How do you know that the faith that you believe in is the true one?

Dr. Baltar

Hello everyone, let me begin by saying that I am an agnostic. I am not sure whether God exists, although I would lean more towards the Atheist side of the debate.

A friend of mine was like me for many years and then recently "found Jesus" and converted. This, and a conversation with two (very nice and polite) Mormons at my door today got me thinking about one question I would really like you to answer:

I asked the Mormons at my door how they knew that their religion was the correct one, to which they pointed to a passage in their bible stating something along the lines of "pray to God in Ernest and he'll tell you that this is the true religion".

What I don't understand is, as an agnostic and a non-theist If I were to begin searching for faith how can I logically find "the correct" religion when almost every holy book that has ever existed claims to be the correct religion.
Furthermore, surely if all of you were born into an extreme Muslim family in Saudi Arabia you would believe in the religion of Islam just as much as/if not more as the religion that you believe in now?

Thank you in advance.

Dr. Baltar

lmaopml

I would imagine our curiosity and searching for truth underscores your question...We have 'one' life and only so many times we ponder these things, and only so much 'time' to ponder them sometimes or even ways and means of doing so...

We either 'do' try to seek out or we 'don't'....but we all know internally when we examine ourselves as to whether we really tried..

..and so does 'God'!

PDN

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I asked the Mormons at my door how they knew that their religion was the correct one, to which they pointed to a passage in their bible stating something along the lines of "pray to God in Ernest and he'll tell you that this is the true religion".

And there you have it. Christians believe God was in Christ and Mormons believe God is in Ernest.

Fanny Cradock

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Hello everyone, let me begin by saying that I am an agnostic. I am not sure whether God exists, although I would lean more towards the Atheist side of the debate.

It's a good question. I'm not sure that we can know anything for certain. My faith, for example, operates within degrees of certainty that I believe will always fall short of knowing the absolute truth. So to answer your question, I don't know with certainty that my faith in Jesus is correct. But based upon my investigation and personal experience, I believe it more likely to be true than false. I would assume that your faith - and I would classify your leanings towards atheism as such - to be based upon a similar process.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

What I don't understand is, as an agnostic and a non-theist If I were to begin searching for faith how can I logically find "the correct" religion when almost every holy book that has ever existed claims to be the correct religion.
Furthermore, surely if all of you were born into an extreme Muslim family in Saudi Arabia you would believe in the religion of Islam just as much as/if not more as the religion that you believe in now?

Again, another good question. There are a staggering array of religions. Is there one correct religion? And if so how can we determine which one? I'm not sure there is a neat answer to these type of questions. Still, I'll give a few attempts at providing some food for thought.

How do you come to the conclusion that your wife loves you? Well, because she says and does X, Y and Z. Unless you indulge in extreme scepticism then this type of evidence will be sufficient. Perhaps you could begin your search by operating under the assumption that if there is a God(s) this being would choose to reveal himself to his creations. Therefore, it would seem sensible to begin investigating the largest world religions to determine if they are coherent on a personal level and with the world around. Taste and see!

I came back from the edges of the wilderness of agnosticism (that is how I think of it now) and returned to Christianity through this type of investigation. In short, I tasted and I saw my X, Y and Z before me. I found Christianity to be intellectually stimulating, internally coherent and life changing.

Alternatively, you could simply ask this unknown God(s) to reveal himself/ herself/ itself to you in some way.

Or you could simply not bother and hope for the best.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Furthermore, surely if all of you were born into an extreme Muslim family in Saudi Arabia you would believe in the religion of Islam just as much as/if not more as the religion that you believe in now?

It always surprises me how often this question comes up. I wonder if this is testament to to prevalence of post modern thought. Yes, I most probably would have been a Muslim if I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I most probably would have been an atheist if I grew up somewhere in communist Russia. The relevance of this escapes me.

God either exists or he doesn't. The truth of this is lies beyond mere personal conviction. I could, for instance, have grown up in a family living in the Bible-Belt who vehemently denied evolution. This would be of little consequence to truth because the truth is a brute fact that lies beyond any of us.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It always surprises me how often this question comes up. I wonder if this is testament to to prevalence of post modern thought. Yes, I most probably would have been a Muslim if I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I most probably would have been an atheist if I grew up somewhere in communist Russia. The relevance of this escapes me.

God either exists or he doesn't. The truth of this is lies beyond mere personal conviction. I could, for instance, have grown up in a family living in the Bible-Belt who vehemently denied evolution. This would be of little consequence to truth because the truth is a brute fact that lies beyond any of us.

I think you might have missed the point a bit. No the truth is not changed by where you happen to grow up but looking at the world and the fact that the vast majority of people stick with the religion they were raised with or at least some variant of it, what people end up accepting to be the truth does appear to be affected by where you grow up.


Also, you say "God either exists or he doesn't" but that is not the case as is evidenced by this very thread. Once you get past that question you have to ask yourself "which god?" and it seems that the answer that people give to that question appears to very much depend on where they grew up.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It always surprises me how often this question comes up. I wonder if this is testament to to prevalence of post modern thought. Yes, I most probably would have been a Muslim if I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I most probably would have been an atheist if I grew up somewhere in communist Russia. The relevance of this escapes me.

God either exists or he doesn't. The truth of this is lies beyond mere personal conviction. I could, for instance, have grown up in a family living in the Bible-Belt who vehemently denied evolution. This would be of little consequence to truth because the truth is a brute fact that lies beyond any of us.

No the truth is not changed by where you happen to grow up but judging by the fact that the vast majority of people stick with the religion they were raised with or at least some variant of it, what people end up accepting to be the truth does appear to be affected by where you grow up. The underlying truth does not change but the reality is that the vast majority of people on the planet who think they know this underlying truth are wrong.

You say "God either exists or he doesn't" but that is not the case as is evidenced by the very question you are describing as irrelevant. Once you get past the question of whether or not a god exists you have to ask yourself "which god, and which understanding of that god?" and it seems that the answer that people give to that question appears to depend greatly on where they grew up, which leads to the question being asked in the thread. What relevance is an underlying truth if there appears to be no way of reliably determining what this truth is?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No the truth is not changed by where you happen to grow up but judging by the fact that the vast majority of people stick with the religion they were raised with or at least some variant of it, what people end up accepting to be the truth does appear to be affected by where you grow up. The underlying truth does not change but the reality is that the vast majority of people on the planet who think they know this underlying truth are wrong.

I have already said this. Why do you feel the need to repeat it in two separate posts?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say "God either exists or he doesn't" but that is not the case as is evidenced by the very question you are describing as irrelevant.

I don't understand this. Can you explain what you mean?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Once you get past the question of whether or not a god exists you have to ask yourself "which god, and which understanding of that god?" and it seems that the answer that people give to that question appears to depend greatly on where they grew up, which leads to the question being asked in the thread. What relevance is an underlying truth if there appears to be no way of reliably determining what this truth is?

Well, you seem to have skipped right by the part where I said that I couldn't determine absolute truth and that I operate within degrees of certainty. You ignore this rather bald statement and conflate "underlying truth" (is this the same as the absolute truth I was discussing?) with the "degrees of certainty" mentioned in the my first paragraph. Perhaps you need to re-read my post.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

[...]which leads to the question being asked in the thread. What relevance is an underlying truth if there appears to be no way of reliably determining what this truth is?

"How do you know that the faith that you believe in is the true one? " is not the same as "What relevance is an underlying truth if there appears to be no way of reliably determining what this truth is?" They are different questions, not least because your question is framed with an epistemological presupposition.

I'm curious as to how you know that there is no reliable method of determining what the truth is? Presumably you believe that you have unearthed the underlying truth that there is no God of any sort, right? Or maybe, like me, you operate within degrees of certainty that fall short of knowing the absolute truth. This, however, does not mean that we can't be correct, and this is why I encouraged the OP to begin searching for answers.

We have had the same discussion 10 times before, Sam. You poo-poo the truth claims of all religions when in certain respects you, as an atheist, are the least qualified to discuss them. Ho-hum.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have already said this. Why do you feel the need to repeat it in two separate posts?

Sorry didn't think the first one had posted.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't understand this. Can you explain what you mean?

Well, you seem to have skipped right by the part where I said that I couldn't determine absolute truth and that I operate within degrees of certainty. You ignore this rather bald statement and conflate "underlying truth" (is this the same as the absolute truth I was discussing?) with the "degrees of certainty" mentioned in the my first paragraph. Perhaps you need to re-read my post.

"How do you know that the faith that you believe in is the true one? " is not the same as "What relevance is an underlying truth if there appears to be no way of reliably determining what this truth is?" They are different questions, not least because your question is framed with an epistemological presupposition.

You said that the fact that people mostly stick with the religion they were raised with was irrelevant to the truth so I was attempting to explain why the point is relevant, ie that the question is not simply "does god exist or not?", it's "does a god exist, and if so, what is the nature of this god?". Then both the questions of which faith is correct and is there any reliable way to know which faith is correct are relevant and the fact that the vast majority of people stick with the religion they grew up with is relevant to the question of whether there is a reliable way to determine which faith is correct

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you know that there is no reliable method of determining what the truth is? Presumably you believe that you have unearthed the underlying truth that there is no God of any sort, right? Or maybe, like me, you operate within degrees of certainty that fall short of knowing the absolute truth. This, however, does not mean that we can't be correct, and this is why I encouraged the OP to begin searching for answers.

We have had the same discussion 10 times before, Sam. You poo-poo the truth claims of all religions when in certain respects you, as an atheist, are the least qualified to discuss them. Ho-hum.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say there is definitely no reliable way to determine this truth but I can say that if there is we have not discovered it yet. When I say reliable I mean empirically verifiable, ie that you can go to any unbiased observer, show them the cold hard facts and they will be convinced, the way science works. The mere existence of thousands upon thousands of religions and millions of different interpretations within each religion all of whom think that their interpretation is correct but none of whom can empirically demonstrate theirs to be correct shows that there is currently no reliable way to determine this truth. You say that I poo-poo the truth claims of all religions but if these truth claims could be reliably determined I would no longer be able to do that. I would attempt to do so and I would be proven wrong, just as someone who claims that the earth is flat can be proven wrong. You talk about degrees of certainty but how can there be any degree of certainty when there are millions of competing interpretations, all of which seem to be largely accepted or rejected based on where the proponent was born?

Thomas828

Dr Baltar, you ask, how do you know that the faith I follow is the right one? The fact is, I don't. Just as nobody knows for sure that God exists, but my faith tells me He does. You also mentioned growing up among strict Moslems. I don't think that's a good example. People who grow up in strict religious societies have little or no choice in whether to believe or not. With them it's usually 'You will worship God or else!!!'

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said that the fact that people mostly stick with the religion they were raised with was irrelevant to the truth so I was attempting to explain why the point is relevant, ie that the question is not simply "does god exist or not?", it's "does a god exist, and if so, what is the nature of this god?".

Here we go again. Existence and nature are two entirely separate questions. They do not belong in the same sentence. Instead, as you have done in the past when we have had these discussions, you put the cart before the horse by attempting to make any answer to the question of God's existence somehow contingent on what we think we know about his nature. If, God forbid, I lost my faith in Christ tomorrow (thus rejecting the claims Christianity makes about the nature of God) I don't think it inevitable that I would become an atheist.

I suggested to Dr Baltar that there are two possibilities with regards to existence of a supernatural being (and I you can apply capitals, plurals or whatever as you see fit): existence or non-existence. This is the beginning point of the investigation, and if somebody rejects God's existence - whether by rigorous investigation or by indulging in a priori dismissal - then there is little to be gained by puzzling about his/ her/ it's nature. I respectfully suggest that this person stops worrying about it and concentrate on maximising the pleasure they can get on this earth because it is all they will ever have.

You stand with the wall of non-existence obscuring your view of the next question. Frankly, you really aren't in the position to tell us that there is no reliable way of knowing the truth about the nature of a being you have no experience of.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say there is definitely no reliable way to determine this truth but I can say that if there is we have not discovered it yet. When I say reliable I mean empirically verifiable, ie that you can go to any unbiased observer, show them the cold hard facts and they will be convinced, the way science works.

Fine, you demand that the lab rat is able to measure the habits of the scientist. I get it. Incidentally, what about your position of atheism. Is that verifiable?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The mere existence of thousands upon thousands of religions and millions of different interpretations within each religion all of whom think that their interpretation is correct but none of whom can empirically demonstrate theirs to be correct shows that there is currently no reliable way to determine this truth.

Beyond the conclusions you draw from the preponderance of religions, can you show me that there is no reliable way to determine the truth?

wolfsbane

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Hello everyone, let me begin by saying that I am an agnostic. I am not sure whether God exists, although I would lean more towards the Atheist side of the debate.

A friend of mine was like me for many years and then recently "found Jesus" and converted. This, and a conversation with two (very nice and polite) Mormons at my door today got me thinking about one question I would really like you to answer:

I asked the Mormons at my door how they knew that their religion was the correct one, to which they pointed to a passage in their bible stating something along the lines of "pray to God in Ernest and he'll tell you that this is the true religion".

What I don't understand is, as an agnostic and a non-theist If I were to begin searching for faith how can I logically find "the correct" religion when almost every holy book that has ever existed claims to be the correct religion.
Furthermore, surely if all of you were born into an extreme Muslim family in Saudi Arabia you would believe in the religion of Islam just as much as/if not more as the religion that you believe in now?

Thank you in advance.

Dr. Baltar

1. Man's conscience tells him there is a God to whom he must give account.

2. Man may not know who this God is, and may be deceived into following various false gods - or into atheism.

3. God has sent the gospel into the world to tell men who God is and how they can be reconciled to Him.

4. Hearing that message, conscience is stirred by the Holy Spirit to face its truth.

5. The truth of the gospel is witnessed not only by conscience convinced by the Spirit, but by observing God's grace in answered prayer and in the changed lives of true Christians.

Those who say they have insufficient evidence have not being looking seriously - or they are deceiving themselves.

So it doesn't matter how many competing stories there are - God will convince the sincere seeker about the right one.
_________________________________________________________________
Deuteronomy 4:29 But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Here we go again. Existence and nature are two entirely separate questions. They do not belong in the same sentence. Instead, as you have done in the past when we have had these discussions, you put the cart before the horse by attempting to make any answer to the question of God's existence somehow contingent on what we think we know about his nature. If, God forbid, I lost my faith in Christ tomorrow (thus rejecting the claims Christianity makes about the nature of God) I don't think it inevitable that I would become an atheist.

I suggested to Dr Baltar that there are two possibilities with regards to existence of a supernatural being (and I you can apply capitals, plurals or whatever as you see fit): existence or non-existence. This is the beginning point of the investigation, and if somebody rejects God's existence - whether by rigorous investigation or by indulging in a priori dismissal - then there is little to be gained by puzzling about his/ her/ it's nature. I respectfully suggest that this person stops worrying about it and concentrate on maximising the pleasure they can get on this earth because it is all they will ever have.

How can you say whether or not something exists before you have defined any of its properties? Is there such thing as a smismar? I don't know because I don't know what a smismar is. It must be defined before its existence can be determined. And if we only ever trouble ourselves with the question of existence or lack thereof then the whole exercise becomes pointless. The existence of an undefined god is no more relevant than that of an undefined smismar.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You stand with the wall of non-existence obscuring your view of the next question. Frankly, you really aren't in the position to tell us that there is no reliable way of knowing the truth about the nature of a being you have no experience of.


Beyond the conclusions you draw from the preponderance of religions, can you show me that there is no reliable way to determine the truth?

Well one thing that I can tell you is not a reliable way is personal experience, since there are millions of contradictory personal experiences and the only thing they all have in common is they all think theirs is true. If there was a reliable way to determine this truth there would be one religion, the way there is one atomic theory. This truth cannot be said to be reliably determinable until it can be demonstrated. Do you know of any sect of any religion who can demonstrate the truth of their claims the way I can demonstrate the laws of motion?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fine, you demand that the lab rat is able to measure the habits of the scientist. I get it. Incidentally, what about your position of atheism. Is that verifiable?

I think you might be misunderstanding my position as "there is no god". This is not my position. As with most atheists I know I don't concern myself all that much with the question of whether or not there is some kind of generic undefined being existing in a timeless domain outside our universe because, as I said, the existence of an undefined being is irrelevant. I concern myself with the reliability of the truth claims of the various religions. So until the day that one sect of one religion can demonstrate itself to be true, my positon is verifiable.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How can you say whether or not something exists before you have defined any of its properties? Is there such thing as a smismar? I don't know because I don't know what a smismar is. It must be defined before its existence can be determined. And if we only ever trouble ourselves with the question of existence or lack thereof then the whole exercise becomes pointless. The existence of an undefined god is no more relevant than that of an undefined smismar.

Smizmar's aside, whether good, bad, omnipotent or bumbling, your metaphysical naturalism precludes the existence of a being outside of this universe whatever his properties. You have just hit that wall I was talking about.

Thankfully, we have a perfectly workable definition for God that most of us are happy to use as a starting point for the type of wide-ranging investigation I was encouraging Dr. Baltar embark on.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Smizmar's aside,

There is a smizmar! Hallelujah!

I tried to think of a random sounding word but that was the best I could think of. Was hoping you weren't a futurama fan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

whether good, bad, omnipotent or bumbling, your metaphysical naturalism precludes the existence of a being outside of this universe whatever his properties. You have just hit that wall I was talking about.

I have no such wall. It would be extremely presumptuous of me to make any pronouncements about anything that may or may not exist in another universe. What my position precludes is accepting that someone else can make such pronouncements when they are not able to demonstrate their pronouncements to be correct

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thankfully, we have a perfectly workable definition for God that most of us are happy to use as a starting point for the type of wide-ranging investigation I was encouraging Dr. Baltar embark on.

As long as that's only the starting point that's just fine. I've often been prepared to assume the existence of such a being for the purpose of debate, to get people to stop with the usual teleological and cosmological etc arguments that don't argue for any specific god (and are therefore, as I said, irrelevant) and get onto how one can objectively choose one religion over another, which is the only question that actually matters. Unfortunately in most of my dealings with religious people an inordinate amount of time spent is spent with the first type of argument and precious little on why I should take the word of twelve ancient Iraelites over that of any of the other people who have made similar claims throughout history, and what time has been spent has been very disappointing, with things like arguments for why the claims are reliable that either could be applied to many other such claims or themselves rely on accepting other parts of their testimony to be true, e.g. Jesus is likely to be divine because of the fulfilment of prophecy. How do we know be fulfilled the prophecy? Because the bible says he did. Reminicent of the napkin in the OP