Do We Need Faith?

[SalixIncendium]

How how do you actually know the light switch works before you try it?

The switch was spontaneously flipped before I understood there was a switch.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"

Was it here? Could you link me?
I'd like to respond directly.

That's an interesting question in more ways than one.

You think? I don't see it as interesting, but perhaps I'm missing context.

First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.

Some level of irony is inherent is staring that all religion will be attacked, and that this commenced through the agency of a false religion.

Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

No need to capitalise atheism. And I'm sure you're not suggesting one atheist speaks for all atheists are you?
If you are, why give such power to this particular atheist? Why not me, for example?

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I would have gone with politics as an example, rather than science. Science is merely a process, and if done poorly, it will illicit poor results. It also has a clear, objective track record of successful outcomes, and these can be repeated via that process.

Politics is much more subjective, as is religion. Neither can be waved away, whatever our thoughts, and both are impactful.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Is this a real atheist? Even if you initially started with a real one, this paragraph is a straw man.
It's as ridiculous as me saying 'the theist would no doubt answer....'

Of course there is doubt. You're talking about millions of people with no agreed dogma. Herding atheists is almost as ineffective as herding theists.

Within that broad group, there might be smaller groupings who actually hold to consistent ideologies, and those ideologies can be assessed, generalised, and critically evaluated. But at a higher level? Eeesh. Straw man.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.

Happy to discuss the good and bad of religion or science with you at any time. But not via a false dichotomy, nor whilst you're telling me what atheists think.

However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

People appear to be able to live without either. If you mean 'prosper' it's going to be a more specific discussion.

 

[Truth in love]

The switch was spontaneously flipped before I understood there was a switch.

So how did you have knowledge that you could do it before you tried it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So how did you have knowledge that you could do it before you tried it?

Spontaneous mystical experience.

 

[Truth in love]

Spontaneous mystical experience.

Sounds like a miracle.

 

[rational experiences]

Religious science. Science.

Get rid of it.

Spirituality innocence. Natural mutual equal human family. Group everyone first.

Lets get rid of religion.

Religious medicine. Different historic church building founding a healing building by its designed function. Not occult nuclear sciences.

Let's return to human healing no science preaching theism allowed.

Lying energy remains constant. Only when the mass holds it in mass.. energy constantly is removed making nothing holes as it goes away.

Bodies become smaller.

Earth God now a very small body. O earth now has nearly changed into a nothing hole. Brother scientist inventor trying to activate it in his science position god the planet...earths mass as God.

His science control only earths mass.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I seriously doubt any other species has faith or would understand any kind of abstraction at all.

Belief and faith are the same thing for all practical purposes. Would you put water and grounds in the machine without the belief that adding electricity will produce coffee? Humans act on belief alone so without belief we are moribund. Of course much belief is held as models and models of knowledge which aren't belief if they are actually understood.

I imagine that when a young bird first jumps out of the nest and into space, it is exhibiting faith of a sort.

 

[Truthseeker]

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

I know what you mean, but no science is bad science, it only is bad if used for bad ends. Likewise, religion is bad only if used for bad ends. If they go hand-in-hand for good ends that would be the best. I agree that good religion without any science, would be better than science used for bad ends without religion. Indeed good religion guarantees science will be used for good ends.

 

[Truthseeker]

The phony conflict between religion and science needs to die.

There needs to be no conflict, I agree. They should go hand-in-hand.

 

[Truthseeker]

Hobbies are a good thing, generally. I'm not sure there's necessarily anything wrong with a religion when it's approached through the lens of a hobby.

That's what is wrong the Western world today, using religion as a hobby. Religion should be people's life, and used to make the world a better place.

 

[Truthseeker]

Really, which? I've not come across it where I live apart from Jehovah's Witnesses. All the European Christians I know are on-board with modern scientific discovery. Most Jews I know don't care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, this so-called conflict is not a very European phenomenon. There are some, but they're few and far between.

It's a little different in America with the group classified as evangelicals. Interesting, I didn't know it was that different in Europe.

 

[Truthseeker]

People require faith if they are desperate to hold onto a belief but have no good evidence to do so or even when faced with good evidence of the contrary. People who have good evidence for their beliefs require no faith. .

I have a different perspective. Good evidence leads to faith.

 

[Audie]

I know what you mean, but no science is bad science, it only is bad if used for bad ends. Likewise, religion is bad only if used for bad ends. If they go hand-in-hand for good ends that would be the best. I agree that good religion without any science, would be better than science used for bad ends without religion. Indeed good religion guarantees science will be used for good ends.

There is a lot of bad science.

It's bad science if an experiment is poorly
performed. There's more ways to screw up
tests and experiments than anyone has yet found.

There is also deliberate dishonesty such
as came out of tobacco industry medical
tests, or is being done by so called "creation
science"

It's bad because of false results that can cause tremendous harm.

As for bad religions, new ones are being dreamed up all the
time. Heavens Gate and that one with the hool aid are quite arguably bad.

 

[Audie]

I have a different perspective. Good evidence leads to faith.

Especially if one selects only evidence
that suits them, ignores what does not.

Faith was what the Heavens Gate people
had when they killed themselves so they
could get to the comet.
The boys of 911 had strong faith.

Faith is far from automatically good.

 

[Truthseeker]

There is a lot of bad science.

It's bad science if an experiment is poorly
performed. There's more ways to screw up
tests and experiments than anyone has yet found.

There is also deliberate dishonesty such
as came out of tobacco industry medical
tests, or is being done by so called "creation
science"

It's bad because of false results that can cause tremendous harm.

That's not what I meant about science used for bad ends. I meant science that is derived using correct methods used for bad ends. However, I get your point.

 

[Truthseeker]

Especially if one selects only evidence
that suits them, ignores what does not.

Faith was what the Heavens Gate people
had when they killed themselves so they
could get to the comet.
The boys of 911 had strong faith.

Faith is far from automatically good.

Yes, obviously. But I mean evidence using independent investigation fairly.

 

[Trailblazer]

There needs to be no conflict, I agree. They should go hand-in-hand.

Like two wings of a bird are necessary for it to fly, both science and religion are needed for humanity to function properly.

“Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...” Paris Talks, p. 143

 

[ChristineM]

More precisely "there is no evidence that you accept" because I have a great deal of evidence that is utterly convincing to me but of course not to you.

Not falsifiable, and that's its called faith

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

The problem with questions like this is each of these words; “faith” and “need” both have various definitions and, if your particular meaning isn’t specified, semantics becomes the obfuscation that people hide behind in order to misrepresent or hedge a point of view.
This is sometimes done with intention and sometimes through ignorance.

If by “faith” you mean “belief in a god or in the doctrines and teachings of a religion” (I assume?), then what do you mean by “need”?

DEFINITION FOR NEED (1 OF 1)
noun:
1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation:

2. a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary:
to fulfill the needs of the assignment.

3. urgent want, as of something requisite:
He has no need of your charity.

4. necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case:
There is no need to worry.

5. a situation or time of difficulty; exigency:
to help a friend in need;
to be a friend in need.

6. a condition marked by the lack of something requisite:
the need for leadership.

7. destitution; extreme poverty:
The family's need is acute.

If you mean is it ‘necessary’ (#1) in order to practice a faith;
Arguably yes.

If you mean is it ‘required’ (#1) for human survival;
Definitely not. Atheism is proof of that.

If you mean ‘something wanted or deemed necessary’ (#2) for the emotional fulfillment of some (though not necessarily all);
Perhaps? This becomes a subjective personal judgment call.

Where you say “it highlights the flawed thinking atheism promotes”,
you are exposing your flawed understanding of what atheism is.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Notice there is nothing about adherence to any teachings or system of beliefs.
It is a stance on only one claim…..whether any gods exist. That’s all folks!

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...

DANGER,….. DANGER,…..DANGER…..
STRAW MAN ALERT…….DANGER

Maybe instead of imagining a conversation with an atheist you’ve manufactured in your mind….
You could open your mind up to listening to what actual atheists say.

I (an atheist in real life) would tell you to first clarify your meaning as explained above.

I would also explain your problematic terminology with “good religion” and “bad religion” by pointing out that those are subjective judgements.
What one person would consider “good religion”
might be considered by others (and often is) as
“bad religion” and vice versa.

With science being only a tool (they best we’ve yet derived) to pragmatically and systematically learn about our surroundings and understand how things work, things are different.
“Good science” and “bad science” are also judgements.
However, these terms are used to describe how well the process of science was applied.
This can often objectively be determined.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have a different perspective. Good evidence leads to faith.

If you have genuinely good evidence there's no need for faith.