A Gutsy Preacher

[tango]

It would actually be intellectually irresponsible/dishonest for us to look at something, and decide that something about it has to be true (simply because we cannot conceive of it NOT being true) and then claim that something as knowledge. It is better to say, I don't actually know, than to feign knowledge.

This much I can agree with, to conclude that something is true simply because we can't disprove it doesn't make sense. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[tango]

I would have to take your word on whether you actually love your wife or not. I have experienced love myself, and so I don't think it too extraordinary that you have as well. I have seen eagles too, so neither of these demands skepticism, unless they come from someone we know to be a habitual liar. If you tell me you saw a creature from another world in the park, then I would require evidence of that before I would consider it as possibly real.

Sure, all of that makes sense. But let's just say I did see a unicorn in my local park. The fact that I can't conclusively prove to you (or anyone else, for that matter) that I saw a unicorn doesn't change the fact that I did. In the absence of evidence you'd have to decide whether you considered me to be credible, as well as considering whether you consider my story to be credible. You might also consider things like whether I had anything to gain by making up stories.

That's one interesting thing about the Christian faith over the years. If anything people had clear and tangible benefits available if they denied Christ but chose to endure torture and death rather than deny him. Although it doesn't prove anything one way or the other in objective terms it does demonstrate a belief that is strong enough that they would rather die than lose the object of their belief. Using the unicorn analogy it would be akin to me continuing to insist that I did see it in the face of you threatening to kill me unless I denied seeing it.

 

[psalms 91]

The truth is the faith is just that, faith. Faith is believing when there is no proof, just a knowing

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, I have no doubt that there is strong belief and that people see what they wish to see, but this is quite different from genuine knowledge and things that can be shown to convince others who don't share our same biases. If I see a unicorn in the park, I am going to decide it more probable that I was suffering from some kind of brain chemistry issue rather than I actually saw what I thought I saw.

 

[tango]

The truth is the faith is just that, faith. Faith is believing when there is no proof, just a knowing

I'd say faith is what more like what fills the gaps in the proof rather than merely believing something without a shred of evidence.

I can't prove that God exists - the same evidence that convinces me that God does exist fails to convince others. I believe that joining the dots points to God but others have different viewpoints on where the dots point. Put another way, I fill the gaps with a faith that God exists, others fill the gaps with a faith that God does not exist. In fairness sometimes the faith that God does not exist is more passive than active, in the sense of lacking an active belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God.

 

[tango]

Yes, I have no doubt that there is strong belief and that people see what they wish to see, but this is quite different from genuine knowledge and things that can be shown to convince others who don't share our same biases. If I see a unicorn in the park, I am going to decide it more probable that I was suffering from some kind of brain chemistry issue rather than I actually saw what I thought I saw.

This raises the question of where you draw the line.

If I see an eagle in the park I can't prove to anyone that I actually saw anything, and the chances are I can't even prove that I was in the park at all. A few days back I actually did see two bald eagles circling over the park but if you put me in a witness stand and demanded I prove that I'd been in the park at all I couldn't do it - unless there's a CCTV camera I don't know about there isn't a shred of evidence that proves I was in the park that day.

If I see a unicorn in the park I know something is very unusual. Because it breaks my worldview (i.e. that unicorns do not exist) my first thought would be to try and figure whether it really was a unicorn or whether it was something else (a trick of the light, a practical joke, a horse with a horn stuck on etc). If I saw what looked like a unicorn in the distance then other explanations appear more likely, and I'd be very cautious before telling anyone what I saw. On the other hand if I saw a unicorn up close, close enough to be satisfied that it really was a unicorn and not something else, I'd have to at least consider that my worldview was wrong. The trouble with trying to prove it is that even if I did have photographs of it the chances are people would merely assume that I'd been playing with Photoshop.

If you saw a unicorn in the park and assumed you had a brain chemistry issue but your doctor confirmed everything was OK, at what point would you conclude that your worldview was wrong and that unicorns really did exist?

 

[MarkFL]

Personally, I don't believe or disbelieve in any god or gods. I have no reason to have a belief regarding the notion. There is a solid, but subtle difference between rejecting a claim vs. believing the negation of that claim.

 

[MarkFL]

...If you saw a unicorn in the park and assumed you had a brain chemistry issue but your doctor confirmed everything was OK, at what point would you conclude that your worldview was wrong and that unicorns really did exist?

Doctors can be wrong, and brain chemistry issues fleeting and/or intermittent. I would still weigh the likelihood of my being wrong vs. unicorns being real, and my being wrong would win hands down.

 

[Stravinsk]

I found the following posted in the blog of a Christian preacher:

"At the end of all our studying and praying and accepting and rejecting and feeling and dismissing and meditating and wrestling; whether we’re completely sold-out for Jesus, or unapologetically Buddhist or devout practitioners of another faith tradition or fully defiant in disbelief of any Deity—none of us really knows anything.

After all our pursuits and positing, we’re all really just Agnostics with suspicions."

Here's a link to the blog entry:

We're All Really Just Agnostics With Suspicions

Try Ad Blocker...I didn't see a single ad there.

Knowledge is something you can rationally and logically demonstrate to others. If you cannot demonstrate the truth of your belief, then it can't be considered knowledge. Faith is about beliefs, not knowledge.

Under the assumption that we can effectively communicate with each other as reasoning beings.

Can you rationally and logically demonstrate that you are a flesh and blood person and not a highly advanced computer program?

You could post a picture, but it could be of someone else.
You could post a video, but this also doesn't demonstrate you are the person in the video.
You could show up in person, but how do I know that the person who says he is MarkFL is not an imposter who gained access to his login details?

The point I'm making is that a demonstrate-able proof is easy enough, but it still requires a degree of faith in some measure.

The Deist position is much like the beginning of the Psalm Tigger quoted on page 2. The evidence of a Creator is the creation itself, and the laws in which it is expressed.

LOL! This thread is about a preacher intellectually honest enough to state that when it comes to the supernatural, there is no such thing as genuine knowledge, either for or against. On the supernatural, we are all truly agnostic. That's the point he was making, and with which I agree.

Sometimes what is *natural* is hidden and considered *supernatural* until it is more fully understood and more universally applied. Electricity is a good example - as it was at one time considered occult and "magic".

 

[tango]

Doctors can be wrong, and brain chemistry issues fleeting and/or intermittent. I would still weigh the likelihood of my being wrong vs. unicorns being real, and my being wrong would win hands down.

Surely it would depend on the proximity of the encounter?

If you saw a horse with a horn, in the distance, in the woods, the most likely explanation is that it was a regular horse and the "horn" was a branch or a shadow or something.

What if you saw that horse with a horn in a clearing, sufficiently close that you could be sure it wasn't a branch or a trick of the light? What if you went back to that clearing another day and saw the unicorn again? Is there any point at which you'd conclude that maybe your belief in the non-existence of unicorns needed to be reassessed?

 

[MarkFL]

Is there any point at which you'd conclude that maybe your belief in the non-existence of unicorns needed to be reassessed?

Yes, if I could capture it, and bring it to a zoologist for study.

 

[psalms 91]

I'd say faith is what more like what fills the gaps in the proof rather than merely believing something without a shred of evidence.

I can't prove that God exists - the same evidence that convinces me that God does exist fails to convince others. I believe that joining the dots points to God but others have different viewpoints on where the dots point. Put another way, I fill the gaps with a faith that God exists, others fill the gaps with a faith that God does not exist. In fairness sometimes the faith that God does not exist is more passive than active, in the sense of lacking an active belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God.

The bible defines faith very well, it is the substance iof things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen

 

[Josiah]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yup.




.

 

[Lamb]

Getting back to the OP...

The definition of agnostic is this:a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

The part after the semicolon is the part that makes the OP's author of the article wrong in his assumption of calling all Christians agnostic. As a Christian I do have faith and belief in God. He can't take that from me.

 

[Tigger]

In forensics you don't have to witness the murderer in action to know that there was one.

 

[MarkFL]

In forensics you don't have to witness the murderer in action to know that there was one.

Yes, because you have evidence that can be shown to others. It doesn't require faith to believe the murder took place. There is knowledge that a murder took place. There is no knowledge of the supernatural, in the truest sense...if there were there would be no need for faith that there is a supernatural. This is what the author of the blog had the honesty to admit.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, because you have evidence that can be shown to others. It doesn't require faith to believe the murder took place. There is knowledge that a murder took place. There is no knowledge of the supernatural, in the truest sense...if there were there would be no need for faith that there is a supernatural. This is what the author of the blog had the honesty to admit.

I disagree. It required faith to BELIEVE you exist.... others exist.... a life was there.... You CHOOSE to believe some things, not others.

The op is correct in the (absurd) PHILOSOPHICAL point - no one KNOWS anything in any absolute sense (in fact, choosing to believe in belief is faith....an option). Yup..... no such thing as absolute certainty, absolute objectivity. Everything boils down to the "leap of faith" as Kierkegaard put it. I wouldn't loose a lot of sleep over that..... I wouldn't let that drag me into absolute relativism.... just the awareness that ultimately, we are all believers.... we all make our choices.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I disagree. It required faith to BELIEVE you exist.... others exist.... a life was there.... You CHOOSE to believe some things, not others.

The op is correct in the (absurd) PHILOSOPHICAL point - no one KNOWS anything in any absolute sense (in fact, choosing to believe in reason is faith....). Yup..... no such thing as absolute certainty, absolute objectivity. Everything boils down to the "leap of faith" as Kierkegaard put it. I wouldn't loose a lot of sleep over that..... I wouldn't let that drag me into absolute relativism.... just the awareness that ultimately, we are all believers.... we all make our choices.



- Josiah

Yes, I know from your past posts that you will default to the position that nothing is knowable, that there is no such thing as objective evidence, that atheism makes a claim, etc. I disagree with all these things.

 

[Stravinsk]

Yes, because you have evidence that can be shown to others. It doesn't require faith to believe the murder took place. There is knowledge that a murder took place. There is no knowledge of the supernatural, in the truest sense...if there were there would be no need for faith that there is a supernatural. This is what the author of the blog had the honesty to admit.

The etymology of the word "supernatural" gives the impression that it is something that goes beyond, above, or breaks nature or natural law, physical or otherwise.

However, to use the term, and to dismiss it so generally does assume total knowledge of nature. It's one reason I'll repeat the Electricity example. It was not always considered "natural", it was not always harnessed and used, it was not always largely understood and prior to it's widespread use, it was considered something occult, magic - in a word - "supernatural". Most people had only a very limited understanding of what nature provided them. Harnessing and using it was something super-natural - belonging to the realms of science fiction.

It's a good thing some peeps had some faith to dig a little deeper and understand it, else we wouldn't be using it today. Not one of those people could assume total knowledge in order to come to the discoveries they did, though.

 

[MarkFL]

Yep, electricity came to be understood as a natural phenomenon as a result of science, because there is something to measure.