In Defense of Doubt

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Science is really a poor choice if you are trying to make a case against doubt, by the way, since the basic premise of science is that every idea is subject to testing and a hypothesis is simply the current best explanation for a phenomenon. Centuries old theories are still subject to testing and refinement. Doubt is built into the system. Most schools of philosophy are ultimately like that, too. I guess I am arguing that religion should be the same. No idea should be above questioning.
 
I think according to the posts here you all have no idea what doubt really means or what faith really means especially in the unseen realm ---

Faith vs. Doubt​

The original Greek words here for faith is pisteuō (Strong’s g4100), and for doubt, the word is diakrinō (Strong’s g1252).

www.carisministries.com

Faith vs. Doubt: It’s not what you think... - Caris Ministries

There’s a huge difference between faith and doubt—far greater than you probably imagine. However, much of the distinction between them has been lost in the evolution of language. Today, many of us believe that not feeling strong is a sign of doubt. Others believe that wondering or questioning...
www.carisministries.com www.carisministries.com

Modern English versions of the Bible have simply translated these words to “faith” and “doubt.”

But the implication of the meaning of the original Greek words will reshape the way you think about the full depth of the concepts they represent.

The Greek word used here for faith means to commit to, or to entrust to. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, faith literally means to commit yourself to or entrust yourself to the Word. It means to believe the Word and to act upon it. It means to commit yourself to continuing to act in cooperation with the Word.

Doubt, on the other hand, literally means to oppose, separate, or withdraw from.

it doesn’t mean to have a moment of questioning or wondering. It doesn’t refer to waking up the next morning and not feeling confidence.

It means the exact opposite of faith. It is opposing, separating from, or withdrawing from what the Word says. It’s not feeling weak or unconfident; rather, it is completely opposing. It’s not simply wondering or questioning; rather, it is separating and turning away from.
 
unsafe said:
Doubt, on the other hand, literally means to oppose, separate, or withdraw from.
Click to expand...
Not in English, it doesn't. If that Greek word is being translated as doubt but means that, then it is a bad translation.

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of DOUBT

to call into question the truth of : to be uncertain or in doubt about; to lack confidence in : distrust; to consider unlikely… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
 
I agree that faith and trust are intertwined. I need have no "beliefs" in order to have "trust" in the ultimate benevolence of the Universe (as I'm always careful to say, not at the micro level).
 
Doubt in the Spiritual sense happens when you don't believe in God and His word -----doubt comes from Satan not God in the Spiritual sense ---Doubt is used by Satan to keep people in unbelief ---and distrust

Doubt is used in the negative sense in Scripture ----

John 20:25
Berean Study Bible
So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”

I say
So we see that his eye had to see and his hand has to touch which says he is relying on 2 of his 5 senses -----seeing and touching is believing -Worldly Faith relies on the 5 senses--God's Faith does not rely on the 5 senses ----God's Faith relies on believing in what you cannot see ---and only God can open our heart to receive His Faith through His Word ----

Jesus came to Thomas ---so Jesus by appearing to Thomas and allowing him to see and touch his wounds made him believe ---doubt did not make Thomas believe ----Jesus could have left Thomas to his doubts which is unbelief but Jesus chose not to -----Thomas wanted to believe his way ---not God's way ------there are many Thomas's in this world ------

This is Matthew Henry's commentary on this ------
read all here -----https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/26893/eVerseID/26895/RTD/MH

The disciples of Christ should endeavour to build up one another in their most holy faith, both by repeating what they have heard to those that were absent, and by making known what they have experienced.
Thomas limited the Holy One of Israel, when he would be convinced by his own method or not at all.
He might justly have been left in his unbelief, after rejecting such abundant proofs.


I say ---It was by the Grace of God that Thomas finally believed ------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And did you know that Doubt in God's eyes is a sin ------He gives a grave warning here about doubting ------

Romans 14:23 --NKJV
read all ----if you so wish​

Romans 14 NKJV23 - - Bible Gateway

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
 
This thread reminded me of this song (looking at the upload date I suspect Linnea posted it in time for Easter 2 laster year though the song is much older than that)
 
Scientism is a curse on progressive religion. The idea that what science has not identified and what I have not experienced cannot exist or be has closed minds and possibilities for experiences for many people. It often comes with arrogance and ignorance. People who lack knowledge of any specific area of science will make claims held by some scientists in that area of specialization without knowing the limits to those claims.

I am one of those people who experience auras from time to time without the migraines that often go with them for other people. As I was experiencing a series yesterday, I realized that everything I see is an imagined image assembled by my brain from visual and other sensory input. When my brain assembled information in the same way as other people's brains, we developed a set of shared truths. And we then diverge into different interpretations of those truths.

Our new place in Hawkesbury has a 54 year old house on an acre of land, a narrow strip leading southward from the highway. The back half of the strip, across a drainage ditch is a mix of trees, grasses, shrubs, piles of dirt, and shallow trenches. I see an interesting, diverse setting that will be a wonderful place to explore and for our granddaughter to play when she is old enough. I suspect our neighbours on each side see a visual blight. To us the house is an interesting, quirky place to reshape, keeping the history of lumpy paint and gouges on the six to eight inch baseboards as part of the character of the house. Others could easily see the house as something that should be demolished do that a beautiful house could be built there.

Some of us on Wondercafe2 have a variety of spiritual experiences that deepen our sense of connection. A few may interpret those experiences as tricks by Satan to lead us astray. A few others see our speaking of those experiences as delusions that block us from seeing their truth, which to me is founded on scientism.

My online sermon was quite different from the one I ended up delivering last Sunday in church. The willingness to test our beliefs is essential to developing beliefs that are resilient. It is important to have a broad or deep organizing belief that is not dependent on a complete set of beliefs. As we gather information and test our beliefs, some particular ones will fail our test. In my message I identified the traditional belief that God punishes bad people and rewards good people and how the Book of Job demolishes that belief. I shared how I am bothered that too many people including clergy will abandon their faith when one piece fails the test.

I also talked about the importance of developing trustworthy sources for information we cannot test in both messages. Thomas is my hero among the disciples.

I apologize for this long winded comment.
 
jimkenney12 said:
Scientism is a curse on progressive religion. The idea that what science has not identified and what I have not experienced cannot exist or be has closed minds and possibilities for experiences for many people. It often comes with arrogance and ignorance. People who lack knowledge of any specific area of science will make claims held by some scientists in that area of specialization without knowing the limits to those claims.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem, I think, is the assumption that science is atheistic, when in fact it is agnostic. It is not trying to prove or disprove metaphysics so really has no position on them.
 
Scientism is the promotion of science as the by all and end all of life. However, what is factual, what is true, is.
Whether those facts, those truths are scientific in some way is purely coincidental.

When it comes to experiences such as auras or anything that cannot be viewed in reality, it must be deemed as purely imaginary, it is wrong to refer to them as truths, as they are the exact opposite.

What is a progressive religion. Religions have a set of doctrines and tenets that they have stuck with since they started. How can that be considered progressive.

Nobody here denies spiritual experiences, but there needs to be a gold standard as to what a spiritual experience is.
We can't go round claiming that everything that happens to us is a spiritual experience. Just because we want to be accepted by our peers, etc. We have to be honest in what we say and do. Lying to yourself is the worse kind of lie.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Nobody here denies spiritual experiences, but there needs to be a gold standard as to what a spiritual experience is.
Click to expand...

Uh, well, actually, I think you sorta have, pretty well since you joined us. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but that's the general theme I've heard from you.

And if you view a "spiritual experience" as totally subjective, which it must be (unless it's a shared experience, of which I have heard crickets here, and would be inclined to view such as "mass hysteria"), then how can there be a "Gold Standard" upon which to judge something so completely subjective?

Pavlos Maros said:
What is a progressive religion. Religions have a set of doctrines and tenets that they have stuck with since they started. How can that be considered progressive.
Click to expand...

To progress means to change, it is assumed in a positive direction. Certain sects of Christianity have progressed along the social ladder quite nicely. Look at the huge differences in modern liberal congregations around the treatment of LGBTQ, women, BIPoC, etc.

The United Church of Canada makes absolutely no demands of adherents (people who hang out at the church voluntarily). Should you wish to take membership, you assent to being in "essential agreement" with some tenets (I'm looking at you, "Song of Faith") that are so inclusive and amorphous to be essentially meaningless, except perhaps to identify one as a seeker, rather than one who has found.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Scientism is the promotion of science as the by all and end all of life. However, what is factual, what is true, is.
Whether those facts, those truths are scientific in some way is purely coincidental.

When it comes to experiences such as auras or anything that cannot be viewed in reality, it must be deemed as purely imaginary, it is wrong to refer to them as truths, as they are the exact opposite.

What is a progressive religion. Religions have a set of doctrines and tenets that they have stuck with since they started. How can that be considered progressive.

Nobody here denies spiritual experiences, but there needs to be a gold standard as to what a spiritual experience is.
We can't go round claiming that everything that happens to us is a spiritual experience. Just because we want to be accepted by our peers, etc. We have to be honest in what we say and do. Lying to yourself is the worse kind of lie.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood what I meant by auras. The visual cortex in some people will create a pattern of lights in the visual field that seem to be in front of whatever that person is looking at. The first I experienced them was about 11 years ago. There was a polygon shaped band around about 80% of my visual field There were bands of colours at close to a right angle with band including white and black bands flowing around the band. The central 50% or do of the visual field was like looking through the focusing part of a good SLR camera when it is out of focus. The aura yesterday started with a small black and white circle in the centre of my visual field. The circle was replaced by a partial band with colours that varied in length and position. Every aura for me is different and had nothing to do with seeing colours around people or objects. They are imaginary but I have no choice in seeing them. I am unusual in that they are not connected to impending migraine headaches. Because you have not experienced them, they cannot be part of your truth. They are a part of my truth, not about something physical in the world, but part of the functioning of my brain.

Doctors for decades or centuries dismissed PMS as something imagined by women because it was not part of their reality. But it is painfully real to many women and clinically proven to be based in physical biology.

No one has to prove to you that they are having spiritual experiences or describe them in a way that meets your acceptance. I do not have to provide you with evidence to justify my belief in God, whatever or whoever that is. Each of us lives in different realities with many shared parts we can call truth or facts and parts that are our own. Galaxies and protons and magnetic fields are some of our shared parts. There are some shared parts we will interpret differently, and that is ok as long as we recognize the differences in our communication. For example, Canada is an imaginary construct accepted as real or effectively real by most people.

Science, as pointed out by another person above, is not in the business of metaphysics. But it is in the business of exploring what provides experiences for people.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Should you wish to take membership, you assent to being in "essential agreement" with some tenets (I'm looking at you, "Song of Faith") that are so inclusive and amorphous to be essentially meaningless, except perhaps to identify one as a seeker, rather than one who has found.
Click to expand...
Essential agreement is only required to be a minister as I understand it. Membership does not even require that much.
 
No, there's a series of questions you are asked when you join the church, by profession of faith, or transfer of membership. There's no expectation you will take them other than metaphorically, but they do exist. It's called a public profession of faith. They're as "agnostic" as the Scouting/Guiding questions, but generally ask if you believe in a power larger than yourself, and will you try and use this power to be nice.

Now, I've never heard anyone say "no" to the questions, just as I've never heard a parent say "no" to the baptism questions, or a confirmand saying "no" to their set of questions, but I'd have to guess that intention would weigh stronger than response in those situations, and you'd be a member anyway
 
BetteTheRed said:
No, there's a series of questions you are asked when you join the church, by profession of faith, or transfer of membership. There's no expectation you will take them other than metaphorically, but they do exist. It's called a public profession of faith. They're as "agnostic" as the Scouting/Guiding questions, but generally ask if you believe in a power larger than yourself, and will you try and use this power to be nice.

Now, I've never heard anyone say "no" to the questions, just as I've never heard a parent say "no" to the baptism questions, or a confirmand saying "no" to their set of questions, but I'd have to guess that intention would weigh stronger than response in those situations, and you'd be a member anyway
Click to expand...
Right, but that's not the same standard as the essential agreement required of ministers, who actually have to defend their "essential agreement" rather than just answer yes/no questions.
 
And just to make it quite clear, I am a full member of a UCCan, and make my atheistic beliefs very clear quite openly. And I'm the team leader of the Faith Formation and Christian Education Team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top