On Justifying our beliefs.

[J Lowrie]

Dear Sirs,
I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions.
Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt. I say 'strive' because, as humans, our perception and derivation of truth is apt to become clouded and distorted by our desires, emotions and errors of reasoning. It is an extrordinary fact that even very intelligent people hold beliefs more strongly than the evidence merits.
It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).
Jamie Lowrie

P.S. Sorry for the multitude of spelling mistakes littering this piece - my only excuse is that I am a mathematician.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Dear Sirs,

Don't forget our Madams.

I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions.

I agree. Clinging fanatically to dogma of any type is pretty senseless.

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt. I say 'strive' because, as humans, our perception and derivation of truth is apt to become clouded and distorted by our desires, emotions and errors of reasoning. It is an extrordinary fact that even very intelligent people hold beliefs more strongly than the evidence merits.

I think nearly everyone (excepting perhaps the clinically bonkers) hold beliefs precisely as strongly as they feel the evidnce merits. Unfortunately, no-one gets to sit around and be the final arbiter of what constitutes enough evidence, so you have people running around believing all kinds of wacky things based upon evidence that no sane person would accept.

It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs.

Agreed.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Well, nothing may be further from the truth for you, but Christians come in all stripes, many of which not only do believe this way, but believe they must believe this way. I have met those who say seeking evidence for God and not accepting blindly is "testing God" and is verboten.

I'll grant you that no-one should, upon meeting a Christian, assume how he arrived at his beliefs. There are as many justifications as there are Christians.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).
Jamie Lowrie

P.S. Sorry for the multitude of spelling mistakes littering this piece - my only excuse is that I am a mathematician.

No worries re the spelling errors, and welcome to the fora.

 

[Operaider]

If you think that we don't believe in God because we simple don't want one, in my case you are wrong. I actually was Christian. I believed whole heartily in Jesus. Then one day someone pointed out that I haven't actually read the bible. I had spent years devoting my life to a book of commandments I'd never gotten around to reading. Once I read it I realized what a load of nonsense it was. There were multiple contradictions. Commandments damning ridiculously innocent acts with extremely harsh punishments.

I don't believe in God because I have seen no purpose for God. All that I've witnessed does not require a God to exist. If you have some evidence of God that I missed, please present it. Because I for one, would actually like for there to be a God. But we don’t all get what we want

 

[Oleron]

Welcome to the forums! You may be just what my debate needs over here .
Feel free to have a jolly good go at my ideas. I mean no offence by them and actually appreciate being proved wrong (if indeed I am wrong).

 

[Flo]

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith.

Aside from the odd über-atheist on a crusade (mercifully seldom met here), you will mostly read this assumption from the likes of 1inChrist, who claims he is the only true christian around ...

Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Then according to 1iC, you're no real Christian

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There was a recent thread in which we discussed the reason for belief.

A Question for Believers

The question was:

As a believer, what do you find compelling about your belief, that you feel others should find compelling also?

Perhaps you would like to have a go at it.. You might browse through the linked thread to see how it went.

Note that our friend Frisian, seemed to have made the most concerted effort from the ' believer ' side.


What do you mean by ' faith '?

Many ' non-believers ' would say that ' faith ' implies a lack of knowledge.. ( evidence if you will ) In the light of tangible evidence, faith is not necessary.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt

This premise is obviously, however unfortunately it is not obviously true. The idea that one ought not to believe something unless one is willing to assert that one knows it is to construe evidence as a 1/0 sort of thing, which short consideration of the vagueries of life should reveal to be somewhat evidently false. We should obviously be willing to provide significant justification for any claim we make regarding our own knowledge of some fact or other, and similarly we should be willing to provide justification for any belief we hold -- however to claim that the level of justification needed for either case is the same is to indicate that one of the two terms is entirely superfluous.

 

[Anathema]

Dear Sirs,
I have been struck and displeased, when browsing various forums concerning religion, by the complete lack of reason people seem to be able to give to justify their (very strongly, and sometimes dogmatically held) opinions.

Welcome aboard. I'd suggest that "browsing" won't yield much. Participating will likely show you quite a different view. A lot of ground has been covered, and many now speak in a kind of shorthand, rather than rehashing the basis for their beliefs in every single post.

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so.

Since there is no absolute "knowing" outside of some kinds of religious certainty, we have to accept standards of evidence, and accept operative 'truths" on a sliding scale. Some, we have great confidence in, others are more tentatively accepted until more information can conclusively validate or invalidate them.

It should be a disipline of any trained mind to sort out his thoughts, beliefs, knowledge and justifications. If he does this well he will find a moras of contradictions and unfounded assumptions in his head, and in realising that he knew much less than he had so happily supposed will be rather more humble and willing to hear and more able to discern truth in others beliefs.

Your participation here will certainly allow you a lot of contact with "trained minds", in fact, you can't swing a dead cat in here without hitting one.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith.

Perhaps you do not. I applaud you. Many, many, many Christians however do precisely that. The evidence is too frequent to miss.

Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Speaking for all Christians is a tricky proposition....

 

[monkboon]

Then one day someone pointed out that I haven't actually read the bible. I had spent years devoting my life to a book of commandments I'd never gotten around to reading. Once I read it I realized what a load of nonsense it was. There were multiple contradictions. Commandments damning ridiculously innocent acts with extremely harsh punishments.

Same here. I've concluded that actually reading the Bible with a critical eye is the most dangerous activity to faith.

I personally am pleased as punch that I eventually came to my senses, even if a little miffed that it took me 21 years to do it. I am free to live my life without fear of eternal damnation over a little doubt now and again. It doesn't bother me that there's no eternal reward, either, as I'm also free to make the best of the life I have now.

 

[plindboe]

Descartes said that we ought not to believe something true unless we know it to be so. This is a rather obvious premise and is a vital rule which any man who is concerned with discovering any sort of truth should strive to adopt.

&

As a Christian.......

So, how do you know God exists?

PS.Welcome aboard.

 

[epepke]

Dear Sirs

Msdms. & Messrs. would probably be more appropriate.

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Anyway, I could rant on here forever, but I think I should like to here some comments on what I have thus far written. (I am very open to hear some well fouded and cogent attacks on Christian doctrine).

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is not particularly an anti-Christian or anti-theist forum. You will probably meet more than the average number of non-believers, but this is not a requirement. This forum is part of a web site about scientific skepticism, and there has traditionally been somewhat of a truce with believers, so long as they don't claim that Jesus comes down and scrubs their pots and pans with his halo every other Thursday or something like that.

I also have to warn you that people here are pretty good at critical thinking, and you're not going to get very far with statements like "clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith." A typical response might go along the lines of, exactly which Christians are you talking about, Mr. Self-Appointed Ueber-Pope of All Christendom? Maybe the ones in Ireland who think that the Catholics aren't Christians. Or else the ones who think that the non-Catholics aren't Christians. Furthermore, you come in here with a prepared thing that you as much as advertise that you're just eager to be pissed off about. People aren't going to respond nicely to that, and you'll deserve it.

 

[Gulliamo]

Welcome. It is always a pleasure to have another “thinker” join the festivities.

Generally, it is weighed upon the claimant to provide evidence for their claim. If I were to claim, "There is not a god." Then I would be required to substantiate with supporting evidence for the given claim. Often, it is not the non-theist making the claims but, simply refuting the claims made by others.

 

[punchdrunk]

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith. Nothing is further from the truth, and people who think this clearly do not know what Christians mean by the word faith.

Fair enough. What does the word faith mean to you? Dictionary.com defines it as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

 

[Ceinwyn]

J Lowrie:

How is it you are registered in May, yet your first post is today? Have you been lurking for this long?

Just curious.

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ceinwyn

I was thinking the same thing

Lowrie

Welcome and tell us your thoughts on the most popular christian here 1inChrist. What do you think of his discussions regarding the fires of hell?

 

[RamblingOnwards]

As a Christian one of the most frustrating and ignorant assumptions I meet is that a Christian accepts his religion through some sort of blind unquestioning faith.

When I was a Christian, this is exactly how I saw it. While I wouldn't argue with other Christians I believed that if you said you believed in God for any reason OTHER than pure faith, then you were either 'shading the truth' because you thought it would convert more people, or you were ignorant of the facts.

I was (and still am) of the opinion that if you know something, then you do not have faith in it. The words 'have faith in', 'believe' and 'know' all have multiple meanings, but take this as a near example. If a close family member is accused of killing someone, you might have faith in the fact that they didn't. However, if you were with them at the time somewhere else, then you know they didn't - no faith involved.

I can respect someone who says they believe in God through faith. They have examined all the evidence and made their choices with eyes open. I find it difficult to respect someone who says that they believe because they have evidence of God. Firstly, in the Christian faith, that would be cheating:

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

John 20:29 (NIV)

And secondly, because almost invariably that 'evidence' is absurd.

Lastly, the most famous Christian quote about faith is:

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

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV, because this is the one most quoted)

Which very much supports my argument - faith is used instead of evidence as a basis for belief.

What do you consider the word to mean, and why do you assume most other Christians feel the same way?

 

[Kitty Chan]

Re: Re: On Justifying our beliefs.

I can respect someone who says they believe in God through faith. They have examined all the evidence and made their choices with eyes open. I find it difficult to respect someone who says that they believe because they have evidence of God. Firstly, in the Christian faith, that would be cheating:

John 20:29 (NIV)

And secondly, because almost invariably that 'evidence' is absurd.

Lastly, the most famous Christian quote about faith is:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV, because this is the one most quoted)

Which very much supports my argument - faith is used instead of evidence as a basis for belief.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that it is alright to have faith because you have examined the evidence (evidence maybe was bible, different theologians, preacher, family, friends etc?)and made the decision. ?

but if they have evidence of God (maybe something like the shroud, or the ark? or mary / cross appearances) then no. ?

One other comment re that faith is used of evidence as basis for belief.

This would be in "modern times" where as in "biblical times" Thomas would have seen the risen Jesus and put his finger on the nail scars and had tangible evidence in front of him (which, prompted Jesus reply).

Not that I want to make a whole lot of tangible evidence because even that evidence as Thomas showed requires a decision of faith. As there were those in the day that saw something yet decided that they would not believe their eyes.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Re: Re: Re: On Justifying our beliefs.

but if they have evidence of God (maybe something like the shroud, or the ark? or mary / cross appearances) then no. ?

In essence, yes.

I wouldn't call these things evidence, but I wouldn't find it unreasonable to chose Christianity because you approve of the moral values, because you find support in the framework, because you respect other Christians, or because you find comfort in prayer. Knowing that no hard evidence exists, if you chose to believe in God, taking it on faith and leaping blindfold into that personal void, then while I wouldn't agree with your decision (clearly), I can respect it.

In theory, hard evidence would be better (although it would then no longer be faith in my mind). In practice, since no convincing evidence of this kind exists, some-one who thinks they have some is a little out of touch.

(edited for tags and spelling)

 

[Kitty Chan]

Just as a note I used the word evidence since you did.

Thats why I was giving some ideas of what that evidence may be. The evidence just describes what one is looking at to determine something.

Looks like we agree on "soft" evidence I could add what you said to mine.

So,back in the day, for a second . . .

As for "hard" evidence like I said Thomas had the hard evidence then believed. Im thinking he saw but did not believe but when he touched then he believed. I looked at the verse and Thomas said to the others until I touch I wont believe. When he saw Jesus He said come touch My hands, I wonder if Thomas thought now how did He know I wanted to do that?

I say so because, Thomas thought that he had to touch to know but he was presented with Christ knowing without being asked and it seems Thomas didnt notice. (not sure on that, but my point would be he reasoned what he wanted and missed another bit of evidence in the process)

I have experienced hearing or seeing things and not believing them until another sense was brought in. For example being told there was a fire but until I saw it I didnt believe. I just derailing myself wondering about seeing but not believing.

Ok I just wanted to mention that, now for today . . . .

The same hard evidence does not seem to be availiable at this time. You said hard evidence would be good but what would be hard evidence?

Thats why I was wondering about things like the ark if it was found to be there, would you consider that hard evidence? Or the ark of the covenant, the grail?

or would hard evidence be like a sign ie: sea turning red, earth quake covering more area that it should.

Or say someone (not Jesus) being killed and coming back

or say like in Rev Christ coming down out of the sky riding a white horse.

As I think of this there is alot of things that could be hard evidence, I guess Im asking what do you would think would be adequate, how much or how many things would be needed.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

As I think of this there is alot of things that could be hard evidence, I guess Im asking what do you would think would be adequate, how much or how many things would be needed.

Well, I'd need different amount of evidence for different things.

To believe in the historical existence of Jesus probably wouldn't take much. Of course the bible can't be accurate about his life (it gives him two different birth years 4 BC and 7 AD, and two different paternal grandfathers Jacob and Heli, and so forth) but that a real preacher actually existed and did cause a fuss is something I'm prepared to accept. I'd need some indicator outside of the bible though - a reasonable explanation for why he doesn't appear in either the Jewish or the Roman records at the time, some letters written during his lifetime about him, and so on.

That a God or aliens exists that are omnipotent (at least from our perspective) would need something unambigiously non-human, and ongoing. Basically, any of the 'grand gestures' as long as I can verify it isn't a) an illusion, or b) a delusion.

To believe in Christianity in the sense of becoming a Christian? In theory, nothing. I think that going to hell would be the most moral thing to do if the Chirstian God exists. In reality, if I was convinced of the existence of the Christian God, I doubt my moral character would be strong enough to stand by that decision.