Why is faith required for ultimate truth?
To be perfectly honest, itâs probably mostly laziness and not enjoying conflict on my part. But a couple of thoughts.
Itâs more interesting to understand other peopleâs points of view even if I donât agree with them, than to convince them of mine.
In my observation, arguing almost never changes anyoneâs mind, and therefore is about as useful as banging your head on the wall.
Given it seldom changes anyoneâs mind, it seems the goal is more often to make ourselves feel good/important/knowledgeable by wining the argument.
The bible gives us lots of explanation of how and why we should show Godâs love to others, but non-that we should convince them by arguing.
Finally, I posted an article a while ago that probably sums things up better than I can. You can find it here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/in-pursuit-of-a-good-conversation/5108
5 Likes
All conclusions require assumptions. Faith (as sometimes defined) is applying assumptions to evidence that is not directly observed. Inductive reasoning is applying evidence to conclusions you have not directly observed. Even if you directly observe something you assume (or have faith) your senses are reliable.
If you believe you have ultimate truth the only vehicle is through reasoning and faith. Thats why atheism is stuck with the saying it lacks belief and is ultimately an argument from ignorance.
All that being said I respect your right to your own beliefs or faith.
1 Like
Sounds like faith is pretending to know something that you really donât know.
An argument is that belief in God allows us to have faith in our senses because they come from an intelligent agent. If our senses are reliable and our brain is capable of analysis our faith has a strong foundation based on inductive reasoning.
Again, you have every right to come to a different conclusion based on the evidence but we are relying on faith in both cases.
1 Like
It is not a âsayingâ. It is the definition of atheism: a lack of belief in deities.
No. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. (The prefix âaâ means without. So an atheist is someone âwithout theism.â) It is not an argument.
It sounds like you have confused atheism with the positions of particular anti-theists.
2 Likes
Miss? Not really. Sadly there is no english phrase that succinctly sums up my feelings, but there is a nice one in spanish. pena ajena. Roughly it means "second-hand embarrassmentâ, or âembarrassment felt on someone elseâs behalfâ.
Yes, I think you should. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to consider this before you started? Perhaps meditate on Luke 14:28-30. Shalom.
3 Likes
I could ask why it wasnât in the Apostles Creed? But seriously, I believe I will stand before God, but I donât think I will be judged for what I didnât know. I think my own conscience will condem me for what I did know but failed to act on. Every unkind thought, every angry word that I later regretted but couldnât unsay. I know that I will have no defence, that I do not deserve to be in his presence. I donât think dating the creation or writing a really impressive essay on the nature of the trinity is going to help me. So I will do the only thing possible, and cast myself on the mercy, love, and grace of my lord and saviour.
4 Likes
I am listening. Thanks for this.
3 Likes
Good luck.
âGood luck.â? I donât think luck has much to do with our relationship with our Savior.
It is a bit difficult to process what âGood luck.â in this context means. It nevertheless seems to risk sounding casually dismissive of @DarrenGâs sincere description of his desire to please the Lord. I hope I am wrong in getting that impression.
4 Likes
To take up the name of Jesus and to confess his death, burial, and resurrection - is that not easy to do?
Let me put you on the spot with a question: is there a group in existence today that confesses the Lord Jesus - his death, burial, and resurrection - that you personally do not think is going to fare well on judgment day?
The Bible says no, it is not. It says that it is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that a person can truly confess (in the sense of the Bibleâs use of the word) the Lordship of Jesus Christ by âtaking up the name of Jesus.â
I would suggest that you post your new topic (a theological question) on its own thread.
Meanwhile, this article will give you some fundamentals, although I no longer share the Dispensationalism of the authorâs rapture views:
You are hesitant and I understand. We are all thinking of that same religious group who confesses Jesus Christ but will not likely âmake it into the Kingdomâ. We are all afraid to name that group but we all know who it is. And that is precisely my point. We must be very careful of what we believe and adopt as our religious ideology because, in the end, it really truly might matter.
That is all I am trying to say regarding you allâs tendency to revise the biblical text. There may be a belief system that is âone belief too farâ.
@PDPrice has already stated that there is no scientific evidence we could present to him that would change his mind. At that point, there is no reason to debate. At best, we could help @PDPrice avoid bad YEC arguments (which would end up being all of them, but I digress).
You can change my mind by presenting solid evidence for your claims, and by demonstrating how YEC is falsifiable. We can be swayed by evidence. However, that doesnât appear to be the case for YECâs.
That is a good question. If no scientific evidence will ever sway you, then why debate science?
3 Likes
I donât think he would have said it that way. What is scientific evidence to you is also evidence to him of a different sort.
Our intuition isnât reliable. This is why we use the scientific method, to weed out mistakes made by human intuition. Faith often removes skepticism which fosters an environment where mistakes are ingrained and protected.
If you test your ideas against reality in an independent and falsifiable manner, then you are not using faith. You are using science.
2 Likes
I would encourage @PDPrice to correct my representation of his position, or add the needed nuance or context. From what I have read here at this site, what I have described is entirely accurate.
In general, YECâs start with the conclusion and then interpret the evidence so that it fits the conclusion. This is the opposite of how science works.
3 Likes
One way forward would be for YECâs todescribe potential falsifications. There are two examples I often fall back on:
-
What physical characteristics would a fossil need to have in order to be evidence for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor?
-
What physical characteristics would a geologic formation need in order to disprove a recent global flood?
If there is no answer to these questions within YEC, then it is a dogma. It means that they arenât interpreting facts, but are instead protecting a conclusion.
3 Likes
PDPrice has already stated thereâs no scientific evidence which would cause him to question his YEC position. r_speir also wonât tell us what evidence would make him change his YLC position. r_speir has been all over the map with his changing old Earth / young Earth claims.