(Blind) Faith
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"
That was the passage that we pondered today in church, and I think that this passage is one of the main points of contention between people of faith and people of science. As usual, there was a 3 point sermon, and I would like to use this sermon to illustrate certain aspects of Christianity in comparison to rationality.
The first point the preacher made was that questions are common among Christians. He said that there was some guy who went to Bible College because he had lots of questions, and he wanted them answered. After he graduated, he had even more questions, but apparently continued to "walk with the Lord". He used this to illustrate the point that everybody has questions and that having questions is normal.
He then went on to say that even though there are questions, they should not affect your fundamental belief in the christian God, and that belief in the christian God despite the questions you have is a good thing to do.
Finally, he went on to use Pascal's Wager as a justification for people to continue being christians even if they are having serious doubts, and says that eventually things will work out.
Since I am writing this post you will already know that I have problems with his statements.
Firstly, about his assertion that many senior Christians have questions as well. I hope that you all notice that even if this is true, these senior Christians certainly waste no time publicising their doubts. In fact, most public statements of Churches do not waffle and leave no room for doubt. They are proclamations ex cathedra, and no one is supposed to argue with them. I wonder if questions are so common and natural, why does the Church, and all religious groups, go out of their way to suppress any questions that are asked publicly? They hide behind the shield of religious tolerance, and say that any questioning of their beliefs is intolerance. If Christians truly embrace questioning as a way to get to the truth, they should, for example, answer questions such as: Why is there no evidence at all for the exodus and other major miracles of the Bible? Why are certain pieces of literature, contemporary to the books of the Bible and providing alternative views, excluded from the Bible and ignored (except when they support what is written in the Bible)?
Next, about the declaration that we should continue to believe even when we have questions, and its justification using Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager has been shown to be a circular argument, and thus can not justify anything. I was surprised that the preacher actually used it. If a person cannot find a better reason to believe than Pascal's Wager, go read up on the logical errors of the Wager, stop believing and start questioning!
Finally, and the greatest problem I see with the sermon, is the bold statement that those who believe without seeing (i.e. without evidence) are truly blessed, as stated in the verse above. Faith: To believe without reason. The big problem with this can be summarised in this quote by Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. The history of religious is littered with illustrations of that statement. This, the idea that we should believe in things that have no proof, is only one step away from the idea that we should believe in things despite proof to the contrary, which is something that Christianity is edging towards, what with the recent archaeological findings that there was no mass migration of the Jews out of egypt, which invalidates one of the founding stories of the Bible.
Remember: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. If there is a God, I would think that he would respect the intellectual honesty of questioning him in order to discern the truth, instead of the blind faith in the sayings and interpretations of a flawed book by flawed men.
Now, to dispel 2 major misconceptions of science and reason:
1) Scientists have 'faith' in their work the same way that Christians have faith in God.
As I said above, the Christian faith in God is without evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Scientists have 'faith' in their work because they produce results. They work! The day you see electrons stop flowing through a wire or you find human bones with dinosaur bones is the day where you will see scientists scrambling to find an alternative theory that works. On the contrary, the Church espouses values and beliefs whether they work or not.
2) The idea that there is no God is a faith similar to the idea that there is a God.
Not at all. People (Atheists) say that there is no evidence for a God. The burden of proof is on those who say that there is something rather than nothing. The reason this misconception comes about can be illustrated by the following:
a) I say that I believe there is a teacup in orbit around mars, so I have to provide evidence for the teacup.
b) I say that I believe there is no teacup in orbit around mars, then I also have to provide evidence for the teacup.
c) I say that there is no evidence for a teacup in orbit around mars, thus there is no reason to believe in the teacup.
d) I say that there is no evidence for a teacup in orbit around mars, thus I cannot say whether there is a teacup or not.
All people of religion belong to group a. Many people think that atheists belong to group b. In reality, atheists belong to group c. And of course, agnostics belong to group d. I hope this helps clarify what people think about atheists, and the difference between atheists and agnostics.
That was the passage that we pondered today in church, and I think that this passage is one of the main points of contention between people of faith and people of science. As usual, there was a 3 point sermon, and I would like to use this sermon to illustrate certain aspects of Christianity in comparison to rationality.
The first point the preacher made was that questions are common among Christians. He said that there was some guy who went to Bible College because he had lots of questions, and he wanted them answered. After he graduated, he had even more questions, but apparently continued to "walk with the Lord". He used this to illustrate the point that everybody has questions and that having questions is normal.
He then went on to say that even though there are questions, they should not affect your fundamental belief in the christian God, and that belief in the christian God despite the questions you have is a good thing to do.
Finally, he went on to use Pascal's Wager as a justification for people to continue being christians even if they are having serious doubts, and says that eventually things will work out.
Since I am writing this post you will already know that I have problems with his statements.
Firstly, about his assertion that many senior Christians have questions as well. I hope that you all notice that even if this is true, these senior Christians certainly waste no time publicising their doubts. In fact, most public statements of Churches do not waffle and leave no room for doubt. They are proclamations ex cathedra, and no one is supposed to argue with them. I wonder if questions are so common and natural, why does the Church, and all religious groups, go out of their way to suppress any questions that are asked publicly? They hide behind the shield of religious tolerance, and say that any questioning of their beliefs is intolerance. If Christians truly embrace questioning as a way to get to the truth, they should, for example, answer questions such as: Why is there no evidence at all for the exodus and other major miracles of the Bible? Why are certain pieces of literature, contemporary to the books of the Bible and providing alternative views, excluded from the Bible and ignored (except when they support what is written in the Bible)?
Next, about the declaration that we should continue to believe even when we have questions, and its justification using Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager has been shown to be a circular argument, and thus can not justify anything. I was surprised that the preacher actually used it. If a person cannot find a better reason to believe than Pascal's Wager, go read up on the logical errors of the Wager, stop believing and start questioning!
Finally, and the greatest problem I see with the sermon, is the bold statement that those who believe without seeing (i.e. without evidence) are truly blessed, as stated in the verse above. Faith: To believe without reason. The big problem with this can be summarised in this quote by Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. The history of religious is littered with illustrations of that statement. This, the idea that we should believe in things that have no proof, is only one step away from the idea that we should believe in things despite proof to the contrary, which is something that Christianity is edging towards, what with the recent archaeological findings that there was no mass migration of the Jews out of egypt, which invalidates one of the founding stories of the Bible.
Remember: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. If there is a God, I would think that he would respect the intellectual honesty of questioning him in order to discern the truth, instead of the blind faith in the sayings and interpretations of a flawed book by flawed men.
Now, to dispel 2 major misconceptions of science and reason:
1) Scientists have 'faith' in their work the same way that Christians have faith in God.
As I said above, the Christian faith in God is without evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. Scientists have 'faith' in their work because they produce results. They work! The day you see electrons stop flowing through a wire or you find human bones with dinosaur bones is the day where you will see scientists scrambling to find an alternative theory that works. On the contrary, the Church espouses values and beliefs whether they work or not.
2) The idea that there is no God is a faith similar to the idea that there is a God.
Not at all. People (Atheists) say that there is no evidence for a God. The burden of proof is on those who say that there is something rather than nothing. The reason this misconception comes about can be illustrated by the following:
a) I say that I believe there is a teacup in orbit around mars, so I have to provide evidence for the teacup.
b) I say that I believe there is no teacup in orbit around mars, then I also have to provide evidence for the teacup.
c) I say that there is no evidence for a teacup in orbit around mars, thus there is no reason to believe in the teacup.
d) I say that there is no evidence for a teacup in orbit around mars, thus I cannot say whether there is a teacup or not.
All people of religion belong to group a. Many people think that atheists belong to group b. In reality, atheists belong to group c. And of course, agnostics belong to group d. I hope this helps clarify what people think about atheists, and the difference between atheists and agnostics.
posted by edwin at 11:26 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home