In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:  > I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is > believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do > not deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions > from evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on > the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any > possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the > rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere > is not self explanatory).   So your are saying to rely on our feelings and experiences (since this is the only other source of information left to us). How can you then convince somebody that your "feelings and experiences" are the correct ones then if you can't show somebody visible and measurable effects?  If my experiences say that "there exists no god" and yours says there does, where does that leave us?  Since we are only going on experiences, then both of us are correct within our own personal realities.  Furthermore, the trouble with "feelings and experiences" is that they can lead you astray, as the tragic outcome of Waco illustrates.  I am sure that many of Koresh's followers really believed in him but I think that you and I will agree that they were being misled.  Finally, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that the physical sphere is not self-explanatory when you only rely on the five senses?  > Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence,  > which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence > is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The  > evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning > on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason > of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly > consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the > evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself > to us.  You must be using a definition of "evidence" that I am not familiar with. To me, evidence is something you can show others -unambiguously- that what you are saying is true.  However, I agree with you that belief in a diety is a matter of faith. It is not something you can share around - others must experience it independantly.  Unfortunately, as I have explained above, this puts belief down to a matter of experience.  My impression is that Christians do not have the monopoly on reason, evidence and faith as far as any of these things can go.  > In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says: >  >>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if >>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since >>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less >>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)? >> > Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source  > of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings > have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and > similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by > faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use > reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding > of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be > the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity > claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the > best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.  At the risk of repeating my argument : As I have explained previously,  the trouble is that Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, etc will ALL say that THEY claim, with good reason, to be a valid system, possessed of the best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations to man (for Buddhists it should read "for explaining the non-existence of God").  So not only must you "prove" your own case, you have to "disprove" theirs.  (alt.messianic is a good place to see people strong in the belief of their own faiths ... and with their own good reasons)  > If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while > and you will see rational debate aplenty.  I know that ALL people can use reason ... I never claimed that they don't. I just wish to make sure that their arguments are well-founded.  It goes without saying that if I make a blunder that I expect people to correct me.  Once we have all gone through this process of removing the  non-essential and contradictory bits, we should (hopefully) have made some progress towards the truth.  > --  > ============================================================================== > Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but  > aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis > ==============================================================================