Had a friend over the other day. Talking about someone that was very sick, and is doing reasonably well for now. Our friend said," see, God takes care of good people." Oh REALLY?? I just let it go, my wife thought I was going to explode. People know that I think all that stuff is nonsense, but they say it, and send us e-mails anyway. Nevertheless, the big story here this week has been about an African American family, that was in a horrific car accident with a drunk driver. The wife survived...but the husband, and 2 young children were killed. This poor woman through her tears cried," I just want my family back!" It was one of the most heartbreaking things you will ever see...imagine losing your ENTIRE FAMILY in an instant. And guess where they were comming from....CHURCH !!! This was a God worshipping, fine family that was involved in the community, and church activities. I guess God didn't think these people were worth "taking care of." Maybe they had "sinned," or maybe God was just mad at them that particular day. Read an article in todays paper ( Saturday,7/18). A rabbi, and a priest answer questions people write in with about "faith and religion." I will give you a couple of quotes from the article. The headline is," No psychic needed to know about afterlife." The person writing in had lost her daughter 3 years ago at age 43, and lost her son 46 years ago when he was 3. She went to a "psychic," who told her that they were together in " heaven." ( WOW, WHAT A SURPRISE!!) Her question was, can a person grow older in "Heaven.? The Rabbi replied explaining to her the difference between "knowledge, and faith." I quote, " knowledge is what you can PROVE to be true. Faith is what you can TRUST to be true. Knowledge is the domain of science and philosophy. Trust and hope are the domain of FAITH and RELIGION. Some scientists claim they can disprove the existence of God, and insist that the "soul" ( which I STILL DON'T KNOW what it is, and no one has been able to explain to me in any logical terms what it is) is an illusion, with no material phenomena like love and courage. ( AMEN!!) Some religious people think that because something is quoted in their sacred scripture, it is, for that reason alone, true. or they believe that because a psychic tells them something about their deceased loved ones, or Heaven, that the psychic is telling them the truth about life and death." CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS BULLSHIT!!! Then the Rabbi goes on to say that he has a "mistrust for psychics, beacause they can't ( GET THIS!!!) PROVE THEIR VISIONS, and often manipulate their clients for personal gain." UNBELIEVABLE!!!! Now, the Rabbi is looking for PROOF for something that makes NO SENSE!!?? This is why people get caught up in these" " scams" where they lose all their money...because they have " faith" and "trust" that what the scammers are telling them is true, and having a belief that " God is going to take care of them." There is no logical, reasonably intelligent person that would ever accept faith and trust over proof when it comes to anything else. I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding cruel, these people deserve whatever misfortunes they get. How can people actually believe this shit...I know I sound like a broken record, but it boggles my mind!!!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Reality-What boggles your mind is you don't know Jesus. With Jesus everything is possible. Faith in God Donald trumps everything.
I agree?
At least, I agreed with everything up until I lost interest anyway, so...
There are some really big problems with life. Nobody denies that. But one of the biggest misconceptions people have about faith is that it is blind. Nobody really has blind faith, even if they say so. Everybody has some reason for believing something.
But Christian faith is most certainly not blind. The rabbi you quote is quite mistaken when he writes: "knowledge is what you can PROVE to be true. Faith is what you can TRUST to be true. Knowledge is the domain of science and philosophy. Trust and hope are the domain of FAITH and RELIGION"
To the contrary scientists are quite clear that science cannot produce perfect knowledge because every scientific law can be disproved by the presence of new evidence.
The Christian religion is not opposed to rational reasons for believing in Christ. I'm not going to go over the many arguments now. But suffice it to say that when "doubting thomas" said "I will not believe until I see", Jesus came to him and showed him the holes in his hands so that he would have evidence that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
And the idea that "God takes care of good people" should not be taken at face value. Jesus is considered to be perfect by Christians, and yet Christians believe that God ordained that he would be killed in an utterly brutal horrific way. However Christians believe that in heaven there is a reward for those who do good.
bobington-I agree with you 100%. You are a wise and thoughtful Christian. God Bess you
Reality
This is my answer to your post from a philo-Islamic perspective.
As one of the responders in this thread had mentioned, science is an evolving system of knowledge, and can never rest assured that it has found the final answers. It can only view the physical reality from our current understanding of it.
Whereas faith is an absolute system of knowledge which is unchanging. However, it too has a problem. Though it speaks of the ultimate truth, it still has to pass through the lens of human reason to reach us.
In other words, science propounds theories and projects it on to the real world through the lens of reason. Faith spells out the absolute truth and projects it onto us through the same lens of reason.
The end goal of science is to reach the truth.
The end goal of religion is to make the truth reach us.
Therefore the two systems of knowledge are starting from the two opposite ends of the spectrum. This is the reason that the two systems appear like they are always on a collision course. But far from it, the lens of human reason that both systems pass through makes the corrections to harmonize the two. At least in Islam, this harmonization is possible.
(Please note that I am strictly speaking from the platform of Islamic understanding of epistemology. Islam doesn’t share Christianity’s historical conflict with reason and science).
That leads us to the most important question in this debate. As both these systems are subject to human reason (which is undergoing change constantly), aren’t both of them equally ineffective when it comes to understanding the ultimate truth? Then why favor one over the other.
The answer: While all our quests for knowledge pass through the lens of human reason, there is one thing that the lens has no effect on. The question of morality. It is not possible to apply empirical standards to measure morality.
This is where the crucial difference between the two systems lies.
As explained before, faith begins from answers and proceeds towards us. It also carries moral precepts with it. However, the moral precepts are unaffected by the lens of reason and reaches us unaltered. That’s why the moral standards in Islam don’t change with time. It’s always a constant.
Whereas, coming at it from the opposite end, science is unable to deal with the questions of morality because it cannot get to any objective conclusions because the lens of reason is not equipped to deal with morality.
Lastly, the main aim of faith is to teach us morality. It is not meant to teach us realities of the physical world. That’s why it doesn’t really matter how we interpret the religion’s vies on physical realities. Whether the earth is flat or spherical, “walking arrogantly on it is a sin.”
Faith is not a system of knowledge. Faith is an excuse to believe in something for which you have no good reason to do so. If there is an adequate amount of evedence to support a position, then faith becomes unnecessary.
@ mjplatt
"Faith is not a system of knowledge...."
I don't know how you have defined 'knowledge'. Faith does provide believers with a set of information based on which they organize their lives and make moral decisions. To the extent that it is providing some information, it is knowledge. You may consider this knowledge unreasonable, but that's a different argument.
'knowledge' comes from the word "to know".
"Faith does provide believers with a set of information "
Information is not knowledge, since it could be false/true information. Even lies and jokes are a sort of information.
BTW he did answer your question:
"Faith is an excuse"
Faith does not know, it is an excuse to explain something which is based mostly on falsehoods and unknowns.
We did not know about some diseases before, thus we believed on faith the ones who called it daemons and curses.
Believe on faith of what the priest says or do your research and gain some knowledge.
@ Jeff
Check out this site for a more detailed explanation of what is information and what is knowledge.
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-knowledge-a...
It says: "Knowledge is the concise and appropriate collection of information in a way that makes it useful."
This is what I was trying to explain, when i said faith gives believers a set of information around which they can arrange their lives.
So you are agreeing with me that information is not knowledge?
Information= data, can be raw data
"Knowledge is the concise and appropriate collection of information in a way that makes it useful."
The problem is that faith does not give useful information= it does not give knowledge.
Though it does effect/distort knowledge.
It does make people that should be sane believe stupid things like the world is 6000 years old and that humans were riding dinos etc...
And that flying horses exist, virgin births and Resurrection happens.
Yes a lot of information there, though it is not really useful at all except for wishful thinking.
@Jeff
"The problem is that faith does not give useful information= it does not give knowledge."
For centuries empires have been built and run on laws based on faith. And you say 'faith doesn't give useful information". Well, may be it is useless to you. But so many others found it useful.
Though it is useful for people to manipulate you, thought it still does not make faith useful information but manipulative information which is useful for who invents the information.
The people who do the manipulation do not have faith, they let that job to you.
@ jeff
That's your subjectivity of what's useful. Moreover, consider this. If a person gets information on how to make a gun, and he makes one, and goes out an kills someone... the fact that he put the information to destructive end doesn't mean that the information he gained about guns was NOT knowledge. It is knowledge as long as he made use of it.
Similarly, the laws of Islam were used by an empire for centuries to run the empire, manage the affairs of the state, govern the lives of its people and so on. In your view, maybe the laws were destructive. Yet, it doesn't negate the fact that this provided usable information (hence knowledge) to the people.
"It is knowledge as long as he made use of it."
Correct about the gun analogy, the point you missed is that the same person who gained the knowledge made the gun and used it.
"Yet, it doesn't negate the fact that this provided usable information (hence knowledge) to the people."
Empires did not have faith, they used the faith those stupefied believers had, to control them.
Thus it has nothing to do with knowledge that faith brings but how to manipulate the faithful.
Faith did not bring knowledge but gullibility, enough that empire leaders could use it for control.
What did the faithful learn? Nothing
What did the faithful create? Nothing
It is the leaders who created, not with faith but creativity(created/shaped a religion), and they just claimed to be faithful, when in reality they did not care as long as they maintained control on the faithful.
Whatever was created it did not come from faith, (the act of believing without question or evidence), it was created regardless of faith being in the way and hindering progress.
Even the bible itself had a lot of issues to be created because of faith.
People had to die from all corners of Europe to agree on which books were the faithful allowed to use.
Faith hinders even the believers so much that to this day there are 1 000+ denominations of Christianity alone.
“Correct about the gun analogy, the point you missed is that the same person who gained the knowledge made the gun and used it.”
The same people who received the law (Quran) applied the law. The caliphs applied it in governing the state. The businessman applied it in running his business. The father applied it in running his family. The warrior applied it on battlefields.
"Empires did not have faith, they used the faith those stupefied believers had, to control them.
Thus it has nothing to do with knowledge that faith brings but how to manipulate the faithful.”
I just explained how different people in the empire used the law in their contexts.
What did the faithful learn? Nothing
What did the faithful create? Nothing
The faithful were highly productive in all walks of life. Scientists among the faithful made ground-breaking discoveries of their times. Legal experts brought new laws that made life more just and equitable for all the people, not just muslims. And the list goes on.
“It is the leaders who created, not with faith but creativity(created/shaped a religion)…”
Any proof???
"The same people who received the law (Quran) applied the law. The caliphs applied it in governing the state. The businessman applied it in running his business. The father applied it in running his family. The warrior applied it on battlefields."
You say received, I said invented it themselves and later generations just copied it on faith.
That is why today those countries that did just that are so fucked up.
"Empires did not have faith, they used the faith those stupefied believers had, to control them.
Thus it has nothing to do with knowledge that faith brings but how to manipulate the faithful.”
"I just explained how different people in the empire used the law in their contexts."
is that even an answer?
Faith does not bring knowledge, it brings data which is not useful for the believer to create things.
You can create and you can copy things, believing without seeing or confirming is called faith.
The gun analogy is copying and confirming, he created the gun.
The faithful did not create a god or resurrect people or such nonsense.
They just believed what was written, there is no creation involved, they are slaves that obeyed those orders.
Do this, do that, there is no creation there. There is no understanding, how the gun works, testing it etc...
Faith is not creative its dogmatic and frankly stupid.
What did the faithful learn? Nothing
What did the faithful create? Nothing
"The faithful were highly productive in all walks of life. Scientists among the faithful made ground-breaking discoveries of their times. "
Proof that they did it because of their faith? They still believed in slavery as far as I know.
"Legal experts brought new laws that made life more just and equitable for all the people, not just muslims."
Ahh the faith was not enough? changes needed to be made to the faith it seems, interesting, wonder why need change with the perfect word of Allah?
" And the list goes on."
Yea, fitful obeying without question their leaders into genocide, raping of woman and slavery.
As I said
If there was any useful change it was regardless of the Faith not because of it.
The creators of Islam did not have faith in the religion though they did think it will work.
Any proof???
Do I need to prove that Islam is not perfect?
We all know that it was made/shaped by humans because of all the mistakes in it.
Including but not limited to:
Slavery, Inequality, Rape of woman, Rape of children and mass slaughter.
“You say received, I said invented it themselves and later generations just copied it on faith.
That is why today those countries that did just that are so fucked up.”
Invented or Received… that’s a different debate. But here we have a set of laws that forms the part of faith which was used by the faithful in all walks of life. Hence, it’s information that was used by millions. Usable information is knowledge (that’s what this discussion was originally about, wasn’t it?)
"Empires did not have faith, they used the faith those stupefied believers had, to control them.
Thus it has nothing to do with knowledge that faith brings but how to manipulate the faithful.”
Empires (caliphs) are not some extra-terrestrial creatures. They are humans too, who needed laws to run the empire. These laws, which constitutes information that was used (hence knowledge) is what we call faith.
"Faith does not bring knowledge, it brings data which is not useful for the believer to create things.”
Faith brings laws that create the setting for progress and development. The American legal system may not have contributed to any scientific invention… but the law definitely plays a part in the development of science by allotting more budget to science and so on. Hope you catch my point.
“The gun analogy is copying and confirming, he created the gun.
The faithful did not create a god or resurrect people or such nonsense.”
When the faithful acted in accordance with the law they were able to create a fertile space for progress of science and other developments, which led to major discoveries.
“Ahh the faith was not enough? changes needed to be made to the faith it seems, interesting, wonder why need change with the perfect word of Allah?:
What I meant by ‘legal experts brought new laws’ was that muslims brought the laws of quran to the new places in the world, such as Europe which was in the dark ages back then. I didn’t mean the legal experts created a new system of law different from quran.
“Do I need to prove that Islam is not perfect?
We all know that it was made/shaped by humans because of all the mistakes in it.
I was asking for proof for the statement you made “It is the leaders who created, not with faith but creativity (created/shaped a religion)…”
"When the faithful acted in accordance with the law they were able to create a fertile space for progress of science and other developments, which led to major discoveries."
You are playing with words here.
You did not show how faith was related to any creation what so ever.
Laws are not faith, laws are laws.
It is one thing to obey laws and an other to believe in those laws by faith.
They did not obey them originally because they were faithful but punishment of death was for those who rebelled against their masters who were promoting that religion.
You are purposely mixing everything under faith and when I answer 1 mix up, you jump to the next.
Faith is the blind belief in whatever information was given without confirming on it.
Rules, knowledge do not have anything to do with faith.
“It is the leaders who created, not with faith but creativity (created/shaped a religion)…”
-I'm claiming that humans created a book/laws that fit the need of that time period.
-You are claiming that an invisible omnipotent god did it, that just happen to deliver what was needed at that time period, that happen to agree with the current leaders own characters and actions.(warmongers)
You are the one who needs to prove something.
Logic dictates that my claim is more likely and realistic then yours.
JEFF-You are so serious all the time except when you tell jokes. Then your funny
@ Jeff
"Laws are not faith, laws are laws."
Muslims don't deal in interest, because they believe that God revealed that 'interest' is forbidden. Thus it becomes a law in economics.
Muslims give 2.5% of their yearly savings in charity, because they believe God ordained it. Thus it becomes a law in taxation (due unto the poor)
Muslims don't drink alcohol, because they believe that God has forbidden it. Thus it becomes a dietary law.
Just giving examples of how faith creates laws.
Faith effects laws and effects people and country, I never denied that.
But you cannot claim that faith brings knowledge. or gives understanding to laws.
Faith is the blind belief in something, it can make people have stupid laws like no alcohol or decent laws like charity tax.
There is no reason behind it, no knowledge, just believe it on faith that it is the right thing to do.
Believing anything on faith is dangerous and unreliable.
That is why we do not have slavery anymore, we learned to abandon the childish mentality like faith and focus on reason and justice.
We grew up to try to understand the reasons behind things and not just follow orders like mindless drones.
"Lastly, the main aim of faith is to teach us morality. "
And what if the things taught by a faith-based philosophy are actually considered IMmoral by most of us?
@ CyberLN
"And what if the things taught by a faith-based philosophy are actually considered IMmoral by most of us?"
On what basis do you consider faith-based philosophy 'immoral'? That's the moot question. Can you arrive at moral judgments using reason and emperical measurements? Please explain.
There are lots of behaviors promoted in faith-based philosophies I find completely immoral. I find them immoral based on reason and empirical measures. And it's actually quite easy to do so. Are you proposing that it is not possible to arrive at a moral judgement on your own? That you have to get that info from a god?
@ Cyber
Yes. I am saying that it's not possible to arrive at moral judgments using reason or empirical measures. Or else please explain to me the method how you arrive at moral decisions.
I think you are incorrect. I think reason and empirical measures are the only way we arrive at what is ultimately moral. I also think that religion is frequently the way immorality is born.
Dear Cyber
Please explain to me how you can use empirical measures to judge morality. Okay, to help you, i will give you a situation, and you explain to me how you would come to a moral judgement.
Imagine a girl has just landed a job as an air hostess. She is very thrilled and dreams of a great career. This was also a long-time ambition for her, which she had worked hard to achieve. Just then she realizes that she is pregnant with her boy friend's baby.
Therefore, she decides to abort the baby in the womb. She kills a life... however, if she had not done that her career would be gone.
If you look at it from the angle of the woman, she has a justification.
If you look at it from the angle of the unborn child, it would look cruel.
Is it right or wrong to kill babies like this?
I think it's perfectly acceptable when done at any stage prior to viability outside of the womb. It's her decision. And in some cases I think it's perfectly acceptable even if there is potential for viability outside of the womb.
@ CyberLN
You have just given your subjective opinion. How can you prove this empirically? How can you show empirically that a lady's career is more important than a child's life?
@Valiya
I find it fascinating how much weight you put on empirical proof all the time, when you are advocating belief without proof: faith. What empirical proof can you produce, of your gods existence, or the validity of the morality that should somehow come from this god?
Pages