Faith and Well-Being

There seems to be a few things tied all-together here, that should be separate (in my opinion).Here's what I think:I don't see a problem with making strong proclamations about what you believe.
What you believe comes along the same lines as how you feel. You feel what you feel. You believe what you believe. You are the ultimate and final judge when it comes to how you identify with such things.Then you move the sentence straight along into what you can "know" about GOD and such.Well, "knowing" something is completely different from "feeling" something.
So different that, to me, the sentence you've stated here tying them together doesn't even make any sense.
If you think the two are inter-twined so much, perhaps your confusion will alleviate somewhat if you investigate stricter definitions for what you "feel/believe" vs. what you "know."To me, knowledge takes some sort of comparison with reality. Whether it's objective evidence or multiple attempts at verification or whatever... it always needs to be tested against reality or else you don't really "know" it... you just "think" it or feel it or believe it.That being said, I don't see a problem with not being able to "know" much about God, but still "believing" whatever it is you believe or feel.Keeping those definitions separate will help to alleviate any cognitive dissonance you may have about the issue. We feel what we feel and believe what we believe.
It's better to accept your important feelings/beliefs as yours and make changes to your knowledge/rational side then it is to try and change your feelings/beliefs.
(As long as you don't feel it's important to, like... hurt other people or things like that... that's another issue entirely).Depending on what it is... changing your feelings/beliefs may not even be possible.For example:I didn't like beer when I was 20.
Now I like beer (I'm 36).
I think it took a few years of forcing some beer down my throat (go university years!) for my tastes (feelings/beliefs) to change to start to like it.Vs.I have a memory from when I was younger about cross-country skiing on silly plastic kids-skis.
I was super-excited and happy about cross-country skiing that day.
I can't even imagine a scenario that could change my feelings about cross-country skiing on that day (my feelings about that memory).I'm not exactly a fan of cross-country skiing now... but that memory still contains feelings of excitement and pleasure that seem impossible to change.Not sure if I explained it well, but my point is: Changing feelings and beliefs does seem to be possible, but it seems difficult, time consuming, and you have to be highly-motivated to go through with it. If you want to change your beliefs in order to align with something rational... but, honestly, you don't really want to change those beliefs for other reasons... you're likely not ever going to change those beliefs. You're just going to cause a lot of frustration and confusion to yourself.The best method is to be honest with yourself about such things. Accept those beliefs/feelings that you honestly have and that you honestly find worthy of having. Change the other things that are much easier to change.

My point with calling his position deistic was that he seems to think we can arrive at the fundamentals of the belief through scientific means (in this case, historical study). Aside from that I don't think his position is very deistic at all. And my conception is that science and theology have nothing to do with one another. They cannot agree or disagree because they simply never deal with the same ting. And if one were to seep into the other, it would be subject to all the standards of the other. My position is that faith should be based on faith. If it's based on anything else then it isn't really faith; if belief in the resurrection is based on a preponderance of the evidence, then anyone who examines that evidence should come to the same conclusion. To me that's just ordinary science; and the fact that most people don't come to that conclusion tells me that the evidence for it is pretty weak and that belief in the resurrection is taken mostly on faith (which is just fine as far as I'm concerned). So you do not separate your belief from your knowledge? That's fine. You've given me some good stuff so far and I know you'll have more helpful insights when you get back.

I have just a minute.Of course it's faith but the hope is that it is a reasonable faith. The historical aspects are important. If one is going to be a Jesus follower then it is important to know about His life and message. In order to understand that life and message it is important to understand Him in the context of His life. Again, He was a 1st century Jew speaking to and interacting with 1st Century Jews.The historical aspects are important. They aren't going to prove anything but they do help establish the reasonableness of one's faith.

In many of our discussions here at EvC, evidence is mentioned as a prerequisite to faith. Jon does bring up that science and faith are incompatible. Thus my question. Does faith require evidence?

That's not at all what I said, Phat. What I said was: "And my conception is that science and theology have nothing to do with one another. They cannot agree or disagree because they simply never deal with the same ting."The two aren't incompatible. In fact, completely the opposite; there is nothing stopping them from coexisting and their very nature precludes them from disagreement. I don't think faith requires evidence. Science requires evidence. If you have evidence for something, it is silly to say you think it is true as a matter of faith.I do think faith requires some reasoning, though. Your faith should make sense both in relation to itself and in relation to its role in your life. This is a personal feeling, though, based on my own desire to have meaningful and purposeful faith.Faith might not be very logical or beneficial to some people.

And yet so many opponents demand evidence for God. Finding none, they swiftly dismiss the concept. Too many Christians are the worst possible advertisements for their own belief, however. We say silly things at times in our attempts at grasping for reason in explaining our beliefs. Be honest, Jon. Does GOD make sense? Does Jesus being alive in communion with the hearts of willing humanity make sense? Most believers would say yes. Most atheist/humanist/critical thinkers would say no. I can see both positions on that one. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Those are your beliefs. And, no, they don't make a damn bit of sense to me. They're free to do whatever they want.

What is your faith in? Humanity or something else in addition?

I thought at least one aspect of my faith was clear when I said "I have identified myself as an Agnostic Theist."You know what it means to be a Theist, right?

The evidence is against it.

Well.... I perused the internet for terminological definitions and settled on this page as the most thorough explanation. What is Agnostic Theism?(Believing in God, but not Knowing God) Yes, I am learning. I have started thinking more along these lines in my own quest for a rational faith. I personally believe that my faith is in Jesus Christ. I have jar to thank for directing me to the Nicene Creed as an affirmation and summation of some of what it is I believe. The creed says so much. I see some of Christian ritual as symbolic. God judges the thoughts and intents of the mind and heart. nwr put it quite well in a post response to foreveryoung in 2012. I learn from other humans. I believe that ultimately the Spirit speaks through the minds and hearts of others. Mind you, not everything that humans say---sincerely,adamantly or otherwise--is of the Spirit, but I learn to discriminate--picking and choosing if you will--taking in some of what is said and discarding the rest. jar sums it up in a post from 2012:I used to balk at the suggestion that God evolved over time...but upon further reflection I see that it is GOD using human stories about God and that it is God who evolves over time---not GOD. Edited by Phat, : rewrote post.

Evidence Schmevidence. The whole idea of faith and belief excludes evidence as an option.

It is more than just feelings. It is feelings birthed from pain and experience...through the trials of life...both good and bad. The old saying that experience is the best teacher is true, in my opinion.

Which means that by definition the claims are all unevidenced.Nevertheless, the fact that certain beliefs are held on faith and on faith alone does not mean that all beliefs are (see GDR's posts and quotes from N.T. Wright). And those beliefs that are not based on faith and faith alone but are purportedly derived from a preponderance of the evidence are subject to examination by others who are free to weigh them against whatever evidence it is they supposedly stand on.Furthermore, even a belief that does not rest on outside evidence is still subject to the scrutiny of logic and rationalization.Now you may not find any of this to be a big deal, and that's fine. But then you can't cry foul when someone points out that your belief is irrational and unevidenced.Jon

Maybe, but to me... that would make it weaker.
Feelings are the most powerful force to a human mind. They are at their most powerful when not connected to the physical world.
Whether that's good or bad is determined by what we do with those feelings. For a lot of things, yes.
But I would never cling to a single one-liner for everything. That just seems silly. There's too much going on out there.