Randolpin

Position Grounds

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Every human being have his or her own position in this planet. The position refers to what he or she holds or believes. It is in other words his or her worldview. Some are atheist, some are agnostics, some are theist and so on. Now I want to ask what are there grounds for holding such positions or beliefs. I myself as a Christian have grounds for holding my Christian worldview that is base on faith and reason.

Edited by Randolpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to get upset when someone points out that any religious belief that stems from reason isn't religious (I'm a staunch atheist, but I will believe the same thing if you show me that it's based in rational thought)  so the only things that are based on religious faith are not rational?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All sorts of things shape people's personality and worldview: genetics, upbringing, education, etc.

Some people are more likely to base their worldview on faith (e.g. you) and others are more likely to depend on evidence and reason (e.g. almost everyone else on this forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like an attempt to put all belief into the same box so you can give guesswork and faith equal footing with critical thinking. It's a common defense for a weak position. I see no reason to give it any weight whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strange said:

All sorts of things shape people's personality and worldview: genetics, upbringing, education, etc.

Some people are more likely to base their worldview on faith (e.g. you) and others are more likely to depend on evidence and reason (e.g. almost everyone else on this forum).

 

Personally I find the view best after 5 single malts.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith, reason, critical thinking, superstition, confirmation bias, empirical data, anecdotal data, and probably lots of other things.

16 hours ago, Randolpin said:

 I myself as a Christian have grounds for holding my Christian worldview that is base on faith and reason.

I will bet there's less of the latter than you think, and some of what I mention above that you didn't include.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 5:27 AM, Randolpin said:

Every human being have his or her own position in this planet. The position refers to what he or she holds or believes. It is in other words his or her worldview. Some are atheist, some are agnostics, some are theist and so on. Now I want to ask what are there grounds for holding such positions or beliefs. I myself as a Christian have grounds for holding my Christian worldview that is base on faith and reason.

You should clearly distinguish between the question why people believe certain things, and if what they believe is methodologically justified. In questions of faith the strongest determinant is what the parents and/or culture of the believer believe. But that says nothing about the intrinsic justification of the believe system. 

Religions mostly are based on tradition only, and their methodological justifications are generally very poor. Science as a 'belief-system' on the other hand is based on experiment, observation and strict mathematics, not on tradition. So where psychologically and sociologically there are similarities between religions and science (they are both interpretations of reality), science is firmly based on empirical research and log, where religions are just based on tradition.

Faith is not a valid source of knowledge about reality. Even if there are rational sounding arguments in theology, these are not valid because the premises are not methodologically justified. When you put unproven nonsense into a rational argument, you just get more nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Faith and reason are not enemies, for example I put my faith in that doctor to undergo my operation thru the evidences that he is the best doctor in the community. My faith in Christianity is like that. I have already faith in God thru personal experience but it strengthens thru knowing the evidence for the creator of the universe and the historicity of the empty tomb,postmortem appearances and the origin of disciples faith that are widely agreed upon by New Testament scholars. 

References: Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview, The Case for Christ, The Case for a Creator, The Case for faith, Reasonable faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

 Faith and reason are not enemies, for example I put my faith in that doctor to undergo my operation thru the evidences that he is the best doctor in the community. My faith in Christianity is like that. I have already faith in God thru personal experience but it strengthens thru knowing the evidence for the creator of the universe and the historicity of the empty tomb,postmortem appearances and the origin of disciples faith that are widely agreed upon by New Testament scholars. 

 

'Faith' in a doctor is totally different  -  although you have faith in him  -  you KNOW that there is statistical probability of him succeeding or messing up your operation  -  you still have faith for him being the best man for the job because he has had many successes....  but obviously he has had failures too  -  that's doctoring. So, with doctoring, you look at the statistics and see which doc is best or, at very least, check to see that the doctor is trained and qualified. The doc can actually SHOW you his certificate to PROVE that he has been trained....  then you trust that he will do the best job he can and then roll the dice.   Whereas, with the god of the bible the way Christianity describes it, there is absolutely NO evidence for it whatsoever.   So I'd have to disagree with your analogy - it is totally different.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

 Faith and reason are not enemies,

.....But certainly the far far greater quality of reason exists with science. Ancient man being ignorant saw gods in the Sun, Moon, rivers, mountains etc. But with the advent of science and accompanying reason and logic, we now see the stupidity and futility of such beliefs. 

Quote

for example I put my faith in that doctor to undergo my operation thru the evidences that he is the best doctor in the community. My faith in Christianity is like that.

No the comparison is invalid and farcical at best. Sure you put some faith in your surgeon, but that faith is based on the knowledge that your surgeon, has studied and trained for a decade or more, is employed by a Hospital, and has probably done the operation countless times before with great success. Whilst your Faith in Christianity is based on tradition, a personal warm inner glow and comfort you derive from such myth and a promise of eternity in Paradise, 42 virgins or some other mythical story line that began before science chose reason, logic, the scientific methodology to overcome such gullible unscientific beliefs, based on faith alone.

Quote

I have already faith in God thru personal experience

If your God was reasonable, he would then give everyone this same personal experience that he exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Faith and reason are not enemies

I agree. They shouldn't be. Like music and reason shouldn't be enemies. Because they are completely separate things. 

The problem comes when people insist that their faith means that reason must be wrong (e.g. Creationists etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

I agree. They shouldn't be. Like music and reason shouldn't be enemies. Because they are completely separate things. 

The problem comes when people insist that their faith means that reason must be wrong (e.g. Creationists etc). 

Yup +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrP said:

'Faith' in a doctor is totally different  -  although you have faith in him  -  you KNOW that there is statistical probability of him succeeding or messing up your operation  -  you still have faith for him being the best man for the job because he has had many successes....  but obviously he has had failures too  -  that's doctoring.  

I think there's an issue here where people say faith when they mean trust, and the meanings are different. One can trust science and trust a doctor, rather than have faith in them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Randolpin said:

 Faith and reason are not enemies, for example I put my faith in that doctor to undergo my operation thru the evidences that he is the best doctor in the community.

By the definition of faith, you wouldn't use "evidences" to determine whether you should use this doctor. If someone told you he was the best, and you didn't research whether or not others supported that stance, but instead proclaimed that was good enough for you, then that would be taking the doctor on faith.

Chances are, you asked more than one person. You may have checked the diplomas on the wall. You met with the doctor to get a feel for how confident and personable and concerned they are about your case. You may have asked for a referral from another doctor who has a proven track record, whose word carries some weight with you. Using the doctor like this isn't faith. You did enough checking to be able to TRUST that this doctor is the best one for you. No faith involved, not even a little. The moment you want more than the word of another, you aren't believing using faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences. But I want to point out that again almost all new testament scholars and historians agree of the 1. historicity of the empty tomb, 2.postmortem appearances and 3.origin of the disciples faith. Scholars such as Barth Ehrman, Wolfhart Pannenberg etc. The evidence are well established for these 3 facts. Now the question is how are these 3 facts better explained? And the best explanation so far is because God raised Jesus from the dead. Some scholars did not accept this hypothesis because they did not believe in supernatural so they propose other theories which are far less explanatory than the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead. This hits the worldview of a scholar studying these 3 facts. If he is he is a theist he accepts it but if he is a naturalist, he can't accept the hypothesis. The facts and best explanation are there only yourself will decide base on your worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences. But I want to point out that again almost all new testament scholars and historians agree

New Testament scholars maybe  -  because they study the bible and believe it.  Historians?....  nah....  they study history, not made up stories. I'll have to look up and get sources to back up my claim because I am at work and can't research it here - but I am pretty sure actual real historians (not the ones that study fictional books) do not believe the claptrap that is claimed by the new testament.  It is debatable whether Jesus even existed as a man....  there is absolutely no evidence outside of some bloke claiming it in a book that he was crucified and raised from the dead.  Even if such claim was made by some guy 300 years after the event...  there is no reason to actually believe it  - there have been many many spurious and nonsense claims by many people over the last few thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences.

What is this evidence?

I suspect the evidence is just things you believe. It isn't evidence you can measure and show someone else the results. In other words it isn't objective or scientific evidence.

 

25 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

But I want to point out that again almost all new testament scholars and historians agree of the 1. historicity of the empty tomb

Citation needed. Especially for "almost all historians".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences.

I get that he is in your heart.  <3  He is in mine too,x  He is in your heart - good.   It isn't reality though - do you not see that?

Is it just your belief in Christ keeping you from murdering and raping? If so then you need to work on your morals and self control and love for your fellow man - maybe you need Jesus to stop you being total bastard - if so - good, keep him close.  The doctor comes to treat the sick.

But actual reality and honest history it is not.   Stay saintly, keep repenting from your sins and try to be nice people.  Open your eyes and drop the moronic belief in ancient superstitions long proven to be nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences. But I want to point out that again almost all new testament scholars and historians agree of the 1. historicity of the empty tomb, 2.postmortem appearances and 3.origin of the disciples faith. Scholars such as Barth Ehrman, Wolfhart Pannenberg etc. The evidence are well established for these 3 facts. Now the question is how are these 3 facts better explained? And the best explanation so far is because God raised Jesus from the dead. Some scholars did not accept this hypothesis because they did not believe in supernatural so they propose other theories which are far less explanatory than the hypothesis God raised Jesus from the dead. This hits the worldview of a scholar studying these 3 facts. If he is he is a theist he accepts it but if he is a naturalist, he can't accept the hypothesis. The facts and best explanation are there only yourself will decide base on your worldview.

One of the oldest failings in logic or reasoning is to examine only two alternatives and then draw the conclusion that one must be true.

At least one other alternative is that the alleged events you refer to may be false or mistaken.

So there should be at least three alternatives examined, one being 'neither of these'.

It is maybe also worth pointing out that the New Testament is a collection of works written by many divers souls over a time period of nearly half a millenium, at least a couple of hundred years after the lifetime of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences.

Are stories heavily skewed by confirmation bias really to be counted as evidence? What do you have other than the Bible (i.e. independent evidence) to support your view? When you have other credible sources, then you can start talking about evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Exactly my worldview of Christianity is base on evidences.

It may be your worldview, but it's not actually correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Randolpin said:

But I want to point out that again almost all new testament scholars and historians agree of the 1. historicity of the empty tomb, 2.postmortem appearances and 3.origin of the disciples faith. Scholars such as Barth Ehrman, Wolfhart Pannenberg etc.

Not true. I've read a few books of Ehrman, and where he shows that the most rational standpoint, based on the sources we have, that Jesus existed, he definitely does not believe that the empty tomb and postmortem appearances are historical. Just to set that straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 8:24 PM, studiot said:

Personally I find the view best after 5 single malts

Officially platonically in love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

Officially platonically in love.

So long as you don't equate this to the practices of Plato's soldiers.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now