Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Faith and Reason in a Philosophical Framework

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 8:52:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My recent conversations about morality and objectivity have reminded me of some thoughts I had on the subject of faith versus reason a while back.

One of my closest friends is a young earth creationist. Of course, he didn't start out as one of my closest friends. He became my partner at work, and the first time he told me that, I seriously thought he was kidding; with the wealth of data we have supporting the idea of an old earth, and with the respect I already had for him, I couldn't imagine he was a YEC.

But then he said this (and I'm paraphrasing):

I know that there's a lot of evidence to support what you just said. And I know my entire argument boils down to 'Goddidit'. And I'm okay with that.

I have never respected a theist or a YEC more. He's going to be a preacher in his own church soon.

I posit that it's perfectly reasonable, to me, to be a Last Thursday-ist (which is a dismissive term, granted, but one I don't think he'd begrudge me using to make the broader point), if you recognize you base it on faith alone. So long as you also recognize you'll convince no one else based on your own faith, and that you it is unreasonable to base policy thoughts on things you can't support except with faith.

He and I never had an argument (well... at least on that subject), because I could totally respect his respect for what faith and reason actually were.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 9:17:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not just that "Goddidit" is their answer, but as is so often stated in statements of faith on young-earth creation-science websites; such as Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis:

- By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed
- evidence in any field, including history and chronology,
- can be valid if it contradicts (Ken Ham's interpretation
- of) the scriptural record.

The parenthetical is added for clarity. That can be paraphrased, without successful rebuttal, as:

- We, young-earth creation-science promoters, have
- our interpretation of the Bible regarding the age
- of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and
- its interpretation to the contrary.

That makes quibbling about the technical, complex, scientific details unnecessary and better left to those more qualified to consider.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 4:38:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 8:52:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My recent conversations about morality and objectivity have reminded me of some thoughts I had on the subject of faith versus reason a while back.

One of my closest friends is a young earth creationist. Of course, he didn't start out as one of my closest friends. He became my partner at work, and the first time he told me that, I seriously thought he was kidding; with the wealth of data we have supporting the idea of an old earth, and with the respect I already had for him, I couldn't imagine he was a YEC.

But then he said this (and I'm paraphrasing):

I know that there's a lot of evidence to support what you just said. And I know my entire argument boils down to 'Goddidit'. And I'm okay with that.

I have never respected a theist or a YEC more. He's going to be a preacher in his own church soon.

I posit that it's perfectly reasonable, to me, to be a Last Thursday-ist (which is a dismissive term, granted, but one I don't think he'd begrudge me using to make the broader point), if you recognize you base it on faith alone. So long as you also recognize you'll convince no one else based on your own faith, and that you it is unreasonable to base policy thoughts on things you can't support except with faith.

He and I never had an argument (well... at least on that subject), because I could totally respect his respect for what faith and reason actually were.

Except that's not what faith and reason are. Faith informs reason. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christian faith is not a blind faith, and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 7:27:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Except that's not what faith and reason are. Faith informs reason. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."....

That's ridiculous. "evidence of things not seen" is, in this context, a contradiction. There is no evidence if there is no evidence seen.

Christian faith is not a blind faith,

No? You deny evidence you DO have in favor of faith, if you're a YEC. That's pretty much the definition of blind faith.

and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.

I take it you aren't a YEC, then?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RLBaty
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 7:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 7:27:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote to keytarhero, in part:

I take it you aren't a YEC, then?

I think he said elsewhere he accepts a "literal" interpretation of the Bible. That could be a pretty good implication that he is YEC.

Maybe he will tell us explicitly.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:02:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 7:27:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Except that's not what faith and reason are. Faith informs reason. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."....

That's ridiculous. "evidence of things not seen" is, in this context, a contradiction. There is no evidence if there is no evidence seen.

Its not ridiculous. If you look back on your life and realize that every piece of wisdom your dad taught you turned out to be true, even though sometimes you had doubted him, well, that's "evidence of things not seen" as in you have faith that he will be right the next time he teaches you something.


Christian faith is not a blind faith,

No? You deny evidence you DO have in favor of faith, if you're a YEC. That's pretty much the definition of blind faith.

I'm a YEC, and my faith is certainly not blind.



and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.

Exactly.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:02:03 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Its not ridiculous. If you look back on your life and realize that every piece of wisdom your dad taught you turned out to be true, even though sometimes you had doubted him, well, that's "evidence of things not seen" as in you have faith that he will be right the next time he teaches you something.

Not until you're looking back on your life, though. That's "evidence of things not seen AT THE TIME", which is a different thing.

and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.

Exactly.

Well, if you believe in something despite evidence to the contrary, you are rejecting reason in favor of a faith in god, which is blind because you are not seeing any reason to have faith in him. Religion is the express rejection of reason in the area of the supernatural. Nowhere else would the arguments generally used to justify faith in god be sufficient. For example: if you have no evidence of a young earth, or of creationism, except for a book that you KNOW you're interpreting, and that you can't prove is true, you're not using "reason" if you assert a young earth. You're using faith.

And there's 2 major different kinds of faith. There's faith based on good reasons, such as a father who consistently gives good advice (and so, therefore, inductively you can assume his next piece of advice is going to be good), and then there's faith that is not based on any specific evidence. I would call that faith "blind", perhaps you would not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:01:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 7:27:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Except that's not what faith and reason are. Faith informs reason. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."....

That's ridiculous. "evidence of things not seen" is, in this context, a contradiction. There is no evidence if there is no evidence seen.

I don't agree with that. There was evidence for the Higgs Boson before anybody ever saw one. So of course there can be evidence of things not seen.

But in the case of Hebrews 11:1, I don't think "evidence of things not seen" is talking about visual perception. Rather, it's talking about something in the future that hasn't happened yet. The phrases, "Substance of things hoped for," and "evidence of things not seen," both refer to the same thing--the future resurrection. This is a typical doublet, which you see in a lot of Hebrew poetry, where there are two statements, and the second is just another way of saying the first. The future resurrection is hoped for because it's in the future, and it is not seen in the sense that it isn't a present reality. So Hebrews 11:1 doesn't have anything to do with believing something you have no reason to think is true.

Consider Romans 8:18-25. Paul said, "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it."

We can see from this passage hope is an expectation that is not presently "seen." When Paul says, "seen," he's obviously not talking about visual perception, but about present reality. Hope is always future directed. The reason we don't "see" the object of our hope is because it's in the future. If you look at the context of this passage, Paul is talking about our resurrections. We have a hope for a future resurrection to eternal life. It is not something we "see" in the future.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence that we will be raised from the dead in the future, so these passages do not support defining "faith" as a belief in something without evidence.

In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul says that offices were appointed in the church for equipping the saints "until we all attain to a unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God." If Paul understood "faith" to be a belief without justification, then this would be an incoherent statement because faith and knowledge would be mutually exclusive. Knowledge is justified true belief by the most ordinary use of the word.

I wrote a series of blog entries showing that the New Testament authors emphatically did not advocate believing things without evidence or justification. In fact they taught just the opposite. So the common modern understanding of "faith" as belief without justification is not at all what they meant by "pistis." Rather than going into detail, I'll just leave you with a link to my blog in case you want to read it: http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

Christian faith is not a blind faith,

No? You deny evidence you DO have in favor of faith, if you're a YEC. That's pretty much the definition of blind faith.

No, it's not. YECist are faced with a dilemma--do they accept the authority of modern science, or do they accept the authority of the Bible (or their interpretation of the Bible). It could be that many of them have what seems to them to be good justification for trusting the Bible, and they find that justification to be stronger than for trusting modern science. So, they side with the Bible.

But most of the ones I've known don't just deny scientific evidence. Rather, they attempt to shoehorn scientific evidence into their theory. Many of them actually believe the science is on their side. They made be badly mistaken, but this is not an example of blind faith.

and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.

I take it you aren't a YEC, then?

I don't know how you got that from what he said. I agree with him, but I'm not a YECist.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:50:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 8:52:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My recent conversations about morality and objectivity have reminded me of some thoughts I had on the subject of faith versus reason a while back.

One of my closest friends is a young earth creationist.

I had a friend who said once that he thought Sarah Palin was a great leader. We had a discussion. He didn't feel the same way when the discussion was over. The point? We have a responsibility to keep our friends from having absurd views/being stupid and/or ignorant.

Of course, he didn't start out as one of my closest friends. He became my partner at work, and the first time he told me that, I seriously thought he was kidding; with the wealth of data we have supporting the idea of an old earth, and with the respect I already had for him, I couldn't imagine he was a YEC.

That would be more awkward than a relative coming out of the closet at thanksgiving after a few too many glasses of wine at a dinner table filled with middle aged Republicans.

But then he said this (and I'm paraphrasing):

I know that there's a lot of evidence to support what you just said. And I know my entire argument boils down to 'Goddidit'. And I'm okay with that.

I have never respected a theist or a YEC more. He's going to be a preacher in his own church soon.

Woe unto the sheep.

I posit that it's perfectly reasonable, to me, to be a Last Thursday-ist (which is a dismissive term, granted, but one I don't think he'd begrudge me using to make the broader point), if you recognize you base it on faith alone. So long as you also recognize you'll convince no one else based on your own faith, and that you it is unreasonable to base policy thoughts on things you can't support except with faith.

Faith and science don't overlap.

He and I never had an argument (well... at least on that subject), because I could totally respect his respect for what faith and reason actually were.

At least he's intellectually honest, even though faith does not tell us positive fact. It's as if he willfully recognizes that he has firmly placed his head up his @$$, is ok with that, and tells people that he knows his head is up his @$$ so as to placate their concern with his head in fact being firmly up his @$$.

I mean this, of course, with all best (love, compassion, empathy and all that jazz) and none of the worst (scorn, judgement, distaste and the like) intentions in mind.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:06:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Faith and science don't overlap?

Faith: complete trust and confidence in something.

I'll bet you have complete trust and confidence in science, so... yea.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:11:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:06:39 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Faith and science don't overlap?

Faith: complete trust and confidence in something.

I'll bet you have complete trust and confidence in science, so... yea.

lol I'll let someone else explain the nonsense of this to you. Tonight, I'm not of a state of mind where I can deal with that comment in a way that is both polite and not condescending.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:14:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:01:31 AM, philochristos wrote:

I don't agree with that. There was evidence for the Higgs Boson before anybody ever saw one. So of course there can be evidence of things not seen.

And the evidence was seen. The context being used here is the ABSENCE of evidence. That's why it's a contradiction.

The future resurrection is hoped for because it's in the future, and it is not seen in the sense that it isn't a present reality.

And, as there is no evidence other than the bible for it being something that will happen, believing in it is blind faith.

So Hebrews 11:1 doesn't have anything to do with believing something you have no reason to think is true.

I disagree.


Consider Romans 8:18-25. Paul said, "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it."

Right. Paul is extolling the virtue of blind faith/hope, here, trying to claim that if there IS evidence, it's no longer hope. That, to me, is the very definition of blind faith.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence that we will be raised from the dead in the future, so these passages do not support defining "faith" as a belief in something without evidence.

Yes, they do. Paul is expressly saying "Well, if you had evidence, it wouldn't be HOPE".


In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul says that offices were appointed in the church for equipping the saints "until we all attain to a unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God." If Paul understood "faith" to be a belief without justification, then this would be an incoherent statement because faith and knowledge would be mutually exclusive. Knowledge is justified true belief by the most ordinary use of the word.

That Paul may have made an incoherent but pretty statement means your interpretation must be true? That's the old "X=Y, I don't like Y, therefore not X" canard.


I wrote a series of blog entries showing that the New Testament authors emphatically did not advocate believing things without evidence or justification. In fact they taught just the opposite. So the common modern understanding of "faith" as belief without justification is not at all what they meant by "pistis." Rather than going into detail, I'll just leave you with a link to my blog in case you want to read it: http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

I'm sorry. If you are a Christian in the modern era, you believe in the absence of evidence except for a written word, written in a time when bloodletting was also written down as medical advice. While that doesn't make what you believe untrue necessarily, if you really thought that you shouldn't believe without evidence, you wouldn't believe.


Christian faith is not a blind faith,

No? You deny evidence you DO have in favor of faith, if you're a YEC. That's pretty much the definition of blind faith.

No, it's not. YECist are faced with a dilemma--do they accept the authority of modern science,

No. They have to ignore evidence in order to shoehorn in their version of truth. There is not "authority of modern science" problem here. That's the thing: all that science asserts is testable.

or do they accept the authority of the Bible (or their interpretation of the Bible).

And the bible is not. Well, or at least it's failed every objective test ever put to it.

It could be that many of them have what seems to them to be good justification for trusting the Bible, and they find that justification to be stronger than for trusting modern science. So, they side with the Bible.

That may be true, but if that good justification is "Because I believe", which is every YEC I've ever met, then it's simple faith. Which is fine, if they're being intellectually honest about it.


But most of the ones I've known don't just deny scientific evidence.

REALLY?!?

I'm calling shenanigans. They don't deny ALL scientific evidence, of course. Nothing they can argue supports their position.

Rather, they attempt to shoehorn scientific evidence into their theory. Many of them actually believe the science is on their side. They made be badly mistaken, but this is not an example of blind faith.

Yes, it is. Because that's what it's premised on, and why they attempt the shoehorning. That they've managed, post hoc, to convince themselves that it fits doesn't change the fact that every YEC I've ever asked has admitted that the evidence had no bearing in their decision to be a YEC, and was only something they looked for after the fact.

I don't know how you got that from what he said. I agree with him, but I'm not a YECist.

My point is, that if you are expected to use your reason, you cannot possibly be a YEC in good conscience. YEC claims the universe was still being formed during a time period in which we have pretty damn convincing evidence that humans had been around already for thousands of years, let alone the rest of the earth and the universe. The most the YEC crowd could do in good conscience is reserve judgment, but they aren't doing that at all, they're making actual claims.

Now, one can reject all of that without even looking at it, which is what most YECs did when they became YECs, and instead assume the bible intrepretation you have must be true, but that's a simple argument from authority, in other words, blind faith.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:50:00 AM, YYW wrote:

We have a responsibility to keep our friends from having absurd views/being stupid and/or ignorant.

So I have a responsibility to convince you to give up your religion?

Woe unto the sheep.

Not sure how you can possibly mean that with "all the love and compassion". God forbid he be teach them to be intellectually honest about their beliefs!

Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith. As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith.

This thread seems to be commending this guy for blind faith. I don't why you are praising this dude, like someone else said, he reflects poorly on Christianity, and I think he's an idiot.

As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.

Can someone define faith, please? According to Google Dictionary it is complete confidence and trust in something. That would mean you are not a faithless person, because I'm pretty sure you have complete confidence in SOMETHING. (science?) I believe in the resurrection, partly because of the Shroud of the Turin.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:50:00 AM, YYW wrote:

We have a responsibility to keep our friends from having absurd views/being stupid and/or ignorant.

So I have a responsibility to convince you to give up your religion?

That is not what I said, nor is it an inference which follows.

Woe unto the sheep.

Not sure how you can possibly mean that with "all the love and compassion". God forbid he be teach them to be intellectually honest about their beliefs!

...

Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith. As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.

Faith does not invalidate science, which is what your friend seems to believe. But science can tell us some things... like the age of organic matter.

I don't really care about what your thoughts on faith are (and I don't expect you to care about mine). Either you have it, or you don't. It's your choice. The broader point is that Christianity does not hinge on the age of the earth.

I give your friend credit for seeming to understand the limits of faith (which SO few people actually seem to understand, and even those who understand it seem to feel it necessary to supplement it with fallacious logic) -but I don't give him credit for offering normative arguments for positive truth (or for confusing the two). That's the issue.

And Garrett...

lol.

That is all.
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:39:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:26:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith.

This thread seems to be commending this guy for blind faith. I don't why you are praising this dude, like someone else said, he reflects poorly on Christianity, and I think he's an idiot.

The guy isn't an idiot, and faith is necessarily blind. What is idiotic is to believe that there is something that verifies faith other than faith. Faith is its own justification. But you're Catholic. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.

As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.

Can someone define faith, please? According to Google Dictionary it is complete confidence and trust in something. That would mean you are not a faithless person, because I'm pretty sure you have complete confidence in SOMETHING. (science?) I believe in the resurrection, partly because of the Shroud of the Turin.

Faith- acceptance of belief without evidence to ground that belief. (Normative)
Science- a process of determining fact by repeatable testable methods. (Positive)

Normative =/= Positive

Faith:normative belief::science:positive fact
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 4:38:07 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 1/23/2013 8:52:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
My recent conversations about morality and objectivity have reminded me of some thoughts I had on the subject of faith versus reason a while back.

One of my closest friends is a young earth creationist. Of course, he didn't start out as one of my closest friends. He became my partner at work, and the first time he told me that, I seriously thought he was kidding; with the wealth of data we have supporting the idea of an old earth, and with the respect I already had for him, I couldn't imagine he was a YEC.

But then he said this (and I'm paraphrasing):

I know that there's a lot of evidence to support what you just said. And I know my entire argument boils down to 'Goddidit'. And I'm okay with that.

I have never respected a theist or a YEC more. He's going to be a preacher in his own church soon.

I posit that it's perfectly reasonable, to me, to be a Last Thursday-ist (which is a dismissive term, granted, but one I don't think he'd begrudge me using to make the broader point), if you recognize you base it on faith alone. So long as you also recognize you'll convince no one else based on your own faith, and that you it is unreasonable to base policy thoughts on things you can't support except with faith.

He and I never had an argument (well... at least on that subject), because I could totally respect his respect for what faith and reason actually were.

Except that's not what faith and reason are. Faith informs reason. The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christian faith is not a blind faith, and your friend placing "blind faith" in God is a bad representation of how Christians should be. God gave us the ability to reason; he expects us to use it.

You can reason on the basis of faith. We call that theology. But faith is the basis, and it's a necessarily blind beginning. One can not 'reason' their way to salvation. It's not possible. Grace occurs by faith alone, which is blind.

There is a genealogy to the belief in the incestious nature of faith and reason posited by about half of christendom, that began with the early theologians who penned logical "proofs" for the existence of a god. The enlightenment was the darkest age for faith, however, when belief in god was forced to justify itself and faith was made subservient to reason. In the modern era, all that which is not grounded by empirical evidence is tossed by the wayside as "unreasonable" where "unreasonable" denotes belief that is unfit to hold -it's a term that carries moral implications and philosophical condemnation of thought processes which entertain concepts of the metaphysical. And, it's all hogwash. Bona fide hogwash.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:39:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:26:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith.

This thread seems to be commending this guy for blind faith. I don't why you are praising this dude, like someone else said, he reflects poorly on Christianity, and I think he's an idiot.

The guy isn't an idiot, and faith is necessarily blind. What is idiotic is to believe that there is something that verifies faith other than faith. Faith is its own justification. But you're Catholic. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.

Faith is not necessarily blind. But you're a homosexual. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.


As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.

Can someone define faith, please? According to Google Dictionary it is complete confidence and trust in something. That would mean you are not a faithless person, because I'm pretty sure you have complete confidence in SOMETHING. (science?) I believe in the resurrection, partly because of the Shroud of the Turin.

Faith- acceptance of belief without evidence to ground that belief. (Normative)

Where did you get that definition of faith? Our of your as*?

Science- a process of determining fact by repeatable testable methods. (Positive)

Normative =/= Positive

Faith:normative belief::science:positive fact
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:59:05 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:39:14 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:26:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Faith and science don't overlap.

Which was his exact point, so I'm quite confused what your problem is? He was saying he has faith in a specific viewpoint, that he feels stems from his belief in god. That seems pretty legitimate to me, and seems to be the viewpoint everyone with faith has about their faith.

This thread seems to be commending this guy for blind faith. I don't why you are praising this dude, like someone else said, he reflects poorly on Christianity, and I think he's an idiot.

The guy isn't an idiot, and faith is necessarily blind. What is idiotic is to believe that there is something that verifies faith other than faith. Faith is its own justification. But you're Catholic. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.

Faith is not necessarily blind. But you're a homosexual. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.

Oh, Garrett. I knew that was coming... lol, but I didn't expect you to play that card so soon. You are just hilariously dim. Poor boy.


As a faithless person, I see no difference in his belief of a young earth with an admission that there is no evidence to suport it, and those who have faith in the resurrection.

Can someone define faith, please? According to Google Dictionary it is complete confidence and trust in something. That would mean you are not a faithless person, because I'm pretty sure you have complete confidence in SOMETHING. (science?) I believe in the resurrection, partly because of the Shroud of the Turin.

Faith- acceptance of belief without evidence to ground that belief. (Normative)

Where did you get that definition of faith? Our of your as*?

lol

Science- a process of determining fact by repeatable testable methods. (Positive)

Normative =/= Positive

Faith:normative belief::science:positive fact
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why are you trying to insult me without answering my questions? Do you have an answer, or what?

You're the one who called me stupid just because I'm Catholic. I figured I'd return the favor.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 12:35:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:50:00 AM, YYW wrote:

We have a responsibility to keep our friends from having absurd views/being stupid and/or ignorant.

So I have a responsibility to convince you to give up your religion?

That is not what I said, nor is it an inference which follows.


Oh, yes it is. I find christianity to be absurd stupid, and ignorant. But I don't feel a responsibility to constantly badger friends out of their religion.



Faith does not invalidate science, which is what your friend seems to believe. But science can tell us some things... like the age of organic matter.

I don't really care about what your thoughts on faith are (and I don't expect you to care about mine). Either you have it, or you don't. It's your choice. The broader point is that Christianity does not hinge on the age of the earth.

Okay? He never said it did.


I give your friend credit for seeming to understand the limits of faith (which SO few people actually seem to understand, and even those who understand it seem to feel it necessary to supplement it with fallacious logic) -but I don't give him credit for offering normative arguments for positive truth (or for confusing the two). That's the issue.

And yet you are a Christian. I repeat that I see no difference in the faith in the resurrection and the faith in the YEC model, so long as the fact that it's faith is acknowledged. His point was that he doesn't have "knowledge" on the subject, but only faith.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:19:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:11:00 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Why are you trying to insult me without answering my questions? Do you have an answer, or what?

If you disagree with the conceptual parameters of my definition, then say so. The question of source goes only to the authority of the speaker, which is to say that it begs logical fallacy. That is because no matter what I say, you'd take issue with the source as the basis to invalidate the claim, which is to do nothing to actually challenge the definition I put forward. Because I see no value in the exchange which I know will follow, I'm not going to answer the question.

You're the one who called me stupid just because I'm Catholic. I figured I'd return the favor.

I didn't call you stupid because you're Catholic. I didn't call you stupid at all. I said:

YYW says:
Faith is its own justification. But you're Catholic. I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand that.

Catholic dogma stands in direct opposition to what I just said.
Given that you're Catholic (and you probably at least understand enough about Catholicism to recognize something incongruent to what you were taught), it's proper to infer that to accept the claim I proffered is beyond your capacity of understanding.

Now, to say that something is beyond your capacity of understanding is not to say that you are necessarily stupid -but making remarks which illustrate that you think I am is sufficient to indicate that you think I am somehow "out to get" you.

I'm not. Idgaf what you believe, and I'm not especially interested in changing your mind either.

Now, stop this persecution-victim complex nonsense. It gets old.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:21:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Jesus Christ, YYW, I would rather you ignore me than respond with such rambling. You make everything more complicated than it needs to be.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:22:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:16:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:35:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:19:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/16/2013 12:50:00 AM, YYW wrote:

We have a responsibility to keep our friends from having absurd views/being stupid and/or ignorant.

So I have a responsibility to convince you to give up your religion?

That is not what I said, nor is it an inference which follows.



Oh, yes it is. I find christianity to be absurd stupid, and ignorant. But I don't feel a responsibility to constantly badger friends out of their religion.

You're reading into what I said what you want to think I meant. Stop it.





Faith does not invalidate science, which is what your friend seems to believe. But science can tell us some things... like the age of organic matter.

I don't really care about what your thoughts on faith are (and I don't expect you to care about mine). Either you have it, or you don't. It's your choice. The broader point is that Christianity does not hinge on the age of the earth.

Okay? He never said it did.

He's a YEC.


I give your friend credit for seeming to understand the limits of faith (which SO few people actually seem to understand, and even those who understand it seem to feel it necessary to supplement it with fallacious logic) -but I don't give him credit for offering normative arguments for positive truth (or for confusing the two). That's the issue.

And yet you are a Christian. I repeat that I see no difference in the faith in the resurrection and the faith in the YEC model, so long as the fact that it's faith is acknowledged. His point was that he doesn't have "knowledge" on the subject, but only faith.

Again, I return to the point that I don't really care what your beliefs are, though I applaud the intellectual honesty of your friend.

Anything else?
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:23:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:21:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Jesus Christ, YYW, I would rather you ignore me than respond with such rambling. You make everything more complicated than it needs to be.

roflmao

Why do you think that everything is so simple?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 1:21:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Jesus Christ, YYW, I would rather you ignore me than respond with such rambling. You make everything more complicated than it needs to be.

roflmao

Why do you think that everything is so simple?

Goddidit
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:26:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 1:25:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2013 1:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/16/2013 1:21:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Jesus Christ, YYW, I would rather you ignore me than respond with such rambling. You make everything more complicated than it needs to be.

roflmao

Why do you think that everything is so simple?

Goddidit

Come on, Garret. Think. Use your brain. Why is everything so simple, if you think that is the case?