Ah yes, but I seem to recall that a few years ago Ken Ham, the AnswersInGenesis guy, was quoted as saying there was NO evidence that would cause him to change his mind about the Bible describing a Young Earth being created by God.
If he’s removed all doubt from his mind then he can hardly be holding to a position of faith, can he?
Because the book that he follows says the following in Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.
*1Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. * 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
The Bible itself says that nobody witnessed the creation and so also says that Christians are to believe that this happened by faith, because they did not see it.
Since Ham clearly did not see the creation, shouldn’t he do as scripture tells him and believe that it happened as the Bible says, by faith?
Because whoever wrote the book of Hebrews clearly understood that faith and certainty are two mutually exclusive conditions.
If you see something happen you don’t need faith to believe that it did.
But if you don’t see something, you need faith to believe that it did.
But Ham is so deep into his delusion that he’s gone beyond listening to what the Bible instructs him to do.
Well as you say in different words, faith is the very antithesis of doubt. One could plausibly argue that Ham has taken religious faith to its “logical” conclusion. In his way of thinking, if he truly believes as an article of faith then he cannot have any doubt. “Let God be true and every man a liar”, “lean not unto your own understanding”, etc. And this fits with my own experience back in the day: you reject science out of hand when it “contradicts” [your interpretation of] the Bible. It becomes an exercise in extreme compartmentalization. It makes you as impervious as you can humanly be to critical thinking. And that’s by design.
So I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t really agree that religious faith, for it to exist, must do so in a sort of tension or as a counterbalance to doubt. Such that the absence of doubt is also the absence of religious faith. Rather I would say that religious faith’s whole ultimate purpose is to allay all doubts – in the extreme, to the point that one becomes, to coin a phrase, “doubt blind” – incapable of critical thinking.
It’s just that the hypocritical impiety and immorality of most Christians is such that they aren’t very rigorous about their faith. So many of them have barely repressed doubts, because they haven’t fully drank the Kool-Aid. They don’t really have to, when they have a nice big comfortable cultural bubble and their religion is less about going all-in on articles of religious faith than it is about having a rationalization for their conformity fetishes – their bigotry around their tribal identity.
Hmmm… I’m a little bit confused by your reply, Mordant.
Could you please explain further what you mean by faith being the very antithesis of doubt?
It’s my understanding and the point I was trying to make about the book of Hebrews that faith requires doubt. If you see something then you are certain that it happened and you don’t have any doubts about it. So you don’t require any faith to know that it happened. You have certainty and no doubts and therefore you don’t need faith.
Whereas, as Hebrews makes clear, if you don’t see something then you are in a position of doubt about it and you therefore believe that it happened through faith. Just as described in verses 1 to 3 of chapter 11. The people of ancient times did not actually see God’s creation happen. So they are in a position of doubt about it happening. But, by an act of faith, they believe that it did happen just as the scriptures describe.
Therefore, Hebrews is saying that faith is not certainty. Because faith only works when there is doubt. If there is certainty then there is no doubt. If there is doubt, then there is no certainty. These are two mutually exclusive positions.
That’s why John 20 : 30 and 31 says what it says.
30 **Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ** 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
People reading those words did not see Jesus, so theirs is a position of doubt about him, not certainty. The disciples had certainty because they saw him. But nobody else has that certainty. So, the readers believe the words of John’s gospel by faith, they are doing so from a position of doubt, not certainty.
I know that Hebrews talks about the tension between faith and doubt, and urges Christians to persist in faith despite their doubt. But that doesn’t change that believing god/dogma/scripture and doubting them are basically opposites, or that doubt that’s entertained or surrendered to is at minimum considered to lead to serious sin. My own sect taught that it WAS a sin, in fact the ultimate sin from which all other sins proceed because it results in turning from God and embracing rebellion against him and against truth itself.
What you or I think about the meaning of this discussion in Hebrews IMO doesn’t matter so much as how Christians think about faith and doubt in practice. I have spoken with many Christians who are literally tormented by doubt and the lack of faith they feel it implies. Most of these folks seem to think that if they had “true” faith, they would not have doubt. Others are more willing to live with their doubts as something that is part of the human condition but I haven’t encountered anyone considering doubt as some sort of component of faith or a prerequisite to it. That is something I haven’t been exposed to personally. It’s possible that’s just an artifact of my particular religious background.
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this, Mordant.
Which, given the vagueness and contradictions in scripture, is no real surprise. People have been disagreeing on how the Bible should be interpreted for thousands of years. So our lack of agreement is perhaps, par for the course.
Shall we just politely and respectfully agree to disagree on this?
I think someone should remind SMR that the burden of proof always falls squarely on the shoulders of the one making a claim, not the one a claim is addressed to. Prove to us that God DOES exist (through the scientific method of course), then we will be believers. Otherwise you’ve got nothing to show.
Personally, the notion that any message, allegedly from an entity that has limitless intelligence to create it, and limitless power to communicate it, but then requires subjective interpretation to understand it, speaks for itself.
Though I wouldn’t be surprised to find out, that someone is as we write, reading the Harry Potter novels backward, while meticulously translating it through an ancient Greek dialect, to find the hidden esoteric message.
If they don’t understand that atheism is the absence of theistic belief, then I hold little hope they’ll grasp anything else. One wonders what they think amoral, asymmetircal, or asymptomatic mean?
The irony is that Smr himself said as much. He wrote…
Reason requires that claims be accepted only when they are supported by sound empirical and observational evidence.
He claimed that the universe had a beginning and when called upon to support that claim with sound empirical and observational evidence he failed to do so. Because he came into this forum and into this thread not understanding that such empirical and observational evidence doesn’t exist. We can only observe back to about 380,000 after the Big Bang, which is itself theorized to have taken place. Theory is not empirical and is not observation.
So Smr shot himself in the foot by advocating a standard he couldn’t measure up to.
For instance, these three people were and are supremely intelligent scientists at the very top of their chosen professions. Yet they also are and were devout believers in their particular gods. If belief were a function of lack of intelligence, then these men should not have believed in any god. Yet they do and did.
In my opinion (and that’s all it is) the real cause of religious belief stems from emotional need, not lack of intelligence. I can cite myself as an example of this. Since leaving Christianity behind and rejecting Jesus my intelligence hasn’t increased. Nor did it increase prior to my leaving, causing me to stop being religious. I simply recognised my emotional need for what it was.
But what did change within me was the state of my emotions. I could no longer tolerate the contradictions, the hypocrisy and the wilful denial that I saw in Christianity. I do not believe that this change came from my intellectual mind but from my emotions.
Furthermore, there’s a danger concealed in declaring that religious belief is down to being dumb.
Self aggrandisement.
Or putting it in simpler terms. “I’m smarter than you because you are religious and I’m not.”
I submit that we could fall into the trap of thinking ourselves better, smarter and more intelligent than a religious person because of their beliefs. Yet, as the three examples above show, religious people can be very intelligent indeed. I would call for caution about this.
That what is a function of intelligence? Not sure this claim is mine, and FWIW I was talking about a hypothetical claim about a hypothetical deity, not the intelligence of theists per se. FYI I’ve seen Lennox debate his beliefs, his arguments were shockingly poorly reasoned,
I never claimed belief was a function of intelligence, quite the opposite in my experience?
Again I never claimed religious belief stemmed from a lack of intelligence, but FWIW those two are not mutually exclusive either.
Perhaps the people is dumb comment has misrepresented my point, but I am not suggesting that religious people are all dumb, some are geniuses no doubt, but their religious arguments are always the same poorly reasoned spiel we get here.
Not what I was trying to say, the last sentence was meant as levity, perhaps it missed its mark.
Never made this claim, and lever will, and in some cases it would be demonstrably untrue. The argument is what should be assessed, on it’s own merits, who makes it is irrelevant.
For clarity, when I said people is dumb, it was aimed at the hypothetical idea in my post, not a generic comment on all believers.
Personally, the notion that any message, allegedly from an entity that has limitless intelligence to create it, and limitless power to communicate it, but then requires subjective interpretation to understand it, speaks for itself.
Though I wouldn’t be surprised to find out, that someone is as we write, reading the Harry Potter novels backward, while meticulously translating it through an ancient Greek dialect, to find the hidden esoteric message.
People is dumb.
Well, maybe I’m reading this wrong, Sheldon.
But you appear to be concluding that, at least in terms of interpreting of the Bible people are dumb. You even miswrote your final sentence to put over the point.
That was the issue I was disagreeing with you on.
That its not a function of intelligence for people to WANT to see hidden messages in ancient texts. Even highly intelligent people do that. I would argue that the common denominator here is emotion. Because both dumb people and smart people have emotions. Or more specifically, they both have emotional needs that cause them to see hidden messages in ancient texts.
Also, the fact that some religious arguments are dumb is not down to a function of intelligence either. Though highly intelligent people should more readily see the flaws in really dumb arguments. How many intelligent apologists have we seen (and not just in this forum) who haven’t realized that they are holding to dumb arguments? Did they fail to employ their intelligence to discover these flaws or, more likely, did they not do so because they were driven by an emotional need for their beliefs to be true?
I see that you’ve clarified how you meant the comment and how its not intended to be about all believers. So its quite likely that we are in agreement about that. I hope my clarification here is of help too.
If they reason / claim that a message, any message, from a being with limitless intelligence to create it, and limitless power to communicate it, requires subjective interpretation, then that idea is dumb, ipso facto they’re being dumb, they need not necessarily be dumb though.
I understand that doing something that is dumb, does not necessarily mean the person is of low intelligence.
That seems contradictory, if we’d expect intelligence to reason better and see through flawed arguments, (religious or otherwise) then it seems incongruous to suggest that intelligence is not a function of such reasoning, though that should possibly read the lack of…intelligence is not a function of such reasoning.
Or about any believers, all of the time, it’s just that, “people can be dumb”, didn’t seem as snappy or humorous, mea culpa.
I think I can describe my point better and so perhaps lead to a better understanding between us.
I submit that the real villain, when it comes to religion, religiosity and apologetic religious arguments isn’t a lack of intelligence but the strength of emotion. Yes, I agree with you that people of high intelligence should be better able to see through flawed apologetic arguments. But it’s not that simple.
If the highly intelligent could do that, then there would be no highly intelligent religious people. Their intelligence would always see that there is no evidential basis for a religious belief and they would never become believers. But since highly intelligent people do believe, there has to be another factor at play.
What is it that everyone possesses, regardless of high or low intelligence, regardless of their race, ethnicity or nationality, regardless of their society, culture and upbringing, regardless of their education or lack of it, regardless of their financial status, regardless of their gender, sexuality or marital status?
Emotions.
We all possess emotions and to a lesser or greater degree our emotions sway our judgment. So when a highly intelligent person should see through the flaws in an apologetic argument, but doesn’t, I submit that they are being swayed by their emotions.
Do you see what I’m saying here and would you be inclined to accept this line of argument?
I have Ranulph Fiennes’ book about the expedition that identified ruins in the deserts of Oman as Ubar, a city which is mentioned in the Quran as being swallowed up by the sands as a punishment by Allah for the sinfulness of its inhabitants. Some people even draw a parallel between the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of Ubar. Anyway, that expedition went ahead with the agreement of Sultan Qaboos bin Said, the then ruler of Oman. Here’s his bio.
Qaboos bin Said was born on 18 November 1940 in Salalah, Dhofar, Oman , as the only son of Sultan Said bin Taimur and Mazoon bint Ahmad al-Mashani He received early education in Oman and India before attending a private school in Bury St Edmunds, England , and later the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst , graduating in 1962. He briefly served in the British Army, gaining military and leadership experience, and undertook a world tour to broaden his understanding of governance and culture.
Qaboos ruled Oman for nearly 50 years, making him the longest-serving leader in the Arab world at the time of his death. His reign is marked by:
Modernization and infrastructure development: Construction of roads, hospitals, schools, ports, airports, and telecommunications networks.
Foreign policy: Neutral and balanced diplomacy, fostering relations with Iran, the US, and neighbouring Gulf states, and mediating regional conflicts, including US-Iran talks
Human rights and social progress: Abolition of slavery, improved healthcare and education, and reduction of infant mortality from 169 to 18 per 1,000 between 1960 and 2000.
Clearly a highly intelligent, well educated and gifted man.
Yet when Fiennes reported back to him in person on the findings of the expedition he pressed Fiennes on one issue. Is the ruined city they found Ubar, as described in the Quran? When the explorer said that they thought it was Qaboos closed his eyes, bowed his head and muttered a short prayer to Allah.
But surely, being a highly intelligent man, he shouldn’t have done this?
He should have reserved judgment and awaited the a proper evaluation of the expedition findings by all of the relevant experts. Who, it must be said, have expressed doubts that the ruins discovered in the Omani desert are actually Ubar. Isn’t that what a highly intelligent person should do? Go with the expert judgments of those who are trained to sift out fact from fiction?
But, like all of us, Qaboos was swayed by his emotions. He chose to let his emotions decide the issue for him. Because validation of his religious beliefs was more important to him than anything else.
And this Sheldon, is what I suggest is the key to understanding the issue. Intelligence (or lack of it) plays a role but too often plays second fiddle to our emotional needs.
Could you expand on this? What emotion is doing the swaying? How do you think this works? What role does repetition of the thing in question play into this?
