Do secular individuals exhibit faith?

[Guest Ehud]

This thought came from the "Definition of faith" discussion, and rather than hijack that thread, I decided to start a new one. So here goes:

 

Faith is generally (and appropriately) applied in a "religious" context to describe a person holding an opinion for which they do not have absolute proof. I think Heaven is a good example of this...we are told there is a Heaven prepared for those who believe in Jesus Christ's finished sacrifice for their sins. Heaven is not something that I can prove, but I have faith in the Bible's record that there is such a place and that I'm going there.

 

Faith is a dirty word among secular individuals who claim to critically come to a conclusion based on the best available evidence...no faith involved. Although, this sounds nice I'm not convinced it is true. Most of the time when I have discussed the question of origins with a secular individual they appear to have very strong faith in scientists. While they may claim to critically examine the evidence, the truth is that most science is very specialized and requires years of study to even begin to analyze the evidence for yourself, but they still hold to an opinion believing (the verb form of faith) the testimony of scientists.

 

I'ld like to pose a couple of questions (especially to any nonbelievers) which I think are relevant to this point:

 

Question #1: Do you believe the venus fly trap evolved over time from a non-carnivorous plant into the single species today known as Dionaea muscipula?

 

Question #2: Do you agree with this statement from the cover of Discover magazine which claims that the universe and everything in it was once smaller than a marble?

 

These are somewhat rhetorical questions because essentially all secular individuals would answer yes to both; their worldview dictates that they answer yes. The real question is, since both of these are unproved and unprovable claims dealing with events millions/billions of years in the past, how is that not faith? In science, this leap of faith is usually painted over with words like extrapolate and hypothesize, but does that really change what it is? When you look at the fantastic claims which are regularly accepted by those with a secular worldview, I believe that faith is not so rare as we are led to believe. 

 

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

Edited September 26, 2014 by Ehud

[Bonky]

My honest reaction to the first question was that "I have no idea, I don't know much about the venus fly trap". I would guess that experts say "yes this is true" but I don't have any commitment to this being true. As it turns out, I hardly care if it's true.

I think I can shed some light on why the religious version of "faith" is still a bit different than the "faith" I might have in scientists. With religious faith, there seems to be a committed emotional investment to continue to believe what one believes. I hear things like "faith building" and "wearing the armor of God" to deal with outside influences or distractions. I don't need continual help to keep believing in X. If I find solid evidence that X is wrong, I can change my view. Christian institutions clearly state that they are not willing to consider anything that is contrary to scripture, their faith in scripture will not allow them to.

So for me, I see a fairly stark contrast in how this faith is applied.

As a side note, the other distinction is that religious faith is typically rooted in something that stems from a holy book, not physical evidence. In your example, you believe in heaven and I would think not because of physical evidence that you were given but merely the fact that the Bible talks about it.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

My honest reaction to the first question was that "I have no idea, I don't know much about the venus fly trap". I would guess that experts say "yes this is true" but I don't have any commitment to this being true. As it turns out, I hardly care if it's true.

I think I can shed some light on why the religious version of "faith" is still a bit different than the "faith" I might have in scientists. With religious faith, there seems to be a committed emotional investment to continue to believe what one believes. I hear things like "faith building" and "wearing the armor of God" to deal with outside influences or distractions. I don't need continual help to keep believing in X. If I find solid evidence that X is wrong, I can change my view. Christian institutions clearly state that they are not willing to consider anything that is contrary to scripture, their faith in scripture will not allow them to.

So for me, I see a fairly stark contrast in how this faith is applied.

As a side note, the other distinction is that religious faith is typically rooted in something that stems from a holy book, not physical evidence. In your example, you believe in heaven and I would think not because of physical evidence that you were given but merely the fact that the Bible talks about it.

 

 

=================================================================================

 

I think I can shed some light on why the religious version of "faith" is still a bit different than the "faith" I might have in scientists.

 

The Bible sheds ample light on "Christian" not "Religious" Faith:

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Christian Faith:  has substance and evidence.

 

"Blind" Faith: belief without Substance....

 

Which is admonished against, by proxy:  (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Also what "scientists" are we talking about?  Are these scientists that proclaim (big bang, evolution, et al)...they have no "Physical Evidence" or "Scientific Evidence" for that matter.  As a Matter of Fact, there are Boatloads of directly contradicting "Scientific Evidence" here.  How would you describe this Faith?

 

As a side note, the other distinction is that religious faith is typically rooted in something that stems from a holy book, not physical evidence.

 

This is Factually Incorrect...

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

IMHO, this is speaking to: Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, "CODE" Information.

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

If "nature" can't accomplish these (and it can't, Validated Repeatedly by Actual Experiments, Common Sense, and known Scientific Law)...what's the recourse?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Ehud,

    Nice to see you again,Bonky......& I do not believe I have ever met you before this time,Ehud,,,,,,let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Worthy(better late than never)     to be honest,I am a little unclear about your questions because it requires signing up with "Drop Box" in order for me to view your links & I am not signing up for anything that I did not request...

      As far as your OP,interesting but not all of the secular community is even interested in science....this seems like a science vs faith discussion  and I know many people who have spent their entire lives studying different science fields who believe in God & have faith in Jesus and I know scientists that have faith in nothing,they base everything in the hope of finding evidence...............I just do not see how any particular person or groups of people could be categorized as faithful ?Faithful in "X"

     When speaking about Christianity & the faith of a Christian,I do not believe it can compare to any religion or any group,,,Christianity is about faith in our Living Redeemer,it is a very personal & intimate relationship....so how can anyone compare that to a "religion?"

    I have faith in the knowledge of what He has done,is doing & will do  but I know Him personally,He abides in me.

  Bonky is under the impression that Christians have faith in Scriptures,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thats all wrong ,we,as Christians BELIEVE Gods Word ,they have been revealed to us by the Power of the Holy Spirit...((Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.")

                                                                                                                       With love-in Christ,Kwik

     .

[BeauJangles]

Hi, Ehud.

 

You expressed a lot of interesting and contemplative thoughts concerning scientific nature, the existence of God and His role in the midst of Creation, and changes that occurred after the fall of man. Pretty complicated isn't it? Yeah, it's way over my head too. LOL Not a lot of theologians are willing to tackle this, and no two would agree in totality on all points of view.

 

I'm certainly no expert on any of this, but I do find it extremely fascinating none the less. Just a couple of thoughts and comments...  Sorry, but you won't getting any Google information from me. I never Google! But from what I understand, it is commonly believed that all creatures including mankind were not carnivorous before sin entered into God's perfect creation of the Garden of Eden.

 

Hard to fathom? Uh-huh, it certainly is. As for the Venus Fly Trap, there are a few other carnivorous plants, most of them tropical in origin. That would be the Pitcher Plant and the Sundew. I recall them from old Nova episodes, and you could probably obtain some video footage on YouTube. Or Google it yourself. It's really kinda macabre watching the process of how these plants capture and devour their prey. Not exactly for the faint hearted!

 

As pertaining to the things of faith, we aren't expected to understand it. All the Lord requires is to simply believe. This is most predominant in the words our Savior gave to his disciples, including the Apostle Paul to convey to the world... Trust by faith and not by understanding, ie: intellect. No easy thing in today's modern world, especially among the well educated. But we all struggle with these issues.  

 

Anyway, I'm glad you brought the topic up. It's nice to know my memory is still fairly well intact at my age. I may have long-term loss of short-term recall, but past memories are in pretty good shape... For now! LOL Take care and God bless.

 

Shalom,

David/BeauJangles

[Guest Teditis]

Excellent post Enoch!

[Enoch2021]

Excellent post Enoch!

 

Thank You

[Becoming]

Faith is being able to go with the flow of forces more powerful than yourself. Bending but not breaking, like a building swaying slightly in the wind. It is the opposite of clinging or desperately holding on to something. That is my perspective on faith.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Becoming

[Guest Ehud]

I think I can shed some light on why the religious version of "faith" is still a bit different than the "faith" I might have in scientists.

With religious faith, there seems to be a committed emotional investment to continue to believe what one believes.

Is it really a different faith? Perhaps you don't have an emotional investment to continue to believe in a naturalistic explanation, but many Secularists do (they sometimes have a zeal that is almost religious). I think what we see is that on both sides of the fence there are people along the whole faith spectrum. In other words, amongst Christians you will run across people who just accept the Bible because that's what they've grown up with, they believe it without substance per se (the blind faith that Enoch describes). On the other end of the spectrum, there are many who have come across substantial evidence in support of the Biblical record and have chosen to believe it as God's word.

Similarly, there are many Secularists who have not examined a lick of evidence, but blindly follow the opinion of scientists. This is blind faith. There are others who delve into the evidence which purportedly supports a Secular worldview and have a more substantial faith in Naturalism, but it's still faith in the unproved and unprovable. My point is, the discussion of origins is not faith vs. science, but faith vs. faith. It's Christian faith vs Secular faith.

Ehud

[Diatheosis]

That's true Ehud. Sometimes I've come across "nonbelievers" who get offended by the idea of God and someone believing in Him. That's where Mike Lowry wondered howcome someone can get offended by something they don't believe exists? I find this particularly funny because I recognize the old atheist me in this.

 

For me, it did not work like presented above; I went through experiences which afterwards I discovered in the biblical light. Same as for the power of prayer and prophetic in personal and social life. That's what I call empiric evidence, verified by many fellow believers, sometimes unbelievers as well, due to which they have been led to believe, like myself.