Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence

[zenzero]

Friend yochai,

Thanks for that story!
sorry the system did not allow another frubal to you!

Yes, faith is not a matter for arguments basically it should not be discussed with others in general as it is very very personal matter.

Love & rgds

 

[yochai50]

Depends who you discuss it with, I guess. Nothing wrong with discussing personal matters of faith as long as you don't listen to what the other persons beliefs are :-D

 

[zenzero]

Friend yochai,

The point is like this that when two people meet we try to discuss whatever is common and if faih is common it too can be discussed but where differences arise it automatically becomes a barrier. However even if people of two faith meet it will again depend on their intellectual capabilities of understanding what their faith speaks off and why. There are some who understand that whatever be the faith the final destination and the source of both are the same which is CONSCIOUSNESS!

Love & rgds

 

[darkendless]

Sure it is. But at the same time, if it were evidence for everyone, then I couldn't call it a faith. If it were evidence for the masses- it would be a fact.

I lean more towards an opinion. Evidence infers something that can be reasonably and logically demonstrated, faith cannot.

 

[Thief]

I lean more towards an opinion. Evidence infers something that can be reasonably and logically demonstrated, faith cannot.

Over the line there, fella.

Lack of evidence does not include, lack of reason or logic.
Back up to post #34, and try again.

 

[darkendless]

Over the line there, fella.

Lack of evidence does not include, lack of reason or logic.
Back up to post #34, and try again.

How can you support something you claim without reason and logic?

What evidence do I have for dragons? None, it lacks reason and logic which are vital components of evidence which I have none of as I cannot justify my arguement.

 

[Thief]

How can you support something you claim without reason and logic?

What evidence do I have for dragons? None, it lacks reason and logic which are vital components of evidence which I have none of as I cannot justify my arguement.

And there is the problem....you've got everything lumped in one basket.

The will be no photo...no fingerprint...no equation...no experiment.

Matters of faith are of mind and spirit.
You just have to think about it.

 

[darkendless]

And there is the problem....you've got everything lumped in one basket.

The will be no photo...no fingerprint...no equation...no experiment.

Matters of faith are of mind and spirit.
You just have to think about it.

So by your logic my "belief" in dragons is as valid as your belief in God?

 

[antonjarrod]

Being in a position of faith with regard to something, as being in a position of knowledge, is in my view highly complex on many different levels. Certainly, a casual or cursory attention to it or the issues cannot hope to bring any clarity.

There is what might be called a "reasonable faith" and by contrast an unreasonable faith. A faith that is based on evidence, as other things, may be reasonable as it may be unreasonable. It depends. It is perhaps useful to think of the judging of evidence in criminal proceedings: what is reasonable to believe based on the evidence? The same evidence can lead to reasonable beliefs of different forms.

Indeed, complex.

Anton

 

[darkendless]

Being in a position of faith with regard to something, as being in a position of knowledge, is in my view highly complex on many different levels. Certainly, a casual or cursory attention to it or the issues cannot hope to bring any clarity.

There is what might be called a "reasonable faith" and by contrast an unreasonable faith. A faith that is based on evidence, as other things, may be reasonable as it may be unreasonable. It depends. It is perhaps useful to think of the judging of evidence in criminal proceedings: what is reasonable to believe based on the evidence? The same evidence can lead to reasonable beliefs of different forms.

Indeed, complex.

Anton

But is faith not a belief in abscence of evidence?

 

[antonjarrod]

Greetings,

In my view, faith is not determined by the absence or presence of evidence, although it can be based on evidence or not based on evidence. Faith (though it is complex and cannot be summarized as crudely as I am doing here!) is rather a position, a stance, a relation between the subject and the object i.e. the one believing and the thing they are believing in (or not). But I suppose people think about it differently and that's OK. What is important is what you think about it, and whether you are being reasonable.

Anton

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof. -- Khalil Gibran

To me, this sounds like a poetic way of stating the view that Christine objected to in the OP. Is that your intent?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And there is the problem....you've got everything lumped in one basket.

The will be no photo...no fingerprint...no equation...no experiment.

Therefore, no reason to logically conclude that it is true.

Matters of faith are of mind and spirit.
You just have to think about it.

In that case, how do you separate beliefs that are true from those that are false? If you have two people who hold two opposing beliefs and both of them base their beliefs entirely on faith, how do you go about deducing which set of beliefs more accurately reflects reality?

 

[McBell]

Therefore, no reason to logically conclude that it is true.


In that case, how do you separate beliefs that are true from those that are false? If you have two people who hold two opposing beliefs and both of them base their beliefs entirely on faith, how do you go about deducing which set of beliefs more accurately reflects reality?

What does reality have to do with it?

Seems to me that both are not concerned with reality if they believe that faith is just as valid as logic, reason, and truth.

 

[Random]

The ancient Greek word for faith was Pistis, which in classical rhetoric meant proof, argument, evidence, logic, belief, and a state of mind in an abstract context. The related word Doxa meant the domain of opinion, belief, or probable knowledge--in contrast to episteme, the domain of certainty or true knowledge. This is how all the early theistic thinkers defined faith; and how it should properly be understood today as well, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

I think you're misunderstanding the terminology. Maybe I should've picked a less obscure analogy.

Let me try explaining it directly: if you hold beliefs about the world, they might be correct or incorrect. If you think about how your beliefs can be tested, or what your beliefs imply and how those implications can be tested, then you're able to do the tests that can help tell you just how correct your beliefs are.

OTOH, if you never test your beliefs, you really have no idea whether they're correct or not.

If you care about whether your beliefs are correct, then you need to seek out verification of them.

Nothing prevents religious folks from constantly testing their beliefs as best they are able. I think it is obvious they seek out verification, again as best they are able.

So if I verify something why should a care if you, or another individual hasn't? Maybe they aren't capable of verifying it.

I think you're missing my point.

If there really is a god out there causing people's religious experiences, then I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the only thing that this god is doing is causing religious experiences.

Ok, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

As another analogy, someone might claim that they broke their leg when they were hit by a car, but breaking legs isn't the only thing that cars do. They also leave tire tracks, for instance. Even if we had hundreds of people claiming broken legs caused by being hit by a car, if we couldn't find tire tracks anywhere, something wouldn't be adding up, because if enough cars are out there to cause all those broken legs, then we'd expect to find tire tracks all over the place, too.

Do you understand what I'm saying? A god running around giving people religious experiences almost certainly wouldn't ONLY be running around giving people religious experiences.

A lot of things, right or wrong, have been attributed to God. What exactly are you expecting?

 

[Thief]

Therefore, no reason to logically conclude that it is true.

You mean to say ...'no evidence'....
and then your rebuttal would bear weight.

In that case, how do you separate beliefs that are true from those that are false? If you have two people who hold two opposing beliefs and both of them base their beliefs entirely on faith, how do you go about deducing which set of beliefs more accurately reflects reality?

Logic can be performed as a cognitive.
Of course it can.

If I tell you a story and you understand it....
what physical item would you need to change your behavior?

If I tell you a story that makes sense....why then say...'nay'?

 

[Nakosis]

Logic can be performed as a cognitive.
Of course it can.

If I tell you a story and you understand it....
what physical item would you need to change your behavior?

Unfortunately none. kind of the problem with humans. You tell a good story people believe it without evidence. Something with the nature of being human. We tend to trust when we have no good reason to.

If I tell you a story that makes sense....why then say...'nay'?

They try to teach things like critical thinking. It doesn't take very well. It's difficult to change a nature that has been developed over thousands of years.

However if people do, for whatever reason, start resting some of these stories and find insufficient reason to accept the truth of them enough times they start to become skeptical of all of them. Such a skeptic needs more then a good story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing prevents religious folks from constantly testing their beliefs as best they are able. I think it is obvious they seek out verification, again as best they are able.

So if I verify something why should a care if you, or another individual hasn't? Maybe they aren't capable of verifying it.

Is this a reasonable supposition in the case of a god, though?

Okay - a person's individual religious experience might not be verifiable by anyone else, but why would the existence of a god not be verifiable by other means? If we're talking about the intelligent creator of the universe who is causing everything to unfold according to his divine plan, then his fingerprints should be all over the place.

Ok, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

Really? I thought you were saying otherwise.

A lot of things, right or wrong, have been attributed to God. What exactly are you expecting?

Depends on the god in question.

The first step in answering that question probably depends on how the person hypothesizing a god answers questions "what do you mean by 'god'?" and "how do you know it's a god?"

And by that second one, I mean something more than "I had a religious experience." Presumably, if we're allowing the possibility that gods exist, then we have to allow for other possibilities as well... for instance, that there might exist non-god things that could appear to a person, elicit a religious/mystical experience and say "Hi! I'm God!" but be lying. The person hypothesizing that their god exists is also implicitly claiming that their god can be (and has been) distinguished from such a non-god thing.

 

[ChristineES]

So by your logic my "belief" in dragons is as valid as your belief in God?

I can't speak for thief, but I will give an answer as well. The way I see it as that since I believe God to be spirit, then my evidence would be spiritual. As I inferred before, it isn't scientific evidence, and it isn't physical evidence. Since dragons would be a physical thing, then you would have to have physical evidence.