Faith and Knowledge

[Mystery Meat]

In a thread about "Faith and Fact" in the Social Hall, I made the following post:

Quote

I have a few thoughts:

• As a general rule, people crave certainty.
• I believe the craving for certainty can, but doesn't always, cause people to convince themselves that they KNOW something is or isn't true.
• The false allusion of certain knowledge of spiritual things (as opposed to actual knowledge) may and often does prevent a person from exercising real faith.
• Faith is the first principal of the Gospel.
• It is absolutely possible to gain knowledge and certainty about things of a spiritual nature.
• Things of a spiritual nature cannot be learned by an examination of facts and hard data and cannot be proven, peer reviewed, or examined by scientific study or hard evidence.
• Faith is hard, because having faith and exercising faith doesn't always go hand in hand with certainty (although it can).
• People who leave the Church, who once claimed to know it was true, and who now claim to know it isn't true are not bad people, but they are just as guilty of not being able to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty and are no less black-and-white thinkers as non-believing/non-practicing members then when they were TBM.
• The ability to possess knowledge (meaning actual certain knowledge) of spiritual things is not qualified by a person's age, socioeconomic background, level of formal education, calling, gender, orientation, political affiliation, race, or awareness of scientific or historical information. Rather the only three factors that I am aware of that influence the level of certain knowledge a person has attained are (1) a specific spiritual gift of knowledge, (2) adherence/obedience to the Restored Gospel, or the level of light given, and (3) the degree to which a person exercises faith.
• Faith does not turn into knowledge overnight, but often requires years (if not longer) of exercise and patience; but the humble and willing shall reap rewards of the righteous exercise of faith along the way.
• Perhaps most importantly, a testimony of "I believe..." is just as valid (and sometimes more inspiring) as a testimony of "I know..."
• Testimonies of "I know" in affirming the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel often cause cognitive dissonance (ironically) to those who doubt or claim to know otherwise.

These thoughts have been on my mind lately and I feel like this is the best I have been able to do to describe them. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[TheSkepticChristian]

57 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

• Things of a spiritual nature cannot be learned by an examination of facts and hard data and cannot be proven, peer reviewed, or examined by scientific study or hard evidence.

True, but science and psychology can replicate religious experiences. The power of suggestion, confirmation bias, the Improbability principle, selection bias, statistics, and patternicity can explain religious experiences. I am not saying that all religious experiences can be explained, but some can. 

 

The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day 

https://www.amazon.es/Improbability-Principle-Coincidences-Miracles-Events/dp/0374175349

Edited May 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

Your idea of what faith is seems to be different than my idea of what faith is, if I correctly understand you to be saying that faith is something different than certainty. 

Unless by certainty you are talking about absolute 100% certainty. 

Anyway, I undrrstand it to work this way:

First we start with the idea that an idea might be true, or that it might not be, and to see if it is true we then test it to see if we can build on that idea toward the goal of attaining true knowledge. 

If it seems like we can with that idea, we then feel kinda sure that it will, otherwise we'll just chuck it or dismiss it as having no value except as an idea that we feel kinda sure will not work.

So then at that point we either have faith to the point of being kinda sure that the idea is a good idea, or that it doesn't seem like it is

And the more we can build on the idea the more sure we are that the idea is a good idea, based on what we were able to build with it.

From a might be to a kinda sure that it is and then to pretty sure that it is until eventually we really really know the idea is a good one because of what we were able to come to know with it while building with it.

 

[Mystery Meat]

24 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

True, but science and psychology can replicate religious experiences. The power of suggestion, confirmation bias, the Improbability principle, selection bias, statistics, and patternicity can explain religious experiences. I am not saying that all religious experiences can be explained, but some can. 

 

The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day 

https://www.amazon.es/Improbability-Principle-Coincidences-Miracles-Events/dp/0374175349

Science cannot, by rule, explain any religious experiences.

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Science cannot, by rule, explain any religious experiences.

Yes it can. What science cannot do is verify religious experiences. It can explain, but it can't prove or disprove. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it can. What science cannot do is verify religious experiences. It can explain, but it can't prove or disprove. 

The only difference between a science and a religion is a definition, but each word has more than one definition, so there is a definition that can bridge that difference. 

The science that has to do with religion and God is called theology. 

[Mystery Meat]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it can. What science cannot do is verify religious experiences. It can explain, but it can't prove or disprove. 

No, it cannot. It may attempt to study what goes on in the brain etc., but that is even assuming you can force a spiritual experience when you are all wired up and connected. In my experience religious experiences are unpredictable. And even if it does, measure some manifestation that takes place in the brain, it doesn't measure what is happening to the soul, where such experiences actually take place.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No, it cannot. It may attempt to study what goes on in the brain etc., but that is even assuming you can force a spiritual experience when you are all wired up and connected. In my experience religious experiences are unpredictable. And even if it does, measure some manifestation that takes place in the brain, it doesn't measure what is happening to the soul, where such experiences actually take place.

that has nothing to do what what I am saying, when did I mention brain scans? 

So suppose that a medical doctor tells a patient that he has five percent change of surviving. That patient survives after a lot of prayer, and he calls it a miracle of God.  You think statistics cannot explain that miracle? 

Please read what I say. 

[Ahab]

Some people seem to think science and scientific discovery is foolproof and irrefutable.  As if all scientists agree with each other and their interpretations.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The only difference between a science and a religion is a definition, but each word has more than one definition, so there is a definition that can bridge that difference.

The science that has to do with religion and God is called theology.

There is one more difference.  The source.

One relies on the knowledge and understanding and intelligence of imperfect, flawed beings.
The other relies on the knowledge given by a perfect, omniscient (in this sphere at least) supreme being.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is one more difference.  The source.

One relies on the knowledge and understanding and intelligence of imperfect, flawed beings.
The other relies on the knowledge given by a perfect, omniscient (in this sphere at least) supreme being.

Those are only appendages to what science and religion really are...  methods/tools for acquiring knowledge.  And both methods/tools can be misused and abused.

[why me]

The best definition for faith came from the movie Miracle on 34th Street: Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to. I love this definition of faith. And it does make sense.

[Mystery Meat]

39 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

that has nothing to do what what I am saying, when did I mention brain scans? 

So suppose that a medical doctor tells a patient that he has five percent change of surviving. That patient survives after a lot of prayer, and he calls it a miracle of God.  You think statistics cannot explain that miracle? 

Please read what I say. 

No, if God healed the man, statistics cannot explain it. People may try to use science and statistics to explain it, but such people will look pretty damn stupid in the eternities.

At best, that would be like trying to give a hammer credit for building a house.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

The best definition for faith came from the movie Miracle on 34th Street: Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to. I love this definition of faith. And it does make sense.

No that is just... nonsense. 

Faith is simply the state of being sure about something, or an assurance someone gives to someone else to tell them what they are sure about.

And not just on "religious" issues,  either.

Whatever anyone is sure about is what they have faith in.

Common sense should be a basic guide in all things, lest people start feeling sure about things that are nonsense. 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, why me said:

The best definition for faith came from the movie Miracle on 34th Street: Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to. I love this definition of faith. And it does make sense.

I say this quite often:

I'm also partial to:

Because it's true.  When you believe you start to notice things that the unbeliever is completely blind to.

Edited May 26, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I say this quite often:

I'm also partial to:

Because it's true.  When you believe you start to notice things that the unbeliever is completely blind to.

...but which common sense still says is true.

If anyone were to start believing in things against what common sense tells them then they would be believing in nonsense,  so rather than dismissing or disregarding what common sense can affirm you should just dismiss and disregard what is nonsense while using all of the common sense God gave you.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

No, if God healed the man, statistics cannot explain it

Yes they can. It would not be the correct explanation, but it would still be reasonable. 

 

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes they can. It would not be the correct explanation, but it would still be reasonable. 

 

If it is not the correct explanation, then, no, they cannot explain it. They can guess. The guess may be based on the best information science can provide, but that is exactly my point. Science cannot provide all the information, or any information for that matter, when it comes to matters of faith and spirituality.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

No that is just... nonsense. 

Faith is simply the state of being sure about something, or an assurance someone gives to someone else to tell them what they are sure about.

And not just on "religious" issues,  either.

Whatever anyone is sure about is what they have faith in.

Common sense should be a basic guide in all things, lest people start feeling sure about things that are nonsense. 

Are you sure?

If you are sure about something..you don't need faith..you just follow that surety. Faith to me is more like hope.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Jeanne

[TheSkepticChristian]

43 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

If it is not the correct explanation, then, no, they cannot explain it. 

but you don't know that. You say "If". You are assuming that God heals people, we don't know that. 

So Math remains a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation is not always right, but it is useful, especially if we don't know the right answer. 

Suggestion can also explain other religious experiences. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

44 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but you don't know that. You say "If". You are assuming that God heals people, we don't know that. 

So Math remains a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation is not always right, but it is useful, especially if we don't know the right answer. 

Suggestion can also explain other religious experiences. 

God does heal people. I do know that.

[Mystery Meat]

45 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but you don't know that. You say "If". You are assuming that God heals people, we don't know that. 

So Math remains a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation is not always right, but it is useful, especially if we don't know the right answer. 

Suggestion can also explain other religious experiences. 

There is only one thing that can explain spiritual experiences, and it is not math or suggestion.

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

There is only one thing that can explain spiritual experiences, and it is not math or suggestion.

How do you know religious experiences come from a personal God? Do all religious experiences come from God? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

22 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

God does heal people. I do know that.

 

21 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

There is only one thing that can explain spiritual experiences, and it is not math or suggestion.

How do you know? Dr. Susan Blackmore said that same thing when she was younger. She had a life-changing out of the body experience. However, he field (parapsychology) changed her view.  Now she says that science offers a better explanation, so she no longer believes in out of the body experiences. 

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

How do you know? Dr. Susan Blackmore said that same thing when she was younger. She had a life-changing out of the body experience. However, he field (parapsychology) changed her view.  Now she says that science offers a better explanation, so she no longer believes in out of the body experiences. 

 

I have seen healings first hand. Actual miracles that science cannot explain