Faith: the evidence of things not seen

antiskeptic

This, from nozzferrahhtoo, warrants comment.

... my experience on this and other forums has taught me to stop trotting out the usual atheist nonsense motto of “Faith is belief without evidence”.

Very much depends on what definition of evidence you're applying. If you mean empirical, 5 sense detectable evidence then faith is indeed belief without evidence. There is no empirical evidence for God that points absolutely to the conclusion God.

-

Instead I have changed my motto to “Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you are trying to show is true”, a form of confirmation bias if you will, practised by everyone from Christians to the people who think that the number 23 is behind every event that occurs on the planet. In other words they have a LOT of evidence, but it is all flawed because it is only applicable if you are assuming what you are proving is already true.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63868416#post63868416



The KJV describes faith in an illuminating way. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that:

"..faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"

The general biblical position is that men are born with one of their 'senses' inoperable - that sense being their God (or spiritual) sense. So whilst they can detect all sorts with their other 5 senses, the things of God aren't discernable to them. Not discernable until they are born again that is.

Once a person is reborn (or rebooted ) their God sense is switched on and they can, of course, detect the things of God. Thus the verse from the hymn "Amazing Grace" telling us that: "I once was (spiritually) blind but now I (spiritually) see". The God sense, once switched off, is now switched on.

Our verse above tells us the biblical view of faith sees faith as synonymous with evidence. It's not evidence that can be detected by 5 sense means (as indicated by "...not seen"). Rather it is detected primarily by the God sense which is switched on - on being reborn.

And so the belief is completely rational, following as it does, the same general basis for all rational belief, i.e: rational belief is belief based on evidence. Which is a far cry from..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

“Faith is the willingness to assume to be true, that which you are trying to show is true”

Zombrex

But all that is cyclical.

There is no evidence for God until a person is born again, at which point their 6th sense is opened up and they can perceive God properly at which point they have a ton of evidence for God. So you can't say that faith is belief without evidence.

Ok, but then surely before you are born again there is no evidence at all for God, so how do you become born again without faith and how is this faith not to be considered believe without evidence.

It is like saying that I believe that behind a door is a chair because I've gone through the door and seen the chair, so this belief is not a belief based on no evidence. I have evidence, I've seen the chair.

But you believed the chair was behind the door before you went through the door. So it was belief based on no evidence.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But all that is cyclical.

Let's see.

There is no evidence for God until a person is born again, at which point their 6th sense is opened up and they can perceive God properly at which point they have a ton of evidence for God.

Spot on. So far so linear...

So you can't say that faith is belief without evidence.

If evidence is restricted (by the objector) to whatever 5 sense empirical can supply then any belief based on faith must (by definition) be evidentialess. What I'm suggesting (or going on to suggest) is that the biblical view on faith doesn't restrict evidence to that detected by just the 5 senses.

Ok, but then surely before you are born again there is no evidence at all for God, so how do you become born again without faith and how is this faith not to be considered believe without evidence.

The sequence of events would go something like as follows.

- a person is convicted of what it is that God requires them to be convicted of in order that he apply salvation to them. In other words; the argument presented by God to the person doesn't require that the person believe in God. For example, the person convinced that they are rotten to the core will be convinced of that by evidence in the form of the history of their own rotten activity. God need not manifest at this point. But in arriving at that conclusion, the person has believed God's argument (for he is the one who brings the pressure of evidence to mind) - without yet believing in (the existance of) God.

- the criterion for salvation being met in the person (the person does just as Abraham did in order that he be saved: they believe God), God applies salvation to them.

- the person now saved permits a situation where God 'turns up' at their door. His turning up gives the person evidence of God's existance, clearly. And so they have faith..the evidence of things not (empirical-sense) seen.

We see that belief based on evidence applies to the situation leading to salvation and the situation post salvation. Salvation by faith thus.

Seoid

antiskeptic, you make it sound as though once you are a Christian it's as easy to sense God as it is to touch, taste, see, hear or feel anything that's right in front of you. But if that's true, how do so many genuine Christians get so many things so very wrong? I wish that were true!

Christian Trust is belief in God without empirical evidence (although you can have empirical indications and psycological, spiritual and other kinds of evidence not provable to others).

Biblical faith is the application of that belief.
(how many people in history have believed in the existence of God but not had faith?)

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

antiskeptic, you make it sound as though once you are a Christian it's as easy to sense God as it is to touch, taste, see, hear or feel anything that's right in front of you. But if that's true, how do so many genuine Christians get so many things so very wrong? I wish that were true!

That potential opens up for a person (witness Paul who's learning to be content "in each and every situation" - including the jailcell from which he likely wrote that - stemmed only from his walking intimately with God).

But that lofty potential isn't always tapped into - and so most Christians will walk to the left of right of the middle of that narrow path (it's narrowness indicating ditches close to hand). Myself included. And although I'm nowhere as near as close as I'd like to be (or like to like to be) God certainly hasn't retreated anything like as far as to cause me to doubt.

Christian Trust is belief in God without empirical evidence (although you can have empirical indications and psycological, spiritual and other kinds of evidence not provable to others).

Indeed: faith - the evidence of things not seen. Which doesn't lessen the certainty a Christian has.

Biblical faith is the application of that belief.
(how many people in history have believed in the existence of God but not had faith?)

If someone believed in God as he is then they would be saved (believing in God as he is means a man believes he is destined to Hell for his sin. Which means a man believes-uber-belief that he is need of mercy. Such a man will inevitably turn to God will be saved).

Believing in God in any other way isn't believing in God. It's believing in a false god.

PDN

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

Now, it might drive nuts those who treat everything as if it were a laboratory experiment - but it is often only at this point that many people start to consider the actual question of God's existence. So they say, "OK, so given my experiences to date - do I think it more likely or not that God exists?"

Now, nothing in this process amounts to acting on proof. But neither has any blind faith operated. At each stage the new believer has looked at the evidence available, and then tested that evidence to the best of their ability.

Stage 1. The testimonies of other people who found a sense of community in church was the first piece of evidence - not evidence of God's existence, but evidence of the beneficial effect of belonging to such a community. Our seeker after truth tested this evidence in the best way possible, by visiting the church, and found that their experience validated the evidence.

Stage 2. The testimonies of answered prayer were evidence for the effectiveness of prayer. Our seeker after truth carried out their own experiment with prayer - and the results supported the evidence.

Stage 3. The lives of other people in the church were evidence for the claim that Jesus can improve your life. (This does not necessarily involve believing that Jesus is God, or even in the existence of God. It is simply necessary to believe that Jesus, whoever He might be, can, in some way, touch our lives. Again, their experiment validated the evidence.

Stage 4. Now our seeker after truth starts studying the bible and considering topics such as God's existence. At this point their own experiences so far become part of the evidence which they consider.

It is progressive, not cyclical. It is inductive, not deductive. It certainly does not constitute 100% logical proof of God's existence. However, our seeker after truth is weighing the evidence as best they can and, in their opinion, the evidence points more for God's existence than against. You might not agree with them - but it ain't blind faith.

Seoid

antiskeptic wrote: »

Believing in God in any other way isn't believing in God. It's believing in a false god.

I disagree with you there. To me, it is not enough to just believe that God exists - you have to actually want to follow God and do what's right. Of course this is the natural consequence for most people but it isn't always - you do have the option to reject God.
The bible often calls for people to repent and turn to God for salvation but most of the time they already knew God is there.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example, the person convinced that they are rotten to the core will be convinced of that by evidence in the form of the history of their own rotten activity. God need not manifest at this point. But in arriving at that conclusion, the person has believed God's argument (for he is the one who brings the pressure of evidence to mind) - without yet believing in (the existance of) God.

- the criterion for salvation being met in the person (the person does just as Abraham did in order that he be saved: they believe God), God applies salvation to them.

Yes but haven't you missed the most important step

You have gone from the person believing they are "rotten to the core" (which they may do completely independently to the Christian explanation for why they are this way) but not believing in God's existence or the Christian explanations for why they are the way they are, to the person believing in the existence of God, the existence of the offer of salvation and being prepared to accept that.

If at this stage the person, not yet believing in God let alone believing in the offer of salvation or accepting it, does not have access to their 6th sense, and thus the evidence for God's existence and truth, then on what basis do they make their conclusion that God exists, the Biblical explanation for they they are rotten to the core is accurate and that God has offered them a chance at salvation?

All of this must be done based on faith without evidence surely if the evidence itself for God only comes after salvation?

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

I disagree with you there. To me, it is not enough to just believe that God exists - you have to actually want to follow God and do what's right. Of course this is the natural consequence for most people but it isn't always - you do have the option to reject God.
The bible often calls for people to repent and turn to God for salvation but most of the time they already knew God is there.

The belief that God is there (for instance, the belief that the Jews of Jesus' day had) isn't necessarily saving belief. It's just belief that God is there - in the first instance.

Take the belief of God-that-is-there as per the Jews of Jesus day for example. That belief involved a God before whom you established your righteousness by your deeds. Which isn't God as he is. So the belief of the Jews involved not the God who is there, which makes it a belief about a false god.

I'm not of the opinion that one has to work for their salvation so whilst agreeing that a saved person will a) believe in God as he is b) will want to follow God (as a result of God's holy spirit influencing them in that direction) I don't believe one has to want to follow God as a way of satisfying God's criterion for saving you.

Wanting to follow God is a consequence of salvation in other words. Not a cause.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

Now, nothing in this process amounts to acting on proof. But neither has any blind faith operated.

How are you defining "blind faith"?

I think most people would say you have blind faith right there, the jump from something happened to something happened because of this explanation (in this case the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them)

The "blind" bit comes in over the question of how did the person test or determine that the explanation Christianity gives is what actually happened if at all?

Did they just assume that because the explanation correlates some what with what happened that this explanation fits?

The classic example I've used many times before for this is John Travolta claiming that his acting career took off after he tried Scientology, thus demonstrating to him that Scientology works.

I've seen no evidence that Travolta actually attempted to determine if it was Scientology itself that did anything, or that the explanation Scientology give is accurate. Yet Travolta regularly uses this example as justification for his faith in Scientology under the premise that he had demonstrated it works.

Accepting an explanation is true (particularly that you were given previous, though I'm leaving confirmation bias out of this for the minute) simply because of correlation is blind faith in my opinion. You have not determined the explanation is valid you have just accepted it because of the correlation.

Seoid

Antiskeptic, I'm with Wicknight on this one - I think you are missing an important step here and I'm not sure why you think that a false believe somehow equates to a false God. None of us have 100% correct belief in God as God is but that doesn't stop us from having faith in the right God, nor does it stop God from saving us.
When the Israelites were worshipping Pagan gods they were told to stop worshipping false gods but when they disobeyed God they were told to turn back to God. There is a big difference. Do you think Jews today are worshipping a false god because they don't have Jesus Christ? I don't.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but haven't you missed the most important step

I don't think so.

You have gone from the person believing they are "rotten to the core" (which they may do completely independently to the Christian explanation for why they are this way) but not believing in God's existence or the Christian explanations for why they are the way they are

It's not relevant what the person attributes their rottenness to. What's relevant is that they believe it. In doing so they will have believed God*.

.. to the person believing in the existence of God, the existence of the offer of salvation and being prepared to accept that.

My apologies for not pointing out that I don't believe in "accepting the offer of salvation" as the tipping point of salvation.

The criterion for salvation is, I suggest, believing God (whether an unbelieving in God 'Gentile' (eg: yourself) or a believing-in-a-misconstrued-God 'Jew' - such as many unsaved religious) . Once that is done (believing God), the mechanism of salvation is applied irrevocably to the person. That a person might be confronted with the modern practice of a prayer to pray or an altar call is neither here nor there - that's part of the subsequent exposure of the person to God. Their identifying of their rotteness in the Christian context is too something that is a subsequent to their being saved.

The tipping point was their believing God however**.


* note that that feeling oneself rotten isn't a sure sign that they've reaching the point of salvation. There is a end-of-the-line-hopelessness about the place a person need reach in order to arrive at the bottom of the barrel at which God may be found. God is the one who knows when that line has been crossed and the persons independent-of-God life has been shattered irrevocably.

** we're dealing with the case where someone like yourself doesn't believe in God. You'd be what the Bible calls a 'Gentile'. The other case involves the equally lost 'Jew' who believes in Gods' existance in a religious sense but has no personal, saved experience of God. The criterion for them is precisely the same: believe God (what God is arguing them to be). Their believing in God is neither here nor there - in that it confers no salvific advantage over the postiion of the 'Gentile'

Seoid

Wicknight wrote: »

Accepting an explanation is true (particularly that you were given previous, though I'm leaving confirmation bias out of this for the minute) simply because of correlation is blind faith in my opinion. You have not determined the explanation is valid you have just accepted it because of the correlation.

Science is based on correlations, however. Physics is built on the assumption that one thing affects another.

It's tricky to decide at what stage something goes from coincidence to evidence and how much is required to lead to faith and it's such a personal thing I can see why athiests claim it's all blind faith and believers say they have proof - it's always a personal proof.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

How are you defining "blind faith"?

I think most people would say you have blind faith right there, the jump from something happened to something happened because of this explanation (in this case the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them)

I don't think 'most people' would say that at all. In fact I think that characterisation of it being blind faith would be mainly limited to the minority group (atheism) to which you belong.

The 'jump', at this stage, is not to that of accepting the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them. Rather the 'step' is to the position that prayer makes a discernable difference to their lives.

At this stage it's simply a case of saying, "Well, I tried that prayer stuff, and it appears to have worked. But I'm not quite sure how or why."

The fact is that, outside of mathematics, all of our decisions and beliefs are based on probabilities rather than certainties. We take 'steps' when we consider the evidence for one position is greater than another position. That in turn leads us to another step based on what we consider to be probable based on the evidence.

A leap of faith - or something approaching blind faith - would be when we choose to believe something against the probabilities suggested by the evidence.

Look at it this way. Imagine someone said to me, "If you drink a glass of orange juice before you go to sleep, then it stops you getting a hangover. It's the vitamin C that does it." I might, if I've downed a couple of bottles of Merlot, give the old orange juice trick a try. That's not blind faith, it is experimentation.

Let's say that more experimentation over a period of time demonstrates to me that, more often than not, the orange juice trick actually works (don't try this at home, kids!). Again, I have not reached that conclusion by blind faith, nor is it 100% proof, but rather by assessing the evidence from my experimentation I have reached a belief based on probabilities.

Now, that will not automatically lead me to accept the theory that vitamin C helps hangovers. It might be more an issue of rehydration. But it may well lead me to carry out more experimentation with vitamin C tablets and, depending on the results, I will form a belief based on probabilities.

People may indeed come to false beliefs by this process. The history of science is littered with false theories caused by individuals weighing up the probabilities wrongly. But to portray it as 'blind faith' is at best, inaccurate and unfair.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is all rather missing the point.

Nowhere here are we arguing whether Christian beliefs are right or wrong. We are discussing whether such beliefs can be accurately described as "blind faith".

So I suggest that any atheists that want to contribute to the discussion put their FSMs, Scientologies, and Heaven's Gates back into the bag of dried grass and we can discuss the topic.

My point is that Christian beliefs are generally reached by the weighing up of probabilities both for and against certain propositions. You might disagree with the conclusiions we reach, and you may consider them untrue, but that does not make them 'blind faith'.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

However, our seeker after truth is weighing the evidence as best they can and, in their opinion, the evidence points more for God's existence than against. You might not agree with them - but it ain't blind faith.

PDN, you have made an excellent summary of how people can be drawn to religion. However, throughout your post, you acknowledge that none of this is evidence for the existence of god. And yet in the final sentence, you go on to assert this..? How do you leap from "This community serves me well/I enjoy being part of a group/this is supporting my life" to "I believe in god"?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN, you have made an excellent summary of how people can be drawn to religion. However, throughout your post, you acknowledge that none of this is evidence for the existence of god. And yet in the final sentence, you go on to assert this..? How do you leap from "This community serves me well/I enjoy being part of a group/this is supporting my life" to "I believe in god"?

Again, I think you're rather missing the point by seeing God's existence as the primary issue. It might be for atheists, but it isn't for Christians.

Each decision and belief is reached as a separate step. But they are cumulative. Together they stack the probabilities for later decisions and beliefs.

So, for example, consider our truth seeker. They have reached the following incremental beliefs by a series of small steps based on their experimentation and/or assessment of the evidence.

1. That belonging to a church community is beneficial.
2. That they prefer being in the company of these church people more than with other people.
3. That when they pray they see a significant number of prayers answered when compared to similar situations where they didn't pray.
4. That asking Jesus to come into their life (even without fully understanding what that might mean or who He might be) appears to have improved their life.
5. That reading the Bible describes a worldview that makes sense to them, and which explains, in their opinion, certain features of their life and past events better than any other explanation anyone has offered them.
6. That when they began applying biblical teachings and principles to other parts of their lives (for example, in the area of their marriage) they saw an improvement in those areas.

Now they might be confronted by someone who is arguing either for or against the existence of God. At this point all of beliefs 1 to 6 come into play. They are part of the evidence that must be weighed, and as usually happens with evidence, we look at them cumulatively, not in isolation.

Think of a trial where a suspect is confronted by one piece of evidence that suggests their guilt, but may be explained away as a freak coincidence. We might feel inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt - after all, we have all seen mad coincidences at one time or another. But what if the suspect is confronted by 3 pieces of such evcidence? Or 10? Or 100? Or 1000?

At some point, and it differs with each of us, we reach the tipping point (apologies to Malcolm Gladwell). Our assessment of the balance of probabilities causes us to believe the suspect guilty.

Now, let's get back to our truth seeker. Each step of 1 to 6 can be plausibly explained away by an atheist (with varying degrees of success). But their cumulative weight causes our seeker after truth to compare the following two propositions.

a) The community of people, although very nice, are actually just deluded products of a meme. And the prayers they experienced being answered were just a set of amazing coincidences or a psychological phenomenon. And that the improvement in their life following their decision to receive Jesus was just psychological. And that the Bible, while explaining so many things satisfactorily, and even though its teaching appeared to change situations for the better, is actually based on a fundamental mistake. That's without even bringing into the equation the difficulty many people have with the idea that the universe, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, the human race, music, art, literature etc. all developed from purely natural processes without any Creator or Designer.

b) The community of people are nicer to be with because they have discovered something that is true (it might not be logical - but most of us want the good guys to be right and the nasty people to be wrong). Their prayers were answered because of something other than coincidence of psychology. Asking Jesus into their life produced an improvement because Jesus actually can change lives. The Bible appears to make sense, and its teaching improves their life, because it has a handle on some great truths. Therefore it is quite likely that other claims in the Bible will prove to be equally true. This fits with a world and a universe that was created and designed so that Mozart, Picasso and Dostoevsky are more than just biological accidents.

Now, you might not agree with them for choosing (b) over (a) - but I think you would be very unfair to call their choice 'blind faith'. They have weighed the probabilities of the evidence they see for and against God, and they have drawn a conclusion.

Disclaimer:
It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but past experience in this forum leads me to make the following clarification to avoid an excess of muppetry and pretended outrage.

I have not claimed that believers are always nicer people than unbelievers - that is simply some people's experience. Our seeker after truth might meet believers who are petty gossiping backbiters, or a clergyman who is a paedophile. That will influence whether they choose to go on to step two or not.

Similarly, they may have encountered atheists who are compassionate and friendly. That would influence them much more than if their only experience of atheism is listening to someone like Christopher Hitchens smugly mocking his opponents.

We might not like it. But the way we evaluate evidence is often influenced by whether the person presenting that evidence is likeable or not.

Mr. Presentable

PDN wrote: »

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

.

OK, I've joined a community out of curiosity, prayed with them, and in isolation. My life is still sh7t or worse. Evidentially the conclusion is that there is no god.

What I am saying is, your projection assumes positivity, which may well not happen, and therein it fails to persuade.

PDN

nipplenuts wrote: »

OK, I've joined a community out of curiosity, prayed with them, and in isolation. My life is still sh7t or worse. Evidentially the conclusion is that there is no god.

What I am saying is, your projection assumes positivity, which may well not happen, and therein it fails to persuade.

My projection is not intended to persuade. It is intended to demonstrate how people reach conclusions.

I didn't actually think that would be a hard concept to grasp - it seems fairly straightfoward. Is it because people have become so conditioned to arguing the same points in the same two-dimensional ways that they can't get out of the rut and read what I'm actually posting?

There are certainly those who try to take similar steps and find that their experimentation and evidence leads them, upon weighing the probabilities, to a very different conclusion. While I might disagree with their conclusion, I don't misrepresent them by accusing them of doing so by blind faith in atheism.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Again, I think you're rather missing the point by seeing God's existence as the primary issue. It might be for atheists, but it isn't for Christians.

Now, let's get back to our truth seeker. Each step of 1 to 6 can be plausibly explained away by an atheist (with varying degrees of success). But their cumulative weight causes our seeker after truth to compare the following two propositions.

a) The community of people, although very nice, are actually just deluded products of a meme. And the prayers they experienced being answered were just a set of amazing coincidences or a psychological phenomenon. And that the improvement in their life following their decision to receive Jesus was just psychological. And that the Bible, while explaining so many things satisfactorily, and even though its teaching appeared to change situations for the better, is actually based on a fundamental mistake. That's without even bringing into the equation the difficulty many people have with the idea that the universe, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, the human race, music, art, literature etc. all developed from purely natural processes without any Creator or Designer.

b) The community of people are nicer to be with because they have discovered something that is true (it might not be logical - but most of us want the good guys to be right and the nasty people to be wrong). Their prayers were answered because of something other than coincidence of psychology. Asking Jesus into their life produced an improvement because Jesus actually can change lives. The Bible appears to make sense, and its teaching improves their life, because it has a handle on some great truths. Therefore it is quite likely that other claims in the Bible will prove to be equally true. This fits with a world and a universe that was created and designed so that Mozart, Picasso and Dostoevsky are more than just biological accidents.

Now, you might not agree with them for choosing (b) over (a) - but I think you would be very unfair to call their choice 'blind faith'. They have weighed the probabilities of the evidence they see for and against God, and they have drawn a conclusion.

I get the point because you are explaining it very well. My confusion comes at the choice you outline, a or b. To choose b, when a is well-studied, well-documented function of the human psyche, is indeed illogical. Consequently, those who choose b are doing so against any logical considerations. This is the leap.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I get the point because you are explaining it very well. My confusion comes at the choice you outline, a or b. To choose b, when a is well-studied, well-documented function of the human psyche, is indeed illogical. Consequently, those who choose b are doing so against any logical considerations. This is the leap.

Not so, and I'm really surprised you can't see it.

You are disagreeing with them about the strength and validity of some of the evidence that they are weighing. That is your right to do so (even though I think you are being selective and biased, but that's another topic entirely), but that does not mean they are taking a leap of faith.

Our courtroom illustration might help you see this more clearly. One of the eye-witnesses appears to be a well-respected professor who is a member of the community who has no vested interest in the case and has no reason to lie. However, in reality, and unbeknown to the jury, the guy in the witness box is really the professor's evil twin. The evil twin has bumped off the professor and is impersonating him because he committed the crime himself and wants someone else to take the rap.

The jury might reach a wrong decision on the basis of this tainted evidence. But it would be nonsense to say that they took a leap of faith. They still reached a conclusion by weighing the evidence available to them

You might feel you are in a better-informed position because you think you know more about psychology than our truth seeker. However, our truth seeker might actually be in a better position because they have seen miraculous answers to prayer that you have not. You can argue until the cows come home about who is better informed, and whose conclusion is more likely to be correct. But you should both be prepared to acknowledge that the other has reached a conclusion by weighing the probabilities based on the evidence available to them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not relevant what the person attributes their rottenness to. What's relevant is that they believe it. In doing so they will have believed God*.

Er no not really.

If for example they attribute their rottenness to Buddha's concept of suffering being a symptom of longing for material goods that has nothing to do with the Christian explanation. So how have they "believed God", let alone accepted he exists and accepted his offer of salvation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for not pointing out that I don't believe in "accepting the offer of salvation" as the tipping point of salvation.

The criterion for salvation is, I suggest, believing God (whether an unbelieving in God 'Gentile' (eg: yourself) or a believing-in-a-misconstrued-God 'Jew' - such as many unsaved religious) . Once that is done (believing God), the mechanism of salvation is applied irrevocably to the person.

And how does someone who doesn't believe God exists "believe God"?

Say I think, for what ever reason, that I'm rotten to the core, but I don't think God exists, I don't think my rotteness has anything to do with the Christian explanation, nor do I believe in heaven hell or salvation.

You seem to be saying that I am saved and will get this 6th sense to know God exists. How does that work?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Their identifying of their rotteness in the Christian context is too something that is a subsequent to their being saved.

But that is the whole point, why would they identify their rottenness in the Christian context if they don't at this point actually believe Christianity?

It is like saying if you admit you have mental health problems you are automatically a Scientologist because Scientology explains why you have mental health problems.

This ignores that you may think you have mental health problems for other reasons that have nothing to do with Scientology. Simply because Scientology explains your mental problems doesn't mean you will accept that explanation. You will need to some how at some point believe and accept the Scientologist explanation for your mental health problems. At which point you believe in Scientology in that you accept the explanation they give for what is wrong with you.

At some point a person has to go from believing there is something rotten about them or humanity to believing that there is something rotten about them or humanity and the Christian explanation for this is correct and true, God exists, the Fall happened, Satan, Adam Eve etc etc

It is only then that they "believe God" as you put it.

That is the step you missed out. You jumped from someone not believing the Christian explanation to someone believing the Christian explanation.

The question then is how does someone go from A to B without reason or evidence, since you seem to be saying the reason and evidence comes after the point of salvation.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Facepalm! (where's that emoticon for banging your head off a wall when you need it?) We are not discussing whether anyone is right or wrong. We are discussing whether they reach their beliefs ( be they right or wrong) by weighing evidence or by blind faith.

I think our understanding of Greek history and religious attitudes differ - but we'll leave that particular little rabbit trail aside for now.

If they came to that position by weighing up the available evidence then, yes, they were wrong. But that would not equate to blind faith. It would be a wrong decision based on faulty evidence, or doing a poor job of weighing the evidence.

Zombrex

Seoid wrote: »

Science is based on correlations, however. Physics is built on the assumption that one thing affects another.

Not really. Science is based on modelling interactions, and seeing if the predictions of these models match observed phenomena.

I've no problem if any theists wants to do this, but none of them do.

Seoid wrote: »

It's tricky to decide at what stage something goes from coincidence to evidence

I think that is the point. Humans are very bad at determining that something was or wasn't a coincidence. Believers tend to ignore this fact and seem happy to assume that their assessment is accurate. This to me is blind faith.

It is like a Catholic saying they have faith that purgetory is real because the Pope told them it is. I think most people, theists and atheists would say that is blind faith, faith based purely on trusting what you are told.

The same works though if it is in fact you telling yourself something.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think 'most people' would say that at all. In fact I think that characterisation of it being blind faith would be mainly limited to the minority group (atheism) to which you belong.

Ok, well how would you define "blind faith"?

PDN wrote: »

The 'jump', at this stage, is not to that of accepting the Christian explanation that God listens to prayers and answers them. Rather the 'step' is to the position that prayer makes a discernable difference to their lives.

At this stage it's simply a case of saying, "Well, I tried that prayer stuff, and it appears to have worked. But I'm not quite sure how or why."

And if they left it at that it would be fine, but they don't. They go I'm not quite sure how or why it worked but lets say it is because God exists and answers prayers. That's good enough for me.

PDN wrote: »

The fact is that, outside of mathematics, all of our decisions and beliefs are based on probabilities rather than certainties. We take 'steps' when we consider the evidence for one position is greater than another position. That in turn leads us to another step based on what we consider to be probable based on the evidence.

A leap of faith - or something approaching blind faith - would be when we choose to believe something against the probabilities suggested by the evidence.

Yes but that is the point. How many Christians have assessed the probability that the God answers prayers explanation is an accurately explaining for the phenomena? Have you a test to do that? I would be very interested to see it

I've never seen anyone on this forum ever give a rational explanation for how they did that.

Your little analogy of testing orange juice is quite flawed but it is still miles ahead of how any Christian has ever explained to me how they test God.

Can you explain to me the tests you carried out to demonstrate to yourself that the most likely explanation for what happens with prayer is that God exists and answers them?

This is before we get into the whole God works in mysterious ways phenomena, which is basically like waking up and finding that the orange juice did nothing but still deciding the orange juice works

The whole point is that you guys all believe this stuff despite the fact that you know you cannot assess it properly. That is blind faith, picking an explanation based on criteria other than that you can show it is accurate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PDN

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what, in the name of the FSM, has any of that got to do with blind faith?

Being wrong in one's beliefs ≠ Blind Faith

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And what, in the name of the FSM, has any of that got to do with blind faith?

Being wrong in one's beliefs ≠ Blind Faith

I don't think that this was his point, his point (if I'm following) is that these personal assessments obviously aren't good or accurate at determining if your god exists, yet people continue to accept the "results" from them.

Hence blind faith.

Again what exactly do you think blind faith is PDN?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that this was his point, his point (if I'm following) is that these personal assessments obviously aren't good or accurate at determining if your god exists, yet people continue to accept the "results" from them.

Hence blind faith.

Again what exactly do you think blind faith is PDN?

Blind faith would be choosing to believe a proposition where no evidence exists for it, or where the person exercising the faith can see that it probably isn't true.

For example, you could choose to believe that next year you are going to get married to Jessica Alba. You have no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, given your track record with average-looking women we could say that you know that the probabilities are stacked against you getting past first base with anyone as hot as Ms Alba. Therefore your belief is blind faith.

However, imagine that you are going out with Kitty McGuire, and she has already accepted your proposal, and you've bought the ring, and you've even been out to her da's caravan to ask his permission to marry his daughter. Heck, you've even found a hotel that will take the booking for the reception. Now, you can't be 100% sure that Kitty won't dump you between now and then, but your belief that you will marry her next year is based on evidence rather than on blind faith.

Donegalfella might interject here to argue that other guys have thought they were getting married to a buxom young wench such as Kitty, only to have their hopes dashed. That demonstrates that such beliefs may be wrong at times. But that does not mean that your hopes of wedded bliss and a honeymoon in Athlone are 'blind faith'.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Blind faith would be choosing to believe a proposition where no evidence exists for it, or where the person exercising the faith can see that it probably isn't true.

For example, you could choose to believe that next year you are going to get married to Jessica Alba. You have no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, given your track record with average-looking women we could say that you know that the probabilities are stacked against you getting past first base with anyone as hot as Ms Alba. Therefore your belief is blind faith.

No evidence according to who though?

There is never really a case where there is no evidence to support a belief if you standards of evidence are flexible.

I obviously think I'm marrying Jessica Alba for some reason, no matter how deranged that reason is. Say I think she is looking at me from the cover of FHM. That, to me, is evidence.

To everyone else it isn't, it is silly blind faith completely off the wall.

Or say I believe I'm going to win the Lottery this week because I have " a feeling". People could dismiss this as silly blind faith. I could say that my feeling is all the evidence i need and say that therefore my belief is purely rational.

Again like so many of these discussion it comes back to standards

Under your definition of blind faith there really isn't such a thing because anyone can say that they always have a reason for believing something and that this reason is evidence for their belief.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I would prefer to use the phrase 'evidence for God'. That indicates that we are not talking about absolute proof - but rather evidence that points towards a conclusion.

However, I think sometimes atheists get a bit hung up because they want to discuss God's existence or non-existence before anything else. That might be the right approach if you are trying to follow a path of logical deduction, but in most areas of life we tend to follow a more inductive process.

So, for example, many people first make contact with Christianity because they lack a sense of community, and they find that sense of community in a church setting - even though they initially don't care much about the beliefs of the Church.

Then they might observe that their new friends in the Church testify to their prayers being answered. This prompts them to try praying for themselves - and they find that it works!

The realisation that prayer works can then lead them to take the next step. They say, "I'm going to give this Jesus thing a go. What's the worst that can happen? If it's all make-believe then I might waste some of my time, but I'll soon realise so if that's the case." So they make a prayer of commitment to Christ, even though they haven't that much idea who Jesus is.

Then, seeing the benefit in their lives of having taken such a step, they begin to engage in discipleship. They learn more about this new-found faith, and start studying the Bible.

Now, it might drive nuts those who treat everything as if it were a laboratory experiment - but it is often only at this point that many people start to consider the actual question of God's existence. So they say, "OK, so given my experiences to date - do I think it more likely or not that God exists?"

I think you're absolutely right there. The thing is though that the same could be said for a follower of pretty much any religion. Religion fills a gap in some people's lives for purpose and community and I can say with relative certainty that that if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were. So it essentially boils down to which was the first religion they tried out in that manner, which would explain why the overwhelming majority of people stick with the religion they were raised with. If other religions didn't bring people similar levels of satisfaction as christianity they wouldn't have survived.

Religion fills a gap, it can make people happier, it can bring communities together, it can even save people from the brink of despair but none of that makes it true

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion fills a gap, it can make people happier, it can bring communities together, it can even save people from the brink of despair but none of that makes it true

I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Is no-one willing to address the topic of blind faith?

I think possibly the problem is that atheism is, by definition, about one subject and one subject alone - the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore your conditioning causes you to drag everything back to that one issue. It's a pity really, because there are so many other things we could talk about - like the subject of this thread.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No evidence according to who though?

There is never really a case where there is no evidence to support a belief if you standards of evidence are flexible.

I obviously think I'm marrying Jessica Alba for some reason, no matter how deranged that reason is. Say I think she is looking at me from the cover of FHM. That, to me, is evidence.

To everyone else it isn't, it is silly blind faith completely off the wall.

Or say I believe I'm going to win the Lottery this week because I have " a feeling". People could dismiss this as silly blind faith. I could say that my feeling is all the evidence i need and say that therefore my belief is purely rational.

Again like so many of these discussion it comes back to standards

Under your definition of blind faith there really isn't such a thing because anyone can say that they always have a reason for believing something and that this reason is evidence for their belief.

Which essentially boils down to saying that the majority of the world exercises blind faith because they disagree with you. Any evidence that causes them to disagree with you must, by definition, be silly - therefore it's blind faith.

Nice one.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm getting a sense of deja vu.

was thinking the same thing

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Which essentially boils down to saying that the majority of the world exercises blind faith because they disagree with you.

No it essentially boils down to pointing out that you have just defined yourself out of practicing blind faith by coming up with a definition that doesn't actually apply to anyone

Who has ever believed something with absolutely no evidence or reason at all for their belief? I imagine that is not even possible given the way our brains work.

Even a deranged schtophrenic paranoid fantasist has a paranoid fantasy as the reason, the evidence as he would see it, for his beliefs.

A child who accepted everything they are told by their parents or a priest without ever exploring if it is actually true or not would say they use the evidence that they trust their parents who have told them true things in the past as support for why this is not blind faith, using your definition, despite that being the classic example of blind faith.

PDN wrote: »

Any evidence that causes them to disagree with you must, by definition, be silly - therefore it's blind faith.

"Evidence" is in the eye of the beholder, that is the point.

Would you consider Jessica Alba's picture in Heat winking at me as evidence I'm going to marry her next year, and thus my belief is not in fact blind faith but a rational conclusion?

I doubt it, because you don't consider that as evidence in support of my assertion using any proper standard of evidence.

To you it isn't evidence for this at all, to me is the whole reason believe it to be happening.

So basically what you are saying is blind faith is believing I'm going to marry Jessica Alba with no good evidence to support such a belief, good evidence being evidence that comes up to some commonly held standard.

Guess what, I think the same thing, though possibly what I consider good evidence and what you consider good evidence are wildly different.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Is no-one willing to address the topic of blind faith?

I think possibly the problem is that atheism is, by definition, about one subject and one subject alone - the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore your conditioning causes you to drag everything back to that one issue. It's a pity really, because there are so many other things we could talk about - like the subject of this thread.

As others have said, blind faith in its strictest sense does not exist in the real world. We all know of many people in the world who hold positions that are totally off the wall and often demonstrably false both in and out of religion but they believe them anyway because when someone has an overwhelming desire to believe something they lose their objectivity; what would normally be considered irrelevant or extremely weak is clung to as compelling evidence and excuses and ad hoc hypotheses are formulated to explain away things that would cause any objective observer to immediately dismiss the position. I saw things like this all the time during the Lisbon treaty campaign where the most ludicrous notions involving worldwide conspiracies were trotted out to explain how the EU was going to destroy our country and steal our fish as soon as they tricked us into voting yes
. These are arguments were invariably supported by out of context quotes and made up facts and figures, much like creationism, but they were supported nonetheless

Faith is not blind, there are arguments to support it but these arguments are extremely weak and can often be applied to any religion equally. The emotional connection and desire to believe prevents people from looking at the situation objectively and realising just how weak these arguments are. I suppose you could say there are none so blind as those that will not see

postcynical

PDN's explanations are spot on.

I probably fall into the blind faith category more than most Christians who post here. As a Catholic, I believe that what my church teaches is true. So I believe that Mary lived a life without sin. There is no biblical evidence for this and I'm not aware of any compelling arguments from tradition for this to be the case. I have no personal evidence to support this position, like I do for more fundamental matters of faith. It is also a detail in my faith to which I have not invested much importance. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I believe that Mary lived without sin and although I have not suspended my reason, I can live happily with that belief.

NosVeratu's OP is adequate in my opinion. I presume the OP would claim that a vital requirement of any good scientist is faith, as hypothesising requires the facility to assume the truth of an indetermined proposition.

postcynical

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some of my beliefs are based on blind faith. Your second statement is also false as believers are perfectly capable of remaining objective.

It's easy for Christians to laugh up their sleeves at the Greeks who believed that Zeus actually existed. It's also easy for them to believe that the "evidence" for the existence of the Abrahamic God is quite sound, and that their Christian belief is a very different matter—when, in fact, it isn't.

As a Christian I would not mock the ancient Greeks for their beliefs; neither do I mock Buddhists or animists for their beliefs. As PDN has pointed out, it is possible that the basis for a Buddhist's belief system, or an atheist's philosophical position, or an animist's position to be just as sound as the Christian position. The (disputed) fact that Christianity is actually true does not undermine the soundness of the bases for the other belief systems at all. So perhaps we are in agreement that it is not a different matter.

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion fills a gap in some people's lives for purpose and community and I can say with relative certainty that that if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were.

Is relative certainty an oxymoron?;)

Seriously have you ever tried this experiment? I bet you you'll be surprised at the outcome.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...if I prayed to a carton of milk they would be answered with roughly the same frequency with which my prayers to god were.

Lame YouTube video.

Sam Vimes

postcynical wrote: »

Seriously have you ever tried this experiment? I bet you you'll be surprised at the outcome.

One person is statistically insignificant. Widespread studies have been done into the effects of prayer. I vaguely remember one involving patients in a hospital and iirc the people who were prayed for actually did slightly worse. As far as I'm concerned it's just confirmation bias, where you remember the one or two times you got something after praying but forget all the times you didn't get it

And people from other religions have prayer stories too so the choices are:

1. Their god also exists
2. Your god is answering their prayers posing as their god thereby strengthing their faith in their own religion and so deliberately dooming them to hell
3. Their god is answering prayers posing as your god thereby dooming you to the hell of another religion
4. No one is answering any prayers and sometimes unlikely things just happen

I like option 4. Come back to me when a prayer can reliably and repeatably cause someone to spontaneously regrow an amputated limb and I might change my position. Telling me that unlikely things sometimes happen after you pray is unimpressive, unlikely things happen anyway. Stephen Gately randomly dropped dead a few months ago and that was extremely unlikely but no one calls that a miracle because the unlikely event didn't happen to be beneficial

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One person is statistically insignificant. Widespread studies have been done into the effects of prayer.

Maybe TetraPack has hired you to do some exhaustive research on this? Because I´m wondering why you feel your personal opinion about the effectivness of praying to a milk carton is any more valid than postcynical´s belief that praying to God actually works.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I vaguely remember one involving patients in a hospital and iirc the people who were prayed for actually did slightly worse. As far as I'm concerned it's just confirmation bias, where you remember the one or two times you got something after praying but forget all the times you didn't get it.

I remember that too. I also recall other studies that did find a positive correlation.

(Following copied from another thread - http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63012853&postcount=15)

But such experiments are a waste of time and money. I would even say the same of the below meta analysis of various studies into the effects of intercessory prayer that found a positive correlation. http://asunews.asu.edu/node/1545

I've said it before, but the test fails the basic requirements of any trial. Why? Because you can't guarantee that the group supposed not to received prayer isn't actually being prayed for. For instance, any child who prays at night for God to "help all the sick people in the world to get better" puts the kibosh on the idea that there are distinct test groups.

Besides this, if one is of the opinion that God is chiefly concerned with working towards fulfilling his own plan of salvation, redemption, judgement, new creation and whatever else (all of which just so happens to be good for us), rather than curing our physical maladies (including regrowing limbs), then it becomes difficult to establish exactly what prayers he should be answering and how often. I think it perfectly reasonable to suggest that in some divinely inspired butterfly effect, God heals those who will directly or indirectly aid his mysterious plans.

All in all a tremendous waste of money.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And people from other religions have prayer stories too so the choices are:

1. Their god also exists - Perhaps their god does exist, which means that Christians are incorrect, but that isn´t what this thread is originally about.
2. Your god is answering their prayers posing as their god thereby strengthing their faith in their own religion and so deliberately dooming them to hell - You are making an assumption, one that people like myself have attempted to refute in the past. We simply don´t know the fate of people from other religions. Your syllogism isn´t one that I think is compatable with the Christianity I know.
3. Their god is answering prayers posing as your god thereby dooming you to the hell of another religion - I would wonder why any god would do such a thing, or why the outcome necessariy involves hell. Like above, you are creating needlessly extreme choices simply to hammer your point home.
4. No one is answering any prayers and sometimes unlikely things just happen
   - Yes, it certainly is a possibility. Christianity could be wrong. Shock! Horror!

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've said it before, but the test fails the basic requirements of any trial. Why? Because you can't guarantee that the group supposed not to received prayer isn't actually being prayed for. For instance, any child who prays at night for God to "help all the sick people in the world to get better" puts the kibosh on the idea that there are distinct test groups.

Besides this, if one is of the opinion that God is chiefly concerned with working towards fulfilling his own plan of salvation, redemption, judgement, new creation and whatever else (all of which just so happens to be good for us), rather than curing our physical maladies (including regrowing limbs), then it becomes difficult to establish exactly what prayers he should be answering and how often. I think it perfectly reasonable to suggest that in some divinely inspired butterfly effect, God heals those who will directly or indirectly aid his mysterious plans.

All in all a tremendous waste of money.

The thing is that all of the above ad hoc hypotheses work just as well at explaining why studying the effects of praying to a carton of milk is a waste of time. They all still leave open the possibility that the carton does occasionally answer prayers. What you're essentially saying is that there is no way to get an objective view of whether pray works, that all we can ever have is anecdotal evidence of the kind that we have to suggest the existence of bigfoot and leprechauns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

What you're telling me is that no objective observer who understands the flimsy and unreliable nature of anecdotal evidence should accept that prayer is effective. That's not my opinion, demanding more than anecdotal evidence is considered good practise in every area of human endeavour

This is the type of thing I mean when I say very weak evidence that would not be accepted by an objective observer is exaggerated by those who have a desire to believe in something

Edit: and also, the idea of a god that would allow vast numbers of people to die unless some kid somewhere asked him to help all sick people and then still decided to only help certain sick people doesn't sit well with me.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

If for example they attribute their rottenness to Buddha's concept of suffering being a symptom of longing for material goods that has nothing to do with the Christian explanation. So how have they "believed God", let alone accepted he exists and accepted his offer of salvation?

The conclusion "I am rotten" must, of course, arise out of a self-comparison w.r.t. the standard of God (that standard being installed in everyone whether they like/believe it or not). Consider a simple example: if the person rails at themselves for their failure to "do unto others.." then they will in fact be comparing themselves to Gods standard - irrespective of whether they've gleaned that notion from Buddha's sayings, their upbringing, considering atheistic rationale for morality, etc. For it is from God that that notion "do unto others.." is sourced originally (we would be supposing for the sake of argument)

If, on the other hand, Hitler thinks he is rotten because he failed to eradicate the worlds Jewry he wouldn't be (let's suppose for the sake of argument) be comparing himself to God's standard ... and so his feeling of rotteness has no salvific value.

It is worth underlining two things I made reference to in my last post (see below). The first underlining refers to the point made above - conviction of rotteness isn't necessarily salvific. The conviction must be a God-sourced conviction and it must be a terminal, end-of-the-line conviction. The second underlining points to God's aim in utilising conviction of rotteness in salvation. The purpose of conviction is to bring to an end, independent-of-God-living. And conviction of rotteness is but one of the ways God has for achieving that: despair, sickness, approaching death, addiction, pain, fear are some of the others. Let's face it, a person brought to the end of reliance on self will be more inclined to place their reliance on another. Which is God's aim for man: that man be dependent on God - as child is on parent.

antiskeptic wrote:

* note that that feeling oneself rotten isn't a sure sign that they've reaching the point of salvation. There is a end-of-the-line-hopelessness about the place a person need reach in order to arrive at the bottom of the barrel at which God may be found. God is the one who knows when that line has been crossed and the persons independent-of-God life has been shattered irrevocably.

And how does someone who doesn't believe God exists "believe God"?

It's actually very easy and you do it often yourself!

If you yourself believe murder is wrong then you believe God on this matter. He is the one who installed that notion in mankind (via conscience). Corresspondingly, if you truly believe murder isn't wrong (say you're a Nazi camp guard) then what you've done to enable this belief is suppress your God given conscience.

Conscience is another way of saying "a knowledge of good and evil". It's a God-given knowledge, installed in you by God - not something you arrive at by other means. You can either heed it or suppress it.

Say I think, for what ever reason, that I'm rotten to the core, but I don't think God exists, I don't think my rotteness has anything to do with the Christian explanation, nor do I believe in heaven hell or salvation.

You seem to be saying that I am saved and will get this 6th sense to know God exists. How does that work?

What I've said above should explain what this is not so - to a degree.

a) not all sense of rotteness is God-connected.

b) not all sense of rotteness is so serious as to result in a hopeless despair about the state one has fallen into.

It's only when one has no place left to turn, when the weight of rotteness becomes too much to bear, that there exists the opportunity for a surrender to take place. All that the person who would avail of this opportunity needs now is someone to surrender to, someone to take this unbearable burden away from them.

For they are prepared to pay the price asked. Which is merely surrender. The alternative is to refuse to surrender and escape the unbearable burden by way of suicide. Suicide, in that case, could be supposed to be the final refusal to surrender - the persons last wilful act being to prevent that possibility (which is not to say that suicide will always have this purpose)

At some point a person has to go from believing there is something rotten about them or humanity to believing that there is something rotten about them or humanity and the Christian explanation for this is correct and true, God exists, the Fall happened, Satan, Adam Eve etc etc

That information comes post surrender. Take me for example. I reached the point of surrender one night about 8 years ago. My mother (a Christian of about 8 years at that point) has some years before given me a pamphlet called "Why Jesus". My hand reached for this long forgotten pamphlet (which fell to hand), I read it and prayed the prayer at the back. And went to sleep. The next morning I knew something had changed and embarked on the journey of finding out about this God and this Jesus and this salvation.

At the time of my praying the prayer however, I didn't believe in God. What I believed what that if God didn't exist then there was absolutely no way out of my predicament (I hadn't considered suicide at that point but might have gotten around to it). My prayer was sincerely offered up in the hope that God existed. No believing in God required at that point.

The heart of the issue is the heart - not the pamphlet and not the prayer. If I was a sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet who'd never heard of the Bible or the God of that Bible then it would make no difference. God can be surrendered to anywhere, anytime by anyone who He's brought to their knees.

That is the step you missed out. You jumped from someone not believing the Christian explanation to someone believing the Christian explanation.

The question then is how does someone go from A to B without reason or evidence, since you seem to be saying the reason and evidence comes after the point of salvation.

Objections? Questions?

antiskeptic

Seoid wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I'm with Wicknight on this one - I think you are missing an important step here and I'm not sure why you think that a false believe somehow equates to a false God.

If the belief is false then it doesn't connect to God. In this instance we are talking about salvation and if the belief is false then it doesn't connect to God and the God of that particular belief doesn't exist. That part of him is false.

None of us have 100% correct belief in God as God is but that doesn't stop us from having faith in the right God, nor does it stop God from saving us.

If you believe (and persist in acting on the belief) that you are saved by your works then you have not only a false belief and a false God (in that regard). You also won't be saved by practicing that belief.

Do you think Jews today are worshipping a false god because they don't have Jesus Christ? I don't.

Do you believe the Jews are worshipping God. Or do you think they are carrying out religious duties? Do you think God values the praises of the unsaved?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The conclusion "I am rotten" must, of course, arise out of a self-comparison w.r.t. the standard of God (whether or not the person is aware that that is the standard they are comparing themselves to).

How does a person become aware that they have failed a standard when they are not aware that this was the standard they are comparing themselves too?

I may fail the Icelandic standard for literacy, but I've no idea I've done that and as such would be none the wisher.

Again your position is highly cyclical. You are asserting that certain criteria are being met that require a belief on the part of the person at the stage before they believe. Why would anyone think they are rotten compared to God's standard if they don't accept God's standard due to not believing in it or being aware of it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider a simple example: if the person rails at themselves for their failure to "do unto others.." then they will in fact be comparing themselves to Gods standard - irrespective of whether they've gleaned that notion from Buddha's sayings, their upbringing, atheistic rational. For it is from God that that notion "do unto others.." is sourced originally.

But that is irrelevant if you don't believe that it is from God that this notion is sourced originally.

I could fail the Icelandic literacy test but since I've no idea I have or not I can't do anything with this information.

If a person simply feels bad about themselves but does not accept that it is God's standard they should compare themselves to then feeling they are rotten can serve no purpose to salvation, any more than I can pass Icelandic literacy without knowing I've failed it in the first place.

A person first has to believe and accept God's standard is the true and the one they should be measuring themselves against in order to connect the dots so to speak from I feel rotten inside to I feel rotten inside because of the Fall and now look what Jesus is offering me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is worth underlining two things I made reference to in my last post. The first underlining refers to the point made above - conviction of rotteness isn't necessarily salvific. It must be God-connected conviction and it must be terminal, end-of-the-line conviction.

Well yes and that is my point. You are not connecting the dots between conviction of rotteness, believing there is something wrong and God-connected conviction of rottenness, believing there is something wrong with you compared to the standard taught by Christianity.

You have just jumped that step, where as that step is the central act of faith

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's easy. If you believe murder is wrong then you believe God.

No, that doesn't make sense. If I believe murder is wrong I may be unknowingly agreeing with God, but I don't "believe God" because I am not accepting as true what I have been told by him since I don't think he exists and thus I could not accept as true something sourced from something I don't believe exists.

Imagine I've gone to see a film and I think it is pretty good. Unknown to me my friend goes to see the film as well and he thinks it is pretty good.

By your logic you are saying that when I say the film was good I believe my friend. That of course is nonsense. I am at the very most unwittingly agreeing with him, but it is impossible to say I believe him since I have not had an opportunity to even assess if I accept as true his position

To believe someone requires that I accept as true what they have told me. Coincidently agreeing with them is not the same thing.

And again this is the step you are skipping over, how someone accepts as true what they are told by God or Christianity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All that the person needs now is someone to surrender to, someone to take this unbearable burden away from them.

And what rational reason do they have for picking Christianity as someone to take this burden away when ever other religion promises the same thing?

This again is the central question. If their 6th sense is turned off or whatever what reason do they have for picking Christianity as the religion to turn to?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That information comes post surrender.

Ok, so why have they surrendered to Chrisitanity in the first place?

I can't help but get the feeling that you simply have not considered that any other religion exists and offers the same thing as Christianity.

The central question here is why believe Christianity is true, why believe the offer of salvation is valid, if you have no rational bases to do so?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take me for example. I reached the point of surrender one night about 8 years ago. My mother (a Christian of about 8 years at that point) has some years before given me a pamphlet called "Why Jesus". My hand reached for this long forgotten pamphlet (which fell to hand), I read it and prayed the prayer at the back. And went to sleep. The next morning I knew something had changed and embarked on the journey of finding out about this God and this Jesus and this salvation.

So you basically just picked the first religion at hand, which is how most people do it they start following the religion of their parents. Which is fair enough, but it goes back to my point above, you seem to be thinking about all this as if Christianity was simply the only option available.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At the time of my praying the prayer however, I didn't believe in God. What I believed what that if God didn't exist then there was absolutely no way out of my predicament (I hadn't considered suicide at that point but might have gotten around to it). My prayer was sincerely offered up in the hope that God existed. No believing in God required at that point.

Well you see that is the thing, you did believe because when you felt better you attributed to you praying. A non-believer wouldn't have done that. So it is a bit disingenuous to say you didn't believe, though I accept that at the time you may have not consider it a rational believe that God exists.

You believed at some level, probably because you were in Christian culture, that all this prayer stuff works a certain way.

So you were already passed the step I'm talking about you skipping over without even knowing you were, which is possibly why you are having such trouble with that step.

If I prayed to God and woke up the next morning feeling completely different I wouldn't attribute that to me praying to God because I don't believe that is the way things work.

To do that you have to believe in the concept of prayer, believe that it works that way. You have already accepted a large part of Christian doctrine possibly without even realising it because of your parents. You are simply running a test to confirm what you already believed or hoped was true. And not surprisingly it was confirmed for you through confirmation bias

antiskeptic wrote: »

The heart of the issue is the heart - not the pamphlet and not the prayer.

No it isn't. The heart of the issue is the believe. You accepted the explanation presented by Christianity around God and prayer.

You prayed and you felt better so you attributed that to the praying because that is what our Christian culture had taught you to accept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If I was a sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet who'd never heard of the Bible or the God of that Bible then it would make no difference. God can be surrendered to anywhere, anytime by anyone who He's brought to their knees.

It would because you wouldn't have accepted the causality based on correlation that you accepted being in a Christian culture.

You need to try and think about what it would be like if you did not have the Christian basis to begin with.

If you hadn't why would you have prayed to God at all and why would you have attributed feeling changed to praying to God?

You didn't go from A to B because you were already starting at B. You went from A to B long before that night praying because you had been raised in a Christian culture and already accepted so may Christian concepts such as God and prayer as plausible rules of nature, even if you had some doubts if it actually worked like that.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

How does a person become aware that they have failed a standard when they are not aware that this was the standard they are comparing themselves too?

Again your position is highly cyclical. You are asserting that certain criteria are being met that require a belief on the part of the person at the stage before they believe. Why would anyone think they are rotten compared to God's standard if they don't accept God's standard due to not believing in it or being aware of it?

Conscience (a.k.a. a knowledge of good and evil - as defined by God). Everyone has one and can measure themselves according to it and in doing so, can determine whether they are rotten or not according to God's standard. Whether they believe in God or not.

Why one persons conscience will trouble them about action x whilst anothers doesn't is a different, although associated, matter. We can go into it if you like - given that this would form a likely route of your next objection.

But that is irrelevant if you don't believe that it is from God that this notion is sourced originally.

How so irrelevant? If God speaks via conscience (even though you don't believe it to be God speaking) and you believe what he is saying then you believe God surely.

I mean, since when does not believing something to be the case alter it being the case?

Well yes and that is my point. You are not connecting the dots between conviction of rotteness, believing there is something wrong and God-connected conviction of rottenness, believing there is something wrong with you compared to the standard taught by Christianity.

You have just jumped that step, where as that step is the central act of faith

Hopefully the above has bridged the gap somewhat?

No, that doesn't make sense. If I believe murder is wrong I may be unknowingly agreeing with God, but I don't "believe God" because I am not accepting as true what I have been told by him since I don't think he exists and thus I could not accept as true something sourced from something I don't believe exists.

Okay, lets agree that you "unknowingly agree with Gods view" on the matter (so as to get around this semantical obstacle).

That God considers murder a selfish act is something you agree with in your believing murder is wrong - no doubt? That God considers it an unjustified act is something you also agree with I'd imagine. When God considers no man having the right to take anothers life, you too agree with him. You agree with him (he says - not me) because he has installed in you the same abhorrence for murdering another that he has regarding men murdering men.

What is occurring in you in your believing murder to be wrong, is the image and likeness of God - in which you were made - manifesting itself. You'd agree here to that your believing this or not doesn't impact on it being the case.

And again this is the step you are skipping over, how someone accepts as true what they are told by God or Christianity.

In our study we aren't concerned so much with this. The reason for believing what they are told by God arises only after God has turned up personally for the saved individual (his turning up being a satisfactory explanation as to why they accept what he says as true - at the postsalvation point). There is no need to reference God in ones satisfying the criterion by which they are saved in the first place.

And what rational reason do they have for picking Christianity as someone to take this burden away when ever other religion promises the same thing?

I'm dealing with God's salvation over which he has controlling interest. That a person run to this religion or that philosophy because they are burdened in some general sense isn't the case I am dealing with. I'm dealing with God's mechanism of salvation and his ensuring that a person meeting his criterion for salvation will be saved and will find him revealing himself to them.

Once the person has met the criterion for salvation God ensures they turn to him - whether that person is me living in a Christian-aware land. Or a sheepherder in Tibet who's never heard of God or Jesus or Salvation.

I can't help but get the feeling that you simply have not considered that any other religion exists and offers the same thing as Christianity.

The central question here is why believe Christianity is true, why believe the offer of salvation is valid, if you have no rational bases to do so?

Our focus is on God's way of salvation and what a man must unknowingly believe/unknowingly agree on .. in order to meet God's criterion of salvation. We are not concerned with whether Christianity is true or not - we're merely looking at the evidence-based way in which faith/belief/agreeing with operates at the pre-salvation stage.

Clearly, once God turns up post-salvation the evidence-based nature of one's faith should be apparent.

Well you see that is the thing, you did believe because when you felt better you attributed to you praying. A non-believer wouldn't have done that. So it is a bit disingenuous to say you didn't believe, though I accept that at the time you may have not consider it a rational believe that God exists.

Note that I'm merely discussing a mechanism of salvation which follows rational lines at the various key points (eg: a person having a rational reason for concluding themselves rotten).

I'm not that interested in broadening the topic to proving this is the case and my apologies if you supposed I was. The reason for citing my own case was to illustrate the process steps - not the suppose you believe there isn't another reason for my concluding as I do.

No it isn't. The heart of the issue is the believe. You accepted the explanation presented by Christianity around God and prayer.

The heart of the issue was that I concluded myself rotten before I read any pamphlet and before I prayed any prayer. Could we keep on the subject of mechanism?

It would because you wouldn't have accepted the causality based on correlation that you accepted being in a Christian culture.

You need to try and think about what it would be like if you did not have the Christian basis to begin with.

If you hadn't why would you have prayed to God at all and why would you have attributed feeling changed to praying to God?

The Bible speaks of sheep not of this fold (ie: not the visible Christian church) who will be collected up in the end time. They will be surprised at where they find themselves (not having had the privilege of being able to read all about it in advance like I do). This doesn't affect them being sheep however and they were saved by the same God and by the same mechanism as me.

And so I suppose a sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet can be saved just like me.

You didn't go from A to B because you were already starting at B. You went from A to B long before that night praying because you had been raised in a Christian culture and already accepted so may Christian concepts such as God and prayer as plausible rules of nature, even if you had some doubts if it actually worked like that.

Could we return to the topic at hand: the mechanism of salvation that is based on evidence at all points along the way?

postcynical

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One person is statistically insignificant.

Not to that person. So why don't you actually try this experiment and see what happens?