Quote:
Originally Posted by earthfrog
Science is also many times a mixture of assumptions yet to be proven and facts. If I have evidence to believe that there are proofs in what I believe, and yet they are not allowable to even be tested, what good is it that I share them? What benefit is it for anyone? I think many creation-oriented folks share this melancholy sentiment. 
What is error except that which is proven to be error? What is truth? What is reality, subjectivity---is it all relative to the one who thinks it, or is there a constant? There can be no governing laws or equations without constants, just as there can be no true morality without truth.
Therefore, I see what you are saying, but it does not seem to provide a basis for error IF one believes in a perfect God who knows how to create things so they can thrive, grow and adapt without falling to their death at the first harmful mutation in their genetic lineage...
(Unrelated, but I appreciated watching this in lieu of recent discussion---enjoy)
YouTube - Stan gets kicked for controversy |
Let me but the basic Idea and/or argument another way...
Lets say you have a truth, or something you feel, or believe is truth even have faith that is a truth. First IMO it is possible to be deluded into thinking you have faith. You seem to have the opinion that I in fact may be deluded to think I ever had faith so lets use that if it is the case since it would be pretty good evidence for my opinion that false faith or a belief so strong is possible that people mistake it for faith (having not experience the real thing).
So first off assuming you admit those possibilities it seems to me it is worth testing our belief or faith to be as sure as possible that it is in fact the real deal. Now lets say we have 2 basic methods that have been shown to be highly effective in all other areas of life testing what might be truth to find out if it is valid or at least highly likely to be, to know as best we can if the conclusions we reach are in fact the right ones and that what we have is what we wanted. Lets say these 2 things are Logic/reason, personal experience, I actually feel like there should at least be 3 but I just woke up and for some reason the 3rd escapes me at the moment. 2 is good though, 2 is all I need to communicate the basic idea or make the argument.
Ok so we have our 2 method for determining if something is valid, or at least to make the best determination possible. What I have been saying all along is that you seem to be only using 1 method in regards to your faith. You have at least 2 that are useful but you are only willing to use 1 it seems. So its logical to infer that if you have 2 good methods but only use 1 you aren't doing the best you can to validate your faith experience to the best of your ability. Now the question is why? If it is real faith it should be able to stand against both...If it doesn't then that just shows you were wrong and while that may be painful in many ways now you are free to find the real thing. It also seems logical to infer that if you have 2 good methods and your only willing to use one when it comes to faith you must have a reason. Maybe you feel in the case of faith the 1 is all you need...but whats the harm in using both? Why not both?
The most likely reasons I can think of would be, you're just lazy and don't want to bother with it, You don't really care if your faith is valid as long as you enjoy it (Which is kinda understandable, some delusions can be rather nice)...though the implication there is you don't really care if you give god what god wants or if you feel gods "real" love as long as what you do feel seems good enough and your happy. Basically a stance of "screw god, I'm good to go. Got what I needed and I just don't care enough if god gets what god needs to risk loosing what I do have." Lastly and this may be connected to the second, but lastly Fear just basic fear that your faith will fail in the face of logic and reason.
I suppose actually one more might be for some reason you may feel god may feel it is a sin or wrong to try to validate faith with reason and logic, though really in a sense you've already employed reason in the context of your personal experience possibly logic also some to think about it but only a limited informal way. Well if thats the case then whats the harm in taking it further, why would god allow that and not a more formal version? Also you yourself have put forth the idea that god included this things as an aspect of creation for our benefit, so what possibly reason would god have for now saying they were off limits. I can't really prove it but it seems unreasonable for god to say "I god give logic and reason to you all for the benefit of all...but don't you dare point it in my direction!!"....or something to that effect.
So again IMO you have 2 method and you are failing to expose your faith to one or at least to a more rigorous version of one. That begs the question what possible reason could you have for that beyond the ones I have outlined, that seem like rather poor excuses from my point of view. Even if your faith is self proving (maybe thats number 3) whats the harm in testing it further? Just a waste of time? Seems with something as important as faith, it might be irresponsible not to perhaps waste a little time on its behalf...Just my opinion though. IMO the error is you aren't using all the tools at your disposal, to the best of your abilities in regards to faith. Here you seem to set a lower standard then else where (IMO).
BTW I would argue there can be true morality or at least functionally equivalent "ethics" even without the divine...Most of what is said to be "moral" is also highly practical. It keeps us safe while ideally allowing for most freedoms except those that harm others and allows us to live with each other since we have a set of rules that govern behavior and its is practical that our behavior was governed because even if we were free to do what we wanted so would everyone else and they could very easily get pissed and come kill us just as easily as we could get pissed and go kill them. In effect it means we don't have to be the biggest baddest smartest dog in the pack to still have a pack and keep living. This is very useful thinking even if god did not exist and we weren't concerned with any punishments or rewards in the after life, IMO. Being good for the sake of yourself and others even if it is just on a practical level seems to have at least as much value to me as just being good because you are afraid of punishment by god...perhaps even more value, IMO.
