Faith and facts

[Audie]

The only point that I am making is that faith (trust) and evidence are not mutually exclusive, you can (at least in principle) have both; you can have faith in “something”, and have evidence that suggest that “it” is reliable.


Agree?

You can, and I agree, but for Christians, much virtue lies in faith
without or despite evidence. Therein lies a trap for
the insouciant.

That is my point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Exactly, faith is believing “Despite unseen” not “Despite any evidence to the contrary” the analogy of my wife still applies, “I trust (have faith) that she in is not in a hotel having sex with another guy” despite I am not observing her in this moment.

I was thinking you (some christians) where seeing you need to know what your wife is doing and then you can trust her. I know my wife will not cheat because I experience X situation before that verified my trust. (So it's no longer blind but based on something).

That's different than saying you trust your wife before having evidence of her character first

 

[nPeace]

Faith simply means “trust” I have faith / trust God in an analogous way I trust my wife.

I trust that my wife is currently working and not In some cheap hotel having sex with some other guy.

Obviously I can’t prove with 100% certainty that my wife is not cheating on me, (I am not spying her, I don’t have hidden cameras, etc.) but I have good reasons to trust her.

This doesn’t mean that I will trust her despite any evidence, if someone presents a solid proof that she is cheating on me, I would accept the evidence. And my trust in her would vanish

Same is true with God, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that God exists, but there are good reasons to believe in him (and no comparable good reasons to reject his existence) which is why I have faith / trust in God.

Sufficient evidence can potentially vanish my faith.

My guess is that you are building your case upon a straw man; to have faith in God doesn’t mean believing in God despite any evidence. If you insist that this is the definition of faith, then I would say that I don’t have what you call “faith” in God.

Hey Leroy. I could shake your hand a thousand times.
Great illustration too.

...but @Unveiled Artist doesn't get it still, or maybe doesn't want to.
Same for @Audie. Maybe it's willful denial.

 

[leroy]

I was thinking you (some christians) where seeing you need to know what your wife is doing and then you can trust her. I know my wife will not cheat because I experience X situation before that verified my trust. (So it's no longer blind but based on something).

That's different than saying you trust your wife before having evidence of her character first

Sure , my faith in God is analogous to your faith in your wife. ...I think there is evidence for God and Christianity

 

[nPeace]

Not sure what you mean. On what level do you see them
as comparable, or, that one could exchange one for the other?

Faith will do nothing to help you find where to drill for oil,
science will do nothing to help you trust / have faith in
your spouse.

You may well have an idea there, maybe you could
explain it?

It's rhetorical, laced with sarcasm, if I read it correctly.

 

[Audie]

Sure , my faith in God is analogous to your faith in your wife. ...I think there is evidence for God and Christianity

Lots of evidence for Christianity, but, for God?

Surely you are joking.

 

[leroy]

Hey Leroy. I could shake your hand a thousand times.
Great illustration too.

...but @Unveiled Artist doesn't get it still, or maybe doesn't want to.
Same for @Audie. Maybe it's willful denial.

thanks

I´ll say that many atheist (not sure if those that you mentioned) like to affirm that faith means “believing despite any evidence to the contrary” because then they can simply argue that faith is dishonest

 

[leroy]

Lots of evidence for Christianity, but, for God?

Surely you are joking.

mmmmmm define evidence

 

[metis]

In regards to the OP, I completely agree.

Some of you know that I went from a highly skeptical agnostic to at the least a believer that there is "Something" here because of a series of experiences that I had that I spelled out in some detail a couple of years ago but which I'll spare yas with now. I cannot prove that these "experiences" were real, but as one with a scientific background whose profession depended on objective analysis, I can only say if I had seen someone write about what I experienced even several years ago, I probably would have rolled my eyes at least to myself. But now I have to roll my eyes at myself. I tried everything that could possibly explain these "experiences", and yet nothing got even close to working.

[see "My Faith Statement" below for what's now the "theology" that I'm comfortable with]

 

[Audie]

mmmmmm define evidence

I will go with Mark Twain, and a bit of paraphrasing.

“If it is a miracle any sort of evidence will answer. But if it is a fact, proof is necessary.”

― Mark Twain

 

[Audie]

thanks

I´ll say that many atheist (not sure if those that you mentioned) like to affirm that faith means “believing despite any evidence to the contrary” because then they can simply argue that faith is dishonest

Uh, no. I think you misunderstand and are drifitng
into equivocation, or perhaps doing a mistaken generalization
while thinking it is them atheists doing it.

Faith, as practiced by some, despite any and all
logic or evidence to the contrary, may in fact be
intellectually dishonest; others or course, may
be mentally weak, or simply insane.

This applies to a wide range of religious beliefs
Christian or otherwise; and also to a lot of thngs
having nothing at all to do with religion.

Faith that the Nigerian Oil Minister is legit say.

 

[nPeace]

I will go with Mark Twain, and a bit of paraphrasing.

“If it is a miracle any sort of evidence will answer. But if it is a fact, proof is necessary.”

― Mark Twain

Well, I guess that pretty much puts evolution where it belongs, since any sort of evidence will do, and it can't be proven.
So much for Dawkins wind chasing.

 

[leroy]

I will go with Mark Twain, and a bit of paraphrasing.

“If it is a miracle any sort of evidence will answer. But if it is a fact, proof is necessary.”

― Mark Twain

Doesn´t seem like a definiton for "evidence"

 

[Audie]

Doesn´t seem like a definiton for "evidence"

it is in this case

 

[Sleeppy]

You need both. They both serve an important purpose for self-preservation. But, you never forgo fact for faith.

 

[Audie]

You need both. They both serve an important purpose for self-preservation. But, you never forgo fact for faith.

You may want to mention that to our creationist friends.

 

[nPeace]

You need both. They both serve an important purpose for self-preservation. But, you never forgo fact for faith.

That's why I said
I think if we ask, what are facts, and we have the correct understanding of what facts are, then we would realize that facts and faith are not at odds with each other, but can be quite compatible.

To illustrate...
So someone says to a man, these are the facts. Your wife's cheating on you. She's no good.
The man believes the "facts" (so-called). He's gullible.
He investigates the "facts" (so-called). He's reasonable and sensible.

What does his investigation of the "fact" reveal?
The "facts" are determined by circumstantial evidence alone.
No one saw his wife cheating on him, but assumes that she is, and concludes that she is no good.

If the man believes the "facts". He's gullible.
The man trusts that his wife is not cheating on him, not blindly, but based on the evidence he has of his wife - reasons that led to him trusting her enough to marry her in the first place. I say that man is sensible.

The facts may well be, that the wife is faithful, but there are certain circumstances that give the appearance, that she is not.
The man sticking to his wife, does not put facts and faith at odds, but demonstrates how evidence can be distorted, but faith has supporting evidence, and is rational.

People tend to think they have facts, when they really don't. They often believe in things because they want to, not because they have direct evidence - proof.
I may see a man's wife go into an apartment with a man. Right away, I jump to the conclusion they are having an affair, and may feel that this evidence is too strong to deny my conclusions are facts... but are they? Have I reached the right conclusion, or perhaps is it the case that this is what I want to believe - what I want to be true? Maybe I want the relationship between the husband and wife to end. Maybe... So many maybes, but I don't have the facts, do I?
So we must be careful we understand and identify what a fact is, before concluding that facts are at odds with faith.