Knowledge by Proxy

by braincleaned 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

adamah

Well, as much as I'm reluctant to diagree with ol' Bertrand, I beg to differ on this point:

(after being asked "Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief?")

"Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite... at least, I rule it out as impossible.

It's not only POSSIBLE, but people do it ALL THE TIME.

As SBF's situation shows, there's MANY practical reasons for someone to at least profess they believe, eg to avoid shunning, divorce, familal and social pressures, the tasty pot-luck get-togethers, as a means to avoid fear of death, etc. Given that it's impossible to KNOW what others actually believe (eg the existence of sociopaths casts doubt on the challenge, since they actually believe the lies they tell others), there's not much support for poor ol' Beltrand on that point. There ARE many practical reasons to believe.

Fortunately, he bails himself out:

Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t... it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true."

And that's true, yes, but it's called 'rationalization' which people do ALL THE TIME. People have different values, and some value intellectual honesty more than anything else; others want to accept beliefs that make them feel good, or give them hope and comfort. Bertrand is projecting HIS values onto others.

Of course, people often manage to only fool themselves, so they don't even REALIZE when they're doing it, since that's kinda what the name implies: self-delusion.

Adam
braincleaned

//Romans 10;17 says faith comes from hearing//

Ucantnome, verse 17 answers to the question in the context; "Lord, who has had faith in our message?" — only then 17 answers "from hearing".

Consequently, "hearing" has nothing to do with Faith as per definition (well defined in Heb. 11:1).
braincleaned

adamah, may I call on context.

Russell was not saying it was impossible — he meant it was impossible for him!
The context reveals the tone and intent of this quote.

And yes, the latter is called "rationalization" — something he didn't subscribe to either.

To know what meaning Russell pushes behind his words, reading "Why I'm not a Christian" is revealing.

Just setting the quote strait.
tec

What do you suppose faith is based upon, braincleaned, as per that definition?

Peace,

tammy
braincleaned

According to Hebrews 11:1 — Faith is based on hope rooted in belief of yet unprovable invisible evidence.

Simply put, it is based in the holy books (or other sources) of one's choice or upbringing.
First, one must trust those stories to be true.
Once trust is given, this will generate solid hope even if there is no provable evidence for it.

In short. Faith is:
1) — TRUST in a chosen source
2) — HOPE that all that is promised will happen
3) — BELIEF with no need for any visible or tangeble evidence.

This Faith will be strong enough to even refuse or rationalize any hard evidence that would contradict this Faith.
Faith beats reality to those equipped with it. It is more powerful than all empircal knowledge!

Maybe someone else has a better definition?
tec

Faith is based on hope rooted in belief of yet unprovable invisible evidence.

Thank you for giving me your definition. This is the error that I think many people have, right from the start of that verse. Because nothing in that definitions says that faith is BASED on hope.

So lets break it up:

Faith is the assurance (assured expectation) OF what one hopes for.

What is faith?

Faith is assurance/confidence/certainty.

Assurance of what?

Of what one is hoping for.

Now, Paul is not speaking of just any hope in any old thing... he is speaking to those whose faith is in Christ and His promises (the life, the resurrection, the kingdom). BASED UPON what is HEARD (as Paul goes on to give multiple examples of men whose faith was based upon what they HEARD)... and upon Christ's OWN death and resurrection.

"not yet seen"... doesn't mean invisible evidence. It simply means we do not yet see the reality of what has been promised. (our resurrection has not yet happened; Christ has not yet returned to gather his people to Him and into His kingdom)

It is not that convoluted, the examples Paul gives about men of faith show exactly what he meant... except that man has not understood faith, himself (due to not having faith), and so has passed his lack of understanding on.

Peace to you,

tammy
zound

Just cut and pasting a comment I made on another thread below, I have a big problem with people who encourage faith.

@ Tammy/Tec - If you have faith in something that is yet to happen and then evidence (real, hard, tangible evidence) presents itself that either completely debunks the reality of what you have faith in, or throws a very strong shadow of doubt on it - what do you do?

Soapbox moment:

Personally I think anyone promoting faith is a negative force in the world (sorry Tec - nothing personal)

If someone (especially children) are taught that believing something without evidence is a GOOD thing - a noble thing even - a thing to strive for, then they are being set up to fall.

When some destructive group knock on their door (the JW's for example) and say "here, believe this - don't ask questions, just have faith" - the person has already been taught that faith is a GOOD thing and are more at risk of joining such a group - or wasting their time believing in something that just isn't true.

Therefore I have a problem with anyone who is preaching from a POSITION OF FAITH. If you belieive something without evidence, no problem. As soon as you start promoting your mindset as a good thing to others - PROBLEM.

Most people of faith don't see the harm they are doing - BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT - therefore the ends justifies the means. The other people that AREN'T RIGHT are the ones doing harm. Have faith now, they say, the evidence will be apparent in the next life (or when Jesus comes or whatever).

People who speak from a position of faith but claim to have evidence is another matter (hint: annecdotes aren't evidence)

It's up to people of reason to counter this harm that is being done and help children and ignorant people to use reason and evidence when making decisions, and not the falsity riddled dialogue such Tec uses (again, nothing personal Tammy - just expressing myself).

No matter how elquent or charming a person of faith can be - if they are promoting the fact that having faith is a great thing (doesn't even have to be preaching - just condoning) then they are promoting a very harmful thought process that can completely screw up a persons life.

Obviously myself after having gone through the mill am now in a position that I can rationally see this and have a discussion with a person of faith with no risk of believing their bull****. But it irks me to no end when I see these same perfectly nice people turn around and promote "Faith" as a good thing to their children, who are not equipped through experience like I am to see it for what it is.

End soapbox moment.
Ucantnome

braincleaned i think tec's answer is better than I could give.

i'm no scholar. i never used to read the Watchtower and Awake and have no college education. An older brother used to say once he looked at the cover of the magazines he knew what they would say and i never read the bible from cover to cover because i already know the ending.

however in my Vines under the word Faith it says,

"firm persuasion," a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, "to persuade"), is used in the NT always of "faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual."

In Acts 8 we find the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip. In verse 35 it tells us that Philip declared to him the Good News about Christ and then he was baptized. I understand that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 which has reference to "my servant"

I think I am right in saying that in Romans 10:17 the apostle Paul is quoting from Isaiah 53.

In Ray Franz book In Search of Christian Freedom in the chapter The Greatness of the Good News. He cites the scripture in Galatians 1:6 from the Jerusalem Bible where it says.

I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News.

and on page 539 under the subheading The Foundation and Essence of the Good News talking of the apostles and other Christian writers

They consistently pointed to Christ's ransom sacrifice, his victory over kings sin and death on behalf of all mankind, the authority the Father has given to his resurrected Son to liberate from the wages of sin and death all those who put faith in him.

He goes on to say,

That was-and is- the good news the Bible itself brings us. The Biblical good news does not draw attention to, nor its it tied up with, some date, whether 1914 or any other date, not does it attract by offers of alluring physical and material benefits "just around the corner." It is tied up with an event, the event in which God's Son fulfilled his primary mission as the Messiah and gave his life on our behalf, thereafter being resurrected to God's right hand and serving as our advocate there.

In the book Man's Salvation Out of World Distress At Hand (1975 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) after talking about Isaiah 52/53 and the servant and the apostle Paul on page 47 it says this.

The glorification of Jesus Christ in heaven after his extraordinary sufferings as a man on earth was good news, Gospel, Evangel. "Nevertheless,"writes the apostle Paul with special reference to his own people, "they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: 'Jehovah, who put faith in the thing heard [from us? So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is through the word about Christ." -Romans 10:16,17

The following paragraph on page 48 I think is important for the point I want to make and so I will quote most of it.

"A similar thing can be said today, "They did not all obey the good news." This, even after the Christian witnesses of Jehovah have spent more than sixty years in proclaiming that the "times of the Gentiles" ended in the autumn of 1914 amid the first world war and theat then Jehovah's "Servant" received a new elevation by being exalted to the throne of the Messianic kingdom.

It goes on to say a little later in the paragraph.

"The good news about the Messianic kingdom of Jehovah's "Servant" is better news today than it was nineteen hundred years ago, in apostolic times. In the face of the relatively small proportion of the world's population that has put faith in the "thing heard [from] us" or proclaimed by us, it can truthfully be said: "They did not all obey the good news." This explains the saddening state of the world of mankind today."

A couple of pages earlier at the beginning of the chapter page 46 it says

"The kings of this present generation of mankind will 'stare in amazement' at he coming display that will be presented by the Messianic "Servant" of his changed position in God's organization"

It says the 'present generation'.

Our faith in the good news as preached by the apostle's is like a title deed, an assurance a gaurantee as Paul says in Romans 5 we have been made right with God because of our faith.

I think faith in anything else could be damaging.
OnTheWayOut

I love the Coca-Cola Magazine part.

For the most part, I can only agree as far as our knowledge of statistical fact go, that we learn them from someone else and choose which sources to trust.

I could see where someone who hears the voice of God would want to believe that comes from someone else also. But we all know deep down that such is not the case and these people hear from their own mind.

Now, that is not "knowledge" unless you count it as misinformed knowledge. But still, the point is that we learn quite a bit from personal experience and our own knowledge can be emotion-driven, brain-driven, without the need for proxy. (You learn that something is HOT, COLD, SWEET, WET, TIRESOME, you learn about your own endurance or lack of it.

That said, not just to pick apart what you say, because it it generally true- but belief can very much so be a choice. A person can choose from different sources or from personal experience. If a person were not exposed to spiritual/religious misinformation, they may be brain-driven to say there is no God. If a person is led astray by their own mind, they can say God is right there with them.

But yeah, for the most part- we feed on what we believe and trust sources that tend to agree with us. I listen to debates with William Lane Craig and always like the other guy better.
tec

@ Tammy/Tec - If you have faith in something that is yet to happen and then evidence (real, hard, tangible evidence) presents itself that either completely debunks the reality of what you have faith in, or throws a very strong shadow of doubt on it - what do you do?

I would, and have, examined that evidence. I have also asked my Lord about it. There has never been hard, tangible evidence to debunk the reality of what I have faith IN... there is evidence FOR my faith... and any shadow of a doubt that has ever been cast has proven false when examined.

I responded to your soapbox moment when you originally posted it. If I could remember where that was, I would just link to it ; )

Peace to you,

tammy

Knowledge by Proxy

Share this