Why is faith different?

[chron]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Nah it's ok chron. Cyberpi is someone you'll find who is quite flexible in how he uses his mind. . . . He may appear angry with the rhetorical questions, but I doubt it. Then again, with electronic communication . . . you never know what people are expressing.

Thanks, Saltmeister, for that word. I, perhaps, am too thin-skinned? I'm not offended, though . . . .

It would not be faith if you just followed dogma that others spoon-fed you.

Ah. This is the crux of the matte for me. I grew up being spoon-fed dogma and being told that to question it was anathema, apostasy, pure sin. Now I want to explore, think, ponder, consider, and I refuse to accept something as true "just because."

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by chron

Gut feelings, or intuition: a part of life, I agree. But the fact that I act on intuition from time to time doesn't mean that there should never be a reason for holding a belief?

The world is not black and white, of course. There are times when a gut feeling is an appropriate tool for deciding what to do. But when it comes to religion, the stakes are, as I've said, high: it's a matter of life and death..

Heh, you never been in a situation where a gut feeling could have been of life or death? I have.

Originally Posted by chron

Surely something so important as whether I will spend eternity in heaven or hell deserves more than just a gut feeling -- or a cursory glance at the supporting evidence.

Indeed it does, and indeed it gets evidence, what book you want? Let's stay with the bible.... You have heard of bible -studies- right? Not all of the book is placed on faith, some of this is historical evidence and certain things in the world around us or situations make you stop and see evidence... (so I hear) of a divine god almighty...... It isn't 100% on blind faith a percentage yeah, but most comes from understanding and studying....

Originally Posted by chron

By the way, why do you find Rachel (in my example) annoying? All she said was that she wanted to look into the matter instead of accepting it without question..

Never did like Rachel.... lol, I didn't find her annoying I put myself as bob talking to his half brother Jimbob.... And He... Forget it.... lol...

Originally Posted by chron

Exactly. I have faith, even blind faith, in all sorts of things and people -- from time to time. But my eternal destiny warrants a closer look, I think.

I'm reminded of the oft-quoted Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

What -- or who -- is behind the curtain? Surely it is not wrong to ask . . . .

That again is a personal choice (a kin to faith) I myself couldn't care who is behind the curtain, nor for "eternal destiny" lol...... I just think you need to realise that -all- of religion isn't based on faith, only part...... And again faith isn't always an act of a religion.... Just sometimes you have to accept there isn't always an answer... So then what to do? There isn't one man on this Earth or been on this Earth that knows it all.... If that was the case none of us would be sat here like a bunch of muppets now would we?

[chron]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Heh, you never been in a situation where a gut feeling could have been of life or death? I have.

No, I haven't been in that situation. I have no problem understanding that such situations exist, of course.

But gut feelings, while they have their uses, and can certainly play a part in life-or-death situations, are not to be preferred when making the more important decisions of life, or at least, it seems that way to me. Granted, when all the evidence is in on a particular matter, there may not be a clear-cut answer, and intuition, or gut feeling, may, indeed, be the best way to decide the issue. But I wouldn't think that going only on gut feeling without making use of other things is advisable, assuming that there is time to ponder a situation.

You have heard of bible -studies- right?

Are you being sarcastic?

certain things in the world around us or situations make you stop and see evidence... (so I hear) of a divine god almighty.

Example, please? If there is historical evidence of God's existence, please share it.

I myself couldn't care who is behind the curtain, nor for "eternal destiny" lol......

Well, if there is a man behind the curtain, I want to know all I can about him before deciding to put my faith in him to take me to heaven.

Just sometimes you have to accept there isn't always an answer... So then what to do?

What to do, indeed?

For me, there is this to do: ask questions, seek truth, engage in dialog and conversation with those who care about this topic, learn from them, consider, revise, go on, and on, and on.

Coming back to my original question, which has yet to be answered, why is, in the mind of some, faith not a matter to be questioned? Exempt from the strictures of logical thought?

[seattlegal]

You might find this opinion piece from The New York Times interesting...

Taking Science on Faith

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by chron

No, I haven't been in that situation. I have no problem understanding that such situations exist, of course.

But gut feelings, while they have their uses, and can certainly play a part in life-or-death situations, are not to be preferred when making the more important decisions of life, or at least, it seems that way to me. Granted, when all the evidence is in on a particular matter, there may not be a clear-cut answer, and intuition, or gut feeling, may, indeed, be the best way to decide the issue. But I wouldn't think that going only on gut feeling without making use of other things is advisable, assuming that there is time to ponder a situation.

I think that depends on the type of person... You are using yourself as your own example? Mentally right?

Originally Posted by chron

Are you being sarcastic?

Am I?

Originally Posted by chron

Example, please? If there is historical evidence of God's existence, please share it.

Oooh, asking the wrong person.... I am sure there are many on here that may entertain you on that one, but not I...

Originally Posted by chron

Well, if there is a man behind the curtain, I want to know all I can about him before deciding to put my faith in him to take me to heaven.

Why is the bloke behind the curtain going to take you to heaven? ;\ Oh I think I see what you're saying.... It isn't up to the man behind the curtain to get you there though, it's up to you.....

Originally Posted by chron

For me, there is this to do: ask questions, seek truth, engage in dialog and conversation with those who care about this topic, learn from them, consider, revise, go on, and on, and on.

Coming back to my original question, which has yet to be answered, why is, in the mind of some, faith not a matter to be questioned? Exempt from the strictures of logical thought?

What is truth? Obviously you are wanting evidence instead of faith.... But, how can you define what truth is and which of the many "true paths" are true if any? Evidence can be easy to mount up, and words can be manipulated certain situations warped to fit in place.... You think there doesn't come a time you may need to rely on some faith? Faith can be questioned.... Just you should respect anothers faith.

[chron]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You might find this opinion piece from The New York Times interesting...

Taking Science on Faith

Yes, thank you. It was in your reply to Bobby Winters. I enjoyed it.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by chron

Yes, thank you. It was in your reply to Bobby Winters. I enjoyed it.

LOL! Pardon me, I'm having a Monday Moment.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by chron

Of course. But I'm not in personal relationship with them, and so the faith I have in them is not as individuals per se, but more like a faith in the rule of law.

I find it personal when someone wields a several ton truck near me, but... When I have an agreement with someone I don't say that I have faith in the agreement... I say that I have faith in the person to uphold the agreement. For a more personal example: I don't have Faith in marriage. I have Faith in my wife with which I am married. There is a huge difference there. You have been expressing faith in something physical like a piece of information or a belief. I am submitting that is not what faith is.

Originally Posted by chron

In what sense? I take this to mean that we must make some assumptions about the natural world in order to get along in it, i.e., I assume (take on faith) that you are human, are not out to murder me, etc. Beyond that, what do you mean? And how does it relate to this conversation?

I would say that it is the absence of assumption. When you drive down the road you might assume that people will obey the rules of the road. That might be your choice, but I submit that you are a more alert driver if you don't assume that. I say be alert, watch for the liars, the drunken, the sleepy, etc... But to have Faith in the other drivers you may have to NOT assume that they are out to do you harm. I only said 'may' in case you have a death wish.

For a more personal example: Did I place faith in my wife because I assumed she would remain faithful, or was it the absence of assumption that she had a hidden agenda? It was the absence of assumption.

I can place Faith in someone who is unfaithful, is a known liar, convicted felon, has drug addictions, etc... someone with whom evidence has mounted up that they will once again fail. How am I able to do that? Death wish?

Originally Posted by chron

Why is it wrong to seek out information?

I did not imply that it is wrong to seek out information. I am saying that Faith is in a person... not in the information. Ask all the questions you can, only I'd recommend asking God if you want to get to know God better.

Originally Posted by chron

But religious faith is not the same as everyday faith. Religious faith is about life-and-death matters, and that seems to warrant more careful consideration. Yes, everyday matters can also be seen in a life-and-death context (Is this food prepared by factory workers I've never met poisoned?), but, in general, they are not in the same category as religious faith.

I disagree. I find that the stories in the OT have a lot to do about people having faith, and being faithful... but the word 'faith' is rarely used there. The word 'faithful' is emphasized. In the gospels I see that Jesus used a word many times which has often been translated as 'faith'. Everyday ordinary usage, but also involving a relationship with God.

Originally Posted by chron

cyberpi, are you angry with me for not immediately agreeing with your point of view? Or am I off base to detect a strident tone in your words?

If I were angry then I would consider it a fault to insist that you see as I do or to think as I do. I provided my thoughts freely and you are welcome to do with them as you please.

Originally Posted by chron

I am certainly not angry with you for being so sure of yourself; give me the freedom to explore what I need to explore.

I submit that the freedom to explore is neither provided, nor removed, by my words.

[chron]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I think that depends on the type of person... You are using yourself as your own example? Mentally right?

Um, how would I make a decision physically?

Oooh, asking the wrong person.... I am sure there are many on here that may entertain you on that one, but not I...

This is typical of those who purport to "know of" evidence for God's existence, 17th Angel. And it is also typical that said evidence is never forthcoming. If there were evidence for God's existence, wouldn't it be shouted from rooftops?

Why is the bloke behind the curtain going to take you to heaven? ;\ Oh I think I see what you're saying.... It isn't up to the man behind the curtain to get you there though, it's up to you.....

The Wizard of Oz analogy is stretched too thin here. In plain language: I want to know that what I'm asked to believe is trustworthy. "Because my holy book says so" is not a good enough reason for me.

Obviously you are wanting evidence instead of faith

Not at all. The purpose of this thread is to examine why religionists (some, not all) insist that faith must not be questioned.

When you ask me to believe, and I say, "Why?" -- if your response is "just because" or a variation of that, then I immediately have less reason to believe you.

My question -- again -- is: why is that seemingly okay in the domain of religion, when it is not in any other area of life?

Is this a hard question? Everyone here seems to want to tell me what faith is, but won't answer what I consider to be a rather straightforward query.

You think there doesn't come a time you may need to rely on some faith?

Of course. As I've said, I have faith in many ways throughout each day I live. Why do you think this is an issue?

Faith can be questioned.... Just you should respect anothers faith.

I do have respect for the faith of others. That is why I'm asking my question. In order to have an honest conversation with you, I need to know that you won't hide behind "because I said so," or "that's not a topic I'll discuss."

[bob x]

Consider the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. That, it seems, is fundamentally unreasonable to me.
OK — but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to me, nor to Christians in general, nor indeed to some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived.

I guess that depends on your subjective impressions of who the "greats" are.
It may have seemed reasonable back when nobody really had a clue how human conception works, but it is much less reasonable given what we now know. Unless you are some kind of Docetic, you must believe that at some point the body of the baby Jesus started being composed of ordinary physical matter, organic molecules ordered in cells which grow and split in the usual fashion? At what point did the ordinary processes take over? Did a Sacred Sperm poof into existence to fertilize the egg, after which everything went as usual? Or did the extra chromosomes just poof into existence inside the nucleus, without the "grossness" of a sperm cell introducting them? Either way, if Jesus was male and had a Y-chromosome not derived from a human parent, God must have specially selected what values all of his male traits (penis length, density and texture of facial hair, level of sexual arousal) were going to have, and this is troublesome to me. If Jesus just took genetic "luck of the draw" like the rest of us, that would be one thing; but if God made a special point of ensuring that his experience was unlike what I experience, then this lessens the relevance of Jesus to me.

[chron]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

LOL! Pardon me, I'm having a Monday Moment.

^___^

Me, too. Never heard it called that, though, but *cough* I'll take it on faith that it's a known expression.

*runs and hides from the awful pun*

[chron]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I am saying that Faith is in a person... not in the information. Ask all the questions you can, only I'd recommend asking God if you want to get to know God better.

Granted: faith is in people, not facts.

Suppose the fact I'm questioning is whether or not God exists. Wouldn't having a conversation with him pre-suppose that I accept that he exists?

How then to examine the question?

By conversing with those who claim to have a personal relationship with him.

And when those people say, "Don't ask us for reasons; just believe," what then?

Again, the purpose of this thread is to explore why it is generally accepted that this line of thinking is all right in the domain of religion and not in any other area of life.

I'm not challenging anyone's beliefs; only the unwillingness to give reasons for those beliefs.

[chron]

Originally Posted by bob x

...but if God made a special point of ensuring that his experience was unlike what I experience, then this lessens the relevance of Jesus to me.

Well said.

[Francis king]

hello Chron, welcome to CR...

I have just come across ur initial post, so will respond to it in my way...

I am of the opinion that this "blind faith" is actually, NOT acceptable, or rather, it shouldn't be acceptable to us, supposedly civilised and intelligent beings... I think it is a cop-out which has been used rather well over the centuries and will continue to be so used until ppl become a bit more rational and a little less superstitious...

if something "is", it "is"... if "it" is, then we should be able to prove that "it" is, whatever "it" is... otherwise, it is not fact, but hypothesis, an untested hypothesis at best...

now... I cannot prove to u that "it" exists, you have to discern such things for urself, but I know I've seen/felt/been used by/been guided/protected by "it", although any evidence to support my wild assertions will be circumstantial at best...

but then... I have faith... not blind faith, but real faith, based not on conjecture and circumstantiality, but conviction, a firm belief based on evidences, a firm belief created by establishing conclusions, not for you, as you will have ur own, but just for me, a faith created by testing and challenging and learning from "it"...

if I am sane, and without an agenda, I would not want u to believe what I believe purely because I believe it... as that would be insane, and irrational...

just my thoughts...

[chron]

Originally Posted by Francis king

hello Chron, welcome to CR...

Francis, thank you for the welcome and your thoughts, which are near to my own. In spite of the fact that it may seem otherwise from the dialog that is this thread, I, too, have developed my own brand of faith since leaving the fold of the fundamentalist evangelicals.

I, too, have no evidence other than circumstantial, and yet I believe.

It is frustrating to me that those who have joined this discussion (not all, but many) seem to think that I need convincing about the nature of faith, when that is not what my question concerns at all.

I've asked this question over and over, and always learn from the ensuing discussion. I never do get an answer, though, for there always seems to be an assumption on my listener's part that I have an agenda in asking my question, and it is the listener's concern with my supposed agenda that quickly becomes the focus of the discussion.

Save for you, Francis, who have understood my point. But I'd wager (if I were a wagering fellow) that you don't have an answer either, as to why people persist in this curious practice of defending the unreasonableness of blind faith.

Good to meet you, if only via electrons.

cheers,

chron