On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
faith.
On Nov 4, 10:33 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> faith.
It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
doubt (God). What emotions you may feel towards these objects (faith,
in this case) has no bearing on their existence. You can have
unfounded faith in God, just as you can have unfounded faith in a
wife. Your analogy fails.
> On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence.
Sorry, faith is belief with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.
According to Christianity (which, IMO, is the absolute best definition of faith I have ever seen):
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
So...
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for..."
Hope is a wish with expectation of fulfillment.
"...the evidence of things not seen."
Faith is not based on evidence, faith is used as though it were evidence. One cannot say "Faith is the evidence of ..." if it is based upon evidence because then this becomes "Evidence is the evidence of..." which is nonsensical.
Evidence and faith are at the same level, serving the same purpose in forming belief.
<snip bad and irrelevant analogy>
> It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> reason" is simply absurd.
Not obvious at all. In fact the opposite is obvious. Faith and evidence are at the same levels as support for a belief.
One can have a belief that is based upon faith (the god I want to exist, exists).
One can have a belief that is based upon evidence (it will hurt if I put my hand on a hot stove burner).
> Faith and reason are inseparable.
Not so. Either can be used in isolation to support a belief. I need no faith that if I fall down the stairs it will hurt. I can use reason to tell me that it will.
No one EVER has faith that something bad will happen, do they?
Does it ever make sense to say "I have faith that I will have a heart attack tomorrow."?
Faith is a reflection of desire, reason is not. In fact many things are reasoned to be true that we really wish were not.
> So you may
> make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> to faith,
They reason very well. The problem is not with the ability to reason, the problem is that faith ALWAYS incorporates desire and desire is invalid in an honest reasoning process.
> but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> faith.
I can say that it is invalid reasoning in every case because it involves desire.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
works without faith is dead and faith without works are dead.....(It is a
life time of speaking --practicing faith........stepping out in faith to do
the work....
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 3, 4:47 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [A Query]
> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence.
> Sorry, faith is belief with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.
That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
preambles to faith, and the faith.
"Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
contemplation of truth".
For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
can follow the purely rational demonstrations. In fact, here are five
things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1
(i.) The existence of God.
(ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
Christ.
(iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
Resurrection of
Jesus Christ.
(iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
(v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
office,
with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
(vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church
believes.
> That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> preambles to faith, and the faith.
Faith and 'the faith' do not address the same thing.
> "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> contemplation of truth".
Then the Pope disagrees with Hebrews, which is mildly surprising. Hebrews makes it very clear that faith is to be considered a type of evidence. The evidence of hope. That should be enough, but Christians don't seem to really be able to accept faith alone so they go to great lengths to convince themselves by engaging in futile reasoning with non-believers. This is to no avail as the number of Christians is dropping.
> For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> can follow the purely rational demonstrations.
Yes it is. There are no purely rational demonstrations of gods existing. If there were then there would be no atheists.
> In fact, here are five
> things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1 > (i.) The existence of God.
Must be faith alone. There is no solid rational argument for the existence of gods. The existence of atheists and thousands of individual theistic sects and outright religions is eloquent proof. Further Christians endlessly tell non-Christians that one cannot use the Bible to understand God unless one 'opens their hearts' and believes in God first. Eloquent demonstration of the need to abandon reason in favour of faith, so they cannot be the same thing.
> (ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
> Christ.
Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> (iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
> Resurrection of
> Jesus Christ.
Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> (iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> (v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
> office,
> with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of (as of 2000) only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> (vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church
> believes.
Not very convincing at all. One cannot be intellectually honest and believe that which is not intellectually supportable.
> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > faith.
> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> doubt (God).
That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
the proofs. Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> > On Nov 4, 10:33 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > > --
> > > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > > [Buddha]
> On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
>> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
>> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
>> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
>> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
>> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
>> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
>> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
>> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
>> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
>> > faith.
>> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
>> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
>> doubt (God).
> That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> the proofs.
Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?
You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?
You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to "follow the proofs"?
Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.
> Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true first.
> Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one religion and no atheists.
Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know this through the 'light of faith".
You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
*Here we go again....xians have a very bad habit of just making stuff up.
Don't like the facts...then the knuckle-dragging xians make up their own
definitions and terms.
FAITH IS BASED ON SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS....FAITH IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY,
FACTS, AND EVIDENCE. please look the definition of faith up...or read the
definitions I got from reputable sources below.
SUPERNATURAL Faith" i.e. MAGIC...HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.....I KNOW
THAT YOU ARE A POOR, UNEDUCATED, DELUDED, KNUCKLE DRAGGING XIAN.......BUT,
DO TRY AND EXERCISE SOME REALITY AND LOOK UP TERMS BEFORE YOU EXPOUND ON
THEM....YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE OF EITHER REALITY OR ACTUALITY, NOR DO YOU KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR own BIBLE.
FAITH IS ABOUT SUPERNATURALISM...THAT HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST IN
ALL OF KNOWN HISTORY.
IF YOU CAN PROVE SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS ARE A FACT....THEN "THE AMAZING RANDI"
OF THE RANDI FOUNDATION IN FT. LAUDERDALE, FL HAS A REWARD OF $1 MILLION
DOLLARS FOR YOU.
SO FAR, THE $1 MILLION DOLLAR REWARD HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED IN THE LAST 10
YEARS...BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUPERNATURAL EVENTS, or magic, OR
A GOD, OR JESUS, OR ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS MAGIC, CALLED FAITH.
> *> On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:*
> *>> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:*
> *
> *
> *>> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For*
> *>> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain
> faithful*
> *>> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely*
> *>> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows,
> or*
> *>> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have
> in*
> *>> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.*
> *
> *
> *>> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no*
> *>> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you
> may*
> *>> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> *
> *>> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind
> religious*
> *>> > faith.*
> *
> *
> *>> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)*
> *>> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in*
> *>> doubt (God).*
> *
> *
> *> That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow*
> *> the proofs.*
> *
> *
> *Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?*
> *
> *
> *You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?*
> *
> *
> *You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are
> members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to
> "follow the proofs"?*
> *
> *
> *Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
> *
> *
> *
> *More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply
> appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *> Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God*
> *> exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference*
> *> between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".*
> *
> *
> *Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true
> first.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *> Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of*
> *> children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God*
> *> already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.*
> *
> *
> *Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one
> religion and no atheists.*
> *
> *
> *Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know
> this through the 'light of faith".*
> *
> *
> *You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *-- *
> *"However many holy words you read, however many you speak,*
> * what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"*
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.*
> *
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> *
> On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> > > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > > faith.
> > It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > doubt (God).
> That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> the proofs.
Just because you call them proofs doesn't mean that they are proofs.
> Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
Both boil down to belief, however.
> Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
Special pleading fallacies are not evidence that adult belief in God
is any more rational than the belief of a child in God.
> > > On Nov 4, 10:33 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > > > --
> > > > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > > > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > > > [Buddha]
Where do you think you get the license to make stuff up?
Read again...what faith means...its means in the religious sense, and belief
in magic and the supernatural.
If you had PROOF there was a god....then, duh, you would not have to have
any faith that there was a god.
This is why...xians don't like science...science demands truth, ethics,
morals, reality, facts, and evidence....and no faith is necessary.
No faith is needed in science to state that evolution is a fact....there is
150 years of research involving 1 million scientists, some 25,000 research
studies, in 50 countries, with about 3 million fossils to prove that
evolution is a fact.....and no faith is needed.
The problem with a religious education, is that the religious then measure
and compare everything else against the idiotic, lying, false, and knuckle
dragging "beliefs" they have faith in.
Can you just imagine ...that all these xian schools demand that kids believe
and have faith in...creationism, and that an imaginary god created the
entire universe in 6 days? Ridiculous.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> On Nov 3, 6:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > > > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > > > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > > > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > > > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > > > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > > > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > > > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you
> may
> > > > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > > > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > > > faith.
> > > It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > > can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > > doubt (God).
> > That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> > the proofs.
> Just because you call them proofs doesn't mean that they are proofs.
> > Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> > exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> > between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> Both boil down to belief, however.
> > Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> > children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> > already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> Special pleading fallacies are not evidence that adult belief in God
> is any more rational than the belief of a child in God.
> > > > On Nov 4, 10:33 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who
> lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they
> resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > > > > --
> > > > > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > > > > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > > > > [Buddha]
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> If you had PROOF there was a god....then, duh, you would not have to have
> any faith that there was a god.
> This is why...xians don't like science...science demands truth, ethics,
> morals, reality, facts, and evidence....and no faith is necessary.
> No faith is needed in science to state that evolution is a fact....there is
> 150 years of research involving 1 million scientists, some 25,000 research
> studies, in 50 countries, with about 3 million fossils to prove that
> evolution is a fact.....and no faith is needed.
> The problem with a religious education, is that the religious then measure
> and compare everything else against the idiotic, lying, false, and knuckle
> dragging "beliefs" they have faith in.
> Can you just imagine ...that all these xian schools demand that kids believe
> and have faith in...creationism, and that an imaginary god created the
> entire universe in 6 days? Ridiculous.
You really need to read what people say a little more carefully before
lecturing them.
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > > > > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > > > > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > > > > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > > > > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > > > > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > > > > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > > > > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you
> > may
> > > > > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > > > > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > > > > faith.
> > > > It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > > > can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > > > doubt (God).
> > > That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> > > the proofs.
> > Just because you call them proofs doesn't mean that they are proofs.
> > > Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> > > exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> > > between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> > Both boil down to belief, however.
> > > Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> > > children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> > > already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> > Special pleading fallacies are not evidence that adult belief in God
> > is any more rational than the belief of a child in God.
> > > > > On Nov 4, 10:33 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who
> > lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason. Faith is enough.
> > > > > > When Christians lack enough faith to maintain their beliefs they
> > resort to reason, not to convince others, but to convince themselves.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > > > > > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > > > > > [Buddha]
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
> > That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> > preambles to faith, and the faith.
> Faith and 'the faith' do not address the same thing.
> > "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> > contemplation of truth".
> Then the Pope disagrees with Hebrews, which is mildly surprising. Hebrews makes it very clear that faith is to be considered a type of evidence. The evidence of hope. That should be enough, but Christians don't seem to really be able to accept faith alone so they go to great lengths to convince themselves by engaging in futile reasoning with non-believers. This is to no avail as the number of Christians is dropping.
> > For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> > can follow the purely rational demonstrations.
> Yes it is. There are no purely rational demonstrations of gods existing. If there were then there would be no atheists.
> > In fact, here are five
> > things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> > Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1 > > (i.) The existence of God.
> Must be faith alone. There is no solid rational argument for the existence of gods. The existence of atheists and thousands of individual theistic sects and outright religions is eloquent proof. Further Christians endlessly tell non-Christians that one cannot use the Bible to understand God unless one 'opens their hearts' and believes in God first. Eloquent demonstration of the need to abandon reason in favour of faith, so they cannot be the same thing.
> > (ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
> > Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
> > Resurrection of
> > Jesus Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
> > office,
> > with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of (as of 2000) only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
A quibble. This only includes Catholics, not all Christrians.
> On Nov 3, 4:47 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [A Query]
> > > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence.
> > Sorry, faith is belief with no evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.
> That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> preambles to faith, and the faith.
> "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> contemplation of truth".
> For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> can follow the purely rational demonstrations. In fact, here are five
> things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1
> On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> > > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > > faith.
> > It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > doubt (God).
> That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> the proofs. Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> > That is what they believe, who don't distinguish between the rational
> > preambles to faith, and the faith.
> Faith and 'the faith' do not address the same thing.
> > "Faith and reason" writes Pope John Paul the II in http://tr.im/E4A5 > > ... "are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the
> > contemplation of truth".
> Then the Pope disagrees with Hebrews, which is mildly surprising. Hebrews makes it very clear that faith is to be considered a type of evidence. The evidence of hope. That should be enough, but Christians don't seem to really be able to accept faith alone so they go to great lengths to convince themselves by engaging in futile reasoning with non-believers. This is to no avail as the number of Christians is dropping.
> > For example, that God exists is not an article of faith for those who
> > can follow the purely rational demonstrations.
> Yes it is. There are no purely rational demonstrations of gods existing. If there were then there would be no atheists.
> > In fact, here are five
> > things no educated Catholic believes on faith alone, from Ronald
> > Knox's _the belief of Catholics_ at http://tr.im/E4J1 > > (i.) The existence of God.
> Must be faith alone. There is no solid rational argument for the existence of gods. The existence of atheists and thousands of individual theistic sects and outright religions is eloquent proof. Further Christians endlessly tell non-Christians that one cannot use the Bible to understand God unless one 'opens their hearts' and believes in God first. Eloquent demonstration of the need to abandon reason in favour of faith, so they cannot be the same thing.
> > (ii.) The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus
> > Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
You know Simon, I sometimes wonder about people who claim to be
Christians. I don't know what it's like where you come from, but in
Australia very few so-called Christians actually go to a church on
Sunday. It seems to me that there are more Muslims who go to their
Mosques, than there are Christians who go to their churches. I do
feel that Christianity will implode. At least, it will become a minor
religion in years to come. It's had its hay-day. Whereas Islam is on
the rise. That's the real worry, isn't it - the Islamist.......
> > (iii.) The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the
> > Resurrection of
> > Jesus Christ.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (iv.) The fact that our Lord founded a Church.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (v.) The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching
> > office,
> > with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.
> Again, if it were a fact there would be 6,000,000,000 Christians instead of (as of 2000) only 33% (and dropping), 19% Muslims (and growing). This is eloquent proof that a god has not revealed himself to the world through Jesus or in any other way. People are generally not ignorant of facts and such a revelation to 6,000,000,000 people would result in way more than a paltry 1/3.
> > (vi.) The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church
> > believes.
> Not very convincing at all. One cannot be intellectually honest and believe that which is not intellectually supportable.
> *Here we go again....xians have a very bad habit of just making stuff up.
> Don't like the facts...then the knuckle-dragging xians make up their own
> definitions and terms.
> FAITH IS BASED ON SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS....FAITH IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALITY,
> FACTS, AND EVIDENCE. please look the definition of faith up...or read the
> definitions I got from reputable sources below.
> SUPERNATURAL Faith" i.e. MAGIC...HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.....I KNOW
> THAT YOU ARE A POOR, UNEDUCATED, DELUDED, KNUCKLE DRAGGING XIAN.......BUT,
> DO TRY AND EXERCISE SOME REALITY AND LOOK UP TERMS BEFORE YOU EXPOUND ON
> THEM....YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE OF EITHER REALITY OR ACTUALITY, NOR DO YOU KNOW
> ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR own BIBLE.
> FAITH IS ABOUT SUPERNATURALISM...THAT HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST IN
> ALL OF KNOWN HISTORY.
> IF YOU CAN PROVE SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS ARE A FACT....THEN "THE AMAZING RANDI"
> OF THE RANDI FOUNDATION IN FT. LAUDERDALE, FL HAS A REWARD OF $1 MILLION
> DOLLARS FOR YOU.
> SO FAR, THE $1 MILLION DOLLAR REWARD HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED IN THE LAST 10
> YEARS...BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUPERNATURAL EVENTS, or magic, OR
> A GOD, OR JESUS, OR ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS MAGIC, CALLED FAITH.
> *
> *
> *On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> > *[Alan Wostenberg]*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *> On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:*
> > *>> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:*
> > *
> > *
> > *>> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For*
> > *>> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain
> > faithful*
> > *>> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely*
> > *>> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows,
> > or*
> > *>> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have
> > in*
> > *>> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.*
> > *
> > *
> > *>> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no*
> > *>> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you
> > may*
> > *>> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > *
> > *>> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind
> > religious*
> > *>> > faith.*
> > *
> > *
> > *>> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)*
> > *>> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in*
> > *>> doubt (God).*
> > *
> > *
> > *> That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow*
> > *> the proofs.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?*
> > *
> > *
> > *You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?*
> > *
> > *
> > *You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are
> > members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to
> > "follow the proofs"?*
> > *
> > *
> > *Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply
> > appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *> Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God*
> > *> exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference*
> > *> between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".*
> > *
> > *
> > *Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true
> > first.*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *> Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of*
> > *> children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God*
> > *> already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one
> > religion and no atheists.*
> > *
> > *
> > *Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know
> > this through the 'light of faith".*
> > *
> > *
> > *You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.*
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *-- *
> > *"However many holy words you read, however many you speak,*
> > * what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"*
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.*
> > *
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> > *
> You know Simon, I sometimes wonder about people who claim to be
> Christians. I don't know what it's like where you come from, but in
> Australia very few so-called Christians actually go to a church on
> Sunday. It seems to me that there are more Muslims who go to their
> Mosques, than there are Christians who go to their churches. I do
> feel that Christianity will implode. At least, it will become a minor
> religion in years to come. It's had its hay-day. Whereas Islam is on
> the rise. That's the real worry, isn't it - the Islamist.......
Canada is one of the least religious countries in the world but Christians are rather abundant but not very involved in their religion. The usual mob show up for Christmas and Easter but even the Greek Orthodox down the street (the Greek neighbourhood adjoins mine) has less attendees and they are mostly elderly. As younger people wake up and start to reject religion I think it will eventually die out with its congregations.
Muslims are rapidly gaining ground. In fact in my neighbourhood I would think that the number of Muslims over the last 10 years has tripled. We even have our own mosque now complete with minaret (if they start calling prayers out from the top I will begin complaining loudly :)).
Every walk to the subway encounters a few burkas any many, many hajibs. It makes me sad to see women treated like this and it makes me angry that I have religious beliefs thrown in my face constantly.
So, here religion seems to be following the worldwide trend of decreasing Christianity and increasing Islam. France is a real concern in this area since estimates I have seen are that by 2050 it could be an Islamic country by majority. Again, France shows a huge decline in Christians.
Italy as well.
They recently passed a law banning crucifixes in schools so Christianity is waning there as well.
On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason.
Or alternatively, its simple enough to note that as a generalization
humanistic reason is not adequate nor competent as epistemological
first principles.
> > On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> >> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> >> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> >> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> >> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> >> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> >> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> >> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> >> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> >> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> >> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> >> > faith.
> >> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> >> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> >> doubt (God).
> > That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> > the proofs.
> Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?
> You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?
Elitist? Consider as an analogy Euclid’s proof of pathagorean’s
theorum. I doubt two thirds of the people can follow that proof of
pathagoreans theorum. Some are children and incapable. Probably the
majority of the adult population /could/ follow the proof, if they
applied themselves.
But how many actually invest the required effort? Thinking is hard
work!
So, just as the pathagorean theorum is not an article of faith for
those who can follow the proof, so God’s existence is not an article
of faith for those who can follow the proof. Is it elitist to say
that? So be it.
Anybody with a college degree /could/ follow the proofs of God. Way
fewer than 2/3 of the world population have college degrees. Is it
elitist to say the effort to understand the proofs of God is
comparable to obtaining a college degree? So be it.
God’s existence would not be an article of faith for college grads /
if/ they applied themselves to the question with the same seriousness
they do to their other studies. How many do? I know I did not crack
open a book-length proof of God until decades after college. How about
you, Simon?
> You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to "follow the proofs"?
> Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
> More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.
> > Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> > exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> > between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true first.
> > Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> > children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> > already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one religion and no atheists.
> Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know this through the 'light of faith".
> You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.
> --
> "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> [Buddha]
> On Nov 3, 6:55 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Alan Wostenberg]
> > > On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > >> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > >> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > >> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > >> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > >> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > >> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > >> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > >> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> > >> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > >> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > >> > faith.
> > >> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > >> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > >> doubt (God).
> > > That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> > > the proofs.
> > Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?
> > You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?
> Elitist? Consider as an analogy Euclid’s proof of pathagorean’s
> theorum. I doubt two thirds of the people can follow that proof of
> pathagoreans theorum. Some are children and incapable. Probably the
> majority of the adult population /could/ follow the proof, if they
> applied themselves.
> But how many actually invest the required effort? Thinking is hard
> work!
> So, just as the pathagorean theorum is not an article of faith for
> those who can follow the proof, so God’s existence is not an article
> of faith for those who can follow the proof.
> Anybody with a college degree /could/ follow the proofs of God. Way
> fewer than 2/3 of the world population have college degrees. Is it
> elitist to say the effort to understand the proofs of God is
> comparable to obtaining a college degree? So be it.
> God’s existence would not be an article of faith for college grads /
> if/ they applied themselves to the question with the same seriousness
> they do to their other studies. How many do? I know I did not crack
> open a book-length proof of God until decades after college. How about
> you, Simon?
> > You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to "follow the proofs"?
> > Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
> > More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.
> > > Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> > > exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> > > between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> > Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true first.
> > > Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> > > children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> > > already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> > Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one religion and no atheists.
> > Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know this through the 'light of faith".
> > You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.
> > --
> > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > [Buddha]
> On Nov 3, 6:33 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only Christians who try to reason their beliefs are those who lack enough trust in their faith. Faith requires no reason.
> Or alternatively, its simple enough to note that as a generalization
> humanistic reason is not adequate nor competent as epistemological
> first principles.
Its all you have. Unless you are using monkey reason to put that sentence together.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
> On Nov 3, 6:55 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Alan Wostenberg]
> > > On Nov 3, 4:28 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 3, 4:10 pm, A Query <djb...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> > >> > On the contrary. Faith is trust based firmly upon evidence. For
> > >> > example, why might you trust your wife to continue to remain faithful
> > >> > to you? Perhaps its because you believe her to be a genuinely
> > >> > trustworthy person, or she may have promised to do so in her vows, or
> > >> > she may have been faithful to you in the past. This trust you have in
> > >> > her is grounded on the evidence she has provided you with.
> > >> > It should be obvious, then, that the idea that faith "requires no
> > >> > reason" is simply absurd. Faith and reason are inseparable. So you may
> > >> > make the argument that some people do not reason very well in coming
> > >> > to faith, but you cannot say that there is no reason behind religious
> > >> > faith.
> > >> It is ludicrous to think an example of something that exists (a wife)
> > >> can be used to show the existence of something whose existence is in
> > >> doubt (God).
> > > That God exists is not an article of faith for those who can follow
> > > the proofs.
> > Which you believe is only 1/3 of the people currently in the world?
> > You can't be serious. So few are able to "follow the proofs"?
> Elitist? Consider as an analogy Euclid’s proof of pathagorean’s
> theorum. I doubt two thirds of the people can follow that proof of
> pathagoreans theorum. Some are children and incapable. Probably the
> majority of the adult population /could/ follow the proof, if they
> applied themselves.
> But how many actually invest the required effort? Thinking is hard
> work!
> So, just as the pathagorean theorum is not an article of faith for
> those who can follow the proof, so God’s existence is not an article
> of faith for those who can follow the proof. Is it elitist to say
> that? So be it.
> Anybody with a college degree /could/ follow the proofs of God. Way
> fewer than 2/3 of the world population have college degrees. Is it
> elitist to say the effort to understand the proofs of God is
> comparable to obtaining a college degree? So be it.
> God’s existence would not be an article of faith for college grads /
> if/ they applied themselves to the question with the same seriousness
> they do to their other studies. How many do? I know I did not crack
> open a book-length proof of God until decades after college. How about
> you, Simon?
Here's the thing about Euclid's proof, if you grab a copy of his
Elements, you can follow it, step by step.
Starting with his basic axioms you can go through his various
theorems, working up to Pythagorean's theorem.
The best part? So long as you take the axioms and postulates as given,
there is literally no room for error with each stop. No room for
disagreement.
Can you do this with God? If so, please enlighten us.
> > You maintain that 2/3 of the world (and 93% of the scientists that are members of the National Academy of Science) are intellectually unable to "follow the proofs"?
> > Sorry, but that is the most elitist sophistry I have seen in a long time.
> > More like the 1/3 are not following the "proofs" at all but are simply appealing to faith and no reasoning at all.
> > > Notice that in the Creed we do not say "I believe that God
> > > exists" but rather "I believe in God". There is a world of difference
> > > between "I believe X exists" and "I believe in X".
> > Huge. However "I believe in X" requires that "I believe X exists" be true first.
> > > Neil, what you call faith -- "I believe God exists" is the faith of
> > > children, not that of the mature Christian who believes in The God
> > > already known to exist with certainty by light of human reason.
> > Impossible, or else everyone would believe; and there would only be one religion and no atheists.
> > Christians do not know this "by the light of human reason", they know this through the 'light of faith".
> > You should not be ashamed of this, you should embrace it.
> > --
> > "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
> > what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
> > [Buddha]
> But how many actually invest the required effort? Thinking is hard
> work!
Exactly. Faith is easier. One simply accepts as true that which they want to be true.
> So, just as the pathagorean theorum is not an article of faith for
> those who can follow the proof, so God?s existence is not an article
> of faith for those who can follow the proof. Is it elitist to say
> that? So be it.
Yes it is. You are saying that 2/3 of the world is unable to "follow the proof". Not only is that elitist it is complete rubbish. You have chosen faith over reason and no matter how hard you try to rationalize of redefine any aspect of it you will always end up in the same place.
> Anybody with a college degree /could/ follow the proofs of God. Way
> fewer than 2/3 of the world population have college degrees. Is it
> elitist to say the effort to understand the proofs of God is
> comparable to obtaining a college degree? So be it.
Yes it is. Before you can follow proofs of God it is required that you believe in God. That is tautological and yet another indication that it is simply faith that leads to God, not reason.
> God?s existence would not be an article of faith for college grads /
> if/ they applied themselves to the question with the same seriousness
> they do to their other studies. How many do? I know I did not crack
> open a book-length proof of God until decades after college. How about
> you, Simon?
I studied theology and comparative religions and philosophy at university so I was decades ahead of you. The most obvious aspect after years of study is what I have explained to you that you are so ashamed of. Faith is the way to discover and accept God, not reason.
You lack enough faith and so you try to bolster it by attempts at reason.
Faith is the substance of hope, the evidence of things unseen. Accept your faith and stop trying to convince yourself that there is any other way to find what you need.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
|
