How do statements like "I believe it is a fact, but that is just my opinion" fly when it comes to religion?

Question

I have seen plenty of examples of this statement and way of thinking on Y!A and I am troubled by it.

Do we not have a defintion for what qualifies as a "fact"?
Are all opinions equally valid, and therefore all equally "fact"?
Does every person of a particular faith have equal ground to claim that what he/she thinks and believes is true?
What has happened to crediblity?

p_l_gray: is your comment regarding my question being "nonsensical" a fact or is it your opinion?

Answer 1

Well, in my opinion...opinions don't really count for much. Frankly, opinions are like butts, we all have them and they ususally stink. (sorry, but you know it's true) If a person cannot back up what they say or believe with facts or scriptures, then they cannot be considered credible. The accuracy of statements made is important because it really reflects well on us, as well as the God we worship. When we just say things off the top of our heads without having the proof to back it up, we not only look foolish, but it detracts from God and his message. The hard part is, most people just don't want to take the time to do research for themselves to find the truth about God. They just take what they "hear" as truth and spread that around.
I believe that it is important to make sure that whatever I say is based firmly on God's word. What I try to share with others is what I have learned from a study of the Bible. I don't try to "prove" myself right. I want people to see for themselves what the Bible says, and not that it is my own opinion. I do feel that the greatest authority is God's word, but I also try to use corroborative evidence from other scholars and scientists to highlight the Bible's accuracy. By doing these things, it helps to establish a sound foundation for my beliefs.
I can't speak for other people, or their credibility, but I hope that I never give the impression of not knowing what I am talking about.

Answer 2

Your question is non-sensical.... you have combined two mutually exclusive terms.

Opinions are not fact, plain and simple. A fact is provable, period.

I have equal ground to claim whatever I want to be true. You have just as equal right to disagree.

Your question really has nothing to do with credibility. I can be credible and still have opinions that you disagree with. I'm not credible when I dispute fact.

For example if I tell you "the sky is green".... I'm not credible.

But if I say that I like the color of the sky today... I've stated an opinion.

Answer 3

No.
A fact is the actual truth of a matter. Some people have the opinion that death is the end, that you just cease to exist. Some think that you will go to either heaven or hell.
But no one's opinion will change the truth of what is the actual fact. Facts are factual and are true. But when people start confusing what is truth and what is opinion, then we end up with confusion.

Answer 4

Why is this such an issue? I think it is at least a step in the right direction for those who are religious. They are saying I personally believe this is fact but when I speak to you about it I will not present it as fact I will acknowledge that it is my opinion.

That is a whole lot better than going in to a discussion with -this is fact, and everyone who doesn't believe what I believe is going to hell. At least it opens up the door for conversation and reason, and hopefully, eventually, a little critical thinking and skepticism.

Answer 5

If one is a true Christian, there is no "opinion". The Bible is His word. If you really want an answer, read the Bible. It is unfortunate, but many so-called Christians think they can reinvent the Bible. It's out of date...doesn't pertain to modern society...they don't believe certain parts (because it would mean that they would have to stop doing certain activities that are earthly pleasures, but wrong according to God's word).

It is so easy to say you believe something part way. It's really hard to obey when we really want to do something that we enjoy.
However, if God's commands are that we should not do it, we should not do it. No opinions allowed. The Bible is very specific. Some people choose to ignore the teachings of the Bible because it doesn't fit their lifestyle (and they don't want to change it!) That's a fact, but that's just my opinion (and God's)

Answer 6

i could see the source, and characteristic some verification. The media has no credibility in any respect. in case you're ever in contact in a "newsworthy" adventure, in basic terms evaluate what the clicking comments with what you easily experienced and/or stated. you will no longer know the form. you in addition to mght would desire to understand that there are often 2 factors to each tale and the clicking will in basic terms hide the sensational part. Or the part with the main personable and appealing human beings. in case you're undesirable or grotesque you will continually be the villain. to boot to being a curmudgeon, i've got exchange right into a skeptic. the two are serving me nicely.

Answer 7

Well, I think belief is a pretty weird thing anyway. I mean, I have a very strong conviction that there *is* a god, but I can offer absolutely no proof of it, so as a rational being, I have to accept that I could be wrong. But I don't think that you can call the existance of God "fact" because there is nothing to substantiate it. It is a theory.

Answer 8

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to be escaping the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a forum like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking new information which might allow them to QUESTION their beliefs more effectively, or might put their beliefs at risk... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, their self-description.

Answer 9

I'm christian, and I know the difference between fact and opinion. I know for example that my beliefs are my beliefs, not necessarily facts, and that the big bang theory is a theory, not fact, despite many evolutionists telling us on YA that it is fact. So its not only religion that has this problem.

Answer 10

this is the problem with relativity. everyone wants fact and opinion to co-exist in the same space. how does that statement fly when it comes to anything? isn't it a contradiction in terms?