Hi, All!

I originally was just going to post this in the Christianity forum topic area. However, after pondering about it awhile, I decided that it could be a subject that potentially might involve any number of different religions and beliefs.

It might even be the type of question that would fit in the Philosophy forum topic area.

As a Christian, I decided a number of years ago that I didn't really believe in luck. After all, if you have faith, how could something like luck be true?

However, I've actually been a part of a number of different belief systems. Some might call them religion and others might call them something else.

So, what are your viewpoints, please? Do you believe in luck, faith, both or something else?

Thanks!

I'm a cancer survivor, but I don't consider that luck nor do I consider it proof of my Christian faith. After all, what would that say about another Christian who had great faith but died because of cancer? My faith was stronger than hers?

As for my job opportunities throughout my lifetime, I always seemed to be in the right place at the right time and was able to take advantage of possibilities. Luck? I think it was more than that, but not because I had Christian faith. If anything, my successes were because my parents had always believed in me, and thus I had faith and confidence in myself to accept and meet challenges.

Luck? Faith? Hmmmm. I say neither got me where I am today.

I posted the question because I wanted to know, Wondergirl! I'm sure that you know that!

For my own life, I believe that faith has gotten me where I am. I've had an incredible life of living off a "wing and an prayer". For me, I don't think it's any accident why certain people happen to come into the lives of others. To me, it's not a matter of luck why those sort of things happen.


Originally posted by Wondergirl

I'm a cancer survivor, but I don't consider that luck nor do I consider it proof of my Christian faith.

Do you consider the above proof of anything then?

I'm just asking questions here...

Thanks!

Do you consider the above [cancer survival] proof of anything then?
It's not luck. Otherwise, someone else is not lucky? It's not proof of great faith. Otherwise, someone else's faith is not as strong?

I'm guessing it just is.

My doctor just happened to check me on the spur of the moment when I was in his office for something else and found the lump when it was very young and small. Faith? No. Luck? No. A smart, intuitive doctor who covers all his bases? Yes.

But, does your doctor have faith and believe in something?

But, does your doctor have faith and believe in something?
He's American-born Chinese who probably believes in himself and his own intellect and common sense. I do not know if he has a religious-type faith.

Faith, religion, they can be so ambigious terms. For instance, Adolf Hitler was very religious and sincere with what he did, and I'm sure, had a lot of faith in what he believed.

So, your doctor most likely has faith in himself, his intellect and common sense.

Correct? It's possible that he might also have a religious belief in those sort of things?

Faith, religion, they can be so ambigious terms. For instance, Adolf Hitler was very religious and sincere with what he did, and I'm sure, had a lot of faith in what he believed.

So, your doctor most likely has faith in himself, his intellect and common sense.

Correct? It's possible that he might also have a religious belief in those sort of things?

Hi Clough,

What you appear to be moving towards is an important question.
Is science based on faith?

I would say the answer is, no. I have a number of reasons for saying this none of which have anything to do with religion.

Science is based on physical evidence. Scientists might claim that a particular drug works because of the empirical evidence. Faith is not an issue; if the drug does not cure what it should cure then they will go over the evidence again.

This is of course somewhat idealistic.There are of course many reasons science does not uphold these tenets but these are not really tenants, they have nothing to do with faith. They are more likely to have something to do with greed.

Faith is not based on evidence. If I knew nothing about Newton's laws of motion then I cannot give a scientific explanation as to why the sun rises each morning. All I can say is that it rose yesterday and the day before that and the day before that. Based on this I have faith that it will rise again tomorrow.

Through out ancient history most peoples would have been unhappy with this explanation so they attach a purpose as to why the sun rises. Non-scientific explanation would go along the lines of a Sun God or some such deity that gives this phenomenon a purpose.

The key here is purpose. Science does not have a purpose. By this I mean that science does not require teleological explanations. As Husserl would say faith arises out of the need for a COMPLETE understanding of existence. Science does not require a complete understanding of existence. If science is eventually able to put all the pieces together and come up with a explanation of existence then this is a by-product of science. Based on this science can be seen to be non-teleological.

In my opinion scientists can have religious beliefs and scientific beliefs but not at the same time. In other words, a scientist can be scientific at work and teleological at home.

Regards

Tut

Clough,
I agree with WG in some ways that it is not faith or luck that things happen to different people. I believe it is destiny, that it was not because one had less or more faith.

Some with a lot of faith and belief has many hardships,or someone with less faith is destined to get everything they wanted in life and they do.
Neither of these things mean that they were lucky or a matter of faith.

I think faith and belief does make a difference, in the way that I would view hardships or happiness is that they make me grow in faith in both circumstances for different reasons.





In my opinion scientists can have religious beliefs and scientific beliefs but not at the same time. In other words, a scientist can be scientific at work and teleological at home.

Regards

Tut

Tut,
I am not sure if this is exactly right, because I am sure there are many scientists who are great in their fields,but have a belief,follow a religion.
And I do not understand why they cannot be both, that whatever they research shows them how an organism basically exists in our world or how one relates to another living being (or dead being for that matter).
The underlying belief that all living things came from a Creator, does not necessarily mean that this particular scientist does not believe in that while he is doing his research and experiments...
Just my opinion.


EDITED to ADD:
I think a person of faith will grow in faith due to his research because he gets to view the marvels of our world up close and personal.

.

Clough
Tut,
I am not sure if this is exactly right, because I am sure there are many scientists who are great in their fields,but have a belief,follow a religion.
And I do not understand why they cannot be both, that whatever they research shows them how an organism basically exists in our world or how one relates to another living being (or dead being for that matter).
The underlying belief that all living things came from a Creator, does not necessarily mean that this particular scientist does not believe in that while he is doing his research and experiments....
just my opinion.


EDITED to ADD:
I think a person of faith will grow in faith due to his research because he gets to view the marvels of our world up close and personal.

.

Hi firmbeliever,

Yes, I can see what you are getting at and you are right. Many scientists can and do believe in a Creator. On the other hand, some scientists don't believe in a Creator and think that science will eventually provide all of the answers.

I am not saying which scientist is right and which scientist is wrong. I can illustrate the point I was trying to make with a hypothetical.

Imagine two independent scientists researching the cause of a particular type of disease. Lets imagine that the both came up with the same answer independently. The only difference between the two scientists is their religious beliefs. In other words, one scientists is very religious and the other only believes in science.

Let us examine their research papers. Is it possible to tell from their research which is the religious scientist? I would suggest that the answer is no.

Regards

Tut