I think that examining how dogmatically one holds faith is very important. This comes as a response to a statement made by Moegreche regarding faith. I think his post sums up a lot of common arguments, so let's take a look:
''We believe what is presented before us. Now, maybe later on we get evidence that is incompatible with our belief and then we can assess whether or not to abandon that belief. I think it's hard to fault someone who was raised in a religious environment and counts certain experiences as God's love for them. It's what their environment surrounds them with, so their belief is completely understandable (to me, at least).''
I was talking to my brother the other day (who is devoutly Greek Orthodox) and I stumbled on a question I htought would be interesting: ''If someone had a time machine and could take you back to 33 AD and showed you that Jesus' ressurection took place, would you stop believing in Christ?'' Keep in mind that the resurrection is the cornerstone to the salvation described in Christianity. Unsurprising to me, he replied he didn't know what he would do (he has very good reasons for believing, trust me), but for others who haven't been through the experiences he has, I'm wondering whether your response would be similar, which would make me question why exactly you believe in Christianity in the first place.
So the question I ask, is what point of logical, or objective proof must one reach to fundamentally change another's faith/belief where applicable (whether it be Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist etc.)? Or are there too many irrational emotions involved in this part of human decision making?
Other than merely answering those questions, I would like everyone to state their faith and what the threshold of it would be. I will start.
I am an agnostic atheist. It would take objective proof of the existence of a deity to convince me. Scientific inconsistencies and gaps in human knowledge about the origins of the universe really don't annoy me, as practically everything in this universe within the realm of human knowledge has been explained using scientific method, and the things which haven't been explained are being worked on.
''If someone had a time machine and could take you back to 33 AD and showed you that Jesus' ressurection never took place, would you stop believing in Christ?''
I don't have much time to post so I'll answer this; if someone were to show me objective evidence of Christ never being resurrected then I would no longer be a Christian. However it would have to be evidence that could not possibly be wrong.
It would take objective proof of the existence of a deity to convince me.
Same here.
Or like in my example of God showing up at my door step and demonstrated to me in a way that I could be sure wasn't a trick or hallucination that he was indeed God. He could do this again for example, by creating matter/energy under controlled conditions.
"Incredible claims require incredible evidence"-Carl Sagan I can't think of anything more incredible then God.
1. A very specific prophecies with consistency of coming true. While this would be good evidence it wouldn't completely convince me. It would also have to be proven that this wasn't the result of an advances civilization utilizing time in a way we currently don't understand.
2. Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time. Again would have to overcome the above problem, also this would have to be demonstrated that this knowledge wasn't just from some prodigy who was ahead of his time. For instance an original copy of a holy text that was written in Hebrew had a note reading E=mc2 in English and could be verified authentic. This would give me pause for consideration.
3.Miracles occurring especially brought about through prayer. This would defiantly be good evidence. We should see a consistent improvement in believers over non believers that can be directly linked to prayer in matters of harmed and healing. Something happening that couldn't happen without intervention that would be beyond our ability that has a direct link to prayer. Such as a person praying/being prayed for and their lost limb regrows. Of course this has to be verified and documented by an external source and not just someones word.
4. Direct manifestation of the divine. I think I already covered this with God at my door.
5. aliens who believe the exact same religion. I'm not sure if I would be really convinced by this one alone. I would defiantly find it odd but this would have to accompany with another form of evidence.
There is a limit of faith. If I were to go into a time machine and find out Christ never rose from the dead, I would definitely stop being a Christian. But, seeing as this will never happen in my lifetime, I prefer not to worry about it.
There is a limit of faith. If I were to go into a time machine and find out Christ never rose from the dead, I would definitely stop being a Christian. But, seeing as this will never happen in my lifetime, I prefer not to worry about it.
You do realize a time machine travels time thus could show you...
Any actual scientific proof would make me believe, though I still would not fallow said god.
What a fun question! I am a friendly atheist, meaning that I completely denounce the existence of any sort of deity while still holding that theists can have justified (though false) beliefs. I also think that only a very small percentage of theists are actually justified in their (false) beliefs.
That being said, absolutely nothing could convince me that I'm wrong about this. If God Himself came down in front of me and told me He was real, I would just assume I'm crazy. For me it's simply a matter of relative possibilities. It's simply far more likely that I'm off my rocker than God being real.
On NPR about a month ago, there was a story about a biologist (I think) who won some award for writing this book on how science and religion don't interact. His argument was that science answers the "how" kind of questions and religion answers the "why" kind of questions. He also said that religion should never try to answer the how questions, nor should science try to answer the why. While I'm not sure I accept this, I do agree with the point that science neither seeks to nor ever will try to prove the existence of a god. To have scientific evidence of some notion of faith is incoherent.
''If someone had a time machine and could take you back to 33 AD and showed you that Jesus' resurrection never took place, would you stop believing in Christ?''
It is very hard to show something that doesn't happen. anyways, than yes, i would stop believing, there happy? Counter question, if i had a time machine and showed you that Christ could walk on water and perform miracles, and raise the dead way back when, WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
That being said, absolutely nothing could convince me that I'm wrong about this. If God Himself came down in front of me and told me He was real, I would just assume I'm crazy. For me it's simply a matter of relative possibilities. It's simply far more likely that I'm off my rocker than God being real.
So even if this being claiming to be God took you to a lab and demonstrated his abilities by doing something only God could do under controlled conditions in front of other people and it was well documented you would still just regard yourself as crazy?
On NPR about a month ago, there was a story about a biologist (I think) who won some award for writing this book on how science and religion don't interact. His argument was that science answers the "how" kind of questions and religion answers the "why" kind of questions. He also said that religion should never try to answer the how questions, nor should science try to answer the why. While I'm not sure I accept this,
I don't agree with this. A theory is an explanation of why. The observed facts are the how. This statement this guy made of why and how on religion and science isn't new at all.
Counter question, if i had a time machine and showed you that Christ could walk on water and perform miracles, and raise the dead way back when, WOULD YOU BELIEVE?
It would be compelling evidence, but we would have to ask is what he's doing really the result of God and not something else.
For instance I have heard a number of possible explanations on how a person could at least appear to walk on water, non of them would have required God. Raising the dead is another one that would be based on conditions considering the sheer number of people that before modern methods have been presumed dead but turned out not to be.
There is something that's been buggin' me this past week. There have been many cases in modern life where people have seen their loved ones' "ghosts" or silhouettes up and about, talk, or even have a conversation with them. Not just any relatives, mine, though I've heard cases with others. One of my relatives, a Christian devotee, gave testimony that she saw Uncle Donnie walk the streets of his home and a day later talk to her on her phone (it actually rung and he talked to her).
Now then, how does this have anything to do with this topic? Apply it to the conditions of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. People loved him, at least 20x more than the fans of the famous Michael Jackson. He and two other guys died right there. Could it have been that the shock of his death was so great that 3 days later, a person like Mary went into his tomb, saw he wasn't there, and then experienced Jesus rising up into heaven?
Now think about this. People said whatever the hell they wanted to and could have the power to slay "witches" in 1500. It's not a far skip to the grocery store to say that Mary could have told the townspeople that their beloved Jesus Christ rose from the dead and they believed it. Mary wanted to believe so bad that Jesus was still alive, much like how relatives wanted to believe that their late relative was still alive. It isn't that hard to think about.
Could it have been that the shock of his death was so great that 3 days later, a person like Mary went into his tomb, saw he wasn't there, and then experienced Jesus rising up into heaven?
Yes. That could have happened. But this wasn't just one person. Multiple people saw him.
Yes. That could have happened. But this wasn't just one person. Multiple people saw him.
Yes, and multiple people also screamed WITCH! We are talking a group of people right? When a group of people see the same thing, they must assume it is correct, like the WITCH! that was infecting a child's body indirectly across the courtroom. A group of people with the same feeling for JESUS! saw JESUS! rising from the dead and they went and told the townspeople what happened. It's what they believed what happened that was hastily recorded as evidence.
Yes, but the thought that something like this happened in 1500 means that the very same thing could happen in biblical times. You would think after a millennium, people would be more aware of these sort of things, but I guess not.
And what about all the times that Jesus' resurrection was predicted?
Sheer conjecture. People predict his resurrection all the time for his second coming and fail. His first resurrection? Again, people get very delusional when a loved one dies suddenly.
