Why do we believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobic

Guest
My friends do not believe in Jesus Christ, and we have been arguing about it.

It led me to examine why I believe what I believe. I should note that I am not at all shaken in my faith—I am just looking to strengthen it (or, strictly speaking, to allow God to reinforce it).

I am aware that my faith is a gift from God.

But I realized that followers of other Abrahamic faiths might say the same thing. This is not so much a concern with Judaism (the content of which seems to fit in snugly with Christ), as with Islam.

What are believers supposed to make of people who follow Islam, for example? Do they not have faith? Or is their faith merely misplaced?

I’m sure many of them feel like they have faith. They probably feel the same way I do, that their faith is a gift from God. What makes one of us deluded? Is it a simple matter of showing the tenets of Islam to be false, or somehow morally inferior? I feel like that would still not strike at the root of the issue, which is:

To be at all coercive to other people, something more than purely subjective must enter into my account of why I believe.

I imagine that the first thing I would point to would be Christ’s death and resurrection, an event for which I think exists more than enough evidence to believe. But a Muslim, I imagine, would point to the ‘divinely inspired’ Quran, and to the miracles of Muhammad, and say something similar.

In my journey from agnosticism to faith in Christ, I found several arguments that seemed to show to me the superiority of the Christian faith. For example, Christ did not come as a warlord who killed, but a servant who died (the ultimate expression of sacrificial love). Denial of the Trinity means that God, who is Love, could not have loved anybody prior to the creation of the universe, etc.

And yet—it seems like, when we step back, we have two people who have faith (a muslim and myself), which they say is from God. Each person has several arguments that they can adduce which they believe reinforce or lead to their faith.

Is it wrong of me to treat things so abstractly and to overlook the validity of our respective arguments?

Sorry to ask so many questions. I am sure that countless believers have worked through this identical issue before.

The outstanding questions for me are:
  1. What is going on when a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew has faith in their respective God? Is there no way to distinguish, from the inside, whether or not a feeling of faith is valid?
    1.1: And how does it even happen, for that matter, that so many millions of people can persist in a faith which is untrue? Do we experience genuine providence, while they are open to the claims (leveled by atheists against all religious people) of confirmation bias/selection bias/etc? How can human confusion or even demonic influence be powerful enough to build as many mosques/orthodox temples as exist?
  2. If there is no way to distinguish the authenticity of faith from the inside, then what is it, exactly, which makes the feeling of faith valid? Would it be enough to show that the other religions are false?
 
Last edited:
When comparing religions why not look into what they claim?

Islam - Jesus is not God’s son. There is no God but Allah.

But if a Muslim claims the bible is corrupted one can ask the Muslim believer when did it become corrupt?

We possibly have old Testament scrolls dating before Jesus’s birth that we can compare.

We also have the Early Church Fathers and their quotes of the New Testament and their belief in Jesus.
 
My friends aren’t muslims, they’re atheists. But, yes, I think that muslims believe that the bible is corrupt, that Jesus was merely a prophet whose real teaching (which they take, I imagine, to be another reinforcement of the monotheistic God against all comers) was somehow misinterpreted.

They could advance arguments to that effect (certainly of varying validity… after all, Jesus was a prophet, among other things). I could argue the opposite.

Even when it is definitively proven that Christ is the messiah, not just another prophet. What was happening when the Muslim believed? Was he merely mistaken? I guess the strange thing to me is not just that someone could build their life around something untrue (that’s exactly what I did, when I was an atheist!), but that one could actually have faith in a falsehood.

I remember Dante puts Muhammad in the circle of heretics. Should the “pattern of thoughts” that we apply to heretics be applied here? In my case, that would be something Chestertonian: A heresy is “… a fragment of the truth that is exaggerated at the expense of the rest of the truth.”

So could I say that Islam is a heresy, because it places too much emphasis on God’s unity (a truth!) at the expense of Christ himself (among other things)?

Would we call a Muslim’s faith not true faith? If so, what kind of thing is it? Is it merely a subjective conviction that does not come from God? I guess the main question is—if faith comes from God, how on earth can it come to heretics?
 
Last edited:
No, that’s probably exactly what I’m looking for. I’ll read that now. Thank you.
 
It seems like the catechism and article says that Muslims may receive grace from God, and they know some things about him, albeit less than we do (and this lack of knowledge leads to erroneous ideas, like denying Christ and his book).

Is this “may receive grace” where they’re getting their faith? God gives them faith in himself, in order to lead them into his true Church?
 
Last edited:
That I’ll leave a priest or someone else to answer. 😁

But you could call in to Catholic Answers if you want.
 
Christ was the only one who was pre-announced and fulfilled all the prophecies and performed miracles witnessed by thousands to prove His claim; His resurrection shows He is Lord over life itself. The fact that supernatural events have flowed through the centuries within the Church and countless miracles to this day is what separates Catholicism from the rest. The countless NDE experiences including Jews and Muslims who converted to Christ after having visions of Jesus is simply to be expected from the true faith.

The only prophecy he fulfilled was the one Christ made, about the false prophets that would arise and claim to come in the name of God. Islam was founded in the 7th century based on what a merchant by the name of Mohammed said happened to him in a cave, claiming an angel appeared to him and told him he would be God’s prophet. At first he feared it was a demonic manifestation, but was convinced by a relative that it must have been the angel Gabriel. Scripture itself describes how Satan can appear as an angel of light, so the veracityof the Islamic claim is not based on multiple witnesses or miracles or prophecies, but rather upon what he reported experiencing in that cave. When he took his message to the Jews and the Christians and was rejected, Islam was then spread by the sword. All those Middle Eastern regions living under Islam today were once Christian lands; today it is even illegal to even own a Bible in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim that converts to Christianity can mean death in some areas of the world.

But his proclivity for very young wives (she was 9 he was 53) and the fact that there is much evidence that he died by poisoning at the hand of one of his 11 wives does not project a holy man coming in the name of God.

Catholicism is the oldest of all three religions as it is the flowering and fulfillment of Judaism; modern-day Judaism is not Old Testament Judaism; today’s Judaism was invented by the Talmudic rabbis in the centuries after a Christ; today’s Judaism has no priests, no sacrifices and no temple. Old Testament Judaism ceased to be exist following the destruction of the temple by the Romans in Ad 70 and the diaspora that followed.

Here is a good talk by Archbishop Sheen regarding all the claimants who say they come from God:
 
When it comes to Muslim friends, first thing I tell them, and which they find shocking but cannot deny, is that their lands used to be Christian, and the armies of Mohammad changed that. Second, articles of faith cannot be debated, ii will come down to you believe X and they believe Y. However, the historical Jesus can be compared to the historical Mohammad, their works and way of life. And in that comparison, Mohammad falls way, way, way, short.
 
Don’t fight with your friends. They are entitled to their beliefs, just as you are entitled to yours.
 
Because Our Savior was the fulfillment of all Messianic Prophecies to include, but not limited to:

He would be human (Genesis 3:15)
He would be a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 22:18)
He would be from the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)
He would be a son of David (Isaiah 11:1–2; Jeremiah 23:5–6; 1 Chronicles 17:10–14)
He would be both God and man (Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 13:7; Psalm 80:17; Psalm 110:1–7)
He will live eternally (1 Chronicles 17:10–14)
He would be full of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:1–2; Isaiah 42:1–4; Isaiah 61:1–2)
He would be humble (Zechariah 9:9–10)
He would be gentle (Isaiah 42:1–4)
He would have a unique relationship with God (Psalm 16:1–11)
He would be the son of God (Psalm 2:7–12; Proverbs 30:4)
He would be the Good Shepherd (Zechariah 11:1–17)
He would come from a virgin birth (Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14)
He would be born in normal circumstances (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)
He would be born in poverty (Isaiah 11:1–2)
He would be preceded by a herald (Isaiah 40:3–5; Malachi 3:1)
He would be born in Bethlehem, city of David (Micah 5:2)
He would be seen riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9–10)
He would be present 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonian Captivity (Daniel 9:24–27)
He would appear before 70 a.d. (Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:9–10; Isaiah 9:6–7; Zechariah 11:1–17; 1 Chronicles 17:10b–14; Daniel 9:24–27)
He would be a king (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–6; 1 Chronicles 17:10–14; Psalm 2:7–12; Psalm 110:1–7)
He would be a priest (Psalm 110:1–7)
He would be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15–19; Isaiah 61:1–2)
He would be specially trained (Isaiah 50:4–9)
He would remove the curse due to Adam’s fall (Genesis 5:21–29)
He would bring salvation to the Gentile nations (Isaiah 42:1–4; Isaiah 49:1–13)
He would be rejected at first (Isaiah 49:1–13; Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Zechariah 11:1–17; Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22; Psalm 110:1–7)
He would only be accepted by a small believing remnant of the people (Zechariah 11:1–17)
He would appear to fail but in fact be successful (Isaiah 42:1–4)
He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:1–17)
His rejection would result in an attack upon Israel and the scattering of the people (Zechariah 11:1–17; Zechariah 13:7)
His rejection would be followed by the acceptance of a false Messiah (Zechariah 11:1–17)
He would eventually be accepted (Isaiah 49:1–13; Psalm 110:1–7)
He would be seated at the right hand of God (Psalm 80:17; Psalm 110:1–7)
He would suffer (Isaiah 50:4–9; Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Psalm 22)
He would be legally tried and condemned to death (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)
He would die (Psalm 16:1–11; Psalm 22)
He would be executed (Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Daniel 9:24–27)
He would die a violent death by means of piercing (Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 13:7; Psalm 22)
His death would be substitutionary (Isaiah 52:13–53:12)
His death would result in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Daniel 9:24–27)
 
This is a very interesting post. I’ve thought about this in the past. In fact, I think it’s the one important insight of psychoanalysis (I feel safe about tossing out all the sex stuff): we are often unconscious of our thoughts, even of our own choices.

You said that “Our choices are only indirectly within our conscious ability to control.” and that “You, your friends, and everyone else may believe that they’ve chosen their beliefs of their own free will, but this simply isn’t true.”

But why does the first idea have to lead to the second? Have you considered the possibility that we might be capable of unconscious choices? Why does free will have to always be conscious? It seems to me that it takes a special “extra” effort to recognize a thought. Only then is it conscious.

That is to say, if I think: “It’s warm out today,”—isn’t it true that the thought “I am thinking: it’s warm out today.” ← isn’t it true that this is a different thought?

If we follow this logic to its conclusion, we can never be perfectly conscious of all our thoughts—there is no way for us, given our limited powers, to perfectly know ourselves. But I don’t see why this means that we don’t have free will! It only means we don’t if free choices have to be conscious.

Not that I don’t think that our beliefs should enter our conscious mind at some point. My point is that free will is not necessarily invalidated by the fact that it isn’t always conscious.

PS: I think this idea that a thought must be conscious for it to be valid or a choice must be conscious for it to be free is itself a relic of Descartes’ philosophy. From the famous Cogito ergo sum proceeds the idea that the core of ourself is the part of ourselves we are most acutely consciously aware of. But I think what’s more realistic is that consciousness, while being a very important part of the mind, is not the totality of it. Consciousness is the end result, is the readout on the computer screen. But the core of the computer is the computer itself—something which it is essentially impossible for the computer to simulate or be aware of. I also think this impossibility of fully knowing oneself is probably the origin of the many philosophical problems brought up by the idea of free will (an idea which, weird as it is, is a totally indispensable part of everyday life!)
 
Last edited:
I’m interested in hearing about these miracles and NDEs. Is there someplace on the web where they’re all compiled?

Also, I’ve read that Muslims say that Muhammad performed many miracles. How do we distinguish between his and those of Christ, and how do we know one set is valid and the other is false?
 
Thank you for a great post that has me thinking!

I’ve always tried to understand why I lost my faith when I certainly didn’t want to and tried so very hard to gain it back…and failed. I agree, I just can’t MAKE myself believe something that I don’t believe…and boy, did I try!

Someone compared it trying to believe that gravity doesn’t exist and if you jump off the top of the steps you’ll just float. You just KNOW you won’t. You can not make yourself believe it when you don’t…

But, I’ve never considered my sleeping or subconscious brain contributing to the process. I’ve gotten pretty good at identifying my biases but they are very hard to overcome…even when recognized. Thanks for the mind blown moment!
 
Aren’t you attempting to find evidence for something that requires faith? Faith is believing that for which there is no evidence…that’s why it’s called faith. You just need to trust your faith.

And Muslims and Jews have their faith in their beliefs too. It’s just a personal matter of trusting that your faith is correctly placed and have to leave others with theirs. It isn’t something that can be proved one way or the other…if it could, everyone would have the same faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top