I certainly do not say that 'everything real must be able to be evidenced through science', I say that in order to be a Theory, or to work, be objective,, it is most likely to be so when the scientific method is used, and that there are vast numbers of things that remain as unknowns, or not enough evidence yet.
Who here has said Christianity (or any brand of theism) is a Theory, or "objective" in the scientific sense you demand? Nobody that I have seen. And yet you still harp on this, on thread after thread after thread. Can you please save it for where it's actually relevant? Please?
Quite an interesting thread really, kind of free floating.
I too am finding it interesting, although I hadn't thought of the idea of it being sort of free-floating, although that sounds quite appropriate I think.
Well, it's on the margins, between theism and atheism, or I suppose non-theism. Liminal, to use a trendy word. How satisfying it is to not know.
mousethief, I love you (and your posts) nevertheless!
Flattery will get you everywhere. I don't mind obnoxity per se, but definitely dislike folly. They say we hate most in others what we fear most in ourselves.
Well, yes, but as we’ve tried to explain, religion is not a theory, so when you try to apply scientific approaches to faith and God, it doesn’t work. This is what people mean when they are explaining that science and faith can’t be compared/contrasted on the same principles.
SusanDoris, you said, up-thread “I say this from the point of view of having been a firm believer in a God/force/power definitely *out there* somewhere.
After that God-belief evaporated, I thought of my situation as a sort of Venn diagram, with all the thousands of faiths with a common centre of God/deity/something and me at the very outer edge of the Christian section, and then taking a step into the area outside (can't remember if that has a name!).”
So are you still on a pilgrimage (which is the word I like to use to describe my own journey)?
I spent well over 50 years as a Christian, many of them as a minister both overseas and in UK. As a form of catharsis, I recently reflected on and recorded my pilgrimage from fundamentalist Christian to non-theist. I recall that the dawn / conversion to non-theism was rather traumatic, but joyful, being an exploration from being non-believer through atheist to non-theist. I recall that during the atheist bit, following my rejection of the concept of god, I used the word ‘deluded’ to describe god-believers. I was rightly hauled over the coals by Shipmates. Thankfully my acceptance of non-theism has made me more sober and, hopefully, respectful. In fact non-theism accepts that there are many gods in the minds of people and that these gods are valuable, etc etc to their adherents. Of course, some of these god-believers (on the Ship and elsewhere) get up my nose but I am able to leave them alone.
I wonder whether the book which introduced me to non-theism might be helpful to you: it is a small book, easy to read and some of it can be skipped over. David Boulton wrote ‘Godless for God’s Sake’ in an effort to bring together Friends of like mind. I’ve given this link before; you may wish to have a look.
mousethief, I love you (and your posts) nevertheless!
Flattery will get you everywhere. I don't mind obnoxity per se, but definitely dislike folly. They say we hate most in others what we fear most in ourselves.
Very true, I suspect.
Bless you, anyway, even though I've just recalled we're in Hell!
Well, yes, but as we’ve tried to explain, religion is not a theory, so when you try to apply scientific approaches to faith and God, it doesn’t work. This is what people mean when they are explaining that science and faith can’t be compared/contrasted on the same principles.
To my mind, the supernatural is simply not truth apt. You can't apply scientific methods to it, or historical method. Well, this means that complaining about it is pointless. But sometimes theism goes into empirical territory, for example, YEC. As I said above, the world might be full of angels, and this can't be checked, but then again, it's not very interesting (to me).
@SusanDoris they were all saying the same thing. You didn’t respond.
Yes, this. And not just Gamma - he was simply finding new ways to say the same thing lots of us have been saying in different ways, because nothing you have said, SD, indicates an understanding of the point being made. Just saying ‘I understand’ doesn’t indicate that you really do - just that you may think you do.
What demonstrates understanding, in your case, probably means changing your own listening behavior as well as your own posting behavior. You appear to pay attention (or find "interesting") only those posts you perceive as agreeing with your world view. What will actually get (and perhaps keep) you out of Hell, though, is paying attention to those who are asking you to provide substantive answers to questions and to cease making inappropriately-placed demands that people examine "first causes" on threads where these are generally assumed.
It has been really interesting to see how my comments, whether considered as appropriate or not, are being taken by some to be demands. I do hope that in future if anyone takes what I say as a demand, they will mention it and point out which words they see as indicating this.
But we are not talking about science, we are talking about how 99% of people have faith in it without having the first understand of it. Not just science either, also bridge construction etc.
But you can walk across a bridge. If you had doubts about the bridge's existence, I could invite you to walk across with me. You do not need to know about tensile strength, soil density of moments of force to see that it works. If you wish to, you could buy materials at the local hardware store and test all the principals that make the bloody thing work.
I've known people who say they have spoken to God, yet they've never managed to put us on a three-way call. I do not doubt that they believe and I do not think they are delusional,* but they are working on faith. Bridges are built on a different principle and we accept them on a different principle.
To put it bluntly, if you can't read a Christian perspective on the Ship without scratching the itch to declare it invalid, fuck off.
That isn't for you or I to say and the PTB haven't given her any shit.
There are plenty of places elsewhere where no Christian perspective can be mentioned without that itch being fully explored, so have some generosity and go there. Or make your contribution and allow it to sit alongside the Christian perspective, rather than trying to destroy that perspective before asserting your own.
I honestly don't think that that she thinks that is what she is doing.
SusanDoris, I personally haven't taken your comments as demands as such. Though I suppose in a thread when you ask a question which is off-topic people may feel like you are being demanding, wanting your topic discussed when they are discussing something else.
I thought of an analogy to try to explain what people are saying. Analogies aleays break down, and so it won't be perfect, but it's the best I could do, and I hope it is helpful.
Let's say that you - or I - are part of a science forum, where all sorts of scientific topics are discussed. The practical engineering elements of how to build spacecrafts, or the more theoretic elements of, say, string theory. Each have threads dedicated to them, and people with different levels of understanding of science can join in, but there is a general idea that the boards are for people who take an interest in science.
Imagine someone posts, very politely, on a thread about building a spacecraft, 'I was just wondering whether you have ever considered the possibility that there is a reality undefined by science, that goes beyond space?'
And people politely reply, 'Yes, certainly, that is something quite a few of us have thought about, but it's not really what this thread is about - we're talking about this spacecraft.'
And the person replies, very politely, 'Thank you for your replies. I hope people in charge will be telling people who board this spacecraft that there is no proof that space is the final destination, and that there may be a divine being who supercedes all this.'
Then people start to get a bit irritated. 'No,' they say, 'I doubt they'd consider that relevant, as they have no idea what the people boarding the spacecraft believe, and that is not the point of the spacecraft.'
The person then replies, 'Ah, but it could be very relevant if the spacecraft crashes and they all are faced with the afterlife.'
This person clearly thinks her point is relevant, and wants to talk about it, because she is very curious about how much thought these scientists have given to the possibility of a divine being who can't be explained or evidenced by science. So she then goes into other threads about all sorts of other scientific topics and finds ways to relate her one question to the vatious topics, adding how grateful she is that they are such an open-minded group. People continually tell her that in fact some of them happen to be religious too, and that yes, her questions are ones many of them have considered, regardless of whether they are religious, and then they return to the topic at hand.
Eventually one person snaps and makes a thread telling the person she is being very annoying, and then several people agree, and everyone tries to explain to her that it's not that they're anti-religion, or that they haven't considered her questions, but they are simply trying to have conversations about very specific scientific topics.
SusanDoris, in that sort of scenario, would people's frustrations make sense to you? And does this help in any way, as you consider creating a new thread to ask the specific questions you are interested in?
But we are not talking about science, we are talking about how 99% of people have faith in it without having the first understand of it. Not just science either, also bridge construction etc.
But you can walk across a bridge. If you had doubts about the bridge's existence, I could invite you to walk across with me. You do not need to know about tensile strength, soil density of moments of force to see that it works. If you wish to, you could buy materials at the local hardware store and test all the principals that make the bloody thing work.
Bridge fall down. Most of us who are not bridge engineers haven't the foggiest idea how to tell if they are safe so generally believe qualified people have done their job properly. They haven't always.
Those of us whole live in stable political situations have faith that things will work and that there are checks-and-balances to ensure that we are kept safe. We opt out of actually doing the work ourselves to check if these things are safe - many people living in less favourable conditions do not have that luxury, of course.
The point here being that generally speaking things work and that we are right to believe people when they are doctors or engineers or scientists and tell us to trust them. But it still involves trust and faith and very rarely involves us doing much work to check them out.
I've known people who say they have spoken to God, yet they've never managed to put us on a three-way call. I do not doubt that they believe and I do not think they are delusional,* but they are working on faith. Bridges are built on a different principle and we accept them on a different principle.
*Weel, not most of them.
The principles are different, but the faith needed to walk on a bridge (for the 99% of users who are not bridge engineers) is not altogether different to the faith needed to believe in a deity.
You are making out that it is a totally different kind of thing.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal over a river or after a fire in a tower-block ask firemen why it is that they think fires are hot.
It's dumb. If you can't see that, I can't help you see it.
I'm not a betting man but if I were I'd lay a pound to a penny that we'd be having this same conversation in a year's time, three years time or even 30 or 300 years time were that possible.
I'd like to know the titles of the interesting radio programmes that SD listens to. 'How To Miss The Point' must be one of them, followed by, 'How To Post The Same Thing Over and Over and Over Again Even On Threads Where It Is Completely Irrelevant To Do So.'
My goodness, if I'm still here doing this in 30 years time, you have my permission to come around and put me out of my misery.
Maybe the rapture has happened and I've been Left Behind, destined to spend the next decades having the same stupid conversations with the same people.
I'm sorry! I take it all back! Let me come with you..
SusanDoris, I personally haven't taken your comments as demands as such. Though I suppose in a thread when you ask a question which is off-topic people may feel like you are being demanding, wanting your topic discussed when they are discussing something else.
I thought of an analogy to try to explain what people are saying. Analogies aleays break down, and so it won't be perfect, but it's the best I could do, and I hope it is helpful.
Let's say that you - or I - are part of a science forum, where all sorts of scientific topics are discussed. The practical engineering elements of how to build spacecrafts, or the more theoretic elements of, say, string theory. Each have threads dedicated to them, and people with different levels of understanding of science can join in, but there is a general idea that the boards are for people who take an interest in science.
Imagine someone posts, very politely, on a thread about building a spacecraft, 'I was just wondering whether you have ever considered the possibility that there is a reality undefined by science, that goes beyond space?'
And people politely reply, 'Yes, certainly, that is something quite a few of us have thought about, but it's not really what this thread is about - we're talking about this spacecraft.'
And the person replies, very politely, 'Thank you for your replies. I hope people in charge will be telling people who board this spacecraft that there is no proof that space is the final destination, and that there may be a divine being who supercedes all this.'
Then people start to get a bit irritated. 'No,' they say, 'I doubt they'd consider that relevant, as they have no idea what the people boarding the spacecraft believe, and that is not the point of the spacecraft.'
The person then replies, 'Ah, but it could be very relevant if the spacecraft crashes and they all are faced with the afterlife.'
This person clearly thinks her point is relevant, and wants to talk about it, because she is very curious about how much thought these scientists have given to the possibility of a divine being who can't be explained or evidenced by science. So she then goes into other threads about all sorts of other scientific topics and finds ways to relate her one question to the vatious topics, adding how grateful she is that they are such an open-minded group. People continually tell her that in fact some of them happen to be religious too, and that yes, her questions are ones many of them have considered, regardless of whether they are religious, and then they return to the topic at hand.
Eventually one person snaps and makes a thread telling the person she is being very annoying, and then several people agree, and everyone tries to explain to her that it's not that they're anti-religion, or that they haven't considered her questions, but they are simply trying to have conversations about very specific scientific topics.
SusanDoris, in that sort of scenario, would people's frustrations make sense to you? And does this help in any way, as you consider creating a new thread to ask the specific questions you are interested in?
Thank you - your posts are always very thoughtful I find. That was an interesting read - much appreciated - and actually, I have worked all that out for myself by now.
Bridge fall down. Most of us who are not bridge engineers haven't the foggiest idea how to tell if they are safe so generally believe qualified people have done their job properly. They haven't always.
That is a failure of execution, not principle. And if you want to know how a bridge works, you can ask. The explanation can be given and understood. You mightn't be able to follow the maths used in determining the design or materials will work, but the basic principles aren't rocket surgery. And , if you wanted to, you can learn the maths and physics. It really is not that complicated.
You are making out that it is a totally different kind of thing.
It is. That it isn't based on faith, but trust and that isn't the same thing.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal
It is not only acceptable to ask, but in most place required.
It's dumb. If you can't see that, I can't help you see it.
I was going to reply in kind, because fuck off. But I don't think most of you who are arguing this are stupid. I do think that it is the natural defensiveness that occurs when an idea is challenged. And that doesn't make you stupid, but it won't win you any awards for perception, either.
Faith in a bridge standing, and faith in a deity, and faith that I've been kidnapped by aliens. They seem different to me.
I agree. The whole 'You have faith when you sit on a chair that it won't collapse under you' analogy has never worked for me. I use concrete, tangible evidence with chairs, and if they seem wobbly, I jiggle them about to test, and may swap with another chair, or at least sit very tentatively!
Might be an interesting thread for SD (or anyone) to start, looking at the concept of faith, how people define faith, different kinds of faith, what reasons people have for these things they have faith in, and what sort of things would make them question their faith (in anything - a chair, a bridge, an aeroplane, a pizza delivery).
It has been really interesting to see how my comments, whether considered as appropriate or not, are being taken by some to be demands. I do hope that in future if anyone takes what I say as a demand, they will mention it and point out which words they see as indicating this.
Well, obviously I can speak only for myself about this perception. I'll return to the post of yours which sent me into adjectival fits:
While I hesitate to widen again the gap between yours any my thinking, I think I'll just come in here to say that I say it Is different. All the things/facts I have faith in have an objective backing. Not of course a 100% solid, immovable, unchangeable, irrefutable backing, but none of them relies on faith alone. I have partial faith in those which remain as uncertain, or don't knows, and don't need to worry about whether they will become more objective during my remaining years.
How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective?
The final question above was preceded by a number of declarative statements, some of which were couched in absolute terms (my emphasis -- which possibly Reading Dave may not make apparent to you). "It Is different;" "All . . . facts;" "none relies." In the event that Reading Dave does not supply the emphasis I've added, the emphasized words are is, all, and none.
While you've elsewhere also included qualifiers like "not 100%" and "partial," the tone that came across to me was somewhat peremptory, and that, for this reader, set your ultimate question up as a demand that I come up with objective evidence for my religious beliefs. Aside from my not having "religious beliefs" to defend, and feeling that objective evidence for such beliefs is impossible, and various posters' previous objections to this question's intrusion into threads where it didn't belong, I was also nettled by the question's apparent tone. Remedy? Linguistic styles can be very difficult to alter, but possibly steering clear of absolutes like all, none, never, always, etc. might help. That said, I'm only one reader, and people respond to language in very different ways. Perhaps other could weigh in on this issue.
“Faith in” to me means belief in something so as to act as if it’s true. So I’ve zero faith that I (or anyone else TBH) has been kidnapped by aliens, pretty strong faith in the security of most bridges I have encountered, and pretty strong faith in the God whom Jesus Christ called Father.
I have crossed bridges whose apparent insecurity causes me to doubt their integrity, and sadly we’ve all seen stories of bridges which people had enough faith to pass over or under, but where the bridge failed. I say that not to imply that faith in God is somehow infallible or better, merely to show that an everyday commonplace exercise of faith can be misplaced.
Generally where our faith has consistently been justified we may end up being almost completely unaware that any faith is being exercised.
Well, yes, but as we’ve tried to explain, religion is not a theory, so when you try to apply scientific approaches to faith and God, it doesn’t work. This is what people mean when they are explaining that science and faith can’t be compared/contrasted on the same principles.
I am slightly puzzled here, where have I said that religion is a theory, or what words did I use that made it sound like that?
SusanDoris, you said, up-thread “I say this from the point of view of having been a firm believer in a God/force/power definitely *out there* somewhere.
After that God-belief evaporated, I thought of my situation as a sort of Venn diagram, with all the thousands of faiths with a common centre of God/deity/something and me at the very outer edge of the Christian section, and then taking a step into the area outside (can't remember if that has a name!).”
So are you still on a pilgrimage (which is the word I like to use to describe my own journey)?
No, I cannot think of anything which would encourage me to step back into that circle, but, as in science there is always the proviso that things might change, I really do remain interested in current thinking about religious beliefs although I think it very, very unlikely that my lack of belief will change.
I spent well over 50 years as a Christian, many of them as a minister both overseas and in UK. As a form of catharsis, I recently reflected on and recorded my pilgrimage from fundamentalist Christian to non-theist. I recall that the dawn / conversion to non-theism was rather traumatic, but joyful, being an exploration from being non-believer through atheist to non-theist. I recall that during the atheist bit, following my rejection of the concept of god, I used the word ‘deluded’ to describe god-believers. I was rightly hauled over the coals by Shipmates. Thankfully my acceptance of non-theism has made me more sober and, hopefully, respectful. In fact non-theism accepts that there are many gods in the minds of people and that these gods are valuable, etc etc to their adherents. Of course, some of these god-believers (on the Ship and elsewhere) get up my nose but I am able to leave them alone.
It sounds as if your beliefs were far more extensive than mine. I did not believe that Jesus was more than a 100% human being, or that the resurrection happened, etc; only God was real.
I wonder whether the book which introduced me to non-theism might be helpful to you: it is a small book, easy to read and some of it can be skipped over. David Boulton wrote ‘Godless for God’s Sake’ in an effort to bring together Friends of like mind. I’ve given this link before; you may wish to have a look.
Thank you; yes, I will. I have heard the title referred to before, but will follow that link and read more about it.
Seeing as I live close to the Dartford M25 bridge, and the Medway A2 rail/road bridges, I'll just say that I have more faith in them than in the 'truth' of SusanDoris' posts, suffering now (as I do) from a certain degree of ennui (boredom).
Well, yes, but as we’ve tried to explain, religion is not a theory, so when you try to apply scientific approaches to faith and God, it doesn’t work. This is what people mean when they are explaining that science and faith can’t be compared/contrasted on the same principles.
To my mind, the supernatural is simply not truth apt. You can't apply scientific methods to it, or historical method. Well, this means that complaining about it is pointless. But sometimes theism goes into empirical territory, for example, YEC. As I said above, the world might be full of angels, and this can't be checked, but then again, it's not very interesting (to me).
Agreed, and on the subject of empirical territory, there is one major problem here I think, and I'm thinking about how I can word it as a topic in Purgatory, but not sure if I can.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal
It is not only acceptable to ask, but in most place required.
Really. You'd go on engineering internet forums and in the midst of a detailed discussion about why a particular bridge failed ask very basic questions about civil engineering and because it was required?
Na, bullshit.
It's dumb. If you can't see that, I can't help you see it.
I was going to reply in kind, because fuck off. But I don't think most of you who are arguing this are stupid. I do think that it is the natural defensiveness that occurs when an idea is challenged. And that doesn't make you stupid, but it won't win you any awards for perception, either.
<snip> it isn't based on faith, but trust and that isn't the same thing.<snip>
That’s interesting. Although I’m not aware of any two words which are exact synonyms, I’d have said that ‘faith’ in God, and ‘trust’ in God, or ‘faith’ in the security of a bridge or a chair or ‘trust’ in their security were fundamentally the same thing.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal
It is not only acceptable to ask, but in most place required.
Really. You'd go on engineering internet forums and in the midst of a detailed discussion about why a particular bridge failed ask very basic questions about civil engineering and because it was required?
First, you moron, I was referring to the investigations. But yes, you imbecile, the causes of failure are discussed on engineering forums, by experts and neophytes.
I thought that faith meant belief without evidence, but I expect that people have their own views on that. For me, the notion of faith in a bridge sounds odd, or if you like, I wouldn't say it.
I thought that faith meant belief without evidence, but I expect that people have their own views on that. For me, the notion of faith in a bridge sounds odd, or if you like, I wouldn't say it.
If you lived in a region where two bridges of a certain type (say, cantilever) recently collapsed, and you were talking about driving to the dentist, which will require you to drive across a cantilever bridge in the same area, you might well be asked about your faith in the bridge. And while the word might seem a little odd in that context, the idea certainly would be apropos.
<snip> it isn't based on faith, but trust and that isn't the same thing.<snip>
That’s interesting. Although I’m not aware of any two words which are exact synonyms, I’d have said that ‘faith’ in God, and ‘trust’ in God, or ‘faith’ in the security of a bridge or a chair or ‘trust’ in their security were fundamentally the same thing.
OK, Let me make this simple. Did you never, as a child, build your own bridge? You can take a single plank and span it across a rivulet, or two bricks, and walk across. You can use thinner pieces of wood and see it fail. So you can see, and experiment with the basic principles. There are, in most countries, procedures and tests one must follow and certifications one must acquire to participate in structural and civil engineering. trust
noun
1.firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.
2.believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of. faith
noun
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust 2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
See the bit I bolded? That is where the uses of the words varies.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal
It is not only acceptable to ask, but in most place required.
Really. You'd go on engineering internet forums and in the midst of a detailed discussion about why a particular bridge failed ask very basic questions about civil engineering and because it was required?
First, you moron, I was referring to the investigations. But yes, you imbecile, the causes of failure are discussed on engineering forums, by experts and neophytes.
Not using the most basic assumptions about engineering, dickwad.
Why are you being so thick? There are some basic assumptions about bridge building that everyone must accept to discuss how one failed. The end.
It has been really interesting to see how my comments, whether considered as appropriate or not, are being taken by some to be demands. I do hope that in future if anyone takes what I say as a demand, they will mention it and point out which words they see as indicating this.
Well, obviously I can speak only for myself about this perception. I'll return to the post of yours which sent me into adjectival fits:
While I hesitate to widen again the gap between yours any my thinking, I think I'll just come in here to say that I say it Is different. All the things/facts I have faith in have an objective backing. Not of course a 100% solid, immovable, unchangeable, irrefutable backing, but none of them relies on faith alone. I have partial faith in those which remain as uncertain, or don't knows, and don't need to worry about whether they will become more objective during my remaining years.
How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective?
The final question above was preceded by a number of declarative statements, some of which were couched in absolute terms (my emphasis -- which possibly Reading Dave may not make apparent to you). "It Is different;" "All . . . facts;" "none relies." In the event that Reading Dave does not supply the emphasis I've added, the emphasized words are is, all, and none.
You are correct that L'il ol' Synthetic dave reads everything in the same tone, speed and pitch; reads it well and clearly, but no change of inflexion because of the words used.
While you've elsewhere also included qualifiers like "not 100%" and "partial," the tone that came across to me was somewhat peremptory, and that, for this reader, set your ultimate question up as a demand that I come up with objective evidence for my religious beliefs.
I'd certainly quibble with the word peremptory, but as this is a message board, discussion forum, where all are adults with strong views and opinions, I assume also a reasonably similar degree of self-confidence and of course interest in the discussion. Perhaps I am wrong, but tip-toeing around a point would not seem to be required in Purgatory or, of course, Hell!
Aside from my not having "religious beliefs" to defend,
And I certainly apologise for not remembering that.
...and feeling that objective evidence for such beliefs is impossible, and various posters' previous objections to this question's intrusion into threads where it didn't belong, I was also nettled by the question's apparent tone. Remedy? Linguistic styles can be very difficult to alter, but possibly steering clear of absolutes like all, none, never, always, etc. might help. That said, I'm only one reader, and people respond to language in very different ways. Perhaps other could weigh in on this issue.
I think the best thing I can do about tone is to say that if at any time, I am thinking in a tone of voice that Dave is not producing, I will point it out in a sentence.
Well, yes, but as we’ve tried to explain, religion is not a theory, so when you try to apply scientific approaches to faith and God, it doesn’t work. This is what people mean when they are explaining that science and faith can’t be compared/contrasted on the same principles.
I am slightly puzzled here, where have I said that religion is a theory, or what words did I use that made it sound like that?
I was referring to this post. Take a look, too, at Mousethief's post embedded in the quotes. That was the main thing I was drawing your attention to.
Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.
@lilbuddha I recognise that there are differences, especially where one is talking about ‘a faith’, but I note that both definitions use the phrase ‘belief/ve in’, and what I am saying is that there isn’t a fundamental difference between belief in the safety or otherwise of a bridge and belief in God.
You’re right, of course, that I can verify or falsify my belief, faith, or trust in the bridge by practical experiment. I don’t think my belief, faith or trust in God can be verified in the same way. To some extent this is because that belief finds support in the credibility of evidence for a claimed historical event, and a great deal of historical evidence of all kinds is not able to be tested experimentally.
Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.
\*or, maybe, arrogance
SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval? Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
....
So are you still on a pilgrimage (which is the word I like to use to describe my own journey)?
No, I cannot think of anything which would encourage me to step back into that circle, but, as in science there is always the proviso that things might change, I really do remain interested in current thinking about religious beliefs although I think it very, very unlikely that my lack of belief will change.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding? I don't take the word 'pilgrimage' to be exclusively faith-based. If you take in the rest of my post you will see that my pilgrimage is well outside of any faith-based philosophy.
I spent well over 50 years as a Christian, ....
It sounds as if your beliefs were far more extensive than mine. I did not believe that Jesus was more than a 100% human being, or that the resurrection happened, etc; only God was real.
I expect my beliefs were, but the point remains - GOD was real to both of us. And my suggestion for finding a way to lighten-up also stands.
You didn't get my point that embracing non-theism might make you a better listener?
Comments
Well, it's on the margins, between theism and atheism, or I suppose non-theism. Liminal, to use a trendy word. How satisfying it is to not know.
After that God-belief evaporated, I thought of my situation as a sort of Venn diagram, with all the thousands of faiths with a common centre of God/deity/something and me at the very outer edge of the Christian section, and then taking a step into the area outside (can't remember if that has a name!).”
So are you still on a pilgrimage (which is the word I like to use to describe my own journey)?
I spent well over 50 years as a Christian, many of them as a minister both overseas and in UK. As a form of catharsis, I recently reflected on and recorded my pilgrimage from fundamentalist Christian to non-theist. I recall that the dawn / conversion to non-theism was rather traumatic, but joyful, being an exploration from being non-believer through atheist to non-theist. I recall that during the atheist bit, following my rejection of the concept of god, I used the word ‘deluded’ to describe god-believers. I was rightly hauled over the coals by Shipmates. Thankfully my acceptance of non-theism has made me more sober and, hopefully, respectful. In fact non-theism accepts that there are many gods in the minds of people and that these gods are valuable, etc etc to their adherents. Of course, some of these god-believers (on the Ship and elsewhere) get up my nose but I am able to leave them alone.
I wonder whether the book which introduced me to non-theism might be helpful to you: it is a small book, easy to read and some of it can be skipped over. David Boulton wrote ‘Godless for God’s Sake’ in an effort to bring together Friends of like mind. I’ve given this link before; you may wish to have a look.
Very true, I suspect.
Bless you, anyway, even though I've just recalled we're in Hell!
Peanuts, anyone?
IJ
To my mind, the supernatural is simply not truth apt. You can't apply scientific methods to it, or historical method. Well, this means that complaining about it is pointless. But sometimes theism goes into empirical territory, for example, YEC. As I said above, the world might be full of angels, and this can't be checked, but then again, it's not very interesting (to me).
I've known people who say they have spoken to God, yet they've never managed to put us on a three-way call. I do not doubt that they believe and I do not think they are delusional,* but they are working on faith. Bridges are built on a different principle and we accept them on a different principle.
*Weel, not most of them.
And having much more fun than those of us perusing this thread....
I'll get me wings from the dry-cleaners.
IJ
I thought of an analogy to try to explain what people are saying. Analogies aleays break down, and so it won't be perfect, but it's the best I could do, and I hope it is helpful.
Let's say that you - or I - are part of a science forum, where all sorts of scientific topics are discussed. The practical engineering elements of how to build spacecrafts, or the more theoretic elements of, say, string theory. Each have threads dedicated to them, and people with different levels of understanding of science can join in, but there is a general idea that the boards are for people who take an interest in science.
Imagine someone posts, very politely, on a thread about building a spacecraft, 'I was just wondering whether you have ever considered the possibility that there is a reality undefined by science, that goes beyond space?'
And people politely reply, 'Yes, certainly, that is something quite a few of us have thought about, but it's not really what this thread is about - we're talking about this spacecraft.'
And the person replies, very politely, 'Thank you for your replies. I hope people in charge will be telling people who board this spacecraft that there is no proof that space is the final destination, and that there may be a divine being who supercedes all this.'
Then people start to get a bit irritated. 'No,' they say, 'I doubt they'd consider that relevant, as they have no idea what the people boarding the spacecraft believe, and that is not the point of the spacecraft.'
The person then replies, 'Ah, but it could be very relevant if the spacecraft crashes and they all are faced with the afterlife.'
This person clearly thinks her point is relevant, and wants to talk about it, because she is very curious about how much thought these scientists have given to the possibility of a divine being who can't be explained or evidenced by science. So she then goes into other threads about all sorts of other scientific topics and finds ways to relate her one question to the vatious topics, adding how grateful she is that they are such an open-minded group. People continually tell her that in fact some of them happen to be religious too, and that yes, her questions are ones many of them have considered, regardless of whether they are religious, and then they return to the topic at hand.
Eventually one person snaps and makes a thread telling the person she is being very annoying, and then several people agree, and everyone tries to explain to her that it's not that they're anti-religion, or that they haven't considered her questions, but they are simply trying to have conversations about very specific scientific topics.
SusanDoris, in that sort of scenario, would people's frustrations make sense to you? And does this help in any way, as you consider creating a new thread to ask the specific questions you are interested in?
O, so can I.
Sharp tap-dancing heels would that/they be?
IJ
Bridge fall down. Most of us who are not bridge engineers haven't the foggiest idea how to tell if they are safe so generally believe qualified people have done their job properly. They haven't always.
Those of us whole live in stable political situations have faith that things will work and that there are checks-and-balances to ensure that we are kept safe. We opt out of actually doing the work ourselves to check if these things are safe - many people living in less favourable conditions do not have that luxury, of course.
The point here being that generally speaking things work and that we are right to believe people when they are doctors or engineers or scientists and tell us to trust them. But it still involves trust and faith and very rarely involves us doing much work to check them out.
The principles are different, but the faith needed to walk on a bridge (for the 99% of users who are not bridge engineers) is not altogether different to the faith needed to believe in a deity.
You are making out that it is a totally different kind of thing.
If it is acceptable to ask believers in the midst of a discussion about closing churches why they bother believing in a deity, why is it not acceptable to ask bridge engineers immediately after an accident why they think they can balance heavy bits of metal over a river or after a fire in a tower-block ask firemen why it is that they think fires are hot.
It's dumb. If you can't see that, I can't help you see it.
I'd like to know the titles of the interesting radio programmes that SD listens to. 'How To Miss The Point' must be one of them, followed by, 'How To Post The Same Thing Over and Over and Over Again Even On Threads Where It Is Completely Irrelevant To Do So.'
Maybe the rapture has happened and I've been Left Behind, destined to spend the next decades having the same stupid conversations with the same people.
I'm sorry! I take it all back! Let me come with you..
It is. That it isn't based on faith, but trust and that isn't the same thing. It is not only acceptable to ask, but in most place required.
I was going to reply in kind, because fuck off. But I don't think most of you who are arguing this are stupid. I do think that it is the natural defensiveness that occurs when an idea is challenged. And that doesn't make you stupid, but it won't win you any awards for perception, either.
I agree. The whole 'You have faith when you sit on a chair that it won't collapse under you' analogy has never worked for me. I use concrete, tangible evidence with chairs, and if they seem wobbly, I jiggle them about to test, and may swap with another chair, or at least sit very tentatively!
Might be an interesting thread for SD (or anyone) to start, looking at the concept of faith, how people define faith, different kinds of faith, what reasons people have for these things they have faith in, and what sort of things would make them question their faith (in anything - a chair, a bridge, an aeroplane, a pizza delivery).
Well, obviously I can speak only for myself about this perception. I'll return to the post of yours which sent me into adjectival fits:
The final question above was preceded by a number of declarative statements, some of which were couched in absolute terms (my emphasis -- which possibly Reading Dave may not make apparent to you). "It Is different;" "All . . . facts;" "none relies." In the event that Reading Dave does not supply the emphasis I've added, the emphasized words are is, all, and none.
While you've elsewhere also included qualifiers like "not 100%" and "partial," the tone that came across to me was somewhat peremptory, and that, for this reader, set your ultimate question up as a demand that I come up with objective evidence for my religious beliefs. Aside from my not having "religious beliefs" to defend, and feeling that objective evidence for such beliefs is impossible, and various posters' previous objections to this question's intrusion into threads where it didn't belong, I was also nettled by the question's apparent tone. Remedy? Linguistic styles can be very difficult to alter, but possibly steering clear of absolutes like all, none, never, always, etc. might help. That said, I'm only one reader, and people respond to language in very different ways. Perhaps other could weigh in on this issue.
I have crossed bridges whose apparent insecurity causes me to doubt their integrity, and sadly we’ve all seen stories of bridges which people had enough faith to pass over or under, but where the bridge failed. I say that not to imply that faith in God is somehow infallible or better, merely to show that an everyday commonplace exercise of faith can be misplaced.
Generally where our faith has consistently been justified we may end up being almost completely unaware that any faith is being exercised.
Jesu, mercy. Mary, pray.
IJ
Seeing as I live close to the Dartford M25 bridge, and the Medway A2 rail/road bridges, I'll just say that I have more faith in them than in the 'truth' of SusanDoris' posts, suffering now (as I do) from a certain degree of ennui (boredom).
Or, IOW, I've run out of peanuts,
IJ
Really. You'd go on engineering internet forums and in the midst of a detailed discussion about why a particular bridge failed ask very basic questions about civil engineering and because it was required?
Na, bullshit.
Yeah whatever.
trust
noun
1.firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.
2.believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of.
faith
noun
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
See the bit I bolded? That is where the uses of the words varies.
Not using the most basic assumptions about engineering, dickwad.
Why are you being so thick? There are some basic assumptions about bridge building that everyone must accept to discuss how one failed. The end.
Thank you - interesting post.
I was referring to this post. Take a look, too, at Mousethief's post embedded in the quotes. That was the main thing I was drawing your attention to.
I have two good friends who don’t know each other, one in the US and one in the U.K. Both are bridge inspectors.
Quite a coincidence
\*or, maybe, arrogance
You’re right, of course, that I can verify or falsify my belief, faith, or trust in the bridge by practical experiment. I don’t think my belief, faith or trust in God can be verified in the same way. To some extent this is because that belief finds support in the credibility of evidence for a claimed historical event, and a great deal of historical evidence of all kinds is not able to be tested experimentally.
SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval? Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding? I don't take the word 'pilgrimage' to be exclusively faith-based. If you take in the rest of my post you will see that my pilgrimage is well outside of any faith-based philosophy.
I expect my beliefs were, but the point remains - GOD was real to both of us. And my suggestion for finding a way to lighten-up also stands.
You didn't get my point that embracing non-theism might make you a better listener?