Hello, everyone. This week's "Think about it" Thursday is a two-part question:
Why do you think God goes to such great lengths to keep himself hidden? Why is faith without evidence considered such a virtue? (i.e. John 20:29 "...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed")
Because there is no evidence, but the church founders still wanted to push the ideas. Modern apologists will tell you that if God revealed himself to everyone, then we'd have no choice but to believe and follow him. The "free will" argument, as it were.
However, this argument completely undermines their theology of Lucifer and the fallen angels, and hence Hell. The angels are said to have witnessed God's power. And yet some of them still rejected Him, even though they would have had no doubt of his existence and power. If they did not have that choice, there never would have been a need for God to create Hell for Lucifer, since Lucifer would have no choice but to submit to a God he could see...
This is a great question. It does seem like God could spare a lot of conflict in the world if he'd find a less ambiguous way of letting us know about his existence and his will. But he doesn't, so either he can't and he's not omnipotent, or he can and he chooses not to, so he's not benevolent.
Leah, it is interesting that you said this: "It does seem like God could spare a lot of conflict in the world if he'd find a less ambiguous way of letting us know about his existence"
...because your brother, Mike, who posted this question said this earlier in your blog: "If God appeared before me in person and gave me a radical demonstration of his power, then I would be satisfactorily convinced that God exists. Or at least that a very powerful being that claims to be God exists and possesses godlike powers. Still doesn't mean I'd devote my life to him and obey his every whim."
So, Mike, why would you even ask this question in the first place? By your own admission you wouldn't necessarily believe it was God but rather some powerful being who has somehow evolved control over the natural elements to the point of appearing god like. Even then you still wouldn't follow Him. In fact, I believe you said you would just spit in his face.
So, what is the point? You don't believe with the evidence He does give, so why would you believe if He appeared before you and said, "I AM"? (Exodus 3:14)
I would spit in the face of any monster who would torture a good person for eternity simply for not believing in Jesus. I didn't say I would spit in the face of God just because he's God. If there really is a God, he's not necessarily as horrible as the one described in the bible (God forbid), and in that case I probably wouldn't feel the need to spit in his face.
If given conclusive evidence of God, I would believe in him all right, but I would still demand my freedom and autonomy. A responsible and loving God would teach by example and then respect my autonomy and let me incur the natural consequences of my actions instead of trying to manipulate me with his fiery wrath. I'm not going to surrender my will to someone or something just because it's really powerful and says I have to—OR ELSE! They have a name for using threats in order to inspire fear and obedience: terrorism. And I would accept obliteration before I accepted the loss of my freedom at the hands of a terrorist God. "Give me liberty or give me death," as the saying goes. That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't devote my life to God and obey his every whim even if I knew for certain he existed.
So, you're right; I don't consider the question of whether or not God actually exists as being terribly consequential for my life decisions. But I'm not asking the question for my sake. The point of asking the question is so that you will think about what what your own answer is (hence the name "Think about it" Thursday). I already have an idea about why faith-based religions consider faith without evidence such a virtue; I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Is faith in something without evidence really only limited to the religious and is it really unvirtuous? Ever fly? Well, I fly for a living and everyday I work I fly hundreds of people around. There are a few things that I know for a fact: One, not everyone that boards my flights are religious. Two, never once has anyone ever inquired about the training or experience of myself or the captain I am flying with before boarding the plane. What this means is that 100% of the people that fly on my flights are instilling a certain amount of blind faith in myself, the captain. Oh sure, they might think that the company wouldn't possibly let someone up there that wasn't qualified but then they are putting a certain amount of faith in the company. Do they approach the company and ask to see the pilot's training records to verify they satisfactorily completed their training? They have no evidence that I am even qualified or sane enough to have complete control over their lives. And yet, they willingly board the airplane with no coersion whatsoever. And what about the airplane? Passengers put a huge amount of faith in the manufacturers to build a sound airplane that zips through the air at over 500 mph and experiences intense atmospheric pressure differences.(pressure and temperature have a huge affect on the metal the airplane is built out of) What about the mechanics that keep the airplanes in a safe condition to fly? Do you trust the mechanics to do their jobs properly without actually verifying or performing the work yourself? If you don't fly then apply the same scenario to the automobile you drive. Do you ever mail anything? Don't you put a certain amount of faith in the mail system to deliver your mail and for the mail person to keep confidentiality? Have you ever seen an atom? Or do you put a certain amount of blind faith in the scientific community to accurately and honestly represent that which you cannot see for yourself?
These are just a few examples of where people regularly operate on faith. It would seem to me that every single human being lives their lives and rely daily on a certain amount of faith.
Belief in God does not come with a complete lack of evidence. It is all dependant on what you choose to do with the evidence that you do have. A loving and responsible God did teach by example....He came to us and lived with us and taught us. However, even then did not everyone believe.
It is true that I operate on faith daily but I make the choice that has the most evidence and requires the least amount of faith. I don't think evidence can prove anything 100%. Say I asked to see the document that proved you were liscensed to fly. I still wouldn't have evidence that it wasn't forged. Then say you proved it wasn't forged. How do I know the person who trained you is qualified? Etc. This is where faith comes in. Before I board a plane I question the likelihood of the plane crashing by weighing the evidence I've received from passed experiences. Yes I don't know the qualifications of the pilot or the structural integrity of the plane but, based on passed experiences, I find it highly unlikely that the plane will crash. My passed experience has shown me that, not only do planes rarely crash but that companies often behave in a way that promotes the prosparity of their company. Taking the time to thoroughly inspect the pilot and the plane would be in their best interest. I have no way of knowing the outcome of my choices because there is evidence to support both ideas but I'm always asking, without really thinking about it "Which outcome is more likely, which has more evidence to support it: The plane crashes and I die or the pilot will fly me there safely? Will I drive to work uneventfully like most days or will my tire blow out? A good feeling is caused by an invisible being talking to me or chemicals are released into my brain that create a sense of uphoria? Rain is caused by some goddess crying or the heat from the sun vaporizes water where it is later condensed in the sky?" Faith with very little, if any, evidence is sheer stupidity. Say I had faith that I could jay-walk across four lanes of traffic on a busy street without looking and make it to the other side safely. True there is evidence to support that there's a cance that every driver will be able to stop in time or by some randomness every car will miss me but there is even more evidence to support that if I cross at a designated area when it's my turn to cross I'll almost always cross safely. However I still have faith that a driver won't run a red light and kill me. I say go with the choice that has the most evidence and requires the least amount of faith... unless there's evidence to support that this would be a bad choice. :)
There is no evidence to support the literal existence of Santa Claus; would you consider it wise or virtuous to believe in him? What about the Easter Bunny? Leprechauns? Fairies? Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? Allah? Would you consider it a smart move to believe in those things without evidence? Would you consider it virtuous? Why or why not?
Are you guys suggesting or implying that there is absolutely nothing that you or the scientific community as a whole believes or generally accepts to be true without the evidence to support it?
Mike, you made a list of what you would consider pretty silly things to believe in without evidence. May I add one more? How about all matter, space, and time popping into existence out of absolutely nothing and by nothing. This is what the science community has to believe happened because all evidence supports a beginning to the universe. Do you believe it happened without intelligent influence? Have you ever witnessed anything that popped into existence? Is there any scientific evidence supporting the popping into existence of time, space and matter? Do you believe that it happened without God?
Using John's logic what seems more probable: All time, space, and matter contained in the universe exploded into existence out of nothing and by nothing or that a Creator who is not bound by the limits of our physical universe and which possesses infinitely more power and knowledge than any of us will ever comprehend caused it to happen?
Science readily admits it doesn't know everything. There are ideas on how the Universe was created, but right now there is no evidence to how the big bang happened. The evidence we have just indicates that that's the most likely scenario, as we can measure the expanding rate of the universe.
If there were some creator that set in motion the big bang, then that just begs the question, "Who created the creator?" It's simply moved the question back one step further.
I was not implying that science thinks it knows everything. What I was implying was that faith is required to believe that the universe came into existence as I previously stated without any evidence to support it. That has been Mike's argument the whole time....faith without evidence. I asked if you believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing even though there is no evidence to support anything ever coming into existence out of nothing.
Ray, the thought of "Who created the creator" is flawed in that you will be infinitely asking the question. If you get an answer to who created the creator then the next question will be who created whoever it was that created the creator and on and on and on to infinitely. Which is mathematically impossible. Infinity is only theory and not actually possible. You cannot go infinitely back in time because if you did then we'd never get to today because there'd be an infinite number of days to pass before today got here. At some point you have to have a first cause. Something that had no cause and that could start the whole ball rolling. That is God. He is un-created. He refers to Himself as "I AM" which is to mean that he exists and has always existed and always will exist. One of the dimensions our universe is time. We cannot comprehend an ever existing God because our minds are limited to the universe we live in. Besides, time is one of the things that came into existence at the beginning of the universe. Time, space and matter all began at the singularity of the universe. What was before that? Can you even comprehend non-time? I can't. Outside of this finite universe that we live in (which bodes another question...what is at the end of the universe? It cannot go on into infinity) is God who not bound by time, space or matter but the Creator of them.
I ask my question again: Do you believe that the universe (that is all time, space and matter) exploded into existence out of nothing and from nothing? Either something caused it to happen or it happened on its own. Which is it? You can say that science doesn't know how it happened but you still believe it did happen on it's own without a cause, right? If you can admit that you believe that even without the scientific evidence to support it then you have faith without evidence.
I do not have any faith that the Universe started. The reason I don't have that faith is that we are having this discussion, so obviously it was started. What science is trying to do is understand how. Right now science does not know exactly how that happened, but that doesn't preclude scientists from trying to come up with ideas to figure out how it happened.
I don't believe the big bang theory 100%. There are obvious holes in it (where did the matter come from, as you pointed out). What I do believe is that we are here. The god of the bible is so laughably impossible that it is even less likely to be the case than the big bang.
I don't have faith that the universe started for the very same reason as you. We are here, so I know the universe began. But this answers only part of the question. I am not arguing about IF the big bang happened, only what caused it to happen. Either God caused it to happen or God did not.
The rest of the question was do you believe the big bang happened without God? That's what I want to know. I'm not asking you to explain where the all the matter came from. I'm just wondering if you believe that it happened without God.
I think that it's possible that the big bang happened, but I don't know for sure. The evidence seems to point in that direction.
I highly doubt that it was a creator that initiated the big bang, but I don't know for certain. I will remain with the position that there was no creator that started it, unless there's verifiable evidence. The only arguments for a creator are philosophical and epistemological in nature.
I'm fine with the uncertainty. It doesn't matter any more to me than solving a puzzle. It would be nice to know, but ultimately how the Universe was created has no bearing on how I live my life. If it was some creator, then that's cool, but they definitely have taken a hands-off approach since they started this little experiment and does not deserve my praise. I would bet on a natural process though.
As I said before I choose the one that requires least amount of faith. Judging by the evidence presented from both sides (creator or pure randomness) the big bang theory seems more likely. I think there IS evidence to support it but it's just not nearly as conclusive as say... the fact that the earth orbits the sun. In all honesty I don't really know much about the evidence that supports it. I just know that there's a lot of evidence to support the nonexistence of a creator (at least any creator thought to exist by man) and since I don't know of any other theories out there that's the one I pick. You could probably list many things I believe without (or very little) evidence but, and this is the key point, I would never believe in something so strongly that my mind couldn't be changed. I would never deny or ignore evidence to preserve my faith. It's the exact opposite in fact. I work to find evidence and reduce the amount of faith it requires. For the time being we have to believe in some things until we can come up with a better answer. If we didn't take it on faith that we were going in the right direction we'd never push forward to see if we were in fact right. I would just like to note there's a difference between believing you have the best answer so far and believing you have THE answer as so many religions do. One continues the search for truth the other impedes it.
Right now physicists at the LHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhc) are at work trying to understand more about the nature of our physical universe and how it began. If they happened to discover something they believed supported the existence of a creator I would change my mind if they could explain with good reason why this was so. It would take some getting used to to be sure. Still I would not trust anyone who claimed to have spoken with this creator nor would I govern my life by that person's rules unless they explained with a good reason why it was better.
John's already gone over some of this, but I thought I'd restate it a little differently. Riding in a commercial airplane does involve faith, but it is not without evidence. The overall safety of commercial air flight is demonstrated every day in the overwhelming ratio of safe flights to accidents. And the truth is, I don't have blind faith that I'll be all right. I'm well aware that I'm putting my life in someone else's hands and that there is a possibility I might die in one of the rare accidents. I experience a certain amount of nervousness when I'm flying. But it's a calculated risk; the historical evidence of flight safety statistics gives me sufficient confidence in the competence of the pilot, and the manufacturers who built the plane, and the mechanics who keep the plane in safe operating order to go ahead and board the plane. The same thing goes for my car, the mail system, etc. These things all have track records of success that serve as evidence that I can trust in those systems. Yes there is faith involved, but it isn't without evidence.
To contrast the difference, blind faith would be more like me being the first ever test pilot, or the first monkey launched into space, and even that's not totally blind since we can make reasonable predictions about the outcome based on our knowledge of how the physical world operates (and the countless test models I'm sure the original inventors went through before they got to something they were ready to test on a living thing).
Yes I take the existence of atoms on faith because I trust the scientific community. Trust is based on evidence of the positive outcome of past encounters. I trust scientists because: 1) What have they got to gain from lying to me? 2) The evidence of the truth of scientific discovery is all around us in the form of our advanced technology, including the ridiculously-complex computer on which I'm typing these words. 3) Scientists are subject to checks and balances in the form of other scientists who reproduce and verify the validity of their experiments. 4) If I really wanted to I could reproduce any scientific experiment for myself and get the predicted outcome.
You said infinity is only theory and not actually possible, then turned around and said God is infinite and causeless (always has existed, always will). So by your own definition, God is impossible. Oh, that's right, God exists in some other timeless dimension where infinity is possible. But for all intents and purposes, anything that doesn't exist within our universe doesn't exist. It can't be observed, it can have no interaction with or effect on anything in our universe. It's not within our realm of concern.
And I find it strange that you can't fathom the possibility of a causeless "un-created" universe, but you have no problem with a causeless "un-created" God (who must inherently be even more complex than the universe since he conceived and created it). Your favoring of a more complex causeless entity over a simpler causeless entity is logically backwards, and only makes for a more complicated explanation (which makes it less likely to be true). Your favoring of a more complex explanation where insufficient evidence exists to conclusively prove either explanation demonstrates your blind favoritism toward the God hypothesis.
Part of the problem we're having is the word "faith" has a somewhat loose definition. When I used the word in the original question, I meant it in the sense of belief that is absolutely certain. Perhaps a less ambiguous way of wording it would be "Why is certainty without evidence considered virtuous?" With regard to the cause of the universe, science is only making a GUESS without evidence; you are claiming a FACT without evidence. Do you see the distinction?
By the way you still haven't really answered the original question about blind faith—just tried to accuse non-believers of being guilty of it too. So I'm still curious: why is faith—or certainty—without evidence considered such a virtue?
Mike, you point out the fact that I have not answered your original question, but at the same time the other posters have been artfully dodging a question I asked that should be relatively easy for an atheist to answer. However, as a sign of good faith I will answer your question hoping to get the same respect returned. I’ll ask my question and then I’ll answer yours.
My question is as I have stated before. As an atheist, (and I’m sure there will be some variance in the answer depending on where you are on Dawkins spectrum of probability, but based on the amount of certainty you exhibit in what you post I’d say your flavor of atheism is about 6.8 out of 7 and please correct me if I’m wrong), do you believe with certainty, that the universe including all time, space and matter came into existence from nothing and by nothing?
I’m a bit surprised by your first reason for trusting in what science has to tell you as my having mentioned that very concept (the question of why would they lie) in one of Leah’s previous posts resulted in a new thread (in which you participated) written specifically in an attempt to address it. I find it a bit curious that you can be so sure that the authors of the Gospels were either lying or mistaken (curious because you have no evidence) and at the same time have no problem thinking that the scientists of this day and age are free from any motivation to lie or might actually get something wrong.
Now, as to your original question. Is it a virtue to have faith without evidence? “And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6). It is a virtue to have faith in God because that is what He wants from us, to believe Him and trust Him. Despite what you may presume, faith does not come devoid of evidence nor does God expect us to walk around blind folded. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find.” I believe that if you earnestly seek after God you will find Him. In Romans Paul says that through everything that God made we can clearly see his invisible qualities and that we have no excuse for not knowing him. Psalm 19 says “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.” Does God go through great lengths to keep Himself hidden? Oh, on the contrary. I think, just as the Bible says, that He has left evidence in everything that He created. Maybe He is not traipsing around in snow white robes and wielding a scepter performing miracles to sway the skeptical or anything but He did leave His fingerprint on everything He created. Compassionate Heathen got it wrong when he said that if God revealed Himself that He’d be taking away our free will and we’d all be forced into believing in Him because God DID walk among us and He was still rejected. When He walked among us He did not take away anyone’s free will. And many of your statements have alluded to the fact that if God were here you’d probably still not follow Him. Want to read a book that logically argues in favor of a Creator? Read ‘The Case for a Creator’. Want to read a book that logically argues for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels? Read ‘A Case for Christ’. (Incidentally both of these books were written by an atheist who upon actually investigating the facts, began to believe in God) Some Christians are more interested in learning more about the evidence and dig into the science behind God’s creation and some are interested in other things and are satisfied with what the Bible teaches. This is no different than you being satisfied that the atom exists because you trust the scientific community and not do the research yourself. Your lack of research does not make the atom any less real and therefore a Christian’s lack of research does not make God any less real. There are a whole plethora of books written by scientists that are about learning more about God and his Creation. I am currently reading one by an astrophysicist who is discussing how God may interact on the many dimensions of the universe that we cannot detect with our senses.
It is true that some things require more faith than others, but faith is definitely not blind. And when it comes right down to it, both the scientifically minded and the religiously minded both have faith in things that neither have the evidence for, despite the fact that no one on this blog is actually willing to admit it.
@Patrik - To answer you question bluntly, which I have already answered, is I don't know. I don't know where all the matter of the Universe came from, and I am fine with that uncertainty.
So far my studies have shown me three ideas of where the matter came from. None of these are proven yet.
1) The Multiverse Theory - Super massive black holes create such a gravitational sink hole that they create another bubble (universe) within in the multiverse.
2) String Theory - Strings and filaments from the other dimensions move and sway. When the strings of one dimension collide with another, a great explosion is caused. (note that my understanding of string theory is very limited, and my information is probably wrong)
3) Intelligent Design - A supernatural being, being not of this existence, and immune from the effects of time, created matter and time.
I like the first idea the best, as it is the most simple explanation. It could be wrong, but it wouldn't bother my if it was.
I'm with Ray on this one. I did answer your question. I just didn't use the exact words you wanted to hear. So to answer it more bluntly: No, I don't believe the universe happened out of nothing, from nothing. Anything I've heard about the theory suggests that all matter in the universe existed but existed in a highly condensed state until, for a reason we have yet to explain, it exploded and became the universe we know today. To answer the other half of the question: No, I don't believe anything with certainty. However, I do believe some things with more certainty than others because there is more evidence to support it. My mind is always open to an even better explanation.
By this logic I suppose you could argue that I believe in god almost as much as I believe in the Big Bang but seeing as neither has very much evidence to support it I believe both deserve little credence. Especially when governing one's life or an entire society.
I would spit in the face of any monster who would torture a good person for eternity simply for not believing in Jesus. I didn't say I would spit in the face of God just because he's God. If there really is a God, he's not necessarily as horrible as the one described in the bible (God forbid), and in that case I probably wouldn't feel the need to spit in his face.
If given conclusive evidence of God, I would believe in him all right, but I would still demand my freedom and autonomy. A responsible and loving God would teach by example and then respect my autonomy and let me incur the natural consequences of my actions instead of trying to manipulate me with his fiery wrath. I'm not going to surrender my will to someone or something just because it's really powerful and says I have to—OR ELSE! They have a name for using threats in order to inspire fear and obedience: terrorism. And I would accept obliteration before I accepted the loss of my freedom at the hands of a terrorist God. "Give me liberty or give me death," as the saying goes. That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't devote my life to God and obey his every whim even if I knew for certain he existed.
So, you're right; I don't consider the question of whether or not God actually exists as being terribly consequential for my life decisions. But I'm not asking the question for my sake. The point of asking the question is so that you will think about what what your own answer is (hence the name "Think about it" Thursday). I already have an idea about why faith-based religions consider faith without evidence such a virtue; I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Because there is no evidence, but the church founders still wanted to push the ideas. Modern apologists will tell you that if God revealed himself to everyone, then we'd have no choice but to believe and follow him. The "free will" argument, as it were.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this argument completely undermines their theology of Lucifer and the fallen angels, and hence Hell. The angels are said to have witnessed God's power. And yet some of them still rejected Him, even though they would have had no doubt of his existence and power. If they did not have that choice, there never would have been a need for God to create Hell for Lucifer, since Lucifer would have no choice but to submit to a God he could see...
This is a great question. It does seem like God could spare a lot of conflict in the world if he'd find a less ambiguous way of letting us know about his existence and his will. But he doesn't, so either he can't and he's not omnipotent, or he can and he chooses not to, so he's not benevolent.
ReplyDeleteLeah, it is interesting that you said this: "It does seem like God could spare a lot of conflict in the world if he'd find a less ambiguous way of letting us know about his existence"
ReplyDelete...because your brother, Mike, who posted this question said this earlier in your blog: "If God appeared before me in person and gave me a radical demonstration of his power, then I would be satisfactorily convinced that God exists. Or at least that a very powerful being that claims to be God exists and possesses godlike powers.
Still doesn't mean I'd devote my life to him and obey his every whim."
So, Mike, why would you even ask this question in the first place? By your own admission you wouldn't necessarily believe it was God but rather some powerful being who has somehow evolved control over the natural elements to the point of appearing god like. Even then you still wouldn't follow Him. In fact, I believe you said you would just spit in his face.
So, what is the point? You don't believe with the evidence He does give, so why would you believe if He appeared before you and said, "I AM"? (Exodus 3:14)
I would spit in the face of any monster who would torture a good person for eternity simply for not believing in Jesus. I didn't say I would spit in the face of God just because he's God. If there really is a God, he's not necessarily as horrible as the one described in the bible (God forbid), and in that case I probably wouldn't feel the need to spit in his face.
ReplyDeleteIf given conclusive evidence of God, I would believe in him all right, but I would still demand my freedom and autonomy. A responsible and loving God would teach by example and then respect my autonomy and let me incur the natural consequences of my actions instead of trying to manipulate me with his fiery wrath. I'm not going to surrender my will to someone or something just because it's really powerful and says I have to—OR ELSE! They have a name for using threats in order to inspire fear and obedience: terrorism. And I would accept obliteration before I accepted the loss of my freedom at the hands of a terrorist God. "Give me liberty or give me death," as the saying goes. That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't devote my life to God and obey his every whim even if I knew for certain he existed.
So, you're right; I don't consider the question of whether or not God actually exists as being terribly consequential for my life decisions. But I'm not asking the question for my sake. The point of asking the question is so that you will think about what what your own answer is (hence the name "Think about it" Thursday). I already have an idea about why faith-based religions consider faith without evidence such a virtue; I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Is faith in something without evidence really only limited to the religious and is it really unvirtuous? Ever fly? Well, I fly for a living and everyday I work I fly hundreds of people around. There are a few things that I know for a fact: One, not everyone that boards my flights are religious. Two, never once has anyone ever inquired about the training or experience of myself or the captain I am flying with before boarding the plane. What this means is that 100% of the people that fly on my flights are instilling a certain amount of blind faith in myself, the captain. Oh sure, they might think that the company wouldn't possibly let someone up there that wasn't qualified but then they are putting a certain amount of faith in the company. Do they approach the company and ask to see the pilot's training records to verify they satisfactorily completed their training? They have no evidence that I am even qualified or sane enough to have complete control over their lives. And yet, they willingly board the airplane with no coersion whatsoever. And what about the airplane? Passengers put a huge amount of faith in the manufacturers to build a sound airplane that zips through the air at over 500 mph and experiences intense atmospheric pressure differences.(pressure and temperature have a huge affect on the metal the airplane is built out of) What about the mechanics that keep the airplanes in a safe condition to fly? Do you trust the mechanics to do their jobs properly without actually verifying or performing the work yourself? If you don't fly then apply the same scenario to the automobile you drive. Do you ever mail anything? Don't you put a certain amount of faith in the mail system to deliver your mail and for the mail person to keep confidentiality? Have you ever seen an atom? Or do you put a certain amount of blind faith in the scientific community to accurately and honestly represent that which you cannot see for yourself?
ReplyDeleteThese are just a few examples of where people regularly operate on faith. It would seem to me that every single human being lives their lives and rely daily on a certain amount of faith.
Belief in God does not come with a complete lack of evidence. It is all dependant on what you choose to do with the evidence that you do have. A loving and responsible God did teach by example....He came to us and lived with us and taught us. However, even then did not everyone believe.
It is true that I operate on faith daily but I make the choice that has the most evidence and requires the least amount of faith. I don't think evidence can prove anything 100%. Say I asked to see the document that proved you were liscensed to fly. I still wouldn't have evidence that it wasn't forged. Then say you proved it wasn't forged. How do I know the person who trained you is qualified? Etc. This is where faith comes in. Before I board a plane I question the likelihood of the plane crashing by weighing the evidence I've received from passed experiences. Yes I don't know the qualifications of the pilot or the structural integrity of the plane but, based on passed experiences, I find it highly unlikely that the plane will crash. My passed experience has shown me that, not only do planes rarely crash but that companies often behave in a way that promotes the prosparity of their company. Taking the time to thoroughly inspect the pilot and the plane would be in their best interest. I have no way of knowing the outcome of my choices because there is evidence to support both ideas but I'm always asking, without really thinking about it "Which outcome is more likely, which has more evidence to support it: The plane crashes and I die or the pilot will fly me there safely? Will I drive to work uneventfully like most days or will my tire blow out? A good feeling is caused by an invisible being talking to me or chemicals are released into my brain that create a sense of uphoria? Rain is caused by some goddess crying or the heat from the sun vaporizes water where it is later condensed in the sky?" Faith with very little, if any, evidence is sheer stupidity. Say I had faith that I could jay-walk across four lanes of traffic on a busy street without looking and make it to the other side safely. True there is evidence to support that there's a cance that every driver will be able to stop in time or by some randomness every car will miss me but there is even more evidence to support that if I cross at a designated area when it's my turn to cross I'll almost always cross safely. However I still have faith that a driver won't run a red light and kill me. I say go with the choice that has the most evidence and requires the least amount of faith... unless there's evidence to support that this would be a bad choice. :)
ReplyDeleteWell said, John. One thing I'll add...
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence to support the literal existence of Santa Claus; would you consider it wise or virtuous to believe in him? What about the Easter Bunny? Leprechauns? Fairies? Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? Allah? Would you consider it a smart move to believe in those things without evidence? Would you consider it virtuous? Why or why not?
Are you guys suggesting or implying that there is absolutely nothing that you or the scientific community as a whole believes or generally accepts to be true without the evidence to support it?
ReplyDeleteMike, you made a list of what you would consider pretty silly things to believe in without evidence. May I add one more? How about all matter, space, and time popping into existence out of absolutely nothing and by nothing. This is what the science community has to believe happened because all evidence supports a beginning to the universe. Do you believe it happened without intelligent influence? Have you ever witnessed anything that popped into existence? Is there any scientific evidence supporting the popping into existence of time, space and matter? Do you believe that it happened without God?
Using John's logic what seems more probable: All time, space, and matter contained in the universe exploded into existence out of nothing and by nothing or that a Creator who is not bound by the limits of our physical universe and which possesses infinitely more power and knowledge than any of us will ever comprehend caused it to happen?
Science readily admits it doesn't know everything. There are ideas on how the Universe was created, but right now there is no evidence to how the big bang happened. The evidence we have just indicates that that's the most likely scenario, as we can measure the expanding rate of the universe.
ReplyDeleteIf there were some creator that set in motion the big bang, then that just begs the question, "Who created the creator?" It's simply moved the question back one step further.
I was not implying that science thinks it knows everything. What I was implying was that faith is required to believe that the universe came into existence as I previously stated without any evidence to support it. That has been Mike's argument the whole time....faith without evidence. I asked if you believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing even though there is no evidence to support anything ever coming into existence out of nothing.
ReplyDeleteRay, the thought of "Who created the creator" is flawed in that you will be infinitely asking the question. If you get an answer to who created the creator then the next question will be who created whoever it was that created the creator and on and on and on to infinitely. Which is mathematically impossible. Infinity is only theory and not actually possible. You cannot go infinitely back in time because if you did then we'd never get to today because there'd be an infinite number of days to pass before today got here. At some point you have to have a first cause. Something that had no cause and that could start the whole ball rolling. That is God. He is un-created. He refers to Himself as "I AM" which is to mean that he exists and has always existed and always will exist. One of the dimensions our universe is time. We cannot comprehend an ever existing God because our minds are limited to the universe we live in. Besides, time is one of the things that came into existence at the beginning of the universe. Time, space and matter all began at the singularity of the universe. What was before that? Can you even comprehend non-time? I can't. Outside of this finite universe that we live in (which bodes another question...what is at the end of the universe? It cannot go on into infinity) is God who not bound by time, space or matter but the Creator of them.
I ask my question again: Do you believe that the universe (that is all time, space and matter) exploded into existence out of nothing and from nothing? Either something caused it to happen or it happened on its own. Which is it? You can say that science doesn't know how it happened but you still believe it did happen on it's own without a cause, right? If you can admit that you believe that even without the scientific evidence to support it then you have faith without evidence.
I do not have any faith that the Universe started. The reason I don't have that faith is that we are having this discussion, so obviously it was started. What science is trying to do is understand how. Right now science does not know exactly how that happened, but that doesn't preclude scientists from trying to come up with ideas to figure out how it happened.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the big bang theory 100%. There are obvious holes in it (where did the matter come from, as you pointed out). What I do believe is that we are here. The god of the bible is so laughably impossible that it is even less likely to be the case than the big bang.
I don't have faith that the universe started for the very same reason as you. We are here, so I know the universe began. But this answers only part of the question. I am not arguing about IF the big bang happened, only what caused it to happen. Either God caused it to happen or God did not.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the question was do you believe the big bang happened without God? That's what I want to know. I'm not asking you to explain where the all the matter came from. I'm just wondering if you believe that it happened without God.
I think that it's possible that the big bang happened, but I don't know for sure. The evidence seems to point in that direction.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt that it was a creator that initiated the big bang, but I don't know for certain. I will remain with the position that there was no creator that started it, unless there's verifiable evidence. The only arguments for a creator are philosophical and epistemological in nature.
I'm fine with the uncertainty. It doesn't matter any more to me than solving a puzzle. It would be nice to know, but ultimately how the Universe was created has no bearing on how I live my life. If it was some creator, then that's cool, but they definitely have taken a hands-off approach since they started this little experiment and does not deserve my praise. I would bet on a natural process though.
As I said before I choose the one that requires least amount of faith. Judging by the evidence presented from both sides (creator or pure randomness) the big bang theory seems more likely. I think there IS evidence to support it but it's just not nearly as conclusive as say... the fact that the earth orbits the sun. In all honesty I don't really know much about the evidence that supports it. I just know that there's a lot of evidence to support the nonexistence of a creator (at least any creator thought to exist by man) and since I don't know of any other theories out there that's the one I pick. You could probably list many things I believe without (or very little) evidence but, and this is the key point, I would never believe in something so strongly that my mind couldn't be changed. I would never deny or ignore evidence to preserve my faith. It's the exact opposite in fact. I work to find evidence and reduce the amount of faith it requires. For the time being we have to believe in some things until we can come up with a better answer. If we didn't take it on faith that we were going in the right direction we'd never push forward to see if we were in fact right. I would just like to note there's a difference between believing you have the best answer so far and believing you have THE answer as so many religions do. One continues the search for truth the other impedes it.
ReplyDeleteRight now physicists at the LHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhc) are at work trying to understand more about the nature of our physical universe and how it began. If they happened to discover something they believed supported the existence of a creator I would change my mind if they could explain with good reason why this was so. It would take some getting used to to be sure. Still I would not trust anyone who claimed to have spoken with this creator nor would I govern my life by that person's rules unless they explained with a good reason why it was better.
John's already gone over some of this, but I thought I'd restate it a little differently. Riding in a commercial airplane does involve faith, but it is not without evidence. The overall safety of commercial air flight is demonstrated every day in the overwhelming ratio of safe flights to accidents. And the truth is, I don't have blind faith that I'll be all right. I'm well aware that I'm putting my life in someone else's hands and that there is a possibility I might die in one of the rare accidents. I experience a certain amount of nervousness when I'm flying. But it's a calculated risk; the historical evidence of flight safety statistics gives me sufficient confidence in the competence of the pilot, and the manufacturers who built the plane, and the mechanics who keep the plane in safe operating order to go ahead and board the plane. The same thing goes for my car, the mail system, etc. These things all have track records of success that serve as evidence that I can trust in those systems. Yes there is faith involved, but it isn't without evidence.
ReplyDeleteTo contrast the difference, blind faith would be more like me being the first ever test pilot, or the first monkey launched into space, and even that's not totally blind since we can make reasonable predictions about the outcome based on our knowledge of how the physical world operates (and the countless test models I'm sure the original inventors went through before they got to something they were ready to test on a living thing).
Yes I take the existence of atoms on faith because I trust the scientific community. Trust is based on evidence of the positive outcome of past encounters. I trust scientists because: 1) What have they got to gain from lying to me? 2) The evidence of the truth of scientific discovery is all around us in the form of our advanced technology, including the ridiculously-complex computer on which I'm typing these words. 3) Scientists are subject to checks and balances in the form of other scientists who reproduce and verify the validity of their experiments. 4) If I really wanted to I could reproduce any scientific experiment for myself and get the predicted outcome.
You said infinity is only theory and not actually possible, then turned around and said God is infinite and causeless (always has existed, always will). So by your own definition, God is impossible. Oh, that's right, God exists in some other timeless dimension where infinity is possible. But for all intents and purposes, anything that doesn't exist within our universe doesn't exist. It can't be observed, it can have no interaction with or effect on anything in our universe. It's not within our realm of concern.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it strange that you can't fathom the possibility of a causeless "un-created" universe, but you have no problem with a causeless "un-created" God (who must inherently be even more complex than the universe since he conceived and created it). Your favoring of a more complex causeless entity over a simpler causeless entity is logically backwards, and only makes for a more complicated explanation (which makes it less likely to be true). Your favoring of a more complex explanation where insufficient evidence exists to conclusively prove either explanation demonstrates your blind favoritism toward the God hypothesis.
Part of the problem we're having is the word "faith" has a somewhat loose definition. When I used the word in the original question, I meant it in the sense of belief that is absolutely certain. Perhaps a less ambiguous way of wording it would be "Why is certainty without evidence considered virtuous?" With regard to the cause of the universe, science is only making a GUESS without evidence; you are claiming a FACT without evidence. Do you see the distinction?
By the way you still haven't really answered the original question about blind faith—just tried to accuse non-believers of being guilty of it too. So I'm still curious: why is faith—or certainty—without evidence considered such a virtue?
Mike, you point out the fact that I have not answered your original question, but at the same time the other posters have been artfully dodging a question I asked that should be relatively easy for an atheist to answer. However, as a sign of good faith I will answer your question hoping to get the same respect returned. I’ll ask my question and then I’ll answer yours.
ReplyDeleteMy question is as I have stated before. As an atheist, (and I’m sure there will be some variance in the answer depending on where you are on Dawkins spectrum of probability, but based on the amount of certainty you exhibit in what you post I’d say your flavor of atheism is about 6.8 out of 7 and please correct me if I’m wrong), do you believe with certainty, that the universe including all time, space and matter came into existence from nothing and by nothing?
I’m a bit surprised by your first reason for trusting in what science has to tell you as my having mentioned that very concept (the question of why would they lie) in one of Leah’s previous posts resulted in a new thread (in which you participated) written specifically in an attempt to address it. I find it a bit curious that you can be so sure that the authors of the Gospels were either lying or mistaken (curious because you have no evidence) and at the same time have no problem thinking that the scientists of this day and age are free from any motivation to lie or might actually get something wrong.
Now, as to your original question. Is it a virtue to have faith without evidence? “And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6). It is a virtue to have faith in God because that is what He wants from us, to believe Him and trust Him. Despite what you may presume, faith does not come devoid of evidence nor does God expect us to walk around blind folded. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find.” I believe that if you earnestly seek after God you will find Him. In Romans Paul says that through everything that God made we can clearly see his invisible qualities and that we have no excuse for not knowing him. Psalm 19 says “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known.” Does God go through great lengths to keep Himself hidden? Oh, on the contrary. I think, just as the Bible says, that He has left evidence in everything that He created. Maybe He is not traipsing around in snow white robes and wielding a scepter performing miracles to sway the skeptical or anything but He did leave His fingerprint on everything He created. Compassionate Heathen got it wrong when he said that if God revealed Himself that He’d be taking away our free will and we’d all be forced into believing in Him because God DID walk among us and He was still rejected. When He walked among us He did not take away anyone’s free will. And many of your statements have alluded to the fact that if God were here you’d probably still not follow Him. Want to read a book that logically argues in favor of a Creator? Read ‘The Case for a Creator’. Want to read a book that logically argues for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels? Read ‘A Case for Christ’. (Incidentally both of these books were written by an atheist who upon actually investigating the facts, began to believe in God) Some Christians are more interested in learning more about the evidence and dig into the science behind God’s creation and some are interested in other things and are satisfied with what the Bible teaches. This is no different than you being satisfied that the atom exists because you trust the scientific community and not do the research yourself. Your lack of research does not make the atom any less real and therefore a Christian’s lack of research does not make God any less real. There are a whole plethora of books written by scientists that are about learning more about God and his Creation. I am currently reading one by an astrophysicist who is discussing how God may interact on the many dimensions of the universe that we cannot detect with our senses.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that some things require more faith than others, but faith is definitely not blind. And when it comes right down to it, both the scientifically minded and the religiously minded both have faith in things that neither have the evidence for, despite the fact that no one on this blog is actually willing to admit it.
@Patrik - To answer you question bluntly, which I have already answered, is I don't know. I don't know where all the matter of the Universe came from, and I am fine with that uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteSo far my studies have shown me three ideas of where the matter came from. None of these are proven yet.
1) The Multiverse Theory - Super massive black holes create such a gravitational sink hole that they create another bubble (universe) within in the multiverse.
2) String Theory - Strings and filaments from the other dimensions move and sway. When the strings of one dimension collide with another, a great explosion is caused. (note that my understanding of string theory is very limited, and my information is probably wrong)
3) Intelligent Design - A supernatural being, being not of this existence, and immune from the effects of time, created matter and time.
I like the first idea the best, as it is the most simple explanation. It could be wrong, but it wouldn't bother my if it was.
I'm with Ray on this one. I did answer your question. I just didn't use the exact words you wanted to hear. So to answer it more bluntly: No, I don't believe the universe happened out of nothing, from nothing. Anything I've heard about the theory suggests that all matter in the universe existed but existed in a highly condensed state until, for a reason we have yet to explain, it exploded and became the universe we know today. To answer the other half of the question: No, I don't believe anything with certainty. However, I do believe some things with more certainty than others because there is more evidence to support it. My mind is always open to an even better explanation.
ReplyDeleteBy this logic I suppose you could argue that I believe in god almost as much as I believe in the Big Bang but seeing as neither has very much evidence to support it I believe both deserve little credence. Especially when governing one's life or an entire society.
I would spit in the face of any monster who would torture a good person for eternity simply for not believing in Jesus. I didn't say I would spit in the face of God just because he's God. If there really is a God, he's not necessarily as horrible as the one described in the bible (God forbid), and in that case I probably wouldn't feel the need to spit in his face.
ReplyDeleteIf given conclusive evidence of God, I would believe in him all right, but I would still demand my freedom and autonomy. A responsible and loving God would teach by example and then respect my autonomy and let me incur the natural consequences of my actions instead of trying to manipulate me with his fiery wrath. I'm not going to surrender my will to someone or something just because it's really powerful and says I have to—OR ELSE! They have a name for using threats in order to inspire fear and obedience: terrorism. And I would accept obliteration before I accepted the loss of my freedom at the hands of a terrorist God. "Give me liberty or give me death," as the saying goes. That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't devote my life to God and obey his every whim even if I knew for certain he existed.
So, you're right; I don't consider the question of whether or not God actually exists as being terribly consequential for my life decisions. But I'm not asking the question for my sake. The point of asking the question is so that you will think about what what your own answer is (hence the name "Think about it" Thursday). I already have an idea about why faith-based religions consider faith without evidence such a virtue; I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.