Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    I find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the Bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?

    Can any believer attempt a defence of this position?

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    Faith is the product of a whole host of cognitive errors . . .

    • Conformation bias: Only acknowledging information that supports what you already believe while ignoring any and all information that's inconvenient or counter to your preconceptions.
    • Personal bias: Thinking that your positions are solid simply because you hold them or because such a position is necessary for you to maintain internal congruence.
    • Conclusions before evidence: Having a firmly staked out position without knowing any of the facts or principles necessary to arrive at a conclusion.
    • Intellectual dishonesty: Willfully failing to follow the evidence where it leads or failing to address any facts that would undermine your existing positions.
    • Availability error: Having your perceptions distorted by the human tendency to remember seemingly meaningful outcomes while forgetting outcomes you didn't realize were actually important.
    • Intellectual laziness: Preferring one conclusion over another purely because it's simpler for you to understand or because it doesn't require any research.

    . . . just to name a few.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    "It's called Faith because it isn't Knowledge." - Christopher Hitchens

    Faith offers delusional comfort. Knowledge does not.

  • DogGone
    DogGone

    Half Banana, I respectfully think your challenge rather begs the question. The indefensibly of faith is the point. Bear with me for a second, if you will.

    Time and again in film the protagonist is lost, absolutely unable to come to the defense of the love interest, partner, country, world and/or universe. All logic, all reasonable evidence indicates the cause is lost, the victory of the villain certain. But still, the character taunted by the villain has faith, despite all evidence and odds, that the outcome will be just. This is a recurring motif, a part of our collective heroic arc narrative.

    As a popular example, in ROTJ the Emperor retorts to Luke's comment that his overconfidence is his weakness, "Your faith in your friends is yours!" To ask Luke to defend his position despite the impossibility of the situation, despite the evident destruction of his friends playing out before his eyes, well.... that rather misses the point of this faith, doesn't it?

    As Jehovah's Witnesses we were taught a different brew. We were taught a faith based on carefully selected scriptures, on "scientifically" backed evidence for the signs of the times, and on the visible evidence of God's earthly organization. This is well summed up in the old NWT's wooden translation of John 17:3 that eternal life comes from "taking in knowledge" of the only true God. They have recently corrected this monstrosity, but the ideology that predates the rendering survives. The point is, we were taught that once "the knowledge that gives everlasting life" is grasped then logic will lead to faith in God himself, his plan, and the organization he is using.

    Christian faith is typically not of this sort. It is usually a personal belief or trust in the justice of God, often through a personal revelation or experience. Many of the Church Fathers went beyond this, setting an amazing and elaborate home for Christianity in the blend of science, philosophy and logic called theology. But, that is not what makes most Christians "Christian" today, if it ever did. I don't personally know of a single Christian who arrived at belief through this theological route, though there were some who did in centuries past.

    To ask a person of faith to defend their faith against all logic, evidence, and "knowledge" is akin to asking the artist to defend his ascetic form against all practicalities of function. I put "knowledge" in quotes because many Christians I know have had what they claim is personal knowledge, a subjective experience which informs their faith, a sort of "road to Damascus" moment. So, they would claim they have knowledge you find inadmissible.

    (For the record, I have no faith and now find the whole enterprise a complete dead end. However, I don't think it is fruitful to pursue the sort of challenge you have thrown down for the reasons I have attempted to illustrate,)

  • cofty
    cofty
    many Christians I know have had what they claim is personal knowledge, a subjective experience which informs their faith, a sort of "road to Damascus" moment.

    Speaking as a former christian I disagree. Those "experiences" are what christians use to reassure themselves of their salvation. Literature, seminars, online presentations, church services are full of such "testimonies". Anybody can create that special moment of "adoption" or sealing in the spirit or whatever the current phrase is.

    Some will allow themselves to be "slain with the spirit" or gibber in tongues or look for other means of confirmation. It is self-delusion reinforced by huge group pressure and manipulation.

    Stop going to services and meetings, stop praying, stop reading the bible and other religious literature etc for 3 months and see how it all dissipates.

  • DogGone
    DogGone

    Cofty, with all deference to your incredible presence and influence on this forum, can you help me to understand what you are disagreeing with? You seem to be strengthening my point, not disagreeing with it.

    I know your subjective experience with "stop going" casts into doubt their subjective experiences (mine does too), but I fail to connect that to my argument. It is likely because I am being daft.

  • cofty
    cofty

    DogGone - My apologies. The phrase "I disagree" doesn't belong in that context.

    Having read it again I am in fact agreeing with you.

    Sorry

    with all deference

    Please don't defer - when I am being an idiot please tell me :)

  • DogGone
    DogGone

    Cofty, thanks, I was afraid I wasn't clear. That may still be the case, but at least you sorted through my ramblings.

    To put it simply, those of faith can retreat into Fideism. (Not all do, so this line of attack works well against those who think their faith is underpinned by logic, but that is not the Evangelical way, in my experience.)

  • baker
    baker

    https://www.facebook.com/BluegrassLife/videos/962083680507861/

    here is Steve Martin,s take on the matter..

  • Perry
    Perry
    I find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the Bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?

    I find it curious how in spite of the utter failure of science to explain how life began some people would try to stuff the evidence.

    From a dynamic point of view, it is impossible to know God - or rather to be known by God without faith. As JW's we rejected the new covenant offered by Jesus which is necessary to make friends with Him. Since it is soooo obvious that our attempts to deal with Jehovah directly through the Watchtower ended in so much pain and suffering, I myself wonder what took me so long to figure it out. Took me 8 to 10 years.

    The reason that God puts so much emphasis on faith, even to the point as to making it one of the necessary components (grace through faith) that makes us righteous (ie. have the right to life) is because we have the possibility of a reciprocal relationship with someone who not only knows everything, but also knows everything that can and will ever be discovered in all of eternity future. That changes everything.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit