What does 'having faith' mean to you?
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:05 pm
Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
What about a plane? have you ever flown for the first time?Kenny wrote:I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.
Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.
Ken
Excellent point! The first time I flew in an airplane, my heart was racing when we left the ground; probably because half of the reasons I trust my chair doesn’t apply to the plane. I was not able to inspect the plane and understand how it works as I can the chair. All I had to go on was the track record of countless other people who flew on planes. So my faith in airplanes at that time was only based on a consistent track record of other people’s experiences. I suspect the first person to ever fly on a plane was the inventor and he knew the airplane as well as I knew the chair I am sitting on, so his faith was based on empirical evidence. Since then countless other people had faith based on his experiences, and I had faith based on countless other people's experiences.Nessa wrote:What about a plane? have you ever flown for the first time?Kenny wrote:I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.
Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.
Ken
Thank you. I appreciate your welcome back, your invitation and instructions on how to trust Jesus, your kind words and good intentions. Thank-youMallz wrote:Welcome back Kenny! (sry for derailing, I'm done).
*edit: I should have read your post before responding I guess I would like to show you how you can test Jesus; something I try to get people to do all the time (and a lot of Christians..), but for some reason the thought leaves like a leaf in the wind as soon as the ego tries to justify why it shouldn't test Him. Do what Jesus says, test His promises, even. Treat Him like a person and how He asks to be treated. If you want to find out if He truly is real, then treat Him like that chair. But you can't even treat Him like that chair, because you can't even see the chair to exist, so how can you explore it, even? By learning about Him and doing as He says (including talking with Him). You can test Jesus, but you have to actually do it (not just think about it ).
But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief. You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?Kenny wrote:I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.
Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.
Ken
Empirical morals? I've never heard of the term; sounds like a contradiction in terms. In what context did you hear this term used?Hortator wrote:Kenny, tell us again about empirical morals.
Kenny wrote:I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.
Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.
Ken
Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.Byblos wrote: But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.
[/quote]Byblos wrote: You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?
Kenny wrote:Kenny wrote:I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?
Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.
Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.
KenPerhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.Byblos wrote: But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.
Byblos wrote: You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?
You are taking the plane analogy futher than I intended.There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.
Ken
Dear Lord, is this really what you're going with, one of Richard Dawkins' favorite meaningless quotes? But I understand kenny, sometimes it's easier to make extraordinary claims than to answer a simple question.Kenny wrote:There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.