Discussion with Paul: faith, proof, and truth
I've gotten into a long and interesting discussion with a commenter named Paul at New Covenant. I've moved the discussion here since it didn't seem to be involving anyone besides the two of us.
Paul made the comment,
Paul, can you explain a little more what you mean by the last sentence of your comment?
Paul made the comment,
That's totally fine, Bonnie, but your doubt doesn't mean that it's not true. This is probably my biggest problem with religious faith, in fact; ultimately it's about faith, rather than proof, no matter how deep that faith may be felt. That in itself is fine, but when it requires me to change my behaviour it is unpleasantly intrusive.
Paul, can you explain a little more what you mean by the last sentence of your comment?
posted by Bonnie at
5:28 PM
8 Comments:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate good, honest debate with anybody, and wish that in this day & age it were less unusual for two people to disagree yet still be civil to one another :-)
Thank you for explaining your previous comment. I find it intriguing that you answered my question with a statement regarding law. Do you mean for this to apply to faith/belief as well?
Another interesting comment was: “Point 2 means that the logic behind the law must be clear, even if you don't have a cast-iron, unassailable trail of logic and evidence (because we're talking about societies, which aren't really amenable to hard evidence at all times).”
I got the feeling before that you were telling me that you needed “good, hard evidence” in order to believe in God. But it seems from the statement above that you are conceding that some things “aren’t amenable to hard evidence at all times” yet still need to be dealt with, and the way to deal with them is through clear logic. Am I understanding correctly?
By
Bonnie, at 8:51 AM
Paul, I hope you don't mind if I conflate this discussion with the one concerning "ought" from New Covenant. I've thought about that a little further and would like to pick up on your nuances of "ought." (My brain is fuzzier than usual though so I'm not sure how far I'll get :-P )
First of all, I want you to know that my questions are an attempt to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I like to converse with people, not just their ideas.
So, are you saying that you will begrudgingly go along with a "religious" idea if it happens to be the law? Things aren't really that polar, though, are they? I mean, surely there are many places where your own opinion and a "religious opinion as codified in law" intersect, or agree, are there not?
The other thing I'm wondering is, how exactly you decide what is "religious." To me, such a label can be quite misleading, and I personally put no trust in it. But maybe I'm missing your point.
As to "'God-says-so' hand-waving," well, I have to admit that that's an abstract concept I don't really understand. I am certain that God does not require nor desire for us to check our brains at the door of faith. However, I recognize that our brains have limitations, and therefore need to be subordinate to God's authority.
As an aside, I'd like to throw in that I am convinced that our minds are ruled by our hearts, and not vice-versa...but more on that another time.
I'd also offer that "leaps of logic" are often in the eye of the beholder; one person's "leap of logic" is another's "reasoned argument," and vice-versa. Wouldn't you agree? (IOW, that's the kind of statement that is impossible to define an "absolute" for...every person's gonna have a different idea.)
I still am interested in your answer to this question: You said, "I don't believe the making of laws can wait for conclusive evidence, because many of the issues it deals with are too nebulous to ever allow for such a thing." I am wondering how this squares with your stated requirement of "proof" or "hard evidence" for the existence of God. You seem to accept laws based on "nebulous" info yet are not willing to do the same when it comes to God. Perhaps you can clarify this?
Thanks :-)
By
Bonnie, at 10:43 PM
Thanks for your response, Paul.
Regarding hand-waving; if a step in your argument for some law is "God says so" or "The Bible tells us" or similar, that's what I would consider hand-waving. Its opinion is only relevant if you believe in it, or if it is willing to come and testify on the subject. That sounds flippant, but it's not meant to be.Lack of faith in a god isn't a problem (unless you are a person of faith of course), hence it requires the higher standard of proof.You seem to be suggesting that the "God says so" stuff is a...a "ghosty-thing" marauding as a "real-thing." Well, let me offer this description: these ideas, these "things of God," are ideas like any other ideas BUT -- they carry an additional authority. Just like you said: "Thou shalt not steal" is pretty good advice regardless of where it came from. It just happens to have a divine imprimatur upon it.
On hearts vs minds I agree, though I don't think it's an absolute dictatorship ;)Probably not :-) I just see people at each other's throats over ideas when what's really warring, predominantly, is hearts & souls. (Actually, it's even beyond that, but I won't get into it now ;-) )
By
Bonnie, at 10:48 PM
Paul, are you saying that "hand-waving" refers not to the ideas themselves, but to the concept that they carry more weight than other ideas?
Is what we're truly discussing, then, a viewpoint (of yours) that does not allow for any reality beyond what we can see? I.e., philosophical naturalism?
Here's another question for you: Do you consider your ideas as to "the way things should be run" as having any existence outside of your own thoughts? (besides maybe the thoughts of others who agree with you).
And please humor me with one more :-): You said, "What I'm suggesting is that we need more than ideas to change other people's behavior."
Such as?
Oh, and I'm still interested in what you have to say to my question found at the end of comments 2 and 4.
NOTE: If anyone else is reading this thread and has anything to add, please feel free to jump in!
By
Bonnie, at 9:53 AM
"What I'm suggesting is that we need more than ideas to change other people's behavior."OK, I think I get it: you're saying we need laws, right?
If so, let's get ready to go on a philosophical discussion of law!
By
Bonnie, at 11:33 AM
sometimes you just can't get incontrovertible evidence for something, but you should have *some* evidence combined with a sound argument (and of course some problem you're trying to solve).So you must be saying you haven't seen or heard "some evidence combined with a sound argument, etc." for the existence of God, right?
Hand-waving - I'm refering again to a leap in logic. If one of the steps in my argument doesn't really exist then I'm guilty of hand-waving (i.e. trying to distract attention from the fact that I've just missed a step).You seem to be suggesting that those who "hand-wave" know they're being disingenuous. Yet I thought you told me that you didn't doubt the sincerity of my faith. Do you think the "hand-wavers" have an insincere faith?
I could suggest that there are all sorts of "hand-wavers" based on your "leap of logic" definition, and they aren't just limited to those who believe in God. I hear all sorts of preposterous stuff presented as fact by all sorts of people who seem to have an agenda or an axe to grind.
The viewpoint I have doesn't necessarily disqualify things that we can't see. But I do ask that if you're putting forward such an argument, you explain why it's more significant than something I just made up. So given "God says this" versus "Jeff says that" how should I choose?
Well, you can consider each "thing said" on its own merits. If that doesn't help, you can decide who you trust more. One hint on the "God says this" stuff, though: it helps to have context. In the context of a "Christian worldview," the "God said" things make a heck of a lot more sense.
By
Bonnie, at 9:58 PM
Hi Paul,
What part of the "God exists" equation is missing for you?
I get the feeling you're not answering my questions directly anymore, you're merely recycling previous statements. C'mon, Paul, don't give up on me now! ;-)
I also get the feeling that you have placed "God things" into their own ephemeral category, separate from the total marketplace of ideas. True or no?
Oh, and don't forget about the biblical interpretation discussion we were having hereAlthough if you're ready to give it a rest for the time being, I completely understand.
By
Bonnie, at 12:00 PM
I'm certainly not intending to evade your questions. Please assume that it's just because I'm struggling to answer within a frame of reference we can both understand. That's certainly the case with your post on newcovenant - I'm stuck as to what to say, in fact I can't even explain what it is you've said that has lost me, but I'll keep on it.Paul, thank you so much for saying this. I apologize for making an assumption. Ack, sometimes I get too intense - and forget to leave some space :-/
Thank you also for making effort to express yourself in language we can both understand. I hope you know I'm trying to do the same!
OK, I'll try to chill out now :-)
By
Bonnie, at 5:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home