Given the discussion that’s been going on around the Acton site over the last week or so (on the blog here and here, in the commentary comments section, and in this week’s poll question), I’m pointing out this timely piece in yesterday&#

I want to respectfully point out to Robert that his understanding of faith is incomplete. Faith, while it is believing in the unseen, does not “exclude the use of facts”, nor is it “anti-reason”.

Speaking for the Christian faith, Jesus said that “you shall KNOW the truth”-know, not grope around aimlessly, ignoring facts and having faith in something obviously false. In His mind, fact is to provide the faithful with confidence in their belief, not be in conflict with it.

Bottom line: if we accept that God is a God of truth, fact and faith have a symbiotic relationship, rather than one of competition.

CRW

As Netjer teaches us, human beings are God’s hands. If you want God to do something, it is up to you to act in Its name.

In terms that Americans generally understand, Mr. Masters is correct regarding the opposition of faith and reason. The usual American understanding of faith is based on a certain prominent thread of Christian teachings, which can be summed up as one of my professors at North Central Bible College stated: “When there is a difference between faith and facts, the facts are wrong.”

This is why faith and reason are seen as being in opposition.

CRW, it’s important for you to understand that in the minds of many Christians, to “KNOW the truth” has absolutely nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with blindly believing the literal words written in the Bible, without consideration of context, history, or the state of scientific knowledge at the time they were written. This is not reason. This is faith as they understand it - and thus, as it is presented to those who do not follow their religion. This blind, thoughtless belief is the reason so many people outside Christianity see faith and reason as being in diametrical opposition.

For that matter, this blind, thoughtless belief is the reason that those of us who understand God in terms other than those of Dominionist Christianity find the idea of those Christians achieving their Dominionist goals to be so frightening. Their own presentation of their beliefs, and the actions that follow from them, make it clear that the rest of us are in mortal threat should they achieve their goals.

Bob,
I am afraid you mistook me. Obviously I do not propose that doctors recieve their skills directly from a Divine Being sans training. And I unaware of where in this article I suggest that doctors are not necessary for treating the sick. But I think your comment, like Mr. Masters’s earlier, serves to prove my point. You are creating a split between our work and God’s, between medicine and faith. This split colors how we look at techonology and knowledge as an ‘either us or God’ mentality. Surely all truth, including medical truth, is God’s truth.
But I do agree with you completely when you say “doctors no more receive their talents from God than a mechanic, programmer or fast food worker.” Indeed, doctors receive their talent just like mechanics, programmers, and fast food workers do, because human work is a the fulfilment of one’s humanity.
Lastly, nowhere do I suggest that the doctors’ skill comes from their faith. In fact, as Ettiene Gilson said: “Piety is no substitute for technique.” So again, I think you may have missed my point here.

Reasoning does not require a basis of known (true) facts. Faith does not require reasoning. They hold different places in an epistemic structure. Faith is more fundamental than reasoning.

That you do not know my thoughts, does not diminish the fact of them. It is simply that my thoughts are unobservable by you. If you trust me and I assert the fact of my thoughts verbally, then you accept it by faith. Do you question the validity of the reasoning in this paragraph? This is faith-based reasoning. Faith is a proxy for unknown fact. If I am untrustworthy, then reasoning based on faith (concerning my thoughts) will lead you to the wrong conclusions.

God is omniscient, meaning He knows all the facts. I trust Him. He is trustworthy. I believe His assertions to represent the truth (i.e., the facts) based on faith. Thus, I am confident I draw correct conclusions when reasoning based on that faith.

To belabor the point, if reasoning were limited to a basis of known fact, then science could not advance. Advancement in science is fundamentally a matter of reasoning about things unknown to the interlocutors. Postulates and hypotheses are presented to explain the observed facts, while asserting things unknown (like predicting future observation, establishing the value of physical constants, etc.) When evidence (observed facts) contradicts the hypothesis, we reject it and move on to the next. In most cases, the hypothesis is never provable, but it is bolstered by evidence and becomes accepted theory. We then advance further through theory-based reasoning. E.g., are the assertions in the theories of relativity fact? We don’t know, yet look at all of the advances in science based on the theory.

If you denigrate evolution because of the word “THEORY”, you obviously do not understand the use of THEORY in a scientific setting. There are many things that are considered THEORY. For example:
Gravity
Germs as a cause of illness
Vitamin C as a preventative of scurvy

To a scientist, calling something a THEORY means that it has been tested and not proven false.

Bob,
Your argument for prefering science is a common one. Let’s apporach it this way: Who, What, Where, When, How--all questions for science. But Why...this is a question science cannot answer.
From another angle, consider this: science means, as I think you would agree, a method of observation. But here is a question that science itself cannot answer: does science have access to all truth?

Excellent discussions, everyone.

Evolution is no more “science” than ID. Evolution is long on unsubstantiated speculation and short on scientific evidence. In fact the science we know today says evolution is impossible.

Life cannot come from inert chemicals. Species always reproduce only there own species. There is NO, nada, none, zip evidence that one species has ever changed into another species. The 99.9%% complete fossil record shows no transitional forms where there would have to be millions. The dating of fossils is a ponsi scam and uses circular reasoning with no know reference. Dissipated heat energy cannot be turned back into useful energy to regenerate our dieing universe. Therefore the Big Bang is a Big Bust.

It is the humanists that must rely on blind faith in natural mechanisms that don’t exist. These nonexistant mechanisms must show themselves in order to believe evolution is true. Five minutes after you die you will know the truth.

I cannot understand how people say they do not “believe” in the theory of evolution. No one says they do not believe in the theory of gravity. Before you lambast evolution as a theory, learn what it means. Try going to college, or at least high school. The word theory in science means something that has been proven infallible. Just as there is proof of gravity when you drop something and it falls to the ground, there is proof of evolution everywhere you look, including human beings. For example, bacteria evolve to withstand antibiotics and extreme conditions through random mutation. Similarly, humans have evolved to have gall bladders to be able to digest meat more efficiently.

Finally, Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Many Christians would like to think so and condemn everyone else to “hell” for not having faith in Jesus Christ. Just as there are biblical creation stories, there are Hindu creation stories and Native American creation stories. I refuse to be forced to learn creationism or intelligent design or whatever they want to call it. I find it interesting how the United States is the only country in the world who seems to feel compelled to try to incorporate this ridiculous idea into school curriculum. This is the reason why this country has become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. In the end, it is an unsubstantiated, untestable claim for the origins of the earth. It makes all other Christians around the world ashamed for using the Bible, a text written by a human, as proof of how the animals and the world were created.

RWM: tuxer wrote:
“Very real experiences in my life are evidence that my faith in God is valid, but I had to have the first faith. My experiences are fact in the same way the predictions of a scientific theory are fact (once they are observed). The prediction support the theory, my experiences support my faith (and it grow).”

No disrespect intended but, how do you consider those experiences “fact”? Is there no other plausible explanation other than God? Are they repeatable and independantly verifiable? This is the big problem I have when people attribute experiences and such to God. They may believe that God was involved, but that belief doesn’t make it fact, nor truth.

David Michael Phelps wrote:
“Let’s apporach it this way: Who, What, Where, When, How--all questions for science. But Why...this is a question science cannot answer.”

I would disagree. Science answers the question of “why” all the time. Why did the gas truck explode? Because it contained a flamable liquid that was exposed to a flame. I guess it all depends on the question, and that’s not to say that science is currently unable to answer the “why” to every question. There are many questions that religion can’t answer the “why” to as well.

“From another angle, consider this: science means, as I think you would agree, a method of observation. But here is a question that science itself cannot answer: does science have access to all truth?”

Of course not, but that is only because of our own limitations. But does religion have access to all truth? Can a priest tell you who shot JFK? I think not. The difference is that science has methods available to determine the “truth”. Religion only has faith.

I hope I’m not coming off as opposed to God. All I am saying is that people claim to have “knowledge” of God, experiences that “prove” that God exists, or try to put those experiences on par with science (see above). I used to have this kind of faith in God. After “playing by the rules” for 13 years, I found out my faith was misplaced and that the religion I had been following was a farce.

So what does that say about God and “truth”? What does it say about God and “truth” that there are countless religions in the world, each claiming the “know” the truth, yet all at odds with each other? It tells me that religion doesn’t deal with truth, and God doesn’t give any knowledge of truth to those that show their faith any more than He does to those that have no faith in Him at all.

When someone’s house burns down, people ask why such a tragedy occurs. Some will say it’s punishment for sin. Others will say God has his reasons and is testing the faith of the victims. Still others may say it was to provide an opportunity for greater blessings yet to come. The fireman will say it was because they were smoking in bed. Where is the “truth” in all that and who can prove their theory?

“Why” is a very big question indeed. Why is it that we turn to some unknown being for the answers to questions that “God” has already said he isn’t going to answer in a way that is inexplicable any other way? Why is it we have to trust another man when he says that he speaks for God, or “knows” Him better than we do? Why is it that we are told to pray to God for wisdom, yet when we do and show faith in the “answer”, we are blamed when that answer turns out to be false? Why is it that in the end, the answer to our quest for “truth” is, “Have faith”?

So here’s MY question for all of you: How am I supposed to have faith in God when the same God is answering the prayers of billions of people, yet giving them different answers to the same questions? How can one decern the “truth” through faith alone, and how do you prove it?