Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?
I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

I do not always win converts when I talk to people, but the fact that I am willing to listen to them, and be honest about my struggles, plants a seed so that God is able to work in their hearts and reach out to them. And, if you are right and I am wasting my time doing this, then I am at least enjoying my life and feel that it has a purpose.

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?
I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.