Why would a supremely powerful and wise being regard faith as a virtue?
designs, and REQUIRING such a sacrifice,
it would show that these experiments on all continents result from failure to communicate. so where is the power?
not just blind faith, mis-directed faith?
Looking down the master-slave dialectic, faith is a blindfold and an act of subjugation. Old-school 'terrorists' were often pictured blindfolding their victims to some specific end. The victim's faith of living through an interrogation, a life-and-death ordeal, or other high-control scenarios, is an exploitation and psychological warfare.
Does the National Security Agency have faith in You?
One unsolved problem is the direct contact the different Gods of the bible had with human past. It would seem to be limited now. So how do you communicate with your creation the proof of your existence and regulations if there is a rule or limit to interaction? Another wrinkle is if your creation somehow evolved over time.
The apostle Thomas, even after witnessing many of Jesus' miracles, refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected until he saw physical evidence with his own eyes. Jesus didn't condemn Thomas for his lack of faith but he willingly provided the evidence.
Why would Jesus have a different standard today, some 2,000 years later? And all the more so since the gospels were written decades after the event for which only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies have been found?
That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable.
Religion = faith is a lie.
Belief = faith is a lie.
It was faith (not religion) that gave men like Martin Luther and Nelson Mandela to power to rise above their circumstances and do pioneering things most of us find highly counterintuitive.
fernando, which "Martin Luther" do you mean, the --King?, the protester?,-- or the monk? the Protestant?
The monk certainly did his double - take/protest because of his bible studies and his close look at religious reality in Rome and wrong doctrines.
BSW. having faith, implies being FAITHfull.
why would the above defined " wise being" not outline what we are supposed to be faithfull to?
or is it "faithfull" as defined in other languages, - related to true, treu, adhering to what you know to be reality?
Island Man I think you’re well written post makes a few assumptions between the lines. The very idea that God can, if he exists, prove his existence to anyone let alone everyone is based on the idea that knowledge of any kind can be proven. Even in science, there is no such thing as unambiguous evidence which means there are simply different levels of ambiguous evidence. This is why the word theory is used to describe the most established of scientific ideas, rather than proof. Even at the strong end of the scientific evidence spectrum, there are big issues that cut to core of what science and even evidence and understanding are to begin with. The very laws of classical physics break down in black holes, in that cause and effect become very subjective rather than objective to the point of ridiculousness where logic even has problems. Cause and effect are the corner stone of what most people think of as science, as it speaks to the relationship between one thing and another thing. It is the core of what is thought to be understanding itself.
Understanding is limited by nature of what understanding is. For example there are things I know without any evidence needed at all. These things have no need of understanding to back them up in order to know it is true. I am talking about my own consciousness or perception. What I perceive could all be an illusion but that doesn’t mean I do not perceive it. Perception and what is perceived is not the same thing. I don’t understand how it works but I don’t need to in order to `know` I am real. A cat doesn’t need to know how the brain works but is still known to itself by virtue of its own consciousness. In fact the more people think they understand about how consciousness works, (which presumes it’s subject to cause and effect in the first place), the more likely some tend to question its reality. Hence some think that consciousness is an illusion, which is a ridicules statement as its one of the few things that needs no evidence. While there is sense to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, no one says this in relation to the mega extraordinary claim that the perception of claims is real. Why? Because no one needs to which is very telling.
On the other hand `understanding` is always limited by what is not known. Because of this, it means that what is known is also incomplete as a description of truth. So, is what is known really known? The fact that science works should not be mistaken for proof that it is correct or true because there are places in the universe where such things would not work. Understanding is built on evidence and if God is real, no amount of understanding would be enough to prove God as real because understanding itself is by nature limited. It would be like trying to understand infinity. It’s going to take forever! An infinite amount of evidence would also take a while but this also applies to the idea that truth is real which underpins scientific progress.
Faith in the concept of truth is why scientists do science because they believe in the intelligibility of the universe, despite areas where this seems to not be true. Faith is not just for those who think God is real. For those that do, a different kind of evidence is used. People claim to have seen or experienced events that do not appear to operate according to cause and effect and this is the source of their faith in many cases. One is quite right to question this of course but for those that do so, they should also question what they except as evidence and what that evidence really indicates about the nature of reality.
The fact that charlatans, con-merchants and the plain old hoodwinked exist is not the fault necessarily of God if he exists because the same is also true for science which most except as true. Religion both good and bad are from man trying to makes sense of existence, not God. The same is true for science, in that although science may well be true, at least pragmatically on earth, it is man who abuses science just as man abuses religion. There are people abusing and not abusing both religion and science. Both science and religion use different types of evidence that are different from one another. Both are seeking truth in different ways. The powerful of both religion and science are abusing these things. The threat of nuclear annihilation due to a religious war would be the worst of both worlds. Then there is global warming which could never have happened were it not for science but it’s not science itself which is at fault but people. Same for religion also.
It is easy to point a finger at man’s understanding of God and label faith as something only silly believers have, even if in a more intellectual approach to God, but it’s not a very in depth analysis of faith, knowledge and evidence. I guess it does sell newspapers though, hence the propaganda wars are here. Ironic given the information age is also here but perhaps the two go hand in hand.
Seraphim23, I take your point about absolute proof and absolute knowledge being somewhat elusive for us. However, there's no denying that there is such a thing as abundant and reasonable evidence. The kind of faith that religion glorifies does not involve anything close to abundant and reasonable evidence.