Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
jtheory:
--- Quote from: Jackie Blue on 22 Dec 2008, 14:55 ---Judeo-Christians who claim to *know* there is a God are missing the point entirely; doubt is a fundamental part of all forms of that branch of religion, which is why faith is inherent to the discussion. People who say "I *know* there is a God" are just as bad as those that say "I *know* there is not a God".
--- End quote ---
Are you saying that doubt is encouraged? Are you sure?
Certainly not in the bible or any church I've been in. It's those who "overcome" doubt who are miraculously healed, who walk on water when asked by Jesus, "receive your sight; your faith has healed you," and so on. Those who *do* dare to doubt are scolded and the supernatural "truth" is often revealed to them (in the stories... somehow this doesn't happen in real life). Remember doubting Thomas? He's not praised. "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". It's pretty clear.
I remember hearing lots of talk about people "struggling" with doubt -- hopefully to conquer it, of course, and receive the full power of faith. Doubt is *recognized*, but it's one of those things that "just happens", to be a bit ashamed of and strive to conquer.
If you've had a different experience -- i.e., any time that those with strong faith were urged to doubt -- I'd be curious to hear about it (though I suppose this thread is getting pretty stale by now and I apologize to the powers that be for continuing it...). I've heard that doubt is much more encouraged in some Jewish synagogues, but that's out of my experience, so I can't say... but again, being Jewish is probably more ethnic and cultural than religious; there are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God but still consider themselves Jewish. Christianity and Islam don't work that way in my experience.
Jackie Blue:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/april3/3.62.html
mustang6172:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 20 Dec 2008, 22:23 ---And I belittled your reply as "because", because that's what it is. The common reply (espoused unfortunately by far too many scientists) is that science cannot comment on god because god is somehow beyond the ken of science. When asked why, any who espouse the belief reply, "Because god is not something science can study." That is to say...
Q: Why can science not study god?
A: Because science can't study god.
The answer may be more sophisticated (saying that god is somehow outside the universe or indelibly part of the fabric of the universe), but the answer always boils down to a stubborn "Because". Because if there's a supernatural being of any sort (omnipotent Christian deity, spirit of a Japanese home, or German kobold), then that being is still interacting with the world and those interactions must necessarily be detectable. Because science is the practice of making observations, cataloging them, and drawing inferences from the catalog, the effects of a supernatural being are within the bounds of science. Therefor, however indirectly, the being itself is subject to the scrutiny of the scientist.
--- End quote ---
The definition of science is an attempt to explain the functioning of the natural world without use of the supernatural. So if the supernatural exists (and this isn't an attempt to say that it does or it doesn't), it would be impossible to prove because science can't go beyond the natural. It's already very arrogent just to expect science to explain everying in the natural world in the future. It wasn't long ago that most scientists still believed in the theory of spontanous generation. Let's say pizza is your favorite food. How can you prove that pizza is your favorite food?
zmeiat_joro:
--- Quote from: jtheory on 22 Dec 2008, 16:59 ---but again, being Jewish is probably more ethnic and cultural than religious; there are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God but still consider themselves Jewish. Christianity and Islam don't work that way in my experience.
--- End quote ---
Actually that's also the case with Orthodox* Christianity in much of eastern Europe**.
* While those with a Catholic background mostly don't bother at all unless they're Polish. And the Croats where it's also mainly an ethnic thing.
It's mostly evangelicals that are really "religious" still.
** Also, I'm not so sure about what's it exactly like in Russia. Russia's Complicated.
jtheory:
--- Quote from: Jackie Blue on 22 Dec 2008, 21:43 ---http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/april3/3.62.html
--- End quote ---
Here's what I said above: "Those who *do* dare to doubt are scolded and the supernatural "truth" is often revealed to them (in the stories... somehow this doesn't happen in real life)."
The article you cited doesn't scold at first, but treats doubt as a common weakness... it says Thomas' story should be instructive -- he learned the truth directly, and his faith was stronger ever after (he accepted it).
We all feel "the chill of this doubt's shadow" as your article says, and we want more evidence (so far, so good, though I don't personally feel doubt as a chill or a shadow... it's actually a pleasant feeling):
--- Quote ---I want to believe these accounts. And yet. And yet, unless I. … There is something holding back in me. There is some mental reservation, a twinge of hesitancy. There is belief, and there is doubt. Unless I see, unless I touch, I will not believe. Not entirely.
--- End quote ---
Later:
--- Quote ---Doubt has its limits. It can be faith's tonic, a cleansing and invigorating force. But doubt can quickly turn corrosive or cancerous, burning or mutating healthy tissue. (...) Indulged too long, doubt becomes just a parlor game.
--- End quote ---
In other words, limited doubt is healthy, but it's bad if you continue it indefinitely. There must be a time when you set it aside (whether or not your questions have been answered, apparently).
It gets more interesting.
--- Quote ---Here lies the basic flaw of all doubt: it really can never be satisfied. No evidence is ever fully, finally enough. Doubt wants always to consume, never to consummate. It clamors endlessly for an answer, and so drowns out any answer that might be given. It demands proof, but will doubt the proof proffered. Doubt, then, can become an appetite gone wrong; its craving increases the more we try to fill it.
--- End quote ---
The article says this is the flaw of doubt. I say it is the *strength*, and it is the basis for all advanced human knowledge. One you put aside doubt, you have closed that part of your mind, and you will learn nothing new. Yes, if you continue to pick apart the "truths" in religion, you will continue to come up with more and more questions that are unanswered and answers that are contradictory. That is not a reason to assume your doubt is corrosive somehow. This is just the learning process.
The article also points out the benefits of doubt in that someone with no doubts in their faith is capable of committing horrific terrorist acts, because (in my words) they've abandoned their natural moral sense in favor of pure faith. I agree. But then the article goes back to how doubters (in the biblical stories) are shown the truth, and they believe and worship. In the stories, Thomas is shown supernatural proof. In real life, these miracles don't happen.
--- Quote ---Jesus shows his wounds to Thomas, tells Thomas to see, to touch. He sees, but he doesn't touch. He knows when enough is enough. And here is the real sign that Thomas is not some poseur, some mere academic trend-chaser: his seeing gives way, not just to belief, but to worship: "My Lord and my God!"
--- End quote ---
Okay, so he dismisses modern people with ongoing doubts as "poseurs" and "academic trend-chasers", because *apparently* the proof is available. That's the huge flaw here -- he doesn't actually say *where* to find this proof... we have to take his word for it. He *assumes* it.
That's how all of these "lessons" function -- someone in a story doubts, but they are convinced and their faith is stronger than ever... so take heart! It's been proven, to someone else... and you should believe it now based on that hearsay. Because no, you can't check for yourself. Sorry.
This is more of the same flawed logic that says some comforting things about doubt, then mocks people who keep asking the unanswered questions and gestures at other people who were miraculously shown the "truth" and says we should believe based on that. If we are allowed to emulate Thomas, does that mean we should wait for Jesus to appear in the flesh and show us his wounds directly before we agree to believe? Of course not (because there would be no Christians then...). He just waves his hands, says "don't be a poseur" and hopes that is enough for us doubting types.
I hope the difference is clear between this sort of sleight-of-hand and the demand to never relinquish doubt which is the basis of scientific inquiry.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version