mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, we are talking about knowledge as knowledge and how that works. Not the actual science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
No, we are talking about knowledge as knowledge and how that works. Not the actual science.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I think that Valjean is referring to the fact that a common religious use of the word faith as the warrant for belief that X is true. You are saying "trust that", whereas they are saying "evidence for".
nPeace
Veteran Member
No. I am not saying that merely having faith in something, is evidence that that something is true.
While that something may be true, the evidence for it being true, is what faith is based on.
It is not an interpretation.
Please look again at the first words in your OP.
Hebrews 11:1 reads:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Perhaps I can use my favorite translation, to try to explain better.
NWT
Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration* of realities that are not seen.
Footnote to evident demonstration : “convincing evidence"
Faith is having the assurance; having convincing evidence, of what is true; reality, even though it may not be seen, or verified.
So when you read that faith is the evidence of things, it is equivalent to saying that faith is having the evidence of something being true, or... faith is having convincing evidence of the truthfulness of something. Or faith is having, as Ken pointed out, the title deed of that house you hope for, and have not seen, but have the guarantee, by means of the title deed,, that you will have it.
The reality is actually in
To expand on that...
Recall Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 15:14 - But if Christ has not been raised up, ... your faith is also in vain.
Think for a moment, and read Hebrews again, piece by piece.
Faith is the substance of things. Pondering... Faith is the substance of things? Pondering... Oh. Faith is the substance of things, so to have faith, means to have the substance (assurance) of things (we are considering). Oh.
Faith is the evidence of things. Oh okay. I got it now. Faith is the evidence of things. So to have faith, means to have the evidence of things (we are considering).
No. Faith is not the evidence itself, as in ...
Skeptic - "Where is the evidence for your God?"
Christian - Oh. Faith.
But rather The evidence we see, is our faith - our conviction, our assurance - in our God.
Recall, earlier, someone reference various translations of that same verse. All mean the same, but it's just a matter of our understanding. Not interpretation, but understanding. There is a difference.
We know how easy it is to understand things differently, or misunderstand.
I always like to refer to the tight rope walker as an example. I think it illustrates the point well.
Does the tight rope walker have faith? Faith in what? What is his faith?
His hope is to walk across the rope, and reach the end. It has not become a reality for him, but it certainly can be. If it were written in stone as a destiny, it certainly would be a reality, but that's another quantum debate.
The tight rope walker does not attempt this feat with no knowledge, or evidence regarding the success of the accomplishment. In other words, it's not a "hit or miss, but I'll do it anyway"; "jump off the cliff and hope I don't die" situation.
That evidence of that accomplishment, is actually his faith.
I could go on, but I think that was quite expansive. Was that helpful?
I'm not sure I can get anymore simpler, so it had better be.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh, I see. You think that Christians use "the word faith as the warrant for belief that X is true."
Did you actually hear people say this, or perhaps you assumed this is what Christians are saying?
i never actually heard this, or understood Christians to say this.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Does that mean you now understand how, and why the answer to your main question is Yes!?Thank you.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Oh heck yeah. After John 3:16, Hebrews 11:1 is one of the most oft quoted passages. When asked for a justification for their claim that God exists, they cite the Bible and prophecy. When challenged on their justification for the Bible they cite either cite God (begging the question), cite prophecy (which leads back to God(begging the question) or they cite faith as the method by which one can know that God exists.Oh, I see. You think that Christians use "the word faith as the warrant for belief that X is true."
Did you actually hear people say this, or perhaps you assumed this is what Christians are saying?
i never actually heard this, or understood Christians to say this.
BTW, I grew up immersed in the culture. My immediate family was Southern Baptist. My extended family was mostly Jehovah's Witness. Plus we had a smattering of Episcopalian. They all used faith in that way.
edit: BTW, I have also heard Muslims use faith in the same manner.
You just said the answer to my main question (is faith itself evidence?) for the thread is No. So if your answer is actually yes, then color me confused.
What I understood you to say is that you take Hebrews 11:1 to mean that having faith implies that you have evidence that produced that faith. So your answer to my main question was No. Correct?
I already had a rather long back-and-forth with Ken in this thread about what constitutes good evidence for something, etc., so I would ask that you go back and reread our dialogue in this thread before replying any further (as well as the shorter dialogue Deeje and I had). I'd really rather not retread the same ground that's already been tread. If you have a new point to make, that hasn't been discussed here, go ahead (as long as it's relevant, obviously).
Last edited:
Piculet
Active Member
You mean "prove" God exists by citing passages..?
ppp
Well-Known Member
I mean that they claim that faith serves as a sound epistemological foundation for their claim that their god exists..
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Religion - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
"Prove," knowledge," "evidence," "faith" -- We're all using these and others in different senses, with different meanings, even after the problem is pointed out. We're talking past each other and then wondering how our interlocutors could be so obtuse.
To wit: "Theory" of evolution. There's a colloquial usage, then there's the technical, scientific usage. Creationists are always creating straw men by assuming the colloquial usage -- implying speculation or guesswork -- for the technical usage.
I'm sure you've seen this one a hundred times right here on RF.
But not all religions assume a superhuman power. I don't think Buddha made any such assumption.
My proposal:
Reigion -- "A belief or set of beliefs that manifests an ethic among adherants."
OK. I said:
"You may be right, but I think religion can give it a necessary boost.
True, but, historically, religion has yielded some pretty horrific results."
Your reply seemed to miss the horrific results I was alluding to.
I was referring to Islam's conquests, the crusades, the reformation and religious wars, the inquisition, &c. War after war. Strife, massacres; the death and destruction of tens of millions.
I count that pretty horrific.
I count that pretty horrific too, but people without those religions were violent too. There have been horrific secular wars as well. If you take your list, and look at the fact there were other instances with the same horrific consequences, it becomes balanced. Then if you consider that they were trying to make people better through better religion at least that puts a positive spin on it.
I do not endorse those horrific actions, but in context I figure they were better than others who did the same things and at least promoted what might be better religion.
The worst offense in history, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was secular in my opinion. Hitler and Stalin were also late in history and terrible. Hitler pretended to be religious.
So there are religious and areligious offenses and you have to look in context.
If you think, oh, I don't blame Hiroshima and Nagasaki on secularism I don't either, but maybe those things you blamed religions on where really bad leaders who abused those religions as well.
Show me in the actual scripture what it does, and then tell me why secularism isn't to blame for things like Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Stalin and Hitler!
Last edited:
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Imo religion is total trust in the existence of God without, but not away from science and determination, in order to leave space for hope, and for the dharma to be fertile. Buddhist believe in devas which are human being who have now become godly. A buddha is both teacher of gods and humans.
Some Buddhists believe in Devas -- and a lot of other supernatural things, but the more unreconstructed denominations are not concerned with God/s at all, nor did the Buddha himself preach about any God.
Essential Buddhism is, as they say, an atheistic religion.
But it does manifest an ethic.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
LOVE is both God and the first buddha.
In your opinion.
"God is Love" is a Christian framing, not a Buddhist one.
Please start a new thread if you really want to argue about this. Thanks.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
If compassion is buddha, so is love.