If a religion is based on faith, can there ever be evidence for it?

[arknd]

I go to a private high school, and we are reading an awful religious book by C.S. Lewis. My mind hurts when I read it. The teacher loves this book, and she says it represents the basis for Christian morality perfectly, which is why we are being forced to read it. I feel bad for the gullible and "open-minded" people who take what this author has to say seriously. He throws his "factual" premises all around, acting like he as a higher level of thought than atheists or people of other religions, and makes open-ended statements to prove his point.

 

Anyway, the book is riddled with irrational and now incorrent statements, ranging from how organized the universe is, to how people have souls; different souls when comparing to every other organism. One point he made that really stuck with me, was when he explicitly said there is evidence for a higher being because there is an evident part of him in all people. The part he is talking about is human morality. In the same book, he also goes about saying a creator is never part of the creation, and the creator cannot interact with the creation because he is of a different "medium."

 

How can he explicity say there is evidence for a creator in the creation, then in the same book say the creator cannot interact with the creation? How is evidence not also an interaction?

 

For Catholicism's sake, I asked my teacher if she thought it was a religion of faith. She agreed, I brought up this point, then she changed her argument to it is a religion of faith only sometimes, and only at certain parts of our lives.

 

I don't want to read this book anymore. But for all of you, if a religion is based on faith, can there ever be evidence for it?

[StringJunky]

In the context of this subject, faith is the act of committing yourself to something you have no evidence for, or else it wouldn't be an act of faith. Can there be evidence for sky fairies? The probability is vanishingly small but to be truly scientific - science doesn't deal in certainties - there can be evidence for them which it will look at if it presents itself. This is what distinguishes science from religion ...it always leaves the door open for new evidence and can change in the light of it.

[Dekan]

arknd, I think C S Lewis does his best, to make a kind of rational case for Christianity, in his books.

 

But, as you rightly imply, do the books match the real world? Consider for example, his brilliant SF trilogy "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength", These books create a very believable Christian version of the Universe. In which there are inhabitable planets within the Solar System. Such as Mars, inhabited by the "Hrossa", "Seroni", and "Pfiffllriggs" - all nice rational species, living in perfect harmony.

 

And the niceness and agreeableness of these creatures, makes a powerful and compelling case for the existence of God. When you read the book.

 

But unfortunately the book-creatures don't exist. Because as is well known, Mars is actually lifeless, There are no hrossa, or Sorns to carry Ransom to Meldilorn.

 

Would that there were! Then at least we would have a better-funded space program.

[ADreamIveDreamt]

There is a huge difference from "Believing" and from "Knowing."

 

If you "Know" something, why would you need to "Believe" in something?

 

 

 

Is there Proof? Yes.

[Moontanman]

There is a huge difference from "Believing" and from "Knowing."

 

If you "Know" something, why would you need to "Believe" in something?

 

 

 

Is there Proof? Yes.

 

 

I call you out on that proof... I would suggest reading the Holy Bible to find out what god's morality really is, not just the cherry picked parts most people like but the whole gory horrific misogynist genocidal text...

[Davidjayjordan]

Faith is the evidence of repeated trials, that prove that principles work in real life.

 

That's on a personal level, on a scientific level you cvan just study and see all the design proofs the Lord put for us, on which to trust in his awesome creation. Rather than trusting in luck and chance which has no verifcation and must be believed by faith we can put our trust in what is and the design and harmony and proofs of creation.

[iNow]

Faith is precisely belief in the absence of (and often despite contradictory) evidence. It is pretending to know something that cannot be known. Were it otherwise, it would no longer be faith.

[pears]

I view faith as more than mere belief. For me it is also about trust. For example I have faith in the people I love. I trust them because I know that they have proved trustworthy in the past. I also trust them even though they may have let me down before. There is no guarantee that they will be trustworthy in the future but I put my faith in them anyway. For me it is a similar thing with religion.

[iNow]

I understand your point, and that's why we use the word "trust" in those instances. It may have some overlap, but the word "trust" clearly has a meaning that is significantly more specific to your claim and the situation you are describing.

 

Additionally, having "trust" or faith in the trustworthiness of your family and friends is not equivalent to having "faith" that leprechauns exist or your preferred flavor of god is real. Having "trust" or "faith" that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning is not the same as having "trust" or "faith" that hurricanes are caused by unicorn farts or that some deity shat everything into existence from atop a cloud one day.

 

We've had this discussion, you and me and others, more than once already before. I'm sorry that our exchanges were not productive enough to cause you to recognize these important linguistic distinctions and update your approach accordingly.

[StringJunky]

iNow, on 04 Jan 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

I understand your point, and that's why we use the word "trust" in those instances. It may have some overlap, but the word "trust" clearly has a meaning that is significantly more specific to your claim and the situation you are describing.

 

Additionally, having "trust" or faith in the trustworthiness of your family and friends is not equivalent to having "faith" that leprechauns exist or your preferred flavor of god is real. Having "trust" or "faith" that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning is not the same as having "trust" or "faith" that hurricanes are caused by unicorn farts or that some deity shat everything into existence from atop a cloud one day.

 

We've had this discussion, you and me and others, more than once already before. I'm sorry that our exchanges were not productive enough to cause you to recognize these important linguistic distinctions and update your approach accordingly.

They are equivalent because it's all in the mind of the beholder ...it's subjective. The scientific veracity of where 'trust' or 'faith' is applied is irrelevant. If something or someone imbues a person with trust it does not matter if it is scientifically verifiable ...they are committed that it is true and real, and therefore, fulfils the conventional definitions. I don't see anything wrong with what Pears said. Your distinction appears arbitrary and not conventional as far as I'm aware.

Edited January 4, 2014 by StringJunky

[iNow]

There are some equivalencies between them, but they are not equivalent overall, and in science our precision with language is paramount.

 

The idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow is based on evidence and empiricism and thousands of years of consistent uninterrupted observation of this occurring. It is a conclusion shared across worldviews and is not dependent upon ones ideology or teaching in any way. There is no "Christian conclusion about the sun rising tomorrow" or a "Muslim conclusion about the sun rising tomorrow" or a "Hindu conclusion about the sun rising tomorrow" or "Atheist conclusion about the sun rising tomorrow." The conclusion is consistent across observers and is not rooted in any specific system of beliefs or worldview.

 

Further, the idea that the sun will rise again tomorrow is only accepted provisionally. I accept that the sun might not rise again tomorrow and that I cannot know with certainty until it actually does. Compare this provisional acceptance, however, with conclusions about god(s) or about religious claims wherein acceptance is based on absolutely nothing and where faith that these conclusions are valid is essentially demanded. My acceptance of evolution or my conclusion about the sun rising again tomorrow is not based on "faith" in the same way that belief in the existence of Zeus or Poseidon or Yahweh is based on "faith." That's like arguing that poop and chairs are the same thing because we sometimes refer to both as stools. All such a position demonstrates is that one party is not approaching the discussion in good faith. <pun intended>

 

Unlike the acceptance of evolution or conclusions about the sun's likelihood of rising again tomorrow, ideas about gods or fairies or other similar things have zero evidence supporting them. They are based solely on wish-thinking and on faith alone. There is nothing else there standing up these ideas, they disintegrate under even remedial scrutiny, and they DO differ based on worldview or ideology or what has been taught.

 

I am responding to your suggestion that I'm making an arbitrary distinction where none exists. I think you're wrong, that a distinction here is entirely relevant, and that this distinction requires full throated support each time it's challenged in this way. I am suggesting that it's disingenuous at best to suggest (as Pears and now you both implicitly have) that faith in the existence of a god or god(s) is somehow the same as faith that insulin helps control blood sugar levels or flu shots reduce the risk of influenza. That is the logical outcome of the position you are supporting.

 

Sure, all of these things exist in the mind, but so what? By that logic, a crying baby is equivalent to a steak dinner. It's absurd really, but here's why it matters.

 

Conflation of the term faith like this is a frequently used canard by accommodationists who are seeking to bring their nonsensical bronze aged beliefs (or frankly any other bit of woo or spiritual mumbo jumbo or new age ridiculousness they happen to be supporting that day) on to the same level as science with its models of the universe that are reasoned, empirically supported, and consistent across worldviews and observers. In parallel, it tries to suggest science is little more than another belief system or religion the same as any other, and that's what I'm here now specifically speaking against.

 

FWIW, I want you to note that I find myself in full agreement with your first reply to this thread, and I suspect you largely agree with many of the points I'm making.

Edited January 4, 2014 by iNow

[StringJunky]

They are equivalent in the strict sense of their dictionary definitions, which is the point I was putting forward, but whether one view or another reflects reality is subject to scrutiny and one may be more valid over another. I think in these sorts of conversations it's best not to use faith and belief to represent any cause or process of science ...leave them for describing those that hold and are committed to non-scientific viewpoints. When you think about it scientists don't have faith, regardless whether a theory is evidentially rock-solid, they have degrees of confidence. Faith and belief, to my mind, imply a strongly committed sense of certainty which is anathema to proper scientific practice and discourse. Let's voluntarily self impose an arbitrary distinction. in this part of SFN A lot of problems in discussions could be avoided if people defined their terms from the outset and whether or not conventional definitions should be adhered to.

 

It should be noted I'm not aware of Pears' religious affiliations, or if she has any, so may have interpreted her comments different to you..

Edited January 4, 2014 by StringJunky

[iNow]

That's totally fair, and again... We largely align on this. Appreciate the clarification.

 

(and IINM Pear's worldview is a bit deistic and open to various ideas of "something out there, but who knows what, really?" while also trying not to judge others for their ideas about that something, but that's obviously for her to explain, not me... and probably not thread relevant anyway).

[Lightmeow]

Screw the system, and what ever they want to jam down your throat. There is a little kid on my bus who thinks I am going to go to hell because I don't believe in god. I showed him the statistics on ALL the other religions, and asked him to ask his mom if all the others are going to hell also. His mom now won't let me speak to him.

 

 

Think for your self, question authority...

Just by the way, I don't hate religion, I hate how some people try to shove it down your throat. I had a teacher sub for social studies, and we were discussing gay marriage, and she was just up there freaking out about it, quoting bible verses, preaching, and saying how perfect Christianity is. Then she was saying we should jail all gays, and how much the US has a gay problem.(I shouldn't be saying gay anyways, the correct term is homosexual) That is what I hate. And another thing:

 

From the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: on the final non proof of god

 

Proof Denies Faith, and Without Faith I am Nothing(God arguing with man in a thought experiment)

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lightmeow

[pears]

I understand your point, and that's why we use the word "trust" in those instances. It may have some overlap, but the word "trust" clearly has a meaning that is significantly more specific to your claim and the situation you are describing.

 

Additionally, having "trust" or faith in the trustworthiness of your family and friends is not equivalent to having "faith" that leprechauns exist or your preferred flavor of god is real. Having "trust" or "faith" that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning is not the same as having "trust" or "faith" that hurricanes are caused by unicorn farts or that some deity shat everything into existence from atop a cloud one day.

 

We've had this discussion, you and me and others, more than once already before. I'm sorry that our exchanges were not productive enough to cause you to recognize these important linguistic distinctions and update your approach accordingly.

 

But I think this is how people of faith use it. I might be mistaken but when people say they have faith in God they are not only proclaiming existential belief but also personal trust. I'm not not going to argue over which definition is correct here but that observation was the point I was trying to make.

 

(and IINM Pear's worldview is a bit deistic and open to various ideas of "something out there, but who knows what, really?" while also trying not to judge others for their ideas about that something, but that's obviously for her to explain, not me... and probably not thread relevant anyway).

 

Actually I'm a theist

[davidivad]

i just came from another science forum. recently, the major topic of discussion has mostly been about the dissemination of religious structure. as an athiest, i understand the logical conclusions that followed. however, after all of the religious individuals were chased off, the individuals began attacking the weakest individuals left. as an informed community, we must responsibly handle our tools. not everyone watching us has the higher function that compliments logical proof.

 

for the rest of the world, removing religion to solve world problems is a fallacy. what fool trades freedom for proof? we have the endowed capability to evolve beyond a darwinistic result. we are endowed this capability by evolution itself. for those of you who disagree, i would ask your personal opinion of what the following sentence means.

 

A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS.

 

remember that googling this for the right answer does you no favors but it may help you realize that there is more to this world than what you will find in a book. some questions do not have answers. this is the human condition.

[RadarArtillery]

Faith is the evidence of repeated trials, that prove that principles work in real life.

 

That's on a personal level, on a scientific level you cvan just study and see all the design proofs the Lord put for us, on which to trust in his awesome creation. Rather than trusting in luck and chance which has no verifcation and must be believed by faith we can put our trust in what is and the design and harmony and proofs of creation.

I would very much like to see the design proofs you speak of.

[Moontanman]

Faith is the evidence of repeated trials, that prove that principles work in real life.

 

That's on a personal level, on a scientific level you cvan just study and see all the design proofs the Lord put for us, on which to trust in his awesome creation. Rather than trusting in luck and chance which has no verifcation and must be believed by faith we can put our trust in what is and the design and harmony and proofs of creation.

 

 

I'd like to see those proofs as well, any chance you can back up what you assert?

[Phi for All]

Faith is the evidence of repeated trials, that prove that principles work in real life.

 

That's on a personal level, on a scientific level you cvan just study and see all the design proofs the Lord put for us, on which to trust in his awesome creation. Rather than trusting in luck and chance which has no verifcation and must be believed by faith we can put our trust in what is and the design and harmony and proofs of creation.

 

Actually, I think you have it backwards. Faith is the type of belief that relies on luck and chance (were you born in the "right" society that teaches the "right" religion?), where science employs a methodology that is much more trustworthy.

 

When "repeated trials" happen to a religious person, they focus on a favorable outcome, so you can't trust any "evidence" gathered with this type of bias. When a scientist performs repeated trials, they meticulously try to remove all personal bias from the results.

 

I'm always a little disconcerted when I talk to people who don't realize how easy it is to fool us, especially if we're fervently trying to fool ourselves.