Relationship between faith and knowledge

relationship between faith and knowledge

He proposes erasing the faith-knowledge connection, and replacing it with a Part of the extended series Evidence for the Faith I thought I was. existence of God, and there are gaps in neo-Darwinian explanations of the origin of language The nature of knowledge and its relation to certainty, belief, and. Chapter 3: Rimini and the Purpose of Theological Knowledge. relationship between faith and reason is the supposed impact that nominalism had on.

You can be proud! And grow stronger in the knowledge that all that love you felt, that was entirely the love of your family and friends. They love you more than you think. And together, you can get through this. No matter what persecution you think you might be faced with in the future, do not feel angry. Do not think of your lost friends. Do not feel sad. You have overcome so much. You can get through this. September 6, at 5: All off us — irrespective of whether we believe in God or not — in some sense live at the behest of our society.

And society is composed of people who disagree over the fundamentals. To explain a little of where I am coming from, there are a number of things that confuse and trouble me about my own faith. Possibly cheif amongst them would be the existence of evil and gratuitous suffering in the face of a good God who we are told has, in some sense, defeated these things.

relationship between faith and knowledge

Other troubling matters would be parts of the OT, the nature of hell and also the hiddenness of God. Rather than atheism just the non-belief or lack of belief in God, I think that it also entails certain things about our existence. Some of these things I find troubling. For example, I think that an atheistic universe is inherently amoral and our lives are meaninglessness in the grander sense of things and so on. So aside from worrying that other people are thinking, what is the thing that troubles you specifically about your world-view.

September 6, at 7: Neither of these things are issues for me any more. This inherent sense of morality is the basis of all religious morality not just non-Christian morality, or non-theist morality which is not to say that all religious moral instruction is necessarily correct. To be human is to have a sense of morality, or to be sociopathic. Any human society that is not populated exclusively by sociopaths will have a moral code. And if that moral code is determined by reason to maximise wellbeing, it is sure to be at worst equal, but invariably superior to any moral code supposedly acquired from a god.

Our Western moral code is only loosely based on the Bible. We all but ignore the first five commandments, and for good reason; Would you stone someone to death for collecting sticks on a Saturday?

relationship between faith and knowledge

That is a good thing. Regarding how our lives are meaningless. The meaning of your life is just not determined supernaturally. It is what you choose! You choose what you want your life to be for. I have chosen my life to be for the benefit of humanity, with a special bias given to my wife and kids — and we can debate how successful I am at achieving that somewhere else.

But you get over it. There are smaller instances of altruism.

Like buying Christmas presents yourself. Or choosing your own purpose, and living life according to that. Very few animals do not exhibit homosexual behaviour in one form or another specifically asexual animals like sea urchins and aphids. The tendency of animals to exhibit this behaviour, and whether it occurs occasionally, or whether the animal may show a homosexual preference, depends on the species.

September 6, at 8: What you describe that comes from negotiation of the members of the society is law not morality. And as we have seen over and over societies from the Nazis to the communist regimes in Russia or Cambodia to the Shria law systems of Islam, countries regularly enact laws that defy any sense of even the most basic morality. Either we have value that is intrinsic to our existence or we are no more valuble than the ant you unknowingly squashed the last time you walked out your door.

Perhaps you could take a step back from your explanations and look at them in the big picture. What you have done is quite the opposite. Morality that comes from ourselves is always a step away or a step past just naked will to power. If you really want to put on some big girl panties, perhaps a basic understanding of the limitations and deficiencies of your own world view might be a good starting place. But how is that relevant here?

September 6, at 9: But I think they are both a product of negotiation; in the case of law it is more formal, in the case of morality it is informal, often non-verbal, and happening constantly, all around us.

Apologetics Press - Faith and Knowledge

Second, we live in a society in which an examination of the various evidences behind a claim has become practically an everyday occurrence. The Bible teaches that mankind is lost and in desperate need of salvation, which comes only through Jesus Christ.

More often than not, the person who accepts and obeys the biblical message undergoes a radical change in both his thinking and his lifestyle.

relationship between faith and knowledge

For someone to suggest that Christianity, or the life-altering changes it ushers in, is based on little more than an unproven assertion that might or might not be true hardly could be viewed as a rational approach that would commend itself to intelligent people. And why is the Christian—who eventually will have to admit that he does not really know these things—any different from the agnostic who readily admits that he cannot know these things?

In addressing this point, Dick Sztanyo has observed: To admit that Christianity is only probable is to admit the possibility that, in fact, it might be a hoax! In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faithpp.

Thinking Christian

And what is its proper relationship to knowledge? And each of these statements may well express a certain belief. However, such a usage is not biblical faith. What is the relationship between biblical faith and belief? Yes, faith is a kind of belief.

relationship between faith and knowledge

The issue, however, centers on the kind of belief that is biblical faith. Belief refers primarily to a judgment that something is true. But belief may be weak or strong.

It is an opinion I hold which, while I hope is true, and thus believe to be true, is nevertheless one that I cannot prove. Thus, strong belief is a rational act based upon adequate evidence. Weak belief is produced by such things as emotion, vested interest, etc.

Biblical faith is a strong belief based upon adequate evidence. Agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell stated it this way: Biblical faith adheres to the Law of Rationality, and seeks conclusions that have a confidence warranted by the available evidence.

In producing biblical faith, both reason and revelation are employed. Geisler and Feinberg defined these terms as follows: Using capacities for proper reasoning, the Christian builds faith based upon numerous avenues of evidence.

Sometimes that evidence may be based upon testimony provided by revelation. Genuine faith derives from facts presented to the mind and from which proper and correct deductions are then drawn John Faith itself is possible only when reason recognizes the trustworthiness of the testimony which produces it[11]: Skeptics, of course, have suggested that reliance upon the testimony of another does not necessarily result in personal knowledge.

Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason: No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases.

But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe itpp.

Must testimony by necessity be diluted or destroyed simply because it has been passed from generation to generation? We know George Washington lived, even though no one for the past several generations ever set eyes on him. We know of numerous other people and events in the same manner, as a direct result of credible testimony passed faithfully from age to age.

Further, biblical information provides a good test case for the accuracy of information passed from one person to another. Later, Jesus appeared to two men walking in the country. Were they to be commended for their rejection of two different reports that originated with trustworthy eyewitnesses? No, the disciples were not justified in their disbelief. Thus, the Lord verified the principle that Thomas Paine attempted to refute.

If Mary Magdalene had expressed accurately to the disciples what she had seen, and they in turn expressed accurately what they had been told, would this not constitute valid evidence-based testimony of the sort that would warrant genuine faith in the resurrection?

Facts must be reported before they can be believed. It was the testimony given by Paul. Faith is thus seen as the acceptance of knowledge based upon credible testimony.

Peter Harrison- The Conflict Between Faith and Science- Origins of a Modern Myth

The Samaritans, mentioned earlier, believed on the Lord. The fact of their seeing Him did not preclude their believing on Him John 4: There are times, of course, when faith and sight go together. Men sometimes walk by faith because of sight. Many came in obedience to the Lord during His earthly ministry because of what they heard and saw.