Religion, why do you believe?

[Kulindahr]

I don't mean to be rude or anything but most often faith is what people fall back on as a crutch when they don't have a good reason for believing in all the terrible things that their religion says they must follow.

I don't recall ever running into that. I have encountered its converse, though: faith as a way of asserting they must do terrible things while they avoid the real weighty things Christ demands, such as love, mercy, sacrifice... it's a lot easier to carry signs condemning gays than it is to feed the poor or reach out to the homeless, and faith is invoked as justification for doing the easier thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think anybody's trying to dispute the fact that Faith has nothing to do with Facts ... ?

That's a distortion of what he said -- and yes, we are trying to dispute that faith, at least in the Biblical sense, has nothing to do with facts.

That's one reason I'm a Christian: it rests on a whole list of facts that are asserted to have actually happened in time/history, which is why phrases such as "and was crucified under Pontius Pilate" appear in the Creed. If the Creator of all decided to communicate to His critters, I can't see where it would be in vague nebulosities tied to nothing verifiable; in the New Testament we find claims of eyewitnesses, accounts which could be challenged by witnesses living at the time, with all the dirty marks of real people telling a real story -- and an unbroken chain of testimony since then, all following an essential message (what C. S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity").

 

[Kulindahr]

Alright, but there still exists a difference between something that convinces someone and evidence. Jenny McCarthy is "convinced" that autism is caused by vaccines, but the thing that convinces her is a mere correlation, not evidence (and persists in her position even when presented with evidence that suggests otherwise!).

Historically, then, what is evidence?

For a great deal of ancient history, the evidence we have is documents -- and nothing else. That's all we have to tell us there ever was such a person as Socrates; how do we know he wasn't a figment of Aristotle's imagination, invented for some reason of his own? For that matter, what evidence do we have for Aristotle, save the words of others?
In historical terms, we have more certainty about the life of Jesus of Nazareth than we do about either of those Greek thinkers, yet we take them as fact, while many dispute even his existence! The documents attesting to his life are much closer in time (less than a generation away, for the first) than those for the two aforementioned Greeks, yet how many people claim they never existed?

And to many scientists, the universe is filled with evidence of a Creator -- so I have to wonder if what's at issue here is a subjective determination of what constitutes "evidence".

And what would be the demonstrated record of, say, the Biblical God existing but not Zeus or Poseidon? I'm sure Christian believers trust that the former is true, but I'm not sure if it is based so much on a "demonstrated record" as it is indoctrination or a susceptibility of superficial, convincing events (like MikeyLove who admitted to have been convinced when an earthquake came to pass and the [strike]flag was still there[/strike] picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was still on the wall when all the other nick-nacks fell). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're more "sophisticated" than he is, though I'll hold my breath till presented with evidence.

We've been over that: documents written by people who were alive when Jesus was, vs. (as noted by someone in this thread) tales rarely taken as actual even by those who 'believed' in the Greek gods.

And as I've explained previously, none of the Greek gods really stands up to real qualifications for godhood; they are gods in a much watered-down version of the robust vision the Bible presents of a Creator who isn't tangled up in the created, who didn't emerge from the created, but who is prior to it all and sustains it all moment by moment.

As for personal evidence:

I was once in a gathering where "speaking on tongues" took place, and experienced receiving a translation/interpretation. I know that's what it was, because I chickened our when the pastor asked (as Paul directs) for an interpretation, and what the guy who actually spoke up said differed from what I'd 'heard' only in the ways that one Greek student's translation of a passage in Xenephon might differ from another -- and then others provided affirmation that they had understood it the same way as well.
I've also experienced what the Bible calls "word of knowledge".

Since these were things I hadn't sought, and wasn't terribly comfortable with, and corresponded to the Bible's description, and since there is no convincing explanation from any other source....

 

[poolerboy]

Historically, then, what is evidence?

I hope this discussion won't be turning into a type of what the definition of 'is' is. In any event I'm interested more in how evidence is defined contemporaneously, rather than historically. Historically, "race" when it came to differentiating human beings rested on the notion that there were actually different species (i.e. human races) rather than physiological differences that emerged from one's proximity to certain UV radiation, climate, and so forth.

For a great deal of ancient history, the evidence we have is documents -- and nothing else. That's all we have to tell us there ever was such a person as Socrates; how do we know he wasn't a figment of Aristotle's imagination, invented for some reason of his own? For that matter, what evidence do we have for Aristotle, save the words of others?

I'll grant you that the evidence for Socrates is rather scant, yet most anyone's life I think will not be powerfully tranformed over such a more clearer revelation that it is true he is a made-up person since the ideas are meritorious on their own. The same could be said of Jesus except the claims ascribed to him exceed mere reverence of wisdom.

In historical terms, we have more certainty about the life of Jesus of Nazareth than we do about either of those Greek thinkers, yet we take them as fact, while many dispute even his existence!

To be fair, those individuals get disputed in terms of existence, but Jesus gets more attention and eyebrows raised because, well, he's Jesus after all!

The documents attesting to his life are much closer in time (less than a generation away, for the first) than those for the two aforementioned Greeks, yet how many people claim they never existed?

I've disputed the dates of the manuscripts, yet I think we're getting nowhere near the meat of the dispute. Even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, you're correct in dating and that the authors ascribed to the canonical Gospels are really them, this in no way presents evidence that the claims made either by the authors, the main character, or both are true (e.g. that he is divine, resurrected, will come back to judge the living and the dead, etc.)

And to many scientists, the universe is filled with evidence of a Creator -- so I have to wonder if what's at issue here is a subjective determination of what constitutes "evidence".

Whoa, now you're jumping back to a nebulous notion of a god again. Are you or are you not going to show what the evidence is for believing that the biblical god exists (and that claims of Jesus are true, for that matter), but Zeus doesn't (or any other entity, currently believed in or not, deemed supernaturally true)?

We've been over that: documents written by people who were alive when Jesus was, vs. (as noted by someone in this thread) tales rarely taken as actual even by those who 'believed' in the Greek gods.

And as I've explained previously, none of the Greek gods really stands up to real qualifications for godhood; they are gods in a much watered-down version of the robust vision the Bible presents of a Creator who isn't tangled up in the created, who didn't emerge from the created, but who is prior to it all and sustains it all moment by moment.

If your "evidence" is going to be that Christian literature asserts its claims (as though this were enough on its own) versus pagan mythology simply telling stories that interpreted in various ways then I'm sorry but you're out of gas. The problem persists when faced with those other "active" religions that make such assertions and are in direct conflict with your beliefs.

As for personal evidence:

I was once in a gathering where "speaking on tongues" took place, and experienced receiving a translation/interpretation. I know that's what it was, because I chickened our when the pastor asked (as Paul directs) for an interpretation, and what the guy who actually spoke up said differed from what I'd 'heard' only in the ways that one Greek student's translation of a passage in Xenephon might differ from another -- and then others provided affirmation that they had understood it the same way as well.
I've also experienced what the Bible calls "word of knowledge".

Without the ability of actually studying the anecdote you bring up, I have no way of evaluating evidence. Again, this is an example of something that convinces a believer vs. evidence which tends to be more on the objective side. The problem of anecdotes is very well explained by this particular video I posted earlier.

 

[poolerboy]

Historically, then, what is evidence?

I hope this won't be turning into a type of what-the-definition-of-'is'-is discussion. In any event I'm interested more in how evidence is defined contemporaneously, rather than historically. Historically, "race" when it came to differentiating human beings rested on the notion that there were actually different species (i.e. human races) rather than physiological differences that emerged from one's proximity to certain UV radiation, climate, and so forth from one species.

For a great deal of ancient history, the evidence we have is documents -- and nothing else. That's all we have to tell us there ever was such a person as Socrates; how do we know he wasn't a figment of Aristotle's imagination, invented for some reason of his own? For that matter, what evidence do we have for Aristotle, save the words of others?

I'll grant you that the evidence for Socrates is rather scant, yet most anyone's life I think will not be powerfully tranformed over such a more clearer revelation that it is true he is a made-up person since the ideas ascribed to him are meritorious on their own without a necessity to have them come from said person. The same could be said of Jesus except the claims ascribed to him exceed mere reverence of wisdom.

In historical terms, we have more certainty about the life of Jesus of Nazareth than we do about either of those Greek thinkers, yet we take them as fact, while many dispute even his existence!

To be fair, those individuals get disputed in terms of existence, but Jesus gets more attention and eyebrows raised because, well, he's Jesus after all!

The documents attesting to his life are much closer in time (less than a generation away, for the first) than those for the two aforementioned Greeks, yet how many people claim they never existed?

I've disputed the dates of the manuscripts, yet I think we're getting nowhere near the meat of the dispute. Even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, that you're correct in dating and that the authors ascribed to the canonical Gospels are really them, this in no way presents evidence that the claims made either by the authors, the main character, or both are true (e.g. that he is divine, resurrected, will come back to judge the living and the dead, etc.). All we have are records of people asserting things.

And to many scientists, the universe is filled with evidence of a Creator -- so I have to wonder if what's at issue here is a subjective determination of what constitutes "evidence".

Whoa, now you're jumping back to a nebulous notion of a god again. Are you or are you not going to show what the evidence is for believing that the biblical god exists (and that claims of Jesus are true, for that matter), but Zeus doesn't (or any other entity, currently believed in or not, deemed supernaturally true)?

We've been over that: documents written by people who were alive when Jesus was, vs. (as noted by someone in this thread) tales rarely taken as actual even by those who 'believed' in the Greek gods.

And as I've explained previously, none of the Greek gods really stands up to real qualifications for godhood; they are gods in a much watered-down version of the robust vision the Bible presents of a Creator who isn't tangled up in the created, who didn't emerge from the created, but who is prior to it all and sustains it all moment by moment.

If your "evidence" is going to be that Christian literature asserts its claims as true (as though this were enough on its own) versus pagan mythology simply telling stories that were, perhaps, interpreted in not-so-literal ways then I'm sorry but you're out of gas. The problem persists when faced with those other "active" religions that make such assertions and are in direct conflict with your beliefs.

As for personal evidence:

I was once in a gathering where "speaking on tongues" took place, and experienced receiving a translation/interpretation. I know that's what it was, because I chickened our when the pastor asked (as Paul directs) for an interpretation, and what the guy who actually spoke up said differed from what I'd 'heard' only in the ways that one Greek student's translation of a passage in Xenephon might differ from another -- and then others provided affirmation that they had understood it the same way as well.
I've also experienced what the Bible calls "word of knowledge".

Without the ability of actually studying the anecdote you bring up, I have no way of evaluating said "evidence." Again, this is an example of something that convinces a believer vs. evidence which tends to be more on the objective side. The problem of anecdotes is very well explained by this particular video I posted earlier.

 

[bankside]

Come to think of it, the Christians who are worst for society are those who ignore both those -- the ones who want to impose the "Kingdom of God" by political force, and who act as though they've been promoted above the rest of us.

That's the old "Cur Allii, Prae Aliis?" dilemma.

The answer I tend to is that God gives faith to all who don't resist. In your illustration, the only ones without the VIP pass would be those who, out on the street when the owner tried to give one, said "Fuck off".

The answer you tend to will, I think, only offer comfort to the smug believer.

 

[kallipolis]

The answer you tend to will, I think, only offer comfort to the smug believer.

Smugness is not monopolised by believers. As this forum testifies so gratuitously.

 

[bankside]

Smugness is not monopolised by believers. As this forum testifies so gratuitously.

Call someone on it then! [STRIKE]Be specific, so your point is not dismissed as a smear. I do that when I see a non-believer make an argument they haven't sustained.
[/STRIKE]
Call someone on it then! I do that when I see a non-believer make an argument they haven't sustained.Be specific, so your point is not dismissed as a smear.

I thought I should reword that!

 

[kallipolis]

Call someone on it then! Be specific, so your point is not dismissed as a smear. I do that when I see a non-believer make an argument they haven't sustained.

I do, and with regularity.

I am merely responding in kind, to your generalisation.

 

[bankside]

Ahh. Then you have misunderstood my post. It wasn't a generalisation. It was a specific critique that one of Kulindahr's contentions was not well-founded. In fact I distinguished between believers with different motivations. Not to worry though, no harm done.

 

[kallipolis]

Ahh. Then you have misunderstood my post. It wasn't a generalisation. It was a specific critique that one of Kulindahr's contentions was not well-founded. In fact I distinguished between believers with different motivations. Not to worry though, no harm done.

I am happy to note your clarification, with thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've disputed the dates of the manuscripts, yet I think we're getting nowhere near the meat of the dispute. Even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, that you're correct in dating and that the authors ascribed to the canonical Gospels are really them, this in no way presents evidence that the claims made either by the authors, the main character, or both are true (e.g. that he is divine, resurrected, will come back to judge the living and the dead, etc.). All we have are records of people asserting things.

But with contemporary accounts, we are faced with the question of why people -- many of whom knew they could/would be persecuted for asserting such things -- actually believed those things. We have to ask why people would be making such claims, when witnesses to the events were still alive.
That's a whole different ball game.

Whoa, now you're jumping back to a nebulous notion of a god again. Are you or are you not going to show what the evidence is for believing that the biblical god exists (and that claims of Jesus are true, for that matter), but Zeus doesn't (or any other entity, currently believed in or not, deemed supernaturally true)?

If your "evidence" is going to be that Christian literature asserts its claims as true (as though this were enough on its own) versus pagan mythology simply telling stories that were, perhaps, interpreted in not-so-literal ways then I'm sorry but you're out of gas. The problem persists when faced with those other "active" religions that make such assertions and are in direct conflict with your beliefs.

When you're faced with two claimants to the same thing, but one doesn't actually claim to be really true, you throw that one out.

Without the ability of actually studying the anecdote you bring up, I have no way of evaluating said "evidence." Again, this is an example of something that convinces a believer vs. evidence which tends to be more on the objective side. The problem of anecdotes is very well explained by this particular video I posted earlier.

And right there is why you'll never get the sort of evidence you want: the God of the Bible doesn't go trotting out miracles on demand, so that people can measure them; he deals with people, and so all you'll ever get is reports from people of what they experienced.

 

[Kulindahr]

The answer you tend to will, I think, only offer comfort to the smug believer.

I don't particularly care who it offers comfort to; I go from the data at hand, which is in this case the Bible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahh. Then you have misunderstood my post. It wasn't a generalisation. It was a specific critique that one of Kulindahr's contentions was not well-founded. In fact I distinguished between believers with different motivations. Not to worry though, no harm done.

Where -- working from the Bible, which is the appropriate source -- was my contention not well-founded?

I know that some take things the Bible says as a source of pride in themselves, as though it meant that they had accomplished something. But just because a truth misleads some people is no reason to twist it around.

 

[poolerboy]

But with contemporary accounts, we are faced with the question of why people -- many of whom knew they could/would be persecuted for asserting such things -- actually believed those things. We have to ask why people would be making such claims, when witnesses to the events were still alive.
That's a whole different ball game.

And don't you think coming to the immediate conclusion that he must be divine is a bit of leap you're taking? There could be multiple possibilities, some being more probable than others. The Heaven's Gate crowd presents one of C.S. Lewis' three possibilities of what Jesus could end up being (liar, lunatic, or Lord). The silence about his self-proclaimed divinity in the synoptic gospels kind of makes it a hard case for multiple attestion. Much more things are likely than the latter. Euhemerism is a very likely possibility. There could very well be a fourth option to Lewis, that being legend; not that Jesus is a legend, but that he called himself God was one. It's your priviledge if you throw in there and take a "leap of faith" that he really was divine, but merely extrapolating from assertions of ancient accounts without the ability of futher exploration into these claims does not evidence make.

When you're faced with two claimants to the same thing, but one doesn't actually claim to be really true, you throw that one out.

And you don't take the other seriously until credible evidence is presented. This is why we don't take seriously Scientology. Mere assertion that someone is correct isn't evidence of anything.

And right there is why you'll never get the sort of evidence you want: the God of the Bible doesn't go trotting out miracles on demand, so that people can measure them; he deals with people, and so all you'll ever get is reports from people of what they experienced.

I'm not asking for miracles, I'm asking for evidence. The video explains the large limitations of anecdotes and why they don't take the place of evidence. If you're convinced because of a personal experience, fine. But you scoff at the idea that I wrote that faith is the feeling of truth sans evidence. Notice that nowhere in the definition did I say that there was no element of convincibility either by some personal experience or something else.

 

[bankside]

There is a clear historical record of opinion, speculation, anecdote.

And, it doesn't matter what was "historically" taken to be evidence. Evidence is evidence.

The bible is not the proper source of authority for itself, any more than a periodic table is evidence of hydrogen or helium. A periodic table is evidence of papermaking and of a publishing industry.

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream

One definition of "Faith" is believing in something - despite the fact that there is no proof or evidence to support it.

That's one defintion I would agree with and yet I'm being told that I have it completely wrong. I'm still waiting on his definition.

Not sure who's told you you've got it wrong - but what other definition of "faith" is there?

If something is proved - then it's just a simple fact - the only reason for "faith" is to believe in something that's not been proved

 

[AsianDream]

Faith is believing in what we cannot see, ie; Blessed are those who believe, but cannot see. This is all very simply to the point. Faith is a beautiful Gift of God, and yes, Faith can be lost.

This just shows that the definition of "Faith" is remarkably close to that for "Delusion" (ie: belief without evidence) .

You are using the word "See" above in the usage of "understanding or comprehension" rather than relating to vision.

Are those who believe, but cannot understand or comprehend really blessed?

This would seem more like a serious delusion - rather than a gift.

 

[Kulindahr]

And don't you think coming to the immediate conclusion that he must be divine is a bit of leap you're taking? There could be multiple possibilities, some being more probable than others. The Heaven's Gate crowd presents one of C.S. Lewis' three possibilities of what Jesus could end up being (liar, lunatic, or Lord). The silence about his self-proclaimed divinity in the synoptic gospels kind of makes it a hard case for multiple attestion. Much more things are likely than the latter. Euhemerism is a very likely possibility. There could very well be a fourth option to Lewis, that being legend; not that Jesus is a legend, but that he called himself God was one. It's your priviledge if you throw in there and take a "leap of faith" that he really was divine, but merely extrapolating from assertions of ancient accounts without the ability of futher exploration into these claims does not evidence make.

The case Jesus makes for His own divinity in the Synoptics is strong -- it just isn't put in terms people today would recognize. For example, using the term "Son of Man" at that time in history was claiming divinity; it was considered a divine title, indicating a supernatural, heavenly being who commanded the angels and would judge the world -- thus, God. Then there's the forgiveness of sins, which as is noted is something God alone is supposed to do, but Jesus does without a qualm, on more than one occasion almost daring others to make a fuss about it (on one of those occasions, He ties the term "Son of Man" in with that authority). In fact, it is for the claim to be divine that He is finally taken prisoner and killed.
In Matthew and Luke, especially, Jesus almost seems to be pleading with people to figure it out: He advances for Himself a whole multitude of kinds of authority which are held to belong to God alone, pushing the conclusion that He is God.

BTW -- what's this "Heaven's Gate crowd"?

And you don't take the other seriously until credible evidence is presented. This is why we don't take seriously Scientology. Mere assertion that someone is correct isn't evidence of anything.

You keep jumping around...
The question was about distinguishing between two claims; I noted that one of those doesn't even advance an assertion of actually being true -- so since the other one does, it's the only choice.

I'm not asking for miracles, I'm asking for evidence. The video explains the large limitations of anecdotes and why they don't take the place of evidence. If you're convinced because of a personal experience, fine. But you scoff at the idea that I wrote that faith is the feeling of truth sans evidence. Notice that nowhere in the definition did I say that there was no element of convincibility either by some personal experience or something else.

For history, documents are evidence.
For many matters in court, for that matter, documents are evidence.

And personal experience not explainable by something else, when totally unexpected and unsought, conforming tightly to a description of what can be expected in a situation, is also evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not sure who's told you you've got it wrong - but what other definition of "faith" is there?

If something is proved - then it's just a simple fact - the only reason for "faith" is to believe in something that's not been proved

It finally dawned on me: you're treating "faith" as though it had to do with propositions.
The Bible's use of the word doesn't -- so you're not even talking about the same thing.

For the Bible, faith = trust, i.e. confidence, sure expectation, reliance.

To illustrate, using the Creeds: if it was about propositional truth, the Creeds would begin, "I/We believe THAT...", while in fact they begin, "I/We believe IN...", that is, put our trust in, rely on.

It's like Aladdin, in the animated film, asking, "Do you trust me?", and extending his hand.