It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Short answer for failth / logic question (bible/religion)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The shortest and simplest way to answer this topic is this:

2 young boys were talking. One young man said, "Isn't that neat the way the sun sets each night."

The other boy said, "The sun doesn't set." And he explained the way the earth spins etc.

The 1st boy said, "How can you believe that? SEE the sun setting? And I don't FEEL the earth spinning around."

The 2nd boy said, "I believe it because my Father told me so."

So logic (going by what we see, feel and anyliticaly think) doens't make something true. Sometimes to have the truth, you just have to believe (have faith).




posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I agree with your illustration. Our perception is not absolute, so... neither is our logic. That's why we create scientific instruments. Our instruments also aren't all-seeing or all-knowing. The notion that this logic of the mind can rule out something, based on the mind not being able to perceive it is illogical.

If the mind is faulty, so are its processes. We do not have perfect minds.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Well put.
(I just couldn't bring myself to get up the gumption to get any more complicated than a quick story about 2 little boys and a sun set. LOL!)



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
bump

I want to hear what the logicites have to say about this concept.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
bump

I want to hear what the logicites have to say about this concept.


I do too. But I don't have the strength and wear-with-all to do any decent debating on the whole marri-go-round issue tonight. I love to talk out opposite points of view - we can learn so much that way. Need coffee. Need sleep? Something.



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
nice one angela!

I also agree w/this metaphor .. or parable .. or what ever



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Thank you.
It sounded alot better when my preacher told it at class wen. night. But we got the jist of it in here.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I think you point is more true than most know. Faith is the key to finding and understand what God wants. I dont need a mericle or a angel to reveal himself to me for me to know God is here. Faith is what keeps me walking not proof.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The weight of this argument(in the op), levels everyone. What do people have to say about this?



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

I want to hear what the logicites have to say about this concept.


That it's a pretty poor attempt to give faith (belief without evidence) some degree of parity with evidence-based reason?

Lets take it a step further.

The second little boy says either:

(1) 'I believe because my dad told me so - he is a cosmologist who has collected evidence that supports this position, making specific predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by the wider scientific community'

(2) 'I believe because my dad told me so - he is a mystic who has recently had a personal revelation that the earth orbits the sun'

So, now we have three positions. One depends on our intuitive senses; the second on the collection, verification, and predictive capacity of real-world evidence, forming theories around facts. The third depends on private revelation.

I contend one of these is much more reliable than any of the others.

It always amazes me the way in which faith-based people will fall into post-modernistic relativism to bolster their position.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The original post still levels all beings. That's what I was getting at. We are limited, our instruments are limited, in a world where there are unknowns.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngelaLadyS
The shortest and simplest way to answer this topic is this:
Lets change the story a bit here:-

2 young boys were talking. One young man said, "Isn't that neat the way that the universe was made through natural processes."

The other boy said, "The universe wasn't made through natural processes. God did it." And he explained the way the the universe was made by god in 6 days.

The 1st boy said, "How can you believe that? I can't see god or anything that it has done. There is no evidence for any god"

The 2nd boy said, "I believe it because my Father told me so."

So logically god would come under the same pretext as the OP and doesn't make god true.

G



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
The weight of this argument(in the op), levels everyone. What do people have to say about this?


I think I would have to say that it's a personal choice. But the thing that tips the scales, is that those who choose not to have the faith often do not have hope or happiness. Not a specific time of life, but in general, even lots of money and cherity work don't buy happiness and fulfillment. There's a special peace that comes and it only comes from one place.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Nope. There are only 2 positions possible.
1 is faith and belief (no questions asked, no thought given, no proof needed - just, "Yes, I believe." No reason or logic needed.)

The other is no have faith. This encompasses all 'give me proof', theries and 'possibilities' that mere man can come up with.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I know you don't see it, but the example isn't what you think it is.

For instance, there are two choices.

(1) One boy takes his own intuitive senses as the ideal method of gaining an understanding of the world. I know this is not perfect, and so do you.

(2) The second boy is using faith in that he trusts what his father is telling him. Whether this is a good approach or not depends where the father is gaining the information from, which I hoped to illustrate, and also on the reliability of him as a source (past history of such instances etc).

And because you have framed this little story in such a way that it shows 1 to be wrong and 2 to be correct when compared to the real-world, you suggest this in some way levels faith (belief without evidence) and evidence-based reason. Not at all.

How do we know that (1) is wrong and (2) is correct? Personal revelation? Or by evidence-based reason?

[edit on 4-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I understand what your saying - and in light of any typical situation I'd have to agree with you. It is only because the object we are talking about if faith that we see this differently.

And then, each person may have their own idea of what faith actualy means too.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
OK. Still doesn't answer the question as to how we know that 1 is wrong and 2 correct.

From the OP you are stating that logic/reason/evidence-based analysis is not always correct. True.

But then you say that to sometimes have truth we just need to believe, that is, accept something without evidence. I don't think this is true at the heart of the matter. The boy is accepting second-hand information, and in this particular case it is correct. But that's only because the information he is trusting is not actually based on faith, but evidence-based reason.

If we take such an approach right down to the central point of contention (e.g., the earth orbits the sun), such that we are accepting information that has no real-world evidential basis, then the reliability of such information is highly suspect. Doesn't mean it is wrong, just that we have no real-world verification of it.

If there is an issue of defintion with regards to faith, then outlining it might be useful.


[edit on 4-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
melatonin

That is the point - we don't know anything at all for certain - there is no proof. That is the whole thing with faith.


Please don't think I'm on a kick to try and change anyones mind or insist that I have an answer to a question. It is just an illustration giving us something to think on.

And yes, the boy is accepting info from his father - which is tha point. Remember, this was a kick off thread that was dealing specificaly with religious/God based questions conserning logic vs. faith.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Okie doke.

I don't doubt that you need faith for your views on theology. I guess my points should be more aimed at depth om, as he appears to think this has some relevance for 'logicites' that puts us all on some sort of level playing field.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
At one time I had faith, but I was still empty, I prayed like it was a thirst needing to be quenched. I was still searching for happiness, and found none. I was guilty of needing that Sunday fix to enforce the faith by fear, and to hold on to the illusion of being content, or fulfilled. I witnessed miracles, that modern science could not explain. Where these acts from God working through man, or just by man?

I'm still searching, but I refuse to live my life in fear. At one time my everything was based on faith, but continuing to believe in things that seemed so one sided and empty, and manipulated, by going against reason, did its toll on me, and the believe/faith faded.

Now I base my belief in reason, and I continue to study religion, and alternative belief systems, right now I'm interested in alchemy and numerology, but I'm still seeking answers for questions that I may never find.

One boy tells another boy, "I must have been really good last year because Santa brought me lots of gifts for Christmas".

The other boy responds, "my parents bought me many gifts because they love me, why do you think that Santa gave you these gifts."

The first boy responds "Well the milk and cookies I left for him were gone, when I went to bed their were no gifts under the tree, but when I woke up there were many.

The other boy responds "This is why you believe in Santa?"

The first boy responds "No I believe because my parents told me so"

Conditioning in all its glory.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join