|
|
|
|
|
by aeneasmackenzie
1417 days ago
|
|
>But, "proof" of God's existence in this way would eliminate the need for faith. Conversely, you also cannot prove that God does not exist, making it a faith, of a sort, in both directions. Does anyone actually believe this? What religion's pitch is "just trust me bro"? |
|
Yes they do. Not really -- the pitch is more than that. Personally I believe the standard is we need _some_ evidence (not necessarily to the level of scientific journals) to claim something exists. If there's no evidence, it's as good as not existing.
The evidence for Christianity is more like this:
The historical contexts in which the NT & OT Characters existed (including Jesus) did not have a scientific world view, but they did have a story telling tradition which handed down stories as the closest thing to "fact" in the time period.
We have a collection of copies of documents written by some people about a guy[1].
Then when it comes to is the content of the documents true, that's more where people are leaning on your own experience (contemporarily), or shared collective experience (moreso in the past). It seems to be true enough that many people find value, and experience something they believe they otherwise would not experience when interacting with their religion/faith. One can dismiss it as the placebo effect, but I'm not sure that's entirely fair to be so ready to dismiss so many people's experiences when we also see so many other fields which rely heavily on subjective experience (such some medications, marketing/advertising, arts etc) ...
[1]: https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1754