- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
F_C, honestly, I think you are misreading Givens. At the heart of it all, what he is saying is that for something to remain in the realm of faith (that for which we hope without convincing evidence) there has to be some reason also for doubt to be a valid option. What that means, in my own words, is that if evidence one way or another is convincing enough that no other options are reasonable, faith is not part of the equation.
Thus, I reject completely and adamantly the explanation that equates faith with believing the sun will rise in the morning or that a light will go on when I flip a light switch. Those are factual to me, based on clear and undeniable experience. There is no room for faith, since there is no room for doubt. If neither thing happens at some point, it doesn’t change my understanding – since I know the reason (or possible reasons) why it didn’t happen. (extreme cloudiness, an eclipse, a shorted circuit, a burned out light bulb, etc.)
In other words, faith lives only in a realm occupied also by doubt. Remove doubt, and faith dies, as well, since knowledge makes it irrelevant.
I love knowledge and want as much of it as I can handle, but I am comfortable living in a world of faith and doubt regarding many things.
Curtis wrote:F_C, honestly, I think you are misreading Givens.
At the heart of it all, what he is saying is that for something to remain in the realm of faith (that for which we hope without convincing evidence) there has to be some reason also for doubt to be a valid option. What that means, in my own words, is that if evidence one way or another is convincing enough that no other options are reasonable, faith is not part of the equation.
Thus, I reject completely and adamantly the explanation that equates faith with believing the sun will rise in the morning or that a light will go on when I flip a light switch. Those are factual to me, based on clear and undeniable experience. There is no room for faith, since there is no room for doubt. If neither thing happens at some point, it doesn’t change my understanding – since I know the reason (or possible reasons) why it didn’t happen. (extreme cloudiness, an eclipse, a shorted circuit, a burned out light bulb, etc.)
In other words, faith lives only in a realm occupied also by doubt. Remove doubt, and faith dies, as well, since knowledge makes it irrelevant.
I love knowledge and want as much of it as I can handle, but I am comfortable living in a world of faith and doubt regarding many things.
Ok, thank you. In that context, yes. Especially since birth I have always had doubt in myself and my answers so for me doubt is easy. It’s accepting ones self and hope that is hard.
Curtis wrote:F_C, honestly, I think you are misreading Givens.
At the heart of it all, what he is saying is that for something to remain in the realm of faith (that for which we hope without convincing evidence) there has to be some reason also for doubt to be a valid option. What that means, in my own words, is that if evidence one way or another is convincing enough that no other options are reasonable, faith is not part of the equation.
I was paraphrasing Brother Givens in my example. I agree with what Ray said in this explanation. If we conducted a scientific research study to prove an element of our religion then it would no longer be faith. It would be proven fact or it would be proven false. We could ignore the results and believe anyway but refusing additional information does not fit faith as I understand it.
The BOM is interesting in this way. There are many indicators that suggest that it was a work of 19th century inspiring “non-fiction” but then there are some elements that cannot be explained away by that explanation and leave room for faith in some element of the divine in the “translation” process. Both positions can be logically arrived at and defended with the information at hand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.