cofty makes excellent points. He is specifically talking about people being asked to commit to and act in accord with teachings on the basis of others' claims and little else. To stretch what cofty is saying to mean he has ruled out having faith in anything is unhelpful.
Escaping Indoctrination - Faith Isn't a Virtue.
by cofty 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LV101
Cofty - with reference to the "sufficient" evidence on Oubilette's list above, I do hope info/research is reiterated/reposted re/an individual's brain imagining hearing/experiencing something spiritual or from God/Christ. Hope that makes sense - sorry, laughing about your question above whether the statement was in English and I'm throwing you one more!
I know there's some serious evidence in the psychiatric area and some on this board have taken time and effort to post. I will try to search but might be screamng for HELP - this mental/imagining has me stymied and perplexed what our fantasies are capable of.
Thanks.
LV
-
mrhhome
to commit to and act in accord with teachings on the basis of others' claims and little else
Children do in school all the time. You are placing faith in your teachers. When most of us quote science, we are placing our faith that the scientist did their job correctly. Honestly, how many of us go back and re-verify science?
-
villagegirl
The onus is on those who would have us believe in extraordinary things to provide extraordinary evidence.
Appeals to the supposed virtue of faith should be a red flag that the evidence is lacking.
Not everything is evidence based, theoretical physicists have often
theorized things based on no evidence whatsoever, then did math
or invented math and the theory remained math or was proven later
by evidence not available at the time they thought it up,
or even after they were dead.
Thats also how things are invented and discovered.
Conceputalizing a non material unseen universe in your head is not a "virtue"
nobody who believes in God, thinks its a virtue, its an idea,
a idea of love, of grace, of hope, of possibility in the unknown.
Its this kind of thinking that drives artists, musicians, explorers
and all creative people, its a vision. You must not have a creative
bone in your body to live in your 'Flat Earth' mentality,
if you had lived hundreds of years ago you would have been
the one to burn people at the stake for their ideas. There was
no evidence the world was round, somebody just imagined it was.
The evidence came later.
-
mrhhome
Villagegirl... you made an eloquent point. Consider edited out the personal attack before this turns into mud slinging contest.
-
Oubliette
mrhhome: An analogy. It is common for an engineer to encoutner solutions developed by non-degreed folk who provide an explanation absolutely lacking in solid physical principles. Consequently, the engineer decides that their explanation is foolish, ignores their solution, and screws up everything in the process. Who is more foolish? The people who developed a solution but did not understand how it worked, or the engineer who understood all the physics but undid a working solution?
Could you give an example or two of your analogy?
-
Oubliette
villagegirl:Not everything is evidence based, theoretical physicists have often theorized things based on no evidence whatsoever, then did math or invented math and the theory remained math or was proven later by evidence not available at the time they thought it up, or even after they were dead.
Extrapolating from evidence and forming a hypothesis to investigate is the very essence of the scientific method of inquiry.
We move forward in jumps and starts. Not every scientific theory or law has stood the test of time. They are, as Cofty appropriately stated, tentative answers. They are still, nevertheless, evidence based.
Cofty: we arrive at tentative conclusions while searching for more evidence
An explanation based on evidence can still be wrong. But it is clearly different from the kind of "faith" which Cofty was attempting to differentiate in his OP. Please also keep in mind the context of this thread: it's all about escaping indoctrination from manipulative, authoritarian, mind-control cults.
The scientific community is one in which ideas are discussed, debated and analyzed mercilessly. The goal is a search for accurate knowledge (oh, god! Did I just say that?) and understanding of physical reality, knowledge and understanding which can be supported by observable evidence. It is NOT about devising a set or rules which an elite group use to surpress the majority.
- Science: Question everything. No cow is sacred.
- Religion: Question nothing, especially the people in power.
YMMV,
Oubliette
-
konceptual99
"Faith" in one's friends and family is trust based on experience. Funnily enough the amount of trust one has in their family depends very much on the relationship one has with their family. It's not blind faith.
"Faith" in the ability of an aeroplane to safely fly 11 hours is trust based on the knowledge that science and engineering have been able to develop technology that takes advantage of an understanding of the natural laws that govern the physical world. It's not blind faith.
JWs would argue that faith in the interpretation of the Bible as presented the WTS is not blind faith. They would argue that it is trust built up on experience. The issue is that if you are talking about the modern day claims of the WTS then you cannot name one thing they have got right, especially in advance of the event. If you use the Bible to validate your claims then it is impossible to prove. For example, claiming trust in the prophecies that humans will be resurrected because Jesus resurrected people is not trust based on experience. It's trust based on an unprovable claim made 2000 years ago.
As a Witness I made the claim many times that the Bible basically had special dispensation on this matter. Somehow, the more claims I believed the more the evidence stacked up. All it really is, however, is a fallacy. Being able to demonstrate many self referencing claims of authority does not increase the level of verifiable evidence.
It WT world, however, the more you accept the fallacy, the more you claim to have this type of bogus faith, then the better Witness you are. It's then a small jump to having to demonstrate the depth of your faith through the level of the your JW approved works.
Trust (faith if you wish) based on fallacy is dangerous regardless of who peddles the fallacy.
-
konceptual99
VG - it is true that hypothesis lacks the verifiable evidence but ultimately a sound theory will be evidence based. Would I have faith (trust) in a hypothesis? I may possibly find the notion plausable however faith (or trust or acceptance) in it's veracity would only come once sufficient evidence had been collated and verified.
I certainly wouldn't have confidence in the ability of an aeroplane to fly if the science around powered flight was purely hypothesis.
As expressed by other posters, there is also a big difference in how science views stated positions on a matter than how religion tends to.
We all, especially the less scientifically knowledgable we are, place confidence in some things without knowing the full detail (the example of flight once again). That is not the same as religious faith. It is easy to find the information as to exactly why a plane flies. The same cannot be said for pretty much anything I had deep faith in as a Jehovah's Witness.
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Faith needs to be based on evidence and if you really need a NT quote how about Hebrew 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. KJV
ERVs prove creation false so there... I have faith that God didn't make me so if he exists then based on evidence he doesn't care...simple