Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi Radz,i did go away for a week so i apologize for not seeing this post soonerim not catholic, im a JW. We are not associated with any church. Yes, that is exactly what i'm saying.The important thing to take into consideration when reading the bible is to remember that it was not written in english but in Hebrew.The first thing that we need to know is what the original words meant in hebrew and a lot of research has gone into understanding the original language.The Hebrew word she’ohl′ occurs 65 times in the Masoretic text. In the King James Version, it is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit. The Catholic Douay Version rendered the word 63 times as hell, once as pit, and once as death. In addition, at Isaiah 7:11 the Hebrew text originally read she’ohl′, and it was rendered as Hades in the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and as hell in the Douay VersionThere is no English word that conveys the precise sense of the Hebrew word she’ohl′

quote:

---

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276):

​

Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth.... The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentilesall slept together without awareness of one another.

---

In Hebrew the meaning of sheol was quite clear. It was where people go when they die...back to the earth in an unconscious state.Understanding this makes every occurance of the english word Hell in the bible simply mean 'the state of death'
so when the bible writer says 'you will go down to hell forever'...it simply means you will die.It does not mean you will be living on in some fiery place of eternal torment forever. We need to understand the bible in the language it was written in...when we do that, we begin to see the difference in bible teachings and those of the churchs. If the bible says A+B=C but someone else says A+B=D and another says A+B=E then JW's will always trust the bible as the source of truth.There are several ways to test a teaching. One is to look at the orignal language. Another way is to look at the history of a teaching and who first presented it and why. Then the teaching has to be compared to the bible itself to see if its consistent with mutliple bible writers.Hell is good example of how the teaching can be easily debunked.1. Hell is translated from Sheol, a word that means an unconscious state of death.2. When compared to other bible writers its clear that hell cannot be what the church says it is. Did the Hebrew Bible writers say that conscious life and hot activity exist in Sheol or hell? No, quite the opposite! Instead of blazing fire it is described as a land of darkness. (Job 10:21) Instead of a place of soul-chilling shrieks it is described as a place of silence. (Ps. 115:17) The Catholic Douay Bible, at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, says: The living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, or as the King James Version says, the dead know not any thing, it would be impossible for them to know conscious torment.3. When we research the origins of 'hell' its clear that they are pagan in origin. Ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs of the nether world is pictured as a place full of horrors, andispresidedover by gods and demons of great strength andfierceness. this is very true. That being the case then surely you'd agree that God (if you believe he exists) must also have his own view of reality. If he does then the only way to know what it is to get it from the source that is said to come from him...the bible.

Hi Peg, nice to see you back (we seem to be swamped with incredulous atheists at the moment), so let's get back to the topic. I hope you had a good week, alas for me it was h... ah ... extremely uncomfortable (chemo), but getting better. I've known some JW people, but not well, and certainly not introduced to their beliefs, which leaves me with secondary sources that could be full of falsehoods and me none the wiser. That was my impression from other sources (some jewish friends and previous debates). Interesting. In this case meaning the bible where hell is an unconscious dark silent eternity. It seems to me that this approach is heavily dependent on interpretations and cross-referencing.What do you do when there is disagreement between (a) two different parts of the bible, or (b) two different scholars about the interpretation/s?How is conflict resolved?In science we resolve conflict by testing the conflicting concepts against evidence, to see if one can be invalidated by new evidence that shows that the concept is invalid. While this cannot be done for all concepts, and on some others we are waiting for the evidence to come in, it is a piecemeal process that gradually over time seems to draw closer and closer to a valid picture of reality. My view, as a deist, is that the best way to come to know about god/s or creation is to study the product, the "collected works" as it were.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You appear to have had a reasonable amount of time to form some kind of tentitive conclusion. What kind of god do you envisage based on the above approach?Supposing for a moment the 'collected works' of creation as presented to you were analogous to a sagging-on-it's-springs, rusted old BMW: a remarkable work - but clearly flawed. And you'd never seen a new BMW. How does your approach circumvent the natural tendency to conclude the BMW's designer somewhat incapable?

Hi Razd,im very sorry to hear that, I hope things improve for you soon. yes exactly. sheol and hades mean the state of being dead. So if we replaced every occurance of the word Hell in the bible with either of these words, the idea of a place of fiery torment is no more. The hebrew language is pretty well established. I dont think any scholars are in debate over the meaning of 'sheol' or 'hades'. We are fortunate that God saw fit to have the holy scriptures translated into Koine Greek. When the Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint version of the Hebrew OT, we can be confident that they translated it accurately for they were the original speakers of the hebrew. So while the original ancient hebrew is no longer a spoken language, they know a lot about it thru the SeptuagintI dont believe there are any disagreements in different parts of the bible. When you take out the false ideas such as hell for instance, the bible is in perfect harmony.Do you have any examples in mind?With regard to scholars and their disagreements, its certainly encouraging to know that many of them have spent their lifes work in trying to understand the scriptures. Sadly, for a long time one of their greatest obstacles has been the church itself. We are pretty fortunate now that so many bible manuscripts have been found and researched that their is a fairly strong concensous on the original meanings of wordsWhat is encouraging for me is that I've been studying hebrew with jewish teachers this year and i'm finding, so far, that my understanding is in harmony with their understanding. This has certainly strengthened my confidence in the Watchtower society and the information that I get from them. I believe they are most definitely teaching the truth as it was known by the original writers. by that do you mean the bible itself?

Hi Oni, Thank you Assuming we had no evidence as to the composition of water, any claim would be equally probable. Since there is an infinitude of possible claims, and only one can be true (in this example), any specific claim about water's composition would be extremely unlikely. Only after evidence has been found to favour the H2O hypothesis, and most other explanations have been ruled out, can we assign any degree of likelihood to it.I agree that the approach you describe above is a rational one. However, to be truly skeptical, would it not be better to avoid taking an initial position at all? Claiming that water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen is as much of an assertion as saying that it does. Even if the negative assertion is far more likely to be true. (In an infinite set of possibilities, NOT H2O is infinitely more probable than H2O)As such, I think we differ only on semantics. While you might say, "no it isn't" to an unevidenced positive assertion, I would say "I don't know one way or the other, but I won't accept your hypothesis until you demonstrate its viability". The difference between your water example, and the existence of the supernatural, is that the latter is (for lack of better terminology) a binary scenario. Either the supernatural exists, or it doesn't. Your claim that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen is one of many claims that could be made about water's composition. If you go far enough back, water was thought to be an element, not necessarily composed of any subcomponents at all. The claim "water is an element" is a binary one. Water either consists of subcomponents, or it doesn't. With no evidence either way, we would have to conclude that either hypothesis is equally probable (and then find out which one fits the evidence).Similarly, if someone claims there is a class of phenomena that exists beyond the natural universe, and beyond our ability to study them by current methods, then he is either right or wrong. The two possibilities should be viewed as equiprobable in the absence of evidence (which might be permanent).However, once the person becomes more specific in his claim, the set of possible alternatives becomes near infinite. Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, IPU or 9-dimensional Magic Pencils (bluegenes gets credit for the last one) are only a few of these possibilites. Because we know nothing (at least not empirically) of the alleged supernatural realm, we have no basis on which to favour any one of these concepts over another. Yes, science can only work with objective evidence. However, personal beliefs are not always founded on scientific methodology. Oftentimes we'll believe something because we hear it from a figure of authority, or out of our own experience, or because it's "common knowledge". I'm pretty sure the average human accepts many "beliefs" on a daily basis, that he/she does not bother to subject to scientific methodology.If a person holds a belief in a deity (or several) on the basis of personal history, and said belief does not in any way contradict empirical findings, then that person's belief is justified by the only evidence available to him. By the same token, I am unable to default to a 7, a 6, or even a 4 on the Dawkins scale. This isn't because I'm not being skeptical. It is because the only evidence I have is subjective, and therefore I can not ignore it.I think that's where most people who claim to have faith are, when it comes down to it. However, when a holder of such a belief tries to convince others by presenting it as an objectively evidenced hypothesis, or when one attempts to ignore that which is objectively known to be true in favour of said belief, that's when an open-minded believer leaves all vestiges of skepticism behind to become a close-minded zealot.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi Peg,In light of the topic of this thread I have to ask you: Why do YOU believe there is a god? Furthermore, why do you believe in a specific God?Faith or skepticism?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi melindoor I have always believed in a creator of the natural world. I can remember in school arguing with my science teacher about evolution and about the likelyhood of the world just happeningI was completely skeptitical about evolution even before i did any serious study of the bible and even before I was a part of any religion (I grew up in a non religous household)It was this skeptisism that made me interested in learning about God, i went to a few different places, i tried the mormons, i tried my local christian fellowship church (cant remember who they were) I tried the Orange people (buddism) i also went to the church of scientology for a short (Very short) while.What made me listen to the JW's was the fact that they were able to show me proof of the bibles truth via prophecies. Not only that but the most profound truth for me was that God was more then just a force, he had a personality a name and a purpose. To learn that God had a name was like a light going on and to learn about the prophecies made me realise that the bible writers must have been guided by a higher power.

You see that first line there... where it says "we're not justifying belief"? Why are you arguing that we are justifying belief?Looks like you've jumped right back into your same old mode again

quote:

---

But your argument is about comparing the amount of evidence for two mutually exculsive position where you've labeled one position as have absolutely no evidence when in fact it does.

​

quote:

---

There is no objectively evidenced reason to think gods even might exist.

​

(snip)

​

the possibility of gods being human inventions is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility than the totally objectively unevidenced possibility that gods actually exist.

---

​

The propensity of the belief in god is objective evidence that suggests a possibility that gods actually exist, so the possibility of them being human invention is not infinitely more objectively evidenced.

---

No. The prevelence of the belief in god is an objectively evidenced reason to think that gods might exist.Since we have a reason to think that it might, we cannot say that the possibility of it being human invention is infinitely more evidenced so that we can determine the likelyhood so easily.Since we can no longer assume the likelyhood based on absolutes, then we'd actually have to look at the evidence and try to form an actual likelyhood. But I doubt that's gonna happen.Although you do say the evidence is immense....

quote:

---

General ideas respecting God and human nature are therefore the ideas above all others which it is most suitable to withdraw from the habitual action of private judgment and in which there is most to gain and least to lose by recognizing a principle of authority. The first object and one of the principal advantages of religion is to furnish to each of these fundamental questions a solution that is at once clear, precise, intelligible, and lasting, to the mass of mankind. There are religions that are false and very absurd, but it may be affirmed that any religion which remains within the circle I have just traced, without pretending to go beyond it (as many religions have attempted to do, for the purpose of restraining on every side the free movement of the human mind ), imposes a salutary restraint on the intellect; and it must be admitted that, if it does not save men in another world, it is at least very conducive to their happiness and their greatness in this.

​

This is especially true of men living in free countries. When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them.

​

Such a condition cannot but enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude. Not only does it happen in such a case that they allow their freedom to be taken from them; they frequently surrender it themselves. When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics, men are speedily frightened at the aspect of this unbounded independence. The constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the mind, they determine at least that the mechanism of society shall be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master.

​

For my own part, I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire political freedom. And I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in him, he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe.

---

Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume 2, Chapter V, HOW RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES AVAILS ITSELF OF DEMOCRATIC TENDENCIESTocqueville makes some interesting points in defence of faith. He goes on to say that, "The greatest advantage of religion is to inspire diametrically contrary principles" - an early defence of the utility of cognitive dissonance perhaps, and the truth behind the religion is not of concern to him since religions impose a sense of duty towards his fellow man and that this is true even of, "the most false and dangerous religions."It's the dangerous religions the skeptics point at - and the way that it is impossible to know if the one you believe is dangerous while also believing it. But to Tocqueville, the unity that religion brings to a nation gives it a direction and without it the nation would be forced into inaction through indecision and hand wringing.But read the first paragraph of the first quote I gave and look at that clause:

quote:

---

but it may be affirmed that any religion which remains within the circle I have just traced, without pretending to go beyond it (as many religions have attempted to do, for the purpose of restraining on every side the free movement of the human mind ), imposes a salutary restraint on the intellect

---

What does that mean? Tocqueville gives an outlook of Islam and Christianity within the context of free democracy:

quote:

---

Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.

---

I don't think Tocqueville would garner agreement over his characterisation of Gospel, but I think we can understand the kind of religion that Tocqueville is praising having faith in from it.But for Tocqueville, religious faith isn't just a functional goodness it is the natural state for man to be in and that only by, "a kind of aberration of the intellect and with the aid of a sort of moral violence exercised on their own nature do men stray from religious belief. An invincible inclination leads them back to religion. Disbelief is an accident. Faith alone is the permanent state of humanity". Faith makes life happier, and gives us reasons to be nice to one another and having reasons to be nice to each other is nice too, and it doesn't require rigorous training in logic, deduction, empiricism, morality and metaphysics to deduce reasons to be nice to one another.Tocqueville probably had a 'religions provide morals' thought going on in there somewhere - but I think it can be generalised to 'religions provide us with easy to understand reasons for our moral drives' - and there is merit in having easy to understand answers - even if they are false.Let me expand a little. Take the concept of 'liberty'. There is no empirical reason why 'liberty' is 'good'. It may be possible to derive some philosophical argument as to why 'liberty' is worth fighting/dying for, but it won't persuade everyone. Some people will take longer to be persuaded than others, some will never be persuaded. A sort of Tocquevillian paralysis might occur and while that happens we all stand to lose liberty. Perhaps it would be better that we find an easier way than philosophical persuasion to inculcate a strong belief in the principle of liberty, so that we as a group will be universally ready to defend it should it be threatened. This belief we want others to have is based on our own personal desires (whether philosophically derived or otherwise), it is the substance of things hoped for. It serves as the evidence of things that are not actually shown.

Perhaps my water example did have an infinitude of possible claims.But lets not harp on that, and I'll take it from your suggested point. Then you are not being skeptical, but are simply being neutral.True skepticism takes the opposite position to the claim, forcing those making the claim to bring evidence to support the claim.The supernatural exists: No it doesn'tWater is an element: No it isn't.Each claim should have the ability to proves itself true, at the very least, each should present a method to get there. Probablitity not withstanding, the point is that one should take the null position until any evidence to support the claim is shown.If it doesn't have any consequences in reality, then the claim is telling us nothing about the world we live in. If that satisfies someone to still keep it as a probability, then they are using nothing but faith to support it and have abandoned logic. To me, having "atheist" on the Dawkin scale is a red-herring.Atheism is not a position in favor of or against god, it is a defalt to the null position of "Not true" until any evidence can be presented for it.I think it should be 1-6, and atheism would stand alone.If whatever you believe in has no consequences in reality, to include able to present objective evidence, or able to present a phenomenon that could only be answered with what you believe, then you are not describing anything about the world we live in ... so then, what ARE you describing?- Oni

Then what the hell am I supposed to call somebody that believes that god doesn't exist!?That is what atheism has always been, afterall.

Not quite. Atheists don't believe god exists, but don't necessarily believe god doesn't exist. You could say a Strong Atheist has that positive belief, whereas a Weak Atheist merely lacks belief in god.

Instead of dragging this thread off topic, we could discuss the issue where it is the topic: Message 1

I don't think you'll find any athiest that "believes" god doesn't exist - I suspect you'll find most of athiest say something along the lines of "given the LACK of evidence, god(s) are highly improbably."In fact, just saying "I don't believe in god," IMO, gives relevance to the question of "Is there a god?"If I say "I don't believe" you could simply point to me having a form of faith that leads me away from the belief in god(s).Then, as RAZD tried to do in the pseudo-thread (which he still doesn't realize is wrong), you could ask me for the evidence I'm using to disbelieve - this would be logical for you to ask. Which destroys the position, and exposes it as a negative hypothesis.Likewise, if you say you believe god exists, I could ask for your evidence and expose it as a negative as well. We went through this in the pseudo-thread.BUT - since we don't say "We don't believe in god," we simply say "given the lack of evidence it's highly improbable" - It is a null position awaiting evidence that supports the presumed God Exists hypothesis. Not subjective either, objective, like we require for everything else. Call us atheist just don't accuse us of having a belief in no-god(s).There is no faith in atheism.I am an atheist in regards to:-Telepathy
-Fairies
-Leprechauns
-Unicorns
-Celestial Teapots
-FSM
-IPU
-God(s)
any other paranormal/supernatural "thing" that someone can think of.Not because I believe they don't exist, that would be silly. I'm an atheist in regards to them because they lack evidence to support the idea that they exist.However, they could very well exist - ALL of them - there's just no evidence for it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi bluegenes, I love the all or nothing false dichotomies.First we had (ad nauseum) many posts claiming that 6 atheist = agnostic: Pseudoskepticism and logic ie atheist == agnostic. (Noting that this was done to avoid the need for supporting the atheist (6) position with evidence).Now we have claims that you can't be atheistic, a 6, based on actual evidence if your are an agnostic on something else (where there is no evidence pro or con). ie the argument now is that you can't be an atheist (based on evidence) if you are an agnostic (when there is no evidence)?Leaving aside the issue of one claim (that the earth is less than 400,000 years old, btw) being supported by replicatable empirical and objective evidence, this creates a logical problem.Let's insert the definition claimed in Message 496 into this latest claim: you can't be an agnostic (based on evidence) if you are an agnostic (when there is no evidence) ... no, that doesn't seem to work ...... let's try the other way: you can't be an atheist (based on evidence) if you are an atheist (when there is no evidence) ... no that doesn't work either.Looks like you have contradicted yourself, so at least one of you is wrong.Enjoy.ps - Nobody has posted on Winners and Losers for a while ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •