Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Faith is evidence of abstract thought. Abstract thought is the acceptance of things unseen, God, infinity (time and space), an after life in any form, rituals to beseech the appropriate deity for anything from rain to everlasting reward, etc.
Abstract thought is what separates man from beast, vegetation, or mineral.
But then again, this may change!
I am not denying that the scientist looked at the bones, rocks. I would believe their account of what they have experienced. But to believe the story they create based on this is absurd. Have scientist gone back millions of years to observe these things happening? No! Do they observe evolution in the lab occuring before their eyes? No! I have seen many experiments, but they are all the same.
I believed in God and in Jesus Christ before I experienced him. Believing is seeing!
But believing the story created by various religious figures based on the accounts of others is not absurd? Last I knew, none of us can go back to the time of Christ to observe any of those purported happenings either. Why is it reasonable for you to trust their accounts and unreasonable for others to trust the accounts of scientists?
I'm sorry, but that strikes me as being illogical and hypocritical.
At least with science, the methods used to make the determinations that have led to the scientific conclusions of the day are proven and repeatable. That makes accepting scientific conclusions completely rational in a way that most religious beliefs simply cannot entirely be (nor do they have to be--that's why there is a "faith" aspect to religion).
I do not accept the stories in the Bible as literal representations of fact or history because my education, intellect and intuition make that utterly impossible for me to do. I believe in God. I believe that a man called Jesus Christ existed. I believe he sacrificed himself for humanity's sake (though I believe the reasoning behind that sacrifice was different than what is usually taught, but that's another post altogether). I believe I should study and attempt to adhere to his message and teachings. That's all that makes me a Christian. There are aspects to several other religions that apply to my personal belief system as well. I would never presume to think that everyone else should believe as I do, and I really can't understand how anyone else would presume to expect (or impose) such either.
My faith exists because something inside of me that I can't really define (I call it intuition, for convenience's sake), combined with some personal experiences, combined with scientific and historical understanding has led me to that faith. Because that is how I arrived at my faith, I've been unable to find any one religious denomination or philosophy that really suits me, and, frankly, that's okay with me.
But only one aspect of my conclusions--the scientific and historical understanding--is at all applicable (though not mandatory) to other people. My intuition and experiences are not valid evidence for others' to trust absolutely, and neither is yours. Would you trust someone else's intuition and experience over your own? If that works for you, fine. But that doesn't work for everyone; it certainly wouldn't work for me.
It's because my faith is informed by all three of those aspects (intuition, experience, and intellect/education) that I find myself somewhere between literalists and atheists. I accept the science that atheists do because that is what my intellect, logic, and education instruct me to do.
I've concluded that the universe is the product of an intelligent force with a purpose beyond the current capacity of human understanding because my intellect, logic, and education permit such a conclusion, and my intuition and personal experiences compel that conclusion.
That's the distinction for me. Many atheists/agnostics (not all) acknowledge at least the possibility of an intelligent creator until evidence emerges to preclude such a conclusion. That's why reasoning allows such a conclusion but doesn't confirm it. My faith comes in when I apply my intuition and experiences to the equation. Intuition and experience are factors (or non-factors, as the case may be) in our reasoning that are highly personal for each of us. How could such elements be forced on anyone else?
Yes indeed. The trouble is that the practically synonymous terms faith and belief cover an awful lot of ground and we really do need to distinguish certain subsets of that concept:
belief through repeateable evidence that can be checked (e.g science)
belief through repeatable evidence that cannot be checked (e.g history)
belief through personal experience. repeatable (e.g sitting on a chair or starting your car - the experience means we don't even need to ask whether it will happen)
belief through personal experience, unrepeatable. (sightings of Ufo's ghosts, gnomes or divine beings)
belief through derangement.
This is an interesting and thoughtful breakdown of types. However, I think these terms also prejudice the discussion in favor of proof over faith, which is what's at issue in the first place, isn't it? This seems a recurrent roadblock to exchanging real experiences on this forum, where on the one hand I'd say the luxury of a simple philosophical proposition--supernatural or no supernatural--is posed against the non-philosophical, sensory (or nonsense) proposition, i.e. UFOs, gnomes and fairytales. Rather, there should be a single philosophical question at play: Is there something unknowable and constant in the universe? A "yes" answer equals faith, of any persuasion, atheist or theist.
This is an interesting and thoughtful breakdown of types. However, I think these terms also prejudice the discussion in favor of proof over faith, which is what's at issue in the first place, isn't it? This seems a recurrent roadblock to exchanging real experiences on this forum, where on the one hand I'd say the luxury of a simple philosophical proposition--supernatural or no supernatural--is posed against the non-philosophical, sensory (or nonsense) proposition, i.e. UFOs, gnomes and fairytales. Rather, there should be a single philosophical question at play: Is there something unknowable and constant in the universe? A "yes" answer equals faith, of any persuasion, atheist or theist.
It certainly is and does as the track record of 'proof' (evidence tested, repeated and peer reviewed) is far better than Faith (the views of one person or a bunch of people who get together, agree the same view and claim they must be right).
Proof IS to be favoured over Faith, and must be, if one is going to give any credence to reason or logic. Your final remark is, I have to say, utterly against logic.
"Is there something unknowable and constant in the universe? A "yes" answer equals faith, of any persuasion, atheist or theist."
Is there something unknowable in the universe? Possibly. Is there a lot in the universe that we don't know about? Undoubtely. Should we then say that we know it exists? Of course not. Should we then say that we know what it's like? Absurd. Do you not see that the main 'roadblock', as you call it, to any sensible dialogue is the illogical stance of theists who seem to think it logical to say that, because a thing isn't known we must have faith that it is real.
Until you admit that what isn't known cannot be believed in and what you claim is real should have some better proof than mere personal belief, you cannot expect to be credited with a logical or reasonable viewpoint.
I'm not trying to put you down, I'm trying to get you to understand logic rather than trying to prove God through rhetorical tricks.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-19-2009 at 06:15 AM..
Reason: deleted a tautology
We all like to think we are right. We can't all be right and, as you pointed out, all those bankers and G.W. Bush, those godfearing folks who ought to have been guided by the god they and you believe in, had got it wrong.
So it is pointless to just claim to be right or to claim to have some sort of inner revelation. As you cogently pointed out, that can so often be dead wrong. So the best method is to discuss and look at the evidence, the reason and the logic, not just try to score cheap propaganda points. If my rationale is unsound, I shall be the first to admit it and thank you for pointing it out.
I hope that you could do the same.
Oh. George wasn't God fearing, if He was He would have never gone into Iraq. And, that's the big difference between someone who uses religion to gain power over men to destroy nations. I would make the same challenge to you call the dioceses in Pittsburgh, ask them if I did not warn them of what was to come. I am no fake and I do not score cheap propaganda, I only show the truth.
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.
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.
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
Well, as I think I mentioned, the terms 'faith' and 'belief' can cover various definitions. I tend to use faith to denote hope or belief without a lot to support it. That's why atheists tend to use the term 'blind faith' as it is absolute conviction about something with not a lot to support it.
Belief can mean the same, of course, but I prefer to apply to beliefs based on some good reasoning if not on hard evidence. In the end, it doesn't matter too much which term one uses, providing it is explained what the basis for the belief or faith is. One can see then whether it has much support or not.
As to support, logical fallacies are not too good. "I must be right because a lot of people agree with me" would not, for instance, be good support for a belief, though that belief might have good support in itself.
It certainly is and does as the track record of 'proof' (evidence tested, repeated and peer reviewed) is far better than Faith (the views of one person or a bunch of people who get together, agree the same view and claim they must be right).
Proof IS to be favoured over Faith, and must be, if one is going to give any credence to reason or logic. Your final remark is, I have to say, utterly against logic.
"Is there something unknowable and constant in the universe? A "yes" answer equals faith, of any persuasion, atheist or theist."
Is there something unknowable in the universe? Possibly. Is there a lot in the universe that we don't know about? Undoubtely. Should we then say that we know it exists? Of course not. Should we then say that we know what it's like? Absurd. Do you not see that the main 'roadblock', as you call it, to any sensible dialogue is the illogical stance of theists who seem to think it logical to say that, because a thing isn't known we must have faith that it is real.
Until you admit that what isn't known cannot be believed in and what you claim is real should have some better proof than mere personal belief, you cannot expect to be credited with a logical or reasonable viewpoint.
I'm not trying to put you down, I'm trying to get you to understand logic rather than trying to prove God through rhetorical tricks.
I think you're being very narrow and oddly aggressive here. I have posed these questions elsewhere, non-rhetorically, so I'll have to repeat a point I've made elsewhere: Humans have limited knowledge, that is self-evident. Nothing is absolutely knowable. Life can only be a subjective, individual experience. And that's perfectly consistent, philosophically. 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: If the evidence of relativity--of Time itself--is to be accepted, and the assertion is there is nothing constant, eternal, outside of Time, then what ultimately is the yield of science? I ask non-rhetorically. I have an answer, that it's synthetic, that it's semantically useful, that it's a cognitive response to life. I have no hostility towards that position at all except the sometimes denial of its own limitations as the ultimate arbiter of reality. Is there anything here that violates logic?
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.
I think you're being very narrow and oddly aggressive here. I have posed these questions elsewhere, non-rhetorically, so I'll have to repeat a point I've made elsewhere: Humans have limited knowledge, that is self-evident. Nothing is absolutely knowable. Life can only be a subjective, individual experience. And that's perfectly consistent, philosophically. 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: If the evidence of relativity--of Time itself--is to be accepted, and the assertion is there is nothing constant, eternal, outside of Time, then what ultimately is the yield of science? I ask non-rhetorically. I have an answer, that it's synthetic, that it's semantically useful, that it's a cognitive response to life. I have no hostility towards that position at all except the sometimes denial of its own limitations as the ultimate arbiter of reality. Is there anything here that violates logic?
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.[/quote]
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This seems a recurrent roadblock to exchanging real experiences on this forum, where on the one hand I'd say the luxury of a simple philosophical proposition--supernatural or no supernatural--is posed against the non-philosophical, sensory (or nonsense) proposition, i.e. UFOs, gnomes and fairytales. Rather, there should be a single philosophical question at play: Is there something unknowable and constant in the universe? A "yes" answer equals faith, of any persuasion, atheist or theist.
