Christianity requires no proof?

[Skyman]

hmm do i attempt to join this discussion, theologically, philosophically, scientifically or even politically?

A lot of this depends on the framework you are coming from. Assuming some sort of Christian background (lets not make this harder than it need be) and yet the ability to look objectively at the concepts before us, there are issues with either concept. Blind Faith is a matter of interpretation. What a Christian would view as proof of God, the scientist would view as diffraction of the suns rays as the earths rotation alters the angle at which they enter the atmosphere relative to the observer. Thomas saw and believed, and Jesus predicted (for want of a less loaded word) that there would be those who would not see and yet still believe, does this equate to an expectation that God new there would be belief without proof?

Philosophically if there is a God who for whatever reason hasn't directly revealed him/her/its self then our understanding of such a deity must be restricted by our capacity to understand and interpret. since the nature of God is by its own definition so far removed from our ability to understand who are we to claim any knowledge or understanding at all. In this light IF the scriptures are the word of God (and i am guessing that we are assuming here that they are), then their truth is metered through the understanding of those who copied them down. The Scriptures are therefore not gospel in the classic meaning of the term, but rather an account of one person or even one communities insights and should be read as such. Faith is ultimately linked with this concept of interpretation and understanding.

For one person group or church a certain set of understanding or presumed understanding will be taken as faith, but for another group a different set of understandings or interpretations will be taken as faith. a good example of this is what the Catholics call "the communion of saints" and many protestant churches call "worshiping false idols" To a Catholic the practice would be a valid way of increasing their individual understanding of God, whilst to a protestant it would be almost heretical and possibly then a work of the devil. who are we to say who is right in matters like this? you have to take it on faith.

jumping to yet another point, just as most psychologists and or psychiatrists agree that there are stages in cognitive development, especially in relation to ones interaction with and awareness of other. depending on the theory you subscribe to, most people will not ever reach the peak potential. the same is true for faith. The concept of the spiritual journey and spiritual growth is well established amongst all major religions. the issue comes when people at different stages of the journey view different concepts within the faith structure that they have been exposed to in different ways.

enough of an essay for now

[mwfanelli2]

Proof is a word, when used in the vernacular, can be interpreted in many ways. Faith, by it's very definition, means accepting what you can not logically prove. You choose to believe in God or Zeus or whatever, no one can give you logical proof.

If I look at mathematics (and we'll get back to math later!), I can logically prove thousands of theorems. For example, you do not have to accept that "e" is an irrational number, it can logically be proven. I don't have to accept that Newton's First Law of Motion is true, I can experiment with it's predictions all I want and see that it always works. With religion, the "evidence" is more along the lines of that for UFOs, ghosts, etc. That last sentence is not an insult, just a lack of sleep that has me listening to Coast to Coast in the middle of the night quite a lot!

Religion is often contradictory which seldom shakes anyone's faith. If a tornado destroys a town and kills ten people, its always "Thank God for having saved me" rather than "God destroyed our town and those ten people." Things that can not be explained are given the label "God works in mysterious ways." To me, that's no different than a person locked into a conspiracy theory who tells me that all the proof is there but it is "hidden" by those in power.

One unproven theory I like (using faith!) is that humans are the only living beings we know who learn at an early age that they will die no matter what. That is such a devastating revelation that man creates an afterlife, a continuity that extends beyond death. As it is unknown, that continuity is assigned to the supernatural. Christians believe in heaven, Hindus (Hindi?) believe in karma and reincarnation, Muslims believe in Allah, etc. The vast majority of the world believes in some form of the supernatural that provides absolutes, something to cling to.

Now, some people claim that mathematics also requires faith, after all, it starts from axioms and first principles. But Bertrand Russel stated it clearly: for us to believe in mathematics and that which derives from it, mathematics must be internally consistent. That means, no matter where you start in math, no matter what you choose as your axioms and assumptions, all the rest of math is obtained the same way. You don't have to choose Euclid's axioms to derive geometry in flat space.

There is the vernacular version of proof that is used in faith, law, aliens abductions, medicine, etc. There is also another more rigorous proof required by science and mathematics. For better or worse, I go with the science and math crowd. That does not mean that faith plays no part in my life. There are things I accept with no proof (rigourous proof) that qualifies as faith. I think everyone does. That suspension of proof for me, however, does not extend to the current beliefs or concepts of any modern religion I am familiar with.

OK, that's a start. I believe I have to administer the physics final now!

[schrackman]

Hi Michael,

Your entire response above merely echoes your previous sentiments but in a more lengthly way, that Christianity requires no proof for belief. But you still have yet to answer my question.

Again, would it not seem irrational for God to expect faith from any of us without giving good reason to believe? Particularly since such grave ramifications are attached to the exercising of this faith or lack thereof?

Or, to put it another way, does it really make sense to you that a sentient being like the God of the Bible, endued with great intellect, would create man in his own image and likeness, fully capable of rational, logical and intelligent thought, and then expect faith from him in the absense of convincing evidence?

These are yes or no questions...commentary after answering is optional.

[mwfanelli2]

Again, would it not seem irrational for God to expect faith from any of us without giving good reason to believe? Particularly since such grave ramifications are attached to the exercising of this faith or lack thereof?

First, if you do not believe in a God then the question is irrelevent. Second, even if God exists, there have never been any "good reasons" provided throughout the history we know about. Man creates religions and gods, any "reasons" are also created by man. You choose or not to accept the dogma you are handed. When people ask "How do I know what you are telling me is true?" you wind up with pretty much two results: ignore the problem and just believe or stop believing.

Or, to put it another way, does it really make sense to you that a sentient being like the God of the Bible, endued with great intellect, would create man in his own image and likeness, fully capable of rational, logical and intelligent thought, and then expect faith from him in the absense of convincing evidence?

But I don't believe that any of that actually exists! Why? I choose not to believe this stuff! At some point, you always have to say "I believe" to continue the discussions. I just can't say that I believe in God anymore than I can say I believe in flying saucers, ghosts, shadow people, etc. For me to change my mind, I need logical proof. At the risk of sounding horrible, I find the entire God thing silly and somewhat childish. Others don't. So it goes.

These are yes or no questions...commentary after answering is optional.

LOL! Come on now, they were loaded questions that don't admit themselves to simple yes-no, on-off, binary answers.