How can uncertainty be compatible with faith?

• Question raised by Diarmid Weir Weds 29 Apr 18:20
• Nicholas Beale Weds 29 April 19:59

Surely it is common ground that if Red is true then this is a tremendous fact which changes the way we look at many things in the world.  In particular, given Red  Jesus's claim to be the Son of God is immensely plausible and given this (RedC), all kinds of things (life after death, the transcendental value of love, objective morality) follow.  As with almost anything else significant, you can't see life/death in isolation. This does not mean there is "no evidence" - there is plenty - but it is for  RedC as a whole.
    This does not mean that everything is certain - we are dealing with a relationship in love, not a mathematical theory.  Uncertainty is as compatible with faith as it is with love.  If you love someone, it does not mean that you are certain about every aspect of them and your relationship with them - a true beloved is always full of surprises.  But you cannot love without putting your faith in them, and in their love for you - even if it looks at the time as if they don't love you.  It is rational to do this becasue (a) you have good reasons to believe in their love and (b) if you don't then you cannot actually love them, you can only consider loving them, which is not the same.
•  Diarmid Weir Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:52

This hits the same problem that I noted in the original debate. 'Red as a whole' actually covers several propositions, as does the expression 'Loving Ultimate Creator'.
1. The Universe was created by some intelligent entity rather than by chance. This covers the Anthropic Principle, to which I would like in due course to come back to.
2. Something can exist that was not created.
3. The Creator was not created.
4. The Creator loves us.
  And there seems to be an implied Fifth Proposition which by no means automatically follows from the Fourth as you seem to suggest in your example - since 'love' need not necessarily be reciprocated: We must love the Creator.
   While any of these propositions could be true, they don't all have to be if one should be. Therefore each proposition has to be proved (or at least shown to be significantly more likely than not) on its own merits. Indeed if the Second Proposition is true, doesn't this undermine some of the arguments for the First?
   You may be using a distinct definition of love here. If not then I would suggest that you enter into a 'loving relationship' with someone because you have evidence that your love is reciprocated. If the evidence ceases to show that, then the relationship will cease. What is your ongoing evidence that your love of God is reciprocated?
• Fr Gregory Hallam Thu, 30 Apr 98 00:00

It's always reciprocated because, God, being Perfect Love, never stands us up. This is where all analogies break down.
• Diarmid Weir  Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:14

Is this an 'a priori' assumption - in which case there isn't much point in this sort of debate. Or do you have - albeit personal - evidence of its truth?
• Nicholas Beale, Thu 30 Apr 98 09:29

There are indeed an infinite number of consequences of Red = ELUC = There Exists a Loving Ultimate Creator.  So are there of the Einstein or Dirac equations.  But you don't "prove each consequence on its own merits" - that's not how science or philosophy works.  If you have an alternative theory (eg ENLUC - that there exists a non-loving Ultimate Creator) then this can be tested as a whole against ELUC.
   Looking at your list, you seem to accept that (1) is at least highly probable (?). If (2) were untrue then ELUC would be incoherent, which I don't think you are arguing.  If there is an Ultimate Creator then by definition He was not created.  So we come back to love (as we should).
   I don't say that we "must" love God, but if the word "ought" means anything it seems clear that, given Red and certainly given RedC, we ought to.
   I do find it hard to identify with your 'model' of love.  In my experience love is not a matter of calculation! Surely no husband or parent acts in the way you suggest.
   A Loving Ultimate Creator will always be Perfect Love because anyone who loves wants to love as well as possible.  However every day I (and I am sure Fr Gregory) get personal evidence of God's love for us. And can you imagine better evidence of love than the life and death of Jesus?
• Diarmid Weir  Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:18

I disagree. Equations do not have consequences - only actions do. z = xy is not a consequence of x = z/y, neither is y = z/x; they are simply restatements
of the same proposition. And for any further propositions that then arise from prior knowledge of x, y or z to be true, proof of each item of prior knowledge
is required. To prove that there is a Creator is one thing. But all creators need not be loving. Therefore you then have to go on to prove this. You yourself only describe RedC as being 'immensely plausible'. Immense plausibility is common. No doubt Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism have immense plausibility for their followers. Plausibility has nothing to do with Proof or even Probability.
  {re personal evidence} You rather fell into the trap there!
1) If you get 'personal evidence' why do you need the external proof from the nature of the universe?
2) Your belief does require 'verification' - your personal evidence - so AJ Ayer wasn't quite so silly after all!
• Fr Gregory Hallam Thu, 30 Apr 98 17:43

I would not have made such a statement unless I had personal (and communal) evidence of its truth.  However, I am not going to "bare my soul" over the Net. Suffice to say that Nicholas' response is correct and we recognise each other as Christians (partly) on account of the family resemblance of our experiences. However, the reality of God cannot be reduced to our perceptions in the same way that the fullness of "rose" cannot be reduced to smell, colour, texture,  mass, composition etc.
   If you limit this debate to rationalist constructions then you are in grave danger of missing the point of love altogether.  Altruism has very limited survival value.  The schizoid split between mind and heart is very much a "western" phenomenon .... one I hope not to see repeated here!
• Nicholas Beale Thu 30 Apr 98 19:00

Of course equations have (logical) consequences, sometimes they are trivial (eg x = z/y => z = xy) and sometimes deep (aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ => n<3).
   This notion of 'proving' x, y and z seems to me simplistic and a bit silly.  If you want to give me an example of a significant theory that you believe to be true where this applies, we can explore it.
   I don't think ENLUC is a very seriously-held hypothesis, but it seems to compare badly to Red.  I see no reasons under ENLUC why the Universe should be anthropic, comprehensible or beautiful, why there should be objective morality and it gives very low likelihood of the pheonomenon of Jesus.  It's obvious that a non-loving ultimate creator could contrive a lot more suffering in the world.  And the idea of an Ultimate Creator that is fundamentally inferior to its creatures seems silly - one would need very compelling evidence and there ain't any.
  Scientists & Philosophers talk about plausibility all the time, and in the sense they use it, it is connected to proof and probability.
  I'm sorry, I don't think much of your 'trap'.
(1) I have personal experience of the moon, and also have objective evidence that it exists.  If someone blind can't see the moon, then we discuss the objective evidence.  It is not I that need external proof, it is the person who does not already know, and who mistakenly supposes that, because faith is involved, there can be no evidence. The fact that 'subjective' and 'objective' criteria converge does not undermine truth, but strengthens it.
(2)  That's not what Ayer meant by 'verification' and his silliness was to assert that "all meaningful statements must be verifiable" which is self-refuting.
• Fr Gregory Hallam Thu, 30 Apr 98 18:16

First, on a light hearted note ... the only evidences I presently have for your existence are these electronic messages being processed by my PC.  For all I
know this could be part of vast government conspiracy whereby all the messages I receive actually originate from a main frame in Whitehall.
  Now, to business.  A "trap" !!! really Diarmid, anyone would think that YOU had something to "prove," not "us."  Is this how you see this dialogue?  Do you
really think that a sequence of EMail snippets encompass the realities and questions of which we are talking?
  Anyway, personal or cosmic?  I am not a subjectivist pietist so I am bound to say that this is a false choice.  I do not have one God for the Universe and one God for my psyche.  No Demiurges here.  There is not one element of the "not-God" realities which is unconnected with God.
  As to proof, come on now!  You can no more prove (ie, without the possibility of falsification or amendment), Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, (like the
irony?), than I can prove that God is Trinity.  Both have their substantiations, (albeit different modalities), and it is open to all to make informed judgements on the basis of the evidence.  However, I will not accept a narrow base for empiricism, (which Ayer, Russell, et. al.), did.
  Ah, wouldn't it be nice and comforting if we had proof, incontrovertible hard nosed, irrefutable PROOF of ANYTHING.  The Universe, (or God) is not so tolerant of our hubris.  We have enough light to walk.  The path is sometimes trod in darkness, but the path is sure.
• Diarmid Weir Fri, 01 May 1998 02:24

As ever with such discussion one gets hung up on definitions.
{a}   Why shouldn't I have something to prove? If it's anything it is that there is at least a reasonable possibility that Christians are people who contribute less to human benefit than they might because they are generally non-self centred but they may be wasting time in non-productive activities!
{a1} My other concern - I'm sure it doesn't apply to sensible chaps like you - is always that someone who believes that the afterlife is better than this one (or at least as nice) may sacrifice themselves or someone else unecessarily.
{b}  The thing about theories and equations is that they are only useful when they are representations of the real world and when their reformulations are re-applied to that real world
{c - Love} I think they might act in precisely that way - but what they feel is another matter. I would suggest that all emotions are simply shortcuts to logical conclusions (although like all logical conclusions they can be misleading if based on false propositions). Indeed they can be altered by examining the real-world evidence that exists for them - this is the basis for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Love is then simply a shortcut to the very rational conclusion that we need to be able to rely on other humans to care for us! To this end it is an extremely pleasurable emotion - need it be more than that?
 {d - Subjective + Objective} But your 'subjective' evidence is of no use to me. If the objective evidence alone is inconclusive  - then perhaps your truth is not mine and you are mistaken in trying to convince me otherwise?
 {e - Verification} Do you mean that the assertion itself cannot be 'conclusively' proved? Neither it can, but it's a good working hypothesis so let's use it until it breaks down. Can you give an example of a meaningful statement that isn't verifiable? (God is Love won't do - particularly since both you and Father Gregory tell me you have verified this through subjective experience!)
{f - EMail snippets} That sounds like a get-out clause!
• Nicholas Beale Fri 1 May 18:10

{a}Why not indeed - my contention is precisely that if Red and Green are compared on an equal footing Red comes out ahead on all standard tests.
{b}Surely RedC qualifies on both these counts.  You may think it is mistaken but it is certainly applied and, if true, is certainly about the real world.  I'm glad incidentally you seem to agree about the falsity of ENLUC.
{c} Gulp! Not even Dr Spock the Vulcan thinks that!  Even the SOED definition of Emotion (A mental feeling ..as distinct from cognitions or volitions) shows otherwise.  The facts that people sometimes act for emotional reasons in ways which are also in their rational interest, and that reason can excercise some limited control on emotional behaviour don't in any way refute this.  Horses sometimes go where humans want,  humans can modify horses' behaviour does not imply that horses are humans.  As for love as "an extremely pleasurable emotion"  -- even at a merely emotional level that beggars belief.  Surely you know from your own experience, that of your friends, or from reading, that love does not always feel like that.  The nearest short definition to what Christians mean by love is "the steadfast willing of the ultimate good of the beloved" - it's not perfect but gives a reasonable general idea and as you can see emotion does not enter into it.
{d} I think you only call the objective evidence inconclusive because you are applying a much higher standard of conclusiveness than you apply to any other non-trivial belief that you regard as true.  If you can give an example of such, then I can hope to demonstrate this to you.
{e} "all meaningful statements are verifiable" can't be verified in Ayer's sense. That's why its self-refuting.
• Diarmid Weir Fri, 01 May 1998 20:55
  I don't think beliefs can be divided into trivial and non-trivial. Their importance varies according to context. For example I think I can distinguish between the door of my room and the window. The overwhelming evidence points in one direction. So what? If I decide to walk out of the window - then it becomes distinctly non-trivial - because I will be injured! So in what specific situation does it become 'non-trivial' to know the truth about Red or Green - and why?
• Fr Gregory Hallam  Fri, 1 May 98 18:36 {commenting on Diarmid's post above}

{a}this is an absurdly generalised subjective assertion.  If you said this of a group with a different skin colour you might justly be accused of racism.
{a1}which just goes to show how little you know of Christian eschatology!
{b} Oh, and who defines "real?"  This begs the question.  We're not still with pie in the sky are we?
{c} I am staggered.  Nothing I have said implies that love is a matter or calculation.  Perhaps you think that just because I said that God is perfect Love, human love is somehow less worthy.  It may or may not be.  The point is that God's love perfects our love.  This is what true repentance is all about.
  There are different kinds of love.  All are love, but there are different kinds.  The strongest kind is that kind of sacrificial love entirely unmotivated by self concern.
{d}  Post modernist twaddle!  Who says my subjective evidence is no use to you? You do, of course; but that doesn't make it true; or at least it does not make it true vis-a-vis ALL people.  True-for-me, true-for-you, tea-4-one, tea-4-two! Hell is other people perhaps.  Ah, Jean Paul, you have a lot to answer for!
{e} That's precisely what I meant when I said that his empirical base was too constrictive.
  I don't disagree with you here {about conclusive proof}.  In this life, (you know what I mean), nothing can be CONCLUSIVELY proven.  There are, I agree, good working hypotheses.  I suppose the biggest rend in epistemology between the truths of religion and science lie in the realm of (alleged) REVELATION.  You may wish to pick this up in a future post.
{f} not at all, it's a simple straight-forward question.
• Diarmid Weir Fri, 01 May 1998 02:24
  {a1}Maybe so, but I suspect that, like me, 99% of Christians (or other theists) wouldn't even know the meaning of the word!

{b} My definition of 'Real' would be anything that can produce observable change - I think.
{f} Well, the answer is yes! Otherwise I wouldn't bother.
 
 
 

Main Topics of Discussion

• Anthropic Principle
• Comprehensible Universe
• Objective Morailty
• Jesus
• Suffering
• Other God & Science
• Other Star Course
• Other
• How can uncertainty be compatible with faith
• AJ Ayer's Verification Principle Refuted
This contains HTML versions of the EMails posted to the discussion.  Send a comment for posting, or if you want to send it to everyone EMail it to discussion@starcourse.org.   I'll then try to put it up here.  As topics get big they are pushed out to separate files.  Editorial additions for clarification are indicated by braces thus {}.