D
DavidHume
Guest
Generally “faith” implies that one believes there is no possibility of being incorrect, so I don’t think that’s a good word to use.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
No Proof ?
No Faith ?
hhmmmmmm
I suppose we’re left with just taking our best guess (educated guess of course).
Pardon me if it seems that from what you all have just explained to me seems rediculous.
If I drop a ball and it falls to the Ground that consitutes 'Proof" of a thing called Gravity.
If I believe in God because I see His Glorious work and have had Him answer my Prayers that is Proof that my Faith is not misplaced.
You all can (and probably will) spend the next 20 pages arguing meta-whatever just as you have the previous 20 pages. You’ll never Prove anything - Nor will you gain or lose faith. You’ll just have a really fine debate about shadows.
I’m Glad God has a sense of humor.
I think I’ll go read some G.K. Chesterton. I need a dose of common sense.
Peace
James
L
Leela
Guest
But you are talking about metaphysical assumptions–about having to know something before you can know anything. The “pre” in our discussion about presuppositions was not just before asking any question. I agree that when we ask a question we have to also have in mind what sort of answers we will recognize as answers. All I’m saying is that I don’t need to be convinced that there is “substance” to which all qualities adhere to before we can start asking questions and have some theory about what substance is like especially since the more we try to define it the more we find that we aren’t talking about anything at all. We don’t need to try to know the essence of a thing to put it in relation to other things. And again, the more we try to talk about what something is outside of its relationships to other things, the more we find that we are talking about nothing at all. We also don’t need to search for one particular true account of the way things really are. We can use any and all descriptions for whatever purposes they are useful.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Personally, I think Hawking’s statement lacks any and all intellectuality. If you think about it for awhile, I believe you will too. Remember, Einstein was not much of a philosopher. Great physicist; mediocre, at best, philosopher.
The universe “began” with the BB, so says the standard model. Entropy is leading it to “extinction”, so says the standard model. Even if a man of lesser intelligence disputes the beginning cosmology, it’s hard to dispute the ending cosmology.
jd
L
Leela
Guest
I agree with you that the OP is a bad question. What can we ever say that we have proof of if we have to confront the Cartesian hysterical sceptic who asks, “Oh my God! How can we say that we know anything at all??” The question that marks science in the broadest sense of the term is simply “what do we have good reason to believe?” Science is our best effort for distinguishing what we have good reason to believe from what we wish were true. Science, as a body of knowledge, is simply the set of all claims that we have good reason to believe. If we ever actually find convincing evidence that Jesus is God, that fact will be part of science–part of the set of all claims that we have good reason to believe.The divinity of Jesus will be scientifically true not just theologically true. The second coming will become scientific fact as soon as Jesus flies down from the sky and demonstrates his magic powers.
L
Leela
Guest
We are only talking about faith if that is all you mean by faith, but I suspect you mean something different from that. The important distinction to make is not between faith and proof, but belief based on faith and belief based on evidence.
I see the weak view of faith–the one that sees faith as equivalent to the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow–more and more. It’s am attempt to slip religious faith in the back door and then reveal it to be something very different, i.e. the so-called virtue of believing in the face of weak and even contradictory evidence.
In Timothy Keller’s “The Reason for God”, the author makes the strong point that we need to hold our beliefs we are choosing as alternatives to Christianity to the same standards we use in doubting Christianity, but he ends up making his case by arguing that since our beliefs can not generally be proven, that we are making “leaps of faith” all the time. He says, “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B."
He’s set up “belief based on faith” as in opposition to “belief based on proof,” which I don’t think is the real issue. I would agree with him if he said “you cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of believing (rather than ‘faith in’) Belief B,” but I can’t see what is added to say that we must have FAITH IN Belief B unless he wants to say that belief in anything without proof is all he means by religious faith. I’ve ecome to call this move the “it’s all just different flavors of koolade” argument. Such a move reduces faith to simply be a synonym for belief since no beliefs (or at least very few of them) are thought to be conclusively proven. In effect he is saying that pretty much all beliefs are taken on faith. Can you prove conclusively that the earth is not only 10,000 years old? So, it’s just faith then. Can the scientific method be used to justify itself? Then it’s just faith. All our sets of beliefs are all just different flavors of Koolade, and Christianity tastes the best, so drink up!
Religious faith is not simply the “leap of faith” in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow even though we can’t prove it will in advance. Proof is not the issue at all. The issue is whether or not we are basing our beliefs on evidence. We may never have complete and conclusive evidence to justify every belief, but making our best guess based on the available evidence is not what we generally mean by faith.
For example, believers like to ask, can you prove that love exists? It depends on how you define love. If you think of love as nothing more than a subjective emotional experience, then we can’t prove it. We just know it when we feel it. Is God just an emotional feeling?
Proof is supposed to be evidence or argumentation that is so good that it compells belief. I’m not sure that anything like that exists to support any of our beliefs, especially if we are supposed to be able to answer the Cartesian skeptic who may actually be a brain in a vat, so I don’t think the issue is proof so much as having good reasons for our beliefs. We all can agree that we like to be reasonable whether or not we can agree on what standards we have for what is reasonable or what we wold consider to be proof for us. I think of rules of logic as descriptive rather than prescriptive of what sorts of arguments are convincing, but no arguments may literally force belief for all people.
So maybe we can’t prove that someone loves us, but only because we can’t prove anything to the likes of the Cartesian skeptic, but we can accumulate evidence that someone loves us. We can describe exactly the sort of evidence that would be consistent or inconsistent with that claim. What sort of evidence could ever be thought to be inconsistent with the claim that God exists? If no such evidence is imaginable, then belief in God is not based on evidence. If it is meaningless to imagine the sorts of experiences that would convince us that a claim is false, it seems to me that it doesn’t mean anything to say that the claim is true.
I think Keller is slippery in justifying the broad traditional view of faith as belief in someone else’s revelation and fidelity to a religious tradition along with trust in God as if it were just like any set of beliefs that we accept without proof by simply pointing out that we believe things without proof all the time. What we don’t do is believe things without evidence all the time. We all generally want to think we have good reasons and evidence in support of our beliefs, but for some reason it is thought to be a virtue to believe in the absence of good reasons and evidence in one special category of beliefs, namely, religion, and we call that virtue, faith. See the oft cited “doubting Thomas” of John 20: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” In every other aspect of life, we would see it as a huge liability to not base our beliefs on evidence. Why should we make an exception for religious belief?
G
Gon
Guest
Those who do not believe in God are called Agnostic, Atheist, Pantheism, Deism.
Agnostic say I do not know. Atheism, no God at all, Pantheism denies God’s transcendence and Deism denies Gods immanence. Jews and Muslims believe in one God and do not believe in the Incarnation as well. Catholics believe in the trinity, one God in three persons- God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Through the Devine revelation God revealed himself to Israel His chosen people. He also revealed himself by the Incarnation, Christ is the word of God in the flesh. And lastly God ascended to heaven. He left his Holy Spirit and Body, the Church, to continue His work. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is His soul.
You cannot see God but through faith He is everywhere. You feel it. You cannot see the wind but you feel it. Look around you, the beauty, the wonders of the world, God is the source of all these. God created us through His image and likeness.
Agnostic say I do not know. Atheism, no God at all, Pantheism denies God’s transcendence and Deism denies Gods immanence. Jews and Muslims believe in one God and do not believe in the Incarnation as well. Catholics believe in the trinity, one God in three persons- God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Through the Devine revelation God revealed himself to Israel His chosen people. He also revealed himself by the Incarnation, Christ is the word of God in the flesh. And lastly God ascended to heaven. He left his Holy Spirit and Body, the Church, to continue His work. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is His soul.
You cannot see God but through faith He is everywhere. You feel it. You cannot see the wind but you feel it. Look around you, the beauty, the wonders of the world, God is the source of all these. God created us through His image and likeness.
J
JRKH
Guest
Hate to disappoint you Leela but I really don’t “mean something different from that”.
Uless it is the fact that the 20 some pages of discussions back and forth here have only demonstrated that some people have argued themselves from belief in something to belief in nothing at all. Proof, faith, belief and every other thing that can be seen as “firm” and “real” has been obscured until there is nothing left but smoke and mirrors.
Some may call that Knowledge, I call it foolishness.
Peace
James
L
Leela
Guest
I don’t know which position would disappoint me more, but at any rate, you seem to be at odds with most Christains on the subject who see faith as “the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists” as described in Hebrews. That is something quite different from your use of the word faith in describing the use of scientific theories without proof.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I don’t think anyone has been convinced from belief to unbelief in this thread. What do you mean by the smoke and mirrors bit?
best,
Leela
J
JDaniel
Guest
Good point. The beauty of His creation and His Word should be sufficient. If everything is just matter, why does it appear to have an unsatiated tendency towards the beautiful? If it is all just matter, what possible difference would it make what it looked like? Or, how it smelled? Or, how it tasted? Or, how it sounded? Or, how it felt?
jd
J
JRKH
Guest
If I was talking about faith in the religious sense, as you seem to think I was, then yes I might be seen as “out of step”. But I was talking about plain old faith in certain things happening.
If you go back and look at my post that started this little jaunt you will see that I asked about whether there is anything in science that is accepted as Fact but cannot be proven.
This was responded to by a paragraph or two that basicallyonly said that science cannot prove anything. So if we cannot have proof it seems we are left with “faith” (like I have faith that the sun will rise). Then I was told that “Faith” isn’t the right word.
by one person and a lengthy response from you that began by suspecting me of some “other” meaning or point.All in all it appears that a simple answer is not possible to my initial simple question of whether there is anything that Science accepts exists but it cannot prove exists. Unless one takes the premise that everything that exists is aeccepted by science without proof because science cannot prove anything.
To be honest - I just started out having a little fun with the whole “proof” question. But as I’ve gotten responses it becomes glaringly obvious why Jesus told His disciples that we must accept faith like little children.
Cleanly - confidently - and simply. So that is how I try to accept and live my faith.
I agree. No one will be convinced of belief or non-belief by this thread because it is little more than academic wheel spinning if nothing can be “proven”. It’s like arguing OSAS/predestination.
Smoke and mirrors simply refers to the amount of words used to reflect, refract, and puff up positions that mean little in the end. Either you accept God into your mind and heart or you do not.
The Sceptic wants "proof’ yet "nothing can be “Proven” so no “proof” can be shown. …Blah blah blah…
SO
I guess the long and short of all of this is -
GOD EXISTS - - - ALL THE REST IS DETAILS
Now, “Prove me Wrong!!!”
Peace
James
D
DavidHume
Guest
Not to belabor a point, but that particular argument works just as well for Allah, Brahma, or Spinoza’s God.
D
DavidHume
Guest
But the trouble is that the church teaches it is possible to demonstrate the existence of God using reason alone.
T
Thales
Guest
As I follow this thread and all its back and forth, the OP looks to have broken down into an issue of belief vs. proof. I wonder at what point in ones life, what arguments, what persuasions push one person to build their reality around belief and another around proofs. By the last few exchanges it seems apparent once one turns down either road, the understanding to operate on the others level become increasingly lost. Once the paths diverge you cannot just jump from one to the other through rational discussion. Just an observation.
In my personal opinion, from the perspective of a human being living in the world, belief, even in the irrational, is much more fulfilling. Religion gives the human (as an individual and collective whole) meaning, a reason for being. To live by a philosophy of empiricism, which boils down to an attempt to conquer nature, even if to better temporal life, is not so desirable as meaning and purpose.
I once heard said that man is distinguished from all other creatures because we can contemplate our death. If this is at all true, meaning and purpose is much more substantial to the human than well-being in life.
Instead of a proof then, maybe we should look inside of ourselves at what is the greatest desire and necessity of man. Through some branch of science, be it anthropology, biology, or something else, it may be proven man needs meaning and purpose in order to survive (in a well-being sense and as a species). Religion, and belief in a transcendental entity which values the human, is the only sufficient source for such meaning.
This might not be a direct proof for God but makes God a necessity, which as far as I’m concerned means more to man than proof. I do not need proof that food provides the nutrients which allow me to survive, its necessity trumps proof.
In my personal opinion, from the perspective of a human being living in the world, belief, even in the irrational, is much more fulfilling. Religion gives the human (as an individual and collective whole) meaning, a reason for being. To live by a philosophy of empiricism, which boils down to an attempt to conquer nature, even if to better temporal life, is not so desirable as meaning and purpose.
I once heard said that man is distinguished from all other creatures because we can contemplate our death. If this is at all true, meaning and purpose is much more substantial to the human than well-being in life.
Instead of a proof then, maybe we should look inside of ourselves at what is the greatest desire and necessity of man. Through some branch of science, be it anthropology, biology, or something else, it may be proven man needs meaning and purpose in order to survive (in a well-being sense and as a species). Religion, and belief in a transcendental entity which values the human, is the only sufficient source for such meaning.
This might not be a direct proof for God but makes God a necessity, which as far as I’m concerned means more to man than proof. I do not need proof that food provides the nutrients which allow me to survive, its necessity trumps proof.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
That’s been done irrefutably, so there’s no trouble.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Yes it does. My brand is from the recognition of a 4,500 year history of extraordinarily accurate prophecy, leading from God and the the beginning, right to the Christ - something the others do not quite have. In fact, of the three, the closest is Allah, the Allah from early Islam.
But, that there are other gods for other people does not upset me or shake my faith. And, even if you were to somehow prove that all of my proofs were circumstantial, I have a preponderance of them. As well as, at least two OOB experiences, which I have previously recounted herein, where I was given glimpses of God and the supernatural, and, during which I could see myself from behind me. A pretty tough chore for any man.
I think that “organized” atheism is not a so-called better alternative to organized religion. Having been an atheist for some time, I could tell you about what effects that had on my life. The things I did directly due to blasting God out of my life and, with Him, conscience, have caused me irreparable life-damage. So, it took a major beat-down to get me to reevaluate my belief system. It took the re-affirmation of conscience to put me back on the right track. In what other religion would I have embraced the efficacy of “conscience”? Only a religion that follows The Christ; only a religion that has the “authority” to bind and loose; only a religion based upon Love and Forgiving. And, only a religion that is philosophically sound, at least sound enough that it taught me how to apprehend God.
I don’t mind belaboring this point. You are forgiven, I guess.
I wish you well on your journey and look forward to more dialog with you. You have a unique gift; you have the ability to educe, to draw out information and thought from those you have discussions with, patiently and charitably. Plus, you have a good handle on the subjects you know.jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Dear DH:
Excerpted from a lecture by R. Spaemann, delivered at the Hochschule fur Philosophie in Munich, on December 6, 2004:
We could bring the absurdity of this scientific worldview to
light if we were to claim that we had explained the firing of certain
neurons in the brain, which lie at the empirical basis of all pain, as
the definition of what pain is. Let us imagine that I went to the
doctor because of some severe pains, that the neurologist examined
me and was unable to observe these precise physiological processes
which are normally associated with the experience of pain. And then
let us imagine that the doctor were thus to say to me: “You are not
suffering any pain. Pain consists in the firing of certain neurons, and
those neurons are not firing.” There is not a single one of us who
would not respond: “Dear doctor, I don’t care about any neurons.
If anyone knows whether I am suffering pain, it is I. And if you
make it impossible for me to express my pain in an articulate way by
taking the word away from me through your various definitions,
then I will simply have to express it by screaming.”
jd
J
JRKH
Guest
Then I guess if you don’t believe in God you must be unreasonable.
One provides “Proofs” of God - Another denies they are “proofs”
Another “demonstrates the existence of God using reason” - Another dismisses the demonstration.
What difference does it make to the actual existance of a thing.
I said earlier that no meaningful conversation on this subject could be had unless and until both sides agreed on what the term “God” means and - From that - What could be seen as reasonable “proof”.
This simple rule bit of common sense has been consistantly ignored from what I can tell.
In all of the words of all of the languages of Human tongues there is no way to sufficiantly describe that which, by it’s very concept, is indescribable and undefinable. That is why I resort to simply saying “God Is - All the rest is details”.
Whether God called Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah Buddha, First Cause, or “The Force”, doesn’t matter. They all mean the same basic thing. The Beginning of and ultimate goal/end of all things.
Now we can sit here with our tiny intellects in our tiny minds and bandy our tiny words around our tiny planet and none of it will change the Truth of God’s existance.
The Truth of the Old adage is brought home by this thread
For those who believe no proof is necessary
For those who refuse to believe no proof is possible.
I pray that someday you will find yourself able to open you mind to the possibility that there is something greater than us at work. That there is actually something True and Good that is so huge and outside of our understanding that It can never be fully contained within the context of our brain. A force, an entity, a God that created us and Loves us and wishes only for us to accept and Love “Him” in return.
Peace
James
D
DavidHume
Guest
JDaniel:
That passage would contain a bit more weight if it weren’t based on an absurd hypothetical. Unless the doctor has reasons to believe that the patient is lying (e.g. the patient is looking for painkillers), the doctor would not say “You are not suffering any pain.” Spaemann appears to make the same mistake that you do, which is to assume that empiricists are after infallible knowledge.
As far as the word “faith” goes, you are certainly welcome to use it for your beliefs whenever you wish. The Compact OED defines faith:
1holycatholic:
I think I’ll approach claims of “irrefutability” with skepticism, particularly when they come along with claims that the motion of a train of boxes occurs instantaneously.
That passage would contain a bit more weight if it weren’t based on an absurd hypothetical. Unless the doctor has reasons to believe that the patient is lying (e.g. the patient is looking for painkillers), the doctor would not say “You are not suffering any pain.” Spaemann appears to make the same mistake that you do, which is to assume that empiricists are after infallible knowledge.
As far as the word “faith” goes, you are certainly welcome to use it for your beliefs whenever you wish. The Compact OED defines faith:
None of which seems to be applicable to the hypotheses JRKH is talking about while mentioning scientific theories. To make a pun, using the word “faith” to describe those things is a bit of bad faith in the legal sense.
1holycatholic:
I think I’ll approach claims of “irrefutability” with skepticism, particularly when they come along with claims that the motion of a train of boxes occurs instantaneously.
D
DavidHume
Guest
Thank you. That prayer is certainly more likely to be effective than thirteenth-century metaphysics.
- Status