Think outside the Box on this faith question...?

Question

Before 1492, the scientists of that day were absolutely convinced that the earth was flat. Up to the late 1800s, most physicians would have laughed at the idea of scrubbing before surgery. Just a few years ago, stomach ulcers were considered caused by acid in the stomach instead of by h pylori (spelling) bacteria which is treated with a simple antibiotic. All caused a paradigm shift in thoughts.

So, thinking in terms of this, and I'm sure this will give some debate here...so often, we demand proof based upon our existing standards, and then a paradigm shift comes, such as the advent of the quartz watch on the Swiss watch standards.

So, atheists, is it just possible that because the proof you seek does not come up in the way that you accept, could it be that you are not willing to consider that God just may exist? Faith cannot be a tangible factor, faith is based on the ABSENCE of evidence.

Could it just be possible that you are using the wrong paradigm?

Yes I do, Sherl, and that's why this question is up for debate!!

Answer 1

"Boxes" are made of unquestioned assumptions that do not permit certain types of inquiries. In the case of theism, the main assumption is that God exists. How do we know? Because we can see God's action in the world. Things go well and things go badly. It is God's will. How do we know what God's will is? By how things go. The cause is deduced from the effect.

Outside the box, the question is asked, could we know God's will without observing how things go? Yes, we have the Bible. What is the Bible? A record of how things previously went in regard to God's will. So, without resorting to any external feedback, can we know God's will? Other than a feeling we sometimes get when we pray, no. Are such feelings always correct? No. Could there be any other cause for these events and feelings than God? We don't know.

Consider the development of astronomy. The classic, Ptolemaic model naturally put Earth at the center of the universe and all the planets, Sun and Moon, in concentric spheres around it. But careful observation found the planets messing up. They would speed up, slow down and change direction. In particular, Mercury and Venus acted one way, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn another way. Only the Sun and Moon were entirely predictable. It was possible to explain the eccentricities by modifying the model so that the Sun was in the center, but this was impossible. The box did not permit it. So elaborate countermechanisms were hypothesized into the celestial spheres to account for the perturbations of otherwise perfect orbits. Once the mechanism was complicated enough, the explanation worked, until Galileo trained his new telescope on Jupiter's moons and the whole thing fell apart. Not right away, Galileo had to be tried and punished for attempting to break the box before it could be admitted that the box was broken.

The development of things like meteorology to explain storms and droughts, of geology to explain floods and earthquakes, of astronomy to explain comets, meteors and conjunctions, of sociology and political science to explain wars, riots and massacres, of medicine to explain diseases and injuries, even of traffic analysis to explain why you were so late getting to your appointment, all contribute to reducing the randomness of life. We have more reasons for why things are the way they are. It's not all God's doing. Some would even suspect none of it is. Putting God back in charge is attempting to rebuild the box, not break it.

All of the scientific advances you mentioned were either resisted or ignored by religious leaders of the day until they were incontrovertibly proven. The innovations did not come from the Church because the default assumption was always that anything we did not understand was the will of God. Any observations we made had to fit in the box.

Paradigm shifts unveil understanding, not obscure it. Newtonian celestial mechanics worked well enough until Einstein came along and gave us a new, better way to think about gravity, matter and time. In contrast, notions like "Intelligent Design" obscure understanding, sweeping it into the box by saying, "We don't understand that, therefore it's God's doing."

The forbidden questions can only be asked outside the box. Science is free to ask the question: "Could only the existence of God explain this?" They may not get an answer but at least they can ask. Inside the box, you CAN'T ask, "Could anything besides God explain this?" It's too dangerous to the box.

Answer 2

The 1492 flat-earth stuff is a myth. Most educated people and people who lived/worked along the sea - perhaps even most Europeans - knew the world was round. They just realized how far it would be to sail, and didn't appreciate the concept of being at sea for basically a full year with potentially no land en route.

The flat-earth ignorance was created by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus.

So indirectly and unintentionally, you make a good example of why your own paradigm does not work.

keep trying!

Answer 3

You are spreading myths. Scientists in 1492 were well aware that the earth was round (even Ptolemy knew that already in the 2nd century A.D.), only the common people might have thought that the earth was flat.
(The reason scientists were sceptic about Columbus and his travel west to Asia was not that they thought he might fall off the edge of the earth, it was that they thought that Asia was much too far away for the voyage, and they were right in this! If America hadn't been there accidentally, Columbus would never have made it.)

Okay, this was just to get the facts straight.

To your actual question, I think it is the merit of science that it is always open for new answers. You can hardly call this a merit of religion or faith.

Answer 4

OK, let's go with that "paradigm."
Let me consider the Easter Bunny because there is an absence of evidence ...and Santa Claus, the Tooth-Fairy, Zeus, Odin, Yetis, Big-foot, and the unicorn in the next room that disappears if anyone opens the door.

In short, that is NOT a shift in paradigm. It's like saying that an acceptable way to stop being thirsty is to simply stop taking in liquid. It is true only in the trivial case - you will die of thirst and that's that. To forgo evidence of any sort does the same thing - critical thinking dies, and that's that.

Answer 5

All the things you mentioned were based on the best data they had at their disposal.

That's what I am doing now, using the best data I have at my disposal.

The problem is faith isn't based on data, it specifically excludes data. If unambigous data and evidence strongly supported the existense of a god, then it would no longer be faith.

You give me good, unambigous evidence, and I will likely change what I think about the existense of a god or gods. Right now, there is zero compelling or unambigous evidence. The really amazing thing is, with no evidence, I'm in the small minority for NOT having faith.

Answer 6

I am using a paradigm that requires evidence of God that cannot be explained by other means and phenomena. As such, there is currently no evidence of God.

Your mistake is that changes in our understanding of the world are caused by ADDITIONAL information, not simply a different interpretation of existing information with nothing added to it.

Answer 7

All of the assumptions you've listed were things people believed because of blind adherence to faith: They believed the sun revolved around the earth because God made it that way. You say the proof does not come in a way you accept. Are you trying to give that argument that the proof is the flowers and beauty of nature? If so, fine. Even if you do believe that that is proof of divinity, it is not proof of YOUR view of divinity. There is no evidence. By the way, if you are a Christian, they are Athiests.

Answer 8

It is very possible that we are using the wrong paradigm.

The problem is that the alternative - taking god on faith alone and faith being the absense of evidence - is chaotic.

Consider - why don't you have faith in Allah or Krishna or Buddah or Apollo or Zeus? There are 2-3 thousand gods by some counts. Why do you only have faith in one of them?

Why don't you go to temple on Friday night and church on Sunday morning?

If you are Catholic why aren't you a Mormon? If you are a Mormon why don't you have enough faith to be Greek Orthodox?

See what happens? If you don't have a standard of evidence then all answers are equally valid.

Answer 9

It could be possible, but until there is some evidence of God I will not believe in him.
Your are wrong about Columbus, by the way. Scientist of that era knew that the world was round. The argument was about the size of the earth.

Answer 10

No. Is it possible that YOUR faith in God is faulty, and that you're supposed to be worshiping Zeus or one of the other thousands of gods that YOU don't accept?

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

Science proved that faith in a flat earth was incorrect. Science proved that faith in not scrubbing before surgery was stupid. Science proved that faith in acid causing ulcers was misplaced. Eventually, science will prove that faith in God/gods is unnecessary and silly.