Faith vs Science

Stile writes: If we remove a bunch of our knowledge, and a bunch of the information that we have, and restrict our information to a few things... then that information can reasonably lead us to think that an intelligence is involved. That would be based on the evidence. But we do have that knowledge, and we do have that information. Based on the knowledge and information that we do have... it is not "based on the evidence" to conclude that an intelligence is ultimately behind the universe.

That is your conclusion. My conclusion is that with the knowledge that we have it is more than reasonable to conclude that we are the result of an intelligent agent or agents.

Stile writes: But those two are not connected. I agree that life is far more complex than an airplane. However, we know that complexity does not have to come from intelligent sources. We have identified (and created ourselves) many, many non-intelligent sources that create things that are much more complex than airplanes. Snowflakes are created non-intelligently, they are complex (I would say, not-as-complex-as-an-airplane, but still complex). Crystals are created non-intelligently, they are complex. Comets, planets and stars are created non-intelligently, they are complex (much more complex than an airplane). We have programmed non-intelligent software models that create solutions to problems so complex that we can't even figure out how they work! But they work... So, we know of many complex things that we understand took intelligence to design them. We also know of many complex things that we understand did not take intelligence to design them. I agree that if we ignore the information about knowing how non-intelligent processes can create complex things... than it would be reasonable to conclude that an intelligence is behind the complex creation of our universe and existence. However, if we look at all the information we have, then it is very UNreasonable to conclude that intelligent-agents are behind the creation of our universe when we know for a fact that non-intelligent processes are quite capable of creating complex things all the time. Therefore, the fact that life is complex is not evidence that an intelligent being is involved. Otherwise, the fact that I parked at the mall would be evidence that I am, indeed, going to get a haircut. Are you sure you want to call that "reasonable?"

But you keep making the same mistake. Yes you can explain, at least to a large degree, how everything from snow flakes to life came into existence. That isn't the point. Understanding the process does not explain the existence of the process itself. It is the equivalent of you understanding how a car is assembled on an assembly line and then using that for an argument that a car is simply the result of a chance combination of particles.

It is the equivalent of you understanding how a car is assembled on an assembly line and then using that for an argument that a car is simply the result of a chance combination of particles.

I think you have this mixed up no? If we understand how a car is assembled we obviously aren't arguing that is it a chance combination of parts delivered to the assembly line.

I presume you mean that we are arguing that the assembly line is the chance combination of particles/parts, yes?

But we do not know how the universe came into existence and is as it is. It is certainly possible that it both had to come into existence and this is the only way it could possibly be. That involves not freaky lucky event at all. We do not know.

You are saying that because we don't know then an intelligent agent is a likely explanation. That is, you want to put a god into this gap in our knowledge.

This argument as been used over and over again for millennia and it has proven to be poor reasoning and very poor theology over and over.

GDR writes: I am only arguing here for the existence of any intelligent agent and not a specific one. I do believe that there is evidence for the validity of the Christian faith but that isn't the argument I'm making.

Yes, you've switched the argument from the original one of there being an exact equivalence between faith in your god and 'faith' in science, to the existence or otherwise of an unspecified intelligence. I assume you'll now abandon that original claim.

quote:

---

What is the evidence that you talk about. You can come up with numerous processes such as evolution to explain how life arose but if there is anything that smacks of intelligence it is the evolutionary process.

---

But GDR, we can watch evolution happening naturally in, for example, viruses and we can track all its componants in, for example, the peppered moth. We know that the process requires no godly intervention. You have been given other examples of complexity not requiring intelligent intervention, crystals, snowflakes, planets - whole galaxies. It's been raised before that people like Stephen Hawkings claim that the mathematics behind the universe demonstrte that it could pouf itself into existence without any intervention.

Despite hundreds of years of scientific enquiry, no supernatural involvement in our world has ever been shown. In fact exactly the opposite has happened, superstitious and religious beliefs in every area of human life have been shown to be specious and often deliberately fraudulent.

So we have evidence for our environment to have come about entirely naturally, no evidence for it not to have and plenty of evidence that supernatural belief systems are simply wrong.

On top of that, your personal belief has nothing to do with these arguments, you don't believe in a generalised, non-interested, theistic God. You believe in a specific interventionist God who you wouldn't believe in if you'd been born in a village in the Atlas mountains. You're cherry picking and rationalising. You simply have a faith and that faith is the exact opposite of a 'faith' in science.

GDR writes: My conclusion is that with the knowledge that we have it is more than reasonable to conclude that we are the result of an intelligent agent or agents.

Here, "more than reasonable" is an undefined, personal term. I'm not sure what you mean by it.
It may very well be "more than reasonable" to you.

However, if we are basing things on the evidence, then it most certainly is not "more than reasonable" to make a conclusion that only comes from the evidence if you ignore most of it.

When conclusions are based on evidence, it is implied that we are taking into account *all* the information we have available to us.

Conclusions based on evidence cannot be "interpreted" one way or another... there is always only 1 way to interpret evidence. Otherwise it's not evidence.

It is also quite possible to type out the words "I look at all the evidence and I find it most reasonable to conclude that the earth is flat."
Such strings of characters are meaningless when it is obvious that certain information is being ignored.

But you keep making the same mistake.

I don't think I am.

What we see is many things created by humans can be complex and require intelligence to be formed.
We also see many things created by nature that can be complex and do not require intelligence to be formed.

What we're discussing is the beginning of the universe and wondering whether or not it may have an intelligence behind it's formation.

All testing so far indicates that no intelligence is necessary and there are no signs of finding one.

Therefore, the evidence is telling us that the current conclusion is that no external intelligence behind the creation of the universe exists.

Of course it may be wrong.
Of course an intelligence could hide itself.

However, to say that this is not what the current information we have actually says... is akin to saying that the world is flat and you're just interpreting the evidence differently and everyone's free to do that.

Understanding the process does not explain the existence of the process itself.

This is correct.
What makes you think the existence of the process itself can be anything other than it is?
Answer that with some evidence leading towards an intelligence... and you'll have a point.
Without being able to answer that, the "current evidence" is still such that no intelligence is required and no signs of any intelligence is found... therefore no intelligence exists.

It is the equivalent of you understanding how a car is assembled on an assembly line and then using that for an argument that a car is simply the result of a chance combination of particles.

No, it's not. Again, this is like the airplane. It's only reasonable if you ignore a lot of the information we have. This analogy does not depict the sort of information we have on the issue.

Here's a better analogy:

What we have is seeing a bunch of play-doh.
Then we see perfectly square play-doh. And perfectly round play-doh. And perfectly octagonal-playdoh.

...at this point, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligence is behind the perfect shapes.

But then we find a play-dough extruder (that fun little thing that pushes play-doh through to make perfect shapes.)
And we see how it works, but it does not require intelligence.

Now we can explain perfect play-doh squares, perfectly round play-doh and perfectly octagonal-playdoh.
But where does the machine come from? How does it work without intelligence?

We search around further and we find play-doh-extruder-makers occurring naturally. They also do not require intelligence.
We search around further and we find different styles of play-doh-extruders occurring naturally, some very different but still resulting in the same perfect play-doh squares and octagons. None of them require intelligence to operate.

We attempt to make some models ourselves. We make a bunch of extra assumptions... but we are able to create non-intelligent models that, given the right conditions, form play-doh-extruder-makers on their own and start producing perfect squares, circles and octagons. We look into it and discover that the "right conditions" are very similar to those we find in our past.

We search around further and we find out that the play-doh-extruder-makers are made up entirely of materials that form naturally, without the requirement of any intelligence, found throughout our data concerning the distant past.

We start looking further and further into the past. We find lots of things that may-or-may-not ever become play-doh-extruder-makers, but there is some potential. We also find lots of processes and systems for creating all those things... naturally, without intelligence involved.

We also have some people who insist that all play-doh-perfect-squares are divinely inspired.
They have searched all the information available as well, but they cannot find a single piece of evidence pointing towards the existence of any divine-ness at all... let alone one that decides to create perfect play-doh squares.

This is what we have.
This is *all the information*.

Every step we take we find another layer that does not require intelligence to occur. It just happens because that's what happens when these conditions are present.

Yes, it's possible that there's "an intelligence" behind it all.
It's also possible that a non-intelligent unicorn is "behind it all."
We are able to imagine many, many things that align with the available evidence.

However, with all this information there is only one idea that keeps re-occurring... that all these processes occur because it's just the way things are and there's no intelligence behind them.

Again, yes, it's possible for this inductive-reasoning to come to a grinding halt on the very next level... if we actually do find evidence of some intelligence behind it.

But... we haven't found that information yet.
Perhaps we never will and the intelligence actually exists and the conclusion-that-the-evidence-points-at will just always be wrong.
Perhaps we never will and the conclusion that no intelligence actually exists has always been correct... but we'll never know because we never end up knowing "everything."

There are many, many possibilities.

But there is only one reasonable conclusion that comes from the current evidence - there is no such thing as an intelligence ultimately behind the universe and our creation.

Tangle writes: Yes, you've switched the argument from the original one of there being an exact equivalence between faith in your god and 'faith' in science, to the existence or otherwise of an unspecified intelligence. I assume you'll now abandon that original claim.

No I haven’t. Yes I believe in God as found in the Christian faith but my argument in this thread has been about faith that there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence as opposed to non-intelligent causes for our existence.

Tangle writes: But GDR, we can watch evolution happening naturally in, for example, viruses and we can track all its componants in, for example, the peppered moth. We know that the process requires no godly intervention. You have been given other examples of complexity not requiring intelligent intervention, crystals, snowflakes, planets - whole galaxies. It's been raised before that people like Stephen Hawkings claim that the mathematics behind the universe demonstrte that it could pouf itself into existence without any intervention.

As you say, Hawking says that “mathematics behind the universe COULD pour itself into the universe without any intervention”. It is his belief and yours. My contention is that it didn’t happen that way and as we both know this is disputed within the scientific community to about the same degree as anywhere else.

The problem is that except for fundamentalists that insist on understanding the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God there is no conflict between science and religion. I agree that science should be used to help to understand how God has done what He has done but religion should only inform science to the degree that science has long accepted, and that is that there is order to the universe.
However, if you turn science into a pseudo-religion and say that because we have determined facts about that order, there is nothing more, then that is no better than letting religion inform science. Certainly, science has made huge progress in understanding the workings of the universe. However, when it steps beyond science and starts saying that because we can see that the processes happen without apparent intervention there is no need for an intelligent agent being responsible for those processes then they have stepped beyond science and into philosophy or religion.

Tangle writes: On top of that, your personal belief has nothing to do with these arguments, you don't believe in a generalised, non-interested, theistic God. You believe in a specific interventionist God who you wouldn't believe in if you'd been born in a village in the Atlas mountains. You're cherry picking and rationalising.

In order for me to adhere to the beliefs of a specific religion I had to conclude that there is an intelligent agent responsible for my existence so it has everything to do with these arguments. You were in a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage and you’re neither Christian or Jewish. Certainly our cultural environment is a huge factor in determining our beliefs, but so what.

Tangle writes: You simply have a faith and that faith is the exact opposite of a 'faith' in science.

I’m glad that you have finally agreed that your beliefs are a faith.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

GDR writes: I’m glad that you have finally agreed that your beliefs are a faith.

This is beneath you. When a word is in quotes like in this instance, it indicates the opposite meaning and you know this.

There is no evidence that an intelligence is responsible for our universe but you may believe whatever you want.

Stile writes: What makes you think the existence of the process itself can be anything other than it is? Answer that with some evidence leading towards an intelligence... and you'll have a point. Without being able to answer that, the "current evidence" is still such that no intelligence is required and no signs of any intelligence is found... therefore no intelligence exists.

Processes such as an automobile assembly lie or evolution are indicative of intelligence. Antony Flew rejected his long adherence to atheism but what he considered to be evidence. He said this:

quote:

---

“I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

---

I'm sorry that I can't respond to more of your post but I just don't have the time to keep up with so many responders.

GDR writes: No I haven’t.

Yes you have. You responded to this:

Phat writes: So in other words, you have faith in evidence? Tangle writes: Why, why, why do believers always need make this damned silly equivalence? It's seems so deeply embedded in their make-up - I'm continually having to correct GDR who brings it up every 6 months or so as if for the first time.

To confirm, the scientific 'faith' in evidence based answers to questions is based on KNOWLEDGE not belief. We KNOW things to be facts, we do not have faith in them. I have given you V=I*R as an example of something we know based on evidence and the entire world relies on that knowledge to make everything electrical that we own work. You have not challenged that so let's just accept that as non-controversial should we?

Yes I believe in God as found in the Christian faith but my argument in this thread has been about faith that there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence as opposed to non-intelligent causes for our existence.

Right, and then you say that I and other atheists must, as a consequence of your irrational belief, have a similar irrational belief to the contrary. It's a non-sequitur.

You have a faith in a Christian God. Because of that faith you claim a intelligent creator. It was in that order wasn't it? You, like millions of others had the belief first and then attempted to rationalise it.

My own experience is that I had a belief because I was taught it at a time before I was able to think for myself - that is the process for all religions everywhere. As I learned more about the world it became obvious that these ritualistic and primitive belief systems were all unsupported human inventions. All their claims are either flat out false or reliant on pure belief. So much is obvious - it simply can't be otherwise; if you study comparative religions objectively you see immediately that people can and will believe anything and everything - we have a superstitious, social mind.

So that's religion written off as bonkers with no supporting evidence whatsoever and plenty to show that it's nothing more than another evolved trait being exploited by people with personal and political ambition.

You obviously disagree with that analysis but it doesn't matter because It still leaves the backstop of an ultimate cause - the final problem - that you now rely on to justify your own superstition.

There's lots of problems to sort out with it. My personal big one is the way this supposed intelligence has deliberately fucked us up. Inorder to survive on this world that this intelligence has created, everything has to kill and eat everything else. This competition for survival and the short, painful lives of disease and tribulation that comes with it, accuses this so called 'intelligence' of being evil. This is a problem that no religion has solved.

So the intelligence if it exists is either non-benign or disinterested. Neither is a useful result, but if I had to choose I'd go with disinterested. The very last thing I want is an ugly supernatural mind taking an interest in me.

But the clincher is that nothing we've ever found points to anything supernatural and science has debunked virtually every piece of magical thinking from dowsing to prayer healing. So the working hypothesis is that everything is natural.

This is where your confusion arises between your faith in something supernatural and my lack of faith in it. it's that way around, I lack your faith, I do not have a faith that everything is natural. I have evidence that everything we've found so far is natural. I expect that to continue. It's a hypothesis, not a belief. "I don't know yet" is quite different from "I believe". Please stop trying to make your belief equivalent to my lack of it.

I’m glad that you have finally agreed that your beliefs are a faith.

Childish. If you wish to delete that silly comment I wouldn't object.

Of course scripture says that without Faith it is impossible to please God. Secular critics assert that without evidence it is impossible to prove God. They then go on to cite "evidence" from scholars of various gods,deities,spaghetti monsters and other vain imaginations from the human animal as their summation that God does not exist. I have subjective data in my mind and heart that God not only exists but desires a relationship with each of us. Critics would counter that I believe only what I was culturally taught and that apart from that, I have nothing. Problem being that they demand evidence before they will allow themselves faith.

Hebrews 11:1 writes: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Thats NIV...so lets dig a bit deeper.

quote:

---

Heb 11:1-6 Now faith is the( substanceNT:5287
hupostasis (hoop-os'-tas-is); from a compound of NT:5259 and NT:2476; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively) - confidence, confident, person...) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
KJV

---

Why would God care if we believed that he exists or not?

What does Strongs say about substance and evidence.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

Phat writes: Of course scripture says that without Faith it is impossible to please God.

As you're addressing this at me, I need to remind you that I haven't the faintest interest in what scripture says - it's not evidence for anything other than people had a mythology a few thousand years ago. It's of no consequence today apart from its extant delusional effect on the superstitious. It's just one of many mythological beliefs.

quote:

---

Problem being that they demand evidence before they will allow themselves faith.

---

if there was evidence faith would not be required. It's the lack of evidence that's the drives the need for faith.

quote:

---

Why would God care if we believed that he exists or not?

---

Well, quite.

quote:

---

What does Strongs say about substance and evidence.

---

Who is Strongs and why should I care about him?

You are a stubborn one.

It's of no consequence today apart from its extant delusional effect on the superstitious. It's just one of many mythological beliefs.

I honestly don't think so.

Tangle writes: To confirm, the scientific 'faith' in evidence based answers to questions is based on KNOWLEDGE not belief. We KNOW things to be facts, we do not have faith in them. I have given you V=I*R as an example of something we know based on evidence and the entire world relies on that knowledge to make everything electrical that we own work. You have not challenged that so let's just accept that as non-controversial should we?

I suppose some people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I believe that they are wrong. I believe in God. You believe I'm wrong. Neither of us can know that we are right. They are simply our beliefs.

Tangle writes: You obviously disagree with that analysis but it doesn't matter because It still leaves the backstop of an ultimate cause - the final problem - that you now rely on to justify your own superstition.

If it makes you feel good to refer to my beliefs as superstition then great. I just don't feel that it strengthens your argument.

Tangle writes: There's lots of problems to sort out with it. My personal big one is the way this supposed intelligence has deliberately fucked us up. Inorder to survive on this world that this intelligence has created, everything has to kill and eat everything else. This competition for survival and the short, painful lives of disease and tribulation that comes with it, accuses this so called 'intelligence' of being evil. This is a problem that no religion has solved.

This is certainly the most difficult question for any theist to answer. My belief is that ultimately this is creation is going somewhere and that the suffering that is experienced in this life, including death, will no longer exist. The other thing is that as a Christian I am called to do whatever I can to help alleviate suffering either institutionally or individually.

Tangle writes: This is where your confusion arises between your faith in something supernatural and my lack of faith in it. it's that way around, I lack your faith, I do not have a faith that everything is natural. I have evidence that everything we've found so far is natural. I expect that to continue. It's a hypothesis, not a belief. "I don't know yet" is quite different from "I believe". Please stop trying to make your belief equivalent to my lack of it.

Yes everything we have found is natural. It is comprehensible by intelligent minds. Doesn't this in itself point to a rational intelligent cause? I can also say that I don't know yet whether God as I understand Him exists. It is my belief.

Tangle writes: Childish. If you wish to delete that silly comment I wouldn't object.

Sorry. It was an attempt at humour which was obviously to subtle. I'll go back and put a smily face on it to make it less so.

GDR writes: I suppose some people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I believe that they are wrong. I believe in God. You believe I'm wrong. Neither of us can know that we are right. They are simply our beliefs.

You're now equating a belief in the Loch Ness monster to my example of V=I*R? Really?

If it makes you feel good to refer to my beliefs as superstition then great. I just don't feel that it strengthens your argument.

I refer to then as superstitions because that's what they are. Your belief in a resurrected Christ is the same to me as my friends belief in Fate. No different at all.

This is certainly the most difficult question for any theist to answer.

It's not difficult, it's impossible - people cleverer than us have struggled with it for thousands of years. And the end result of all this effort are comments like this:

My belief is that ultimately this is creation is going somewhere and that the suffering that is experienced in this life, including death, will no longer exist. The other thing is that as a Christian I am called to do whatever I can to help alleviate suffering either institutionally or individually.

Blind, unreasonale faith in the face of the evidence.

Yes everything we have found is natural. It is comprehensible by intelligent minds. Doesn't this in itself point to a rational intelligent cause?

Sheesh, that's some argument. 'Everything we have found is natural' - and I would add that everything we have been able to test that was thought to be supernatural isn't - is supposed to be evidence of a supernatural intelligent cause? Only the truly deluded could create such an arse-about-face argument. In fact what it tells us is that it's highly probable that everything is natural.

I can also say that I don't know yet whether God as I understand Him exists. It is my belief.

Well sure. What puzzles me is that you need to justify your beliefs further.

Sorry

You're forgiven my child ;-)

GDR writes: Processes such as an automobile assembly lie or evolution are indicative of intelligence.

Yes. On their own, I agree. Just like airplanes.
My point is that these ideas are not an accurate representation of all the information available to us. That's why I provided a more in-depth analogy.

Antony Flew writes: ...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.

Again, DNA taken on it's own, without knowledge of the rest of the information available... may very well act as evidence leading one to a conclusion that intelligence is required for our existence.

The point, however, is that this ignores the entire picture.

Taking the entire picture into account, anyone who says this is incorrect, including Antony Flew.
They are either unaware, or ignoring all the evidence as I've described it.

GDR writes: I'm sorry that I can't respond to more of your post but I just don't have the time to keep up with so many responders.

It's okay, and understandable.

The crux of what I'm saying is in this large analogy. Any simpler of an analogy wouldn't be able to adequately describe the vastness of the information available to us today.

Airplanes, assembly lines, DNA, evolution... are all single ideas. Any single idea, without all the surrounding information, is very much lacking the vastness of the information available to us for judging such ideas of whether or not an intelligence is behind our universe.

Here's my analogy again:

quote:

---

What we have is seeing a bunch of play-doh.
Then we see perfectly square play-doh. And perfectly round play-doh. And perfectly octagonal-playdoh.

...at this point, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligence is behind the perfect shapes.

But then we find a play-dough extruder (that fun little thing that pushes play-doh through to make perfect shapes.)
And we see how it works, but it does not require intelligence.

Now we can explain perfect play-doh squares, perfectly round play-doh and perfectly octagonal-playdoh.
But where does the machine come from? How does it work without intelligence?

We search around further and we find play-doh-extruder-makers occurring naturally. They also do not require intelligence.
We search around further and we find different styles of play-doh-extruders occurring naturally, some very different but still resulting in the same perfect play-doh squares and octagons. None of them require intelligence to operate.

We attempt to make some models ourselves. We make a bunch of extra assumptions... but we are able to create non-intelligent models that, given the right conditions, form play-doh-extruder-makers on their own and start producing perfect squares, circles and octagons. We look into it and discover that the "right conditions" are very similar to those we find in our past.

We search around further and we find out that the play-doh-extruder-makers are made up entirely of materials that form naturally, without the requirement of any intelligence, found throughout our data concerning the distant past.

We start looking further and further into the past. We find lots of things that may-or-may-not ever become play-doh-extruder-makers, but there is some potential. We also find lots of processes and systems for creating all those things... naturally, without intelligence involved.

We also have some people who insist that all play-doh-perfect-squares are divinely inspired.
They have searched all the information available as well, but they cannot find a single piece of evidence pointing towards the existence of any divine-ness at all... let alone one that decides to create perfect play-doh squares.

This is what we have.
This is *all the information*.

---

Anyone who reads this analogy can understand that the evidence only points in one-direction - that no intelligence-responsible-for-our-universe exists.

There is no other way to "interpret" this evidence.

Not by you, not by Antony Flew, not by anyone. That's what makes it "evidence."

You can, of course, propose an argument that this analogy of mine does not accurately describe the state of the current evidence. But I'm fairly sure I have not said anything that is incorrect. Please feel free to indicate anything within the analogy that you think has not actually happened in reality with regards to evolution and our search for intelligence.

Or if you do not have time to respond, that is perfectly okay. Don't stress yourself, it isn't worth it.

I’d like to make an attempt at making a general response that might find some common ground. The Bible and Christians talk a lot about faith. In many ways I think that there is an overlap in my faith and yours.

Fundamentally I have faith in the idea that as humans we are called to follow the golden rule. My contention is within the context of the Bible that is what we are called to, but I also agree that atheists or people of any religion can also agree with that faith, whether they get it from culture, teaching, family or any other source. I think either Taq, Style, Ringo or Tangle would hold that faith. I think that there are those, (and I’m certainly not thinking of any member of this forum), that reject this ideal, but not because they don’t think that it isn’t fundamentally true, but because they can’t move beyond the idea of looking out for number one at any cost to others. In the end all of us live our lives somewhere between these two extremes.

That is where my faith lies, but beyond that I have my beliefs. Yes, I believe that it is because we have a God that wants us to live our life based on that model of unselfish love. I go further than that as a Christian, and I have outlined my position numerous times previously. You on the other hand believe that the idea of living by the golden rule has evolved naturally and that there has been no input from a source outside of our perceived universe.

I’m suggesting that it isn’t in our faith that we differ but in our beliefs. I think that in this we can find common ground. It would be nice to come to a place of agreement as a starting point.

Is this helpful?