You don't know what you do not know

[SamuelTP1977]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

It was pleasant.

How much does your faith affect your politics?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think that the OP is a good start for discussion.

First, we need to define knowledge. What does it mean to know? Are we happy with the idea of Justified True Belief (JTB).

Second, we need to define faith. We need to avoid equivocation. That is, I know that this chair will hold me. I have evidence of it. In a sense, this is faith. But I do have evidence for it. I've sat in this chair many times before. (This is why someone is surprised when the chair breaks--because they knew it would hold them.)

Having faith that Jesus is divine is not the same as having faith in the chair. I have no experience with this Jesus character; I cannot test the claims about him; his divinity is completely unknown and is a unverifiable proposition. (I can test the chair and do so every day.) Faith in Jesus' divinity is "faith in things unseen"--no evidence.

Also, not believing the divinity of Jesus is not the same as not believing that a chair will hold me. I can disabuse myself of the notion that the chair won't hold me by testing it and eventually actually sitting in it. I cannot do that with Jesus' divinity. I must either accept a bald-faced claim, or I can find that there is no reason to accept the claim.

Faith in chairs is not the same as faith in Jesus' divinity. One can be tested; the other cannot.

So my question is whether one is ever justified in believing a thing that cannot be tested. I say no.

 

[ananda]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

There are many texts which claim to be from various gods. Which gods' testimony do you trust, and how did you choose if you cannot verify?

 

[SamuelTP1977]

To Tinker Grey and ananda,

Thanks for responding. Even though we cannot test the claims of the Bible we are not without our evidence. There is a Bible that millions and millions of people believe one version of it, and the Bible testifies to what happened 2000 years ago. People claim to have religious experiences every day and they are real to them. People have died as martyrs claiming the Bible has religious knowledge so it is a very moving piece of work to say the least.

I have even heard there is a Holy Spirit that convinces people of the divinity of Jesus Christ or their own concept of God and maybe it is true? With so many believers one has to think there must be some reason? I think the life of Jesus as described in the Bible did happen and I see why a lot of people do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, there are good reasons for both sides of the argument.

There is a truth!

 

[ananda]

To Tinker Grey and ananda,

Thanks for responding. Even though we cannot test the claims of the Bible we are not without our evidence. There is a Bible that millions and millions of people believe one version of it, and the Bible testifies to what happened 2000 years ago. People claim to have religious experiences every day and they are real to them. People have died as martyrs claiming the Bible has religious knowledge so it is a very moving piece of work to say the least.

I have even heard there is a Holy Spirit that convinces people of the divinity of Jesus Christ or their own concept of God and maybe it is true? With so many believers one has to think there must be some reason? I think the life of Jesus as described in the Bible did happen and I see why a lot of people do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, there are good reasons for both sides of the argument.

There is a truth!

Other religions also have millions upon millions of adherents. Buddhism is so, and has scriptures which testify to what happened 2400+ years ago as well. Buddhists also claim to have religious experiences daily, and there are Buddhist martyrs as well.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

To ToddnotTodd,

As far as my politics, I feel Tax dollars should be used to help feed poor people and provide medical insurance to those without full time work. Also, tax dollars should be used to help educate the children. I feel that Jesus would want society to look out for people who can't provide basic needs for themselves for whatever reason.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

Other religions also have millions upon millions of adherents. Buddhism is so, and has scriptures which testify to what happened 2400+ years ago as well. Buddhists also claim to have religious experiences daily, and there are Buddhist martyrs as well.

I feel religion in general is good and can help people find answers. I feel also religious beliefs should be protected. That is my take on it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Even though we cannot test the claims of the Bible we are not without our evidence. There is a Bible that millions and millions of people believe one version of it, and the Bible testifies to what happened 2000 years ago. People claim to have religious experiences every day and they are real to them. People have died as martyrs claiming the Bible has religious knowledge so it is a very moving piece of work to say the least.

I have even heard there is a Holy Spirit that convinces people of the divinity of Jesus Christ or their own concept of God and maybe it is true? With so many believers one has to think there must be some reason?

With respect, that's only evidence for the belief. Your post is mostly an example of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum; the truth of an idea doesn't depend on the numbers of believers in it, the number of books about it, how ancient the events described in them, the number of people who claim to have personally experienced it, the number of people who've died for it, or how moving they found the book. The plural of anecdote is not data; anecdotes and hearsay are the weakest form of evidence - evidence that a claim has been made, but not evidence that the claim is valid.

I think the life of Jesus as described in the Bible did happen and I see why a lot of people do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, there are good reasons for both sides of the argument.

Perhaps, but fallacious reasons are not good reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I feel religion in general is good and can help people find answers. I feel also religious beliefs should be protected. That is my take on it.

The implication of that is that it's good in general for people to have false beliefs and have them protected, if they're the right sort of false beliefs (I'm assuming that most religions believe other religions have it wrong).

This seems to raise some awkward moral and ethical questions...

There's also the question of precisely what you mean by, 'religious beliefs should be protected'. A belief is a personal thing; why would it need protecting, and from what? Did you mean religious practices?

 

[SamuelTP1977]

The implication of that is that it's good in general for people to have false beliefs and have them protected, if they're the right sort of false beliefs (I'm assuming that most religions believe other religions have it wrong).

This seems to raise some awkward moral and ethical questions...

There's also the question of precisely what you mean by, 'religious beliefs should be protected'. A belief is a personal thing; why would it need protecting, and from what? Did you mean religious practices?

To answer your question I believe we must look at history. Religious minorities have been persecuted throughout time. We really do not know how we got here, we have pretty good ideas, but nothing that can be verified like the dangers of smoking, since we can't duplicate the results like make a biosphere. So if people have their ideas about religious knowledge it should be respected and kept free from persecution. That goes true for atheists as well as theists and in the USA they do that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what are your thoughts on this post?

It's epistemologically wishy-washy.

It starts correctly with the observation that no human being is omniscient (yes, true), but concludes with some bland idea that everyone has some sort of "faith" if they take some sort of stance. No, if you don't believe in leprechauns because you don't have evidence of leprechauns, that isn't "faith", no matter that you lack omniscience. It is rational to reject the claim that leprechauns exist, and the burden of proof falls on the people who assert the positive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[plummyy]

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

"Even if" as though you find evolution difficult to believe, but even if. There is not common ground because you're slapping on evolution beside your faith of a divine being as though they are on the same field--because we clearly don't have any evidence for evolution, and it's definitely a matter of faith (note: my sarcasm). It supports a universe in which there was no intelligent design, but is does not rule out the gods that may exist where it (science) has yet to tread. There can always be a god that fits between the cracks of what science disputes, and evolution is not reason for why those remaining gods or goddesses are not real---just as it doesn't dispute faeries, or goblins under your bed. Evolution doesn't mean that there are not spites running around your ankles, or a god that is articulate to not counter the scientific truth. So when you're trying to find common ground among non-theists and theists, and you assume that evolution is what we fanatic about to unreasonable lengths----you really must not understand. Like I said before, evolution isn't about having faith for it to be true, and it's not a supernatural belief. It's not a belief at all. And it is not an non-theist's equivalence to believing that there are faeries in the garden, or a god in the sky.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 KJV

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To answer your question... if people have their ideas about religious knowledge it should be respected and kept free from persecution.

That doesn't answer my question, it just restates your original post. I was asking how beliefs (or as you've restated it, ideas about knowledge) can be persecuted, or need protection or respect; I can understand if you were referring to the people who have the ideas and beliefs, or the expression of those ideas and beliefs (within reasonable limits), but that's not what you said.

I think people have a fundamental right to respect as human beings, to hold their ideas and beliefs, and to express them (within reasonable limits); but those ideas and beliefs are fair game for question, debate, criticism, and even ridicule. There is an increasing tendency to arrogate the 'right to take personal offence' when ideas and beliefs are criticised; Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up the right to free speech when she said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, you didn't respond to my suggestion that your view implies that it's good in general for people to have false beliefs and have them protected, if they're somehow the 'right' sort of false beliefs (assuming that most religions believe other religions have it wrong).

 

[durangodawood]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 KJV

Your link says something different:
"Now faith is assurance of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen."

 

[juvenissun]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

Compromise and tolerance should never be the attitude in any monotheistic religion. It violates the fundamental principle of a monotheistic religion.

How many gods would you mind to recognize?

 

[lesliedellow]

So my question is whether one is ever justified in believing a thing that cannot be tested. I say no.

How do you test the immorality of genocide?

 

[quatona]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Disagree. The reasons have been elaborated on in countless threads.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life.

I have never seen evolution to be in conflict with the hypothetical existence of a god.

You still can't rule him out.

Ideas that are constructed as unfalsifiable can´t be ruled out. That´s not exactly a forte of such ideas. I can make 10 unfalsifiable claims within 5 minutes.

So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

From a non-theist´s perspective, that´s the second step before the first. Can´t be common ground, for obvious reasons.

 

[Job8]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists.

Actually, that is not such a good idea at all, since the reality of their different beliefs shows that there is no common ground. People choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, and even if you provided them with all the evidence in the world, they would still discard and reject the things they do not wish to believe.

Let's take the example of rationalists (and you could put atheists and agnostics in this category). They believe that human reason is the only true test for any belief (reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions -- Merriam-Webster). But they are totally mistaken, since the spirit world is a reality and they do not recognize this reality. They also do not recognize the reality of a living faith.

Christians can (and must) give the Gospel of Christ to all regardless of what their beliefs are, since that is the only truth which counts for the present and for eternity. Whether they accept it or reject it is purely up to them, and there are consequences to either decision. ALL ARE SINNERS AND ALL NEED THE SAVIOR.