The conviction of your Faith

--amadeus--

This has been sparked by some of the commentary in the "Do athiests look down on you" thread but I didn't want to drag it OT.

The word "faith" has become slippery in recent years - you can have faith in everything from a pop star to a football team. But most on here would probably accept a definition of faith as "a sincere belief that is not subject to rationality; a belief above and beyond rational thought or critisism"

From an outsiders perspective though I find it hard to distinguish between a Christian religious belief and the belief that a Hindu has in thier gods. Or the faith and belief that adherents of Wicca, tarot cards or astrology might have. The common thread is the sincerity of the belief in "something" that is beyond a rational analysis.

So how does someone with a strong faith know that they have the *right* faith? I'm not looking for a flame war I am genuinley questioning the certanty that adherents have.

Thanks!

santing

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So how does someone with a strong faith know that they have the *right* faith? I'm not looking for a flame war I am genuinley questioning the certanty that adherents have.

Amadeus,

For me it is not a matter of having the right faith. Faith is based on a personal relationship with and a/the revelation of my Great God and Saviour.

As Paul says;

2Ti 1:12 ESV But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.

Or as expressed in song by C.A. Miles (1912) (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/g/itgarden.htm)

And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own;
And the joy we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

For me it is not a matter of having the right faith. Faith is based on a personal relationship with and a/the revelation of my Great God and Saviour.

I think he is asking how do you know you actually have a relationship with your god, as opposed to what ever is happening to members of other religions who claim relationships with their own religion's god(s) but who obviously can't be if you are. Other people from different religions appear to have strong faith in what their religion says and the relationship they have with their deities. How do you know they are not actually correct and your faith is some how not correct?

--amadeus--

santing wrote: »

For me it is not a matter of having the right faith. Faith is based on a personal relationship with and a/the revelation of my Great God and Saviour.

But how can you have faith and not consider if it is the right one? As Wicknight says there are people all over the world who have strong, unshakable faith and convictions. And thier faith may be diametrically opposite to yours. There are people who live thier lives by astrology, or have faith in quija boards which I assume those of a Christian faith wouldn't share. Likewise there are people willing to die for Islam.

As someone with a strong Christian faith doesn't the faith of others cause you to wonder about your own? Is there ever a "maybe they are right and I am wrong" moment - after all it's not as if you can rationally argue for one belief over another so is it down to personal choice?

santing

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But how can you have faith and not consider if it is the right one? As Wicknight says there are people all over the world who have strong, unshakable faith and convictions. And thier faith may be diametrically opposite to yours. There are people who live thier lives by astrology, or have faith in quija boards which I assume those of a Christian faith wouldn't share. Likewise there are people willing to die for Islam.

As someone with a strong Christian faith doesn't the faith of others cause you to wonder about your own? Is there ever a "maybe they are right and I am wrong" moment - after all it's not as if you can rationally argue for one belief over another so is it down to personal choice?

Amadeus, we probably first need to define what we mean with faith. If we define faith as a set of rules/knowledge/convictions than I am sure I am not 100% right.
If we define faith as a personal relationship with God then that would eliminate a lot of "belief systems," and I thank God that I may know Him ... which is the only thing that counts.

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But most on here would probably accept a definition of faith as "a sincere belief that is not subject to rationality; a belief above and beyond rational thought or critisism"

No, I wouldn't actually accept that definition at all.

For me faith is subject to rational thought and criticism. We have a certain amount of evidence which leads us to a conclusion which seems probable to us, but is not capable of being conclusively proved or disproved. Based on things we have discovered to be true we then 'fill in the gaps' by faith.

I would compare this to a detective who has some evidence that points to the guilt of a suspect. Based on this evidence the detective is able to propose a scenario which, in his opinion, is most consistent with the evidence. However, he does not have evidence to support every part of the scenario, and the evidence may not be enough to convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

No, I wouldn't actually accept that definition at all.

For me faith is subject to rational thought and criticism. We have a certain amount of evidence which leads us to a conclusion which seems probable to us, but is not capable of being conclusively proved or disproved. Based on things we have discovered to be true we then 'fill in the gaps' by faith.

I was going to make the same point myself

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But most on here would probably accept a definition of faith as "a sincere belief that is not subject to rationality; a belief above and beyond rational thought or critisism"

Hmm, let me see. No. TBH, I don't think there would be many who would accept such a definition. Did you happen to come up with that definition yourself?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, I wouldn't actually accept that definition at all.

For me faith is subject to rational thought and criticism. We have a certain amount of evidence which leads us to a conclusion which seems probable to us, but is not capable of being conclusively proved or disproved. Based on things we have discovered to be true we then 'fill in the gaps' by faith.

I would compare this to a detective who has some evidence that points to the guilt of a suspect. Based on this evidence the detective is able to propose a scenario which, in his opinion, is most consistent with the evidence. However, he does not have evidence to support every part of the scenario, and the evidence may not be enough to convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think religion / faith relies a lot more cultural biases and things like indoctrination then most courts of law. Damn those analogies! More objective evidence, that is not prone to cultural biases and indoctrination, would be the amount of suffering in the world so much of it seeming so unnecessary if there was a so called loving designer. And the fact that so many things both organic and inorganic seem to be hopelessly put together.

Consider the Tsunami a few years back, that happened because of a shift in plate tectonics. Does that seem like bad engineering on the part of a designer or an actual lack of a designer?

santing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think religion / faith relies a lot more cultural biases and things like indoctrination then most courts of law. Damn those analogies! More objective evidence, that is not prone to cultural biases and indoctrination, would be the amount of suffering in the world so much of it seeming so unnecessary if there was a so called loving designer. And the fact that so many things both organic and inorganic seem to be hopelessly put together.

Consider the Tsunami a few years back, that happened because of a shift in plate tectonics. Does that seem like bad engineering on the part of a designer or an actual lack of a designer?

Suffering was not part of the original design, and neither was shifting plate tectonics. In Genesis 3 and Genesis 7 the original design got modified by sin.

Mark Hamill

santing wrote: »

Suffering was not part of the original design, and neither was shifting plate tectonics. In Genesis 3 and Genesis 7 the original design got modified by sin.

You really should read Genesis 3 you know. Without actually knowing Good&Evil, Adam and Eve sinned. Where did sin come from, if it wasn't put in the "original design"?

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmm, let me see. No. TBH, I don't think there would be many who would accept such a definition. Did you happen to come up with that definition yourself?

Yes, as it happens because it seemed less infamitory than dictionary.coms "belief that is not based on proof". Are you saying that Faith is a sincere belief that *is* subject to rationality", because I think that might be a bit of a sea-change! Anyway, we can argue the semantics back and forth but I was actually hoping for a different debate...

PDN - It's interesting that you draw an analogy with a detective who sees pieces of a puzzle and "fills in the gaps". I suppose my question is do possible alternative explanations (be they athieist or other religions) taht also provide explanations ever strike you as being possible? Basically how do you know that you are "filling in the gaps" in the right way and that others are wrong?

I'm asking because I can't understand that leap of faith, on any level. There are a number of very well read and inteligent people on here with strong religious beliefs and I'm curious if you ever have doubts, or how you can be so certain that you have the "right" faith.

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Yes, as it happens because it seemed less infamitory than dictionary.coms "belief that is not based on proof". Are you saying that Faith is a sincere belief that *is* subject to rationality", because I think that might be a bit of a sea-change! Anyway, we can argue the semantics back and forth but I was actually hoping for a different debate...

I would draw a distiction between 'evidence' and 'proof'. There are certain things that might be 'evidence' for a proposition, and you weigh that against evidence that is against the proposition.

I would see proof as being more conclusive - as in a mathematical equation or even an open-and shut legal case. But, as you say, maybe I'm getting bogged down in semantics.

PDN - It's interesting that you draw an analogy with a detective who sees pieces of a puzzle and "fills in the gaps". I suppose my question is do possible alternative explanations (be they athieist or other religions) taht also provide explanations ever strike you as being possible? Basically how do you know that you are "filling in the gaps" in the right way and that others are wrong?

I don't think you do know that you are filling in the gaps correctly. The process is more inductive than deductive. You weigh up probabilities and go with what you feel to be most likely. But there's always the possibility of being wrong.

I'm asking because I can't understand that leap of faith, on any level. There are a number of very well read and inteligent people on here with strong religious beliefs and I'm curious if you ever have doubts, or how you can be so certain that you have the "right" faith.

I'm presuming you aren't married then? Choosing a lifetime partner is also a step of faith. You try to find out as much as possible about that person - but in the end there's an element where you just have to trust your feelings and instincts. And sometimes people are wrong - as with a woman who discovers after 20 years of 'happy' marriage that her husband has been a serial killer all along.

Getting married, choosing to have kids, choosing a particular path of study or career - these all require a step of faith. So does receiving Christ, converting to Islam, or deciding that there is no God.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

For me faith is subject to rational thought and criticism.

A position which is irreconcilable with your assertion that the bible is inerrant. You cannot have a conclusion which is more error-free than the evidence that leads to it...

PDN

robindch wrote: »

A position which is irreconcilable with your assertion that the bible is inerrant. You cannot have a conclusion which is more error-free than the evidence that leads to it...

That makes no sense whatsoever. It sounds like a parody of the ontological argument.

The following are all absolutist propositions that are held by different people:
a) The laws of physics are inviolate.
b) The scientific method is always the best way to approach any physical phenomenon.
c) I trust my wife 100% to remain faithful to me.
d) The Bible is without error.
e) God does not exist.

Even though each position is absolutist, they are valid subjects for debate and are subject to rational thought and criticism.

Those who hold each proposition should be open to discuss their reasons for doing so and, if faced with sufficient evidence to the contrary, to modify or even abandon their beliefs.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

For me faith is subject to rational thought and criticism. We have a certain amount of evidence which leads us to a conclusion which seems probable to us, but is not capable of being conclusively proved or disproved. Based on things we have discovered to be true we then 'fill in the gaps' by faith.

What is this 'evidence' you speak of? I'll presume the bible? A collection of very old books which, when subjected to 'rational thought & criticism' has huge discrepancies and contradictions. If you were a rational person, then the bible cannot possibly lead to to any conclusion that could be probable - or even credible.

PDN wrote: »

I would compare this to a detective who has some evidence that points to the guilt of a suspect. Based on this evidence the detective is able to propose a scenario which, in his opinion, is most consistent with the evidence. However, he does not have evidence to support every part of the scenario, and the evidence may not be enough to convince a jury beyond all reasonable doubt.

An unfortunately analogy, seeing as a modern detective uses scientific methods to gather evidence and fills in the gaps using rational thought rather than 'leaps of faith'.

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

I'm presuming you aren't married then? Choosing a lifetime partner is also a step of faith. You try to find out as much as possible about that person - but in the end there's an element where you just have to trust your feelings and instincts. And sometimes people are wrong - as with a woman who discovers after 20 years of 'happy' marriage that her husband has been a serial killer all along.

Getting married, choosing to have kids, choosing a particular path of study or career - these all require a step of faith. So does receiving Christ, converting to Islam, or deciding that there is no God.

Interesting analogy. One major difference of course is that you can "try before you buy" with marriage wheras the vast majority of religious followers stick fairly closely to the faith of thier parents. Actually I was quite happy co-habiting but Mrs A is not the sort of lady to let my life-long anti-religious bias stop her having her big day

The major issue with that analogy though is that in getting married, starting a family or choosing a job you are entering into a dialogue. You talk to your wife (or tutor, if it's study), discuss viewpoints and a combination of factors lead you in a certain direction. The key is teh 2 way discussion - you know what the other person is thinking. For religion it's different, it's a monologue and you have (pretty much by definition) no way of knowing the mind of god, so how can you know what you are doing is right? It's the difference, in my eyes, between the proverbial leap of faith and a blind leap of faith.

And even the best marriages have low points, arguments and incidents where one or both parties question thier commitment. Do people of faith have these doubts?

As someone who depends on logic and rationality both professionally and personally I find it very, very hard to understand - or trust - the utter certainty that many Christians seem to have and I was curious if that was just a show or if it was deep. And if it's deep on what is that certanty based. From what I am seeing here it is genuine and unquestioned, no?

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One major difference of course is that you can "try before you buy" with marriage

Mail order bride was it:pac:

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

In Genesis 3 and Genesis 7 the original design got modified by sin.

How does "sin", and act of disobedience, cause Plate Tectonics?

Thats like saying I didn't listen to my girlfriend last night when she was telling me something important, which caused her to get upset and cry and oh also caused the tree outside to catch on fire.

Don't you mean God caused plate tectonics?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

A position which is irreconcilable with your assertion that the bible is inerrant. You cannot have a conclusion which is more error-free than the evidence that leads to it...

+1

I'm amazing this point isn't brought up more often.

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Mail order bride was it:pac:

Very droll. We simply shacked up and shag*ed like rabbits for a couple of years to see if it would work... Now did you have a serious point to make?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Those who hold each proposition should be open to discuss their reasons for doing so and, if faced with sufficient evidence to the contrary, to modify or even abandon their beliefs.

You are missing the point some what.

A person cannot rationally assess that the Bible is inerrant. You can rationally assess it isn't very easily (just find a mistake), but you don't posses the ability to determine it is. No one does. That is just a logical fact. You would have to be a god yourself to determine that the Bible is inerrant.

You can believe it is, based that on faith, but that isn't the same thing.

Tim Robbins

santing wrote: »

Suffering was not part of the original design, and neither was shifting plate tectonics. In Genesis 3 and Genesis 7 the original design got modified by sin.

It would be easier to believe if Genesis made an explict reference to the shifting plate tectonics instead of having to wait a few thousand years to figure out what causes Tsunamis.

Anyway, I don't know how your answer deals with the lack of good design in so many things, for example an eye. Would we have a blind spot if we never sinned?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

A position which is irreconcilable with your assertion that the bible is inerrant. You cannot have a conclusion which is more error-free than the evidence that leads to it...

It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to get out of that alright.

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

How does "sin", and act of disobedience, cause Plate Tectonics?
...
Don't you mean God caused plate tectonics?

God destroyed the original world as a punishment for sin through the flood. So ultimately, man is repsonsible for it.
After the flood mountains were formed as the Psalmist says:

Psa 104:8 ESV The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Now did you have a serious point to make?

Nope.

santing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It would be easier to believe if Genesis made an explict reference to the shifting plate tectonics instead of having to wait a few thousand years to figure out what causes Tsunamis.

Anyway, I don't know how your answer deals with the lack of good design in so many things, for example an eye. Would we have a blind spot if we never sinned?

A possible reference to shifting plate tectonics is found in:

Gen 10:25 ESV To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan.

The division of peoples is referenced in Gen 10:5.

I think the eye speaks definitely of design, and the blind spot has a vital function - why would that be a bad design?

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

God destroyed the original world as a punishment for sin through the flood. So ultimately, man is repsonsible for it.

Er no, ultimately God is responsible for it. He could have, you know, not destroyed the original world in a manner leading to thousands of years of natural disasters killing countless people. Just an idea.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I think the eye speaks definitely of design

Well if it does the designer was some what of an idiot.

santing wrote: »

and the blind spot has a vital function - why would that be a bad design?

What is the vital function of the blind spot?

santing

Wicknight wrote: »

Well if it does the designer was some what of an idiot.
What is the vital function of the blind spot?

Have a look at On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Have a look at On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina

Groan ....

Ok, read it. Can I have my 5 minutes back please :pac:

The argument that backwards retina blood flow is necessary was long ago debunked as simply Creationists not understanding the structure of the eye in the first pace. The eye needs that amount of blood flow because of its bad design, not the other way around. If you fixed the design you wouldn't need to keep the large amount of blood flow and it wouldn't be necessary for the backwards retina.

Since you are so fond of linkage read this
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html

P.S - Next time just say "Because the retina needs a lot of blood flow", that would save me having to read your links to find out what your point is.

Tim Robbins

santing wrote: »

A possible reference to shifting plate tectonics is found in:
The division of peoples is referenced in Gen 10:5.

Plate tectonices don't necessiate people. Ever hear of a non-sequitur?

I think the eye speaks definitely of design, and the blind spot has a vital function - why would that be a bad design?

The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot.

Mindless, slow gradual evolution is far better explaination, even without bringing the array of fossils and DNA evidence into it.

Take your nutty creationism to the creationist thread.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes quite a lot of sense, though you may have to read it through

PDN wrote: »

Those who hold each proposition should be open to discuss their reasons for doing so and, if faced with sufficient evidence to the contrary, to modify or even abandon their beliefs.

So, what would constitute "evidence to the contrary" sufficient for you to abandon your current religious beliefs, or at even some of them?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

+1

I'm amazing this point isn't brought up more often.

Probably because it isn't a very good point.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Probably because it isn't a very good point.

Touche :rolleyes:

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It makes quite a lot of sense, though you may have to read it through.

I've read it through a number of times. It still makes no sense. It does, however, sound profound in a kind of 'Emperors New Clothes' way.

So, what would constitute "evidence to the contrary" sufficient for you to abandon your current religious beliefs, or at even some of them?

All I would need is evidence that outweighed, in my opinion, the evidence I see for my beliefs. I have abandoned, or changed, a number of my religious views over the years.

I would see the following as the kinds of evidence that would be sufficient to severely challenge my assessment of the balance of evidence or even to tip the scales.

a) If none of my prayers were ever answered - or even if the 'answered' prayers were simply consistent with the law of averages.
b) If it was proven that all the testimonies I have heard from people I respect as to the changes God has wrought in their lives were all lies.
c) If conclusive evidence was produced to demonstrate that Jesus did not in fact die on the Cross but actually lived to a good old age.
d) If the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared to me in person, took me on a ride to the moon, and then parted the Atlantic ocean for me.
e) If conclusive evidence was produced that demonstrated a clear anachronism in the Gospel accounts (partiicularly in respect to the Resurrection accounts). this could be something similar to Shakespeare's chiming clock in Julius Caesar.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

Have a look at On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina

You should try reading outside of creationist material. Not being sarcastic but that stuff just doesn't pass muster for anyone with a vague knowledge of biology. I don't like playing the link war but there a loads of very readable sources on the evolution of the eye. Start with this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

If you feel you've got the gist, try following up on some of the sources at the end. Obviously you should go in with a skeptical mind, but not a dismissive one. I think you'll be surprised as to just how straightforward and compelling the material is.

There's no doubt that our eye design is far from optimal. In fact I'd say it has presented us with some minor disadvantages. So long as a disadvantage is not significant enough to outweigh, say, advanced intelligence, the selection against it will be weak. For as complex a problem as the reverted retina, the selection would need to be real strong to set it back. The eye seems to have evolved independently a few times. Invertebrate eyes spookily similar to our own can be seen in octopus species, but they never got the blind spot problem. Arthropod eyes are stranger still- a real example of the diversity of solutions that evolution can throw up to solve the same problem. Chaotic processes with selection are great for that.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You should try reading outside of creationist material. Not being sarcastic but that stuff just doesn't pass muster for anyone with a vague knowledge of biology. I don't like playing the link war but there a loads of very readable sources on the evolution of the eye. Start with this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

If you feel you've got the gist, try following up on some of the sources at the end. Obviously you should go in with a skeptical mind, but not a dismissive one. I think you'll be surprised as to just how straightforward and compelling the material is.

Thanks for the link.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

... For as complex a problem as the reverted retina, the selection would need to be real strong to set it back. The eye seems to have evolved independently a few times.

Wow - and I thought the odds of one evolved eye would already be extremely low. Imagine having to evolve several different eyes independently!

robindch

santing wrote: »

Imagine having to evolve several different eyes independently!

That rather suggests that evolving a light-sensitive cells is actually relatively easy.

Did you get time to read the Wikipedia article?

santing

robindch wrote: »

Did you get time to read the Wikipedia article?

Yes I did, and googled for more articles on eye evolution. I am not convinced though.

But that should be taken up in another lenghty thread!

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

But that should be taken up in another lenghty thread!

You got it. To BC&P thread!

sorella

"Sin" came and comes from disobedience to God. He did not create it; we do.

Jesus speaks of seeing Lucifer falling to earth; that disobedient angel polluted all he touched.

Pollution caused by greed, sin, has all but wrecked the earth; producing an imbalance.

You put poison in your body; you get sick because you are disobeying the laws for your body'

When the earth is polluted and poisoned, it creates imbalance. Simple and deadly.

we make choices and often it is others who suffer from bad choices

.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You really should read Genesis 3 you know. Without actually knowing Good&Evil, Adam and Eve sinned. Where did sin come from, if it wasn't put in the "original design"?