Strikes me as odd how science continues to prove things man has known for thousands of years. And yet, those things "known" but not yet proven are denounced as nothing more than myth. And those finally seeing the light are lifted up as visionaries and pioneers.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Thinking scientists could use a little more faith.
Science also continues to disprove things man thought they knew. It goes both ways, so you shouldn't think it that odd. It is simply the progression of our consciousness as physical beings. Think of it this way. If you "know" something to be true, but you have no way of sharing that truth with others in a way that they too can then see the "truth", you have zero credibility. You will be labeled a hack, or a fraud, or a crazy person. The person who can convey this "truth" to others in a way that they too can experience it for themselves and understand it, that person is the one who receives the praise. We are simple organic creatures who have only been in existence for a couple million years. We cannot expect to know everything, but we can seek to. That, I believe, is our only true calling in this existence. To seek truth and knowledge. What else is there? Scientists cannot work on faith. Scientists deal in reality. Faith is for those who would rather not put in the work to seek out truth. Therefore you must have "faith" that what you believe is true. IMO :)
I read something today that says it better than I've articulated: "The opposite of faith is not reason...it is unbelief. The opposite of reason is irrationality-Faith goes beyond reason but not against it."
There are two kinds of faith, I would argue. One is a blind faith. A faith in things which have no evidence to support them. These things are typically passed down from other people in our environment and are most likely attuned to the supernatural, ie. gods. "Have faith in X god or Y god, he'll save you !" There is no evidence to support those claims other than word of mouth and subjective text. The other faith is a rational faith. I have faith that my car will start up in the morning when I go to work. This is a faith that is rooted in past experience and evidence based on the fact that every other morning I hop into my car and it starts right up. We all have faith in one thing or another, we just need to be more conscious as to what we put our faith in.
It's a BIG stretch to say that he proves it. It sounds to me that his perception is that the person who's dying never dies, because you can't perceive life after you're dead. By the same logic, the universe begins when we develop in the womb and achieve consciousness.
I agree its a big stretch. But so are many other theories that we cannot disprove but can observe only from afar. Yet many, even in the scientific community have faith they can be proven. So you see - everyone has faith.
There is a difference in someone having faith in a system that has proven itself as accurate time and time again (at least so far in our current existence), and a faith in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We have faith in science because it has proven itself. Some have faith in a story they read in a book some guys wrote a couple thousand years ago. One proves itself worthy of our faith by continuously working over and over again. The other is a blind faith in something that has been handed down to us by someone else and we've been told "this is the truth... believe me." That being said, I understand that we are all subject to our own biased perception of our surroundings, which dictates our personal psychological conception of the mystical world which we cannot prove exists but we all innately dream about. This is going to breed many different conceptions of, and images to describe the divine. Hence why we have so many different religions. It should be this way. We should all seek to find our own personal god rather than clinging to the one thrust upon us by others our entire life. Yes, everybody has faith in one thing or another. But not everybody will or should have faith in YOUR god. There is rational faith and irrational faith, in my opinion.
Those, like myself, believe in God because He has shown Himself to be trustworthy time and again. You are saying that seeing is believing, when in reality, it is the other way around. But if you need "proof", just look around you. Look at all of the physical world. Look at it's symmetry and it's seemingly organized chaos. I honestly don't understand how people can believe that the complex systems and laws that govern our physical world just happened.
God will never thrust Himself on anyone. He longs for you to love Him as a father longs for a child to him. There are a lot of things that have not yet been proven. That doesn't make them myths.
As for ration, please review my earlier post. Ration is not the opposite of faith, it is the opposite of irrationality. Faith is belief, therefore, the opposite of faith is unbelief. Faith, like most of life is not complex, it's relatively simple. But the simple things are rarely the easy things.
"You are saying that seeing is believing, when in reality, it is the other way around." You actually made me laugh with that one. What you've proposed is "In reality... believing is seeing." That is not reality, my friend. That is a construct of your own physical neurological organ, or brain, expressing an idea as truth based on nothing but internalized neurological firings.
God absolutely will not thrust himself on anyone, because god isn't a person. Which brings me to another point. You, and others who use monikers for god like "he" "him" etc. lose all credibility in terms of "knowing" your god. It's rather egotistical to assume that god is in some form humanistic, or has gender, or acts in ways of favoritism towards one individual and not another. If that is your perception of your "god" then I'd argue that you are not worshiping the one true god, but rather some spirit which you have mistaken for god. If god is all powerful, all knowing, and omniscient, then god is also formless, without intention, and most definitely doesn't "long for people to love 'him'".
I did review your previous post. The one where you quoted someone whom you did not cite. It could have been your a coworker in the break room for all we know. I'll assume by "ration" you're referring to "reason" as it applies to rationale. I can agree with most of what was quoted, except for the last part where it claims faith is beyond reason. That is silly because it proposes that faith is in some form superior to reason, as if it were a part of some hierarchy. Faith and reason are two different things. Faith deals in expectations of the unknown where reason deals in solid provable processes which lead to a logical conclusion about something otherwise unknown.
We are coming at this from two different directions. You choose to put your faith in the assumption there is no God. I from the personal knowledge that there is.
We will find out who is right in the end.. That much is guaranteed.
False. I am coming from my personal subjective understanding of the reality in which I exist, and most definitely believe in god. But my interpretation of god is different than yours, which it very well should be. Since the only way to experience god is through the self, adhering to the gods of our forefathers, ancestors, friends, family members is a practice in futility. If one chooses to look beyond the physical world into one of spirituality, they will inevitably find god. It isn't fair to assume that my god is the same as your god, however, because we are coming from uniqueness. I encourage you to investigate Taoism and Zen Buddhism or any other interpretation of spirituality other than the proletariat Christianity that's been so heavily promoted by modern culture. You may find that we are all in this together, and a universal understanding of one-ness is far more profitable to our existence on this planet than fragmented "religions" which are designed to function like businesses.
I'd like to know how you experience god, or anything for that matter, outside of self. We exist in a realm of reality where all experience is facilitated by the self. It is our prison, if you will. The highest level of spirituality is the ability to leave the self behind and enter the realm of one-ness with god and all that is and is not. This takes years and years and lifetimes to achieve. Maybe we're describing the same thing, I cannot tell. I guess my final point will be that one's relationship with god can only be achieved in one's own mind. We can reach a higher realm of spiritual understanding by sharing experiences with others and gleaning knowledge and information. But that person's journey to understanding god is very different than the next person's. There is only one god. We as individuals, the self, the ego, are like lenses that attempt to "see" god. We are all looking at the same god, but every "lens" is unique and therefore the image of god seen through our unique lens does not appear the same as the god seen by another.
This will be my final post and then I'll leave it alone.
The God I believe in says He is the one and only God. He says the only way to experience Him is to love Him with all that we are and to love others as ourselves. That all but takes me completely out of the equation. Further, He says the only way to experience eternity with Him is through love and obedience for and to His son Jesus. Over and over in His Word this message is relayed.
Many would say we've gone way beyond the realm of science with these statements. But science and faith are integral. One merely proves what the other believes. So, no, we are not talking about the same thing.
And with that I will leave this conversation and you with the last word. I do want to thank you for a lively debate and thank you for taking the time to be articulate and respectful.
Almost forgot, again, to cite the quote. it was a tweet from a pastor in Dallas, named Todd Wagner. sorry for the omission.
I also forgot to ask you to be careful about what could be perceived as condescension. We can differ in opinion and disagree on what we believe. but belittling what I believe because you cannot "prove" can be perceived as egotism and arrogance as well. That said, I'm confident that wasn't the tone you intended to strike.
Pin it! 
18 comments
Login to comment →
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
Strikes me as odd how science continues to prove things man has known for thousands of years. And yet, those things "known" but not yet proven are denounced as nothing more than myth. And those finally seeing the light are lifted up as visionaries and pioneers.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Thinking scientists could use a little more faith.
Reply
Dhornet7 10 years, 5 months ago
Amen
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
Science also continues to disprove things man thought they knew. It goes both ways, so you shouldn't think it that odd. It is simply the progression of our consciousness as physical beings.
Think of it this way. If you "know" something to be true, but you have no way of sharing that truth with others in a way that they too can then see the "truth", you have zero credibility. You will be labeled a hack, or a fraud, or a crazy person. The person who can convey this "truth" to others in a way that they too can experience it for themselves and understand it, that person is the one who receives the praise.
We are simple organic creatures who have only been in existence for a couple million years. We cannot expect to know everything, but we can seek to. That, I believe, is our only true calling in this existence. To seek truth and knowledge. What else is there?
Scientists cannot work on faith. Scientists deal in reality. Faith is for those who would rather not put in the work to seek out truth. Therefore you must have "faith" that what you believe is true.
IMO :)
Reply
egro 10 years, 5 months ago
Faith is belief without evidence; nobody needs that.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
As usual we disagree. Everyone needs faith. Without it, without hope, this would be a sad cold world.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
I read something today that says it better than I've articulated:
"The opposite of faith is not reason...it is unbelief. The opposite of reason is irrationality-Faith goes beyond reason but not against it."
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
There are two kinds of faith, I would argue. One is a blind faith. A faith in things which have no evidence to support them. These things are typically passed down from other people in our environment and are most likely attuned to the supernatural, ie. gods. "Have faith in X god or Y god, he'll save you !" There is no evidence to support those claims other than word of mouth and subjective text.
The other faith is a rational faith. I have faith that my car will start up in the morning when I go to work. This is a faith that is rooted in past experience and evidence based on the fact that every other morning I hop into my car and it starts right up. We all have faith in one thing or another, we just need to be more conscious as to what we put our faith in.
Reply
egro 10 years, 5 months ago
It's a BIG stretch to say that he proves it. It sounds to me that his perception is that the person who's dying never dies, because you can't perceive life after you're dead. By the same logic, the universe begins when we develop in the womb and achieve consciousness.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
I agree its a big stretch. But so are many other theories that we cannot disprove but can observe only from afar. Yet many, even in the scientific community have faith they can be proven. So you see - everyone has faith.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
There is a difference in someone having faith in a system that has proven itself as accurate time and time again (at least so far in our current existence), and a faith in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We have faith in science because it has proven itself. Some have faith in a story they read in a book some guys wrote a couple thousand years ago. One proves itself worthy of our faith by continuously working over and over again. The other is a blind faith in something that has been handed down to us by someone else and we've been told "this is the truth... believe me."
That being said, I understand that we are all subject to our own biased perception of our surroundings, which dictates our personal psychological conception of the mystical world which we cannot prove exists but we all innately dream about. This is going to breed many different conceptions of, and images to describe the divine. Hence why we have so many different religions. It should be this way. We should all seek to find our own personal god rather than clinging to the one thrust upon us by others our entire life. Yes, everybody has faith in one thing or another. But not everybody will or should have faith in YOUR god. There is rational faith and irrational faith, in my opinion.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
Those, like myself, believe in God because He has shown Himself to be trustworthy time and again. You are saying that seeing is believing, when in reality, it is the other way around. But if you need "proof", just look around you. Look at all of the physical world. Look at it's symmetry and it's seemingly organized chaos. I honestly don't understand how people can believe that the complex systems and laws that govern our physical world just happened.
God will never thrust Himself on anyone. He longs for you to love Him as a father longs for a child to him. There are a lot of things that have not yet been proven. That doesn't make them myths.
As for ration, please review my earlier post. Ration is not the opposite of faith, it is the opposite of irrationality. Faith is belief, therefore, the opposite of faith is unbelief. Faith, like most of life is not complex, it's relatively simple. But the simple things are rarely the easy things.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
"You are saying that seeing is believing, when in reality, it is the other way around."
You actually made me laugh with that one. What you've proposed is "In reality... believing is seeing." That is not reality, my friend. That is a construct of your own physical neurological organ, or brain, expressing an idea as truth based on nothing but internalized neurological firings.
God absolutely will not thrust himself on anyone, because god isn't a person. Which brings me to another point. You, and others who use monikers for god like "he" "him" etc. lose all credibility in terms of "knowing" your god. It's rather egotistical to assume that god is in some form humanistic, or has gender, or acts in ways of favoritism towards one individual and not another. If that is your perception of your "god" then I'd argue that you are not worshiping the one true god, but rather some spirit which you have mistaken for god. If god is all powerful, all knowing, and omniscient, then god is also formless, without intention, and most definitely doesn't "long for people to love 'him'".
I did review your previous post. The one where you quoted someone whom you did not cite. It could have been your a coworker in the break room for all we know. I'll assume by "ration" you're referring to "reason" as it applies to rationale. I can agree with most of what was quoted, except for the last part where it claims faith is beyond reason. That is silly because it proposes that faith is in some form superior to reason, as if it were a part of some hierarchy. Faith and reason are two different things. Faith deals in expectations of the unknown where reason deals in solid provable processes which lead to a logical conclusion about something otherwise unknown.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
We are coming at this from two different directions. You choose to put your faith in the assumption there is no God. I from the personal knowledge that there is.
We will find out who is right in the end.. That much is guaranteed.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
False. I am coming from my personal subjective understanding of the reality in which I exist, and most definitely believe in god. But my interpretation of god is different than yours, which it very well should be. Since the only way to experience god is through the self, adhering to the gods of our forefathers, ancestors, friends, family members is a practice in futility. If one chooses to look beyond the physical world into one of spirituality, they will inevitably find god. It isn't fair to assume that my god is the same as your god, however, because we are coming from uniqueness. I encourage you to investigate Taoism and Zen Buddhism or any other interpretation of spirituality other than the proletariat Christianity that's been so heavily promoted by modern culture. You may find that we are all in this together, and a universal understanding of one-ness is far more profitable to our existence on this planet than fragmented "religions" which are designed to function like businesses.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
Then to clarify, you believe in a God. I believe in the God who can only be experienced outside of one's self or rather in spite of.
Reply
Mattlockhart 10 years, 5 months ago
I'd like to know how you experience god, or anything for that matter, outside of self. We exist in a realm of reality where all experience is facilitated by the self. It is our prison, if you will. The highest level of spirituality is the ability to leave the self behind and enter the realm of one-ness with god and all that is and is not. This takes years and years and lifetimes to achieve. Maybe we're describing the same thing, I cannot tell. I guess my final point will be that one's relationship with god can only be achieved in one's own mind. We can reach a higher realm of spiritual understanding by sharing experiences with others and gleaning knowledge and information. But that person's journey to understanding god is very different than the next person's. There is only one god. We as individuals, the self, the ego, are like lenses that attempt to "see" god. We are all looking at the same god, but every "lens" is unique and therefore the image of god seen through our unique lens does not appear the same as the god seen by another.
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
This will be my final post and then I'll leave it alone.
The God I believe in says He is the one and only God. He says the only way to experience Him is to love Him with all that we are and to love others as ourselves. That all but takes me completely out of the equation. Further, He says the only way to experience eternity with Him is through love and obedience for and to His son Jesus. Over and over in His Word this message is relayed.
Many would say we've gone way beyond the realm of science with these statements. But science and faith are integral. One merely proves what the other believes. So, no, we are not talking about the same thing.
And with that I will leave this conversation and you with the last word. I do want to thank you for a lively debate and thank you for taking the time to be articulate and respectful.
May God Bless You
Reply
mango333 10 years, 5 months ago
Almost forgot, again, to cite the quote. it was a tweet from a pastor in Dallas, named Todd Wagner. sorry for the omission.
I also forgot to ask you to be careful about what could be perceived as condescension. We can differ in opinion and disagree on what we believe. but belittling what I believe because you cannot "prove" can be perceived as egotism and arrogance as well. That said, I'm confident that wasn't the tone you intended to strike.
Reply