1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Coach Zorn and religion in the locker room.

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Finfangirl, Oct 20, 2015.

  1. Finfangirl

    Finfangirl Season Ticket Holder Luxury Box

    9,928
    51,109
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Bay Area, Ca
    This is technically not dolphin related, but it is something that we've discussed as something that goes on in terms of who the dolphins were signing. (mods im not opposed to moving this to the general NFL thread, but i really think there is some validity to having it here)

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rns-religion-divided-washingtons-locker-room/

     
  2. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    But if we don't let the Zorns of the world shove their religious beliefs down our throats we are depriving them of the chance to practice their religious freedom. :pity:
     
  3. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,026
    4,744
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    2015 Season Dolphin Chatter Thread Part 2 Dan Campbell takes over as interim HC

    I think this probably belongs in PoFo, but it's a very interesting point. Maybe the mods will move it so we can keep talking about it without ruffling anyone's feathers.

    Look at it this way. The other side of the coin is that Zorn has disciplined his life and obtained very positive results from a value system based on his religious beliefs. What he wants to do is instill discipline in the team by applying the same system, and requires the players to buy into it and the team culture based on it.. He's the head coach. He gets to say how the team is disciplined.

    Of course, one can argue that if a player rejects the underlying religious teachings, he is entitled to be free from someone else's religion, so that the attempt to discipline and motivate the team in that manner is inappropriate. But think of Notre Dame. The team may be more pluralistic these days, and I don't really know how it is there, but religious beliefs still seemed part of the team culture if you watch "Knute Rockne - All-American," and you may be an outlier if you don't buy in.

    I would recommend to you an old book (70's) named "North Dallas 40." It used to be a counterculture favorite. It's about a good defensive back who encounters a similar culture under Tom Landry (the names are changed, but you know who the characters are) and what ends up happening to him. It's very entertaining and deals with this issue.
     
  4. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Wide receiver. The character was based on the author, Pete Gent, who was a WR for the Cowboys in the early 60s. Phil Elliott was similar to Gent. Seth Maxwell was similar to Don Meredith, etc.
     
    dolfan22 likes this.
  5. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,026
    4,744
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    I stand corrected, sir. Thank you. Your memory is obviously less impaired than mine. I got comfused with Johnny Sample's book, "Confessions of a Dirty Ballplayer."
     
    MrClean likes this.
  6. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    We have had this discussion a few times in the religion forum and indeed in here when discussing other coaches. The arguments brought up are on point. Does it become obsessive versus does it provide discipline and focus for young men who perhaps have not had any in their lives? Both points have merit and the "line" is very personal, what may be over the line for one player may be just what another needs.

    Jimmy Johnson had a priest as team chaplain. He did not simply have prayer and Bible study sessions for those players who wanted it but was also involved in counseling and player evaluation. Johnson, not a person of a particularly public faith position, thought it would be helpful.

    I have served as chaplain for units of first responders. Many were people of faith, many (maybe even most) were not. I served all of them and they were evaluated on their own merits. Football players ought to be allowed that same freedom. In both directions.
     
    gafinfan, The Rev, ToddPhin and 4 others like this.
  7. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    16,562
    15,134
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    There is a difference though. Completely imposing your faith on your players, to where you are treating them differently based on their faith and dividing the lockerroom b/c of that... I haven't heard any reports of that.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  8. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    25,971
    27,068
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    As Ohio said, we've talked about this in the other forums before. I don't know about the NFL, where I think they likely keep a lid on these things pretty well, but there have been multiple cases in the news the last few years where public high school coach has attempted to force his players to participate in prayer, and/or punished players who didn't join in. It happened at my high school while I was there, but it was the early 90s and in WV, so the student was just kicked off of the team, and that was it.

    IMO, unless it's a football team of an expresssly religious college, like BYU where they have their extreme honor code for example, it's none of the coach's business what his players do and believe, and at the NFL level, where he's their boss, that goes to another level.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The problem isn't having a set of beliefs, the problem is punishing (formally or informally) players for not having the same or similar beliefs.

    If someone in charge has a set of values they want those beneath them to follow, then they need to make those things official rules and all religious connotation needs to be removed from them. You can't force people to pray, for example but you can have behavior clauses, like don't get arrested, etc. I don't even care if a coach has a chaplain or whatever.

    It is no one's job to decide and or punish what another adult believes or doesn't believe.

    As a side note, I wonder if there'd be more outrage if Zorn had been Muslim and instituted Sharia Law in the locker room?
     
  10. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Sounds fine in theory but why is it in these situations that when there's discrimination and people being made to feel unwanted, it's almost always the faithful who are guilty of it?
     
  11. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    Some of that is quite true. Sometimes it is media perception. I have shared how my faith has been regularly belittled or even insulted. It happens. I do think many people of faith are so filled with joy because of their faith they want others to experience that same joy. Christianity and Islam both share a mandate to proselytize and many folks do it badly.

    Look at the responses in this thread. The majority are not supportive of the Christian faith. Yet I know from my experience folks here have been respectful of me and my vocation. One needs to learn how to share and when. Discrimination is always wrong and doubly so if done in the name of a loving God.
     
    DPlus47 and Zippy like this.
  12. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Many or most? It is inherently rude, wouldn't you say, to have god say that it's your duty to make people agree with you? That is a route that leads inherently and inevitably to mischief (or worse), and it would be idle to dismiss that.

    I mean, I think most people cringe away from door to door salesmen or people in the mall trying to get you to change your cell phone carrier, but at least their pitch isn't that you're being immoral and will live in eternal torture unless you agree to their particular doctrinal interpretation. Even when a message of religious proselytization is put at its nicest it still retains an inescapable core -- that there is one true morality and way to live and we are bound to live by it regardless of our own views. That is totalitarianism, and "hell" is a threat the way a gulag is a threat. Assuming a religious person doesn't kill you or throw you in an earthly jail as an earthly punishment with an option of forever more after that.

    It is not a nice message, no matter how nice a person is or tries to make it sound. A guy like Zorn (if the report is accurate) or any number of people like him are acting in a perfectly natural and reasonable way according to the doctrine. It's the doctrine itself that's the problem.
     
    Unlucky 13, Fin D and Finfangirl like this.
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its my understanding (which is limited as a staunch atheist since my teens early-20's) that a good Christian was supposed to prosthelytize by example. Live a good righteous life, and people will naturally follow. Its also my understanding that they are just supposed to "share the word" not indoctrinate or punish or hate, etc.

    Here's the thing, we have to stop blasting the faith and start holding the actual people responsible. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Christian faith for example, the problem is many of its followers. Hold those people's feet to the fire and leave the faith out of it. If you don't want a belief or faith shoved down your throat, then don't try and shove your thoughts and beliefs down someone else's, instead hold the individual person responsible for their actions.

    Zorn didn't alienate and punish his players BECAUSE he was a Christian. He did it because he was an self absorbed ***hole.
     
  14. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    There's nothing wrong with the Christian faith if you ignore certain parts of Christian doctrine. Likewise there's nothing wrong with Islam if you ignore certain parts of the Koran and the Hadith. But that's a rather watery standard, wouldn't you say? It seems unfair that I'm not allowed to take the doctrine at face value in either case. Neither book presents itself as a list of "suggestions", after all.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If your goal is to argue with a religious person than do as you please. If your goal is create change, even if its small like causing just one person of faith to second guess before they judge someone, then don't attack the faith.

    If you aren't a person of faith then that generally means you fancy yourself a person of reason. How can you change the minds of the faithful with facts when faith is literally the opposite of facts? You can't really. So let people believe what they want, and only fight them when their actions cross the line.

    Think of it like this....many non believers know, for a fact, that every holy text has been written/edited/compiled by humans. We know the message of that holy text is then further filtered through even more humans through preachers/holy men/clergy/etc. That's one of our main tenets when we try to argue AGAINST being faithful. Yet, we forget that knowledge entirely when it comes down to assessing blame. We blame the faith, not the people bastardizing it. You can win an argument against person, you CANNOT win an argument against a nebulous concept. Its why the War on Drugs doesn't work.
     
  16. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    That way lies madness. Beyond that, it's disingenuous. I never presume that my goal is to make faithful people lose their faith and I should avoid useful lines of inquiry because it might turn them off. I just try to make the most sound logical argument I can. That's hard enough as it is.

    The war on drugs analogy is somewhat bizarre, especially since a fan forum offers a much more apt one: homerism. Some people believe the Dolphins are gonna make the playoffs and challenge for the Super Bowl every year, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Is my goal when debating them (if I'm dumb enough to do so) supposed to be convincing them -- actually getting them to change their mind, even if that means ignoring some factually relevant point (for example, not pointing out to a Jet hater that the Jets are better) -- or should I just stick to saying what's right so far as I can see it and letting ridicule do whatever else it can do?

    What I hope to get out of a debate most of all is a sharpening of my own mind and points of view. It's not to "win", though of course those things are related. Anything beyond that -- substantially changing people's minds or points out view -- is an arrogant goal, imo. And not itself a reasonable one, which makes it ironic for a person appealing to reason. Which is why, like I said, that way lies madness.
     
    MrClean, ToddPhin and Fin D like this.
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Fair enough. As I said, if your goal is just argue, then do as you please.

    Just one thing, people change their minds all the time.

    At one point in my life I was a christian, smoking, meat eating, conservative. Now, I'm a atheist, non smoking, vegan liberal.
     
  18. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    34,103
    24,366
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    https://vid.me/3QC/marc-maron-atheist-vegan-clip
     
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
  20. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    People do change their minds all the time, but I can't think of a single instance in my life where I went from thinking one thing to thinking the complete opposite just because one person made an immaculately framed argument. And even if I could think of such an instance my reaction would not be one of appreciation for that person but horror at a) having such a flimsy initial argument, and b) buying the second argument wholesale. Major life decisions should be made slowly, and usually are. People who go from thinking one thing, then read a book (or whatever), and start thinking something completely different, are without fail emotionally and intellectually immature. Not the kind of prize worth having, in other words.

    As I keep saying, the fact that people do change their minds does not make it your responsibility to craft disingenuous arguments designed for that purpose. It's patronizing, and I'm sure you do not enjoy being patronized. Arguing in good faith is an end unto itself.

    None of this is an argument for not having tact, by the way. I'm sure someone could interpret it that way. I simply don't agree that attacking the specifics of religious doctrine is a breach of decorum even if that's a case religious people are always eager to make. Am I really supposed to agree that it's off limits to talk about the fact that the Koran says -- in black and white -- that apostates should be killed? I'm the bad guy if I say that maybe this has something to do with the fact that people take it seriously and literally and go through with it? I find it remarkably bizarre such a statement made by me is considered more immoral than the preachment itself.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  21. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    4,553
    3,126
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Sounds like you're just trendy to me. :chuckle:
     
    Fin D likes this.
  22. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    None of us know enough people to know whether "many" fits or "most". Probably "most" Christians here and abroad never speak about their faith at all in any context.

    "Third Man" if the only Christians you have met are the cartoon caricatures you describe then I can understand why you say what you do. I would also submit that what you are describing as a Christian's duty or responsibility is alien to me. I neither bludgeon folks into agreeing or threaten those who disagree with condemnation. In context I teach and otherwise I proclaim my faith through example and when asked, proclamation. I am not sure where you obtained your understanding of "doctrine" but it is nothing like anything I work with or teach. A more proper understanding of Christian doctrine would be, I don't do "good works or proselytize, or whatever" in order to EARN God's merit, I do it because I have been GIVEN God's merit through Grace. That's a gift I find joyous and will share where I can.

    If any of you would like to take this further into a discussion of doctrine, belief, and/or practice I would be happy to start a thread in the religion forum and discuss it.

    Within the specific context of this thread, I readily agree that if Coach Zorn is making decisions based on perceived faith versus football skill then is wrong from the point of view of being a football coach and likewise from the point of view of "living a Christian life". I understand it and can even in some sense sympathize with it but he is wrong.

    Sympathize how? How about this as a "for instance" Hypothetically player A is harming themselves by misuse of drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors, whatever. We Christians are not called to judge but unlike the non Christian population we are mandated by our faith to "Bear one another's burdens". So Coach B says to Player A, you need to stop those behaviors, they are harming you as a player and as a person. Within context, Coach B is trying to "love his neighbor". If Coach B has found solace from his own inner demons through prayer, meditation, worship, etc. why wouldn't Coach B offer his own experience as a model?
     
    Two Tacos and DPlus47 like this.
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Well, now I think you're treading into a different territory.

    First of all, the thread wasn't about doctrine.

    Secondly, I'm not being disingenuous or patronizing at al.

    Thirdly, the other reason what you're doing is folly is because every single person you're gonna argue with that is religious, already picks and chooses what they believe from whatever doctrine there is. Telling someone that Verse X proves their faith is doing something wrong, when they already ignore Verse Y, is the real exercise in futility.

    Fourth, anyone that's never had their mind changed by a sound argument, then WADR, they need to look within themselves.

    Fifth, this isn't about tact either. Maybe you noticed in one of my 60K+ posts, but tact isn't my strong suit. There's just is something to be said about (pardon the pun) practicing what you preach. If you're ticked off that people are trying to shove their beliefs down your throat, then don't do the same thing back. That's the kinda of thing that makes a person a hypocrite.

    Sixth, back to the third point, all of the doctrine that you dislike or feel is wrong is open to interpretation. All of it, top to bottom can literally have any meaning someone wants to give it. You are basically trying to fit a nebulous concept, into a concrete box.

    This is why I say make it about the person. Kim Davis was empowered by the fact people attacked her religion. She got a whole lot of support. If people had focused on the fact that she was marriage hypocrite who had no Biblical justification for what she did, then MAYBE she doesn't become a hero.
     
  24. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Most of my family -- and now that I think about, the balance of my friends -- are Christian. I'm well within my bounds to speak through anecdotal examples. Most are not proselytizers, but that was sort of my point. Of those Christians I know or have met that do proselytize, most do it badly and patronizingly. That's the "most" I was referring to. It is as you say impossible to make a judgement about billions of Christians which is why it didn't occur to me to clarify on that point.

    As for the second bolded point: I understand where you are coming from, however you realize that this is also the kind of thing someone who is in a cult would say, right? It is not, in other words, a defense of any particular behavior. And I'm not even necessarily talking about a religious cult here. If you know people who are into Crossfit or trendy diets or whathaveyou you know what I mean. "Joy" is relative. It is very natural and common for people to have a blindspot about what gives them joy... that because it gives them such joy it will give others similar joy, if only they would realize it. That certain religions (most of them Western) encourage people to go out and spread the word makes this sort of rude behavior all the more common.
     
  25. Third Man

    Third Man Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,323
    1,161
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    Do you think the doctrine of (some) religions themselves are part of the problem, or not? Are all religions equally moral or immoral... or are some worse than others?

    I have already explained that my main goal in any argument -- not just a religious argument -- is to sharpen my own mind and positions. The best way to test your positions and discover new ideas is by writing and forming an argument. That is not folly. It is, as I've been saying, the only sane approach to take. I'm only responsible for what's in my own mind. If I get something across to the other person then that's gravy.
     
  26. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    Third man (or can I just call you Third?:wink2:), I didn't mean to suggest you could not speak about Christianity, just that the Christianity you were describing is very, very different than the faith I understand, preach, teach, and follow. What I heard you describing sounded to me as if it was based on law and rule and punishment. I will argue with anyone that the Bible in its entirety does not support such a doctrinal view. I perhaps came off stronger than I intended because I often get asked to defend a variety of Christianity that I could not espouse and often do not even recognize. I hope you understand. It sounds like we both experience the majority of the Christians we each know as folks who do not actively promote the faith in any other way than how they live their lives. Again I would agree.

    As to your second point, I concede that freely. The difference between a cult and a faith is often simply the number of adherents. I do not pretend that the preconceptions of the Christian faith are from a pre-rationalist time when truth and fact were different and metaphor was often accepted uncritically. Your example of the frenzies induced at sales seminars of home sale companies is quite apropos. They often have aspects of the fervor of a "religious experience". Yet I stand by my point as to why people of faith often find the need to express their feelings even when they are not called for.
     
  27. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I don't mean to speak for anyone else but I want to wade into this one as well. As a person of faith, I am more reluctant than most to simply blame a particular doctrine of any faith. But I regularly see people, some well meaning and others with evil agendas, who twist the doctrine of a faith, any faith, into something then that they or their group will abuse. No recognized Islamic scholar outside of ISIS would say they represent true Islam anymore than I would recognize the hate mongers from Westboro Baptist as espousing anything like the Christian faith.

    As to moralities, much of the same argument would hold for me. Some faiths are more law based. If you do this then god will do that. Those moral codes are often rigid and arbitrary and could be secular.

    I understand a progressive revelation of God, that is we as a community of faith come to understand what God wants us to do in a certain circumstance as a growing, evolving experience. That is both freeing and dangerous in the same breath.

    BTW, your point of most folks changing their long held positions slowly and incrementally is spot on. Which is beyond scripture, why I have a tremendous problem with so-called "decision theology". It is not Biblical to my mind and from a social science point of view makes little sense.
     
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007

    Of course I do. I think all religions have at minimum one thing good in them, but I think they are all wrong and corrupt as institutions. But again, no one adheres to their religion 100%, so its fruitless to find the things that are objectionable and harp on them, because they are already picking choosing. Faith is malleable. People bend it to their will all the time. That's why I say go after the individual.

    Ok, but I'm offering a new position/new idea to you. I'm saying look at this moot issue from this different angle.
     
  29. josh

    josh Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,130
    1,279
    113
    Oct 8, 2013
    Raleigh, NC
    I don't understand your point with this sentence. Could you please rephrase it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  30. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    It would have helped everyone if I had included the simple word "not" where I have included it now.

    What I am trying (albeit badly) to say is that the texts on which Christianity are based come from a pre-rationalist time. Or perhaps it would be better to say a pre-enlightenment period. Today "fact" and "truth" are treated as synonyms. Metaphor and visual language are understood as such. In an earlier time all those things were blended together.

    A specific example would be the Old Testament book of Jonah. Is that a truth story or a fact story? Today we want to know whether it "happened". When it was written, I very much doubt whether that question even arose. I pick that because in the Gospels, Jesus uses the Jonah account as a model for His time in the tomb.

    That presents a problem for today's reader. Can you believe the Jonah story was a mythic account intended to reveal a truth about God and His relationship to His people and yet still believe that Jesus literally spent from Good Friday to Easter morning in the tomb? I can but folks who can't get by their rationalist upbringing often have trouble blending the two.

    Not sure that helps but I am trying.
     
  31. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    25,971
    27,068
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Thank you for trying to clear things up. I think that I'm even more confused. I think that this must be one of those cases where religious and non-religious people just cannot "get" one another.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  32. josh

    josh Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,130
    1,279
    113
    Oct 8, 2013
    Raleigh, NC
    Thank you. I think some contemporary people may find the gospels to read like a series of increasingly persuasive books which appear to take liberties with Jesus's words if that suited a rhetorical purpose at the time of writing.

    Back to the story. I don't think Zorn and Smith's actions were illegal. I think it is only illegal to discriminate while hiring based on religion, but that freedom of religious speech extends to the work place even in a superior/subordinate relationship.

    In many workplaces, if people complained or word got out, you'd be asked to stop.

    I wonder if the vector of Zorn's life is so religious that he's tone deaf about atheism, just viewing people as either repentant and saved or unrepentant, unsaved sinners.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  33. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    Thanks for taking it back to the original post. Its funny, I am not in that part of the Christian tradition that uses testimonies as a part of the regular fare. Therefore I am not always familiar with who is out there. Yet, the big sports names who speak regularly at Christian functions is usually fairly well known, (Dungy, Staubach, etc.) I was not aware of Coach Zorn being in that league. I hope what he has been doing is simply in an effort to help players as people and not discriminatory or anything like it. That too can be in the eye of the beholder.
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'll take a stab at explaining it...

    First you have to understand that people thought differently before the Enlightenment then they did after.

    So we need to understand how the thinkers of AE (After Enlightenment) view the concepts of "fact" and "belief".

    "Fact" essentially means something we know because we can prove it. (Johnny is Sarah's brother.) Let's give this the color blue.
    "Belief" means something we have faith in even though we can never prove it. (Johnny will never let anything bad happen to Sarah.) Let's give this the color red.

    These concepts are opposites. You cannot prove a "belief", because the second you do, it becomes a fact. You can't have faith in a fact, because faith is about not knowing something to be a fact but believing it anyway. Something cannot be red and blue. If you mix them then you get something that is neither red nor blue.

    If you understand that, then realize the thinkers from BE didn't see the difference between those concepts. It was neither red nor blue, it was purple. Fact and belief merged together (which is basically philosophy) so people of the time developed the concept of "truth". Now its not "truth" like we know it today, as in something that is provable like a fact. They meant it as what is the excepted truth or what is true to them. Which means for something to be a "truth" back then, it was neither provable by their means nor was it necessarily felt in their hearts..it just was. Its similar to when you're a kid and your parent says if you sit too close to the TV you'll go blind. The average kid doesn't have the faculties and resources to prove or disprove that. They also don't feel a deep seeded need to believe that in their hearts, so they just accept it...to them it is just the truth.

    Did that help?
     
    Zippy and Unlucky 13 like this.
  35. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    25,971
    27,068
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    It does. I guess its difficult to wrap my head around not seperating the two. I of course understand the concepts of fact and belief, but I guess I never put any thought into there being a time when many people didn't. As in, "this rock is very hard" being fact, or "what my neighbor told me about the animals in the next valley" being belief.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  36. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,026
    4,744
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    I view it this way.

    First, rationalist thought was invented millennia before the Enlightenment. I won't bother with a list of Greeks, Romans, East Indians and Chinese. You know who I'm talking about. They just lacked the later science and technology.

    Second, pre-Enlightenment religious philosophers (they call them theologians now) have stood on the shoulders of rational philosophers since at least Jerome. Think of Aquinas and Luther, too, so as not to leave Ohiophinfan and his flavor of Christianity out.

    Third, reason and faith are not mutually exclusive the way I see it. Reason can take you to faith, because you go as far as you can with reason and have faith in what you intuit from your reason but can't prove objectively.
     
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I was explaining it in the context of Ohio's post (which had confused U13).

    One leading to the other is not what I'm talking about ftr.

    I'm simply saying its impossible to believe in a fact or consider a belief to be fact.
     
  38. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,026
    4,744
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    Got it. Thanks.

    The idea of fact vs. faith is indeed at the root of a lot of controversy.

    To me, fact is something that has been proven to a reasonable logical certainty, based on objective knowledge regarding which there is little or no reasonable dispute.

    But a lot of people of faith do not believe, or profess not to believe, in what most people accept as fact, because the fact is inconsistent with the construct of their faith.

    Think Copernicus and Darwin.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,115
    43,528
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yup they do not, and its because they simply do not understand the concept that they are opposites. If they did, it would be easy to understand something like evolution is fact and the Bible account is a belief and that they can actually be understood as "correct" for a person.

    Honestly, if a person tried to prove their faith as a fact, then in reality, they have have weak or no faith. If their faith was strong, they wouldn't need to change it into a fact.
     
  40. josh

    josh Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,130
    1,279
    113
    Oct 8, 2013
    Raleigh, NC
    I think this idea is completely wrong. It's meaningless to have faith in something, if the definition of that faith includes that it might have never happened.

    More specifically, some Christians could say that Genesis is an epic allegorical poem, and that the garden, origin of humanity and animals, and the flood never happened. But they could not say that the death and resurrection might have never happened, and still be Christians. The thing is: believers have faith that the written accounts in the new testament were facts when they were written, just that they are not verifiable now.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.

Share This Page