Science and religion

[dpmartin]

Didymos Thomas

Lets see;
The experience (knowledge) of the parent passing on what they know to the child. Would that be, could that be, knowledge? Sorry I didn’t know I had to explain that deep concept to you.

"Trust is not the whole of faith."
So why don’t you tell us what the difference is between trust and faith.

[Didymos Thomas]

The experience (knowledge) of the parent passing on what they know to the child. Would that be, could that be, knowledge?

The experience of the parent is the parent's knwoledge. It is not the experience, nor the knowledge of the child.

"Trust is not the whole of faith."
So why don’t you tell us what the difference is between trust and faith.

I didn't say there was a difference. I said Trust is not the whole of faith, that trust is not everything. Trust is part of the practice of faith, but faith still needs understandings. Trust cannot replace understanding. Again, if you have no understanding of a belief, it is an arbitrary belief.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

Yet, I am a retired Ironworker who used to walk that high Iron. I don't want to suggest that I fall over in the dark, but I get conflicting information from my ears, and so always kept my balance by sight... I don't know how I did it.

I don't know how you did it either. But you are completely correct that these senses need to complement each other. Proprioception, vision, and balance are neurologically linked (and the pathways well worked out). This is why you get carsick from reading in a car -- because your vision and your balance are telling your brain different things (and these link up with your parasympathetic nervous system which, via vagal effects, can cause nausea and fainting).

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I have trouble calling faith the lazy man's knowledge. Faith implies knowledge. How can you have faith that is not arbitrary if you have no understanding of your faith?

Faith seems very difficult. How many times did Jesus reprimand someone for having too little faith?

What you may be seeing in the gospels is the influence of Paul. James was much more keen on acts. And the Muslims, like James believe they will be judged on the their deeds. There has been a real cycle in Christianity, first away from Judaism and then back again. I like the Muslims only because they manage to be more Christain. Usually.

[dpmartin]

Didymos Thomas
"The experience of the parent is the parent's knwoledge. It is not the experience, nor the knowledge of the child. "

Then your saying that what is known as in 2+2=4 that information, knowledge, know how, can not be passed from one person to an other. How is it that one needs to experience 2+2=4 when the experience of the other that passed it on, is sufficient in the real world? You know, schools, education, degrees. It seems in your mind that would be irrelevant, because you didn’t experience it. Therefore if you don’t know it or experience it, it does not exist. Therefore how can it be knowledge unless you experience it. That’s a ruff way to go through life, and frankly an immature view of things.
***********
"I didn't say there was a difference. I said Trust is not the whole of faith, that trust is not everything. Trust is part of the practice of faith, but faith still needs understandings. Trust cannot replace understanding. Again, if you have no understanding of a belief, it is an arbitrary belief."

Last I checked, if one is not the whole of the other then they are not equal therefore there is a difference. So ether faith is trust, or there is a difference between the two. Which is it?

How is it that trust is not all of (or not equal to) faith but yet faith still needs understanding and trust can not replace faith but yet you say you said there is no difference but yet you say there is.

Once again you say one thing, then another, without a point, insisting that you have one that should be responded to.

[Didymos Thomas]

What you may be seeing in the gospels is the influence of Paul.

I doubt it. Paul's Gospel was the last written Gospel, much to late to influence the earlier works of Mathew or Mark, or even Luke. Not to ignore the influence of Paul and his Gospel - from that text, many concepts were adopted by mainstream Christianity which are not found anywhere else in the Gospels.

James was much more keen on acts. And the Muslims, like James believe they will be judged on the their deeds. There has been a real cycle in Christianity, first away from Judaism and then back again. I like the Muslims only because they manage to be more Christain. Usually.

I do have to agree with you here. Jesus is the second most prominent character in the Quran, and they take his words very seriously.

When Jesus speaks of faith, in the first three Gospels anyway, I think faith implies works, deeds. If you have real faith, then your actions will reflect your faith. If you do not have real faith, your actions will reflect this as well. Somehow (well, I have some ideas about it, but that's another story) the Christian church has placed so much influence on faith without understanding, that some even argue all one must do is ask forgiveness from the Lord, as if saying some magic words changes everything. This is horribly dangerous, especially to those who buy into such notions.

Then your saying that what is known as in 2+2=4 that information, knowledge, know how, can not be passed from one person to an other.

No I'm not. Information can be passed on, not experience or knowledge, these must be verified by the person. How can I have the experience of my parents only by hearing their stories?
I am told 2+2=4. I notice that if I have two pens, and find two more, I now have four pens. If I discovered that instead such a situation left me with five pens, I would at least have some critical questions for whoever instructed me on 2+2=4.

How is it that one needs to experience 2+2=4 when the experience of the other that passed it on, is sufficient in the real world?

Is it suffieicnt just to be told something?
If someone say's "God is over there!" do you take their word for it, or go have a look for yourself?

It seems in your mind that would be irrelevant, because you didn’t experience it.

Didn't experience what? School? I have a high school diploma (not really, but we'll just play along for the point) and went to high school for four years to get it. How is this not experience?
Similarly, if you go to college, take the classes, read the mateiral, write the papers, ect, you had the experience.

Therefore if you don’t know it or experience it, it does not exist.

What? You keep making the boldest assertions about what I'm saying, despite me never have said anything of the sort. If you have no experience of it, you, yourself do not know it. You may have a portion of another's knowledge of something through the report of another, but this is not your knowledge.
I have never seen a zebra, but I do not contest their existence. I might say, they are white with black stripes because I have seen them on TV, but even this is not my knowledge, it is someone elses being told to me.
If I go to Africa, and see the zebras, then I have knowledge of them - I have seen them, and all the hues of black and white they have, smelled them, watched them run, eat and live.

That’s a ruff way to go through life, and frankly an immature view of things.

When we've wiped away your assumptions about my position on the matter, you may want to reconsider this.

Last I checked, if one is not the whole of the other then they are not equal therefore there is a difference. So ether faith is trust, or there is a difference between the two. Which is it?

That faith is comprised, in part, by trust. Trust is faith, faith is not trust.

How is it that trust is not all of (or not equal to) faith but yet faith still needs understanding and trust can not replace faith but yet you say you said there is no difference but yet you say there is.

Your misconceptions about my arguments aside:
All of faith requires understanding - trust requires understanding, honesty requires understanding, ect. How can trust replace something that trust requires?

Once again you say one thing, then another, without a point, insisting that you have one that should be responded to.

The only point I have is to bring up what appear to be incoherent claims, and root out the misunderstanding.

You compared trusting God to trusting parents, and I agree this is a good comparison; they all love you very much, and want the best for you, certainly have no intention to lead you astray.
The problem is, just like you should not take anything you are told as true until you know for yourself, you should not take that which is even supposed to be the word of God (the Gospels, scripture, teachings) as true until you know for yourself.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Is it suffieicnt just to be told something?

For many things, yes it is. Have you gone and verified all of the things you 'know', like that the earth is round and that Michael Jordan is tall?

And in a non-circular way, how have you verified any religious belief? How have you verified that Jesus ever lived? How have you verified the divinity of the scriptures that recount his story (let alone their accuracy)? Unless you speak Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, how have you verified that the translated scriptures bear any resemblance to their original?

[Didymos Thomas]

If you tell me there is a horse walking down the street, I can go to my window to verify this. If you tell me Michael Jordan is tall, I can't look out the window to verify that claim. We have to ask ourselves, what can we do to verify X claim? How much can we do to verify it?
We also have to ask ourselves, how outlandish is the claim? The more outlandish, the more verification is needed. Also, how important is the issue? I may take your word that MJ is tall, because I really don't care, but if we talk about God, that is important, and just someone's word is not enough.

Have you gone and verified all of the things you 'know', like that the earth is round and that Michael Jordan is tall?

As for these two bits of knowledge, I've seen the curviture of the earth when the sun rises, and I've noticed that you see the top of a ship's mast before the rest of the ship; a dear friend of mine has met Michael Jordan in person - aparently he is taller than most, though, my friend says he seems taller because he is so famous. She was a little star struck.

And in a non-circular way, how have you verified any religious belief?

Well, depends on what you call religious. I've verified that compassion is a good thing to practice towards all people, for example.

How have you verified that Jesus ever lived?

As a historical figure, a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, but that's about all I know. I think we can make some well informed quesses about things he said, where he lived, ect.

How have you verified the divinity of the scriptures that recount his story (let alone their accuracy)?

Their divinity? AS being any more divine than any other text? No. Their historical accuracy? No.

Unless you speak Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, how have you verified that the translated scriptures bear any resemblance to their original?

Luckily for me, and others who do not speak those languages, some people do speak them. I can read what they have to say about the matter, and make an informed decision.

I'm not saying that the learning of others is of no use to us. What I am saying is that being told something is not simply enough. Especially when we consider God, and religion. Think for yourself. However dangerous the endeavor.

[Aedes]

All I'm saying, of course, is that except for our own personal experiences, almost everything we know boils down to something that we just have to accept without much investigation. My patients have to accept nearly everything I say based purely on their confidence (or lack thereof) that I know what I'm talking about. And with the exception of my own research and my own experiences, everything that I know as a medical subspecialist comes from my confidence in other people's research.

So in other words, the sufficiency of just being told something is a case-by-case determination -- and differs from person to person.

[Didymos Thomas]

To some extent I agree, but I think there is more to this. We certainly have our own reason to wade through the claims of others, or is this of no value when facing the claims of our parents? If our parents say "The sky is green, the ocean is blue" we accept the arbitrary difference? Hopefully not.

I imagine you had your own faculties of reason, and if those faculties noticed what seemed to be a problem, you asked your instructor. If your instructor's reply is unsatisfactory, you can read a book, ask another teacher, ect. Similarly, your patients have their own faculties of reason and can ask questions of you, or have a second opinion.

Also, isn't their a hierachry of concern? If someone says, for example, "I met a guy named James in England; he was a nice fellow." why should I reject this? I'm not sure I'd care enough to explore a rejection, and even if I did, what could I do? Go look for James? But if someone says "God is here!" or "God is there!" this is very serious, and important - worth a great deal of investigation, and careful consideration. Further, there is no reason to accept something until you are certain about it when the matter is so significant. For James, who care? For God, great care should be taken.