraculous is, by one definition, a suspension of the laws of nature. This poses a very delicate problem: if a miracle happens too often, then it simply becomes part of the laws of nature that we don’t understand. (I believe that instincts in animals are an example of this. From what I hear, biologists have no clue as to why salmon will swim thousands of miles to spawn in the same river they hatched out of–or how they can find the river. So to say that “the animal does this by instinct” is, as far as I can tell, a synonym for “we have no idea why the animal does this.”) On the other hand, if a miracle happens only once, then after a few generations most people quit believing seriously that it actually happened.

There aren’t any historical references to the Resurrection outside of the Bible that I know of. If you think about it for a bit, this isn’t surprising. If you knew about the Resurrection and took it seriously, then you pretty much had to become a Christian or else you had to commit intellectual and moral suicide. In the latter case, you would certainly not be interested in writing about it. A few hundred years later, the Church sat down and figured out what writings they had about the Resurrection from that time period and collected them into the New Testament. So naturally there wouldn’t be any writings about the Resurrection outside the New Testament.

For quite some time, Thomas was my favorite apostle: “Unless I see it I won’t believe it.” At that time also, what little faith I had was based on the Shroud of Turin–you know the Church has Jesus’ burial cloth? So … I’m not very philosophical either, but if you look the evidence is out there.

• Liberian

 

[smokey888x2]

First of all, thank you for your response. I’m not exactly sure what to tell you either about what we’re look for – but I do think you made a good attempt in that direction, maybe more of your attempt.

Maybe something about what I said about the majority of church go’ers – I’m not exactly sure either, but thank you very much for going to the trouble of pretty much understand it all.

My examples though were put in just to give the essence of the problem – even though responses to them are helpful the real problem is something towards, … how do we start in the direction to embracing Jesus without being caught up in the philosophical?

Also, I might add what my friend said again: “I guess I’m not very philosophical”

thank you very much - take care.

 

[Liberian]

smokey888x2:

My examples though were put in just to give the essence of the problem – even though responses to them are helpful the real problem is something towards, … how do we start in the direction to embracing Jesus without being caught up in the philosophical?

Well, a possible answer to how to embrace Jesus without being caught up in the philosophical is just to do it without thinking about it too much. I mean, Christianity is intellectually respectable, but intellectualism isn’t what Christianity is all about. We are told to go out and do things–pray, partake of the sacraments for our spiritual growth, help the poor, and so on. When I stand before God at my judgement, He isn’t going to ask me about philosophy; He will ask me what I have done for His children.

• Liberian

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I’m also having a hard time understanding you question

IMHO theology is a special subset of philosophy
One where there is an underlying basic assumption (a faith) that a deity or deities exists and there is also usually some text or founder
(Philosophy also has texts and founders but they are usually held in a different regard)

Both disciplines try to answer basic questions regarding the meaning of life, existence, and the human condition and to establish moral ethical guidelines that are internally consistent and adaptive to new situations.

The big difference of course is that while philosophy can be reduced to mere thought experiment the stakes in theology are theoretically a little higher.

 

[Philthy]

smokey888x2:

Why doesn’t God eliminate Evil ?

I would reply to this question a number of ways to get the person to recognize that even asking the question should indicate that this “non-philosophical” person has some innate abilities that don’t come from nature.
First- who told him that evil exists? I dont see any other part of creation worried about all this alleged evil. How does he know evil exists? He will come to appreciate that he has a conscience - this is not a natural entity - God placed it the beings who were made “in his image and likeness”
Next - and along the same lines, Why should God eliminate evil? Toward what end? Whatever end he identifies the response is that God has a greater end in mind and what we perceive as “evil” is the unfortunate consequence we must endure to achieve that greater end. That end is an eternal end - not the mere temporal ends we are all wrapped up in.

"I guess I’m just not very philosophical…"

---

Here are some simple facts:

• 2000 years ago in a tiny no-where town a man does incredible things and teaches love and a relationship with God
• He performs many miracles
• He fulfills the ancient prophecies. The books which document the ancient prophecies are substantiated by modern independent, scientific historical and archaeological works as well.
• He is killed brutally in plain site, by professional killers and buried in a tomb
• 3 days later, despite being guarded by soldiers who were very motivated not to let his body be taken, his body is gone
• He appears to and converses with his Apostles - so they know that he is alive.
• **Every single one of them lives out the remainder of their lives proclaiming the truth of his resurrection to the point of death. Not even one recanted in the slightest when faced with horrific death. **
• The world has still not gotten over this man. Miracles continue and peoples lives are changed. The Church he established is the oldest continuous instution of any type in the world.

Ok, this doesn’t require a degree in philosophy. It’s called eye witness testimony backed up by a LIFE of commitment to his teachings bolstered by a gruesome DEATH rather than deny Jesus Christ is Lord. And not just one of them, every single one of them! And thousands since then. Is that not something solid to have faith in? Just think about how solid eye witnesses’ testimonies are. Then add in the fact that they lived their lives forever changed by this man and were so committed to Him that they preferred death by torture to simply denying Him. Its astounding really, and very convincing.

I hope this is useful

Phil

 

[smokey888x2]

Phil: You did a great job in understanding and responding. Just wanted to thank you for your time - this has been an interesting point of start for me to pursue this from the perspective that I’ve put it in – sorry if it was bit chopped up etc.

But again, thank you and Liberian also – I really appreciate your time. Take care

 

[smokey888x2]

Liberian:

Smoky,

I’m a little confused as to exactly what you and your friend are looking for. …
\

If you knew about the Resurrection and took it seriously, then you pretty much had to become a Christian or else you had to commit intellectual and moral suicide. In the latter case, you would certainly not be interested in writing about it. A few hundred years later, the Church sat down and figured out what writings they had about the Resurrection from that time period and collected them into the New Testament. So naturally there wouldn’t be any writings about the Resurrection outside the New Testament.

…

• Liberian

We Iooking for ways in which someone who is not philosphical might find their way to the church or to God.

On the second point above, what if you didn’t become a christian or committed suicide? But, I’m still surprised that there wasn’t a lot more written or documented about it.

You have to admit, it’s a pretty huge event when someone, raises from the dead and I would think that would have caused a lot more reaction among all the people of that time.