A question for those with 'faith.'

[Sir Doom]

I picked faith. To me, faith is a belief that is held regardless of evidence. Not in the absence of it, as some would suggest (though they are functionally equivalent in many cases).

Basically, I see mathematics arrived at through consensus. It wouldn't work otherwise. We agree on the meanings and the interpretations presented, because we enjoy being able to describe the universe to one another. Its language like any other. It may be universal, but its really hard to say. It's at least international, which is good enough for humans. It wouldn't be if we didn't agree, though. If I try to explain how 1+1=3 I will simply be met with direct opposition that its false backed up by the rest of the world saying the same. No matter how true the statement might be, the world disagrees. Since it is a construct arrived at through centuries of consensus its pointless to try and change it now. It would be like replacing the word 'apple' with 'orange' just because you think it should be that way. No one else agrees with me, so what's the point? The entire idea of calling it an apple was so everyone else understands what you mean. If you change that, you defeat the purpose.

Faith works a bit differently. It requires no consensus at all. It is what it is. The things I believe I do, in fact, believe and there isn't anything that the world can say to change my mind for me. I have to decide to change my mind. If I value consensus I will change my mind based on that. But only if I value consensus (another personal choice that no one can make for me).

Because my thoughts and actions are determined by belief (faith being a form of belief) then the difference between a belief that is 'true' or 'untrue' becomes nothing at all. I wouldn't just like to think that my beliefs are true, I act as though they are true. Whether the belief is true or not makes no difference. I can't take the action back, I can only form a new belief based on new information. The new belief will be treated the same as the old one was. As though it is true. Belief determines reality through thought and action.

When the new information does not change your belief (even if it seems like it should) now you are operating on faith. Mathematics works exactly this way. I know for a fact that mathematics is simply a collection of agreed upon symbols (language) used to describe the universe to my fellow humans. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe, it's just my interpretation of such. This does not cause me to abandon mathematics. Faith.

A better example. I have witnessed optical illusions on many occasions. I have also hallucinated for various reasons. My eyes can be tricked. Further, in some of my experiences, I did not even realize I was being tricked until much after the fact. Which means that I could very well be in the midst of a trick as I type this. Despite this evidence, I still believe my eyes 100% of the time. Faith.

I also have faith that it works exactly like this for every one of you as well. I am certain that some of you will disagree, but I'm likely going to continue believing it despite your assertions that it doesn't work this way.

Just another belief I hold regardless of the evidence.

 

[idav]

So what has been explained about god through this?

That faith can be based on logic.

 

[dust1n]

That faith can be based on logic.

I get that, but you said God can be explained through natural processes. So what HAS been explained about God through natural processes?

 

[ChristineES]

I picked faith. To me, faith is a belief that is held regardless of evidence. Not in the absence of it, as some would suggest (though they are functionally equivalent in many cases).

Basically, I see mathematics arrived at through consensus. It wouldn't work otherwise. We agree on the meanings and the interpretations presented, because we enjoy being able to describe the universe to one another. Its language like any other. It may be universal, but its really hard to say. It's at least international, which is good enough for humans. It wouldn't be if we didn't agree, though. If I try to explain how 1+1=3 I will simply be met with direct opposition that its false backed up by the rest of the world saying the same. No matter how true the statement might be, the world disagrees. Since it is a construct arrived at through centuries of consensus its pointless to try and change it now. It would be like replacing the word 'apple' with 'orange' just because you think it should be that way. No one else agrees with me, so what's the point? The entire idea of calling it an apple was so everyone else understands what you mean. If you change that, you defeat the purpose.

Faith works a bit differently. It requires no consensus at all. It is what it is. The things I believe I do, in fact, believe and there isn't anything that the world can say to change my mind for me. I have to decide to change my mind. If I value consensus I will change my mind based on that. But only if I value consensus (another personal choice that no one can make for me).

Because my thoughts and actions are determined by belief (faith being a form of belief) then the difference between a belief that is 'true' or 'untrue' becomes nothing at all. I wouldn't just like to think that my beliefs are true, I act as though they are true. Whether the belief is true or not makes no difference. I can't take the action back, I can only form a new belief based on new information. The new belief will be treated the same as the old one was. As though it is true. Belief determines reality through thought and action.

When the new information does not change your belief (even if it seems like it should) now you are operating on faith. Mathematics works exactly this way. I know for a fact that mathematics is simply a collection of agreed upon symbols (language) used to describe the universe to my fellow humans. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe, it's just my interpretation of such. This does not cause me to abandon mathematics. Faith.

A better example. I have witnessed optical illusions on many occasions. I have also hallucinated for various reasons. My eyes can be tricked. Further, in some of my experiences, I did not even realize I was being tricked until much after the fact. Which means that I could very well be in the midst of a trick as I type this. Despite this evidence, I still believe my eyes 100% of the time. Faith.

I also have faith that it works exactly like this for every one of you as well. I am certain that some of you will disagree, but I'm likely going to continue believing it despite your assertions that it doesn't work this way.

Just another belief I hold regardless of the evidence.

Sir Doom, you intelligence astounds me (I am being serious).

 

[idav]

I get that, but you said God can be explained through natural processes. So what HAS been explained about God through natural processes?

According to my calculations the source of creation is within everything, naturally.

 

[dust1n]

According to my calculations the source of creation is within everything, naturally.

That still doesn't address my question. What are these calculations and what do they conclude about God?

 

[dust1n]

I'll respond to ya Doom. I tend to agree. But honestly, the topic is kinda... ******* my head at the moment. So, give me some time.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You still haven't addressed the fact that you are making an unfair comparison.

What is 1 + 1 = 2?
A simple math equation taught at a 1st grade level

What is Faith?
A complex subjective term used to define a multitude of beliefs and perceptions depending on region, culture and individuals. College level classes debate the subject endlessly.

And now you are asking us what we are more sure of, a simple math equation or a complex hard to define concept. Sorry but the whole thing makes me wonder what your objective with such a loaded question is?

 

[Sir Doom]

Sir Doom, you intelligence astounds me (I am being serious).

Thank you. I like to say perceptive rather than intelligent, because I have a very limited education (GED). I do appreciate the compliment, though. <3

I'll respond to ya Doom. I tend to agree. But honestly, the topic is kinda... ******* my head at the moment. So, give me some time.

I've always preferred forums over chat rooms for this very reason. We can take days to respond to something if that's what we need. Its the perfect venue for these types of discussions.

Just for clarity, the last couple of lines of my post doesn't mean I don't value other people's opinions, I definitely do! I can see how it might come off as arrogant dismissal of anyone's contrary opinion and that is definitely not my position. This is the only way I can afford to learn about these things. I absolutely crave discussion.

 

[idav]

That still doesn't address my question. What are these calculations and what do they conclude about God?

Mainly it makes it easier to figure out what god isn't. From there you can take an educated guess as to what god is. Matter and energy are never created or destroyed leading me to believe the source is within.

 

[dust1n]

You still haven't addressed the fact that you are making an unfair comparison.

What is 1 + 1 = 2?
A simple math equation taught at a 1st grade level

What is Faith?
A complex subjective term used to define a multitude of beliefs and perceptions depending on region, culture and individuals. College level classes debate the subject endlessly.

And now you are asking us what we are more sure of, a simple math equation or a complex hard to define concept. Sorry but the whole thing makes me wonder what your objective with such a loaded question is?

I'm not comparing the two? I'm asking a question about what individuals hold to be 'more certain.' The question isn't loaded at all, other than I forgot to add to the list of answers that both things can be held with the same amount of certainty, something I've already admitted to.

Wonder about 'my objective' all night, you might want to look at what a loaded question entails. The only 'assumption' is explicitly stated right in one of the answers that we are specifically referring to base 10 for the purposes of the equation. What assumption is innate in the question, "What are you most sure of?"

If you don't wish to participate, but rather just question my motives like I am trying to achieve some objective or sleight of hand, rather than just sit here and actually think about the question, the answers, and the implications, than shut the hell up and get out of my thread and stop insulting me.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If you don't wish to participate, but rather just question my motives like I am trying to achieve some objective or sleight of hand, rather than just sit here and actually think about the question, the answers, and the implications, than shut the hell up and get out of my thread and stop insulting me.

No insult was meant and no need to get all angry and stuff. But the question just doesn't ring true for me. Better to have said what are you more certain of, faith or math. The fact that you use an actual equation, and that you chose one of such simplicity is curious to me. Do you feel that faith is that simple? You either believe or not? Or do you just think that people with faith are that simple? Personally I can't answer the question because I find its premise to be unanswerable. My apologies if my thoughts on the subject are too complex for you.

 

[dust1n]

No insult was meant and no need to get all angry and stuff. But the question just doesn't ring true for me. Better to have said what are you more certain of, faith or math. The fact that you use an actual equation, and that you chose one of such simplicity is curious to me. Do you feel that faith is that simple? You either believe or not? Or do you just think that people with faith are that simple? Personally I can't answer the question because I find its premise to be unanswerable. My apologies if my thoughts on the subject are too complex for you.

To answer your three questions, no, no, and no. To respond to you not being able to answer the question, then don't.

Another unintentional insult, is it?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To answer your three questions, no, no, and no. To respond to you not being able to answer the question, then don't.

Another unintentional insult, is it?

As you wish.

 

[dust1n]

As you wish.

I appreciate it.

 

[Twig pentagram]

1 + 1 = 2 Is one of the building blocks of my faith.

 

[Reverend Richard]

So, I guess, if I am understanding this right, you would equate as much certainty into the faith of your religion as you would 1+1=2?

If so, I just have another question, since mathematics can be a little tricky. It's just for you, cause I'm curious, but anyone can answer.

What if the question was posed...

Do you have more certainty in the faith of your religion or that you are sitting in a chair (I'm assuming you aren't standing) while typing your response?

Well, at the risk of talking in circles, the evolution of my current "religion" (I actually do not like that word) entails the ability to:

1) accept ambiguity as a fact of life (and death), and

2) change or modify my beliefs when I've had a chance to evaluate new information that contradicts my existing beliefs

Because 1 + 1 =2 has always worked in the past as a very elementary rule of thumb for doing more complex mathematics (like balancing my check book or planning my household budget), I have accepted on faith that it will continue to work for me in the future.

As a former conservative Christian, when I applied rules one and two above, I found it necessary to let go of all Christian dogma and deal with the ambiguity of whether the any scripture of any faith should be taken literally.

Perhaps we even need to make a distinction here between "faith" and "blind faith". In the latter it seems we cling to dogma in spite of new and perhaps contradictory information. When we do that, it seems we are thumbing our nose at God's gift of intelligence.