Faith

Originally posted by rwingett
People [b]mainly place their faith in the god of the bible because they were brought up to do so. There are exceptions, of course.[/b]

So what's the point? There are many exceptions.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what's the point? There are many exceptions.

In Saudi Arabia, virtually 100% of the people are Muslim. Do you think it's because they all chose that religion freely, with no constraints, or do you think it's because they were raised in a Muslim society and indoctrinated with its theology from birth?

In the US, about 85% of the people are christian. Once again, do you think it's because they all chose that religion freely, with no constraints, or do you think it's because they were raised in a predominantly christian society and indoctrinated with its theology from birth?

For a vast majority of people across the earth, their "choice" of faith is merely an accident of where they were born. If you had been abducted by Muslims and raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd almost certainly be a Muslim today. But you'd go around thinking you'd made a free and conscious choice in the matter, when in fact your choices are largely pre-conditioned by your upbringing. In societies that are very intolerant of dissent, like Saudi Arabia, your chance of breaking free from that imprint is greatly diminished. Societies with a greater tolerance for divergent opinions and freedom of choice will naturally see more instances of conversion.

The whole point is that you think you've freely chosen your faith, but I maintain that you were pre-conditioned to do so. People can, and sometimes do, choose other faiths than the one they were raised in, but this is by far the exception.

Originally posted by rwingett
In Saudi Arabia, virtually 100% of the people are Muslim. Do you think it's because they all chose that religion freely, with no constraints, or do you think it's because they were raised in a Muslim society and indoctrinated with its theology from birth?

In the US, about 85% of the people are christian. Once again, do you think it's because they all ch hoose other faiths than the one they were raised in, but this is by far the exception.

I will conceede that there is a cultural aspect to religion. In fact, it is sad that for many that is all that religion is for them. For example, my paster, who grew up Jewish, tells a story of him wanting to date a Christian lady. He asked her out on a date and said he had some weed and wanted to party with her. Her response was that she could not do such a thing because she was a Christian. This response, however, baffled him to say the least. To him, her response was like saying, "But I'm Canadian so I can't do such a thing." For him religion was simply what you were born into rather it being a spritual or relational matter in which you chose to serve a higher power that may look down on such behavoir. I am not certain but I have heard similar things about Muslims. I have heard that Islam is viewed to a large extent in the Middle East as a political ideology more than a personal spiritual connection to a higher power. I think the term religion is a broad one much in the way the word love is used. Love can mean a myriad of things to a myriad of people. It could mean a casual friendship, a sexual relationship, or a brotherly bond of some kind. Therefore saying that 85% of Americans are "Christian" I think is somewhat misleading. Another example is about a woman I once heard say that she was Catholic but decided to try out an evangelical church. Another Catholic overheard her statement and said, "But you can't do that! Your not a Christian, you are Catholic!"

As far as 100% of the people in Saudi Arabia being identified as Muslim I would not be suprised at all. After all, when interviewed or questioned what are they going to say? Would they say that they were not Muslim especially in light of their limited religious and political freedoms. It is akin to people saying they were communists in the US back in the 1950's. To do so would be like drawing a huge bull's eye on your back and yelling, "Fire!" Likewise, many of those interviewed in the US who were asked if they were Christian would probably say they are Christian simply because they believe they are not going to hell because they simply believe in God and not becuase they practice their faith in any way shape or form.

As far as religions go, however, I would still have to conclude that if God exists and he wished to interact with man that there would be an ancient religion of some kind that has continued over the ages and miraculously managed to survive despite the odds. I view it as evidence despite the cultural aspects of religious indoctrination that exists with or without a real spiritual connection of some kind. So how many are there? I would point to Judism and those branches of Judism such as Christianity, Islam, etc that point to the God of Abraham as being the true God. I guess you could also point to Hinduism as well, however, it is not quite the world wide religion as the other two and is mainly practiced regionally. As far as my selection of Christianity I would ask, "Where is the Messiah promised to us by the Jews?" I say that Christianity is the only one that declares that these prophecies have come to pass.


Edit: Where have you been? Welcome back. 😀

Originally posted by rwingett
In Saudi Arabia, virtually 100% of the people are Muslim. Do you think it's because they all chose that religion freely, with no constraints, or do you think it's because they were raised in a Muslim society and indoctrinated with its theology from birth?

In the US, about 85% of the people are christian. Once again, do you think it's because they all ch ...[text shortened]... hoose other faiths than the one they were raised in, but this is by far the exception.

Or, sometimes what people call faith may really reflect “a need to believe.” In that case, it is quite possible for someone to change religions without letting go of their need to believe in an authority somewhere that will tell them what they ought to think. In such cases, people may leave the particular religion imbibed from the cultural matrix in which they were raised, but not the attitude that was imbibed along with it.

My main problem with Whodey’s second definition of “faith” is the implication (if it is in fact there) that the only thing that could challenge a belief once reasonably held could be a changing mood. Lewis was pretty bright; perhaps he didn’t intend that.

Well, faith can have a number of definitions—including, I think, the willingness to act on a decision made under conditions of uncertainty. Or, perhaps, the “faith” with which an athlete attempts to make a difficult play under such conditions. In that case, faith is a psychological attitude. It may well improve one’s chances of success, but that’s all.

In a sense, the meaning of the word “faith” is in how people use the word. Lewis’s example, for instance, to suggest to someone that any change of beliefs ought not to be a mood thing. Other people use the word to indicate simple confidence. Etc., etc.

Or, “faith” might be in fact a kind of clinging to a set of beliefs—or to the authority for those beliefs—because one wants to escape from their own authority to decide, and the responsibility that implies (whether this desire is conscious or subconscious).

Sometimes people define a word one way, but actually seem to be using it quite differently; their defintion might be normative within a certain area of discourse, but their use might not be.
________________________________

Welcome back, RW!

Originally posted by whodey
I will conceede that there is a cultural aspect to religion. In fact, it is sad that for many that is all that religion is for them. For example, my paster, who grew up Jewish, tells a story of him wanting to date a Christian lady. He asked her out on a date and said he had some weed and wanted to party with her. Her response was that she could not do suc ...[text shortened]... prophecies have come to pass.


Edit: Where have you been? Welcome back. 😀

I got tired of having the same old arguments all the time, so I took some time away from RHP. I do so periodically. So now I'm ready to engage in the same old arguments yet again.

As for who counts as a bona fide christian, I use the standard dictionary definition. From Wiktionary:

Christian (plural Christians)

1. (Christianity) A person who is a member of the Christian religion, or of a culture based on the Christian religion.
2. (Christianity) An individual who seeks to live their life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.

So this definition clearly includes both cultural christians as well as born again zealots.


If god existed and if he wished to interact with man, then you are correct in saying that there would likely be an ancient religion that has survived. But because there are ancient religions around it does not therefore follow that god exists and that he wishes to interact with man. In other words, a god, if he existed, would be expected to create a religion. That is one possible cause for the existence of a religion. But that is not the only reason by which a religion may arise. It may very well be that religions are wholly man made. To say that the existence of religion demonstrates the existence of god is a bit of circular reasoning.

Originally posted by rwingett

If god existed and if he wished to interact with man, then you are correct in saying that there would likely be an ancient religion that has survived. But because there are ancient religions around it does not therefore follow that god exists and that he wishes to interact with man. In other words, a god, if he existed, would be expected to create a religion ...[text shortened]... that the existence of religion demonstrates the existence of god is a bit of circular reasoning.[/b]

You are correct that the mere existence of an ancient religion does not "prove" the existence of a particular God. After all, we have the God of Abraham as well as the Hindu gods as to surviving ancient religions that exist today. However, I was not attempting to "prove" his existence. My whole point is that my faith is based upon "evidences" of what I percieve to be the truth just as you have "evidences" that prevent you from seeing things my way even though you cannot "prove" me wrong either. Therefore, just the mere fact that the ancient God of Abraham exists today and is such a pervasive force in the religions of today is evidence that he is real even though it is not proof.

Originally posted by vistesd
My main problem with Whodey’s second definition of “faith” is the implication (if it is in fact there) that the only thing that could challenge a belief once reasonably held could be a changing mood. Lewis was pretty bright; perhaps he didn’t intend that.

If I may, I believe Mr. Lewis was referring to a particular scripture for this position.

James 1:5 says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that gives to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, NOTHING wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he will recieve anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

Perhaps he was not referring to this scripture, I don't know, however, it came to mind upon reading his speculations about certain "moods" that potentially could cause one to loose faith at various times thus potentially negating ones faith altogether. For me, I think if one perpetually wavers in ones belief system, one may as well not even have that particular belief system. For example, if I say that I think that lying, killing, stealing, etc is a sin but my life does not consistently reflect this position then what good is my faith? In fact, you could argue that this is worse than one that does not profess to have such a belief system. I am sure you have seen "Christians" such as this in which you begin to loose respect for their position because they are seen as hypocrites. Christ as well was the harshest upon those who were hyporcrites. AFter all, they pollute the message of "good news". The draw to the message are the examples of the lives of those that believe. They are "evidences", if you will, of the power of what lies beyond their belief system.

Originally posted by whodey
As far as my selection of Christianity I would ask, "Where is the Messiah promised to us by the Jews?" I say that Christianity is the only one that declares that these prophecies have come to pass.

After thinking about the prophecies of the Messiah, I guess you could chalk this up as "evidences" as well. Look at the prophecies stating that the Messiah would come from the blood line of Kind David (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5) and how this was fulfilled (Matthew 1:1, 1:6, and Luke 3:31, Romans 1:3-4). Isaiah Chapter 9 tells us that the ministry of the Messiah would start in the region of Galilee in the first verse and then further tells us that the Messiah would be born to us in verse 6 and that his name will be called "Mighty God". Isaiah 7:14 says that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. He will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Isaiah 42 describes how God would begin to reach out to the Gentiles through Christ and then tell us that the Gentiles would in turn reach out to Christ and accpet him in Isaiah 11:10. Zechariah 9:9 tells us that Christ would enter Jerusalem on a donkey and that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and then have his price given for a potter's field in Zech 11:12-13. Isaiah 40:3 tells us of the coming of John the Baptist. And how about the entire chapter of Isaiah 53? It descibes the life of Christ as well as his eventual execution. And what about his execution? Zechariah 12:10 talks about the return of the Messiah as they will look upon him whom they have pierced.

I could go on and on as these are but I find these to be a few of the more compelling prophesies about the Messiah. However, I have saved the best for last. Daniel 9:24-27 give us a time table for the coming of the Messiah. Granted, the language is obscure and hard to interpret, however, hundreds of years after the coming of Christ Jewish scholars wrote in the Tulmud that they interpreted Daniel 9:24-27 as being at the time when Christ walked the earth. Having rejected Christ as the Messiah, however, the Jewish scholars then came up with the conclusion that the Messiah delayed his coming because of the sinfullness of Israel. This is record is one of historical proof and it is the closest I can come to "proving" my position. You can read about it at this web site.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm

So if faith is to be 100% blind, why all the sign posts in terms of prophesy?

Originally posted by trent17
An established religion is evidence of a god however the bible itself was writen by humans and has been changed by the roman catholic church. some of the texts in the bible seem to me contradictory or seem to have no purpose is supporting the faith of god. i have not completly read the bible however a friend told me that it implies that if a person worships ...[text shortened]... of my statement is that i have based it on what a friend told me. please tell me if i am wrong.

The Bible is both a very complicated book as well as having a very simplistic message. It has withstood the test of time and been embraced by many very bright individuals, and I dare say, more intelligent than your friend. As I have attempted to say before, the evidence is out there. You say that you have not read the Bible yet you profess to know all about it via your friend who is probably as ignorant as you as to its contents. So it is really up to you. If you want to know the truth I challenge you to pursue knowing the truth. However, this requires some time and effort on your part. It demands weighing the pro's and con's of the evidence you may uncover and having an open enough mind to do so.

Originally posted by whodey
You are correct that the mere existence of an ancient religion does not "prove" the existence of a particular God. After all, we have the God of Abraham as well as the Hindu gods as to surviving ancient religions that exist today. However, I was not attempting to "prove" his existence. My whole point is that my faith is based upon "evidences" of what I per ...[text shortened]... rce in the religions of today is evidence that he is real even though it is not proof.

Of course I cannot prove you wrong, but I don't need to. It's up to you to prove you're right. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a god exists unless someone can make a convincing case for it. And the mere fact that religions exist falls well short of making that case. Consider the following:

1. Religion exists. This is evidence of god's interaction with mankind, which in turn demonstrates the existence of god. The fact that religion continues to exist is evidence that there must be some truth to the former conclusion.

2. Religion exists. This is evidence of mankind's fertile imagination and his desire to explain the unknowable. The fact that religion continues to exist is evidence of the culturally self-reinforcing nature of those religious institutions.

Which of these two explanations is more "believable?" The answer is no. 2. Why? Simply because it is the more parsimonious of the two explanations. It is the least complex of the two as well as requiring the fewest number of assumptions. That doesn't mean it's true, but it does give it a greater likelihood of being true. This means that the mere existence of religion will count as evidence toward the existence of god only for those who are already predisposed to believe it. Which is to say that it does not count as evidence at all, for in order to do so it must be able to persuade those who are NOT predisposed to believe it.

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course I cannot prove you wrong, but I don't need to. It's up to you to prove you're right. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a god exists unless someone can make a convincing case for it. And the mere fact that religions exist falls well short of making that case. Consider the following:

1. Religion exists. This is evidence of god's inter order to do so it must be able to persuade those who are NOT predisposed to believe it.

I never intended to prove my position, rather, it is simply evidence. However, here is another way of looking at things. Consider the following two possibilities:

1. The God of Abraham is real and is the power behind reaching out to mankind via his word.

2. The God of Abraham is not real and by mere chance he has survived since ancient times as well as the ancient texts about him having survived since ancient times as well as his chosen people surviving since ancient times as well as prophesies from his ancient texts coming true even though they were written during ancient times as well as prophesies of the future seemingly ready to spring to life during our present time. I am not sure you are aware but prophesies about the "End of Days" revolve around the naiton of Israel and nations moving against Israel much like the nations of the world moved against Iraq in Desert Storm. Is it uncanny or simply by chance?

Which of these two scenerios are more believable? I say the first is the most believable since it seems to me to be the most simplistic and statistically believable. That does not mean it is true either, however, it is a good indication.

Originally posted by whodey
C.S Lewis

Very far from being in the first rank as a philosopher, although without equal as a writer of children's fiction featuring wardrobes, lions, and Turkish delight.

Originally posted by dottewell
Very far from being in the first rank as a philosopher, although without equal as a writer of children's fiction featuring wardrobes, lions, and Turkish delight.

So what criteria must one attain to be a philosopher worthy of your consideration, rather than being dissed as a total waste of your time?

Originally posted by whodey
So what criteria must one attain to be a philosopher worthy of your consideration, rather than being dissed as a total waste of your time?

Now, now. I didn't say he was a "complete waste of time".

If your question is "what makes a philosopher of the first rank?", the answer is presumably something complex to do with power, cogency and insightfulness of position/argument; in reality (for the academic world) it probably also includes influence over later thinkers, though it shouldn't.

Originally posted by dottewell
Now, now. I didn't say he was a "complete waste of time".

If your question is "what makes a philosopher of the first rank?", the answer is presumably something complex to do with power, cogency and insightfulness of position/argument; in reality (for the academic world) it probably also includes influence over later thinkers, though it shouldn't.

So what rank would Jesus Christ attain in your estimation in terms of being a philisopher? Especially in light of his simplisitic message.