Says this church sign "...Facts don't matter" ?????

[Irwin]

So, do you believe that? What are the instances when faith matters more than facts? I'm trying to understand the thought process behind it.

I think healthy skepticism is good btw.

I could see where your situation was so bad that to maintain your sanity and will to live, having faith in some supreme being might help you through it. An example might be being a prisoner of war or maybe caught up in some natural disaster... or having a serious injury or ailment.

It's purely a placebo effect, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[grahamg]

So, do you believe that? What are the instances when faith matters more than facts? I'm trying to understand the thought process behind it.
I think healthy skepticism is good btw.

I'm not sure I have a good example for you, of an occasion when having faith in something might matter more than details or "facts", (unless perhaps I think a bit harder?), but for now I'd say this.

I once had a discussion with someone about whether a parent might wish to be given all the details of the unfortunate circumstances or cause of, the death of their child.

In my view, knowing everything that went wrong, when its too late to make any difference, isn't necessarily a good thing. That is compared to knowing or "having faith" you'd done everything in your power for your child whilst they were alive. Similarly whether the hospital did everything in their power to help your child, important as this is of course, doesn't bring anyone's child back obviously.

When an uncle of mine accepted what I thought was slack practise in regard to his sons (my cousins) healthcare once, I didn't understand him, because I thought something could have been done about this, (though he might have known better?).
I suppose he was demonstrating more "faith" in our health system on this occasion than I was prepared to do at the time, or he knew they'd done their best, and that you can't expect there to be no shortcomings in any system designed by man.

His sons health probably broke down because he was working too hard, but he was a grown man, married with adult children, able to make his own decisions etc. My own father however, knowing this nephew had had a life threatening illness aged thirty perhaps, felt his brother was sometimes too hard on his son, (though they worked happily together on the farm most of their lives).

There's one more story in relation to this uncle, concerning a churchman, vicar/minister, who wished to stop my uncle being a "sidesman", or helper at the local church. My uncle just ignored his efforts to make him stand down, and kept attending or helping, as he knew he'd done nothing wrong,bso defied the man, and the church authorities wisely did nothing about it, (what could they do?).

Am I making any sense to you, (I admit the last but had nothing to do with your question did it!)?

 

[Della]

Remember when the scientists told us the sun circled the earth and that leeches were a good idea after losing a lot of blood? Well probably not, we're old but not that old. Still, science can be wrong and faith can let us down. I have faith that there is a God and that he gave us brains to try and work out how to cure diseases.

I have always thought those marquees outside churches were tacky, particularly if they include the pastor's name as though he is the star attraction. The name of the church and the times of the services should be enough, or if the pastor must put something out there every week, a quote from Jesus would probably be best. Too often those homemade quips that are supposed to sound clever come across as stupid or mean.

 

[Capt Lightning]

Well, why did this 'God' allow the disease in the first place. My parents had little ability to argue logically. My mother would say that someone, say, who was unable to have children, that "this was just God's way". Ah, I would say, but supposing that someone could cure that problem, would that be God's way too? Why did this 'God' allow suffering before allowing someone to come up with a cure?

No, it's time we dispensed with this idea of a good benevolent god. If you did believe in a god, he/she/it would have to be a mean capricious being who presided over a world full of suffering and injustice.

 

[Irwin]

If it were possible for there to be a supernatural being and magic of other sorts, what's to stop the chair you're sitting on from turning into a crocodile? Living in a world where literally anything is possible would be a frickin' disaster!

That's the problem I have with movies about time travel. It's just not in any way possible for us to do that ever. It would be total chaos.

 

[grahamg]

Remember when the scientists told us the sun circled the earth and that leeches were a good idea after losing a lot of blood? Well probably not, we're old but not that old. Still, science can be wrong and faith can let us down. I have faith that there is a God and that he gave us brains to try and work out how to cure diseases.
I have always thought those marquees outside churches were tacky, particularly if they include the pastor's name as though he is the star attraction. The name of the church and the times of the services should be enough, or if the pastor must put something out there every week, a quote from Jesus would probably be best. Too often those homemade quips that are supposed to sound clever come across as stupid or mean.

They say that four hundred years ago the need for vitamin C was first understood, and sailors began to be given some lime juice to supply their needs, when on very long sea journeys. It still took the British Admiralty thirty years to enact a policy to give sailors the vitamin C routinely, (in the manner described), when on these very long journeys in their sail boats.
Where does God come into this kind of thing you may ask, and I don't know the answer. The disregard for the lives of our own people, or simple stupidity, and blind faith in the leadership by us humans, and the divine right of kings to rule maybe, meant no one dared ask questions(?), was perhaps all that could be said.
You could argue God intervened in some way when our Admiralty changed their policies, but I agree you could equally argue the opposite.
BTW I still like those signs outside churches, especially those written to make us think, or challenge us, (and going to church you are, or maybe should be equally challenged as to your own thinking and life in my view).

 

[Della]

Well, why did this 'God' allow the disease in the first place. My parents had little ability to argue logically. My mother would say that someone, say, who was unable to have children, that "this was just God's way". Ah, I would say, but supposing that someone could cure that problem, would that be God's way too? Why did this 'God' allow suffering before allowing someone to come up with a cure?

No, it's time we dispensed with this idea of a good benevolent god. If you did believe in a god, he/she/it would have to be a mean capricious being who presided over a world full of suffering and injustice.

Oh Capt Lightning, you ask the question that has stumped the theologians for centuries and since it follows my post I feel compelled to try and answer and I'm totally unqualified.

I can only tell you how I explain it to myself which is probably wrong. I think God created the world and put us in it over six days when "day" might have meant "age" as in stone age. I think lots of the stories in the Old Testament are the way things had been explained by word of mouth over the centuries, fact and legend combined.

After that God gave us free will and stepped back, letting natural law have its way. He is not a giant child with his Play Family Village making cars crash. He is a spiritual entity who connects with us through our minds. So if we hit an icy patch on the road Jesus cannot actually take the wheel, although if we send up a quick prayer he might stop our panic so we can remember what to do. If we end up in the hospital he can help us deal with the pain. So disease happens through mans' choices and environmental and evolutionary changes. God didn't cause it but he helps us handle it. We can pray that he leads a researcher toward a cure or we can pray that our lives are over quickly and we join him in the spirit world we call Heaven.

I know that doesn't answer your questions, but it's as close as I can get, others can do much better. I just remind myself that now we see as through a glass darkly and trust that it will be made clear to us someday. Or not. For now I choose to believe, it has always felt true to me.

 

[Jennina]

I'm not sure I have a good example for you, of an occasion when having faith in something might matter more than details or "facts", (unless perhaps I think a bit harder?), but for now I'd say this.

I once had a discussion with someone about whether a parent might wish to be given all the details of the unfortunate circumstances or cause of, the death of their child.

In my view, knowing everything that went wrong, when its too late to make any difference, isn't necessarily a good thing. That is compared to knowing or "having faith" you'd done everything in your power for your child whilst they were alive. Similarly whether the hospital did everything in their power to help your child, important as this is of course, doesn't bring anyone's child back obviously.

When an uncle of mine accepted what I thought was slack practise in regard to his sons (my cousins) healthcare once, I didn't understand him, because I thought something could have been done about this, (though he might have known better?).
I suppose he was demonstrating more "faith" in our health system on this occasion than I was prepared to do at the time, or he knew they'd done their best, and that you can't expect there to be no shortcomings in any system designed by man.

His sons health probably broke down because he was working too hard, but he was a grown man, married with adult children, able to make his own decisions etc. My own father however, knowing this nephew had had a life threatening illness aged thirty perhaps, felt his brother was sometimes too hard on his son, (though they worked happily together on the farm most of their lives).

There's one more story in relation to this uncle, concerning a churchman, vicar/minister, who wished to stop my uncle being a "sidesman", or helper at the local church. My uncle just ignored his efforts to make him stand down, and kept attending or helping, as he knew he'd done nothing wrong,bso defied the man, and the church authorities wisely did nothing about it, (what could they do?).

Am I making any sense to you, (I admit the last but had nothing to do with your question did it!)?

You're right. You have to try harder. Dude, you lost me. Come on, you can do better than that. ( Just kidding. I can't access the emojis!)

Sorry about your uncle. Not sure I fully understood his dilemma but it seems to me he just lacked info on how to move forward?

I think in both your examples, there was a hint of resignation to the reality of the situation of their child. They didn't deny nor minimize the value of those facts in favor of faith like the good pastor suggested.

Let's agree on terminologies lest our discussion goes haywire.

Faith = faith in god. After all, this is what pastors usually mean when they speak of faith.

Facts = scientific facts, data based on research such as polls, and other info that are proven to be true/ existing or known to have happened. such as Biden stutters, Trump's face is too orangey. Biden tripped as he boarded Air force 1. Trump walked with a tissue stuck on his shoe as he boarded air force 1.

Also since we are pitting faith against facts, can we use facts from the point of view of evidence?

Back to the drawing board?

When does faith in god matter more than evidence?

Btw , I stand corrected. You were right. There are other interpretations of what he said. But for now, let's follow your train of thought.

PS Was intrigued by your statement about the virgin birth. What's your interpretation of it,?

 

[Jennina]

I could see where your situation was so bad that to maintain your sanity and will to live, having faith in some supreme being might help you through it. An example might be being a prisoner of war or maybe caught up in some natural disaster... or having a serious injury or ailment.

It's purely a placebo effect, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Oh I totally agree with you in that sense. 100%

But going back to the good pastor, not sure that's what he meant. I think that that statement was made within the context of getting covid vaccines. "God is my Pfizer, I shall not want the jab."

 

[grahamg]

You're right. You have to try harder. Dude, you lost me. Come on, you can do better than that. ( Just kidding. I can't access the emojis!)
Sorry about your uncle. Not sure I fully understood his dilemma but it seems to me he just lacked info on how to move forward?
I think in both your examples, there was a hint of resignation to the reality of the situation of their child. They didn't deny nor minimize the value of those facts in favor of faith like the good pastor suggested.
Let's agree on terminologies lest our discussion goes haywire.

Faith = faith in god. After all, this is what pastors usually mean when they speak of faith.

Facts = scientific facts, data based on research such as polls, and other info that are proven to be true/ existing or known to have happened. such as Biden stutters, Trump's face is too orangey. Biden tripped as he boarded Air force 1. Trump walked with a tissue stuck on his shoe as he boarded air force 1.

Also since we are pitting faith against facts, can we use facts from the point of view of evidence?

Back to the drawing board?

When does faith in god matter more than evidence?

Btw , I stand corrected. You were right. There are other interpretations of what he said. But for now, let's follow your train of thought.

PS Was intrigued by your statement about the virgin birth. What's your interpretation of it,?

Very good post!
On virgin birth, I just don't think its necessary for me to believe this occurred.

I think my uncle did move forward, and you've helped explain why he didn't make an issue concerning the health care system and his son, it was his way of moving forward!

You've done well by laying out definitions, as my examples were about faith in people behaving well, so a faith in "human goodness/kindness", rather than God per se, (you could argue this is due to God working within them I suppose?).

Have I got a better example, where faith matters more than facts, or faith trumps facts, (btw, don't you ever get bored with facts, and just wish to believe something will turn out okay?)?

I suppose you could say, if facts are all that matter, then everyone in this world should be an atheist, because the existence of God can't be proven, (a negative argument I accept).

Do you think "love" matters in this world, (another thing that can't be proven to exist)?

Is it a fact you've been loved, and if you hadn't been, then you wouldn't be the person you are today, (ditto myself of course)?

I know I'm being "woolly" here, as I can't give you a known fact to challenge using faith alone.

Can I throw in this thought, my ex claimed after she left me, that our marriage was a mistake, hence our child was the result of a "mistake", (which I interpret as meaning there was no love between us, or certainly on her part). I wonder whether she claimed when she left the next guy, after a twenty year marriage, and creating two more children, that this too was the result of a mistake(?).

I believe the love I once felt for my wife played a part in the way I was able to love my child, though even this didn't just happen or appear when she was born. A complete stranger put this thought in my mind and helped give me the confidence I needed I could love my child, "Don't worry about being a dad, it just comes naturally"!

"Facts" and psychology might explain all this, and you could say (I admit), my meeting this guy in a bar in Dublin was pure chance, so no God at work at all, but had he not wished to help me, then I might never have come to the realisation I came to, and become able to love my child(?).

Its not much of an argument, but its the best I have right now!

 

[Jennina]

Very good post!
On virgin birth, I just don't think its necessary for me to believe this occurred.

I think my uncle did move forward, and you've helped explain why he didn't make an issue concerning the health care system and his son, it was his way of moving forward!

You've done well by laying out definitions, as my examples were about faith in people behaving well, so a faith in "human goodness/kindness", rather than God per se, (you could argue this is due to God working within them I suppose?).

Have I got a better example, where faith matters more than facts, or faith trumps facts, (btw, don't you ever get bored with facts, and just wish to believe something will turn out okay?)?

I suppose you could say, if facts are all that matter, then everyone in this world should be an atheist, because the existence of God can't be proven, (a negative argument I accept).

Do you think "love" matters in this world, (another thing that can't be proven to exist)?

Is it a fact you've been loved, and if you hadn't been, then you wouldn't be the person you are today, (ditto myself of course)?

I know I'm being "woolly" here, as I can't give you a known fact to challenge using faith alone.

Can I throw in this thought, my ex claimed after she left me, that our marriage was a mistake, hence our child was the result of a "mistake", (which I interpret as meaning there was no love between us, or certainly on her part). I wonder whether she claimed when she left the next guy, after a twenty year marriage, and creating two more children, that this too was the result of a mistake(?).

I believe the love I once felt for my wife played a part in the way I was able to love my child, though even this didn't just happen or appear when she was born. A complete stranger put this thought in my mind and helped give me the confidence I needed I could love my child, "Don't worry about being a dad, it just comes naturally"!

"Facts" and psychology might explain all this, and you could say (I admit), my meeting this guy in a bar in Dublin was pure chance, so no God at work at all, but had he not wished to help me, then I might never have come to the realisation I came to, and become able to love my child(?).

Its not much of an argument, but its the best I have right now!

Yes I think there are people who become good because of their belief in a god. At the same time, I think people can be good without a god..

You've probably seen acts of kindness among animals, don't you think we also possess an inherent goodness in us?

Let's see, if there were only atheists in this world a lot of things wouldn't have happened - 9/11, bombing of Manchester, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no jihad and other holy wars, the Inquisition and witch hunting, persecution of gay men, just to name a few. The most atrocious crimes have been committed in the name of god.

Do I get bored with facts? Depends on the topic. Some are definitely boring but I would.not chuck them out the window or deny they exist because they're boring.

Imagine a world without facts. There would be no learnings and everyday would be like "50 first dates." Did you watch that movie?/ Without facts, what's left are guesses, fiction, lies. How can anyone hope for things to turn out okay in that environment?

Sorry to hear about your situation with your ex wife. One thing I've learned is never take personally the words of an angry person. Sometimes they'd say the nastiest stuff they don't mean to hurt you. Anger is masked pain.

Your daughter needs to feel you're always there for her. Her relationship with you will affect how she perceives men in the future. Just enjoy your moments together and don't be hard on yourself. Down the road when she becomes a parent, she will forgive you for your shortcomings. Oh and don't badmouth your ex to your daughter.

Anyway, yes you are wooly. Dude, you're good at deflecting; but i must admit you brought up some interesting topics. Why don't you just admit that the reason you can't come up with an example is that the pastor's message was nonsense at best? Go ahead. Concede. I won't tell anyone.

Finally, are you an anti vaxxer? I won't judge you. I mean, not to your face. If you are, for your daughter's sake, just try to learn more about the pros and cons of the vaccine. Keep an open mind. Your daughter deserves to have you for a long time.

 

[Sunny]

Yes, I'm glad we finally got back to that church sign. I think we are giving too much credit to the "religious" philosophy behind it. I suspect that it's all about politics, nothing more.

But otherwise, what an interesting discussion, even though it's pretty much off topic.

 

[grahamg]

Yes, I'm glad we finally got back to that church sign. I think we are giving too much credit to the "religious" philosophy behind it. I suspect that it's all about politics, nothing more.
But otherwise, what an interesting discussion, even though it's pretty much off topic.

You're right about the "off topic" remark, (apologies, but I'm about to do it again in response to above post), though I'd leave the dear old pastors sign as simply an attempt to grab attention!

Here's an idea, why doesn't anyone interested go and listen to the preacher before condemning him?

 

[grahamg]

Yes I think there are people who become good because of their belief in a god. At the same time, I think people can be good without a god..
You've probably seen acts of kindness among animals, don't you think we also possess an inherent goodness in us?
Let's see, if there were only atheists in this world a lot of things wouldn't have happened - 9/11, bombing of Manchester, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no jihad and other holy wars, the Inquisition and witch hunting, persecution of gay men, just to name a few. The most atrocious crimes have been committed in the name of god.
Do I get bored with facts? Depends on the topic. Some are definitely boring but I would.not chuck them out the window or deny they exist because they're boring.
Imagine a world without facts. There would be no learnings and everyday would be like "50 first dates." Did you watch that movie?/ Without facts, what's left are guesses, fiction, lies. How can anyone hope for things to turn out okay in that environment?
Sorry to hear about your situation with your ex wife. One thing I've learned is never take personally the words of an angry person. Sometimes they'd say the nastiest stuff they don't mean to hurt you. Anger is masked pain.
Your daughter needs to feel you're always there for her. Her relationship with you will affect how she perceives men in the future. Just enjoy your moments together and don't be hard on yourself. Down the road when she becomes a parent, she will forgive you for your shortcomings. Oh and don't badmouth your ex to your daughter.

Anyway, yes you are wooly. Dude, you're good at deflecting; but i must admit you brought up some interesting topics. Why don't you just admit that the reason you can't come up with an example is that the pastor's message was nonsense at best? Go ahead. Concede. I won't tell anyone.

Finally, are you an anti vaxxer? I won't judge you. I mean, not to your face. If you are, for your daughter's sake, just try to learn more about the pros and cons of the vaccine. Keep an open mind. Your daughter deserves to have you for a long time.

On this occasion "no woolliness" for you!
1). People can most certainly be good without having any belief in a God, and "inherent goodness" is correct, (found in all kinds of people, sometimes unexpectedly).
2). You state as "fact" things that are contentious to say there least, and are guilty of rewriting history in my view. Many bad things can be laid at the door of organised religion, though you cannot state those bad things had no other possible cause, or contributing factors.
3). No need to imagine a world without facts, I believe in scientific methodology, vaccines, evolution (and so on).
4). I think I've given good enough reasons why the pastor did what he did, (no doubt in collaboration and agreement from others), so no concession I'm afraid!
5). My daughter is wrong to treat someone who loved her as an irrelevance, but that's a subject for another thread, (lest we cop more flack in that regard!).

 

[Sunny]

OK, let's think for a moment about the church sign, and what it really means. There could be a smidgen of truth in it, if we specify what we mean by "facts."

The example given by some in this discussion, that in the aftermath of an unspeakable tragedy, like losing a child, a person might find more comfort in their religious faith than in knowing all the little facts involved in that death. The little facts would probably just make them feel worse.

But what if their child was murdered? Wouldn't it "matter" a great deal for them to know the facts involved in the case? Would it be better for them to 1) give the investigating detectives all the facts at their disposal, and to insist on a thorough investigation of those facts, in order to figure out what happened, and who the murderer was, than to 2) turn to "faith" because the facts don't matter, their child is gone anyway?

And that's only one example.

In the case of the sign, I very strongly suspect that the subject is not who murdered somebody's child, but whether or not the Covid vaccine and masks help us not to get the disease, or to get a much milder disease, and whether they matter a lot more than having this church's version of "faith." The sign is advertising following ignorance and blind belief, rather than science and the statistics of life and death. The word "Covid" is not displayed on the sign, but it's really screaming at us. And this is not religious philosophy, it's thinly disguised politics.

 

[grahamg]

OK, let's think for a moment about the church sign, and what it really means. There could be a smidgen of truth in it, if we specify what we mean by "facts."
The example given by some in this discussion, that in the aftermath of an unspeakable tragedy, like losing a child, a person might find more comfort in their religious faith than in knowing all the little facts involved in that death. The little facts would probably just make them feel worse.
But what if their child was murdered? Wouldn't it "matter" a great deal for them to know the facts involved in the case? Would it be better for them to 1) give the investigating detectives all the facts at their disposal, and to insist on a thorough investigation of those facts, in order to figure out what happened, and who the murderer was, than to 2) turn to "faith" because the facts don't matter, their child is gone anyway?
And that's only one example.
In the case of the sign, I very strongly suspect that the subject is not who murdered somebody's child, but whether or not the Covid vaccine and masks help us not to get the disease, or to get a much milder disease, and whether they matter a lot more than having this church's version of "faith." The sign is advertising following ignorance and blind belief, rather than science and the statistics of life and death. The word "Covid" is not displayed on the sign, but it's really screaming at us. And this is not religious philosophy, it's thinly disguised politics.

I do doubt your interpretation of the meaning behind this church sign, (as I've said), I cannot believe the focus of any church would be on anything other than religious matters, and drawing attention to those, occasionally using slightly shocking or challenging statements.
As far as your comments about whether a murder should be thoroughly investigated, well how could anyone argue with that, but at the same time I'd expect professionals to try to protect the parents where possible, from unnecessarily gruesome aspects or details of the case.

 

[grahamg]

A few more signs for everyone's delectation and delight:

 

[Jennina]

On this occasion "no woolliness" for you!
1). People can most certainly be good without having any belief in a God, and "inherent goodness" is correct, (found in all kinds of people, sometimes unexpectedly).
2). You state as "fact" things that are contentious to say there least, and are guilty of rewriting history in my view. Many bad things can be laid at the door of organised religion, though you cannot state those bad things had no other possible cause, or contributing factors.
3). No need to imagine a world without facts, I believe in scientific methodology, vaccines, evolution (and so on).
4). I think I've given good enough reasons why the pastor did what he did, (no doubt in collaboration and agreement from others), so no concession I'm afraid!
5). My daughter is wrong to treat someone who loved her as an irrelevance, but that's a subject for another thread, (lest we cop more flack in that regard!).

Oh a numbered reply! I've a short span of attention so this is good for me.

1). Agreed

2) I gave a list of actual historical events that were instigated because of religion. Take away the instigator and they wouldn't have happened. Not sure why that is considered rewriting history. That was just using logical reasoning on a hypothetical. If Bach was never born, you wouldn't have Orchestral Suite no. 3.

As to whether there are contributing factors that justify those events, that's another story.

However, to be fair, I should also add that there are a lot of good things that happened because of religion. But, that doesn't change the fact that religion is divisive.

And yes, religion and politics are always contentious topics. And for as long as people can disagree without disrespecting each other, no topic should be off limits.

3) I was totally wrong, then, about you. I got the wrong impression of you based on some of your comments.

4) Okay I'll lay off your case. But if you come up with an example, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

5) I misunderstood your situation with your daughter. Hope you resolve things with your daughter. It'd be a shame if you missed the opportunity to get to know a person who is "half you."

 

[Jennina]

A few more signs for everyone's delectation and delight:

View attachment 177366

View attachment 177367

View attachment 177368

View attachment 177369

Clever and witty.

 

[grahamg]

Oh a numbered reply! (Break) 1). Agreed.

2) I gave a list of actual historical events that were instigated because of religion. Take away the instigator and they wouldn't have happened. Not sure why that is considered rewriting history. That was just using logical reasoning on a hypothetical. If Bach was never born, you wouldn't have Orchestral Suite no. 3. As to whether there are contributing factors that justify those events, that's another story. However, to be fair, I should also add that there are a lot of good things that happened because of religion. But, that doesn't change the fact that religion is divisive.

And yes, religion and politics are always contentious topics. And for as long as people can disagree without disrespecting each other, no topic should be off limits.

3) I was totally wrong, then, about you. I got the wrong impression of you based on some of your comments.

4) Okay I'll lay off your case. But if you come up with an example, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

5) I misunderstood your situation with your daughter. Hope you resolve things with your daughter. It'd be a shame if you missed the opportunity to get to know a person who is "half you."

We're nearly "sorted" here aren't we!
Not sure the birth of a composer makes your point as you suggest, or according to your logic. You could argue terrorism wouldn't occur if someone had not been born, or all those guilty of a terrorist act were not born, (like Nelson Mandela).

We can agree religion is, or can be divisive, (hard to argue otherwise between religions, or different denominations in the same religion).
However, I'd argue too, there are times when the differences in thinking between religious thinkers and groups can have positive aspects.

When working in Oxford a couple of years ago I was able to take advantage of the "open colleges" weekend, and visited three ancient colleges in one day. I learnt rival colleges were set up to counter the thinking or ideology being promulgated in another Oxford college.

Who would have thought there were people living back then, six or seven hundred years ago, so displeased with the views of other Christians, they had the energy, motivation etc., to set up a rival college to oppose them?

It says a lot about the "power of ideas", maybe too about the need to get others to agree with you, needing a college to ensure this. However, you'd perhaps still contend the world would have progressed as it has done, or just as well, if everyone throughout human history has been an atheist, with everyone agreeing with each other on the topic(?).

 

[grahamg]

I did a bit more research on the OP sign and came up with this:

https://randalrauser.com/2021/03/be...e-church-sign-try-interpreting-it-charitably/

QUOTE:
" A friend of mine just sent me this picture of a church sign. While this seems like an easy target for fundamentalist irrationalism, there is a very plausible charitable interpretation. (By the way, given the number of fake church signs out there, I did a quick google search and confirmed that Paoli Wesleyan is, at least, a real church.)

As for the message on the sign itself, I will say that I am not a fan of it because it is prone to misunderstanding. That said, I do believe there is a rather obvious charitable interpretation.

The key is to recognize that the word “fact” is not only defined in common parlance as a true claim. It also is sometimes defined as a claim that is believed to be true. For example, Dictionary.com offers the following as there fourth definition of 'fact': “something said to be true or supposed to have happened.” The dictionary then gives this example: “The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.” In this usage, a “fact” is a claim which is presented as true but which may actually be false.

As for the word “faith”, that refers to the act of exercising trust in someone or something.

And so, we can now finally close in on our interpretation. The church sign is saying the following:

“If you have sufficient trust in someone or something, apparent counterevidence to that testimonial witness will not be sufficient to overwhelm your trust in it.”

And that, it turns out, is a perfectly sensible claim. So here’s the lesson: before you make fun of the church sign, try interpreting it charitably."

 

[Warrigal]

Yes, from the Latin - the very popular school motto "Facta non verba" means "deeds not words".

In that sense it is in line with Paul's teaching that is is by faith, not by deeds, that we are saved.
Modern theologians argue that Jesus preached that both are important.

 

[Alligatorob]

Let's see, if there were only atheists in this world a lot of things wouldn't have happened - 9/11, bombing of Manchester, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no jihad and other holy wars, the Inquisition and witch hunting, persecution of gay men, just to name a few. The most atrocious crimes have been committed in the name of god.

As a "non-believer" (more agnostic than atheist) let me offer an alternative opinion here - On balance I think religion has done and still does our civilization a lot of good. Religion has taught and still teaches us how to treat strangers, and treating strangers civilly was essential to the development of civilization. I agree that religion has lead to some really awful things, but not as often as it has done us good. I like Jered Diamond's thinking on the subject:

and

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/j...e-look-at-religion-over-the-course-of-history

 

[Jennina]

We're nearly "sorted" here aren't we!
Not sure the birth of a composer makes your point as you suggest, or according to your logic. You could argue terrorism wouldn't occur if someone had not been born, or all those guilty of a terrorist act were not born, (like Nelson Mandela).

We can agree religion is, or can be divisive, (hard to argue otherwise between religions, or different denominations in the same religion).
However, I'd argue too, there are times when the differences in thinking between religious thinkers and groups can have positive aspects.

When working in Oxford a couple of years ago I was able to take advantage of the "open colleges" weekend, and visited three ancient colleges in one day. I learnt rival colleges were set up to counter the thinking or ideology being promulgated in another Oxford college.

Who would have thought there were people living back then, six or seven hundred years ago, so displeased with the views of other Christians, they had the energy, motivation etc., to set up a rival college to oppose them?

It says a lot about the "power of ideas", maybe too about the need to get others to agree with you, needing a college to ensure this. However, you'd perhaps still contend the world would have progressed as it has done, or just as well, if everyone throughout human history has been an atheist, with everyone agreeing with each other on the topic(?).

1) Sorted? Sorta, I guess. You still owe me an example. I still don't get when faith in god matters more than evidence? Cos usually you turn to faith when you don't understand something. Why turn a blind eye on evidence? You have the knowledge in front of you and you choose to be clueless? I can't wrap my head around that. I really want to understand but I can't.

2) Yes you're right. Bach wasn't a stellar example. I'd thought of terrorism but there's a lot of that committed by some religious groups. So, it would have been redundant. I happened to be listening to Bach at the time, so it was a low hanging fruit, so to speak. Same logical reasoning : Take away the composer and the music disappears from the timeline of music history.

3) Now I don't know if there's another Nelson Mandela somewhere; but the Nelson Mandela that I know was a social rights activist not a terrorist. And although, I dont advocate violence, fighting against social injustice is hardly terrorism. I must admit though that one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionist. So, if you're anti apartheid, Mandela was a hero.

4) in general, i totally agree that it's healthy to have different points of view. That's how we progress. . But our differences should encourage discourse with the aim of achieving synthesis and a better understanding of one another; not divide us. I still don't see the benefits of having so many religions with each of them saying they're the only true religion and everyone else will go to hell. Enlighten me.

6) This is my stand on religion, though. You can worship your god if it serves the purpose of making you a "moral person" and giving you peace of mind. But you don't get to kill someone if they're gay in the name of god. You don't get to stop others from using protection if people around them are dying of aids. I'm not saying religion hasn't contributed anything to society. Off the top of my head, they've contributed greatly to the arts and to charity/humanitarian aid. I'm sure there's more.

8) You worked in Oxford? Cool! Did you teach there? ("We're not worthy") You're full of surprises which makes it hard to read you.

Anyway, you owe me an "example" . And should you wish to challenge me further, please note I won't be able to reply promptly these days. Busy with some stuff. But I will reply. Just don't hold your breath.

Meantime, stay safe!

 

[grahamg]

1) Sorted? Sorta, I guess. You still owe me an example. I still don't get when faith in god matters more than evidence? Cos usually you turn to faith when you don't understand something. Why turn a blind eye on evidence? You have the knowledge in front of you and you choose to be clueless? I can't wrap my head around that. I really want to understand but I can't.

2) Yes you're right. Bach wasn't a stellar example. I'd thought of terrorism but there's a lot of that committed by some religious groups. So, it would have been redundant. I happened to be listening to Bach at the time, so it was a low hanging fruit, so to speak. Same logical reasoning : Take away the composer and the music disappears from the timeline of music history.

3) Now I don't know if there's another Nelson Mandela somewhere; but the Nelson Mandela that I know was a social rights activist not a terrorist. And although, I dont advocate violence, fighting against social injustice is hardly terrorism. I must admit though that one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionist. So, if you're anti apartheid, Mandela was a hero.

4) in general, i totally agree that it's healthy to have different points of view. That's how we progress. . But our differences should encourage discourse with the aim of achieving synthesis and a better understanding of one another; not divide us. I still don't see the benefits of having so many religions with each of them saying they're the only true religion and everyone else will go to hell. Enlighten me.

6) This is my stand on religion, though. You can worship your god if it serves the purpose of making you a "moral person" and giving you peace of mind. But you don't get to kill someone if they're gay in the name of god. You don't get to stop others from using protection if people around them are dying of aids. I'm not saying religion hasn't contributed anything to society. Off the top of my head, they've contributed greatly to the arts and to charity/humanitarian aid. I'm sure there's more.

8) You worked in Oxford? Cool! Did you teach there? ("We're not worthy") You're full of surprises which makes it hard to read you.

Anyway, you owe me an "example" . And should you wish to challenge me further, please note I won't be able to reply promptly these days. Busy with some stuff. But I will reply. Just don't hold your breath.

Meantime, stay safe!

A very quick response may surprise you, and you could be "still around".

I do owe you a better example than I've given you, concerning when faith matters more than facts, and I'll have to disaapount you again because I haven't found one yet, or at least another one that isn't " woolly thinking"!

Mandela a total hero to me and most of mankind I'd guess, but did conspire to blow up utilities in South Africa, during the 1960s, and feared as a terrorist back then by many in the UK, though I for one didn't know of his legal training, and working with Walter Sissolo to help impoverished people in his country, so descriminated against.

All I did in Oxford was work as a glorified cleaner, at very important government run sites, but a responsible job nonetheless, and it allowed me to witness the work of the great minds, or academics and the dedication being shown by so many.

On religion, if anyone accepts my argument most of us probably wouldn't be here today if thousands of years ago people set up and followed the great religions of the world, (though you don't accept my argument, I accept that of course).

I do admire your "directness, and certainty", even though I doubt what you say quite often.