B
Bradskii
Guest
Whoa. Did you mean that to sound as pretentious as it did?
- Status
A
adgloriam
Guest
The Anglo-Saxon use of the word is ambiguous.
(You noticed I engaged him personally, assertively, placed myself at his disposition, honestly explained my terms, my reason, common sense on this forum has us exercise a little caution, I hope to God the user can appreciate that much, given the subject we propose to debate it’s not discourteous. But I could, indeed, have been more amiable, I grant that much.)
And I’ll remind you @Bradskii the last couple of times I tried to engage you I was left without any response, whatsoever. Next one’s on me
cheers
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Sounds familiar. Etymology of evidence - Latin - evidentia obvious to the eye. e- out, video, I see.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Faith is trust, but i also think faith in a given scenario is where it makes better sense to believe it than not believe it even if there is no direct evidence. For example it makes better sense to me to believe that theism is true rather than nihilism because theism makes better sense of the meaning that i experience as a person, whereas nihilism does not. True, one could argue “what if nihilism is true”, but that doubt alone or lack of direct evidence doesn’t change the fact that a theistic view of reality is a more intelligible explanation of my personal experiences, whereas nihilism makes my experience unintelligible. So in this case i’m looking for intelligibility and that’s one thing that can drive a person’s faith.
That Jesus rose from the dead makes more intelligible sense of all the available information compared to the idea that it was just a big ruse. Having acknowledged this we find that faith is not something devoid of reason, at least in most cases it is simply to have faith in what makes the best sense of the human condition or our existential situation.
So it’s not faith that is the problem, it’s more a question of whether or not it is reasonable or more to the point intelligible to have faith in some idea of what the ultimate nature of reality is.
More interestingly we intuitively seek our end or purpose in life, and this is really the activity of seeking our identity, and many come to realise that what is revealed through revelation speaks to our innermost selves, more-so than any other ideas or objects.
That Jesus rose from the dead makes more intelligible sense of all the available information compared to the idea that it was just a big ruse. Having acknowledged this we find that faith is not something devoid of reason, at least in most cases it is simply to have faith in what makes the best sense of the human condition or our existential situation.
So it’s not faith that is the problem, it’s more a question of whether or not it is reasonable or more to the point intelligible to have faith in some idea of what the ultimate nature of reality is.
More interestingly we intuitively seek our end or purpose in life, and this is really the activity of seeking our identity, and many come to realise that what is revealed through revelation speaks to our innermost selves, more-so than any other ideas or objects.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
This is all addressed in Aquinas’ Summa, first question
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm
In layman’s terms the question is “do we need anything other than philosophy??? We don’t need faith, do we??”
Atheist argument is “We don’t need faith since all that is can be sensed with our senses, thus anything , such as God that transcends our senses is superfluous”
Aquinas then essentially argues “No, we need faith since man is inherently oriented to God as an ultimate end and while it is possible for man to discover God and truth through reason, only a select few men have that ability, thus it was necessary for God to reveal himself to man via divine revelation in order for man to discover God and truth necessary for salvation through divine revelation using his senses and reason”
(so even though God transcends senses, God revealed through divine revelation (e.g. people witnessing Jesus resurrected, etc.) does not transcend senses and must be accepted by man via reason)
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm
In layman’s terms the question is “do we need anything other than philosophy??? We don’t need faith, do we??”
Atheist argument is “We don’t need faith since all that is can be sensed with our senses, thus anything , such as God that transcends our senses is superfluous”
Aquinas then essentially argues “No, we need faith since man is inherently oriented to God as an ultimate end and while it is possible for man to discover God and truth through reason, only a select few men have that ability, thus it was necessary for God to reveal himself to man via divine revelation in order for man to discover God and truth necessary for salvation through divine revelation using his senses and reason”
(so even though God transcends senses, God revealed through divine revelation (e.g. people witnessing Jesus resurrected, etc.) does not transcend senses and must be accepted by man via reason)
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
My apologies for my non-response. I do try to answer all posts if they are directed in my direction. But I’m not in a position to recall what it was you wrote. Seems I owe you a beer.Bradskii:
The Anglo-Saxon use of the word is ambiguous.
(You noticed I engaged him personally, assertively, placed myself at his disposition, honestly explained my terms, my reason, common sense on this forum has us exercise a little caution, I hope to God the user can appreciate that much, given the subject we propose to debate it’s not discourteous. But I could, indeed, have been more amiable, I grant that much.)
And I’ll remind you @Bradskii the last couple of times I tried to engage you I was left without any response, whatsoever. Next one’s on me
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
You could have used the solipsists as example. I do not doubt that there are some people who assert that they doubt their senses. Some may even believe it, though I have some doubts about that. But talk is cheap. They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? It is very easy to cure such people. Because no matter what they say, they do get hungry and thirsty. So when they are hungry, we could serve them two plates, one of which would be a normal dish, the other would be a pile of stinking manure. They could be given a glass of tap water, and another one with sea water.
And then observe which plate and which glass they choose.
Or we can see what they do behind the steering wheel of their car.
N
Neithan
Guest
I agree that you cannot practically live as though you doubt your senses. Some eastern esoterics do honestly seem to try, though (fire-walking and stuff).
Last edited:
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
Ok, so now we can continue. But how? It looks like that we have a problem with faith, since our understanding of the word seems to differ.
When it comes to reality, we agree about the physical reality, and how to investigate it. The other aspect is the abstractions derived from it, or any axiomatic system, like logic, mathematics, etc… (even games, too!) Any proposition in that area is true, if it is the derivative of the axioms. So there is no problem there. For me and other materialists this is sufficient.
However, many people assert that there is a non-physical and yet physically active type of reality, gods, angels, demons, ghosts, poltergeists and some more. This is where the proverbial substance hits the fan.
What kind of epistemology can be used to separate the wheat from the chaff? Because metaphysics without accompanying epistemology is useless.
N
Neithan
Guest
It’s a fascinating question, I agree. As I noted above, matters of faith are beyond our epistemic grasp, which is why we require divine revelation and belief on authority about claims of divine revelation. If we could find an epistemology and somehow observe these non-physical and yet physically active potential entities, then that would be reasoned knowledge from empirical observation, not faith in divine revelation.
Last edited:
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
We are getting somewhere. We cannot directly observe the non-physical-yet-physically-active agents, but those who believe in them, make all sorts of assertions about them. And many of those assertions refer to the physical reality, and as such they are subject to the scientific examination methods. That is when serious problems occur, and that is where the conversations tend to bog down. Shall we be brave and get into that part? I am game.
Though I still don’t understand how does that revelation get transmitted for the “revealer” to the “revealee” (if these are legitimate words). Because we are limited in our information processing system, specifically the (name removed by moderator)ut part. We can only receive information via our 5 senses. There is no evidence for thought transmission. Of course one can hypothesize that the “revealer” can imprint the necessary information directly onto the brain of the recipient, but there is no evidence for that. And we can safely stay away from all kinds of magic.
N
Neithan
Guest
For me the content of revelation is “transmitted” through plain English language that I read either in ink or digital text. For example, a simple list of dogmas like this.
OK let’s tackle a serious problem. When you say “non-physical-yet-physically-active agents” it looks like you are referring to “spiritual essences” like the human soul, angels and demons. Is that right? It is a matter of faith that we have a spiritual soul and that angels and demons exist. We can to some degree use logical reasoning about the spirituality of our soul from the operations of our minds, though I don’t think we can devise an empirical method to observe it. With angels and demons, I’m curious what you would suggest.
J
JimG
Guest
Non-material, i.e. spiritual, entities would include the human soul, with its functions of intellect and will. The immaterial intellect, a faculty of the soul, works in unison with the brain and sensory system, abstracting from the particular to the general. One can only observe the workings of one’s own mind, and presume that other humans are similar.
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
I see that we are not in synch. I am interested in a primary revelation, not the recorded and repeated texts. For example, the text in Genesis is supposed to be a revelation, after all there were no witnesses to record the alleged events. How did that happen? What physical processes were used? Just don’t say that we don’t know, and it has to be accepted on faith. Because that is what we need to eliminate to start on a common ground. It is impossible to have a conversation if there is no common ground at all.
Do you believe that God simply imprinted the words of Genesis onto the brains of the authors? The believers of Islam assert that the Koran was personally dictated by Allah and Mohammed simply copied the words.
Yes, that is correct. Of these the only entities that are supposed to have a physical “footprint” are the demons. The soul cannot be discovered, and the messengers (angelos) are too elusive.
According to Catholic teachings, the demons are active, they work on corrupting humans. They can be detected by some physical methods (how?), and they can be expelled also using some physical methods (what methods?). So there is the two-way interaction between the physical and the non-physical realm. As such we can set up experiments and verify the activity of the non-physical causative agents. Or could, if they existed.
So what we could do is get the information about the ways and means of evoking demons (there is some “black magic”), even though that is not something that believers are inclined to do. However, I have no fears about it, so I would be glad to put those demons to the test.
Once the demons manifest themselves, we can get the exorcists to expel them. So there would be all the necessary requisites of a scientific experimentation, a hypothesis, the test and the verification. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, and willing to bet that there is nothing there.
There are other phenomena that could be examined. For example, the miraculous healings at Lourdes. We could set up a nice, double blind experiment with all sorts of diseases, and run the test. Using proper controls we could set up a correlation matrix, and see if there is any correlation between the magical healings at Lourdes and some other areas. My money would be on the negative outcome.
There is more. Many millions of people pray for some miraculous healings every day, and when (or rather if and when) some seeming healings occur, then the curative powers of prayers are heralded as true. This could also be organized according to the same methodology as the new medications are tested. Such tests were organized and performed. And the result is the same: none.
P
Pattylt
Guest
First, I’d like to point out that there are many more choices than really rose from the dead or a ruse. I don’t think anyone was creating a ruse.
Second, I’m not a philosophy student but I’m pretty sure I have more choices here, too!
I’ve always agreed that religion is intelligent. I don’t find anything particularly stupid nor wrong with it. I just don’t find it believable to me.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Is there any particular stumbling block that makes it hard for you to believe?
P
Pattylt
Guest
I don’t know how to answer this. I wanted so much to keep my beliefs. I spent years trying. I have no idea how or why I lost them except that I was getting older and more mature. You can not force a belief. I tried and totally failed. I even tried the Fake It Till You Make It.
From my perspective, one either believes the claims of religion or one doesn’t. Even when someone comes on here with a faith crisis, the seem to only be questioning certain parts. I’ve heard the stories of those who claimed to be atheists then found God. I have trouble understanding how one can be a disbeliever then a believer…except for the personal revelation ones. I can’t call them liars but I often wonder at their atheism claims.
The stumbling block for me would simply be that nothing convinces me it’s true. Lack of evidence, Gods silence, problem of evil, all of it. Nothing claimed matches the reality that I witness.
Sorry, I just don’t have an answer.
From my perspective, one either believes the claims of religion or one doesn’t. Even when someone comes on here with a faith crisis, the seem to only be questioning certain parts. I’ve heard the stories of those who claimed to be atheists then found God. I have trouble understanding how one can be a disbeliever then a believer…except for the personal revelation ones. I can’t call them liars but I often wonder at their atheism claims.
The stumbling block for me would simply be that nothing convinces me it’s true. Lack of evidence, Gods silence, problem of evil, all of it. Nothing claimed matches the reality that I witness.
Sorry, I just don’t have an answer.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Believe it or not but I was there last week. Honestly.
I’d put my back out putting a suitcase in the car. And after we’d been to Lourdes…it got worse.
But that’s hardly a scientific experiment!
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
I don’t doubt it.
Also there was this priest who went to Lourdes, and on his way home the border guard (there were guards back then) examined his luggage and saw a suspicious bottle. When asked what is in the bottle, the priest answered: “It contains Holy Water from Lourdes”. The guard opened the bottle, sniffed the content and said: “Hey Father, this is Cognac!”. The priest exclaimed: “Hosanna! A miracle happened!!”.
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
And therein lies the problem. Because we could have a million examples just like yours, and they would be meaningless to someone who believes. But give us one example of someone’s back being “miraculously” healed and that counts as evidence.
- Status