posted
As I said, unfortunately the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. If you're going to insist that a demonstration be scientific in order to "count", then I think it's rather obvious you're going to be unable to find any demonstrable value in non-scientific epistemologies.
That doesn't mean such epistemlogies aren't sometimes better. It just means you've defined things in such a way that you won't be able to see when they're better.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That's a completely arbitrary precondition."
I'd say it depends on sample size. No religion has shown itself perfect in every member's case, so far as I can tell. There are plenty of people who are born and raised in the Mormon faith (by good parents in very devout families) who are excommunicated and/or quit the church; simultaneously, there are plenty of converts to LDS who were raised in a very non-Christian environment (by terrible parents, in some cases) who are never excommunicated and are happy members-in-good-standing for the remainder of their lives.
I'm not picking on LDS any more than any other faith, though. Everything I just said applies to all the major Western faiths, and (I suppose, though it's less clear, for various reasons) the Eastern ones as well.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're going to insist that a demonstration be scientific in order to "count", then I think it's rather obvious you're going to be unable to find any demonstrable value in non-scientific epistemologies.
Which, of course, brings us to the problem: you cannot truly demonstrate value with non-scientific epistemologies, because only scientific epistemologies actually allow effective demonstrations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
That's not true, either. Scientific demonstrations are the most effective, I don't deny, when it comes to proving truth to others. But they're not the only means.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're equivocating on 'proof'. It's true that humans, unfortunately, are convinceable of untrue things through non-scientific demonstrations. This is why Dark Side epistemology is powerful. But that doesn't make such convictions into 'proof', or even (a better word) evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Can you suggest another method that is not scientific that can be said to provide proof to a third party?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could we please tone down the use of 'proof'? Proofs exist in mathematics and not otherwise. What we have outside math is either "evidence convincing to a large majority of neutral third parties" or else "evidence applicable to fighting wars and/or expanding the economy", which are sort of the final Darwinian test.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're equivocating on 'proof'. It's true that humans, unfortunately, are convinceable of untrue things through non-scientific demonstrations. This is why Dark Side epistemology is powerful. But that doesn't make such convictions into 'proof', or even (a better word) evidence.
Well, 'proof' is a sticking point for me, but so is 'evidence'. Humans are also capable of being convinced of true things through non-scientific means. That is, in fact, the method by which most humans are convinced of anything, anywhere on the planet.
However, 'evidence'? 'Evidence' is a word with several definitions. Your argument is only valid if you accept the 'correct' definition. Should we accept that definition as the one we must use in all cases is the real question. You're not going to get anywhere on anything else until you resolve that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scientific method is not the only valid method for ascertaining truth. In many areas of life and reality, we have to use forensic and judicial methods, which involve the testimony of eyewitnesses, and weighing and ascertaining the reliability of these witnesses.
But in all cases, both scientific and forensic/judicial, another element that enters in, as Rakeesh intimates, is interpretation. All facts must be interpreted--even test results. Thus even in hard science, you cannot completely remove the human element.
That said, it must also be noted that at times, the majority of the most reliable witnesses or other "experts," have later been found to be mistaken.
Even "pure" mathematics cannot be relied upon to provide completely objective proof of truth. Some kinds of math prohibit the existence of the square root of a minus 1. Yet it can be graphed. What this really tells us is that our accepted rules of mathematics are not perfect, and at some points, deny reality.
So, can we ever be absolutely certain of anything? Maybe not, even in hard science. The best we can do is optimize our chances for being right. This means that ultimately, no rational mind can operate without some degree of faith.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I will try. But the success of a demonstration is in the eye of the beholder. There are people whose lives have demonstrated it far better than anything I ever do will, and yet were unable to convince skeptics. "
You aren't demonstrating better-ness by showing that people have lived successful lives. "Better" is a comparative term, and so only has meaning in the context of an alternative. Since, if a person lives his life, there is no other alternative, you cannot show that the person has lived his life "better," than he would have otherwise.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I fail to see how absolute perfection would be somehow tied to the validity or invalidity of any 'demonstrations'."
Religions make statements like "souls have gender" or "God was born a man named Jesus" or "the Jews are God's chosen people, better than all the rest" with the SAME certainty that people put forth statements like "1+1=2". That, brother, is how.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The scientific method is not the only valid method for ascertaining truth. In many areas of life and reality, we have to use forensic and judicial methods, which involve the testimony of eyewitnesses, and weighing and ascertaining the reliability of these witnesses.
I do think the scientific method is the best method for ascertaining truth, better than any other method that exists.
I don't think that the scientific method is one which can be brought to bear on all questions. I also don't believe that the correct thing to do in areas where the scientific method can't be brought to bear is simply to say, "OK, don't believe anything if nothing can be scientifically believed."
So Tom, your repeated requests for concrete examples don't really have much impact, at least not with me. Nor many religious people, I think. I even suspect that it doesn't really have much impact with you, because I very much doubt you guide your life entirely by the scientific method.
---------
quote:You aren't demonstrating better-ness by showing that people have lived successful lives. "Better" is a comparative term, and so only has meaning in the context of an alternative. Since, if a person lives his life, there is no other alternative, you cannot show that the person has lived his life "better," than he would have otherwise.
The same applies in both directions, Paul, except that you're the one insisting on proofs and evidence and demonstrations. All of those things, you can't provide either.
Steven, someone might ask, "Chosen for what?"
ETA: When I saw dkw's post, I was hoping for an instant, "Let them be simultaneous, then I won't look as silly." Alas.
quote:The same applies in both directions, Paul, except that you're the one insisting on proofs and evidence and demonstrations.
In order to define "better" so that Paul can demonstrate better-ness, you are going to have to quantify "better." The instant you do that, I guarantee you that Paul can demonstrate the "better-ness" of the scientific method for any given criteria by which you might measure acquired knowledge.
I understand that you must find this frustrating; it is tantamount to admitting defeat in pretty much any debate, ever, for all time. That you refuse to admit defeat, and instead insist on the existence of an invisible playground on which you imagine yourself to be winning, is the inevitable result of a philosophy that asserts superiority despite lacking any measurable way of gauging its earthly success.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In order to define "better" so that Paul can demonstrate better-ness, you are going to have to quantify "better." The instant you do that, I guarantee you that Paul can demonstrate the "better-ness" of the scientific method for any given criteria by which you might measure acquired knowledge.
Even Paul is saying that 'better' here can't be quantified. But if it's so easily guaranteed, Tom, why don't you pick a definition of 'better', just for the sake of argument?
quote:I understand that you must find this frustrating; it is tantamount to admitting defeat in pretty much any debate, ever, for all time. That you refuse to admit defeat, and instead insist on the existence of an invisible playground on which you imagine yourself to be winning, is the inevitable result of a philosophy that asserts superiority despite lacking any measurable way of gauging its earthly success.
'Admit defeat'? You're saying, "Prove it," to people who specifically, from the outset, don't think it can be proven. And while you're doing that, you're asserting the superiority of beliefs that can be proven, while simultaneously failing to provide proof yourself.
Yes, truly your insight is staggering, Tom.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're saying, "Prove it," to people who specifically, from the outset, don't think it can be proven.
Specifically, what I'm saying is that if an action's effect cannot be detected, the action cannot be said to have occurred.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you are missing the point. The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases. I can demonstrate it, but since that demonstration will not consist of a proof, it's going to rely on you making a judgement call. If one closes their mind and insists on concluding that religion is never useful, then one is never going to be forced to see otherwise by such a demonstration. So if you are looking for something from me (or anyone else here) that is going to logically force you to accept the value of religion, you should probably stop looking.
Religion does not exist to win debates. If you want to win debates, science is not the best position either. If you want to win such a debate, you should accept the position of radical skepticism - that nobody really knows anything about anything ever. If you stick to your guns on that position, you'll never be proven wrong. All logical reasoning is based on assumptions which, in order to proven, must be then built upon further assumptions. There is no way around this, meaning that unless you agree to accept some basic starting assumption, nobody can prove anything. So if you really really want to win debates, to the point where you won't grant the other side anything at all, then all other positions will lose to radical skepticism.
On the other hand, if you are interested in the truth or if you are interesting in living your life well, I'd suggest you be open to knowledge that isn't provable. If a person is trying to decide whether to get married, I'd suggest they don't wait until they can logically prove that they should. If a person is trying to figure out whether its worth spending time watching their daughter's soccer game, I'd suggest not waiting until they can find logical proof that its a valuable use of time. And if you are interested in actually finding out for real if there's value in religion as an epistemology, then I'd suggest stop waiting for someone to logically force you to accept it and instead go observe real people who use religious thinking.
I think you'll find many people who misuse religious thinking - as I've said, it isn't an epistemology that's good for everything, and there's certainly many people who end up using religion in ways that damage their lives and the lives of others. But at the same, I think you'll find many people who use religious thinking in a way that consistently and significantly improves their lives. I think you'll find some great human beings who owe their virtue mostly to religious thought. It is these people who I would offer as my demonstration as the value of religion as an epistemology. It is possible you won't see it the same way I do. But that's how it goes.
But I will add that if you want to offer a persuasive argument against religion, you should keep in mind that many many religious folks DO see such lives as a demonstration of the value of religious thinking. Arguing that nothing has been techincally proven will not be any more persuasive than when I argue that technically nobody can prove the existence of the physical world. You'll still believe in the physical world, just as they'll still believe in religion - because proof is not necessary to be convinced of a belief, even among the completely rational.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point is that I cannot offer you proof of religion's "better-ness" as an epistemological method, but it is nevertheless better in many cases. I can demonstrate it, but since that demonstration will not consist of a proof, it's going to rely on you making a judgement call.
Specifically, what you're saying is that you can say religion is "better" in some way, but you cannot demonstrate that it is better in any way that amounts to more than your saying "this is better" and hoping I agree.
Whereas when we're talking about science, I can ask you to define some criteria for "better," and then use that to evaluate which of two options is better by the definition we've agreed upon.
I submit that this latter process is the only method discussed so far in this thread that is actually capable of demonstrating something.
quote: If a person is trying to decide whether to get married, I'd suggest they don't wait until they can logically prove that they should.
But even here, religion is less help than simple observation and basic hypotheses. Asking God if you should get married doesn't appear to actually improve the success rate of marriages, while observing yourself with your spouse -- certainly an application of observational science, if not the full "scientific method" -- appears to make a difference.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you demonstrate that it is using your own method?
So you're asking me to prove that something cannot do something?
I can certainly demonstrate that mine can. You have conceded that you cannot demonstrate that yours can. Is more necessary?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that mine CAN demonstrate that religious epistemology is useful. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it cannot, using your own method.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A point to notice: No religion claims that its foundation lies in faith. The foundational claims are always clams of the sort of evidence that would convince anyone; golden plates, raising the dead, smiting entire armies, that sort of thing. In fact, the earliest known scientific experiment is recounted in the Bible; it has a control group and everything, and if the account is accepted as true, then it is powerful evidence in favour of Jehovah's existence. And the Jews accept it as such:
quote:And then the people haul the 450 priests of Baal down to the river Kishon and slit their throats. This is stern, but necessary. You must firmly discard the falsified hypothesis, and do so swiftly, before it can generate excuses to protect itself. If the priests of Baal are allowed to survive, they will start babbling about how religion is a separate magisterium which can be neither proven nor disproven.
It is only when someone has the nerve to point out that this purported evidence all seems to take place long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away that theists get defensive and try to argue for the virtues of faith as a epistemology. (I make an exception for kmb, who doesn't have an epistemology or any beliefs as such, just a set of socially acceptable phrases for cocktail parties.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, what I'm saying is that if an action's effect cannot be detected, the action cannot be said to have occurred.
Well, no, that's not exactly what you're saying. What you're saying is that if an action cannot be detected by scientific means, it cannot be said to have occurred. That's part of what you're saying, at least.
quote:Asking God if you should get married doesn't appear to actually improve the success rate of marriages, while observing yourself with your spouse -- certainly an application of observational science, if not the full "scientific method" -- appears to make a difference.
*grin* I'd certainly be interested in some scientific data that backs up those very specific claims, Tom.
quote:I can certainly demonstrate that mine can. You have conceded that you cannot demonstrate that yours can. Is more necessary?
No, but saying, "You can't prove it happened to you, so my measure that can prove an entirely different kind of event or idea is better than yours," is rather odd.
"God speaks to me." "Oh, yeah? Well, the Earth revolves around the sun, and I can prove it, so science is better!"
quote: "God speaks to me." "Oh, yeah? Well, the Earth revolves around the sun, and I can prove it, so science is better!"
Not quite.
"God speaks to me!" "What does he tell you?" "Marvelous things!" "Things you wouldn't otherwise know? Things that make your life empirically and detectably better? Things that avert misfortune in a statistically measurable way?" "No." "What does He say, specifically?" "Usually it's just a feeling. But I'm pretty sure He's telling me to like the religion I'm in." "Does it bother you that other people say God tells them to like the religion they're in?" "No. Why should it? They're clearly not speaking to God."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my standards? Or to my definition of "useful?" You've already said you can't do either.
No, you said your method involved asking ME to define the criteria and then using that to evaluate which of two options is better by the definition we've agreed upon.
The criteria I propose for useful is that something is useful if it facilitates them achieving some goal of theirs, whether that be a well-defined goal like getting a job or a vague goal like being happy or living a meaningful life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "God speaks to me!" "What does he tell you?" "Marvelous things!" "Things you wouldn't otherwise know? Things that make your life empirically and detectably better? Things that avert misfortune in a statistically measurable way?" "How can I possibly say whether I would otherwise know something? All I can say for certain is that I learned things I didn't know before. My life has been better since I began to listen closely to what God was saying to me. Yes, God tells me to do things that avert misfortune in statistically measurable ways." "What does He say, specifically?" "'Specifically' isn't as easy as you're suggesting, but there are some specific things, yes."*See that religion's specific doctrines, for example* "I've prayed and been answered repeatedly to continue to seek answers in the religion I'm in." "Does it bother you that other people say God tells them to like the religion they're in?" "Why should I be bothered if someone else is mistaken? I'm mistaken about a great many things, just like everyone else is, and even though I think I'm on the right track, I'm nowhere near free from error."
Can we make snowmen next, Tom?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The criteria I propose for useful is that something is useful if it facilitates them achieving some goal of theirs, whether that be a well-defined goal like getting a job or a vague goal like being happy or living a meaningful life.
And how do you plan to distinguish a valid philosophical epistemology from the religious trappings around it to make that determination?
quote:Yes, God tells me to do things that avert misfortune in statistically measurable ways?
Like...? How would you measure these ways? And why has no one done it? (Or are we resorting to the old saws, like how Jews and Muslims face a relatively low risk for trichinosis?)
quote:Why should I be bothered if someone else is mistaken?
Because they have exactly the same evidence you have of their rightness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And how do you plan to distinguish a valid philosophical epistemology from the religious trappings around it to make that determination?
I'm not - you are. You are the one arguing that you have a proof.
Or we can agree that you have no such proof that your proposed process is the ONLY process in this thread capable of demonstrating anything.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like...? How would you measure these ways? And why has no one done it? (Or are we resorting to the old saws, like how Jews and Muslims face a relatively low risk for trichinosis?)
Don't drink, don't smoke, don't do violence, don't be mean to other people, don't...etc. etc., Tom.
quote:Because they have exactly the same evidence you have of their rightness.
From your perspective, certainly. Strange as it might seem, though, that isn't the only one out there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or we can agree that you have no such proof that your proposed process is the ONLY process in this thread capable of demonstrating anything.
Not quite. I have a process that can demonstrate things. You have a process that, by your own admission, cannot demonstrate things. As there are no other processes in this thread, I think I'm close enough for government work.
quote:From your perspective, certainly. Strange as it might seem, though, that isn't the only one out there.
No, that's true. From the perspective of some Baptists, for example, you have less reason to think you're actually talking to God than they do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Even Paul is saying that 'better' here can't be quantified"
Actually, I'm not. Tres asserted that he could basically use examples of people who have lived lives as a demonstration that his way of living is better. He could do that if
a) He defined "better" in a quantifiable way b) Compared one group of people to another group of people c) Quantitatively evaluated how the groups did on his betterness scale.
But tres has specifically asserted he can't do that, so he'll not be able to demonstrate his way of living is better than another way.
I, on the other hand, would be willing to go through that process to demonstrate that my way of living is better. Tres would not take the results of such a study as meaningful if they did show that, for example, atheism is better than mormonism for the given definition of "better."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not quite. I have a process that can demonstrate things. You have a process that, by your own admission, cannot demonstrate things. As there are no other processes in this thread, I think I'm close enough for government work.
No, look closer at what's been admitted: I have a process that can demonstrate things, under a meaning of "demonstrate" that I've offered. You have a process that can demonstrate things, under a meaning of "demonstrate" that you've offered. Both of these processes are used in practical life by most people to demonstrate things. However, neither method can logically prove things; neither method can logically force an unwilling debate participant to accept a conclusion that he or she doesn't want to.
If you want to play a debating game, I am allowed to be as stubborn in my terms as you are being in your terms. You have not allowed "close enough for government work" to suffice for me, so it doesn't suffice for you either. If you want proof from me, I'll expect proof from you. And I can tell you beforehand that if you want to run through the motions, you're not going to be able to offer any true proof of the sorts of claims you've been making in this thread. Actual proof is hard to come by when you aren't talking about math.
On the other hand, if you're actually interested in the truth, I've offered a demonstration of the value of religion, which I think will be convincing to most people who approach it with an open mind. You can decide whether you accept it or reject it as convincing. Just don't try to tell me it doesn't "count" as a demonstration at all, and that all your beliefs and claims can be demonstrated in some categorically superior way.
quote:Actually, I'm not. Tres asserted that he could basically use examples of people who have lived lives as a demonstration that his way of living is better. He could do that if
a) He defined "better" in a quantifiable way b) Compared one group of people to another group of people c) Quantitatively evaluated how the groups did on his betterness scale.
But tres has specifically asserted he can't do that, so he'll not be able to demonstrate his way of living is better than another way.
But this doesn't constitute "proof" any more than my earlier arguments did. Tom could just argue that studying "happiness" is not a good measure of "better", and I'm not going to be able to prove that it is. It's all going to come down to a judgement call by him as to whether or not it is convincing as a demonstration. And in truth, while I think studies like this are interesting evidence, I think observing the lives of those individuals who have found benefit in religion is more convincing.
(Incidently, to clarify positions, I didn't argue I thought my "way of life" was better overall. If you go back, what we are discussing is whether religious thinking is in some situations better or more useful as an epistemology than other ways of processing information. That came up when Tom asserted that there is no question that religion can answer better than other epistemologies.)
quote:Studies show that those who are religious are measurably more happy than those who aren't.
And, again, how do you intend to control here for the effects of community, self-satisfaction, etc...? Remember, we're trying to demonstrate the value of religious epistemology -- i.e. coming to "know" things based on religion instead of rational thought. Saying that "X" members of a club -- especially a number of mutually exclusive clubs -- are happier than those who aren't in those clubs does not mean that the themes of the clubs themselves produce happiness.
What we're looking for is evidence that using religious epistemology to process information produces better results in any case than using a more rational epistemology. Saying "people who say they're religious also say they're happier" doesn't come close to touching on that point.
Get back to me when you've got an answer for that one. And I'm being serious. I'd sincerely like that data.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Points to above post* That's why I didn't think the quantitative approach would be very convincing. As someone who is not an expert at making studies like these, I can't offer you data that is controlled for all variables, and even if I could it would still not establish that happiness equals better or more correct. I'd think looking in detail at individual lives that have been bettered by religious thought is a better demonstration. Either way, it's still up to you to decide whether or not you're convinced; I can't logically force you to accept my conclusion.
But if I do come across a study that seems controlled for all applicable variables, I'll post it and then we can see if it is any more convincing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with individual lives: how do we know what their lives would have been like had they chosen a different religion, or none at all?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you can do, Rakeesh, with enough good data, is show that living one type of life produces statistically different outcomes than another type of life. But one life is just an anecdote. And the plural of anecdote is not data.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The demand of some here for "proof," or some kind of demonstration, does not seem to be what the Bible upholds as being really important for providing the necessary basis for faith.
After His Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. These were probably Clophas and his wife, Mary. (Compare John 19:25; Luke 24:18.) Jesus found them very distraught, for they were believers in Jesus, and thought their hopes had been dashed with the Crucifixion of Jesus.
The test says that they were prevented somehow from recognizing Him immediately. Now, you might think that He would have simply shown them the scars in His hands (wrists) and said to them something like, "Look, it's Me, I've risen from the dead." But that is not what He did.
The text tells us: "...beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
This seems to indicate that Jesus felt that the faith of His believers needs to be based on the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and that is more important even than the direct evidence of the senses.
Why did He choose this? Evidently because the senses can be deceived, logic can be twisted. But only the One True God who knows the end from the beginning has the power to outline the events of history exactly and unerringly for centuries and even millennia in advance. This is one thing Satan cannot counterfeit. Placing our faith on this basis is placing our faith on something that is objective, outside of us, and unshakeable by any power of earth. Thus our faith in the Bible as God's Word is established, and so also is faith in Jesus established, when it is based on Bible prophecy.
This is the proof I always give whenever anyone wishes to challenge the validity of the Christian faith. This is the argument Jesus Himself preferred.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguments from the Bible are remarkably unpersuasive when it is the truth of the Bible that is in question. And incidentally, just what are the Gospels worth if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead? Without this miracle, it's just so much ethics-talk by a persuasive preacher. And that miracle would, in fact, be powerful evidence, if one were at all convinced it had taken place. Likewise, accurate prophecy is powerful evidence. Such a pity the words of the Bible have to be twisted and chopped to make Jesus fit them even badly.
There is no need for faith if you have these actual miracles. That's convincing evidence, right there! It's just that the evidence for the miracles is exceeding weak.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The demand of some here for "proof," or some kind of demonstration, does not seem to be what the Bible upholds as being really important for providing the necessary basis for faith.
...
This is the proof I always give whenever anyone wishes to challenge the validity of the Christian faith. This is the argument Jesus Himself preferred.
But this is exactly the problem... This may be "proof" to someone who already believes but is meaningless otherwise. It's circular... you're using faith (in the Bible and in Jesus) to prove that faith.
I believe in God. I can't prove he exists but I believe anyway. Maybe in the same was I believed I would pass a test without studying - just blind belief because I like the way it comforts me - but that's OK. I 'm OK with that and I don't see any reason anyone else should care.
But I don't tell anyone else what to believe, and I don't have a problem with people who don't believe what I do. I don't believe that those who believe differently are going to hell, and I don't even claim that my belief is the right one for anyone else.
So, to those questioning belief: Why do you care what someone else believes? Why do you need them to prove something? Who cares if they're deluding themselves... you're not responsible for them.
And to those who believe: When you are accused of just believing without "proof" etc, why not just say "yup, that's exactly what I'm doing... what's it to you?" Why do you need to justify yourself? Why do some of you seem to feel you need to make the unbelievers "see the light"... you're not responsible for them either...
Just my $.02...
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't tell anyone else what to believe, and I don't have a problem with people who don't believe what I do. I don't believe that those who believe differently are going to hell, and I don't even claim that my belief is the right one for anyone else.
In this case I have to question what you mean by 'belief'. What would be different about the world if the god you 'believe' in did not exist?
quote:So, to those questioning belief: Why do you care what someone else believes? Why do you need them to prove something? Who cares if they're deluding themselves... you're not responsible for them.
No, but theistic beliefs are strongly correlated with a bunch of destructive behaviours, up to and including crashing airliners into skyscrapers. And the half-hearted believers like yourself are enablers for the fundamentalist fanatics.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
