Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If God can be logically supported and empirically verified, the Catholic Church should not be preaching sermons and establishing dogma that explicitly forbids debate and criticism. It should call itself a scientific field, ask for government funding and private donations, get lab equipment and start researching its religion.
Of course, if Christianity is to be taken on faith, then it is, by definition, not logical. And it is therefore no more plausible than my faith in Santa Claus.
It's illogical to say that an intelligent, educated person in the 21st century, would believe in something with no evidence. Faith is not blind. I trust my wife because she has proven, time after time, her devotion to me.
If God can be logically supported and empirically verified, the Catholic Church should not be preaching sermons and establishing dogma that explicitly forbids debate and criticism. It should call itself a scientific field, ask for government funding and private donations, get lab equipment and start researching its religion.
Of course, if Christianity is to be taken on faith, then it is, by definition, not logical. And it is therefore no more plausible than my faith in Santa Claus.
I know that God exists...the faith involves trust in what God will do.
Yes when believers of Jesus Christ turn to logic in the promises to Lord Jesus Christ, than Jesus cannot do anything for their prayers, ...... See the dark spirit of antichrist uses logic to rule out Jesus and faith which Jesus requires ... See logic is what people know as this is what happened before and it will happen again and again ,....Where Lord Jesus comes along and people believe and resist the logic of the known and believe and Jesus will bless these believers with His promises which will contradict all logic.......
The fact is that faith, by definition, is not reasonable. If it could be empirically verified with facts or by using the scientific method, it wouldn’t be faith. It would be a theory.
The fact is that faith, by definition, is not reasonable. If it could be empirically verified with facts or by using the scientific method, it wouldn’t be faith. It would be a theory.
when you study deep philosophy you find that pretty much every believe requires faith... for example, the thought of "this theory is true, and will remain true." some believes are simply more presentable and demonstrable than others.
some say that faith is believing something without evidence
simply because its what you want to believe
and that faith is therefore irrational
But one can also refuse to believe something in spite of all evidence to the contrary,
simply because it isnt what you want to believe.
In such a case you clearly lack faith
and therefore in such a case having faith would be perfectly rational
some say that faith is believing something without evidence
simply because its what you want to believe
and that faith is therefore irrational
But one can also refuse to believe something in spite of all evidence to the contrary,
simply because it isnt what you want to believe.
In such a case you clearly lack faith
and therefore in such a case having faith would be perfectly rational
Hmm, methinks that if you have faith despite evidence to the contrary, it should not be deemed rational, but dogmatic. Perfect example is the insistence of "inerrancy" fundamentalists with regard to their view of Scripture. Not rational, but certainly dogmatic, and refusal to accept contrary evidence.
In the history of man, dogmatism may very well have played a stronger role in our belief systems than faith. Dogmatism in religion has existed about the earth being the center of the universe, the earth being flat, even the existence of slavery was an accepted "normal" belief that it was ordained by God (and somewhat supported within the Scriptures themselves)
Science, too, has been caught up in dogmatism. Some years ago a father/son team named Alvarez questioned the prevailing theories of about Cretaceous-Tertiary disappearance of dinosaurs--that it was not caused by volcanic eruptions but by a massive asteroid that hit the earth. The Alvarezes were treated with scorn, vitriol and questioning of their credibility---in other words, dogmatism.
Likewise, politically, views can become dogmatic. Both communism and nazism arose out of what were once seriously thought to be scientific theories and philosphies. But dogmatism about them led to some of the greatest mass murders in history (Scot Altran--Response to the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference).
One of the biggest problems for dogmatists is that they tend to fall into the trap of wanting to be "right" rather than wanting to be effective or happy. Dogmatism, the inability to weigh evidence or critically review information, inhibits an individual's ability to reach beyond the narrow boundaries they have set for themselves. Generally, very generally, it makes them ineffective in trying to support their views, and frequently unsatisfied, unhappy, and dysfunctional---see political dogmatism above (but it works that way in religion and science, too).
I am a Christian by way of a personal experience with Christ, and I make every effort to treat others as He treated them. But my faith is not based on any evidentiary basis that I am able to share with anyone. Many discover faith in their own unique way. Many claim to have that faith, but struggle with "proving" it to others whether biblically or with "discoveries" of Noah's ark or whatever. The need to provide "proof" of God personally leaves me wondering about how much faith those individuals really have. Telling others to "believe" the Bible presupposes a foundation that is not there for non-Christians.
Faith is displayed with works, not words, and living examples are the only meaningful messages of Christian faith to those who do not know Him, and the only purpose for those who do.
Religion is a mix of reason and revelation. Revelation is, I believe, seen more as beyond logic/reason than totally against it.
I'm kind of improvising here, but let's say I have a box with an object in it. You shake the box, roll the box, compare the box's weight to a box with the same volume, etc. You can determine certain things about what's in the box by this method. You can establish parameters. Let's say you have determined by this that the object is a sphere 5 inches in diameter with a smooth surface and low density. Then I open the box and reveal to you it was a hollow globe of Mars 5 inches in diameter. This doesn't contradict what you found by study, but it does reveal more information.
Possibly this analogy implies things I don't mean, but the point is reason and revelation don't have to contradict. And ideally revelation allows for a more solid Truth that can not be obtained by purely human perception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Faith vs Theory
