No Worries!
Okay, I'm not going back to reread definitions so if you insist on using your definitions, then Faith without evidence is something I don't do. I require evidence or reasoned logic to have faith ( -_- geez, that feels weird saying I have faith...). I generally don't use the word 'Faith' because of the religious connotation it implies. A majority of people (including Theists of all stripes) generally accept Faith to be the religious form of "Trust without, or in lieu of, Evidence". I still feel this will cause confusion, but whatever.
So to highlight my point, You accepted the position that Christianity is true before you looked at the evidence. He does the same with Islam and the teachings of Mohammed. Both of you make claims of fact based on your respective positions of faith (or as you insist, trust without evidence).
I had him give me a quick hand in responding to your claims regarding Islam and Mohammed - To highlight the similarity of your respective positions, he is still very convinced you're all mistaken (as am I according to him
), this is how he responded:
"- Christianity predates Islam by 500-600 years." <== Judaism predates Christianity - your point?
"- Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and not God the Son" <== Judaism agrees with Islam, in fact the Jews (of which Jesus was one) are still awaiting their Savior, Emannuel Christ. Jesus shared may traits with Mohammed, he was born of a virgin, witnessed and coralled God's miracles, and ascended to heaven in his bodily form.
"- islam borrows stories from gnostic texts." <== Both the Qur'An and the Hadeef are original works and teachings of Mohammed the Prophet. The 'Bible' is a mish-mash collection of writings from largely unknown authors, many of which may themselves be false prophets, or not prophets at all (this is a big thing with Muslims apparently, they consider much of the bible, which wasn't canonised until well after Islam carried the last message from Allah to humanity, is blasphemy against Allah).
"- islam rejects the trinity." <== As does Judaism. Many Muslims consider Christianity to be polytheism and a cult because of it - especially because Allah stated "There shall be no other gods before me".
"- islam - cannot have a relationship with God, Christianity you can." <== All True Muslims are in unity with Allah and have a direct relationship with him.
"- allah not the true name of God." <== Nor is 'God' depending on which Christian he talks to - that said, Allah simply means 'God' in arabic.
"- islam influenced by nestorianism, gnostic and possibly aryan religions." <== unfounded nonsense from a disbeliever
"- Quran not accurate re bible stories." <== bible not accurate itself. As mentioned, Christianity carried many scriptural stories that weren't included in the bible, yet the bible mentions and references - there are also many scriptures that were carried and preached throughout the history of Christianity that weren't included in the Canonical writings even though they were written by the same author with work that is included in the Canon.
"- islam claims re Jesus contradict what Jesus claims of Himself, islam contradicts NT." <== there are many false teachings in the Bible (that wasn't canonised until well after Islam
Islam also makes a claim that it is the final conclusion to both Judaism and Christianity. <== This is True.
The quranic verse of surah ahzaab tells us that mohammad was the last prophet and messenger sent to mankind. <== This is True
Mohammad is not a prophet sent from God. <== This is False, and Blasphemes Allah and his prophet Mohammed.
So, this response of his sums up the problem succinctly. You both believe you're right because you both accept something as true first before looking at the evidence. You both have ample points that refute the other and claim the 'Truth' of your respective religions. He, like You, was born into a family that was islamic from the outset and has always known Allah.
Do you know anything of confirmation bias as studied in psychology? Are you aware of the scientific literature that demonstrates confirmation bias?
Going by the last point I raised, I can quite easily accept Allah as the true creator of the Universe and Mohammed as his final prophet on the same amount of evidence, and then like 1.2 billion muslims before me, accept all the rewards after this as confirming my presuppositional acceptance of Islam. His mum is funny about this, she has a thousand stories of 'miracles' that prove Allah is wonderful. If I took your position (as Mr Khalafalla's mother has), then this would equally confirm that predisposed position of trust without evidence.... in Allah and Islam!
So, Again, No! The Child has previous experience! Whether by force of authority or by prior experience, the child is making the decision to obey because it knows there are repercussions! When a child first starts becoming mobile (and may not yet speak), the first thing it has to learn is when the parent says "No!" - it never starts out knowing what "No!" means, you have to teach it, often with a light tap on the wrist - this becomes experience and it eventually knows to obey because of the repercussions - "Trust" with "Evidence" - in this case, that is personal experience of the repercussions.... otherwise it'd be a matter of time before it chews on something it shouldn't, or swallows something that will hurt it, etc.
Righto, I don't have a religious outlook, so we can drop 'Spiritual' then... I have plenty of principles and standards though, and I have material things, though my life certainly doesn't revolve around them. I'm well off financially though, not rich by any means, but well off. I spend much of my time and money helping others - I give to Fred Hollows foundation (in honour of an Aussie Eye Doctor who passed away some time ago) and the Red Cross, I support my kids, and step kids wherever possible and generally keep active doing a number of sports and hobbies.
How do you know your experience, message, dream, etc came from God? How do you verify this to yourself, or do you just accept it has to be from God without contest?
A damascus road experience would do it, I guess? Even a risen Jesus appearing to me would also do it, I'm sure.
Because it isn't an assumption, I have first hand experience witnessing the plank and/or chair in operation, even if it is by others and not me. I can touch the chair, I can test it tentatively before I sit on it (i.e., I can check its tensile strength by rocking or shaking it, leaning on it or pushing down on it, etc. Same for the plank across the trench. I have a reasoned position to put tentative trust in the chair and/or plank to do their intended jobs. My tentative trust is not 100% and may change if new data comes in, but I DON'T have to assume they work without ever experiencing these things to at least some degree. An assumption that would be a parallel for your God would be if I was blindfolded (or let's just say Blind from Birth), having never known of a chair let alone what it's used for and how to use it, then having someone I don't know read me a description of a chair and instructions on how to use one (these instructions are from unknown authors, mind you) then being told to take a seat without so much as even knowing it's behind me let alone touching it beforehand...
If I took a seat expecting it to be there and work as intended, then THAT would be an assumption.
Sure, I don't have a problem being wrong - in fact, I have to be quite open to the idea I could be wrong in order to accept evidence that I am wrong. Otherwise, I'd be locked into thinking I'm right about my worldview in spite of evidence that contradicts it.... Sadly, I see quite a lot of people who can't accept evidence against their worldview on these forums all the time. We call this cognitive dissonance and/or compartmentalisation.
If I'm wrong about something, then I'd have to change my understanding in light of the facts. We get things wrong all the time. As humans, we're faulty and our senses (if not doublechecked) and the conclusions we draw from them are often not exact, and in plenty of cases can be outright wrong! This is why we need to be open to the idea that we can be wrong about something and not just assume we have it right straight off the bat. We can be fooled so easily whether by intention or by accident, an illusionist at a show does it all the time and fools us with sleight of hand, even when we expect it! Of all the miracle claims people conclude they experienced, I can likely find an illusionist on youtube repeating the feat, often putting on a more convincing show to boot. Why would I therefore come to believe that there was a "Miracle" when so many naturally occurring explanations are available? This is what self-questioning should involve each and every time we think we've witnessed a "Miracle". In the entire history we've known of the scientific method, everytime a "Miracle" has been investigated, it's failed to be verified. Why is that? Are you going to then posit like everyone before you that a "Miracle", for whatever reason, can't be tested?
Again, I don't have Faith - as in "Trust without Evidence" - I have proportioned my belief according to the evidence at hand. What you're doing here is highlighting the very principle I brought up before that nobody can be 100% sure of anything, this is impossible position to have for the reasons I stated earlier.
Despite your fringe cases, there is a system in place which is the best practice for ensuring the medical practitioner I consult is a bona-fide and fully qualified practitioner of medicine. To think these particularly isolated cases mean we ought to discard all of the millions of actually qualified medical professionals looking after our health is just absurd. This thinking leads to things like idiot anti-vaxxers killing the weak in our collective societies with their inane belief they know better than scientifically verified medicines, etc.
Yes, I check the plank to make sure it is fine, and Yes, I Do 'rock' the chair. I might be 99% certain, but to say that anything less than 100% certainty is an assumption is just plain crazy. Nobody can be 100% certain of anything and I'll challenge anyone who believes as such. To say you can be 100% certain is to say you know 100% of everything there is to know about at the very least, that thing you claim to be 100% certain of. I'm sure I can ask a question about a thing that would not have a straight forward answer, if an answer is even possible in the first place - therefore you CANNOT be 100% certain of it.
Not my problem. If God exists and cares, I'm sure the omnipotent creator of the universe could think of something... That said, here's a quick list of things that I would consider evidence towards a God:
1. Original Writings, either directly scribed by said God or divinely inspired through man that isn't written in forgotten languages and doesn't require translation (i.e. some kind of universal language understood by all from birth because of divine caveat, like "written on your heart" or similar?),
2. Original Writings that don't require interpretation (i.e. bible study isn't required to understand what can be plainly read, for example, to be evil if another human were to do it)
3. Original Writings that wouldn't lead to fracturing of followers, and thousands (or tens of thousands) of denominations all believing slightly to vastly different things (such as 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth through to 4.5billion year old earth, special creation through to biological evolution from a universal common ancestor including all the various flavours in between, etc.)
4. Some kind of personal and undeniable contact with this divine being, perhaps at the age of reasoning or similar (i.e. a Damascus Road experience) <== this could be personal since everyone would have the same experience and there would be no doubt about who this divine being was - even if it couldn't be scientifically verified, everyone would eventually have this personal contact and would come away knowing some previously unknown thing about reality we didn't before.
5. Original Writings that don't contradict themselves in any way, not even in a perceived way, and certainly not by non-believers (if such a thing were possible given the other points above).
I don't even know his only Son actually existed, let alone that I was so bad he had to die in my place so I could possibly go to heaven... not sure why you invoke a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here either, so please explain this - I quite adequately pointed out that people tend to take on the religion of the society they were born into. Middle easteners tend to be Islamic, Americans tend to be Christians, People born in India tend to be Hindus, far east Asians tend to be Bhuddists, etc. Where is this "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
The Bible has only been the bible since it was canonised in the 1600's CE. Before this, all kinds of writings were used and not all of them were included in the Canon either, despite canonised texts referring to them. At least the Muslims both have their original texts AND they know who the author was. This alone is a big plus for their religion and in fact, To a non-believer like me, their holy texts are more indicative of Allah than the Bible is indicative of YHWH/Jehova/God/Jesus for that point alone. Even the language used in the Qur'An and Hadeef isn't a forgotten language, and they at least require true adherents to learn Arabic to read it in its true unfiltered way.
Like I said, an inanimate object has a measurably comparable success rate as prayers to anything else - that is, chance. Although it was YOU that claimed the success of prayer as a demonstration of the truth of your religion, I just so happen to have the evidence you asked for that demonstrates its equality with a desklamp all the same (i.e. Chance!).
From
Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia :
Galton Study - In 1872, the Victorian scientist Francis Galton made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer. He hypothesized, partly as satire, that if prayer were effective, members of the British Royal Family would live longer than average, given that thousands prayed for their well-being every Sunday, and he prayed over randomized plots of land to see whether the plants would grow any faster, and found no correlation in either case.
Sicher - In 1998 Fred Sicher et al. performed a small scale double-blind randomized study of 40 patients with advanced AIDS. The patients were in category C-3 with CD4 cell counts below 200 and each had at least one case of AIDS-defining illness. CD4 counts and scores on other physiological tests had no significant variation between the two groups of patients.
Mayo Clinic - A 2001 double-blind study at the Mayo Clinic randomized 799 discharged coronary surgery patients into a control group and an intercessory prayer group, which received prayers at least once a week from 5 intercessors per patient. Analyzing "primary end points" (death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization, etc.) after 26 weeks, the researchers concluded "intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit."
The MANTRA Study - A 2005 MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings) II study conducted a three-year clinical trial led by Duke University comparing intercessory prayer and MIT (Music, Imagery, and Touch) therapies for 748 cardiology patients. The study is regarded as the first time rigorous scientific protocols were applied on a large scale to assess the feasibility of intercessory prayer and other healing practices. The study produced null results and the authors concluded, "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention."[38] Neither study specified whether photographs were used or whether belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers.
The STEP Project - Harvard professor Herbert Benson performed a "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" in 2006.[39] The STEP, commonly called the "Templeton Foundation prayer study" or "Great Prayer Experiment", used 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals. Using double-blind protocols, patients were randomized into three groups, individual prayer receptiveness was not measured. The members of the experimental and control Groups 1 and 2 were informed they might or might not receive prayers, and only Group 1 received prayers. Group 3, which served as a test for possible psychosomatic effects, was informed they would receive prayers and subsequently did. Complications of surgery occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). There were no statistically significant differences in major complications or thirty-day mortality. In The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?'"
As above, quite a number of studies on the efficacy of intercessory prayer have been done for the Judeo-Christian God and results tend to be equivalent to praying to fairies and desklamps.... which is Chance.
And if you have evidence in support of your conjecture, then I would have to listen to you. If your evidence is valid, I'll be forced to change my belief, if not worldview in light of it.
Now, you still didn't answer my question, do you make decisions about those beliefs you have because of your unevidenced worldview?
No straw man required. Both you and any Muslim (and for that matter, any religious belief one may hold, I'm not narrowing to just these two religions) have exactly the same support, and use exactly the same justifications in 'Faith' based belief. Before you pick up any scripture (because as you admitted, you adopted your belief first, then went looking for justification post-hoc just like my Muslim friend did), what foundation do you have that my friend doesn't? Remember, this is BEFORE you look at any holy texts whatsoever...
It doesn't matter. In fact, this could be evidence that people using 'Faith' as their justification acted to kill Mormons can affect you as a Christian. In this case, not against you, but in your name as your representative in Christianity!
...to common sense? Yes, I Agree! You SHOULD CARE whether your beliefs are true, especially about a proposition that governs the universe we all collectively live in together.
Nope. Are you saying that scientifically founded medical care wouldn't help in any way whatsoever?
I know what sin is, and as soon as I know God is more than an imaginary being made up by people who didn't know anything better, then I will revisit this claim.
Atheism is the position on only one question - that is "Are you convinced that a God or Gods exist?" and to that, I have to say no. Rational thinkers and sceptics tentatively accept the thoughts and observations of men who reason with facts, sure, but at any time, I can re-examine those facts for myself and even re-run the experiments if I care to - something I can't do with any God or Gods. This is the difference between a believer of any religion who simply and unquestioningly adopts a position before evidence, and a rational thinker who tests the proposition before adopting it wholesale in the first place.
This is the thing - you could be folowing the wrong God - all the justifications you use to profess confirmation of your religion are equally brought forth by other people of other religions for their beliefs too - you can't all be right - but you can all be wrong. Why would your God allow them the same measure of justifications for their religion if he cared about them? Likewise for their God allowing you to use these justifications for your God unchallenged...
In no particular order - Multiple Religions professing other Gods, many of which are older than your religion - Multiple versions of your religion - Lost Scriptures - Conflicting texts in the Bible - no confirmed miracles, ever - no evidence of the supernatural - the huge preponderance of evidence that supports an entirely natural universe and life as an emergent property of it.
the Theory of Evolution, all the various forms of dating (both radioactive and not) that show deep time, a 4.5 billion year old earth in a 13.7 billion year old universe, all the sciences that show a global flood never happened, etc.
Not even a little bit. Read the following carefully, I'll even write slowly so you don't miss it - The Child Listens to the Parent Because IT KNOWS IT WILL BE IN TROUBLE IF IT DOESN"T LISTEN. It has NOTHING to do with "faith without proof" at all because it knows it will be in trouble if it fails to heed.... but I tell you what - if you can find a toddler that can't speak or understand spoken word yet with a propensity to explore the world around it that hasn't been previously conditioned to obey an authority figure first (first time crawlers are Great for this) - here's an experiment to try: find someone the child doesn't recognise as a family figure and have them tell the child (at distance in a non-threatening tone and without threat of punishment) to not play with something it wants to play with. Youtube the video experiment from beginning to end, including the first meeting of an unknown adult. I look forward to seeing this experiment run.
Could you have said anything more oxymoronic? I don't think you could. How does one have "experience" if not through prior experiences?? The Child HAS PROOF THAT IT WILL SUFFER THE WRATH OF THE PARENT IF IT DOESN'T OBEY!
If the child knew the stove would burn its hand, it wouldn't reach for it in the first place. What the child Does know is that the parent will punish it if it doesn't do as its parent tells it, so that experience is why the child does as it's told and NOT because it has 'faith' of any sort.
You only exemplify the problem of 'Faith' with your story. We shouldn't be required to adopt confirmation bias first before addressing the most important question of our existence, especially since the exact same position of 'Faith/Absolute Trust' that leads you to conclude Christianity is true, is used by every other person of other faiths to conclude that their religion is true.
You say in highschool that you investigated other religions - did you speak with apologists of these religions? Did you ask them what they thought of your religion? What tests have you conducted on these other religions' texts, and did you apply the exact same standards to your own religion's texts? I'll be interested to hear how you did this and so I'll ask about these holes you found left, right and center that you didn't find in your own texts...