What makes you believe?

Denerick

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All Christians read certain parts of the Bible literally while none read it in its entirity as such.

What you say in this thread is what you have said in the other thread you posted on. Contrary to your claim that you believe you know nothing, you are quite happy to take a categorical stance about the truth of the bible.

As for digging holes, I would wonder why you bother if you think that your object of desire is always outside your grasp.

Thats a rather dystopian view, now isn't it? I believe I know nothing when it comes to the meaning of existance, I believe we can know some things about details, and methods, and dates, and speeches, and art, and politics etc. Why are you deliberately taking a mean spirited interpretation of what I'm writing?

Fanny Cradock

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

That is a tough question to ask, can you answer it? I am assuming you are not religious other wise you would not be asking it- you would know

I can answer the question, but I'm not sue I can prove my position. Whether or not we choose to acknowledge them, I believe that there are objective and intrinsic truths that overarch the univere we live in. For example, I believe I exist in a physical universe governed by various immutable laws of physics. I also believe in a thing called "good" and in a thing called "evil". That we may be mistaken or confused obout either of these things is besides the point because they are not contingent on our understanding or agreement.

For the record, I'm a Christian.

Denerick wrote: »

In other words, is it not more reasonable to assume that nobody holds the 'correct' answers when we get down to abstract, meaning of life stuff? Is a meta narrative possible?

P.S- Interesting to note who thanked you! I take it that the post modernist tag has been used before?

I woul say that it is completely unreasonable. Where would we be unless we collectively opperated under the assumption that "X" is right and "Y" is wrong in terms of the universe? Probably still living in a cave somewhere! We certainly wouldn't be typing on computers or flying planes. Expand that principle out into areas of metaphysics and morality and we (apart from the totally depraved) can also agree, for example, that choosing to keep your daughter in a bunker for a couple of decades and continually raping her is wrong.

I'm not sure how meta-narratives help us determine truthfulness. Truthfulness by its very nature stands over against our perceptions.

(No doubt the postmodernist word has been used before, but I don't see the relevance this has or that someone thanked me Perhaps they just agreed?)

Fanny Cradock

Denerick wrote: »

Thats a rather dystopian view, now isn't it? I believe I know nothing when it comes to the meaning of existance, I believe we can know some things about details, and methods, and dates, and speeches, and art, and politics etc. Why are you deliberately taking a mean spirited interpretation of what I'm writing?

What? I'm not intending to take a mean spirited view on anything. Where you get that from I don't know. I was simply questioning your stance - something I think is perfetly legitimite if you are asserting that one can't know anything about existence while also holding that the world with respect to methods, dates etc. is (at lest in part) intelligable.

Anton.Mamyko

If you were raised and educated in a country that was not mainly Christian would you still come to the same conclusions? Would you still be a Christian?
Dumb question I know but I just want to know how acquired you beliefs. Was it through your upbringing or education....

Anton.Mamyko

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? I'm not intending to take a mean spirited view on anything. Where you get that from I don't know. I was simply questioning your stance - something I think is perfetly legitimite if you are asserting that one can't know anything about existence while also holding that the world with respect to methods, dates etc. is (at lest in part) intelligable.

Might be completely wrong here but I think what he meant by "knowing nothing" is that we cannot know the answers to great questions, we can only approximate them with known facts. Unless you are believer in which case- you know(what ever it is that your belief tells you).

Fanny Cradock

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

If you were raised and educated in a country that was not mainly Christian would you still come to the same conclusions? Would you still be a Christian?
Dumb question I know but I just want to know how acquired you beliefs. Was it through your upbringing or education....

I've no idea, tbh. It's quite possible that I coud have been of a competely different faith (or none) given the correct circumstances. To echo my last couple of posts, my own personal journey of faith says nothing about the truth of Christianity or any other belief.

In brief: I was brought up a Christian, largely abandoned it in my teens (to busy doing drugs and unsuccessfully attempting to do girls) and later in my early to mid-twenties returned to faith - or at least my interest in the God question returned. The latter phase has involved much questioning, thought, debate, listening, reading and prayer. This continually undulating process has seen my faith and understanding change quite radically, and I suspect that is the way it should be.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Might be completely wrong here but I think what he meant by "knowing nothing" is that we cannot know the answers to great questions, we can only approximate them with known facts. Unless you are believer in which case- you know(what ever it is that your belief tells you).

That's fine. Approximation will do!

It might be trite to say, but the dogmatic assertion that we can't know answers to the big questions is what it is - a faith based statement, and a self-refuting one at that.

While it might be that we never reach agreement on what is true - X, Y or Z, or that we believe something to be true that is actually false, it might also transpire that the thing we think we know to be true actually is true.

Anton.Mamyko

Well, as you can see I have not placed my bet yet....South Park said it was the Mormons who got it right...i dunno.
That was a joke....had nothing useful to say as I am wrecked. Thanks for talking, goodnight

Fanny Cradock

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Well, as you can see I have not placed my bet yet....South Park said it was the Mormons who got it right...i dunno.
That was a joke....had nothing useful to say as I am wrecked. Thanks for talking, goodnight

Ah, well, you have got to go with South Park for the big questions. Anyway, I forgot to answer your previous question, so added a little to my last post.

Anton.Mamyko

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might be trite to say, but the dogmatic assertion that we can't know answers to the big questions is what it is - a faith based statement, and a self-refuting one at that.

.

good point, but calling that faith is wrong imho, it is just skepticism of existing beliefs which appear to be filling the lack of answers their belief offers through faith.
The gaps which I hope the human race will work on filling with progression of science. I dont think we will come really far in this life time, we might even wipe each other out.

Anton.Mamyko

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In brief: I was brought up a Christian, largely abandoned it in my teens (to busy doing drugs and unsuccessfully attempting to do girls) and later in my early to mid-twenties returned to faith - or at least my interest in the God question returned. The latter phase has involved much questioning, thought, debate, listening, reading and prayer. This continually undulating process has seen my faith and understanding change quite radically, and I suspect that is the way it should be.


.

Sounds like what I am going through. I am 21, so you know what stage I am at hehe.
Did a personal tragedy of some sort(or loss enthusiasm for life) reignite your interest in faith? I have debated extensively with people that hit rock bottom through drugs (drink being one of them) but they did not appear to be as intelligent as yourself, so I would like to know another example of coming to faith. You obviously don't have to answer.

Denerick

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Might be completely wrong here but I think what he meant by "knowing nothing" is that we cannot know the answers to great questions, we can only approximate them with known facts. Unless you are believer in which case- you know(what ever it is that your belief tells you).

Thanks man, I would have ran myself ragged over several circular posts trying to explain those very words!

Fanny Cradock

Sorry for not replying sooner. I´ve been a little short of time lately and the prospect of using a keyboard that is so old it has the letters rubbed out puts me right off.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

good point, but calling that faith is wrong imho, it is just skepticism of existing beliefs which appear to be filling the lack of answers their belief offers through faith.
The gaps which I hope the human race will work on filling with progression of science. I dont think we will come really far in this life time, we might even wipe each other out.

A small clarification. I didn´t call it faith, I called it a faith based statement.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Sounds like what I am going through. I am 21, so you know what stage I am at hehe.
Did a personal tragedy of some sort(or loss enthusiasm for life) reignite your interest in faith? I have debated extensively with people that hit rock bottom through drugs (drink being one of them) but they did not appear to be as intelligent as yourself, so I would like to know another example of coming to faith. You obviously don't have to answer.

I´m not sure I can give a succinct answer to your question. But thankfully tragedy wasn´t the catylist.

I never hit rock bottom, and my consumption of drugs was tame by some standards - I don´t wish to overstate that. My journey back to faith (or maybe into a real and considered faith) probably began when I was in my early 20´s and I was doing a little globe trotting. I wont bore you with the details, but I believe that God was speaking to me during that time - challenging who I thought I was and where in life I was going. Even in the midst of the distractions I, a 21 year old, could get my hands on, God kept challenging me. He eventually won! It was a very personal experience - one day in particular - and I´m afraid I don´t have the ability to convay to others exactly what it was.

All in all it has been a wonderful experience to grow (as slowly as I have) in faith and knowledge, but it has also been a difficult and bumpy road, especially when I find myself collapsing into hypocrisy or fail the standards of what it means to be follower of Christ.

equivariant

wolfsbane wrote: »

I believe because God has given me the assurance that His word is true. That is the basic cause - the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

I find support for that in the many times God has specifically intervened for me in answer to prayer, and in seeing Him do so for others.

Supporting evidence is also found in how history has developed in regard to the survival of the Jews and the survival of the gospel and the Church.

If you base some of your faith on your own experience of 'answered prayers', how then can you reconcile this with the fact that so many prayers apparently go unanswered? You must be able to explain this, to avoid falling into the trap of chery picking your evidence.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm a curious person, I've never been satisfied with answers like "that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is". Such answers tell me that it is likely there is something else behind what we actually know.

But you could not use the same argument against your current stance, Jakkass?

philologos

Explain your reasoning, I am interested.

chozometroid

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Originally Posted by Jakkass
I'm a curious person, I've never been satisfied with answers like "that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is". Such answers tell me that it is likely there is something else behind what we actually know.

But you could not use the same argument against your current stance, Jakkass?

Actually, God does not provide a "that's it." He gives a reason for why we are here and how we got here, but saying "God did it" is actually not the same as "that's all there is to it," and it does not mean that there is nothing else to know. I'm not sure how many people actually make that type of statement, irrespective of their beliefs, unless they just don't care about the big questions. Christians actually have the benefit of saying, "that's not all there is to it," as we await the new life to come with our Creator, with endless mysteries to be revealed.
The truth revealed by God just opens one more door of knowledge that we can experience in this life. Without God, you are left with nothing but a purposeless "random" event.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm a curious person, I've never been satisfied with answers like "that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is". Such answers tell me that it is likely there is something else behind what we actually know. The question is, do we really want to find out what that something else is, and do we want to accept the implications in doing so?

Sounds to me like you should become a scientist because they openly acknowledge that we know very very little about the universe and they dedicate their lives to answering all those questions they have. Whenever they have a question they could just answer it with "god did it" but they have more curiosity than that, they want to verify the correct answer to the best of their ability rather than just declaring that it is supernatural and therefore that it's beyond our understanding and always will be

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Explain your reasoning, I am interested.

You say:

Jakkass wrote:

I'm a curious person, I've never been satisfied with answers like "that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is". Such answers tell me that it is likely there is something else behind what we actually know.

In some respects, your position of Christianity is surely a case of:
"that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is".

So are you not in some respects contradicting yourself?

Tim Robbins

chozometroid wrote: »

Actually, God does not provide a "that's it." He gives a reason for why we are here and how we got here, but saying "God did it" is actually not the same as "that's all there is to it," and it does not mean that there is nothing else to know. I'm not sure how many people actually make that type of statement, irrespective of their beliefs, unless they just don't care about the big questions. Christians actually have the benefit of saying, "that's not all there is to it," as we await the new life to come with our Creator, with endless mysteries to be revealed.
The truth revealed by God just opens one more door of knowledge that we can experience in this life. Without God, you are left with nothing but a purposeless "random" event.

Here's how I see it. You believe in the Christian God, you say "that's it" to many questions and I agree some are open. For example, when he's coming back.

Whereas the rationalist subsection of the atheistic position would be:

You don't believe in the Christian God, you don't say "that's it" to anything.
You hold your views tentatively as per scientific method etc.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Here's how I see it. You believe in the Christian God, you say "that's it" to many questions and I agree some are open. For example, when he's coming back.

You don't believe in the Christian God, you don't say "that's it" to anything.
You hold your views tentatively as per scientific method etc.

What views would these be? I would have thought that atheists are as willing to trust in their beliefs with as much certainty as the next man.

Denerick

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What views would these be? I would have thought that atheists are as willing to trust in their beliefs with as much certainty as the next man.

The word 'atheist' is a misnomer as it merely describes a lack of belief. By having a lack of belief you are not discounting the existance of a God, but just don't believe that it possible or likely. The overwhelming majority recognise there is a slim possibility of its existance (A lá Russels teapot - the question itself is somewhat absurd, as its unprovable to claim that a teapot is orbiting in space somewhere, hence trying to prove or disprove the existance of God is technically impossible with modern reasoning or logical abilities)

Unfortunately there are some atheists that believe in their 'lack of belief' so ardently they would put most religious fundamentalists to shame, but they aren't many in my experience.

philologos

I'm not so sure it does. There has been a lot of discussion on Youtube about this in particular. Atheism isn't just a non-belief, it is taking a position that God is not likely to exist, or that God doesn't exist at all. Agnosticism is a position that accepts that God may exist but we cannot know him. I believe that atheism requires justification. Of course the burden of proof is on the theist, but this doesn't put the atheist off the hook. The atheist position is not the default by any means.

Denerick

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure it does. There has been a lot of discussion on Youtube about this in particular. Atheism isn't just a non-belief, it is taking a position that God is not likely to exist, or that God doesn't exist at all. Agnosticism is a position that accepts that God may exist but we cannot know him. I believe that atheism requires justification. Of course the burden of proof is on the theist, but this doesn't put the atheist off the hook. The atheist position is not the default by any means.

I probably didn't explain what I was saying clearly enough. Basically the word atheist means a 'lack of belief'. For example the (Legendary) sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov complained that the word atheist only explained what he didn't believe in, not what he did, which is why he considered himself a humanist as opposed to an atheist.

I really don't think one can gather that an atheists opinions are set in stone, there are no 'fundamentals' as one might have with Christians - such as that the Gospels are inviolable truth (Thats another nut to crack, as you know )

lugha

Denerick wrote: »

By having a lack of belief you are not discounting the existance of a God, but just don't believe that it possible or likely.

Denerick wrote: »

The overwhelming majority recognise there is a slim possibility of its existance

I don't think it is sensible to try to assess the probability that God exists. We can point to the lack of evidence (although believers would challenge this) but ultimately this just means God choose to remain in the shadows. I cannot think of any sensible way of estimating the likelihood of this being true.

Denerick wrote: »

trying to prove or disprove the existance of God is technically impossible with modern reasoning or logical abilities

I think if he does exist then he could find a way to prove that to us. If he does not, then no we cannot prove it no more than you can prove any negative. But I can conceive of a scientific breakthrough which would devastate belief. If there is no God then there is the challenge to explain why the propensity to believe in God arises in almost all cultures. If we can develop a comprehensive understanding as to why this is the case, to an extent whereby we can devise a mechanism which allows us to turn on and off this propensity to belief in an individual then wouldn't the question of God's existence or not be satisfactorily answered in the negative?

Fanny Cradock

Denerick wrote: »

The word 'atheist' is a misnomer as it merely describes a lack of belief. By having a lack of belief you are not discounting the existance of a God, but just don't believe that it possible or likely. The overwhelming majority recognise there is a slim possibility of its existance (A lá Russels teapot - the question itself is somewhat absurd, as its unprovable to claim that a teapot is orbiting in space somewhere, hence trying to prove or disprove the existance of God is technically impossible with modern reasoning or logical abilities)

Unfortunately there are some atheists that believe in their 'lack of belief' so ardently they would put most religious fundamentalists to shame, but they aren't many in my experience.

That's fine, I've been around long enough to understand what atheism is and what it isn't. And this is why I don't see the justification for saying that atheists hold their "views" (plural) as tentatively as per the scientific method.

Irrespective of personal beliefs about God, many of our views (or even our most important decisions) aren't based on the scientific method, nor is the scientific method solely the realm of non-believers. It's the suggestion of there existing an insurmountable dichotomy between science and theism that prompted my OP.

God's existence is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What views would these be? I would have thought that atheists are as willing to trust in their beliefs with as much certainty as the next man.

I can only speak for myself but I'd hold my views / beliefs tentatively in the same manner as the scientific method holds thing tentatively. There's no "that's it".

Show me better evidence, better logic and I'll happily change my mind.

Turtwig

lugha wrote: »

But I can conceive of a scientific breakthrough which would devastate belief. If there is no God then there is the challenge to explain why the propensity to believe in God arises in almost all cultures. If we can develop a comprehensive understanding as to why this is the case, to an extent whereby we can devise a mechanism which allows us to turn on and off this propensity to belief in an individual then wouldn't the question of God's existence or not be satisfactorily answered in the negative?

Unfortunately though the current battle between science and lore would suggest that many people would simply reject such a breakthrough on blind assumptions without further considerations.:(

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

God's existence is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Only because you have made it so.
If God's existence was a scientific question then He would be assumed not to exist until evidence to the contrary (repeatable and objectively testable) came to suggest that He did exist. Even so, you would never actually prove God exists, you would only prove the possibility that there is a God. Such an assumption (like gravity) must, ultimately, never be accepted as 100% truth. God's existence would always need to be treated with skepticism and assumed wrong. Which is why God cannot be a scientific question -entertaining the thought of God not existing goes against the religious idea of faith I'd imagine.

lugha

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

God's existence is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

It is a scientific question in part, if you claim that God intervenes in our lives. Such claims are in principle testable and thus scientific methods can be brought to bear on the problem.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can only speak for myself but I'd hold my views / beliefs tentatively in the same manner as the scientific method holds thing tentatively. There's no "that's it".

Show me better evidence, better logic and I'll happily change my mind.

That's fine, Tim. You are perfectly welcome to tentatively hold onto beliefs about anything - that your existence is meaningful, that rape is bad or that your mother loves you. But you have now shifted from an unfounded generalisation about how one group (atheists) compares to another group (theists) to a statement about yourself. The latter is just fine - you can claim whatever you wish about yourself, it is the former, along with the not-so-subtle sweeping suggestions about exclusive rights to the scientific method, that I object to.

lugha

Malty_T wrote: »

Unfortunately though the current battle between science and lore would suggest that many people would simply reject such a breakthrough on blind assumptions without further considerations.:(

Many, yes. But it is hard to imagine that the thinking Christian would not face a serious crisis if such a discovery were made.