Faith - Fact

[blü 2]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it. So why the war, why do the sons and daughters of faith and the sons and daughters of fact fight with each other, they're so intricately intertwined, is it because some one has to be on top?

Fair question.

It's simply that rational enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset, works by arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, and so can be shown to more correct or less correct in an objective manner. It's the quality of falsifiability that encourages faith in it.

That faith isn't a blind faith, but a reasoned one.

Contrast religion. In a room full of learned representatives from, say, fifty large Christian denominations, or FitzGerald's 'two-and-seventy jarring sects' of Islam (in his Omar Khayyám), not only is there no objective way to tell whether any of them makes correct supernatural claims, and if so, which, but there isn't even a definition of 'god' or 'supernatural' / 'spiritual' / 'immaterial' that's useful to reasoned enquiry. None of them can be shown to be 'true' ie to accurately reflect objective reality.

 

[bobhikes]

Therein the "equivocation fallacy". Many (maybe even most) words in the English language vary in "image" based upon context.

"Faith", for example, that:

• My car will start
• The airplane will fly
• My spouse will remain faithful
• etc

are based upon inductive and eductive reasoning; noticing past patterns; having knowledge about how things work.

Faith that:

• Jesus Saves
• I'm going to Nirvana when I ascend
• My Father's spirit is haunting our house
• 70 virgins await me in the afterlife

... within these contexts, "faith" takes on an entirely different meaning and are not equal, no matter how much you want them to be.



While willful dishonesty and self-delusion is not necessarily "having faith", these tools are often used to defend a "faith" once the facts counter them.

• Not the same kind of "faith" that you imply; this is not needed for "fact".
• "Faith", in the same context that you assert, is not needed for me to surmise that you know "ladder, ground" and "fall". This is observable through your communication that it seems very apparent that you understand the English language; thus understanding the English language and having a modicum of intelligence, it required only deductive/inductive reasoning that you would know these words. No mystical "faith" required.
• I may not "know" how you will fall, or if you will be coincidentally saved from your fall from the ladder by your suspenders getting caught. But I do "know" that your fall will follow the laws of physics.
• It was a "fact" before your sister fell that she would be pulled towards the greater mass. It was a "fact" before she fell that wood is stronger than bone, thus striking the table, the weaker will give way.Your example fails miserably.
• No "faith" is required to accept demonstrable, repeatable, observable facts. I've never seen anything fall "up".I do not need "faith" to know which direction a thing will travel when it looses support or balance. Asserting that I somehow do is absurd.

I guess you never been in wind tunnel, tornado, or outer space or understand properties like vacuum, heat or magnetism that could easily make things oppose gravity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it. So why the war, why do the sons and daughters of faith and the sons and daughters of fact fight with each other, they're so intricately intertwined, is it because some one has to be on top?

And it seems to me that faith is very often the absolute denier of fact. And human history has quite literally millions of examples.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it. So why the war, why do the sons and daughters of faith and the sons and daughters of fact fight with each other, they're so intricately intertwined, is it because some one has to be on top?

Fact is based on actual, tangible, verifiable evidence. You can argue that there is some faith involved, but at least verifiable evidence is there.
With faith, there is no verifiable evidence.

 

[Tmac]

Fact is based on actual, tangible, verifiable evidence. You can argue that there is some faith involved, but at least verifiable evidence is there.
With faith, there is no verifiable evidence.

I hope some day you will be able to see the limitations of your thinking, "some faith", what 5%? Please.

 

[leibowde84]

I hope some day you will be able to see the limitations of your thinking, "some faith", what 5%? Please.

Absolute certainty is nothing more than an illusion. So, as you stated, faith is an aspect of every endeavor. But, the required amount of faith is decreased with the availability of verifiable evidence.

Our own experience, sight, hearing, vision, etc. is flawed. Trusting them without outside verification often leads us further away from the truth. That is why verifiable evidence is so important. It can show us where our own experience is flawed with actual, trustworthy data.

With religious faith, it is often based on absolutely no verifiable evidence. People claim that it shouldn't matter because physical evidence of a metaphysical truth should not be expected. But, without verifiable evidence, you are going primarily and, sometimes completely, on faith alone.

 

[Mohsen]

The speaker in this video raises some interesting points which I think the OP was alluding to-

Thought Revolution: I think you already know God

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it. So why the war, why do the sons and daughters of faith and the sons and daughters of fact fight with each other, they're so intricately intertwined, is it because some one has to be on top?

This really needs a lot of context and, if at all possible, some examples before it gives a clear message.

 

[Tmac]

Absolute certainty is nothing more than an illusion. So, as you stated, faith is an aspect of every endeavor. But, the required amount of faith is decreased with the availability of verifiable evidence.

Our own experience, sight, hearing, vision, etc. is flawed. Trusting them without outside verification often leads us further away from the truth. That is why verifiable evidence is so important. It can show us where our own experience is flawed with actual, trustworthy data.

With religious faith, it is often based on absolutely no verifiable evidence. People claim that it shouldn't matter because physical evidence of a metaphysical truth should not be expected. But, without verifiable evidence, you are going primarily and, sometimes completely, on faith alone.

So what I hear you guys saying is that you need faith to find the first fact and once its a fact you don't need faith anymore because it now a fact, you act as if it never existed; may I remind you that to find the next fact faith is again the required building block.

 

[leibowde84]

So what I hear you guys saying is that you need faith to find the first fact and once its a fact you don't need faith anymore because it now a fact, you act as if it never existed; may I remind you that to find the next fact faith is again the required building block.

A "fact" is something that is indisputably the case. So, verifiable evidence must be necessary to convince someone that something is a fact, right?

 

[InChrist]

I think faith is empty, worthless. and may even be dangerous unless it is based upon some kind of factual information, reason, or reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it's willful ignorance based, because you will have ignored the facts of reality as they are available to you. That's not faith. That's just willful ignorance. I know a lot of people and religions call this kind of willful ignorance of the facts of reality, "faith", but it's not faith, it's just willful ignorance masquerading as faith. And it's dishonest.

Ignoring the facts of reality in the defense of a belief is an excellent example of faith. It's what faith based confirmation biases do.

Yeah, that's your bias: you slander faith by misrepresenting it as willful ignorance. That's dishonest, too.

Having faith (unjustified belief) is a poor idea. It is not a virtue and not a path to truth. It's a logical error.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I guess you never been in wind tunnel, tornado, or outer space or understand properties like vacuum, heat or magnetism that could easily make things oppose gravity.

This is a very poor appeal to win the debate. When the sister in question fell, she was not in a wind tunnel or outer space, nor was she in a tornado, and nor was she in a vacuum.

This is a pathetic attempt to try to cast doubt on indisputable facts; and it is quite empty and hollow.

I guess that you don't understand that the wind tunnel, tornado, outer space, vacuums, heat or magnetism does not cause bodies to "oppose" the law of gravity. Gravity is still at work in the case of the tunnel or tornado (Lift, Weight, Drag, Thrust; please understand the principles of flight; a falling human body simply can not generate enough lift to sustain flight); outer space certainly does not cause opposition to the law of gravity (if that were so, we wouldn't be orbiting the sun, we'd all be living on rogue planets drifting aimlessly through outer space while hoping we don't crash into a drifting star; moreover "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" thus the body will follow a predictable path until it encounters a force with sufficient power to alter its course); vacuums and magnetism introduce two opposing forces wherein the one of the two that has the most influence on the body in question will temporarily prevail; but after that temporary "defiance" (as you call it), mass will still attract mass.

As I stated:

I may not "know" how you will fall, or if you will be coincidentally saved from your fall from the ladder by your suspenders getting caught. But I do "know" that your fall will follow the laws of physics.

No "faith" required.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I hope some day you will be able to see the limitations of your thinking, "some faith", what 5%? Please.

In 1600, concerning Giordano Bruno, and again in 1633 re Galileo, the entire Catholic Church believed with perfect faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe and did not move. In Bruno's case, not only were they willing to back up their faith with drastic action -- they did, and burned him at the stake. In Galileo's case, they were so sure of their faith that they showed him the instruments of torture (this was considered "education" at the time) and got a retraction, so only condemned him to life under house arrest.

Of course, their "faith" was completely wrong, but what has that got to do with anything, I ask you?

 

[bobhikes]

This is a very poor appeal to win the debate. When the sister in question fell, she was not in a wind tunnel or outer space, nor was she in a tornado, and nor was she in a vacuum.

This is a pathetic attempt to try to cast doubt on indisputable facts; and it is quite empty and hollow.

I guess that you don't understand that the wind tunnel, tornado, outer space, vacuums, heat or magnetism does not cause bodies to "oppose" the law of gravity. Gravity is still at work in the case of the tunnel or tornado (Lift, Weight, Drag, Thrust; please understand the principles of flight; a falling human body simply can not generate enough lift to sustain flight); outer space certainly does not cause opposition to the law of gravity (if that were so, we wouldn't be orbiting the sun, we'd all be living on rogue planets drifting aimlessly through outer space while hoping we don't crash into a drifting star; moreover "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" thus the body will follow a predictable path until it encounters a force with sufficient power to alter its course); vacuums and magnetism introduce two opposing forces wherein the one of the two that has the most influence on the body in question will temporarily prevail; but after that temporary "defiance" (as you call it), mass will still attract mass.

As I stated:

I may not "know" how you will fall, or if you will be coincidentally saved from your fall from the ladder by your suspenders getting caught. But I do "know" that your fall will follow the laws of physics.

No "faith" required.

Let me sum up how I understand what you are saying.
Your saying,
People should not put faith in fact.

and I am saying,
People should always put faith in fact.

but there only words perhaps I understand wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It seems to me that faith is the father/mother of fact and in fact in order to trust a fact one must have faith in it.

Faulty premise is faulty.

 

[Tmac]

A "fact" is something that is indisputably the case. So, verifiable evidence must be necessary to convince someone that something is a fact, right?

Okay lets look at it this way, I'm a child in school and I get to the grade where I am told about where I live, I'm told that the earth is round, they show me pictures(pre-Photoshop, I think/hope), I can't fight with those picture so I accept the idea, again because I can't fight it. This idea is reinforced all through out my education so I don't even question it any more even though I haven't proved it to my self. I trusted my teachers, I put my faith in those facts. I didn't make them facts but I trust the system that supposedly made them into facts.

 

[PureX]

Ignoring the facts of reality in the defense of a belief is an excellent example of faith. It's what faith based confirmation biases do.

Having faith (unjustified belief) is a poor idea. It is not a virtue and not a path to truth. It's a logical error.

Bigotry is an ugly thing, whatever it's target.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay lets look at it this way, I'm a child in school and I get to the grade where I am told about where I live, I'm told that the earth is round, they show me pictures(pre-Photoshop, I think/hope), I can't fight with those picture so I accept the idea, again because I can't fight it. This idea is reinforced all through out my education so I don't even question it any more even though I haven't proved it to my self. I trusted my teachers, I put my faith in those facts. I didn't make them facts but I trust the system that supposedly made them into facts.

Can you be specific with what "facts" you are referring to? Why do you think they are indisputably the truth?

 

[Mister Silver]

Okay lets look at it this way, I'm a child in school and I get to the grade where I am told about where I live, I'm told that the earth is round, they show me pictures(pre-Photoshop, I think/hope), I can't fight with those picture so I accept the idea, again because I can't fight it. This idea is reinforced all through out my education so I don't even question it any more even though I haven't proved it to my self. I trusted my teachers, I put my faith in those facts. I didn't make them facts but I trust the system that supposedly made them into facts.

Kind of the way religious people do in relation to their religious beliefs; the way they trust the religious system that supposedly made those religious concepts into facts?