"Faith"

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I should have stuck only to the second problem as it is the more clearcut one. And it is so unassailable. If all religions claim that part of the reason to believe in them is pure faith, how can they expect someone to switch from his religion to theirs? Worse yet, how can they believe that God would expect it, perhaps even sending them to hell if they don't? That person who doesn't switch will point to his own faith and what can they say in return? If they try to say that evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor, their own faith argument goes away. (And even if they were right about their own evidence they are basically saying that the guy who deeply believes his own religion should be punished merely for being stupid, as opposed to lack of faith.)

I suppose one way out of this would be to say that Religion A has a 3% chance of being right, Religion B a 2% chance, All the rest are 1%. So you use your mind to switch from D to A and your faith to go from 3% to 100%. As farfetched as this is and as unacceptable as this explanation would be even to most religious people, it still doesn't explain why almost no one switches from the religion of their birth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not not believe, unlike the doctrine espoused by some Christian denominations, that all who are unbelievers will be 'punished' by going to hell. That punishment is reserved for those who consciously reject God and His law and true doctrine knowing it to be true. Thus a Jew or Moslem who honestly believes in his faith and honestly does not believe in Christianity will not be punished and has the same ability to go to heaven, based on his own conduct in this life. Similarly, a tribesman in New Guinea, who has never heard any Christian minister preach and thus has had no opportunity to believe, still can go to heaven as well. Obviously for him, somethings such as plural marriage that are forbidden to Christians will not be a sinful act for him because he has not been taught better or believe it to be wrong. What he will be judged on is what St. Paul wrote about in Romans regarding the 'natural law', that is, the innate minimal conscience that God gives to all human beings. Only a Christian's failure to lead a Christian life (since he knows better), a refusal to worship and follow God when you nonetheless believe Christianity to be true but just don't want to conform you life to it, or a refusal of a non-religious person to follow the minimal moral code given by God to all, will result in eternal punishment. Again, what I have said here is not what all Christians believe (especially those espousing a more Calvinist interpretation) , but it is compatible with my denomination's doctrine and is what I believe.

Also, what I believe accounts for the relatively small rate of conversions to Christianity from other religions, besides the fact that most non-believers don't ever actually hear the word of God preached by a Christian minister, is an unwillingness to examine one's own faith that he was born into in general, and especially because leaving the faith of one's birth for many if not indeed most, would entail banishment and rejection by one's family and friends, which is just what Christ forwarned might be necessary to endure to become a disciple.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Just playing God's advocate for a bit...

I have read David Sklansky's teachings. While I did not really understand or even truly believe them at first, I put my faith in him and gave it a shot. I immediately noticed a profound improvement in my poker life. The more I incorporated his teachings into my game, the more I benefitted.

I have never actually seen David Sklansky. I have never heard his voice. And while I have read his words, it is possible that they written by others and only ascribed to David Sklansky. I could demand that he show himself to me, but I understand that he has other things to do and might ignore my demands, and anyway it doesn't really matter, so long as his book continues to help me in my day to day poker life.

I know that there are other authors out there who claim to be as wise as David, and I have read some of their writings as well. And while I see that there are great similarities in overall tone between many of their words and those of David Sklansky, I also note the subtle differences in the texts, and always come back to David Sklansky's teachings.

Does David Sklansky particularly care if I have read his word, understood it, and used it to my best advantage? I doubt it. He has given us his lessons, and trusted us to use them to the utmost. And isn't that really enough?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see more of this......

[IronUnkind]

With respect to the robot question, the answer is probably no. But what a stupid question! Your anti-religion arguments are rendered moot by virtue of your poor choice of heuristics and questionable a priori assumptions.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If all religions claim that part of the reason to believe in them is pure faith, how can they expect someone to switch from his religion to theirs? Worse yet, how can they believe that God would expect it, perhaps even sending them to hell if they don't? That person who doesn't switch will point to his own faith and what can they say in return? If they try to say that evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor, their own faith argument goes away.

[/ QUOTE ]

if religions are based on blind faith i would venture out and say that there is no way of telling which religion is correct. it would be chaotic. who is right and who is wrong? it is a good thing that religions are not based on pure blind faith (at least the ones i am familiar with).

How do i know if a religion is correct? you must analyze the evidence of validity of the religion. what kind of evidence can i look at? prophecy and fulfillment (and if you so choose to do so, the probablity of them).

Christianity is NOT based on a blind leap of faith. Rather, our faith is based upon substantial evidences. The following are but a few examples:

Hundreds of miraculously fulfilled prophecies.
The empty tomb.
The testimony of more than 500 eye-witnesses to the resurrection.
Numerous archeological finds.
The whole counsel of the Word of God.

So if there is evidence for Christ being the Messiah why dont people believe in Him? Maybe they havent examined the evidence.


note - Faith as defined in the Hebrews of the NT: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[ QUOTE ]
it still doesn't explain why almost no one switches from the religion of their birth

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you arrive at this assumption?

good nite,
frank

PS A lot of what is in this post is not original in idea(approx 0%). i dont explain things well so for some of the post i just cut and pasted from another site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still say blind leap of faith. Do you see why?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think to believe means to most people, at the very least, that you would take 11-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull your head out. Almost nobody would be comfortable with this definition of "belief," whether it were applied to religious issues or even non-metaphysical questions.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only alternative is to look at the evidence to see which religion is most plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you go by this, Christianity is most plausible. All the cities in the scripture are actually real cities, many of the people in the bible have historical proof that they actually existed. Of course, we can't actually prove the miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

My religion is the most plausible, because that's the
one I believe in. Otherwise I'd have to believe in
something else, and I don't want to change........

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
A terrific analogy that I think would help clear up your second problem is that religions are all trying to climb the same mountain and starting from different base camps. If you assume that religions are just different ways of achieving the same goal, it should be obvious that different religions are not in opposition of each other, but rather parallel to each other, so picking a particular religion is merely a matter of preference (at least from God's viewpoint)."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a great analogy of religion. It is man trying to work his way to a relationship with God. The problem is that there aren't enough good works that any person or religion can do to restore that relationship. That is the whole misconception of religions. So it's not like you can choose a right religion and all the others are wrong. The only way we are saved is from God's GRACE through Jesus Christ. It is a free gift, and all we have to do is accept it. It's sad how many Christians behave like fanatics(the media usually only shows these types), and I'll be the first to admit that most Christians don't even know why they believe what they believe. Many people and churches give Christianity a bad name, and cause others to label Christians. But haven't you ever wondered? How could one person make such an impact? Why so much controversy when you hear that name, Jesus Christ? Of all the physical evidence out there for Christ, the evidence most overwhelming to me is to see Christ work in my own life and in others. I have seen men literally crumble when they come to know Jesus Christ. He has changed my life drastically. There's no way I can explain it to you in words, or make you believe it. All I can do is share with you what I've experienced. The choice is up to you.

Oh and if you couldn't tell, yes I'm a Jesus freak [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"There are many people - saints mostly - who Catholics, at least, believe performed miracles. No one thinks they are God having done so."

This is very frustrating. There is no distinction between saints performing miracles and Jesus being God. If even one saint (or non saint) performed even one miracle, then Jesus is God. Change the whole debate to saints performing miracles and my points are exactly the same.

[/ QUOTE ]



I can see why it is frustrating to you. Because I simply don’t understand how you can say there is no distinction between saints performing miracles and Jesus being God. I understand that to mean: If miracles are possible then Jesus is God. There seems to be a missing connect here. I agree that, if miracles are possible then Jesus probably did perform them after all. And therefore more probable that he is God, than before the premise that miracles are possible; but not proof that Jesus is therefore God.


[ QUOTE ]
"Your whole point(s) though seem to be: There is no proof of God, therefore he does not exist."

Excuse me? How do you come up with that? My whole point is that the evidence for specific religious beliefs (or for witches or for astrology or for alien abductions or for rushes in poker) is sometimes strong but not nearly as strong as the much stronger evidence that such things do not occur.

Thus they are all giant underdogs (but not impossible).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear and I apologize for the misinterpretation.


[ QUOTE ]
"The concept of God is illogical, yes. But, I don’t agree that since it is illogical, then it is must be true that He doesn’t exist."

The concept of God is NOT illogical. The specific beliefs of specific religions aren't even illogical. What they are is farfetched, given what we know now. Not so farfetched 400 years ago. Why am I having such trouble making myself clear?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, again. I guess it is me who misunderstood, not you having trouble making yourself clear. I simply took for granted your obvious point (that religious beliefs are all the giant underdog)and read more into it. Sure, that is true. Isn’t that (almost) a given?


[ QUOTE ]
My second problem occurs when this faith argument extends to a specific religion. If there was only one religion it might make sense for God to want to test people's faith. Believe or not. Show some faith. But with a dozen religions out there, all requiring faith in their particular brand, how can a human being be expected to choose? At random? He can't just use faith, because that gives him no guidance. The only alternative is to look at the evidence to see which religion is most plausible. But that contradicts the idea that faith should play a major part. It (evidence) also clearly is not how most people choose a religion since the vast majority go with the one they were born into.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t believe that God tests us. He gives us free choice. God did not start any of the religions (aside from the argument whether Jesus, if God, started a religion we now call Christianity or not). So, we can’t lay this on God (and I am not saying you are).

I don’t know much of other religions. Christianity isn’t necessarily more plausible than others, but it does seem to flow from a natural progression of thought throughout the ages; from mythology to Judaism to the pre-Socratics, to Plato then Aristotle, to Jesus to the Dark Ages, etc. It has evolved and still does. To the believer this isn’t accidental. It is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit (the 3rd person in the one God) is similar to the Old Testament and Greek understanding of the God of Wisdom: Sophia (Yes, it is no coincidence that Sophia is the screen name of the person who started this whole discussion.) The Holy Spirit is influenctial in helping to guide the Church and us. He doesn’t necessarily intervene, per se, but we believe He is the analogously opposite of Mick Jagger’ s Devil (Sympathy for the Devil). He’s there if not all the time , certainly, when major events (decisions and the like) are taking place in the Church.

But to get back to your point:
I would say the vast majority go with the religion they are born into because 1) They don’t even search other religions 2) It works for them 3) They don’t really have Faith in the strict sense of the word. Not many have real Faith. I know I am a long way from it and I think I can defend Jesus pretty much as well as many other non-scholars.


Hegel said, “[Philosophy is only] its own time reflected in thought.” I think, similarly, faith is its own time reflected in religion. To the believer Faith is much more than that, to the non-believer it is simply that.

[PairTheBoard]

It's my understanding that when certain Native American Tribes were first introduced to Western Religion they considered it to be somewhat primitive arrogant nonsense. They believed in a Great Spirit along with other spirits. But fundamentally they recognized their own humble perspective by realizing the Great Mystery behind it all. They were puzzled and ammused by a religion so arrogantly promoted which had no realization of the Great Mystery.

A big problem with Organized Religion is that it produces psychological weapons of power which are often wielded by the worst kind of people. This particuliar Faith Argument is one of those weapons imo. The Heart of the Religion gets wrapped in thicker and thicker layers of human explanations, logic, anti-logic, dogmas, and immagary that were probably understood by people hundreds of years ago, when they were created, with entirely different paradigms of thinking than what we have today. Yet the old wrappings persist, get put on a stick and are used to pound people over the head with like a club. Meanwhile, the Heart of the Religion becomes like the Temple in which the Beast is now Enthroned ala Revelations. If you're really interested in spriritual matters look at the Heart and open your mind to new ways of understanding things. What you find should make common sense, improve your life, and be reasonable. But remember Goodel's Theorum. The Logic Box is incomplete.

Aho Mitakuye Oyasin

PairTheBoard

[Harv72b]

David, as an atheist I have tried to get the roots of the very same questions you have asked. I have read a great deal on many religions; not just Christianity. I have discussed these very topics with people of varying faiths, some of whom might be described as scholars. I tried to lay the answers out in a simply analogy, but it seems that has not helped. So I will try again, this time in a more specific manner.

[ QUOTE ]
But I have two problems with the idea that God wants us to believe in him on the basis of the combination of flimsy evidence plus faith. One is that the evidence was not flimsy four hundred years ago. There was no way of knowing then that sciecnce would eventually explain and do things that it seemed then required a god. so it didn't take as much faith then to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you seem to want to focus primarily on the Judeo-Christian God in these discussions, what a Christian or Jew would tell you is that God has given us science, so that we may better understand the universe which He has created for us. God was just as real 400 years ago as He is today (on that, we can all agree [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), but He recognized that His children could not handle all of His knowledge at once--it had to be meted out slowly as they matured into adulthood, as a race. Bit by bit, over the centuries, He allowed us to see more and more of the inside workings of His creation. However, all this knowledge has done for us to date is show us how His creation works--not how it started. He created it. And, being omnipotent & all-seeing & whatnot, He had the foresight to create a universe which could run itself for the most part. We now understand that the tides are a result of the cycles of the moon, that the seasons change as the Earth's axis tilts one hemisphere away from the sun, and that the stars in the sky are actually billions of other suns which are far, far away. A Christian would tell you that all of this is so because He made it that way, from the beginning. This is not a question of our faith in Him, but rather, His faith in us, that He is now allowing us to see some of the genius of His creation.

Before He allowed us to understand all of this, He was perfectly content to let us go on believing that He physically made of all of these things happen, on a constant basis. Why? For the same reason that a man is perfectly willing to let his 5 year-old son believe that the stork really brings babies to peoples' houses--because He knew that we were not yet ready for the truth. He understood, and understands, that the more He makes clear to us, the more likely we are to stray from His path. So He wanted to wait until such a time as many of us could be given this knowledge, while still maintaining our faith in Him.

[ QUOTE ]
My second problem occurs when this faith argument extends to a specific religion. If there was only one religion it might make sense for God to want to test people's faith. Believe or not. Show some faith. But with a dozen religions out there, all requiring faith in their particular brand, how can a human being be expected to choose? At random? He can't just use faith, because that gives him no guidance. The only alternative is to look at the evidence to see which religion is most plausible. But that contradicts the idea that faith should play a major part. It (evidence) also clearly is not how most people choose a religion since the vast majority go with the one they were born into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are assuming the validity of the Christian God; a devout Christian might say that the other religions are just the work of Satan, trying to lure souls away from The Light. Your math is also off--there are far, far more than a dozen religions out there, even counting all the Christian sects as one. But this was the point I was trying to make in my analogy earlier:

Assuming, as you have for the sake of this debate, that the Christian God does exist, and that Christianity is the only true religion, that God would understand that a child (as we are to Him) only reaps the fullest benefit from a lesson learned on it's own. Like any other good father, He gave us His wisdom, in the form of the Bible and the Church, but He understands that we have not really learned anything if He has to hold us by the hand throughout our entire lives. He has left the porch light on, in the form of prayer, so that if we ever feel that we need Him we'll know that we're always welcome. But He recognizes that we, as a species, are adults now. He gives us our freedom, and allows us to make our own decisions, right or wrong.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp, really. I am sorry that my earlier analogy of you and your poker books did not do the trick, and I hope this does. There are far greater points in religion to debate than this one. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]