The importance and relevance of faith to logic

[fishstick]

I was recently checking out the “atheists cannot disprove god” thread and noted that the two debating parties had a drastically different view of the terms used. Like “persons”, “faith”, and “god”.

One of the posters I think had a very nice saying for the argument, that it was like trying to explain economic theory involving mexican trade to a 9 year old in swedish (for both sides).

This comes from, I think, the preconceived notions that go into each debate. Atheists go into an argument in full trust of secular logic. Theists go into an argument trusting developed morality, personal experience and of course, faith.

Faith is often looked upon as valueless in the atheistic community because of it’s obvious lack of any substantiation by evidence. However, because theists have studied and used faith throughout their lives to shape their philosophies, they have found applications for it.

My personal view is that faith is in fact an important part of having a better understanding of the world. Logic simply cannot explain anything (yet). Thus because faith eliminates the walls and boundaries scientific logic creates, it gets into some aspects science cannot. I see this as much like the “art/humanities vs. science” debacle. I do not see them as seperate entities, and hope someday art and science can be merged to produce a more effective machine for understanding.

But now for the nitty gritty, one of the first things I noticed was that the atheists were trying to disprove god, this is a foolhardy route, as it is better to attempt to disprove the christian view of god. Or organized religions in general. So, I would like to ask the catholics here why exactly they are catholic. What makes the bible right over say, the koran?

 

[cpayne]

This comes from, I think, the preconceived notions that go into each debate. Atheists go into an argument in full trust of secular logic. Theists go into an argument trusting developed morality, personal experience and of course, faith.

This seems to be a preconceived notion.

****But now for the nitty gritty, one of the first things I noticed was that the atheists were trying to disprove god, this is a foolhardy route, as it is better to attempt to disprove the christian view of god. Or organized religions in general. So, I would like to ask the catholics here why exactly they are catholic. What makes the bible right over say, the koran?

Christ risen.

 

[fishstick]

Indeed it is! As I have many of them, otherwise I’d have no actual side in the topic I just posed.

Christ risen, now see normally this would be an off switch for atheists and where the ad hominem starts, but I want this discussion to go a more enlightening route. How does christ’s ressurection make the bible more of a reliable source then the koran?

 

[cpayne]

Indeed it is! As I have many of them, otherwise I’d have no actual side in the topic I just posed.

Christ risen, now see normally this would be an off switch for atheists and where the ad hominem starts, but I want this discussion to go a more enlightening route. How does christ’s ressurection make the bible more of a reliable source then the koran?

Well, I guess I was trying to be just a bit provocative to see the response.

I think your questions also reveal a different way of thinking between not only atheists and Christians, but also Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians. As a Protestant, I would probably have said I believe in Christ’s Resurrection because of the Bible. Now as a would-be Catholic I would say I accept the Bible’s testimony because it is endorsed by the risen Christ, Christ resurrected, still forgiving and saving.

If Jesus rose from the dead as the Son of God, any other claims He makes I’d also believe. Put it this way: I don’t worship the Bible, but I do worship Jesus, and He trusted in the Bible. So I do, too. I “buy the field along with the treasure.” The Resurrection also puts His claims above those of any other religious leader.

None of this seems directly relevant to the thread title, but I’m simply responding to your questions. As for the thread itself, I’m going to have to refresh myself on Fides et Ratio before babbling on any further.

 

[fishstick]

Ah but we are getting to where the thread title becomes relevant, though I see I may be guilty of being a bit holmesian in the process of coming to that conclusion. I’m waiting for the other side to get here and attempt to refute the first bit about it’s relevance as well.

So you are of the position that because someone rose from the dead, said they were the son of god, and said they believed in the bible, then the bible has more credibility then the koran. Now, muslims believe that the former didn’t happen at all (except for the actual existence of jesus, just not as someone who arose). You do not worship the bible, but currently it is the only document you are going on to figure that jesus did actually raise from the dead. Whereas the muslims also have only one document to go on to claim that he didn’t rise, but existed. So you’re both tied up in terms of evidence (that atheist pastiche’). However, there is also the teachings of the roman catholic church (if you’re catholic) to go by. This though can’t be considered an alternate source can it? They get their info from the same single document.

 

[holy_wood]

<<snip

But now for the nitty gritty, one of the first things I noticed was that the atheists were trying to disprove god, this is a foolhardy route, as it is better to attempt to disprove the christian view of god. Or organized religions in general. So, I would like to ask the catholics here why exactly they are catholic. What makes the bible right over say, the koran?

Faith is a necessity! How do you prove to people in the matrix that there entire world is simulated if you can’t unplug them or alter the program. You can’t.

I am Catholic because all the early Christians (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr) all claimed to be Catholic. Any Christian/secularist who denies this is ignorant.

What do you mean by believe in the Bible?

In one since my belief is based on faith that it is the inspired word of God. In another since I believe historians when they take the Bible as first century primary source documents on the teachings of Christ and the teachings and testimony of those who knew him.

I must accept the Christ theological claims (the resurrection, performance of miracles, claims of divinity, ect.) if I accept the moral teachings as coming from the actual Jesus. To do anything otherwise would be showing a bias against the divine.

As for the Koran. Well Mohammed made the mistake of talking about another religions doctrines without first understanding them. For example the Koran claims that Christians make partners to God and that Jesus, Mary, and The Father make up the Trinity.

“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.” (Koran 4:171)

“They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

** Here is what non-Muslim scholars say about this error in the Koran:**
“The passage of the Qur’an which suggests that the Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Virgin Mary is doubtless a criticism of some nominally Christian Arabs who held this view.” (, W. Montgomery Watt, 1953, p 23-29)

“In rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with Gabriel. “God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should have a son!” Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and worship of Mary as “the mother of God” may have occasioned this strange mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical women called Collyridians, who rendered divine worship to Mary. Epiphanius, Haer. 79.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian church, Vol 4, Ch 3)

The Koran is supposed to be God’s last revelation to man but yet God could not articulate the false beliefs of his children in the manner they themselves would explain them.

There are other reasons why the Koran is less reliable than the Bible and we can discuss them if you like.

This answer is really watered down but its the best I can do for now.

 

[Genesis315]

As someone involved in the judicial system, here is how I look at the relationship between faith and logic. All the evidence in a trial comes from testimony. Even physical evidence or documents have to essentially be validated by testimony. The judge or jury is called to evaluate the testimony and the credibility of the testifier to judge whether or not what they are saying is true.

Faith is a trust in the testimony of God Himself–and this is completely logical since He is the most credible source as the principle truth and author of all truth. There is no good reason to not receive what He has revealed to believe and act accordingly.

For this reason, many saints have described sin as a departure from right reason.

As to discovering what He has revealed, we can come to this conclusion through reason (and of course with the help of grace).

 

[Mirdath]

However, because theists have studied and used faith throughout their lives to shape their philosophies, they have found applications for it.

Applications, yes, there is no denying that; but have they found bases for it? Have they, like Thomas, put their fingers in the Christ’s hands, or plumbed the depth of the wound given by Longinus? Have they directly experienced the divine, not in the consumption of a wafer said to be transubstantiated but in wholeness and in undeniable Truth?

That faith can be useful I will not and cannot argue; that it is correct is another matter entirely. There is no want of falsehoods or mistakes which can be effectively used.

Logic simply cannot explain anything (yet).

So why not give it time?

Thus because faith eliminates the walls and boundaries scientific logic creates, it gets into some aspects science cannot. I see this as much like the “art/humanities vs. science” debacle. I do not see them as seperate entities, and hope someday art and science can be merged to produce a more effective machine for understanding.

Faith can get into those areas, just like trespassers can enter a military base

Art vs. science is not going to be reconciled without some serious leaps in psychology.

How does christ’s ressurection make the bible more of a reliable source then the koran?

From my point of view, it doesn’t. I have no way of saying that a man rose from the grave, other than reading and trusting one book over another – and I have little reason to trust the Bible over the Quran, and less to trust either in matters which ultimately come down to a faith I do not possess.

 

[holy_wood]

So why not give it time?

How much time. This is on par with the “ignorant agnostic” Dinesh D’souza evokes. “I will remain an agnostic until all the evidence comes in.” The problem is that it matters a whole lot whether or not you believe in Christ, Mohammad, or Joseph Smith. You have to go on what you do know to make a decision.

From my point of view, it doesn’t. I have no way of saying that a man rose from the grave, other than reading and trusting one book over another – and I have little reason to trust the Bible over the Quran, and less to trust either in matters which ultimately come down to a faith I do not possess.

You have no way of knowing if Abraham Lincoln existed “other than reading and trusting one book over another.”

I know that was a little silly but nevertheless the principle demonstrated remains. Accepting that Abraham Lincoln existed is based on the faith that all the history books are right.

The reason why books like the Bible or the Koran don’t get the same unbiased treatment is because they make claims that go contrary to everyday experiences. What an “intellectually honest” (not implying you aren’t) would do is look at the claims of each book and compare it to historical documents outside the books to see if their claims can be in part verified.

Is a reasonable faith to much to ask for?

Why did 11 Jews who saw there master get flogged, tortured, and crucified decide to steal there masters body, travel to the far corners of the world,and claim the resurrection of this defeated man (for the culture seeing a vision of him in Abraham’s bosom would have been more likely and acceptable), as well as advance the lie he was God; all the while living in poverty, getting beaten and persecuted, imprisoned, and executed, all the while gaining no money or power in the venture?

This is the explanation of events from secular society.

Or how about Jesus himself. Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, “Before Abraham was, I Am”, thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God’s own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone’s sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today?      Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities:      he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the      case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak      the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you      to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either      morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally      bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does      not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is      intellectually bad—in fact, insane.

Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack:

1. 
   *]His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people’s spirits as well as their bodies;
   *]His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, “not as the scribes”; and above all
   *]His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.
   No, skeptics almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.
   
   You value reason right, so what is Jesus. A liar or a lunatic?
   As for the Koran see my first post in reply to its claims of divine origin.

 

[fishstick]

How much time. …You have to go on what you do know to make a decision.

Excellent counter-point holy_wood. However you and I are of course aware that Smith, Christ and Mohammad are not the only options. And of the infinite possibilities of a god, many of them probably do not have a heaven-hell system, but something else entirely, which may not even take into consideration the mortal life before the after-life.

You have no way of knowing if Abraham Lincoln existed “other than reading and trusting one book over another.”

Actually we can look at his 120 photographs at various places and take DNA samples of his body and see if it matches with his lineage. We can also read MANY books that we can choose to trust over others (for example, I’d give several hundered oxford history texts more credibility then a single conspiracy theorist’s column saying America never existed before 1900)

I know …right.

Actually it isn’t, but your point is not lost here, let’s replace Honest Abe with an obscure figure from ancient times, like Marius. While Marius plays a famous role in the history of ancient Rome, there is no way of knowing whether he actually existed (I mean for certain, as the Romans are the only ones who wrote on him and would have a reason for a bias towards themselves, thus making up a world shaking figure) besides having faith in historical documentation. However, there are historical documents that are reasonable to trust (De bello gallico, The Histories, the wealth of nations) because of the circumstantial evidence surrounding them (here’s where logic comes into faith). There is only one text that says Jesus rose, and no other Evidence to go by, which is why it’s a different situation. I AM NOT saying that makes it untrue, I’m just saying major religious texts (koran, bible, the 5 Vedas) are stand alone documents and thus an analogy cannot be used for other historical canon like Abe lincoln or marius or the black death.

The…can be in part verified.

This is very true in many cases. People find it hard to believe new revelations, like the world not being flat, or the earth revolving around the sun. However, because of this, extraordinary evidence was required, and usually it arose. This is what makes it a reasonable thing to agree with those ideas, they have compelling evidence. Looking at outside claims besides the book is not what an “intellectually honest” person would do, it’s what anyone would do! There’s no other way of doing it, you can’t look at any gene samples because the names are not specific enough and most of the accounts in the text are from commoners. There are locales described in it but those aren’t the important parts, we all know nazereth was real, and so was palestine. We need to find out about Jesus. However, that’s the exact problem, thus far no other text has documented any sort of ressurection, or any circumstantial evidence towards any of his miracles. We also have very very few documents that state that he even existed besides other Major religious texts.

s a reasonable faith to much to ask for?

Not at all! Most people would be very content with a reasonable faith I think, though thus far all of the major religions have a prejudice against including scientific logic in their faiths. I think faith is an important part of logic and logic is an important part of faith.

Why…venture?

people are capable of quite a few things if they believe strongly enough in something, take the Enlistees in Vietnam who believed that their fight would save the United States from the plague of Communism. The certainly didn’t join for the wages (you’d have to be pretty darn hard for cash) and they certainly weren’t going to be gloriously rewarded with something if the high probability of death took it’s toll. They catholic one’s couldn’t have thought they were getting into heaven, because there’s no way to repent for murder you’ve just committed if you’re missing a leg in the middle of a battlefield with no priest in sight. So basically because their trust in the US government was so strong, they traveled a great length and went through hardship and risk for nothing in exchange.

Now, these 11 Jews actually did have something to gain, arguably two. The Favor of a god who would likely grant them passage into heaven, as well as the sheer satisfaction of spreading a message you think is helping humanity! jehova’s witnesses certainly feel great when they knock on your door.

Or …who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

1. Someone who believes they are god
2. Someone who wants to lead a life as a powerful figure
3. Someone who wants a lot of money
4. Someone who wants excitement
   5 Someone who doesn’t want the Jewish religion continued
   6 Someone who wants revenge against the romans/jews

The list goes on, but these are the basic ones

Now…then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.

This is exactly how the jews thought, they either believed him (like the followers of jim jones) or thought he was crazy (skeptics of jim jones) or thought he was a liar (General public on Jim Jones),

Compare Jesus with liars…then he is not a sage.

You value reason right, so what is Jesus. A liar or a lunatic?
As for the Koran see my first post in reply to its claims of divine origin.

Buddha was all of those things as well, do you think he is a liar or lunatic or a sage?

As for your thoughts on the Koran, Muhammad was a prophet, a mortal man (a man of god, but still mortal) and can thusly misinterpret things about a culture he does not understand much like the rest of us. Perhaps their god wanted to include this in His perfect text to demonstrate to his children the innate imperfection of man, that gives him the ability to make mistakes, without which life would be without meaning or learning.

And technically, that is a trinity, just not the “holy trinity”, maybe he simply wasn’t aware that they had another term for trinity. I would say the misinterpretation of a people’s religion is much less grave an error for a God as misunderstanding his own creations (Jacob’s flocks having young that took characteristics from visual stimuli).

note: I have shortened your larger quotes due to the character limit.

Mirdath, I will get to your post in a bit, this quoting format is rather tiresome.

 

[holy_wood]

Excellent counter-point holy_wood…

True but without the promise of Heaven or the punishment of Hell there is no real incentive to follow them and many even state that it doesn’t matter if you follow them or not as long as you live a life in accordance with there moral and philosophical code. In this situation I feel the urge tom remain Catholic.

Actually we can look at his 120 photographs at various places and take DNA samples of his body and see if it matches with his lineage…

Ok bad example.

Actually it isn’t, but your point is not lost here, let’s replace Honest Abe with an obscure figure from ancient times, like Marius…

My response would be that the Bible, unlike the Koran, is a collection of text written by various authors, some of who never met each other, that speak of the resurrection of Christ as well as his claims to divinity.

And lets not forget that the Bible is only the Bible because it is believed to be the Word of God. The Letters of Ignatius, Barnabas,Polycarp and the like also attest to the claims of Christ divinity.

Furthermore, what exactly would be an unbiased source in these matters. If you see a guy who claimed divinity be tortured, killed (and you know for a fact he was actually dead), and rise from the dead, would you not be very inclined to believe what he said? Thus making you part of the biased writers of the event to the unbelieving world who weren’t present at the event.

This is very true in many cases. People find it hard to believe new revelations, like the world not being flat, or the earth revolving around the sun… We also have very very few documents that state that he even existed besides other Major religious texts.

Again, what would be an unbiased source? Tacitus, Fliny the Younger, Josephus? And why is the word of a commoner or locale not authoritative. If they are willing to die and suffer persecution I believe there word should be at least considered.

Not at all! Most people would be very content with a reasonable faith I think, though thus far all of the major religions have a prejudice against including scientific logic in their faiths. I think faith is an important part of logic and logic is an important part of faith.

Luckily, the Catholic Church doesn’t have this problem.

people are capable of quite a few things if they believe strongly enough in something, take the Enlistees in Vietnam who believed that their fight would save the United States from the plague of Communism…

Yeah, but was there hope based on reason. And hey the U.S. is not communist is it?

Now, these 11 Jews actually did have something to gain, arguably two. The Favor of a god who would likely grant them passage into heaven, as well as the sheer satisfaction of spreading a message you think is helping humanity!

My point is they suffered physically for a belief system they would have known was a lie. If it was true then of couse “The Favor of God” and “the satisfaction of spreading a message you think is helping humanity” would be a gain. If it was a lie and Christ did not rise then as the Bible says there faith is in vain and they were still in their sins; something they would have known to be true being that they were the first generation of Christians. Not one recanted later.

1. Someone who believes they are god
2. Someone who wants to lead a life as a powerful figure
3. Someone who wants a lot of money
4. Someone who wants excitement
   5 Someone who doesn’t want the Jewish religion continued
   6 Someone who wants revenge against the romans/jews

The list goes on, but these are the basic ones

These are the most reasonable ones and I will proceed to destroy them.

1. Would mean Jesus is insane
2. Would mean he was morally a bad person
3. Lived in virtual poverty, even ran from the people when they wanted to make him King. So this was not it.
4. Possible but still morally bad for claiming divinity if he knew it was not so
5. He said he came to fulfill the law not to abolish it. He also ordered the masses to obey the Phharisees and Sadducees butt not fall into there hypocrisy.
6. First off, Jesus was a Jew who followed the law perfectly. His teachings and actions did not hurt the Romans or the Jews.

This is exactly how the jews thought, they either believed him (like the followers of jim jones) or thought he was crazy (skeptics of jim jones) or thought he was a liar (General public on Jim Jones),

Yeah, but making a public spectacle of his crucifixion would have put an end to any belief of divinity. All but one Apostle abandoned him. The tomb was empty. Seeing as the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers and no account of a raid on the tomb by fanatical deciples can be produced one may be inclined to believe that Christ really did rise.

Buddha was all of those things as well, do you think he is a liar or lunatic or a sage?

In his Fundamentals of the Faith, Peter Kreeft writes that “there have been only two people in history who so astonished people that they asked not ‘Who are you?’ but ‘What are you? A man or a god?’ They were Jesus and Buddha.” He then contrasts the striking differences between the two: "Buddha’s clear answer to this question was: ‘I am a man, not a god’;*** Christ’s clear answer was: ‘I am both Son of Man and Son of God***.’ Buddha said, ‘Look not to me, look to my dharma’; Christ said, ‘Come unto me.’ Buddha said, ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves’; Christ said, ‘I am the light of the world.’"

Christ claimed to be the one and only true God who came to suffer, die, and rise again, establishing a unique and everlasting covenant with man.
Buddha is believed to be one of many thatãgata**thatãgata who come in various ages to teach that life is an illusion and to remove human desires and attachments. (thus-come-one). The historical Buddha is just one of several . **
Christ** taught that he is “the way, and the truth, and the life.” The way to what? “No one comes to the Father,” Jesus continues, “but by me” (John 14:6). Jesus comes to reveal the Father, the Creator of all things, so man could have fullness of life.
Buddha taught how man could escape suffering through loss of desire and personality. He held that every person must find his own path to nirvana, or the extinction of self.
Christ preached the reality of sin, the nature of God the Father, and the need for repentance and salvation.
Buddha preached the untenable nature of existence and the means to escape suffering. Buddhism denies the ultimate existence of sin and the necessity of grace.
Christ taught that God is completely other, but he also taught that God wishes to share his divine life, given through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Buddha taught individuality must perish and that everything is one.
Christ established a Church, with a structure of authority, based on his words and example. He said, “Follow me!”
Buddha left a teaching in which each person must find his own path. He stated, “After my death, the dharma**dharma and you will be true to me.” shall be your teacher.
Christ rose from the dead only once and will return as the King of Kings. He revealed his own divinity, saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).
Buddha is a “model,” regardless of whether he was a historical person or not. Buddha suggests that “there is no ‘I’; there is no ‘self.’” At his death, when he experienced pari-nirvana (“final extinction”), he stated that the question of the afterlife was “not conducive to edification.”

Essentialy Buddha would be a sage and a philosopher.
Check out this link for a slightly more detailed look at the religion.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea3.asp

Christ if he is not God would be a lunatic.

As for your thoughts on the Koran, Muhammad was a prophet, a mortal man (a man of god, but still mortal) and can thusly misinterpret things about a culture he does not understand much like the rest of us…
. I would say the misinterpretation of a people’s religion is much less grave an error for a God as misunderstanding his own creations (Jacob’s flocks having young that took characteristics from visual stimuli).

First off, in your next post clarify what you mean by the Jacob comment and secondly the text was written to convert Christians!!!

Your explanation does not fly. The Koran is Allah’s Word not Mohammed’s, this is not my belief, it is Muslims. The mistake must be contributed to Allah if one is being consistent with the theological system.

I actually had this debate with Muslims before and they don’t even make the claim you put forth.

And yes it is a trinity but the text implies Christians worship Mary and that she, along with Jesus and the Father, make up 3 gods. An Inerrant, all-knowing God should have known this was not believed.

If you really want to get into this with me start another thread and we can discuss the other errors in the Koran. And not to show bias you can start a thread where I can address “apparent errors” in the Bible as well.

 

[Mirdath]

Dinesh D’souza

Dinesh D’Souza is an arrogant hack who is not worthy to lick even Peter Kreeft’s much-maligned-by-me boots. I’m not sure you could have opened your post with a more distasteful salvo.

The problem is that it matters a whole lot whether or not you believe in Christ, Mohammad, or Joseph Smith.

So say Christians, Muslims, and Mormons. I am none of these – why should I make a big stink over it?

You have no way of knowing if Abraham Lincoln existed “other than reading and trusting one book over another.”

Abraham Lincoln is not said to have died and risen again; beyond that, fishstick covered this quite nicely.

Is a reasonable faith to much to ask for?

This is exactly why I call myself agnostic. It is not too much to ask for, yet it has not been supplied.

Why did 11 Jews who saw there master get flogged, tortured, and crucified decide to steal there masters body, travel to the far corners of the world,and claim the resurrection of this defeated man (for the culture seeing a vision of him in Abraham’s bosom would have been more likely and acceptable), as well as advance the lie he was God; all the while living in poverty, getting beaten and persecuted, imprisoned, and executed, all the while gaining no money or power in the venture?

I don’t know. My best guess is that they believed it in good faith, but were so close to everything that had happened that things got out of control. And I’m fine with not knowing that, just as I’m fine not knowing exactly why many of Muhammad’s followers suffered similar fates, why the Mormons moved to Utah of all places, et cetera, et cetera.

Or how about Jesus himself. Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God.

(snip)

(Restatement of CS Lewis’ trilemma argument)

Being a good man and a great moralist; being sane. This isn’t a package deal: it’s possible to be one without the other. And it isn’t even necessary to make accusations of insanity: Lewis’ trilemma is incomplete. At best case, there is a fourth leg, that Jesus of Nazareth himself was a sane (not mad), generally good (not bad), human being (not God) who got caught up in his own developing legend in a tumultuous time in a never-very-calm place. People can do things like that without being lunatics or monsters.

fishstick:

Mirdath, I will get to your post in a bit, this quoting format is rather tiresome.

I’ll be here all weekend However, I had to answer this:

Most people would be very content with a reasonable faith I think, though thus far all of the major religions have a prejudice against including scientific logic in their faiths. I think faith is an important part of logic and logic is an important part of faith.

I have two ways of thinking about this. First is that it’d be nice if any extant divinity showed up and ended the question of Faith once and for all. Since that hasn’t happened, option #2 is to admit that faith has nothing to do with logic – it is, as Paul said, the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.’ In other words, heretical (to Catholics) fideism.

 

[fishstick]

Mirdath get’s this turn, but this is indeed getting interesting :]

Dinesh D’Souza is an arrogant hack who is not worthy to lick even Peter Kreeft’s much-maligned-by-me boots. I’m not sure you could have opened your post with a more distasteful salvo.

woah woah, no ad hominem! D’Souza may be unreliable for many things, but is this not a valid point here? It is logical (yes, logical) to assume that if the atheists are wrong and one of the major religions is right, then there are large repercussions to not being in the right one.

So say Christians, Muslims, and Mormons. I am none of these – why should I make a big stink over it?

We can’t look at it as just those can’t we? The infinite gods argument I pointed out to holy_wood is a double edged sword, as it is quite likely (as he countered) that many religions have punishments for not believing in them (to of course provide motivation for being in said religion).

This is exactly why I call myself agnostic. It is not too much to ask for, yet it has not been supplied.

this is the same for me, however it appears we have different views on faith, I think that would be covered later though.

Being a good man and a great moralist; being sane. This isn’t a package deal: it’s possible to be one without the other. And it isn’t even necessary to make accusations of insanity: Lewis’ trilemma is incomplete. At best case, there is a fourth leg, that Jesus of Nazareth himself was a sane (not mad), generally good (not bad), human being (not God) who got caught up in his own developing legend in a tumultuous time in a never-very-calm place. People can do things like that without being lunatics or monsters.

You know, would have been a lot cooler if you just said “Ghandi”, but that works too :]. Or does it? See Holy_wood made another compelling point, why would these men risk their lives for a lie? All 11 of them? Whether you get all caught up in a not very calm place doesn’t matter after your dead. If he didn’t rise, then these dudes risked their lives for nothing and they KNEW it right?

I have two ways of thinking about this. First is that it’d be nice if any extant divinity showed up and ended the question of Faith once and for all. Since that hasn’t happened, option #2 is to admit that faith has nothing to do with logic – it is, as Paul said, the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.’ In other words, heretical (to Catholics) fideism.

For number 1, if you mean religious faith, then this would defeat the point entirely. The point is to give one a nibble, not the whole cookie, just a nibble to go on. This nibble in Catholicism is the bible’s documentation of Jesus.

as for number 2, I would concede that religious faith, PARTLY has nothing to do with logic, circumstantial and hard evidence are not the only parts of logic, and to me it seems that when catholics (and other major religions) analyze their faiths and morals, there are logical progressions in their analysis. For example they could take the words of the bible all at face value and act on them (which as we know some fundies do, but catholicism and all other forms of christianity do not advise this, and would rather utilize an interpretation). This would entail that they cut their hair, or believe god made all the animals on earth at the same time, or believe that at the end of the world literal Lovecraft-like monsters will raze the whole of the planet. Also, in case you haven’t noticed by your time on the forum (I have only read a modest amount of threads thus far) their apologists apply logic usually.

 

[fishstick]

Fortunately mirdath, your first post is alot easier for me to respond to, as I believe you assumed I only meant religious faith.

Faith is something that can empower one to not only interpret how, but why. Why is important shouldn’t we think? Why is it just us humans have such complex thought processes, why is it that whatever created us has not somehow been picked up by us, why is it that at times, humans seem to do impossible things. Why is our science so slow on neurology and sociology?

Much the same idea can be applied to luck (I prefer to call it that then chance). Why would one completely illogically, devoid of any possible gain from the outcome, decide to get into a relationship with another person with whom he or she knows it will fail? How can one willingly make such a mistake? One could argue that they are simply making a mistake for the sake of making one, to learn something, or for the excitement and to at least get a taste before they die of how it is to be with that person. However I think honestly in the general case, it has to do with them clinging to an illogical hope in their minds, an inexplicable one, one that says that it doesn’t want to follow the rules of the world. Why would we have this in our brains? Why is faith possible? What is it’s evolutionary purpose?

 

[Mirdath]

woah woah, no ad hominem! D’Souza may be unreliable for many things, but is this not a valid point here? It is logical (yes, logical) to assume that if the atheists are wrong and one of the major religions is right, then there are large repercussions to not being in the right one.

From what I’ve read of his material, that’s a fair assessment of D’Souza. Much as I would prefer he not be a crackpot, I’m afraid he is, and that particular argument is especially galling. Theists would do far better to quote Aquinas.

We can’t look at it as just those can’t we? The infinite gods argument I pointed out to holy_wood is a double edged sword, as it is quite likely (as he countered) that many religions have punishments for not believing in them (to of course provide motivation for being in said religion).

We can’t, exactly, no. However, I’ve spent a not inconsiderable time studying most of the major and many of the minor religions, and out of all of them, the ones that make the most sense to me are Zoroastrianism and Voudoun – of which the former is universalist, and the latter lacks a heaven-hell setup. The rest are internally inconsistent, less justifiable or unjustifiable, or flat-out evil, which I will have no truck with.

You know, would have been a lot cooler if you just said “Ghandi”, but that works too :]. Or does it? See Holy_wood made another compelling point, why would these men risk their lives for a lie? All 11 of them? Whether you get all caught up in a not very calm place doesn’t matter after your dead. If he didn’t rise, then these dudes risked their lives for nothing and they KNEW it right?

Why would I misspell ‘Gandhi’?

Anyway, yes, holy_wood said that eleven or more risked (and usually paid) their lives for Christianity. He or she completely ignored the fact that other people have done the same for non-Christian religions, or even for lesser ideals like politics. As I mentioned, many of Muhammad’s followers were martyred for Islam. What does that say about the validity of martyrdom as proof for Christianity? Does Fernando Pereira’s death aboard the Rainbow Warrior make Greenpeace right? Martyrdom doesn’t mean anything except that Somebody thought Something was good enough to risk his or her neck for. That says jack about Something’s validity or rectitude.

The apostles knew what they were getting into, yes. Last I checked I haven’t argued that they were all head cases (which is unprovable anyway). What I have said is that I think the most likely explanation for their actions is that they were overwhelmed by the legend of Jesus of Nazareth that had grown around him and them, and in which they had participated from the beginning – in other words, they were ordinary human beings who kinda lost it when things went totally out of whack, just like most of us would and/or have.

For number 1, if you mean religious faith, then this would defeat the point entirely.

Yes! And you say that like it’s a bad thing? If ‘faith’ were outmoded, we would still have a choice to worship or not to worship, assuming free will as proposed by Catholic philosophers stands.

I have said it many times: let me but put my fingers in the hands of the Christ, and I will believe. Whether I would fall on my knees and worship him is another matter entirely.

If it’s good enough for Thomas, it’s good enough for the world.

as for number 2, I would concede that religious faith, PARTLY has nothing to do with logic, circumstantial and hard evidence are not the only parts of logic, and to me it seems that when catholics (and other major religions) analyze their faiths and morals, there are logical progressions in their analysis.

Selectively, yes. Faith remains the hurdle that one must leap before beginning to apply logic to Catholicism and having any hope of coming up with a consistent body of work. Logic does work for religion, as long as you first accept that religion’s postulates!

Why is our science so slow on neurology and sociology?

It’s difficult

Why is faith possible? What is it’s evolutionary purpose?

Anything is possible, most things just have a very slim chance of coming into being. As for the evolutionary purpose of faith, I don’t think it has much to do with evolution at all. Faith in others, as in the relationship example you described, is no more than a bet and a hope in the beneficence and reliability of known beings – completely different from the Faith demanded by unknown gods.

 

[holy_wood]

Anyway, yes, holy_wood said that eleven or more risked (and usually paid) their lives for Christianity. He or she completely ignored the fact that other people have done the same for non-Christian religions, or even for lesser ideals like politics. As I mentioned, many of Muhammad’s followers were martyred for Islam. What does that say about the validity of martyrdom as proof for Christianity? Does Fernando Pereira’s death aboard the Rainbow Warrior make Greenpeace right? Martyrdom doesn’t mean anything except that Somebody thought Something was good enough to risk his or her neck for. That says jack about Something’s validity or rectitude.

The apostles knew what they were getting into, yes. Last I checked I haven’t argued that they were all head cases (which is unprovable anyway). What I have said is that I think the most likely explanation for their actions is that they were overwhelmed by the legend of Jesus of Nazareth that had grown around him and them, and in which they had participated from the beginning – in other words, they were ordinary human beings who kinda lost it when things went totally out of whack, just like most of us would and/or have.

First off I’m a 19 year old dude, just look at my profile pick. I’m the black guy and the white guy next to me is my Congressman.

Secondly, I am in awe of your theory about the 11 apostles and that is not a good thing. They were just so overwhelmed? That’s your answer? That is your answer to why all 11 men after seeing their Master get tortured and crucified decided to raid a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, steal his body, and then 40 days later in hiding of the Jews decide to travel the world proclaiming the gospel of the living Christ.

The difference between Mohammed’s deciples and Jesus’ Apostles is that although both were martyred, the deciples of Mohammed, gained material wealth from there campaigns of conversion as well as had the trust in Mohammed’s gospel to die for it. The martyrdom of the 11 is different because along with being eventually killed of course they were willing to let themselves and there families live in squalor as well as be ostracized by larger society for something they each knew for a 100% fact to be a LIE!!! I read the Bible just like you and there is no doubt in my mind that the authors believed what they were proclaiming to be true.

As for this legend nonsense, Christianity was weak at that time and considered a cult; a foolish cult at that. Your entire premise rest on the presupposition that the 11 Apostles who hailed from different professions in various parts of Judea all were too psychologically deficient to overcome Jesus hold on them. A hold that conveniently was weak enough for them to abandon him in his darkest hour, but powerful enough for them to devout there entire lives to proclaiming him as the risen Messiah.

I have said it many times: let me but put my fingers in the hands of the Christ, and I will believe. Whether I would fall on my knees and worship him is another matter entirely.

If it’s good enough for Thomas, it’s good enough for the world.

Reread that chapter. John 20:

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. 27 Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. 30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

Mirdath faith is a blessing. The opposite of being blessed is cursed. You wish to have the proof that Thomas had and this would mean your faithless. Wanna guess what else that makes you.

Please, whether you Christian, or Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Moor please humble yourself and harden not your heart to the need of faith.

 

[Mirdath]

Secondly, I am in awe of your theory about the 11 apostles and that is not a good thing. They were just so overwhelmed? That’s your answer? That is your answer to why all 11 men after seeing their Master get tortured and crucified decided to raid a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, steal his body, and then 40 days later in hiding of the Jews decide to travel the world proclaiming the gospel of the living Christ.

It’s my best guess (please note that first, I did not specify the body-snatching or offer insight into their general attitudes, and that second, I have not outright disqualified any other answers, including yours), and is a sight more plausible than postulating that a carpenter’s son is a deity incarnate.

The difference between Mohammed’s deciples and Jesus’ Apostles is that although both were martyred, the deciples of Mohammed, gained material wealth from there campaigns of conversion as well as had the trust in Mohammed’s gospel to die for it.

Material wealth? The first Muslim martyr was an old slavewoman, Sumayyah bint Khayyat. Muhammad’s followers didn’t come into money and power until a good many had shed their blood.

As for trust, isn’t that exactly what you say the martyred apostles had?

I read the Bible just like you and there is no doubt in my mind that the authors believed what they were proclaiming to be true.

Show me where I said otherwise!

Your entire premise rest on the presupposition that the 11 Apostles who hailed from different professions in various parts of Judea all were too psychologically deficient to overcome Jesus hold on them. A hold that conveniently was weak enough for them to abandon him in his darkest hour, but powerful enough for them to devout there entire lives to proclaiming him as the risen Messiah.

The human mind is a frighteningly fragile thing. We’re all psychologically weak and easily swayed both by charisma and authority. Ever heard of the Milgram or the Stanford prison experiments?

A single charismatic person can leave a wake that extends throughout history, whether he or she means to or not.

Mirdath faith is a blessing. The opposite of being blessed is cursed. You wish to have the proof that Thomas had and this would mean your faithless. Wanna guess what else that makes you.

Accursed, yes, at least in your eyes. In others, it makes me only human, frail, skeptical – in other words, a fine follower of Thomas the Doubter, who believed when he had seen and touched, and is now canonized. Are you calling an apostle and saint a cursed man?

Please, whether you Christian, or Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Moor please humble yourself and harden not your heart to the need of faith.

What need? I have no need of blind trust in the universe; I see what I have, and work with it. To hear some people talk, this unsubstantiated trust is as essential to humanity as oxygen, but I get along fine without it. Whether this makes me a cripple, a psycho, ein ubermenschen, or just another human I don’t know, and honestly don’t particularly care (it does make for some fun arguments though!).

I seem to lack a capacity for Faith. I don’t see this as a problem that needs fixing.

 

[holy_wood]

It’s my best guess (please note that first, I did not specify the body-snatching or offer insight into their general attitudes, and that second, I have not outright disqualified any other answers, including yours), and is a sight more plausible than postulating that a carpenter’s son is a deity incarnate.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Material wealth? The first Muslim martyr was an old slavewoman, Sumayyah bint Khayyat. Muhammad’s followers didn’t come into money and power until a good many had shed their blood.

As for trust, isn’t that exactly what you say the martyred apostles had?

No, unlike you or I they had first-hand knowledge if what they were preaching was a lie. That’s something the slavewoman lacked. I didn’t know that the first martyr in Islam was an old slave woman. I know Mohammad personally led raids (Jihad) and I assumed that his forces would have had casualties. These casualties I assumed these casualties would be the first martyrs for the faith.

Show me where I said otherwise!

You didn’t say it, I only assumed. Your putting forth that the 4 Apostes whose writings are contained in the Bible were lying about the Christ’s divinity and resurrection. I merely stated that I read the Bible too and it is clear to me that they actually believed what they preached.

The human mind is a frighteningly fragile thing. We’re all psychologically weak and easily swayed both by charisma and authority. Ever heard of the Milgram or the Stanford prison experiments?

A single charismatic person can leave a wake that extends throughout history, whether he or she means to or not.

If Christ was not insane then he was a liar with a pretty big ego, so I’d say he would probably have wanted to be worshiped by all throughout time.

Accursed, yes, at least in your eyes. In others, it makes me only human, frail, skeptical – in other words, a fine follower of Thomas the Doubter, who believed when he had seen and touched, and is now canonized. Are you calling an apostle and saint a cursed man?

Yes I am. At least at the moment of his faithlessness. Saints are perfect and thus not sinners. Thomas at the time discussed in John 20 was a sinner and an accursed one for he would not give the ascent of his intellect to the testimony of his friends and fellow Apostles who told him the there Master had risen. We are in his place. We can have a hardened heart and ignore the first century Christians or we can have the faith to believe in them. But in the end it is a choice that will have disastrous consequences if the Gospels are right and we ignore them.

What need? I have no need of blind trust in the universe; I see what I have, and work with it. To hear some people talk, this unsubstantiated trust is as essential to humanity as oxygen, but I get along fine without it. Whether this makes me a cripple, a psycho, ein ubermenschen, or just another human I don’t know, and honestly don’t particularly care (it does make for some fun arguments though!).

Just curious here, if I could show you that there must be a God and give good evidence for why the God of the Bible is that God would you willingly worship Him? And your right this is fun.

I seem to lack a capacity for Faith. I don’t see this as a problem that needs fixing.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I can’t argue with someone with the stranglehold of apathy and contentment on their hearts. It’s the one thing that is the biggest contributor to the spread of evil, greater than hatred or pride. “Indifference is the ally to all sin”

Hopefully, you will either become fearful of death or become dissatisfied with the pleasures of the flesh and when this happens maybe then you will be open to conversion.:extrahappy:

 

[Mirdath]

No, unlike you or I they had first-hand knowledge if what they were preaching was a lie. That’s something the slavewoman lacked.

You’re wrong there too – she followed Muhammad herself, and had the same opportunity to discover the truth of his preaching as the apostles did. Do your homework!

These casualties I assumed these casualties would be the first martyrs for the faith.

Many of the early ones were, yeah, but people who die trying to conquer haven’t conquered yet.

You didn’t say it, I only assumed.

See where that gets you?

I merely stated that I read the Bible too and it is clear to me that they actually believed what they preached.

I do not disagree.

If Christ was not insane then he was a liar with a pretty big ego, so I’d say he would probably have wanted to be worshiped by all throughout time.

I went over this when I talked about the trilemma. Can you show that my fourth option is unquestionably invalid, or that there is no possibility for a fifth, sixth, and more?

Saints are perfect and thus not sinners.

You sound more like a Cathar than a Catholic there! Saints are not perfect; they are simply Not As Bad, to grossly oversimplify things. In Catholic teaching, the capital-S Saints are Saints by the grace of God and in spite of their imperfections, not because they have no imperfections.

Just curious here, if I could show you that there must be a God and give good evidence for why the God of the Bible is that God would you willingly worship Him?

I’d want to have a good sit-down chat with him before I committed. The best answer I can give is ‘maybe’, leaning towards ‘probably not’.

Hopefully, you will either become fearful of death or become dissatisfied with the pleasures of the flesh and when this happens maybe then you will be open to conversion.:extrahappy:

Why should I fear death? I used to be afraid, much as I would guess you and most people are, but having come amazingly close to it a few times, it has no hold over me. All things end, and this is as it should be.

As for pleasures of the flesh, dude, my lifestyle is way closer to ascetic than you seem to think. I enjoy many things in moderation – a drink, a smoke, art, good food, just like anyone else – I’m happily married, and my sex life appears to be more in line with The Catholic Way than that of anyone who’s posted a thread about sex here! I am a heathen, but ‘heathen’ and ‘hedonist’ are most closely linked by dictionary proximity, not definition.

 

[fishstick]

Okay, instead of taking turns I will simply address different points on different sides, firstly, if the backbone of your faith is that the leader of your faith is going to die and come back after a bit, then if he does not come back after a bit, I’m quite certain that your faith would then be shaken enough to not go to the ends of the earth to proclaim his rise. I mean, you might do it out of spite just to make everyone else suffer the same pain, but really?

The case of the slave woman isn’t the same, Muhammad was a mortal, not a god, he never performed god like acts, he did bring with him god’s messages but anyone can do that, just like anyone could perform magic tricks to fool their followers (this goes for christ and Muhammad). However, dying and then coming back is no magic trick at all. If he didn’t come back then he simply was not the son of god, meaning they would have known their faith was a lie.

Also, this goes for anybody posting here, if you have an idea or argument that goes against someone else’s, can you please explain it? The point of this thread is clarity on both sides. See, I get what you mean about how you are not denying that the writers of the gospels believed what they preached, but clearly Holy_wood didn’t. So if you could clarify that you think they believed BUT that doesn’t make what they said true that would be good.

Speaking of the gospels, the point was brought up a bit earlier by holy_wood that the bible is not a single document of historical reference to Jesus as someone who rose from the dead, but four. These four documents are still in the same text however, and can be considered part of the religious canon of christianity, of which there is only one. John didn’t write any other things about Jesus, nor did Luke or any of them, if he had published a second text then that would be useful, though it would still be one of the only four authors who wrote of his life during his time. At the same time they all wrote of him AFTER he supposedly died, and there is no way of knowing that they even ever met him as there’s nothing else to go by.

Also, he didn’t have to have a big ego, but he definitely would have been a liar in ANY of the cases Mirdath, not knowing you’re lying still makes you a liar. Regardless, this doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have died for his lie. He may have genuinely thought that he would be coming back, or genuinely thought that after he died, many people would believe in him because he had convinced the 11 jews enough that they would tell his story even if he didn’t come back. Or maybe he was just a schizo. And Mirdath’s first proposition still stands, maybe he was a just an all round normal guy who got caught up in something big.

As for the faith deal, what about Unitarian Universalism? Or Pantheism? Or Metaphysics (not exactly a religion, but yeah).

As for the evolutionary purpose, I would disagree, if Darwinism is correct, then everything we can do or think has an evolutionary purpose to it. It may be flawed, like the flatfish’s deformed skull, but it still has an evolutionary purpose. Hope and faith are different to you, because it seems to me that you consider faith in something you know nothing about and faith in something you know very little about different things. There have been times in history where people knew absolutely nothing about the outcome of the action they were performing, leaps of faith. Tesla had no idea what the rearranging of wires would do, sure he theorized as anyone could, but at the time there was no way of knowing you could reverse the flow of current. For all he knew it could kill him (which it could, but as he found that was less likely). Galvani didn’t know what sticking pieces of metal on dead bodies would do at all, the only documented cases back then of electrical interaction resulted in death, not any form of medical enlightenment. Fermi certainly didn’t know ANYTHING about sustained nuclear reactions besides “they are really really powerful and probably hurt” which I really wouldn’t count as “very little”.

As you said, anything is possible, even things that seemingly have no chance. As we have seen in Chaos Theory, Quantum field theory and electrodynamics, sometimes even the most random, virtually impossible things can occur twice, even three times in a row.