What is faith? (believing, belief, exist, Earth)

[Lionpainter]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

All the evidence is that George WAS godfearing and though his decision to go into Iraq may have been a personal decision, that fear of God didn't stop him and it certainly didn't provide him with the logical thought to realize that his reasons for going in were insufficient.

I'm rather astonished that you are trying to make George out to be somehow one of those 'Not Real Christians' because you disagree with him. Whether or not you told churches in Pittburgh or anywhere else that it was wrong to go into Iraq means nothing. At the time that GW was blathering on about WMD, I was telling anyone who cared to listen that it was going to war on the basis of a logical fallacy.

You wrote:

"I am no fake and I do not score cheap propaganda, I only show the truth."

But you previously wrote:

"really now. You think your rational is sound. That's what the bankers and brokers said, so did the oil companies, so did George W. Bush, so did the real estate market. And every last one of them were wrong. And most of them said they used logic, except Bush."

This is a cheap propaganda point. It is illogical and irrelevant to the discussion. Keep it in mind as an example.

My words are never cheap, they are truth, and it is with that truth that I show the misguided acts of a person who used the teachings of Christ to gain power over men to destroy nations including this one. Propaganda is a term for the weak minded who by there own weakness, castigate the words of Justice. And while you show contempt in your words, I show faith in mine.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by elamigo

So far what I have seen is that Faith to some mean simple blind belief and to others it requires at least some proof to at least make some type of preliminary conclusion leaving an open door to other possible asnwers.

I think the definition of Faith that I originaly quoted both angles I guess. Well, maybe not. The first part cover the hope part and the second part covers the proof part.

Now that I think about it, does it mean that hope is based on faith but faith has to have some evidence to be the base for hope?
Now, I may start to confuse myself, lol.

What do you think.

You have a great day.
El Amigo

Hi El Amigo.

I think that many people here are so caught up trying to defend faith that they completely miss the point of having faith in something.

The main thing is that you don't need a reason to have faith. You don't believe in god because you can zoom in on a microscope and read the words "Allah was here" on the surface of every molecule. Neither do you believe that Jesus did miracles because some guy in a white lab coat can make shoes that let you walk on water.

No, you have faith just because and really need no to reason to. That's why you can have faith when the times get tough, when you are down on your luck and even when every bit of evidence and logic says otherwise.


Lastly, to me hope and faith are completely different since with hope you actually acknowledge the different outcomes but simply prefer one of them.

[Miss Blue]

I separate faith and hope..Faith is a personal thing with me and the Creator I believe in..I have no need to defend my faith simply because I don't push it on anyone else...and no one can take that faith from me..

When I Hope for something it can also be said that I wish for something and it usually takes human or scientific involvement to make my hopes and wishes come rue

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Yes, but I don't blame you for overlooking it.

"The issue becomes whether there are indeed absolutes in the universe, and for you to claim there are by invoking scientific evidence over religion contradicts atheism on that very point:"

That is a strawman. There may or may not be absolutes in the universe, that's not what I'm giving an opinion on. The reference to relativity is rather like the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe for God' argument. It is a false one.
There are repeatables here, on this earth. We have a choice to either find repeatables which we can use as a basis for discovering or learning or say 'who knows' and leave it up to guesswork, faith or personal opinion.

The track record of science is good. We use and live by the results all the time. That is the 'yield of science'. To then say that this is no better than - your term - "subjective, individual experience" is unacceptable.

"invoking scientific evidence over religion contradicts atheism"

Non sequitur. To say that scientific evidence is 'over' religion is a contradicion of atheism is utterly wrong. It is because scientific evidence discredits everything presented as reasons to believe in God is one of the reasons for atheism.

If you have posed these points elsewhere, it's evidently high time that someone challenged them.

If I seem aggressive, it's because illogic presented as an argument for Godfaithreligion is rather a red rag. If I seem narrow, it's because the scientific method - reason, logic and evaluation of evidence with the scientific method if the only way of getting facts, going by present results. Speculation is fine, theorizing is fine. But to then say that the speculations and faith-based assertions of religion should then be considered on the same basis as the findings of science is just unacceptable.

"Faith is also semantically useful and a cognitive response to life. We use faith in our daily lives. We use faith to believe we're loved. We use faith to know things about our being, relative to the universe (albeit imperfectly; but, as noted, what knowledge is perfect? (I ask non-rhetorically.)) Understandings, even between us--as discrete, material human beings--count on faith to believe there is ultimately a purpose to good will--and communication. Ultimately, I think we use faith to understand outside ourselves. The objective, as it were.

In my experience, faith stands between ourselves and knowledge. It leads us to believe nonsense about we are made by a god and have been implanted with morality along with a Soul. It is science and its discoveries that give us understanding about how and why we think and act. Faith can, at best ask questions. Only science has been able to provide any answers that are based on evidence. Faith gives answers based only on faith.

let me give an example.

"Understandings, even between us--as discrete, material human beings--count on faith to believe there is ultimately a purpose to good will--and communication"

To start from some sort of faith stance - that there is a 'purpose'; that there is 'good will' -all that just gets in the way. We get confused by some expectation of moral absolutes, god-given goodness, getting upset because we fall short of some supposed innate perfection. None of that is helpful. Science tells us we are animals. We have animal instincts. We shouldn't beat ourselves up over what we are, we should accept that we are violent ,selfish beings because that's evolution for you. But we have brains and we can do better. I don't have faith we can do better - that isn't known to you or me so it's pointless to speculate, but there is no other option for us.

And it's science that teaches us that, not faith speculations.

So, to get you and me in perspective. I'm not downing your speculations about what we don't know. I'm not saying that we know everything. I'm saying that speculations, theorizing and faith is not a reliable basis for knowledge.
Once you recognize that, you will find me very un-agressive.

Maybe not aggressive, and nor am I, and that's "God's honest truth". I did respond to something of the tone of your posts that may not be there and if I did then that's my issue. I still think you're not addressing the progression of the paragraph, though you truncated the point ("invoking scientific evidence over religion contradicts atheism") to your rhetorical purpose.

My full statement was that science cannot deliver absolutes, consistent with the position that there can be none in a material universe. [Edited to add: I am, here, arguing against strong atheism rather than weak atheism, and that might be part of the misunderstanding.] If this is illogical it went uncontested, as you go on to cite science's "track record" for delivering truth. In fact this somewhat affirms my proposition by indicating the tentative nature of all human knowledge. You continue, "I'm saying that speculations, theorizing and faith is not a reliable basis for knowledge"? Are you addressing my point or the scientific method here? I did, though, offer a statement of science's value, and I think it's just the matter of its scope where we part ways here.

"We get confused by some expectation of moral absolutes, god-given goodness, getting upset because we fall short of some supposed innate perfection." Here I believe you're diverting the discussion. Morality is a very complex issue, and one that generally goes underexplored. Some moral positions are self-evident, is the usual remark. That is not very rigorous or scientific, or philosophical. I do appreciate your bringing into the equation humankind's animal nature. I read Marquis de Sade's proto-existentialist work--it was the '80s--everyone was doing it--and am still fascinated by his conception of human freedom. But morality and a moral universe is an entirely separate subject, and your response presumes things a bit too far into it.

Science does teach us a lot of things. Maybe you're reacting to what you perceive my attitude towards science to be. I appreciate science and the scientific method. But a lot of things teach us a lot of things, things that are not the purview of science. I consider your statement: "In my experience, faith stands between ourselves and knowledge."; to which, I'm sorry for your experience. I won't deny the validity of this experience. After all, how can I?

[TRANSPONDER]

This may not be quite the right format for response, but I couldn't see another way to do it.

Bunjee

"I still think you're not addressing the progression of the paragraph, though you truncated the point ("invoking scientific evidence over religion contradicts atheism") to your rhetorical purpose."

Me. I did. since it was that point about saying that - well, what that snip said - that was just wrong. It doesn't contradict atheism, it is a basis for atheism, as I said.
The whole 'progression' of the paragraph was another matter, which I'll address, if I haven't (I thought I had)

bunjee

"My full statement was that science cannot deliver absolutes, consistent with the position that there can be none in a material universe. [Edited to add: I am, here, arguing against strong atheism rather than weak atheism, and that might be part of the misunderstanding.]"

Me - Indeed, and what I was trying to get at (and I think we may come to understand one another) is that science does not claim to deliver absolutes if, by that, you mean saying that it knows what is going on everywhere in the universe and that physics are constant everywhere in the universe.

But in the context of the religious debate, what matters is what we have here on earth, what we have is testable and repeatable and here, science has a good track record. What else can we rely on? It follows that references to science not being able to deliver absolutes is irrelevant. One might as well say that there's no point in switching on your computer because quantum mechanics shows that nothing is predictable.

Here, strong and weak atheism is equally irrelevant. If one does not believe in a god, one is atheist, Strong or weak is neither here nor there. Now you may be thinking in terms of someone who is interested in unknown possibilities - I am myself - and those who are not. But that is not really the issue. The issue is that, because there is no evidence for any god, there is no logical reason to believe in any god that has any input into this physical and repeatable world of ours, no matter what might be going on in other dimensions.

It is for the theist to show any good reason why any of us should believe in a god. That we don't know everything is not good enough reason.

Bunjee

"If this is illogical it went uncontested, as you go on to cite science's "track record" for delivering truth. In fact this somewhat affirms my proposition by indicating the tentative nature of all human knowledge."

Me - Contested above. Irrelevance of the tentative nature of all human knowledge is pointed out.

You continue, "I'm saying that speculations, theorizing and faith is not a reliable basis for knowledge"? Are you addressing my point or the scientific method here? I did, though, offer a statement of science's value, and I think it's just the matter of its scope where we part ways here."


Me - It seems to come down to one thing again and again.

Theist - science doesn't know everything so a god could well exist

Atheist- so might a lot of things, but until you give some good evidence for any of them, it is illogical to believe in any of them.
Is there any part of that you are having difficulty with?

bunjee

""We get confused by some expectation of moral absolutes, god-given goodness, getting upset because we fall short of some supposed innate perfection." Here I believe you're diverting the discussion. Morality is a very complex issue,.."

me - I forgot the context of that...ah, here "material human beings--count on faith to believe there is ultimately a purpose to good will--and communication."
It was a little hard to follow your thought but it sounded like introducing the faith idea to the way we act as human beings, but -

(bunjee) "But morality and a moral universe is an entirely separate subject, and your response presumes things a bit too far into it."

Me - Since I see morality as a purely human construct, a 'moral universe' is indeed a separate subject and one that seems unsupported by any relevant evidence, though I'm open to any relevant input.
If anything, my response presumed less far than that, limiting it to purely human thought and instinct. As for 'presume', the idea of a human - originated morality is hardly original to me. It has a venerable ancestry.

bunjee

"Maybe you're reacting to what you perceive my attitude towards science to be."

Me - I was more reacting to what you wrote. If your attitude to science is other than 'it doesn't know everything, so there could be a god', I'm ready to be corrected. Was it, if so, what?

bunjee -

"I consider your statement: "In my experience, faith stands between ourselves and knowledge."; to which, I'm sorry for your experience. I won't deny the validity of this experience. After all, how can I?"

Me - I don't know. I do not know how much experience you have had of people introducing faith into matters which would be better served by a scientific - method approach, such as human and animal behaviour or a logical one such as moral philosophy.
You needn't be sorry for my experience in finding faith as a distraction in such cases. It has been very enlightening.
If may quote your earlier post

"We use faith in our daily lives. We use faith to believe we're loved. We use faith to know things about our being, relative to the universe (albeit imperfectly; but, as noted, what knowledge is perfect? (I ask non-rhetorically.)"

This passage shows the problem. 'we use faith to believe we're loved' but that's overlooking the evidence that we are loved, or not, and the way we can sometimes delude ourselves into thinking that we are loved, because we want to believe it. You see the problems in relying on faith? Also love of family, of our workmates, of our fooball team, of a god, of our country or the Great Leader. The lerm 'love' is so broad, that it becomes a meaningless semantic blunderbuss, unless you explain it.
That seems so obvious to me that, when you use the term without any clarification, I have got to think that we are getting some conceptual water-muddying in the hopes to catch some theological minnows.

[Tricky D]

To me to have faith means to have hope.
People with no hope (like people who suffer from a depression) often have no hope, which makes living a real struggle.

[effie g-tad]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

To me to have faith means to have hope.
People with no hope (like people who suffer from a depression) often have no hope, which makes living a real struggle.

thanks for your early diagnosis.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

This passage shows the problem. 'we use faith to believe we're loved' but that's overlooking the evidence that we are loved, or not, and the way we can sometimes delude ourselves into thinking that we are loved, because we want to believe it. You see the problems in relying on faith? Also love of family, of our workmates, of our fooball team, of a god, of our country or the Great Leader. The lerm 'love' is so broad, that it becomes a meaningless semantic blunderbuss, unless you explain it.
That seems so obvious to me that, when you use the term without any clarification, I have got to think that we are getting some conceptual water-muddying in the hopes to catch some theological minnows.

Yes, indeed, this is the problem and I indicated such in my post regarding the purview of science. We do not use science to prove love. That's the logjam we come to. Science doesn't create meaning, being neutral that it is. To return to your point about the animal nature of human beings, researchers will continue to analyze our impulses down to the level of neural activity. What more will they discover? Who knows. What will it all mean? That's for us individually to interpret. You made a statement that, paraphrasing, "our minds are evolved that we can do better than mere animals." Better is a value judgment, a statement of meaning not fact; that is, a semantic conclusion. I cited de Sade's work, and he took the human concept of absolute personal freedom to a far different place. I have to say he was logically consistent enough to have influenced Nietzsche, Sartre and de Beauvoir.

You end your post again with another shaded comment. I don't see that I'm muddying waters. I believe I've presented my points clearly, just that you don't accept them. Disagreement's fine. I'm totally cool disagreeing. But that other stuff...

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by effie briest

thanks for your early diagnosis.

Why?
Are you diagnosed as clinically depressed yet still have hope?

[effie g-tad]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by effie briestWhy?
Are you diagnosed as clinically depressed yet still have hope?

not really.