The Faith & Religion mega Thread

You are right: it has nothing to do with faith; it is all about power. That is exactly my point.

I'm glad that you have a sliding scale, and that you don't know a lot. Me too. As far as certainty is concerned, did you think that the opposite of faith is doubt? The opposite of faith is certainty. Not original to me...

Maybe (even if only subconsciously or) for slower thinkers or young minds &c... must want to remain as blissful as children.

I suppose when I was too young to remember, I believed in "god" and "santa claus" but then I grew up only all the way! In gold and land we trust.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless You are right: it has nothing to do with faith; it is all about power. That is exactly my point. I'm glad that you have a sliding scale, and that you don't know a lot. Me too. As far as certainty is concerned, did you think that the opposite of faith is doubt? The opposite of faith is certainty. Not original to me...

That equation does not compute. By it's very definition

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Faith offers a sense of certainty without the effort of examination. Conclusions just have to "feel right". To embrace Logic, and by extension Science, one has to accept that conclusions are altered as premises change and that certainty exists only in narrow confines.

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't have beliefs. There's what I know and what I don't know on a sliding scale of confidence....and i don't know a LOT.

You do have beliefs. Everyone does - it's an essential part of the abilty to form ideas and to think.

Much of what you 'know' is merely belief - you can't possibly have tested by first hand experience everything that you 'believe' to be true (or false). You rely on the 'belief' that your sources are accurate. Life is absolutely FILLED with 'belief' and 'faith', no matter WHO you are.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You do have beliefs. Everyone does - it's an essential part of the abilty to form ideas and to think. ... Life is absolutely FILLED with 'belief' and 'faith', no matter WHO you are.

A few examples would not go amiss.
jdk

Originally Posted by jdkaye A few examples would not go amiss. jdk

Okay, a ridiculous one just to illustrate the point.

You 'know' the earth is round.

But, have you traveled into space to observe it first hand? Have you triangulated the positions of various points along the surface of the entire planet to map it out?

No, you 'believe' it to be true because you have faith in the sources that tell you the earth is round. Your faith in the work of others is what you have.

Your collective 'knowledge' is largely a personally selected series of 'beliefs', augmented by a much smaller subset of first hand observations.

(Now, few would argue about this particular 'belief', but apply the same logic to everything else you claim to be 'knowledge'.)

Books don't make money forever they must be rewritten whether to "enslave," "free" or "delight..."

Originally Posted by OregonJim Okay, a ridiculous one just to illustrate the point. You 'know' the earth is round...

With 1,000s of followers you may end up at war?

Faith is a human word not like chaos (well okay,) human life can be thought out or overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e With 1,000s of followers you may end up at war? Faith is a human word not like chaos (well okay,) human life can be thought out or overwhelmed.

Are you here just to make noise, or is there a point to all your posts in this thread?

Or, are you saying that all this thinking has you overwhelmed?

@enorbet

I don't disagree with your dictionary citing. It is precisely because I don't have "evidence or proof", whatever you believe those are, that I have faith. Sorry if that makes no sense to you. You can google "the opposite of faith is certainty" if you would like more extensive expositions.

Some people like the Carl Sagan take on this, particularly if they are not partial to religionists. I'm not a Sagan fan personally. Still: if you're married, does your spouse love you? Do you love your spouse? Prove it.
Substitute any other relationship, i.e. parent and child, if necessary. Most people, I think, who love do not rely on proof or evidence. These things are antithetical to love. They just believe.

If you have no one you love, or no one who loves you, God help you.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless It is precisely because I don't have "evidence or proof", whatever you believe those are, that I have faith. Sorry if that makes no sense to you. You can google "the opposite of faith is certainty" if you would like more extensive expositions.

I found http://courage-counts.com/2016/02/18...site-of-faith/, and it seems to me that the phrase "have faith" is a bit confusing/misleading. It seems to me a more accurate description of the concept would be that you are faithful.

Hmm, so we've descended to the vagaries of the English language and connotations. Well, it's always good to clarify terminology.

I would say I have faith, which is different though hopefully not incompatible with being faithful. Having faith is a state of being, being faithful, to me, would imply a task faithfully performed.

People from another linguistic or regional background would no doubt say it differently. I don't even necessarily agree or disagree with the way it was written that you linked above.

It's a hard thing to put in words.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless Hmm, so we've descended to the vagaries of the English language and connotations.

I'm not sure if we ever got past them.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless being faithful, to me, would imply a task faithfully performed.

Yes, exactly. In this case the task is believing in God without proof.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless It is precisely because I don't have "evidence or proof", whatever you believe those are, that I have faith.

Hello MH. I guess that you do believe that the statements supporting your faith are true, even if you do not know if they are. Hence it seems that "faith", even in your interpretation, still matches the established definition?

Some people like the Carl Sagan take on this, particularly if they are not partial to religionists. I'm not a Sagan fan personally. Still: if you're married, does your spouse love you? Do you love your spouse? Prove it. Substitute any other relationship, i.e. parent and child, if necessary. Most people, I think, who love do not rely on proof or evidence. These things are antithetical to love. They just believe.

You should have at least some facts, some evidence suggesting how you should interpret your relationships. Love can be showed, usually it is, and it should, even if that kind of evidence cannot fit very well into a peer-reviewed study.

Originally Posted by OregonJim You 'know' the earth is round. But, have you traveled into space to observe it first hand? Have you triangulated the positions of various points along the surface of the entire planet to map it out? No, you 'believe' it to be true because you have faith in the sources that tell you the earth is round. Your faith in the work of others is what you have.

Let's not mix totally different matters just because some words can be used in confusing ways, while their meanings can be blurred in order to force them to overlap. For instance, putting faith on the same epistemological level of the kind of knowledge which is not based on first-hand experience, just because the word "belief" can be used in ambiguous ways, in my opinion is arbitrary and semantically quite a nonsense. I've seen this approach sometimes, from people trying to show that there's not much difference between (indirect) scientific knowledge and their own personal view on faith, often putting it like this: «I believe in the existence of some set of supernatural beings, while you believe in science. Because you have a limited first-hand experience of scientific facts, then yours is faith just as mine is, hence there's not a great epistemological difference between our points of view.» Of course that's not true. Indirect scientific knowledge is not equivalent to religious faith: the first one is still based on experience, objective evidence, as well as inductive and deductive reasoning, while the second, by definition, is not.

So there is a great difference between faith and knowledge, even when the latter is not based on first-hand experience, but on equally reliable sources. And what about beliefs? Well, one believes "something" when one believes that a given statement is true. However, this doesn't say anything about the statement itself. Is that statement actually true? And where does it come from? Does it come from first-hand experience, from an allegedly revealed holy book, from hearsay, from a peer-reviewed source, or from a whole corpus of established knowledge? Besides, are you justified in believing that such statement is true? I mean, justified from an epistemological point of view, not just because you wish to believe?

Playing with words like "faith" and "belief" is so easy, but what about objective evidence, facts, reliability, reproducibility? Reliable knowledge is knowledge even if it is not based on direct experience: sure it is a belief, but it is also justified, and true. On the other hand, do you have any facts that show that it is true that supernatural beings actually do exist? You might have strong personal feelings, a very strong faith, but that isn't enough if you want to call it knowledge, unless you want to force semantics in order to fit your needs. That having been said, while I do not have any first-hand experience of neutrinos, for example, there's a relevant number of experts who agree that neutrinos do exist, because they have found actual evidence of them: there are facts, i.e. there are neutrinos. Moreover, the source supporting this statement is not a single, highly controversial old paper, but a good number of reliable and peer-reviewed ones, which are also based on observation, while those elusive particles fit just fine into an established and solid theoretical model as well. Hence, while I trust experts, this is not just faith, or just a belief: call it highly justified confidence, or highly justified true belief. And yes, call it knowledge! The same holds with respect to your example: the "round" Earth (which is, actually, approximately spherical). By the way, if you had the chance to see a lunar eclipse at least once, then you have some direct knowledge of it as well.

Cheers
Philip

@PL yes, as stated above, I accept he dictionary definition. I don't think it is inconsistent with anything I've said here. I agree with your distinction in types of knowledge re neutrinos and the earth.

I never have liked the Sagan example that much; as you point out, there is usually some objective evidence a third party could repeatedly obtain to decide on whether you were loved or loved another human being. Having admitted that, perhaps you might agree that most of us do not collect evidence of this sort. We just know it, as a kind of belief or faith. I think that is why Mr Sagan used it as an argument in Contact.

Faith in God is internal and hard to measure. For some, the inability to measure something negates its existence.