Choose one: confident Belief based on Faith.....or.........?

by Terry 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Terry

Which, if either, is best for you: being a Believer who accepts on Faith
or
Being a skeptic who doesn't trust Belief and prefers to rely on fact?
No cop outs allowed such as: BOTH.
It seems to me a greater confidence resides inside the true Believer. It is a fearless quality and often a dynamic assuredness in the face of obstacles.
On the other hand, the skeptic can't quite ever be sure because Science leaves the door on certainty ajar in case new data emerges.
JW's I know treat their Belief and Faith as a certainty MORE SURE than testable scientific knowledge. If prodded they'll say it is because their
belief rests on Jehovah's Truth. But, shake that tree a little bit and see what falls out!
Doctrinal changes fall out on the ground everywhere! Those aren't REPROOFS to the true believer. Noooooo.
Changes in doctrine are like Scientific knowledge in that enlightenment is gradually revealed!
Do you agree with this?
Do they differ at all? If so, why? If not, why not?
Religion differs from Science dramatically.
Religion is by fiat. Commanded! It is knowledge, behavior and enforcement by command from an unimpeachable hierarchy with Almighty God at the very top.
Religion is monolithic. Religion stems from Authority to declare something true without ever having to prove it. In fact, a demand for proof (sometimes called "a sign" is called wicked and faithless) is not worthy of a believer.
Science is from the bottom up. Its source commences with total ignorance and works its way up:
1.Ignorance
2.Guesswork (hypothesis)
3.Fact gathering
4.Testing
5.Restatement after experiment with predictability (Theory)
6.Established Fact tempered by a means of falsifying factor.
Science is disputable because anybody who can demonstrate a flaw in an existing theory is allowed to challenge accepted Fact.
Religion is indisputable because challenges are seen as disloyalty and evil.
What are YOUR values when it comes to FAITH versus TESTABLE FACT?
Speak personally and not generally.
Thank you.
Phizzy

Terry , yet again you hit the zeitgeist ! people are questioning beliefs in the wake of the recent events, and rightly so.
I now say that I do not hold any "beliefs".
As usual, we have to define our terms here, what I mean by beliefs are holding that something is true with no testable proof, proof that would satisfy a "Jury" of sceptical, critical thinking experts in whatever field we are talking about.
Without such proof, I will not trust that something is true.
This does not preclude possibility, so, Purple -spotted Pink Unicorns may exist, but without the proof of the quality mentioned above , I do not trust that they do, and, more importantly I think,.... I do not care.
Their possible existence , (or "God's" existence for example), in a pure logic sense, makes no difference to my life, or the way I live it.
Of what real value is Belief or Faith ? Are you a better human, contributing more to the benefit of other humans because of your "faith" ?
Hardly, you are an irrational, deluded individual incapable of perceiving the real world as it is, and therefore incapable of guiding anyone else in any way.
Follow the "believers" if you like, you are free to do so, but there madness lies.
cyberjesus

ignorance in this case is bliss.
cofty

The second option.
I don't see the need for certainty as a virtue.
Terry

The second option.
I don't see the need for certainty as a virtue.
Are you certain?
tec

Which, if either, is best for you: being a Believer who accepts on Faith
The above. My faith is based on evidence though (Christ being the foundation of my faith).
In your choice, though, I cannot state that I have ever had to discount facts to maintain my faith.
Changes in (wts... tec added this) doctrine are like Scientific knowledge in that enlightenment is gradually revealed!
Do you agree with this?
Do they differ at all? If so, why? If not, why not?
In some ways this is similar (albeit based on different things) Science can flip flop according to evidence presented, but often science simply builds upon what came before. Science is supposed to work like this. It's findings are not supposed to be the authority, end all know all... or they would be conclusions, rather than evidence and findings.
On the other hand, changes in doctrine seem more like damage control, because they were wrong to begin with and without basis. The information (evidence) does not change. Reality proves the 'doctrine' false. Reality proves the "interpretation" of the evidence, false.
Which can happen in the scientific world too... because with anything that is REAL, man and his interference/interpretation/lack of knowledge... are the uncontrolled variable. (I might have used that term wrong; been a long time since I took science in high school, lol)
Religion is by fiat. Commanded! It is knowledge, behavior and enforcement by command from an unimpeachable hierarchy with Almighty God at the very top.
Hmm.. it is. But religion and faith are not the same thing. One can have religon without faith. One can have faith without religion.
Since you said to speak personally, i will speak to the rest as faith, and not religion, and i hope that is okay. I can do it again via religion, if you like, but I would not be speaking personally.
Religion is monolithic. Religion stems from Authority to declare something true without ever having to prove it. In fact, a demand for proof (sometimes called "a sign" is called wicked and faithless) is not worthy of a believer.
Someone with faith does not need to demand proof... because their faith is built upon evidence. Someone might ask for a sign to help them out with their fledgling faith though. That would be asking for help, and there is nothing wrong with that. Got to ask the one who can grant that help though. (christ)
Demanding might not be the best route either... but asking, there is nothing wrong with that. One is encouraged to do so.
Science is from the bottom up. Its source commences with total ignorance and works its way up:
I think science builds upon what is already accepted. I don't think it starts with total ignorance, ever.
But faith can work similar as your steps below... with a couple minor changes:
1.Ignorance
Yes... and the acknowledgment of ignorance.
2.Guesswork (hypothesis)
Yes... usually based on something that would lead one to wonder.
3.Fact gathering
Evidence gathering.
4.Testing
Yes. The tests are different though.
5.Restatement after experiment with predictability (Theory)
Same results from the tests... and so building upon the strength of your faith.
6.Established Fact tempered by a means of falsifying factor.
I don't know about this one. I don't know enough about this one means.
Science is disputable because anybody who can demonstrate a flaw in an existing theory is allowed to challenge accepted Fact.
Religion is indisputable because challenges are seen as disloyalty and evil.
Honestly, the only thing that should matter to a person of faith in Christ... is what Christ sees.
What are YOUR values when it comes to FAITH versus TESTABLE FACT?
Speak personally and not generally.
By testable fact, i am assuming that you mean scientifically testable and verifiable fact.
My thoughts on this are that science does not conflict faith in Christ and God and the spiritual... but does not - at the moment- have the tools to verify the existance of things that it is not yet designed to measure. (the spiritual) This is not a contradiction... this is just a 'not yet'.
I also love science because it can give us insights into God - and the spiritual - as well.
I hope that answers, and if i went off on a tangent or direction you did not mean, then please feel free to draw me back in :)
Peace Terry,
tammy
happytobefree

I chose Faith via my experience. And I question religion.
I have experienced miracles, peace and understanding where I had not had before....after I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior.
smiddy

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld " Heb:11.1 In the past 130 + years ,when have Jehovah`s Witnesses who have put faith in the writings of the Watchtower publications ever seen a fulfillment of any of their expectations .? Never !
All religions rely on faith ,pagan ,xian , and whatever else you want to name .
They are all" weighed in the balances and found wanting"
why did I use that quote ? All religions have something worthwhile to say, that doesn`t mean to say , everything they say, is to be embrased wholeheartedly. as from God .
smiddy
NewChapter

I go with evidence. Are evidence and faith different? Well if there were evidence, faith would be unnecessary, so yes, they are very different.
There is uncertainly living an evidence based life, but that really doesn't bother me. I don't have a need to believe in a bigger plan or some purpose---but just to recognize that this is our life, and we do the best we can. I don't need to fill in the gaps, and doing so is somewhat boring. The kid that used to dream about landing on Mars has seen that become a type of reality as an adult today. If we knew it all, without uncertainty, the excitement would be gone.
I used to go with faith and confirmation bias----it didn't end well. Never again. At least not on the important things. We all show a bit of faith from time to time. But it is a different kind of faith. The kind that is not absolute and is willing to yield to evidence.
Max Divergent

This faith and belief thing seems all random and idiosyncratic to me, based on the outcomes one can observe of ideologically driven politics, religion etc. Sometimes random things work out well: say if you win the lottery. Usually they work out badly.
Evidence-based approaches reduce random elements and systematicly approach attaining useful outcomes. Much better chance of things going right.
For me, given the choice, I go with the option that is most likley to provide the best possible results. That is evidence-based reasoning.
Max

Choose one: confident Belief based on Faith.....or.........?

Share this