In philosophy, making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up in any way isn't taken seriously whatsoever. Even if you do it seven times in a row and format it in such a way as to attempt to make it look like poetry.

Just for future reference.

So now, the question about religious faith is, "Where's the evidence?" IOW, you don't have to "prove" the existence of God, just show me some evidence. — Mitchell

Ah, I see what you're saying now. That is definitely a key distinction to make, and one that, unfortunately, most people don't.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse — Mitchell

I wouldn't say it necessarily puts the cart before the horse unless the claim is that the scriptures were actually written by the corresponding deity, which I know some people do believe. But I think we can count them as evidence in that they are the author's personal account of some events which they claim actually happened which demonstrate the existence of their deity. So, they are evidence, just not particularly good evidence.

they are the author's personal account of some events which they claim actually happened which demonstrate the existence of their deity. So, they are evidence, just not particularly good evidence. — JustSomeGuy

Now we get closer to what I think is the only plausible reason, though still weak, for believing there is a deity: religious experience.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse. — Mitchell

Almost without exception, the sacred writings begin their exposition of the ultimate Reality without preface, argument or proof. The modern philosopher will regard this as hopeless prejudice, for to adopt the existence of the infinite or God as one's major premise is against every rule of his science. But it cannot be otherwise, for as the reality of light cannot be proved or described in terms of visible shape, the reality of the infinite cannot be proved in terms of the finite. For this reason every attempt to prove the existence of God by logic is a foregone failure. — Alan Watts, The Supreme Identity

At this point there is a shift, it's almost as if the Church leaders believed that all the important metaphysical questions had been answered. Following this, the Church perceives a stronger need to protect its members from the infiltration of wrong ideas, so the problems of orthodoxy which you describe, prevail. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have studied two major issues in the formation of religion in the West. The first was the battle to define orthodoxy against gnosticism in the early Christian period. A lot of that was lost to history until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in the 20th Century. That gave rise to a kind of neo-gnostic movement, with figures like Stephan Hoeller, Richard Smoley, and Elaine Pagels, who argued that some essential aspect of Christian teaching had been suppressed at that time.

One of the books about that is Pagel's Beyond Belief which is based on the analysis of the recovered Gospel of Thomas and related writings:

At the center of Beyond Belief is what Pagels identifies as a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process "not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those [Irenaeus] expelled."

There is a tension in early Christianity between the two verses, 'he who believes in Me shall be saved', and 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. The first is an archetypical statement of 'pistis', right belief; the second of a 'higher knowledge' that is more typical of the gnostics.

I think some of the early figures in the Church, notably Origen, recognised that both the pistic and the gnostic had their place in the overall scheme. The pistic approach - believe and be saved - was essential for devotional religion of the masses. Only the elite were able to actually understand the higher truth. But there's been a conflict between these tendencies in the Church from the outset.

When Calvinism came along it was a definitive victory for the doctrine of 'saved by faith alone'. The intellect was practically ostracised by it. Allied to the 'voluntarism' of Ockham and others, Christianity became much more like Islam, a religion of 'submission to the Divine Will'. Which is what, in my opinion, was one of the major factors behind the secular revolt against religious authority. (I have read that Calvin has been referred to in modern times as 'the Ayatollah of Geneva'.)

But these are all big historical questions with many possible interpretations. But one of the main books that I have found illuminating about all of this, is Michael Allen Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity.

making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up — JustSomeGuy

Then I suggest you stop doing it.

Also, as a side note, we need to remember that proof and evidence aren't the same thing. — JustSomeGuy

What's the difference?

In fact, you could argue that obtaining absolute proof isn't even humanly possible. — JustSomeGuy

Why? Please explain.

What's the difference? — TheMadFool

Evidence is essentially information that supports a certain conclusion, whereas proof is evidence that confirms a certain conclusion.

For example, if we're trying to solve the murder of Bob and we find John's DNA on Bob's body, that is evidence that John killed Bob, but not proof, because we still cannot say for certain that John killed Bob--it leaves open other possibilities. Alternatively, if we have a security camera video of John killing Bob, that is proof that John killed Bob, because it allows us to say for certain that John killed Bob.

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.

Why? Please explain — TheMadFool

Obtaining absolute proof isn't humanly possible because we're limited in the information available to us. Our brains/minds are limited in what they can understand, and our senses are limited in what they can perceive. Plus we're also bound by time, so we cannot know the future or experience the past.

So we can never possibly have all of the information, and without all information we cannot truly be certain of anything (except that I exist).

All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof. — JustSomeGuy

So proof is stronger than evidence.

So we can never possibly have all of the information, and without all information we cannot truly be certain of anything (except that I exist). — JustSomeGuy

That's right. There's always a gap in our knowledge. Radical skepticism tears away the foundations of all knowledge. What are we left with? Faith!

It's not all or nothing. One might sense the limits to knowledge, but still know how to do a lot of stuff. I think the real issue here is, knowing what is the basis for value judgements - knowing whether what we believe, or do, or what guides our actions, really means something or not. All of those who constantly bleat that faith is 'the end of reason' seem to overlook the fact that the scientific assessment of 'reason', is that it's something that is useful for survival. But when it comes to 'what is the point of survival, really' - which is another way of asking the question, 'what does life really mean' - science doesn't have anything to say. And that is so, even despite the many extraordinarily useful things that science can do for us.

Faith is giving up. — charleton

Quite the contrary, it takes faith to try in the first place. If you don't have any faith, you don't even try. So it's actually quite the contrary - the faithless is the one who gives up right away.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. — Mitchell

Yes, they absolutely are evidence. Who told you they don't count? As far as I know, both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches recognise other world religions as sources of knowledge about the divine, even if in some regards incomplete or inaccurate.

Organised religions have developed out of primary hierophanic phenomena that were codified in symbolic ways that could be understood and shared by the local cultures where they first occurred. Furthermore, organized religions also have socio-political attachments, that actually have nothing to do with religion per say - for example, each Christian church has a different "correct" baptism procedure, BUT that baptism is fundamentally a matter of the heart is universally acknowledged theologically. So everyone has a different "correct" procedure and seeks to impose it on everyone else (a power game), but that's just an attempt at answering how it's best to physically illustrate the mystical change that occurs during baptism. And there may not be one answer in this case, but a multitude of answers, depending on context. That each church seeks to impose its ways on others is just a matter of politics, survival and power.

That gave rise to a kind of neo-gnostic movement, with figures like Stephan Hoeller, Richard Smoley, and Elaine Pagels, who argued that some essential aspect of Christian teaching had been suppressed at that time. — Wayfarer

It is evident that in early Christianity there is all sorts of disagreement on principles, especially concerning the divine nature of Jesus. So of course there would have been attempts to produce agreement. But even "The Creed" is not singular, and we'd be more accurate to call them the Creeds to indicate the variations in belief.

We have odd ways of looking back at history such that our history is very perspective oriented. If people holding a particular ideology become more influential over time, we do not necessarily know the reason why they became more influential, so the reasons we ascribe are quite speculative. We, looking back having the ideology which became more influential, will at first be very biased, thinking that the good, or the correct ideology won out over the incorrect. But if we look back from the other perspective, that the better ideology is the one that got dropped, we would tend to argue that the better was suppressed. But these terms of "force" don't really do justice to the activities of the mind which are going on.

In actuality, it is very difficult to determine why one ideology becomes more prevalent than another. What I described in the last post, is that I believe it a fundamental principle, that the ideology which allows for maximum freedom of thought is the one which has the greatest capacity for persistence. But freedom of thought runs contrary to faith, and faith is the element which provides coherence within the ideology, through the reinforcing of the same principles in different human minds. And without this principle of coherence, there is no ideology.

I used the term "reinforcing" instead of "enforcing" here, because I think that the essence of faith is that it must be willed, and cannot be forced. So we have two distinct possible perspectives here, a certain ideology became prevalent because it was enforced, and suppressed others, or a certain ideology became prevalent because it was freely chosen over the others. My belief is that the very nature of faith is such that it cannot be forced. To be true faith, it must come from within, being supported by what's within. Therefore a pretense of faith, such as the claim to support the principles of an ideology without having a freedom of choice in that matter, cannot actually support that ideology and it will dissolve.

This leaves the principles by which an ideology that promotes the freedom of thought supports itself, as very delicately balanced principles. There must be some fundamental articles of faith to provide coherence, and maintain the sustainability of the ideology, but these articles of faith must not interfere with the capacity for freedom of thought, so that the articles of faith are in a sense, irrelevant to the thinking activities. The articles of faith are not important fundament ontological, epistemological, or even moral principles, they are more like objects of distraction. Unity is provided by a common diversion, instead of agreement on fundamental principles, thus allowing free thought in relation to fundamental principles.

The articles of faith are not important fundament ontological, epistemological, or even moral principles, they are more like objects of distraction. Unity is provided by a common diversion, instead of agreement on fundamental principles, thus allowing free thought in relation to fundamental principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

This sounds to me like revisionist history. In other words, this may be what believers of today want to believe, given multi-culturalism, global village, etc. It may well be part of a progressive religious world-view, but I don't think, viz. I am not convinced, the Church Fathers would agree. There is a reason why the concept of orthodoxy developed, and it had nothing to do with allowing any "freedom of thought".

This sounds to me like revisionist history. — Mitchell

According to what I posted, I believe "history" itself to be perspective dependent. So to say that this is "revisionist history" is not very meaningful because the original "history" which is being revised is produced to justify a perspective in the first place, so the "revision" may be more accurate than the original was in the first place.

There is a reason why the concept of orthodoxy developed, and it had nothing to do with allowing any "freedom of thought". — Mitchell

Even amongst "the orthodox", there has always been a variety of creeds. If orthodoxy was designed to restrict freedom of thought it would not accept such a variety. Orthodoxy was developed as a means of maintaining faith, not as a means for restricting freedom of thought. As I tried to describe, it is quite difficult to maintain faith without restricting freedom of thought, because the articles of faith (things taken for granted) commonly form the foundations of thought. To maintain faith without restricting thought is almost a contradiction in itself. So to do this requires a separation between the articles of faith and the objects of thought. This allows thought to proceed rationally without the influence of faith.

The fact that even the unorthodox are accepted in their own right, is evidence that orthodoxy is not principal. Faith is what is principal. Orthodoxy is the means by which the orthodox maintain faith, while the unorthodox maintain faith in their own way. The intent of orthodoxy is not to exclude the unorthodox as faithless, or any such thing. I think that if some acted to impose the rules of orthodoxy as if the unorthodox are faithless, then this is an abuse derived from misunderstanding.

How, then, did the concept of heresy fit into your narrative. It seems to me any variation from the orthodox dogma was labeled "heresy" and ostracized.

To say that an individual does not adhere to our faith, and is therefore heretical, and may be ostracized depending on one's actions, is not the same as saying that the person is faithless.

‘Heresy’ is derived from a Greek term meaning ‘to hold an opinion’. Actually MItchell is correct, in the early Church there was no tolerance for individual opinion - the believer was expected to accept the dogma and to participate exactly according to the rules of the orthodox. And ‘orthodoxy’ means ‘right worship’ or ‘right belief’. The dogma was ‘no salvation outside the church’. So, can’t agree that the early church encouraged ‘free thought’ at all, that came very much later, post Renaissance. I think the concept of the individual person was barely developed in the ancient world.

Actually one of the most formative books I read in my student years was by sociologist Peter Berger, who wrote The Heretical Imperative. It was about the fact that in today’s marketplace of ideas, it is now required that the individual form an opinion about his or her religious principles - in contrast to the olden days, where they were simply handed to you, and you believed it, or else.

It's not all or nothing. One might sense the limits to knowledge, but still know how to do a lot of stuff. I think the real issue here is, knowing what is the basis for value judgements - knowing whether what we believe, or do, or what guides our actions, really means something or not. All of those who constantly bleat that faith is 'the end of reason' seem to overlook the fact that the scientific assessment of 'reason', is that it's something that is useful for survival. But when it comes to 'what is the point of survival, really' - which is another way of asking the question, 'what does life really mean' - science doesn't have anything to say. And that is so, even despite the many extraordinarily useful things that science can do for us. — Wayfarer

(Y)

Actually MItchell is correct, in the early Church there was no tolerance for individual opinion - the believer was expected to accept the dogma and to participate exactly according to the rules of the orthodox — Wayfarer

In the early times, as today, there were different branches of Christianity. The fact that there were attempts by some to establish orthodoxy, such as the councils of Nicaea is clear evidence of this. These attempts were driven by some members who saw a need for a higher degree of unity. That the result of these attempts was a plurality of creeds and a plurality of orthodoxies, indicates that this need was not a top priority.

I think the concept of the individual person was barely developed in the ancient world. — Wayfarer

Of course you know, from previous discussions, that I strongly disagree with this. The "individual person" was very important to Plato. He developed the concept of the tripartite soul. Prior to Plato there was a dualism of body and soul. Plato saw that the mind had the capacity to rule the body. An example he uses is that a thirsty man will not drink the water, if the water is not known to be good. But the separation between mind and body, eternal Forms and temporal existence, cannot be absolute. As modern monists argue, with such an absolute separation, the eternal cannot interact with the temporal. So Plato posited "spirit" or "passion" as the intermediary. Under Plato's design, the spirit can go either way. If the person is well-tempered, it will ally with the mind, to control the body according to principles of reason. But if the person has a corrupted soul, the spirit allies with the body to taint the mind.

The point being that Plato designed his Republic according to his description of the individual. He produced this description of the tripartite soul, the individual, then modeled his state to be a representation of a well-tempered individual. The state has three classes corresponding to the three parts of the individual, the rulers (philosophers, intellectuals, thinkers) the guardians ( nobles, army, police), and the providers (tradespeople, craftspeople, farmers).

If you read Plato's Republic, you will see that he goes through a progression of different forms of government. He provides an understanding of the form of government by comparing it to a type of person. So Plato's understanding of governance is derived from an understanding of individuals. This is important, because an understanding of morality in general must be derived from an understanding of the individual. So the best forms of governance are the ones based in the best understanding of the individual. If you read St. Augustine, especially "On free Will", and "On The Trinity", you will find an understanding of the individual which is far more comprehensive than anything in modern philosophy. Morality is something which of late has been simply taken for granted. But at the time of early Christianity, the mindset was totally different, morality was something which urgently needed attention. This is what inspired delving into the depths of "the individual".

Incidentally, Augustine's "On The Trinity" was in some part a response to the councils of Nicaea, and contains some fundamental differences especially concerning a key term "substance". What is evident though, is that an understanding of God the Trinity is derived from an understanding of the individual as tripartite, God being the ultimate individual.

Quite the contrary, it takes faith to try in the first place — Agustino

There are two meanings to faith which characters like you switch between when it suits you.
1) Trust based on experience and knowledge.
2) Faith with a capital F which is religious faith based on fear of death and "god".

When I place my trust in the doctor or my car starting, it does not mean I absolutely trust that the doctors advice is going to work or that the car will start. It's a matter of convenience so that I get on with my day until I get sick or the car runs out of petrol.
Faith with a capital F means thinking the car will start without putting petrol in it.

2) Faith with a capital F which is religious faith based on fear of death and "god". — charleton

No religion defines Faith (as you like to call it my dear charle), as faith based on fear of death or "god". Apart from being circular, it would be entirely absurd, since having faith in God isn't the same as that faith being based on God.

This is the Biblical definition:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

When I place my trust in the doctor or my car starting, it does not mean I absolutely trust that the doctors advice is going to work or that the car will start. — charleton

How did you learn to start your car? You learned because you were told and shown how to do it. To really have done it yourself, you must have had faith (in the religious sense) that in following the instructions, you would achieve the same result (and in that you understood how to apply the instructions you were given). How did you learn to make all those cute arguments that you're blabbering today? You must have had faith when you were taught that this is how you use your language, and that's what this and that means, etc. For without faith, you wouldn't even have learned how to speak, much less how to start your car. You cannot start with doubt, you must start with just believing what you're told (ie, things not seen), ie faith.

Faith with a capital F means thinking the car will start without putting petrol in it. — charleton

:s - according to the religion of charle?

Apart from being circular, it would be entirely absurd, since having faith in God isn't the same as that faith being based on God. — Agustino

Specious nonsense. I don't care how religion defines faith. I can tell what it is.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” — Agustino

And here you encapsulated the double standard, which I mention above.

you must have had faith (in the religious sense) that in following the instructions, — Agustino

Rubbish. Someone showed me how. I did not have to have any faith, since I was able to start the car in any event. For me faith "trust" follows evidence and knowledge. For you Faith is bollocks Because you put your trust in a clearly untrustworthy idea.

You cannot start with doubt — Agustino

Yes you can, and yes you must. This is your failing, and that is why you argue so poorly.

Specious nonsense. I don't care how religion defines faith. I can tell what it is. — charleton

So you don't care what the other person says they believe - you just know what they believe anyway, no need to communicate X-)

For me faith "trust" follows evidence and knowledge. — charleton

That is impossible. When you're born, you know nothing. So what "evidence" and what "knowledge"? To even gain the first little bit of "knowledge" you must have faith.

Someone showed me how. I did not have to have any faith, since I was able to start the car in any event. — charleton

Yes, you had faith that you understood what they showed you and you could replicate it yourself.

When you learn to do math, you must have faith that 1+1=2. There is no "evidence" that can be offered or any more basic knowledge that can be used to assert it. You must accept it on faith to be able to move forward and actually start gaining knowledge.

Faith is bollocks — charleton

What is bollocks?

Yes you can, and yes you must. This is your failing, and that is why you argue so poorly. — charleton

No, it is literarily impossible to doubt when you have nothing to doubt. Doubting and disbelieving is a learned process that becomes possible only after you've already learned to believe and have come to believe a thousand and one things.

To doubt, you must provide reasons for doubting, and those reasons must be stronger than whatever thing they're meant to cast into question. So those reasons that you need to doubt, they must already be things that you know. Without knowing those, you can have no reasons for doubting, and so no doubt is even possible. This follows as the night follows the day my dear charle. So stomp your feet, throw your hands in the air and shout as much as you like it, but it ain't going to change. As you told me, it would be much like the madman who expects that his car will start without any petrol.

This is the Biblical definition:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” — Agustino

When you're born, you know nothing. So what "evidence" and what "knowledge"? To even gain the first little bit of "knowledge" you must have faith. — Agustino

How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen? The only sort of faith that the child has is in what he can see - the doctors, the nurses, the nervous father, the mother and her bosom. The babe in swaddling clothes doesn't come to some articulately and consciously reasoned, utilitarian decision about whether or not he ought to doubt his urge to suck his mother's teet. While it is true that we all are born to trust - to have faith - we are not, however, born with religious faith. One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt.

God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them.

How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen? — Buxtebuddha

He has an instinctual faith which is aided and encouraged by parents to, for example, drink milk from his mother's breast in order to deal with the discomfort of hunger.

The babe in swaddling clothes doesn't come to some articulately and consciously reasoned, utilitarian decision about whether or not he ought to doubt his urge to suck his mother's teet. — Buxtebuddha

Exactly, he cannot doubt, he can just trust that when his mom throws the breast in his face and puts it in his mouth, it is good to suck on it. And by faith he sucks on it, and behold, he sees that it is good.

While it is true that we all are born to trust - to have faith - we are not, however, born with religious faith. One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt. — Buxtebuddha

We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us.

One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt. — Buxtebuddha

I was clarifying errors in thinking that charle displays in abundance. How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt? So don't forget that my responses aren't universal, but targeted at specific people in specific situations. So the reason I answered the way I did was because I was talking to charleton - and it's not profitable to talk to charleton about God if the groundwork is not ready.

God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them. — Buxtebuddha

How so?

Incidentally, this is a good paper at clarifying some of the above matters.

He has an instinctual faith which is aided and encouraged by parents to, for example, drink milk from his mother's breast in order to deal with the discomfort of hunger. — Agustino

And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen?

Exactly, he cannot doubt, he can just trust that when his mom throws the breast in his face and puts it in his mouth, it is good to suck on it. And by faith he sucks on it, and behold, he sees that it is good. — Agustino

Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith.

We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us. — Agustino

What does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt? — Agustino

My point is that neither of you seem to be distinguishing between ordinary trust/faith and religious trust/faith. They're similar in definition, but different in practice.

How so? — Agustino

Because it'd be presuming belief in others.

And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen? — Buxtebuddha

Because the fact that drinking the milk will eliminate the discomfort of hunger is not an a priori given, but must be taken on faith. If the child did not have this faith, they would refuse the mother's breast, and would not drink the milk.

Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith. — Buxtebuddha

Yes, this unremarkable, mundane and uncontroversial kind of faith is the same as religious faith. The only difference is the object or person of that faith.

What does this have to do with what you quoted from me? — Buxtebuddha

I did not really understand what you meant by "God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt". So it seems I misinterpreted what you meant. Please clarify and I will respond again.

My point is that neither of you seem to be distinguishing between ordinary trust/faith and religious trust/faith. They're similar in definition, but different in practice. — Buxtebuddha

In what sense are they different in practice, apart from the faith being directed towards a different person/object?

Because it'd be presuming belief in others. — Buxtebuddha

I don't follow.

It's pointless arguing against convinced unbelief. It's the mirror image of the conviction that it denies. So it amounts to holding an anti-religious attitude with religious conviction and it would take something like an epiphany to change it.