It All Comes Down to Faith

[cottage]

It wasn't a complaint, it was a critique. The fact that people belonging to the group you're denying or ignoring "have the opportunity to make their own positions clear" doesn't do anything to plug up the holes in your reasoning, it just points them out.

I'm sorry but your response to me most certainly was not a critique. It consisted mainly of one line sentences, two of which were just innane, uncalled for remarks. Even now you are saying nothing to me. Please make your point by giving some examples, and I'd appreciate hearing your understanding of the difference between 'faith' and beliefs.

All you're doing here is re-stating your original position without addressing my objection to it.

Then perhaps you'd be good enough to state what it is you are objecting to in that passage?

 

[logician]

Unfortunately, too often religious faith is blind faith, I've very seldom seen any member of a Xian church question the basic tenants of their "faith". If fact, the Xian bible supports unquestioning faith by and large.

 

[Quagmire]

[/color][/color][/font]

I'm sorry but your response to me most certainly was not a critique. It consisted mainly of one line sentences, two of which were just innane, uncalled for remarks.

I'm sorry, but the above paragraph consists mainly of one line sentences and innane, uncalled for remarks. (hey! This is fun. Thanks for showing me this handy-dandy little answer-avoidance trick, cottage!)

Even now you are saying nothing to me.

Yes, I'm learning very quickly that it's almost impossible to tell you anything.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Madhair...
I've already been to the science forums...
Maybe you should try it yourself!

Your shallow rebuttal obviously indicates a lack of ability to meditate.
You are so much knee-jerk reaction.

Try again some starlit night...look up and think!

Science doesn't explain everything....it just helps a little bit.
As for the big bang...the initial expansion has a lot of aspects not accounted for.
It was recently noted the speed of expansion is increasing.
So far...no evidence as to why.
New theory has a discussion about 'dark matter'.
But no scientist has ventured to detail it.

In the mean time...I see no cause in your rebuttal to dismiss my post.

 

[themadhair]

I've already been to the science forums..

Based on your debauchery of big bang theory you might want to post some questions over there.

Science doesn't explain everything....it just helps a little bit.

Science doesn’t explain everything while religion explains nothing. I find it very humorous when folks, such as yourself Thief, refer to scientific discoveries in an attempt to validate particular religious ideas while being utterly clueless with regard to those same scientific ideas. I expressed this sentiment previously and its bear repeating – don’t attempt to use science as evidence for a viewpoint when that same science is usually damaging to that viewpoint.

As for the big bang...the initial expansion has a lot of aspects not accounted for.

Is this an admission that you are committing the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy? Because it sure looks like it.

It was recently noted the speed of expansion is increasing.
So far...no evidence as to why.

One of cosmology’s great unsolved problems at the moment. By assuming a flat universe (not an unreasonable assumption given current observation) throws up the even bigger problem that in excess of 70% of the universal energy content may be this accelerating universal expansion energy. Fun times.

New theory has a discussion about 'dark matter'.

Dark matter is completely different concept than that of dark energy (which is the placeholder used for the energy causing universal acceleration). Between galactic halos and galactic collisions being mapped by observing gravitational lensing there is more than enough observational evidence to settle the question of dark matter’s existence. Determining its properties is still an ongoing investigation.

But no scientist has ventured to detail it.

You should read some of the recent peer-reviewed literature. Some very promising ideas but, unusually for science, the experimenters are having to play catch-up with the theorists.

In the mean time...I see no cause in your rebuttal to dismiss my post.

Not surprising. To dismiss your post you would have to possess some understanding of the science being referenced.

 

[Thief]

Thief here... actually Madhair....
I have an aptitude for science.
I participated in a nation wide comparison while attending a catholic school.
My test results came back marked 'superior'.

That you failed to follow my line of thought is by no means a fail point for me.

I have an above average i.q.(Mensa test)

I can do anything I desire. If I can move it...I can do it gracefully.

However, this is not a science forum.
My previous post is more a statement that some of us have faith....
because we can see cause to do so.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Can you give me an example of "belief in something for which there is no proof" that does not require trust?"


I will give you some examples that I think show a difference.

I "trust" my wife will be faithful. She has been for nearly 50 yrs little reason to suppose otherwise. I "trust" the car will start. There is no real reason to assume otherwise.

I bought a stock last week. I HOPE it will increase in value. I have no "trust" it will and certainly no "faith" it will. The wife put some $ on Mind that Bird last weekend. Done in the HOPE the horse would win. But no "trust" at all.

BUT

In all those examples we "believed" the expected outcome would happen.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"My previous post is more a statement that some of us have faith....
because we can see cause to do so."

And we DON'T. Looking at the nite sky is one good reason NOT to. Billions of planets out there now. More billions have been out there and are now gone. Ours in time will also disappear.

YET the entire vast spectacle was created for US. WE are the sole mortal intelligence capable of comprehending the majesty of this universe. And the only one there will EVER be.

The word "arrogance" is not adequate to express such an attitude.

 

[cardero]

"Can you give me an example of "belief in something for which there is no proof" that does not require trust?"


I will give you some examples that I think show a difference.

I "trust" my wife will be faithful. She has been for nearly 50 yrs little reason to suppose otherwise. I "trust" the car will start. There is no real reason to assume otherwise.

I bought a stock last week. I HOPE it will increase in value. I have no "trust" it will and certainly no "faith" it will. The wife put some $ on Mind that Bird last weekend. Done in the HOPE the horse would win. But no "trust" at all.

BUT

In all those examples we "believed" the expected outcome would happen.

Be careful with that word "hope" OmarKhayyam. Faith, hope and trust are practically french-kissing, siamese cousins. There is nothing incorrect about the belief that you think that your stocks will go up as long as you have considered, reasoned and prepared for the contingency that they may go down (which I feel you have considered).

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Omar....that's quite a reaction you have there.
But your choice of words runs one way and then the other.

I think your over reacting.

That I am able to join science,religion,and personal experience as one...is not a discredit to me.
When I look up...I see far more than religion can explain.
I see far more than science can explain.

By definition faith is believing while not having proof.

But when these many things come together...they are as one...and they are sufficient.

I do believe.

When it comes down to following 'a' faith...I do so for cause...some of it scientific...some of it philosophical.
And when it comes down to having someone else following alongside...
it is better to have company with those who have cause to believe.
A lot of people nod their heads.
Few can say why.

 

[MoonWater]

"My previous post is more a statement that some of us have faith....
because we can see cause to do so."

And we DON'T. Looking at the nite sky is one good reason NOT to. Billions of planets out there now. More billions have been out there and are now gone. Ours in time will also disappear.

YET the entire vast spectacle was created for US. WE are the sole mortal intelligence capable of comprehending the majesty of this universe. And the only one there will EVER be.

The word "arrogance" is not adequate to express such an attitude.

Once more you lump people of faith into one box. You really need to stop doing that Omarr. Not everyone of faith holds that view which you have put forward; not even everyone who believes man to have been created in the image of god believes that way.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Once more you lump people of faith into one box. You really need to stop doing that Omarr. Not everyone of faith holds that view which you have put forward; not even everyone who believes man to have been created in the image of god believes that way.

DOWD

At best a difference in degree - not kind.

 

[MoonWater]

DOWD

what does that mean?

At best a difference in degree - not kind.

How is not believing in what you stated a different degree of faith and not a different kind? Do you wish to claim that unless a person of faith fits into your nice neat little box it means that their faith must be weaker than that of someone who does?

 

[cottage]

[/color][/font][/b]I'm sorry, but the above paragraph consists mainly of one line sentences and innane, uncalled for remarks. (hey! This is fun. Thanks for showing me this handy-dandy little answer-avoidance trick, cottage!)

So, instead of making further inane comments, why not inform me of the question you want answering? And then you could answer the two specific and reasonable questions that I asked you so that I can establish what your objection is.

Over to you.

 

[themadhair]

I have an aptitude for science.

Shame you don’t also have the will to research it before attempting to use as a basis for argument. But congratulations on spewing an absolute mashing of big bang theory and universal homogeneity, and then completely ducking the issue when you got called on it. Figures.

That I am able to join science,religion,and personal experience as one...is not a discredit to me.

It is when you completely misunderstand and misrepresent the science. To reiterate the point yet again – maybe you shouldn’t be reaching for the science as a support when it probably does more to undermine the position you attempting to advocate?

I see far more than science can explain.

God of the gaps again?

 

[sojourner]

While OmarKhayyam is right to say a faith is generally put across as belief without doubt, without reservation and without error, it is also correct in my view to say religious belief is not a static or dead thing locked away in the back of the mind. For any thinking person it presents challenges, and believers may have to work extremely hard to maintain their faith in the light of many contentions.

For me, faith is a way of perceiving, or understanding the world. Some of us understand the world empirically. Some of us understand the world philosophically. Some of us understand the world theologically. That's where faith lives -- in a theological understanding of the world. So, I would say that, if we work hard to maintain our faith, what we work at is to come to a theological understanding of new information that may change how the world, as we know it, works.

 

[sojourner]

This is all very simple. I'm not just speaking of 'having faith in something'. I have faith that it will rain sometime during the month. But I don't hold to that belief dogmatically. I'm saying if people have faith in God, that means they believe in God, suspending reason in the process. The Bible puts it very nicely for me: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) That is dogmatism.

Hmm. I understand this quotation to fall more in line with your example of having faith that it will rain sometime this month.

Not sure that I agree with your assertion that if people have faith in God, they do so "suspending reason in the process." If, as I posited in a post a little earlier, faith is a way of understanding the world in theological terms, then reason certainly is part of that process (at least in cases where the theology proves out in the world around us.)

 

[Willamena]

All you're doing here is re-stating your original position without addressing my objection to it.

I know the feeling.

 

[sojourner]

No, I certainly don't mean 'bias' or 'preference'; that would make no sense at all in terms of the example I gave in my OP. I would expect every believer (or sceptic) to be biased, as their views define that position. But a dogmatic view that some unsubstantiated and preconceived obect or ideology cannot be false, and therefore any objection renders the objector in the wrong, is to make a prejudicial judgement.

I agree. Many times, dogmatic Xians throw reason out the window in favor of holding to some notion of faith.

That being said, I'm not sure I would define that particular practice as "faith." "Dogmatism" and "faith" are not the same thing. In fact, dogmatism could be conceived as a lack of faith. When one clings doggedly to a log in a flood, when a rescuer is right there, begging one to let go so he can pull one into the boat isn't faith. It's dogmatism. Similarly, many Christians cling doggedly to the Bible, when the Bible has been proved factually wrong, in that instance.

Faith entails a letting go of those things we hold too tightly, in favor of what we intuit as a nudge from God, not knowing what may lay ahead. Case in point: When God asked Abraham to move to a strange place.

 

[sojourner]

Unfortunately, too often religious faith is blind faith

You're right.

I've very seldom seen any member of a Xian church question the basic tenants of their "faith".

You probably know a lot of "baby Xians." Mature Xians, by and large, do question.

If fact, the Xian bible supports unquestioning faith by and large.

I disagree. In fact, most of the time God calls one to action, that person argues with God, as in Isaiah's call, and Moses' call, etc.