Celebrate Religion here

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Governments, corporations, and other bureaucracies. But also, AI-driven elevators in high-rise buildings, mass-production inventions like the cotton gin, the rifle, as well as higher education, cathedrals, Spanish (nod) and French cuisine, marriage, military ranks, mathematical models (I'm just rattling these off as I think of them; the list is endless) none of which any army ant or prairie dog "community" could ever build.

Sure, no ants or dogs could build such things. But which of those is more complex than a human being?

Quote: Nareed

Sure, no ants or dogs could build such things. But which of those is more complex than a human being?

As soon as a mother clothes her daughter she has created something more complex than a human being; she has created a human being with clothes.

Quote: Mosca

As soon as a mother clothes her daughter she has created something more complex than a human being; she has created a human being with clothes.

Her body, with some sperm from a father, created the child, not the woman herself.

As Carl Sagan once said "if we had to perform even the simplest chemical reactions which take palce in digestion, we'd all starve." Do you even know what happens during digestion? Your body doesn't, either, but it can digest food just fine.

Quote: FrGamble

it is beyond intellectual garbage to not acknowledge the possibility of creation.

Be careful, Father, that you do not reduce your faith in a higher power to that which must be intellectually acknowledgable. If you impose upon your theory of the divine the criterion that "it must make sense", then you run the risk of another theory displacing it and making more sense. The history of theology is full of examples of fallen gods, those in whom faith is no longer placed because they became contextually irrelevant and stopped making sense. Before we knew the Earth was spinning, people worshiped Apollo, the sun-god who carried the flaming orb across the sky in a chariot. But not anymore, because human science discovered why the sun appears to move across the sky. Similarly, if you tie your faith in God to the idea that "creation makes sense", you are necessarily making it vulnerable to irrelevance in the scenario where human science discovers a more compelling theory of creation.

Quote: MathExtremist

Be careful, Father, that you do not reduce your faith in a higher power to that which must be intellectually acknowledgable. If you impose upon your theory of the divine the criterion that "it must make sense", then you run the risk of another theory displacing it and making more sense. The history of theology is full of examples of fallen gods, those in whom faith is no longer placed because they became contextually irrelevant and stopped making sense. Before we knew the Earth was spinning, people worshiped Apollo, the sun-god who carried the flaming orb across the sky in a chariot. But not anymore, because human science discovered why the sun appears to move across the sky. Similarly, if you tie your faith in God to the idea that "creation makes sense", you are necessarily making it vulnerable to irrelevance in the scenario where human science discovers a more compelling theory of creation.

That will not matter because right now, FrGambles faith dictates that he is right and therefor has nothing to fear from future discoveries. In other words, what I don't know won't hurt me.

Since the Galileo fiasco, the church has learned to deal with advances in science. It even accepts evolution, cosmology and a Universe not created in literally six days (I suppose relativity came in very handy for that). I'm sure this doesn't worry them one bit.

Quote: s2dbaker

FrGambles faith dictates that he is right and therefor has nothing to fear from future discoveries. In other words, what I don't know won't hurt me.

Atheists never worry about future discoveries, what
we believe isn't frail and held together with duct tape
and old urban legends written by people who's
greatest scientific achievement was waiting for grape
juice to turn into wine.

Quote: MathExtremist

Be careful, Father, that you do not reduce your faith in a higher power to that which must be intellectually acknowledgable.

This, unfortunately, is exactly what Christian apologetics is all about.

Quote: MathExtremist

Be careful, Father, that you do not reduce your faith in a higher power to that which must be intellectually acknowledgable.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

This, unfortunately, is exactly what Christian apologetics is all about.

Faith that is not intellectually acknowledgable becomes the caricature that EvenBob thinks it is. If faith doesn't make sense it holds together with nothing more than bubble gum and duct tape and must become a blind leap. This is not how I understand faith. This false idea of faith is what gives religion a bad name and gives rise to atheism. There are so many here on this forum and out in the world that see faith as a fifth grader and of course as adults reject it.

Faith must be an act of reason. It is grounded in common sense, history, logic, inner longing and substantial evidence. As Pope John Paul II wrote about so beautifully in his encylical letter fides et ratio; faith and reason must go together. I have no fear of future discoveries, not because I believe in nothing but because I believe in Truth (with a capital T). Truth is what science is on a never ending march to help us discover. If theology is reaching for this same one Truth, but on a higher plane, it makes perfect sense that there will be more and more congruence between them, like we are seeing today in cosmology and in other fields.

Quote: FrGamble

Faith must be an act of reason. It is grounded in common sense, history, logic, inner longing and substantial evidence.

Again <sigh>: What evidence?

If faith requires reason, why do we need faith at all?

Quote: thecesspit

If faith requires reason, why do we need faith at all?

Because faith is not believing is something make believe like Bigfoot or a stupid spaghetti monster but it is about discovering something real, namely the greatest Truth. This Truth is only reached by the highest form of reason. We don't scratch the surface of what our human reason can accomplish by staying grounded and limited by only what we can see and touch. Reason really soars by taking what we know through our senses and observable scientfic knowledge and lauching ourselves to new heights, extrapollating, combining facts together, deducting, and arriving at new conclusions that while not obseravable to our senses or technology are grounded on them and built upon by the true marvelous power of our minds.

So FrG is saying faith is OK, as long as you have
reason and evidence to back it up.

Well yeah, duh. But because you have faulty
reasoning and not a shred of evidence, all
you're stuck with is faith.

If your concept of faith is grounded in reason, are you open to the possibility that your faith may be proven to be false?
If so, what form might that proof take?
If not, how do you justify calling it "reason"?

Quote: FrGamble

Because faith is not believing is something make believe like Bigfoot or a stupid spaghetti monster but it is about discovering something real

If it were "real" then it would be discoverable by means other than wishing it to be so. This line of argument is hereby rejected!

If you could discover god thru reason and evidence,
there would be no need for religions.

Quote: MathExtremist

If your concept of faith is grounded in reason, are you open to the possibility that your faith may be proven to be false?
If so, what form might that proof take?
If not, how do you justify calling it "reason"?

Good question. It is kind of a Catch 22 because I believe God to be the source of Truth and it is God who I believe in, so for faith to be proven to be false would be like truth being false, which is an impossibility. However to say faith is reasonable it seems like it would demand that faith be open to the possibility of being false in the same way any intellectual idea, like atheism, is definitely open to being proved wrong. So I would say that faith must be open to being proved false, how else would we be able to convert other religious people or non-religious people to the Truth.

So, what form might that proof take? I do have a hard time coming up with something. The sheer mountain of evidence from historical facts, the cloud of witnesses, the immesurable good fruits produced in people's lives, scientific knowledge, the deep feeling of peace and goodness, my own personal experience, the miracles I've seen in others, the beauty and order of nature, the philosophy and the theology behind my faith, the sense that there is more to this world, the idea that life has meaning and all was created with purpose, the uniqueness of the human person (body, mind, and soul), and the power of the three sources of Revelation (Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium) make any proof against my faith seem close to impossible. It would be akin to the proof needed to show that 2+2 does not equal 4. Anyway, thanks for the question and this is my best answer for now.

Quote: FrGamble

Reason really soars by taking what we know through our senses and observable scientfic knowledge and lauching ourselves to new heights, extrapollating, combining facts together, deducting, and arriving at new conclusions that while not obseravable to our senses or technology are grounded on them and built upon by the true marvelous power of our minds.

Very pretty. You should write fiction. I'd kill for a line like that, if it weren't all wrong.

It's true many theorists have anticipated observation, sometimes astonishingly so. But always, always, and I repeat, always, everything is checked out by further observation. Einstein's predictions would have been so much hot air if they hadn't been confirmed through experiment and observations. newtons' even more so. Hell, Newtons' theory of Universal Graviation was useless, in a practical sense, until Cavendish figured out the gravitational constant.

A charitable soul would tell you religious belief and doctrine stand where Newtons' theories did. I'm not feeling charitable today >;)

Quote: FrGamble

So, what form might that proof take? I do have a hard time coming up with something.

According to the mountain of 'proof' you list, we
could include the fact that my cat just took a nice
dump in the catbox. The fact that his digestive
system is working perfectly means, in your world,
that god obviously exists because only god could
be responsible for such a miracle. Its at least as
good as any of the 'proof' you posted.

Apologetics (for anything) is grounded in the Three Mental Acts through which Reason manifests, whereby faith (in whatever the apologist is defending) is justified by appeal to Reason. Now some apologists (afer Pascal) say that Reason itself requires "faith" in order to be trusted in the first place, but I disagree: cognition is what our minds do inherently, by Evolution's design, according to nature, whenever we Will to do so. The language of cognition itself is universal, otherwise mathematicians and scientists couldn't come from all over the world or find application in every field. So, no sanctimonious arbitrary decision to "trust" cognition is necessary. So, the decision to subject Christianity to refutation, like you would any other falsifiable proposition set, represents an affirmation of the supremacy of Reason in any civilized spirituality.

Quote: FrGamble

So, what form might that proof take? I do have a hard time coming up with something.

Remember one of the early Simpson's Halloween episodes where Lisa reads Bart "The Raven"? This exchange takes place:

Bart "You know what would have been better than nothing?"
Lisa "What?"
Bart "Anything!"

I bring this up, becasue through all the litany of items you list I just don't see anything even remotely ressembling evidence of a deity. I could go Trekkie-style and challenge each one, blow by blow, but there would be no point. You've chosen to believe, along with most of the world, the emperor is wearing fine vestments, and won't admit he's naked.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

So, the decision to subject Christianity to refutation, like you would any other falsifiable proposition set, represents an affirmation of the supremacy of Reason in any civilized spirituality.

That's the thrust of my question: is Christianity falsifiable? If it is, what would a disproof look like? If it's not, what justification is there for considering oneself to be "reasoning" about it, as opposed to simply having faith in it? If "reasoning" about Christianity necessarily starts with the proposition that its tenets are axiomatically true, then any subsequent reasoning is circular and therefore meaningless. On the other hand, if the Church is open to admitting that some event or information could disprove its central tenets, what event or information might that be?

Faith *is* a blind leap. I have no proof that my Christian God exists, but I believe in Him as so. It's the foundation in fact of Lutheranism and separates it from Catholicism.

Quote: From wiki

Historic Protestantism (both Lutheran and Reformed) has held to sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially, but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ, which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict / pardon of justification. Thus, "faith alone" is foundational to Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.

And I don't really care that EvenBob, s2ubaker, and Nareed are athiests who don't believe in God. My belief is not based on anything rational at all. It is purely spiritual in nature.

As a scientist, I can accept that all of our scientific theories and discoveries are based on observation (some are not). None of these theories or equations suggest that there is a Christian God. The fact that we exist and that the world exists can be explained through evolution. The beauty of this planet is all explainable and doesn't have to include God, but it doesn't preclude HIM either.

I see no common sense, logic, or substantial evidence that God exists.

Quote: FrGamble

Reason really soars by taking what we know through our senses and observable scientfic knowledge and lauching ourselves to new heights, extrapollating, combining facts together, deducting, and arriving at new conclusions that while not obseravable to our senses or technology are grounded on them and built upon by the true marvelous power of our minds.

Are you talking about God or string theory?

Quote: boymimbo

I see no common sense, logic, or substantial evidence that God exists.

Thats why religion is mysterious and attractive to
many people. You can be as goofy as you want
when it comes to worship, and who's to say you're
wrong. Or right. Maybe everybodies right to some
extent, even atheists.

My wife's Catholic so we have separate views on our "God". She tends to be more old school.

I have a problem however when religions divide people rather than bring them together. FrGamble's understanding of "faith" is uniquely Catholic, IMO. His chiding of others who do not believe in his definition of "faith" rubs me the wrong way.

Quote: boymimbo

His chiding of others who do not believe in his definition of "faith" rubs me the wrong way.

Imagine what it was like when Catholics could
do a lot more than rub you the wrong way for
not agreeing with them. The attitude still exists
of 'its their way or the highway', but their fangs
have been removed.

Quote: boymimbo

Faith *is* a blind leap. I have no proof that my Christian God exists, but I believe in Him as so. It's the foundation in fact of Lutheranism and separates it from Catholicism.

See, that's it. That's where it's at for believers, and where it should be. It doesn't get any stronger than that. "Thank you for your arguments. I believe. Now may we get on with other things?"

Unimpeachable, IMO.

Quote: boymimbo

I have a problem however when religions divide people rather than bring them together.

It's inevitable. That's why there are different faiths, and different "denominations" withn each religion, and different sects, etc.

You give three people god's revelation (if there were a god) and they'll form five religions ;)

Quote:

FrGamble's understanding of "faith" is uniquely Catholic, IMO. His chiding of others who do not believe in his definition of "faith" rubs me the wrong way.

Well, what rubs me the wrong way is his insistence that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you can assume something on faith and reason things out from there. But Aristotle's own laws of logic clearly state that contradictions do not exist. The Law of Identity also clearly states A is A and it cannot be non-A. When departing from faith, you find lots of contradictions, and lots of "A is both A and non-A" types of situations. For example: everything needs to be created, except the creator. All of which are arrived at arbitrarily, without support or even a hint of evidence.

I would admire his use of reason, because that would lead any reasonable person to conclude there is no god. However, if FrGambel is an example, Catholics put the cart before the horse. Their thinking is "there is a god, let's use reason to prove it."

Quote: boymimbo

Faith *is* a blind leap. I have no proof that my Christian God exists, but I believe in Him as so. It's the foundation in fact of Lutheranism and separates it from Catholicism.



And I don't really care that EvenBob, s2ubaker, and Nareed are athiests who don't believe in God. My belief is not based on anything rational at all. It is purely spiritual in nature.

As a scientist, I can accept that all of our scientific theories and discoveries are based on observation (some are not). None of these theories or equations suggest that there is a Christian God. The fact that we exist and that the world exists can be explained through evolution. The beauty of this planet is all explainable and doesn't have to include God, but it doesn't preclude HIM either.

I see no common sense, logic, or substantial evidence that God exists.

Then you can't justify the hope of salvation you allege to have;

Quote: I Peter 3:15

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

This passage is the basis for all apologetics - a divine mandate.

So, it appears that in a sense you've failed morally. I will also reiterate: "spiritual" does not mean "mystical" or "emotional" - the rational is half of the spiritual; the other 90% is the aesthetic.

Quote: EvenBob

Imagine what it was like when Catholics could
do a lot more than rub you the wrong way for
not agreeing with them. The attitude still exists
of 'its their way or the highway', but their fangs
have been removed.

To be fair, let's remember what FrGamble said about the Spanish and Italian Inquisition - it wasn't Catholics killing heretics, yada-yada, and heresy meant no asylum from treason - but that doesn't get the Church off the chopping block for Salem!

Quote: boymimbo

Faith *is* a blind leap. I have no proof that my Christian God exists, but I believe in Him as so. It's the foundation in fact of Lutheranism and separates it from Catholicism.

And I don't really care that EvenBob, s2ubaker, and Nareed are athiests who don't believe in God. My belief is not based on anything rational at all. It is purely spiritual in nature.

As a scientist, I can accept that all of our scientific theories and discoveries are based on observation (some are not). None of these theories or equations suggest that there is a Christian God. The fact that we exist and that the world exists can be explained through evolution. The beauty of this planet is all explainable and doesn't have to include God, but it doesn't preclude HIM either.

I see no common sense, logic, or substantial evidence that God exists.

Martin Gardner, the esteemed writer on various mathematical and logical condrums in the Scientific American had a similar position (a more Deistic one, but the same sort of idea). It's a fair position to have, in my book.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

To be fair, let's remember what FrGamble said about the Spanish and Italian Inquisition - it wasn't Catholics killing heretics

They only tortured them into confession, and had
somebody else kill them. Thats OK?

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Then you can't justify the hope of salvation you allege to have;

1 Peter 3:15 -- but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

This passage is the basis for all apologetics - a divine mandate.

So, it appears that in a sense you've failed morally. I will also reiterate: "spiritual" does not mean "mystical" or "emotional" - the rational is half of the spiritual; the other 90% is the aesthetic.

Thanks, Serpent. I have to think that one through. The quote is "always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence".

To me, what that is saying is for me to defend my faith, and that my statement that common sense, etc does not prove that God exists are at odds.

I guess my response is that in this forum, I really can't hope to reason with anyone that God exists. Where are we at, post 512 or so? Has anyone been convinced? And really, I don't want to. It probably makes me a weak Christian. But scientifically, I really can't prove that God exists -- there's no equation in this universe for the existence of God. However, I have faith in my heart that God indeed exists, and that's all I got. I can't even trust that it's a Christian God that exists, as I really don't think it's right for other religions to exist yet they don't get a shot at heaven simply because they believe in Vishnu, the Buhhda, or Mohammed. When you start to apply reason to my faith, it all falls apart.

Let me begin by apologizing if my tone is indeed at times chiding. I do get frustrated at the often mean attacks on faith, often covered with clever sarcasm and wit. My responses can at times return fire but not nearly as effectively or subtly as others. I’ll try to tone it down a little bit, but dry and polite responses are not that much fun on such a lively forum. Also I don’t know about you but I am tired of religion always being the whipping boy and having to just shut up and take often egregious comments. Anyway a lot to respond to:

Quote: boymimbo

I see no common sense, logic, or substantial evidence that God exists.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats why religion is mysterious and attractive to
many people. You can be as goofy as you want
when it comes to worship, and who's to say you're
wrong. Or right. Maybe everybodies right to some
extent, even atheists.

For a time religion may be attractive to people because of the mystery, but I also think that the idea there is no common sense, logic, or evidence to believe God to exist is an idea that eventually kills our faith. It is like the seed scattered on the rocky soil. It sprouts immediately but withers because it does not have sufficient depth.

Quote: boymimbo

Faith *is* a blind leap. I have no proof that my Christian God exists, but I believe in Him as so. It's the foundation in fact of Lutheranism and separates it from Catholicism.

Quote: Mosca

See, that's it. That's where it's at for believers, and where it should be. It doesn't get any stronger than that. "Thank you for your arguments. I believe. Now may we get on with other things?"

Again I reiterate that in my understanding Faith is NOT a blind leap. I agree with boymimbo in many things, most importantly our love for Jesus Christ, but IMO belief without reason is unnatural. Let me explain because we may be closer than we think. Naturally as human beings blessed with the amazing power of our intellect and reason we use it for every decision we make in life. For faith to not engage our reason and be solely an act of the will would be to discount this unique and essential part of us given by our creator. For me a true human act must engage our minds and not just our heart. Now Luther’s understanding of salvation through faith alone has already been reconciled between our two denominations ( JOINT DECLARATIONON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church ). We are saved by God’s grace alone, which makes our act of faith supernatural in its adherence to revelation and our understanding of who Jesus is, etc. However, when I am speaking about faith as a reasonable act I am speaking only that I believe through the light of human reason alone we can clearly understand the possibility of a Divine Creator.

All this mumbo-jumbo you hear people saying about evidence and proof is baloney. Nobody lives their lives in a world where every decision is made with rock solid proof and flashing lights that say “do this” or “believe that”. However we all live our life making reasonable decisions that are based in past experiences, reason, logic, and common sense. I don’t have proof that the car is going to stop at the red light but I believe he will because of a multitude of factors, so I move ahead. Atheists seem to me like they are stuck at the red light waiting to be perfectly sure that the strange person in the other lane won’t run the light. They want to know without any possibility of error that they won’t be wrong, so they stall and stay put. We don’t want to race across the intercession without even checking to see if a car is coming, nor do we want to stop the car and refuse to move because we are not 100% sure; both are unnatural acts for us as human beings.

I’ve gotta thank the Serpent for quoting one of my favorite verses:

Quote: I Peter 3:15

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

“to make a defense” is often translated as “to give an explanation” or my favorite “to give a reason”.

Quote: boymimbo

It probably makes me a weak Christian. But scientifically, I really can't prove that God exists -- there's no equation in this universe for the existence of God. However, I have faith in my heart that God indeed exists, and that's all I got. I can't even trust that it's a Christian God that exists, as I really don't think it's right for other religions to exist yet they don't get a shot at heaven simply because they believe in Vishnu, the Buhhda, or Mohammed. When you start to apply reason to my faith, it all falls apart.

Brother in Christ, this does not make you a weak Christian at all! The heart has a wisdom all its own and you have a good heart as evidenced by your questions about other religions. All you need to do is study our faith a little bit and you will see that all of these questions you have are answered in beautiful and pastoral ways. The first step though is to recognize that indeed you need to apply reason to your faith in big doses! I feel like you are in cardiac arrest, slap some paddles of reason and shock that good heart of yours back to life! You will find that applying reason to your faith will make it stronger than ever. Quick read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and Dare We Hope that all men be saved? by Hans Urs von Balthasar.

Quote: FrGamble

Quick read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Oh god, the biggest Christian Apologist of
the 20th century. What a hoot.. Their
goal is to try and rationalize an irrational
religion. The fact that Christianity needs
an army of apologists should tell us something
immediately. It can't stand on its own, it
constantly needs to be explained.

Quote: FrGamble

Let me begin by apologizing if my tone is indeed at times chiding.

I've no objection to your tone at all. You've been, mostly, a gentleman in your time at the WoV community. It's your ideology I object to. Remember I told you we're at war? Well, you're a nice enemy, but still the enemy (I think there may be acompliment buried in there...)

Quote:

For a time religion may be attractive to people because of the mystery, but I also think that the idea there is no common sense, logic, or evidence to believe God to exist is an idea that eventually kills our faith. It is like the seed scattered on the rocky soil. It sprouts immediately but withers because it does not have sufficient depth.

Since we're not being sarcastic, I'll forego the obvious answer. Instead I'll say: very apt analogy,a nd, for once, completely true.

Quote:

Again I reiterate that in my understanding Faith is NOT a blind leap.

As I often say when I hit bad traffic after a brief and blissful stretch of light traffic "Hasta aquí llegamos."

Quote:

All this mumbo-jumbo you hear people saying about evidence and proof is baloney. Nobody lives their lives in a world where every decision is made with rock solid proof and flashing lights that say “do this” or “believe that”.

The other month a coworker and I were rushing to gather some odd samples. This involved hitting a posh side of town where parking isn't problematic, it's well-nigh impossible. I left the car with a free-lance valet parking guy. Now, I know such people operate here and there in town, but I ahd no rational basis for just handing my car over to a stranger. Had I not been rushed and a little bit desperate, I wouldn't ahve done it. Afterwards it took me a while to locate the guy so he could return the car. He did. So everything came out fine, but it was a stupid thing to do. I acted without clear evidence that it was safe to do so. I acted on faith.

No, people don't need evidence for every decision they make, they dont' need proof for every claim presented either. but when it matters, as when you're handing your new car to a stranger, not to mentiona trunk half-full of samples, you should not take it on faith that your car and cargo will be safe.

And if you think a very big decision like what is the fundamental nature of the universe, a choice that will shape your views of morality and ethics among other things, should be undertaken without evidence, you should think again.

Quote:

However we all live our life making reasonable decisions that are based in past experiences, reason, logic, and common sense. I don’t have proof that the car is going to stop at the red light but I believe he will because of a multitude of factors, so I move ahead.

Again, that's evidence. Your past expereince is evidence. And if I had seen or heard god in the past, I might believe in him. Still,w hen I cross at a red light and cars are still moving towards the intersection, I'm more careful than when they are stopped. I do not take it on faith that no one will run a red light.

Quote:

Atheists seem to me like they are stuck at the red light waiting to be perfectly sure that the strange person in the other lane won’t run the light. They want to know without any possibility of error that they won’t be wrong, so they stall and stay put.

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

Quote: boymimbo

....Scientifically, I really can't prove that God exists -- there's no equation in this universe for the existence of God. However, I have faith in my heart that God indeed exists, and that's all I got. I can't even trust that it's a Christian God that exists, as I really don't think it's right for other religions to exist yet they don't get a shot at heaven simply because they believe in Vishnu, the Buhhda, or Mohammed. When you start to apply reason to my faith, it all falls apart.

Your honesty puts you a whole degree above nearly all Christian apologists; a moral success. In the spirit of Pai-Gow Poker, your score is a push.

Seriously, the real problem with what I'll call natural or mystical religions is that while they (at their best) possess internal logical, philosophic consistency and thus pass the "first test" of theory validation, almost all break down under the "second test"of viability or empirical validation. That's why there's such a war between Creationist apologists and Evolution scientists, and the former grouping appear to be masters of propoganda.

Here's a link to someboby who is just behind my conception and just ahead of my presentation of the TAG - Truth About God.

Quote: FrGamble

Brother in Christ, this does not make you a weak Christian at all! The heart has a wisdom all its own and you have a good heart as evidenced by your questions about other religions. All you need to do is study our faith a little bit and you will see that all of these questions you have are answered in beautiful and pastoral ways. The first step though is to recognize that indeed you need to apply reason to your faith in big doses! I feel like you are in cardiac arrest, slap some paddles of reason and shock that good heart of yours back to life! You will find that applying reason to your faith will make it stronger than ever. Quick read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and Dare We Hope that all men be saved? by Hans Urs von Balthasar.

I'm quite happy with my relationship with God. Each person is responsible for their own relationship with their view of the world. I'm not going to push my views of Christianity on anyone else. I just can't tell a Hindu person, a Muslim, or even an athiest that they're wrong, because (evidenced by this forum) all of their counterarguments (unlike global warming) have some degree of merit.

There is no reason to my faith. My personal faith loosely matches my observation of the world, but if I was going to go deeper and try to apply reason to my faith, I'd start with trying to reconcile all of the random suffering in the world with believers. For every "miracle", for example, that cancer was thwarted in someone, there's another "bummer", for example, that some innocent Christian child dies in a car accident or from leukemia. The world is a fantastic, beautiful, place, a "miracle" in its creation. Our own existence in a "miracle", too, but science has taken all of that into account to do all of that without God.

Quote: boymimbo

There is no reason to my faith. My personal faith loosely matches my observation of the world, but if I was going to go deeper and try to apply reason to my faith, I'd start with trying to reconcile all of the random suffering in the world with believers. For every "miracle", for example, that cancer was thwarted in someone, there's another "bummer", for example, that some innocent Christian child dies in a car accident or from leukemia. The world is a fantastic, beautiful, place, a "miracle" in its creation. Our own existence in a "miracle", too, but science has taken all of that into account to do all of that without God.

Read Making Sense of Suffering by Dr. Peter Kreeft

Again my dear brother there is so much good stuff out there that can help you strengthen your faith. I'm just glad you are really searching for answers, the truth will always out if you want it and don't worry you can handle it! God Bless!

p.s. what did you mean by, "but science has taken all of that into account to do all of that without God."?

Quote: Nareed

And if you think a very big decision like what is the fundamental nature of the universe, a choice that will shape your views of morality and ethics among other things, should be undertaken without evidence, you should think again.

Very well put.

Quote: NowTheSerpent

Very well put.

Thanks.

It seems I'm gathering worthwhile admirers recently. Just like a regular Dominique Francon... without the looks, the youth or the dark mood (well, not that dark, anyway) ;)

Quote: FrGamble

Read Making Sense of Suffering by Dr. Peter Kreeft

Yet another Christian Apologist. You know, there
are actually Christian scholars who believe the
Gospel can and should be able to stand on its
own merits without having to be constantly 'explained'
by an army of apologists. They take the stance
that "the best argument is one that is made
without words."

Quote: Nareed

And if you think a very big decision like what is the fundamental nature of the universe, a choice that will shape your views of morality and ethics among other things, should be undertaken without evidence, you should think again.

Very well put. I totally agree that such a decision should be made carefully and with evidence. However, the gravity and importance of this decision does not mean that you never make the decision if you can't find the smoking gun or neon sign telling you exactly what to do. Maybe another example would help. Think of the decision to propose to a loved one. Can you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person will say yes and will continue to say yes 20 or 60 years down the road? There is evidence, many of it very personal to you, that gives you the courage to undertake that decision. The lover acts reasonably and with faith. The two need to go together. If you acted without reason you may run up to some beautiful stranger and fall on one knee, propose, and get arrested. If you acted without faith, well you would never ask.

Quote: FrGamble

Can you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person will say yes and will continue to say yes 20 or 60 years down the road? There is evidence, many of it very personal to you, that gives you the courage to undertake that decision. The lover acts reasonably and with faith. The two need to go together. If you acted without reason you may run up to some beautiful stranger and fall on one knee, propose, and get arrested. If you acted without faith, well you would never ask.

How did that work out for Kim Kardashian?

Quote: FrGamble

Very well put. I totally agree that such a decision should be made carefully and with evidence.

Why haven't you?

Quote:

However, the gravity and importance of this decision does not mean that you never make the decision if you can't find the smoking gun or neon sign telling you exactly what to do.

Your implication is that I'm languishing in wait. You could be more wrong, but you're not. No evidence at all, none, not even an infinitesimal fraction of a sub-atomic iota, points towards the existence of anything remotely resembling a deity. So I just quit wasting my time expecting any.

On the plus side, for what it may be worth to you, your condescension is starting to get annoying ;)

Quote:

Maybe another example would help. Think of the decision to propose to a loved one. Can you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person will say yes and will continue to say yes 20 or 60 years down the road?

That's not the relevant question. the question is: do I love him enough to want to spend my life with him?

I really don't see why you think people need to become omniscient in order to act.

Quote: FrGamble

p.s. what did you mean by, "but science has taken all of that into account to do all of that without God."?

Perhaps a reference to the "God of the Gaps"?

Quote: Nareed

No evidence at all, none, not even an infinitesimal fraction of a sub-atomic iota, points towards the existence of anything remotely resembling a deity. So I just quit wasting my time expecting any.
On the plus side, for what it may be worth to you, your condescension is starting to get annoying ;)

Your giving up the hope of any evidence and stubborn refusal to accept any probably has something to do with you not finding any. Most rational people who have not closed their minds to this issue admit that there is proof literally all around us of at least a creator. I could understand a little your refusal to have faith because of evidence you find that there is no God or because you think there is not enough evidence. You sound just plain silly (and yes, very annoying) when you don't allow for any evidence showing the possibility of a divine creator.

Quote: Nareed

I really don't see why you think people need to become omniscient in order to act.

That is exactly my point. You don't need to be omniscient to act in life or to make a reasonable decision. Yet it seems like many atheists are looking for a complete and perfect knowledge that there is a God before making the reasonable decision to believe in God. Of course they are not hindered by the lack of incontrovertible proof that there is no God before making that decision.