Degrees of Faith

[Jeremiahcp]

We don't assume ''equivalents'', we just take the word contextually. You are using that word in that manner, /which is fine/, and it has the definition that you are sure the sun will rise, /that's all

You are avoiding the question.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are avoiding the question.

Actually I answered the question.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Actually I answered the question.

Not in any worthwhile way.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Faith is taking on trust. Most of our knowledge actually involves trust. I believe the Four Colour Theorem is true because I have faith in the mathematicians who have checked the proof: I certainly couldn't do that myself. But the point is surely that if I had a greater knowledge of mathematics, I could do it and so faith would be unnecessary.

The monotheistic religions are totally dependent on faith. Either you accept that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad was visited by an angel, or you don't. If you do it's a matter of faith. Checking the truth of those assertions would require a time machine in both cases and functioning telepathy for the second.

In paganism, however, faith is not all we have. I take the existence of some gods on the authority of other people, but of others I have personal experience.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There are multiple definitions of the word 'faith'. If I go to a dentist who tells me I have cavity, I have faith that the dentist is correct. If I learn that E=mc2 but don't derive the solution myself, I have faith that the math is accurate because it's been reviewed by many and tested in multiple high-quality experiments.

Religions are "faiths" by definition which is a different meaning of the word.

"If I learn that E=mc2 but don't derive the solution myself, I have faith that the math is accurate because it's been r
reviewed by many and tested in multiple high-quality experiments."

Of course if you wanted, you could learn the math and science and prove it yourself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Both are necessary and need to be in harmony."

Why? Are you saying non-religious people can never find harmony?

Good questions. By the "why" I assume you are asking why is Faith necessary. The need for science is clear to most. First we need to understand why thats a central question for the culture and time we are living in. If we were living in many cultures outside the West for example some Pacific Island nations, for most that would seem like a ridiculous question. Likewise if we were living in Europe over a hundred years ago most would consider religion essential. Clearly much has changed in the West and religion has fallen into disrepute and in desperate need of renewal. However when we have a better understanding of the purpose of life and religion then the needs becomes apparent. Some of my best friends have no religion and of course non-religious people find harmony. Eventually the need for religion will become more universally apparent again. In the meantime many are understandably leaving en mass!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Good questions. By the "why" I assume you are asking why is Faith necessary. The need for science is clear to most. First we need to understand why thats a central question for the culture and time we are living in. If we were living in many cultures outside the West for example some Pacific Island nations, for most that would seem like a ridiculous question. Likewise if we were living in Europe over a hundred years ago most would consider religion essential. Clearly much has changed in the West and religion has fallen into disrepute and in desperate need of renewal. However when we have a better understanding of the purpose of life and religion then the needs becomes apparent. Some of my best friends have no religion and of course non-religious people find harmony. Eventually the need for religion will become more universally apparent again. In the meantime many are understandably leaving en mass!

I am sorry, but you didn't really answer the question of why, and you ignored my other question. I don't understand why religion and science "need to be in harmony", or what that even means, and if "non-religious people find harmony" then clearly religion it is not as "necessary" as you think. If religion has some fundamental importance, then time and culture is irrelevant to that core. So I don't see why you can't relay this need for religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

Very true .Reason , knowledge and experiences strengthen ones faith in any belief system.

Why did you use those numbers ?
No ,we are not holding on to a waned Moon , but gleaming under the first rays of sunlight.

Reason and knowledge do not necessarily strengthen faith if the faith is unfounded.

 

[Tabu]

Reason and knowledge do not necessarily strengthen faith if the faith is unfounded.

If you had noticed I had also added the word 'experience' while replying to the quote.
I think an unfound faith would also be unreasonable ,both are synonyms.

 

[sayak83]

How is faith different when applied to science then when it is applied to religion?

If faith is defined as placing greater confidence in something than what evidence suggests, then it's hard to see where faith can be a good thing at all?
In this respect, I would say Buddha's analysis of uselessness of such faith is right on target.
Canki Sutta: With Canki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now.

Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false.Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.

Similarly the other five.


...
However,

But to what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth?

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion (etc.), he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.

"The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus faith or conviction is simply the beginning point of any field of discipline, secular or religious, it is a state of mind one needs to be receptive to the knowledge and experiences of that field. But if one, after sufficient time of practice in that field, is still talking in terms of faith or conviction, then there is something seriously wrong with either the mode of learning or the field itself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"If you have both together then the result is light upon light"

Can you explain how that works?

Religion is concerned with moral development, science is concerned with material development. Both are essential to the progress of humanity and civilisation.

If a man has great knowledge but is arrogant, selfish, and destructive then harm may result.

If a man is limited capacity in the sciences and arts, but is compassionate, courteous, just and works for the betterment of his community then he is likely to be of benefit to the community.

If a man is both intellectually able and moral then the result is light upon light.

I don't understand why religion and science "need to be in harmony",

Reality is one. Science and religion approach reality from different perspectives but concern themselves with the same reality. If religion advocates what has absolutely been disproven by science then this is superstition. If we have science without religion then we have materialism. Both are necessary and concern themselves with the reality of our existence.

if "non-religious people find harmony" then clearly religion it is not as "necessary" as you think.

We can not say that for certain. Some of us live in a post Christian society. Values we assume to be of assistance in our lives may have resulted from religion.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Religion is concerned with moral development, science is concerned with material development. Both are essential to the progress of humanity and civilisation.

If a man has great knowledge but is arrogant, selfish, and destructive then harm may result.

If a man is limited capacity in the sciences and arts, but is compassionate, courteous, just and works for the betterment of his community then he is likely to be of benefit to the community.

If a man is both intellectually able and moral then the result is light upon light.



Reality is one. Science and religion approach reality from different perspectives but concern themselves with the same reality. If religion advocates what has absolutely been disproven by science then this is superstition. If we have science without religion then we have materialism. Both are necessary and concern themselves with the reality of our existence.



We can not say that for certain. Some of us live in a post Christian society. Values we assume to be of assistance in our lives may have resulted from religion.

Sounds like you are trying to wrap people up in your religious views whether they belong there or not.

"Religion is concerned with moral development"

And sometimes it is concerned with moral corruption. If you are trying to make a case that religion is a pillar of morality, well that can be a hard sell to some people.

Morality comes from humans, and wherever it exist in religion, philosophy, or society is because we put it there. We don't need religion for good morals instead what we need is compassion and reason. Two things that are innate to humans.

"science is concerned with material development."

Science is concerned with whatever you choose to apply it to, because it is a methodology.

"If a man has great knowledge but is arrogant, selfish, and destructive then harm may result.

If a man is limited capacity in the sciences and arts, but is compassionate, courteous, just and works for the betterment of his community then he is likely to be of benefit to the community."

And your position all hinges on the assumption that this man of yours needs religion to be compassionate and courteous?

"If a man is limited capacity in the sciences"

Then because he didn't take the time to educate himself, he makes bad choices and harm may result. Knowledge sheds light on the moral path. I am going suggest something wild, and say science is essential to making good, informed moral decisions, but religion is not.

"Both are necessary and concern themselves with the reality of our existence."

So then non-religious people can't grasp reality? I think you need to sort out what you are suggesting a bit more.

"We can not say that for certain. Some of us live in a post Christian society. Values we assume to be of assistance in our lives may have resulted from religion."

So if a non-religious person is in harmony, it is only because of the Christians?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sounds like you are trying to wrap people up in your religious views whether they belong there or not.

Not really. You would need to understand my religious views before assuming that.

So if a non-religious person is in harmony, it is only because of the Christians?

And the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jews, and Baha'is.

Name a civilisation recognised for it moral and scientific excellence founded on atheism?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not really. You would need to understand my religious views before assuming that.


And the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Jews, and Baha'is.

Name a civilisation recognised for it moral and scientific excellence founded on atheism?

Correlation does not necessitate causation. There is a bit of science for you. Tell me, did all these civilizations also have humans in them?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Correlation does not necessitate causation. There is a bit of science for you. Tell me, did all these civilizations also have humans in them?

We both know the answer to that one. So there have been great civilisations founded on religious belief and none founded on atheism. While correlation doesn't necessitate a cause it does suggest a strong relationship between the two. How about Russia, China, and Cambodia based on Marxism, an economic theory linked to atheism? Would there be a relationship if we considered the effects of atheistic communist regimes on these countries?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

We both know the answer to that one. So there have been great civilisations founded on religious belief and none founded on atheism. While correlation doesn't necessitate a cause it does suggest a strong relationship between the two. How about Russia, China, and Cambodia based on Marxism, an economic theory linked to atheism? Would there be a relationship if we considered the effects of atheistic communist regimes on these countries?

"While correlation doesn't necessitate a cause it does suggest a strong relationship between the two"

You do realize the correlation is the relationship, right? I don't think you fully understand that concept.

I could say there is a strong linear relationship to a civilization being religious and making pie, or sock wearing, or smoking cigarettes, or just about anything else. And the numbers will show it, but that does not mean religion causes pie to be made or socks to be worn.

Consider this study here:

"If you examine the records of the city of Copenhagen for the ten or twelve years following World War II, you will find a strong positive correlation between (i) the annual number of storks nesting in the city, and (ii) the annual number of human babies born in the city"

http://pignottia.faculty.mjc.edu/math134/classnotes/storks.pdf

There is a relationship between storks nesting in the city and babies being born, but that does not mean storks are delivering babies.

Now take a look at how they explain it:

In this example what you have is a situation where two variables end up as correlated, not because one is influencing the other, but rather because both are influenced by a third variable, Z, that is not being taken into account. That is, the causal relationship here is not X → Y or X ← Y , but rather There is a third, “lurking” variable so that the correlation between storks and babies is not so straightforward, but it is there all the same.

With my question I was suggesting the possible "lurking" variable is humans themselves. Perhaps morality only exist in religion because people put there, and perhaps morality only exist in society because likewise people put it there. I am suggesting humans are the source of morality, and while religion can play a role in it, religion is not necessary for good morals, because religion is not the original source.

"How about Russia, China, and Cambodia based on Marxism, an economic theory linked to atheism? Would there be a relationship if we considered the effects of atheistic communist regimes on these countries?"

Perhaps you shouldn't be judging an entire culture on a scientific process you don't seem to fully understand.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps you shouldn't be judging an entire culture on a scientific process you don't seem to fully understand.

I fully understand the scientific process as I possess both a science and medical degree. Considering associations in regards to causation and confounding is level 1 university science. Here's a paper that more thoroughly considers principles of bias and causation in observational studies.

http://www.inclentrust.org/inclen/u...al associations in observational research.pdf

It is because I recognise the limitations of a scientific model when applied to analysis of cultural and social processes that I look to the writings of those who have excelled in the realm of the arts rather than sciences. However the two are not mutually exclusive and historians and social commentators need to excel at critical thinking.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I fully understand the scientific process as I possess both a science and medical degree. Considering associations in regards to causation and confounding is level 1 university science. Here's a paper that more thoroughly considers principles of bias and causation in observational studies.

http://www.inclentrust.org/inclen/uploadedbyfck/file/compile resourse/Bias and causal associations in observational research.pdf

It is because I recognise the limitations of a scientific model when applied to analysis of cultural and social processes that I look to the writings of those who have excelled in the realm of the arts rather than sciences. However the two are not mutually exclusive and historians and social commentators need to excel at critical thinking.

"I fully understand the scientific process"

Not according to your last two post, as you were clearly trying to suggest your purposed correlation demonstrated a causal relationship between religion and morality.