The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kid-A

  This is always a fun topic! First, I will freely admit that my positive assertion "there is no god" depends upon an act of faith. I can neither prove nor disprove this. All I am aware of is that I have no conclusive evidence (that is satisfactory to me) for the existence of a god.

  I also firmly believe that the idea of a 'god' was implanted in my brain by society and my parents. Jgnat asked the very interesting question as to whether or not there is a biological foundation for a belief in the supernatural and I believe there is. Looking back as far back into my life as possible, I never recall a moment where I ascribed the reason behind any experience or event as being due to supernatural forces, in contrast, my sister has always been pre-disposed to a belief in god and this sort of thinking. I think it is only a matter of time before we find a solid genetic basis for the complex trait of a belief in god, or more generally, a tendency to think in supernatural terms.

  My career is as a research scientist. I depend upon empirical methods and physical results everyday for my experiments. However, is there an element of faith in this methodology? Absolutely! I have faith that there is some tangible "truth" that I will be able to uncover with my methodology, the difference is, I have no preconceptions as to what that "truth" will turn out to be, once the data is in.

  Finally, if I was presented with solid, satisfactory proof for the existence of a god, I can honestly tell you, I would accept it. I am open-minded enough to consider this a possibility.

  The question is, to all believers, if you were presented with INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that there was no god, would you similarly accept this?
• 

  jgnat

  if you were presented with INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that there was no god, would you similarly accept this?

  I don't have that luxury. To deny God would be to deny my rescue. I feel very much like the leper who came back to say "Thank you". Besides, I KNOW my faith is based on faith, and cannot be proved. Or disproved.
• 

  Narkissos

  My God, for me, exists outside of reality and that is like an atheist who claims that God can't exist without believing in Him/Her/It?

  I don't know how you understand "outside of reality". It might mean only "out of the visible world but in an equally real invisible world" (fundamentalistic answer -- not yours from what I gathered). Or, it might mean "as a (possibly helpful) fiction," which would perhaps make you more of an atheist than "the atheist who claims that God can't exist without believing" (actually a deep theological stance I think). Probably this is not what you mean either.

  How should we define reality? Too homogeneous a view of reality would ban a lot of real things out. Somehow both a stone and a poem belong to reality -- but not the same way. Assessing the reality of the poem by the stone's way of being real would reduce it to ink and paper or sound waves. We've been missing something (the symbolical sphere, which is also "real" in its own way though it exceeds the physical reality).

  To the believer who is conscious of the nature of believing "God" (or whatever the metaphor "God" stands for) has its own way of being real. This is not exactly what the atheist means but in a way I think they are pointing to two sides of a same "reality".

  Andrei Tarkovski once told that, when he was a little boy, he asked his father whether God really existed or not. His father replied: "To those who believe he exists; to those who don't he doesn't." To Andrei, many years later, that was still the best answer -- one which can be grasped at different levels.
• 

  LittleToe

  What I really want to know...

  .

  .

  .

  ..is what you have against the Loch Ness Monster!
• 

  Shining One

  >When some little brain uses this line of reasoning I.E. the bible says that this city or person lived or was a real place then it was found to be true, so hence jesus walked on water. I use this to refute this silly line of reasoning.
  
  No Bible scholar of any repute makes this kind of contention. You are making a straw man to knock down.
  If this city or person lived it is evidence that the Bible is correct in this instance.
  It may add to the overall evidence of historical accuracy in other texts. I could use the information in this way: since the local newspaper has been accurate in the past, it is generally reliable when I read it today? Yes.
  Did Jesus walk on water? There are witnesses that say He did. Next we must test and see how reliable the witnesses are. Were they using metaphor or allegory to give a teaching? We can see the texts that the claim is that He literally walked on water......
  It goes on like this in an established methodology. Let's contrast this with the common methods that Bible critics use. If we do so then absolutely nothing can be proved at anytime in anyway. Did Alexander, Caesar, Ghengis Khan all conquor much of the known world? Using the critical method of skeptics nothing in history can be confirmed! Skeptics only want to use absolute criticism against Bible assertions. When one uses these same methods against their 'sacred cows', they howl and cry foul (viz. evolutionary and naturalistic theories).
  
  We come back to the usual situation we find here: you will believe exactly what you want to believe if you have enough presuppositions to carry you there. The challenge for all students and scholars is to approach a subject with the evidence at hand and not 'read into it' what they want to believe. Do I have axioms and presuppositions? Of course I do but no more than most of thsoe who sit in the other 'camp'.
  Rex
• 

  jgnat

  Thanks a LOT Little Toe. Now I'm laughing out loud at work. This is not good.. BTW, where's the IGNORE button?
• 

  zen nudist

  
  following everything I have ever learned has lead me into a blind alley.... namely that everything I know and believe is my own minds interpretation and invention and subject to blind spots I cannot even know about. so nothing I know by experience need relate to reality at all....that leaves me with the simple acknowledgement that every move I make is a gamble to some degree. experience teaches me that some gambles pay out more often than others and that science is basically the best odds making tool I can think of, though by no means perfect in any absolute sense. Religion on the other hand strikes me as the invention of con artistry, wanting me to bet my time and effort on longshots which have never been demonstrated to work in any verifiable way.... the parts of religion which do appear to work can be easily derived without the religion involved and often demonstrates that the religon is not necessary rather than the reverse that religions claim [that the experienced evidence supports it].

  I am especially wary of bets which can only be verified after death where no one but me may know if they worked or not and no one can tell me that they have verified it themselves....the best they can do is tell me a voice that I cannot hear told them about it... and experience does not seem to show invisible voices to be reliable guides to anywhere but the boobie hatch.
• 

  Shining One

  Big Dog,
  >I agree with all of the above, people should not try to pass their faith off as fact, nor should they try to use science on matters of faith. Each has its own domain and should stay there.
  
  Ah, but what about situations where evidence bolsters the contentions of faith? What you really want is for none who have faith to use the evidence of science to prove that they may have facts on their side. The idea that the 'domains' do not in any way come into the context of the argument is a way to force those who have faith into a mold of your making. You don't want to deal with disputes in an honest way. Those who have faith must keep silent and not dispute the self-affirmed demagogues of scientific thought!
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  >Nobody tell Rex it's here, OK?
  
  Cheap shot as usual, Gnat. You 'play to the popular' as usual and the 'popular' always draws applause. I wonder why the gospel is so offensive to you and others here? What did Paul have to say about that?
  Rex
• 

  jgnat

  As usual, Rex, you muddy the waters with rhetoric. Ah, well it was great while it lasted. Are you implying that if I oppose YOU I oppose GOD?