Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Yes, you BELIEVE that the truth lies with God. I assume that's a faith statement? It could also be argued that skeptics would rather be marginally uncertain than to be 100% sure of something untrue. Again, this is off topic, but I can not abide obviously false statements in any case. The ToE predicts exactly what we see in nature. If we saw a species suddenly change into another it would completely overthrow our understanding of evolution. Even if we lived 500 million years we would never notice a species "change into another", for the same reason that a child doesn't SUDDENLY become a man. It is gradual, and nature is replete with evidence of gradual change.So in the example of evolution, I have no "faith" in it. I don't have "faith" in the theory of gravity either. It is an inference to the best explanation, and I would have no qualms testing my worldview should new data present itself. Indeed. However it seems that you are supplying faith as evidence here. You have faith that Jesus divinely healed "all sorts of sicknesses" in the past and you are applying it as evidence for a future event. You are still just going on faith. Explain how you could use empirical evidence to reach your same same conclusion.Another thing that has always struck me as strange is that having a strong faith is supposed to be a good thing. Strong unquestioning faith is what tore down the WTC, yet we don't admire the great faith of the hijackers. Why is having a strong faith in "another religion" a bad thing, when a strong faith within our churches is a positive boon?I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and I told him how my rejection of the doctrine of creationism had led me to question everything about my faith. Not necessarily to reject my faith, mind you, merely to question it, as I'm doing right here. He told me that he hoped his children would be open-minded too, but not to go to the extreme that I did and question the very basis of their belief.I'm curious, Peg. As a person who is obviously strong in your faith, what is your opinion of my approach? Is it good for a Christian to question the veracity of the Bible and the existence of God, with the intention of going wherever the empirical evidence leads? Or is there anything that I should accept on faith alone?Thanks-Meldinoor

gradual change within its own defined species, yes, but not into a completely new species. DNA determines what a species is, not random changes...and the genes allow for great variety within the species. i think its important to distinguish between idealism and faith...the hijackers and the whole terrorist movement is a politically motivated one which uses religion as its justification. It is always going to possible to manipulate a person who does not question the reasons behind their beliefs which is why we Should question them.For christians, the bible should be their standard for making this comparison. yet there are many examples of how christians practice their religion on the basis of mans word (ie doctrines) rather then on what is found in the bible. If you ask a regular muslim they will tell you its wrong to kill, yet if you ask a polically motivated angry muslim, he'll declare a jihad on you and use the koran to justify his actions. I do agree with you that we must question our beliefs and our religions...even people in the bible questioned some of Gods decisions, so its not 'unchristian' to do this, so long as we do it with the right motive and be prepared to accept the answer we are given.
Just from what you've said in this thread, I feel that you have gone too far in that you've accepted evolution as the basis for your existence. Just as no one can show you God, no one can show you evolution either. You know that it is said to happen over such a long period of time that no one can see it...you accept that. Yes evolution sounds possible, but how do you know they are correct?did you realise that there are many scientist who dont believe in evolution? Have you ever wondered why there is an area of doubt in the ToE?I would strongly encourage you to look at the side of evolution that shows all the reason why there is doubt before you conclude that there is no God.

Thank you for your response, Peg. If the change was between species it wouldn't be gradual. I think the line between idealism and faith is very thin. Just like the line between a political movement and a religiously motivated movement. Were the crusades political or religiously motivated? Probably both, though mostly political. The terrorist movement, however, is mostly a religious one. This becomes clear when they institute sharia law wherever they claim victory.In any case, the motivations of the leaders are not important. I'm talking about the faith of the individuals who think that by blowing themselves up they will gain eternal bliss. These suicide bombers are not dying merely for a political ideal. When they shout "Allahu Akhbar" and blow themselves up, it is because they firmly believe they will go to paradise, and it is the will of Allah. Granted, we both agree that their faith is harmful and destructive (though not Islam as a whole of course), and that faith in a six day creation is not going to end up killing people. But both are faith nonetheless. And I daresay, it takes more faith to die for your beliefs than to debate it on evcforum. If you believe a strong faith is a good thing, than you must at least give these killers credit for theirs. We are in 100% agreement. But Peg, if I should question my beliefs I must question the Bible too! If I'm questioning the Bible, then how can I use it for guidance? That would be like using the circular argument:
"The Bible is God's word because it says it is God's word."Is there an empirical method I could use that demonstrates that the Bible is more true than man's doctrine? Or will I have to take this one on faith, and faith alone? Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, thankfully. They are two very separate issues, where my belief in one has no bearing on my belief in the other. But now you say that no one can show me God. It sounds to me like you're saying that empirical reasoning cannot show me God. Do we then need a measure of blind faith in order to find Him? I do not know. I believe it is strongly evidenced, and I see no alternative that I have any reason to believe in. I don't have to know for certain. Certainty is a trap. Knowing something for certain means that you reject the possibility of any alternatives, and that will keep you stuck with whatever you're certain about, whether you are right or wrong. Hence, I am very convinced that life has evolved, but I do not put "faith" in it.How do you "know" you are correct Peg?

yes there is. You can compare mans doctrines to the bible and if they differ, you take the bible as the true doctrine and you throw mans doctrine in the bin.As an example, the six days of creation is not a bible doctrine. It is mans doctrine.
Genesis uses the word 'Yohm' which is translated as 'day' in genesis.
This word does not mean a 24hour length of time therefore it does not make sense to say the earth was made in six literal days.the fact that Genesis says that all six creative days were made in 'one day' shows that 'day' is being used figuratively in genesis. It is only mans ideas that place the creative days as literal days.So then what you have to decide is if you can put your trust in the bible as Gods word and believe it, or if you'd rather be told by some other person what Gods word means. That is the option we all have. I choose the former, i dont believe in the six literal days of creation. I have learned that they 'days' are figurative as is seen by the use of the hebrew word 'Yohm' not blind faith. If you want evidence of God apart from the physical world, then look at the bible and the prophecies contained therein. Prophecies that came true are empirical evidence of Gods existence and can greatly add to ones faith, and being able to see God. i have proposed a new topic especially with this in mind. the evidence for evolution is very poor. Phillip Johnson, a professor of criminal law at the University of California at Berkeley wrote who researched the evidence that scientists use to prove evolution and from his research there was a book writen entitled 'Darwin on Trial'this book shows how little evidence they actually have to prove ToE. as I said, look at prophecy in the bible and you might be as convinced as I am.

This book demonstrates how a lawyer with little knowledge of biology can dupe people with little knowledge of biology into believing false statements about biology.But back to the topic.

Your statements seem a little confused. Obviously a prerequisite for the desire to seek the truth is that one should not be completely certain that one already possesses it. In the same way, it is not the man who thinks he knows for certain where his spectacles are who looks for his spectacles.Also you are wrong to write: "Apparently everything is relative and there is no definitive truth to a skeptic". Of course there is a definitive truth. What there is not, is definitive certainty that one knows the truth. That's a funny use of the word "open". To put it more accurately, they are much more closed-minded in their belief that they have found the truth and can stop looking.Now, a skeptic believes that the truth can be found. Perhaps he may have found it. But, as a simple matter of epistemology, he can never be 100% certain that he has found it. He is therefore open to the possibility of refutation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, to determine the truth of the Bible empirically, I immediately toss out all alternatives.This sounds like circular reasoning. In order to test the Bible, you're saying that I must begin by assuming it is true... Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I hope I misunderstood you there. Actually, I can find several creationists arguments to the contrary. I won't bring them up as the length of the creation days is not the topic of this discussion, but for completeness I will leave a link. Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days? | Answers in Genesis By the way, yom does usually refer to a 24-hour day.The point is, you were telling me that I compare man's doctrine and the Bible, I'd know which one to "throw in the bin". But in this case, I don't even know which one is man's doctrine. It's not obvious! How do I know that the Bible didn't mean six literal days? Answers In Genesis gives some pretty valid arguments for that interpretation.I've read the Bible cover-to-cover a couple times, and a lot of it is more straightforward. But the really interesting parts, the eschatology in revelation, the creation in Genesis, it all has to be interpreted, and it has been interpreted in a zillion ways! Oftentimes the interpretations have roughly equal support from scripture, because it is so vague. How am I supposed to know whether amillenialism or pre-millenialism are biblical or man's doctrine for example?It is very hard to empirically evaluate the truth of something, when you don't even know for sure what it is saying. If the Bible does say that the earth was created 6000 years ago, then it is clearly not infallible. But I can't know whether that's what the original writers intended, because nobody agrees what it says. I can use my own interpretation, but then I'm taking a faith position, and not a skeptical one. So how do you know? Aren't you being told by the old-earth creationism camp what the Bible says? Can you say for certain that the word Yom in the creation account does not mean 24-hour day? I just glanced through the AiG arguments, but it looks to me like Yom is usually refering to a 24-hour day in the OT. If I said that your interpretation was man's doctrine and theirs was the true biblical interpretation, how is that different from your opposite assertion? Now this I like better. A truly empirical approach. Now I've just got to wait for angels and trumpets and giant locusts with the head of a man to see the predictions of Revelations come true.
But seriously, I do enjoy reading about biblical prophesies that are fulfilled in modern times. It's actually pretty incredible at times. Perhaps you could supply me with a few examples?My only quarrel with this approach is that it ties into my earlier discussion about interpretation. It would be so easy to reinterpret a vague passage in the Bible to fit something that's happening today. I'm not saying that prophesies are not being fulfilled! Far from it. I'm just saying that we have to be cautious about the original intent of the passage before we decide whether a prophecy has come true, or not. So, please provide an example or two of the most convincing prophesy fulfilments. If I come across the book I will read it. Hopefully I will learn something.

Sounds like 'trust' to me... I don't think that's faith either I'd call that willfull ignorance and mental gymnastics.For me, the worldview is shaped by experience. Faith is reserved for a position that lacks sufficient evidence but is believed anyway. I know what your referring to but I just don't use the word 'faith' for it. I don't think a strictly empirical approach is going to work for things that aren't clearly and objectively existant.

Thank you CS.I agree, my definition of weak faith is about synonomous to trust. But trust can be very strong. I'd be very, very surprised if my best friend robbed me. I'm pretty convinced that scenario will never occur, but of course, I am not certain. It could happen. I may have completely misjudged the loyalty of my friends. They might all be scumbags, and I might just be a naive, gullible, person. But I don't think so.But because I don't have absolute certainty, I would be able to accept that it occured if such an event ever were to unfold.In your definition of faith, does faith entitle certainty? In other words, are you certain of those things that lack "sufficient evidence but are believed anyway"? Or do you just believe them, not certain, but sufficiently convinced by subjective evidence to take a stand?

You're welcome, Meldinoor... What does "Meldinoor" mean? <-- clicky Well okay, I guess that's fine. For sure. Look at how bad some marriages end. Nope. If I was certain then I would "know". Yes, the latter. That's how it feels to me.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Hey CS. I am not here to continue old (and ongoing) differences. But I am genuinely interested in faith and what it means to different people. So I will ask a question and I promise not to debate the answer you give. I won't even reply.The faith you describe sounds like a kind of overconfidence in poor evidence rather than what I would have thought many mean by faith. So if evidence did ever appear that did refute or contradict your faith would you abandon your faith?I guess that my question amounts to: Is your faith reliant upon and subject to evidence? Or is it something deeper and independent of evidence at root?

If its genuine interest, then reply away. I'm open to sharing. I don't care to "argue" my personal beliefs though. Yeah, but in addition to the overconfidence in poor evidence remains the confidence in the face of a lack of evidence that I think you're thinking many others mean by faith. Is that what you're referring to? Yes, to an extent.Its so hypothetical though. It depends on the strength of the evidence vs. the strength of the faith. For examples: Zeitgiest didn't make me doubt Jesus' divinity while the ToE proves that Genesis isn't literal and inerrant. I think its kind of both....It is subject to evidence, but there does seem to be something deeper there that I have little choice with.

Fair enough. I am genuinely questioning to find out here. Not to confront or to get ammunition for other discussions. Tell me where to get off if you think I transgress that self declared boundary at any point in this topic. I was thinking more about brief conversations with (or that I have witnessed others have with) Blujay and Percy. Their faith seems kind of evidence independent. I wondered if yours was very different. It seems it might be. Direct refutation is impossible with regard to the sort of concepts we are talking about. But others seem to think that their faith based conclusion are flying in the face of likelihood without being particularly concerned by this. Well that is interesting. I am not sure that I understand it. But it is interesting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, indeed. The people of faith can be 100% sure that they should burn one another at the stake, or they should hijack planes and crash them into the Twin Towers on 9/11, or that God tells them that they should take a gun and shoot up a church because it is too "liberal" ...And the skeptics will never be 100% sure that they should burn people at the stake for disagreeing with them. Those poor, poor, skeptics, they just don't get it. They'll never burn anyone alive, poor deluded creatures that they are. They lack that 100% certainty that faithful people possess.

Got a link? Sounds like an interesting read. I doubt it is very different, but my faith is not evidence independent. I was an atheist for a while around college-time. I did some investigating of various religion and soul-searching kind of stuff and ended up concluding that god does exist. From what I experienced, I don't think I can go back and choose to not believe in god anymore. What do you mean that they think that their conclusion are flying in the face of likelihood? Like I was saying above, I'm convinced. I'm capable of being convinced otherwise, but still then, it wouldn't really be me choosing to be convinced. It would just happen.For a, somewhat poor, analogy (that I think has been brought up to you before), think of your favorite color. Do you have any choice in that matter? I don't, I just like red.