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
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
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
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
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."
making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up — JustSomeGuy
Also, as a side note, we need to remember that proof and evidence aren't the same thing. — JustSomeGuy
In fact, you could argue that obtaining absolute proof isn't even humanly possible. — JustSomeGuy
What's the difference? — TheMadFool
Why? Please explain — TheMadFool
All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof. — JustSomeGuy
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
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.Faith is giving up. — charleton
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.If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. — Mitchell
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
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. — Mitchell
There is a reason why the concept of orthodoxy developed, and it had nothing to do with allowing any "freedom of thought". — Mitchell
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
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
I think the concept of the individual person was barely developed in the ancient world. — Wayfarer
Quite the contrary, it takes faith to try in the first place — Agustino
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.2) Faith with a capital F which is religious faith based on fear of death and "god". — 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.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
:s - according to the religion of charle?Faith with a capital F means thinking the car will start without putting petrol in it. — charleton
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
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” — Agustino
you must have had faith (in the religious sense) that in following the instructions, — Agustino
You cannot start with doubt — Agustino
So you don't care what the other person says they believe - you just know what they believe anyway, no need to communicate X-)Specious nonsense. I don't care how religion defines faith. I can tell what it is. — 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.For me faith "trust" follows evidence and knowledge. — charleton
Yes, you had faith that you understood what they showed you and you could replicate it yourself.Someone showed me how. I did not have to have any faith, since I was able to start the car in any event. — charleton
What is bollocks?Faith is bollocks — 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.Yes you can, and yes you must. This is your failing, and that is why you argue so poorly. — charleton
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
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.How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen? — 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.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
We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us.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
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.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
How so?God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them. — 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. — Agustino
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
We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us. — Agustino
How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt? — Agustino
How so? — Agustino
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.And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen? — 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.Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith. — 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.What does this have to do with what you quoted from me? — Buxtebuddha
In what sense are they different in practice, apart from the faith being directed towards a different person/object?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
I don't follow.Because it'd be presuming belief in others. — Buxtebuddha
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.