Faith Isn't Knowledge...Nor Should It Be

[waitasec]

Sounded like you asked me what exists outside of my knowledge and my faith?You got me?

i see...

 

[ChristineES]

then why are people expected to know without learning?

concerning faith

Where is that coming from? I been studying my faith since I started it, so what you said makes very little since to me. You have a set way to see faith and Christianity, and it seems to confuse when any statement goes against what you believe about Christians. Forget what you know or think you know about Christianity and then read my statements. I wasn't talking about my faith.

 

[waitasec]

Where is that coming from? I been studying my faith since I started it, so what you said makes very little since to me. You have a set way to see faith and Christianity, and it seems to confuse when any statement goes against what you believe about Christians. Forget what you know or think you know about Christianity and then read my statements.

you said learning something is different from experiencing it...
i agree, however faith isn't something that can be conveyed accurately...because it is personal...subjective....
i learn about faith but there is no way i'll be able to experience it as you do, so why treat me as if i'm supposed to know?

I wasn't talking about my faith.

really? what is this thread about

 

[Copernicus]

Survival from what? Ourselves?It seems mans knowledge can be very detrimental to the planet and environment.

That is actually a good point. If we have faith that the environment will take care of itself or that God would not let us kill ourselves, then we are less likely to change our behavior. Faith is almost always about closing your mind to critical thinking.

Faith is faith. Religion is just one place people place it.Its not like you just choose to have it. You are born with it.It is knowledge that increases fear.You can dangle a baby off of a high rise building and it would just look at you and giggle.It has to learn to fear.

You are not born with religious faith. That has to be taught. Trust in adults as sources of information does not have to be taught. Fear is also an instinct. I advise you to stay away from babies until you rethink your ideas about what frightens them.

Without faith you just assume that which is in your intellect is true. Clearly from your fist statement that isn't so.

This is the exact opposite of what I said. You should question everything, including the existence of invisible spirit beings. When we are young, we need to trust adults, because as children we depend on their knowledge for survival. Becoming an adult is learning when to be skeptical of the advice of others.

If those who placed their faith in religion did not see that which they placed their faith in manifest then they would not continue.Through experience the faith grows.

This is demonstrably false. Consider all of the failed religions that have existed throughout human history.

You can never do away with faith or indoctrinate people not to have it.Its a silly notion.Every breathe you take you rely on it to be there by faith.When faith is gone,so are you.

I am not saying that we should do away with trust or faith. I am saying that we should do away with trust or faith in extraordinary claims for which there is no reasonable evidence. The existence of a super-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the universe through supernatural powers is, to say the least, a questionable idea. Faith is the position that its existence should not be questioned.

 

[ChristineES]

really? what is this thread about

I go off on tangents sometimes. I really shouldn't, but I do it in real life, too. That is just the way I am. I have tried to change, but I always end up doing it without thinking.

 

[Looncall]

I will try to in simple terms or from a simple example.You are not your thoughts.Thoughts seek out what is right or wrong or what is correct or not correct in order to control and fix problems or in order to just maintain control. It creates a false self or an ego.
If you can quiet your thoughts then you you discover the real you and the truth.The real truth only exists in the here and now and from your beingness.It does not exist in thoughts that are from the past and concerns of the future.They are not real and don't even exist and therefore no truth can be found in them but only what we percieve to be right and wrong or correct and not correct.
Eample
Most of the time pain is just a memory that we are holding on to. It does not exist anymore but we still hold on to it in thought and so therefore we can still feel it.We hold on to the pain and try and find a solution to fix it in our thoughts.We only seek right or wrong in thoughts to find justification to release the pain.You can let it go anytime you choose.In this way all of reality is distorted by trying to seek truth in thoughts as truth is only found in "beingness"meaning the here and now.Truth is you could have let go of the pain from the very beginning without the suffering and without trying to seek right or wrong in the thoughts for justification to let it go.For many this is what faith does.

These are English words, and the grammar mostly looks ok to me, yet all this makes no sense. You really do need to define your terms.

If this is what faith does, and there are many who are faithful, we are in big trouble.

I prefer clear thinking and clear exposition.

 

[heretic]

Not at all. I'm not advocating an abandonment of reason. I'm simply saying that matters of faith should remain matters of faith and not intrude on or pretend to the realm of knowledge. Religious faith should be a separate type of thought; a different way of asking questions and searching for connections. It's by trying to prove that faith is valid that we wind up concocting bad science and worse public policy.

how can faith be separeted from knowledge , faith itself is a type of knowledge .
I can't imagine separetion between spiritual side of the man from other sides, different levels of human are extremly united in one's being .

faith is about asking questions , the issue is not with the questions but with answers and how to find answers , we have to differ between types of knowledge to determine the ways to find the answers.

Simply understanding that faith is believing something without evidence because it resonates on a spiritual level and that knowledge is a sum of provable concepts, would go a long way towards eroding the conflict between faith and reason.

if beliving is resonating on a spiritual level this doesn't mean that there's no need for evidences

If faith makes no claim to objective truth and is truly a personal experience between man and God then there is no reason for men to fight over their beliefs, or punish others for not sharing them. Faith becomes an exploration rather than a statement of certainty.

faith is really a personal experience but on mental and spiritual level .

 

[839311]

Jesus is constantly lamenting that his disciples don't fully believe or understand the scope of His power and condemns those who blatantly refuse to believe without evidence.

Why believe his claims yet disregard the claims of all the thousands (millions?) of other fantastic religious claims out there? Without evidence the claim is not credible.

Those who need evidence in order to believe don't actually have faith if they receive that evidence; they have knowledge. They've ruined the process of questioning that faith requires by demanding answers.

Knowledge is truth. Faith is not.

If we're right the answers will come; if we're wrong it won't matter. What's the rush?

You are wrong, and it does matter. It matters because believers put in a lot of time, energy and money into their religion. Stem cell research is opposed. Human rights are opposed. Condom use is discouraged in aids infested countries. There is a lot of harm that is being done because of religion.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Faith is conscious knowledge? But that makes no sense.

Only in your not-all-that-humble opinion.

Many of the rest of us have no problem whatever with this, and with a bit of study you may even come to agree.

(It's called "certitude," BTW.)

Bruce

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Why believe his claims yet disregard the claims of all the thousands (millions?) of other fantastic religious claims out there? Without evidence the claim is not credible.



Knowledge is truth. Faith is not.



You are wrong, and it does matter. It matters because believers put in a lot of time, energy and money into their religion. Stem cell research is opposed. Human rights are opposed. Condom use is discouraged in aids infested countries. There is a lot of harm that is being done because of religion.

Oh happy day. A person who deals in absolutes, makes broad sweeping and condemning statements and offers nothing to back them up. I'm sorry, how is that any different than the belief systems you oppose?

I'm a believer. I support stem cell research, condom use and equal rights for everyone, regardless or race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc.

I am walking evidence that your assessment of believers, that you clearly hold as fact, is wrong. And yet you seem to believe it utterly. And you act upon it by condemning anyone who disagrees with you as wrong.

Anecdotal evidence i.e. examples of the vocal minority of religious believers who do share the traits you just described, isn't evidence enough to make absolutist claims of the sort you just spewed.


You show remarkable faith in things for which there is no or contradictory at best, evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

Only in your not-all-that-humble opinion.

Sounds like he's just being realistic.

Many of the rest of us have no problem whatever with this, and with a bit of study you may even come to agree.

Just studying bits of anything can lead to all sorts of misconceptions.

(It's called "certitude," BTW.)

Bruce

Sounds much more like attitude.

cer·ti·tude   [sur-ti-tood, -tyood] Show IPA
noun
freedom from doubt, especially in matters of faith or opinion; certainty.

Certitude is not a synonym for knowledge.

Unfortunately, it is often a synonym for closed mindedness.

 

[Meow Mix]

Somebody, somewhere, made the statement that if they're right about their faith that answers will come to them in time -- but that if they're wrong, nothing bad will happen to them.

I forget who said this and where; but aren't you failing to consider the infinite number of possible faiths out there where something infinitely bad will in fact happen to you for choosing to believe in the "wrong" god(s)?

Doesn't this possibility insinuate a need for fact-checking, correctional processes, and otherwise rational thinking -- i.e., something more substantial than "faith" to avoid, if that's the goal?

 

[Willamena]

A wise man once said, faith is motion without attainment. I take it this way: when you take a step forward, before "forward" is attained you step in faith. When you think well of someone, before they have demonstrated their wellness, you believe with faith.

Applied to "god," which is an integral part of a worldview, a faith is the whole of how we've composed that worldview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Somebody, somewhere, made the statement that if they're right about their faith that answers will come to them in time -- but that if they're wrong, nothing bad will happen to them.

I forget who said this and where; but aren't you failing to consider the infinite number of possible faiths out there where something infinitely bad will in fact happen to you for choosing to believe in the "wrong" god(s)?

Something else occurs to me: if a person would lose absolutely nothing if their faith turns out to be wrong, then this implies that their faith had no influence on their actions at all... IOW, effectively, they're saying that their faith is utterly irrelevant for all practical purposes.

 

[Meow Mix]

Something else occurs to me: if a person would lose absolutely nothing if their faith turns out to be wrong, then this implies that their faith had no influence on their actions at all... IOW, effectively, they're saying that their faith is utterly irrelevant for all practical purposes.

I think their argument is "If I'm correct, then infinite gain. If I'm wrong, then no loss."

However, they're not considering many actual and potential losses -- such as any time, effort, and money invested into the faith-based belief; or the possibilities they're failing to consider where some other faith is actually the "correct" one and that by believing in the "wrong" faith they've offended some other actual god(s) and will therefore suffer for it (rather than having "no loss.")

They may think "If I'm right, infinite gain. If I'm wrong, no loss." But it's actually something more like, "If I'm right, infinite gain. If I'm wrong, anything between no loss and infinite loss." Sounds like very poor odds to me -- and the height of irrationality to ignore critical thought processes when such stakes are the case.

 

[Quagmire]

Somebody, somewhere, made the statement that if they're right about their faith that answers will come to them in time -- but that if they're wrong, nothing bad will happen to them.

I forget who said this and where; but aren't you failing to consider the infinite number of possible faiths out there where something infinitely bad will in fact happen to you for choosing to believe in the "wrong" god(s)?

Doesn't this possibility insinuate a need for fact-checking, correctional processes, and otherwise rational thinking -- i.e., something more substantial than "faith" to avoid, if that's the goal?

Yes, I believe it does. One of the main reasons I got into studying religion in the last 6 years or so is because at one point, in a moment of intense introspection, I realized that in spite of the fact that I had rejected my religious upbringing and developed my own theology, I still had "The devil is after you" floating around in the back of my mind somewhere.

One of the things I learned as a psyche major is that people never casually discard their beliefs: if you ever believed something, especially if it's something that you were exposed to and convinced of in your formative years, then in a very real sense some part of you still does.

What I mean is that even if as a full grown, rational adult you've considered whatever religion you'd been brought up with and decided it didn't make sense, there's still some part of you that needs to be convinced.

Basically, in my case, even though I had rejected Catholicism long ago there was still this scared inner-alter boy deep down that needed to be shown.

What that entailed was learning everything I could about Catholicism and Christianity in general, the risk of course being that I would find that there was no rational reason for rejecting it (which, I suspect, explains why a lot of people who reject or even oppose religion refuse to study it objectively).

In my case, studying as much of what as many sources had to say (including the apologists, ancient and modern) led me to be able to discredit the damnation aspect of Christianity for myself, which also allowed me to appraise and appreciate many of the other facets of the religion.

What I wound up with was a cleaner, clearer version of the personal theology I'd already developed for myself (or that life had developed for me, or with me) with the added benefit of being able to make it even more personal.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I believe it does. One of the main reasons I got into studying religion in the last 6 years or so is because at one point, in a moment of intense introspection, I realized that in spite of the fact that I had rejected my religious upbringing and developed my own theology, I still had "The devil is after you" floating around in the back of my mind somewhere.

One of the things I learned as a psyche major is that people never casually discard their beliefs: if you ever believed something, especially if it's something that you were exposed to and convinced of in your formative years, then in a very real sense some part of you still does.

What I mean is that even if as a full grown, rational adult you've considered whatever religion you'd been brought up with and decided it didn't make sense, there's still some part of you that needs to be convinced.

Basically, in my case, even though I had rejected Catholicism long ago there was still this scared inner-alter boy deep down that needed to be shown.

What that entailed was learning everything I could about Catholicism and Christianity in general, the risk of course being that I would find that there was no rational reason for rejecting it (which, I suspect, explains why a lot of people who reject or even oppose religion refuse to study it objectively).

In my case, studying as much of what as many sources had to say (including the apologists, ancient and modern) led me to be able to discredit the damnation aspect of Christianity for myself, which also allowed me to appraise and appreciate many of the other facets of the religion.

What I wound up with was a cleaner, clearer version of the personal theology I'd already developed for myself (or that life had developed for me, or with me) with the added benefit of being able to make it even more personal.

So you excercised reason and critical thought to reach a conclusion; but to this non-believer's mind the question still remains on where the belief you rationalized on came from to begin with.

For instance, I can rationalize what life on Titan would probably be like fairly well -- but it isn't convincing if I have no reason to assert there actually is life on Titan in the first place.

 

[lunamoth]

I think their argument is "If I'm correct, then infinite gain. If I'm wrong, then no loss."

However, they're not considering many actual and potential losses -- such as any time, effort, and money invested into the faith-based belief; or the possibilities they're failing to consider where some other faith is actually the "correct" one and that by believing in the "wrong" faith they've offended some other actual god(s) and will therefore suffer for it (rather than having "no loss.")

They may think "If I'm right, infinite gain. If I'm wrong, no loss." But it's actually something more like, "If I'm right, infinite gain. If I'm wrong, anything between no loss and infinite loss." Sounds like very poor odds to me -- and the height of irrationality to ignore critical thought processes when such stakes are the case.

Actually, the analysis is "if I'm right - gain, if I'm wrong - still gain." The only way to lose is if one of few flavors of religion that insists they are the only way that is right, really is.

If I'm right, I've lived my life in a manner aligned with God's will. If I'm wrong, I've lived a good life and done things that build up myself, my family, my immediate community, and my world.

 

[Quagmire]

So you excercised reason and critical thought to reach a conclusion; but to this non-believer's mind the question still remains on where the belief you rationalized on came from to begin with.

That isn't entirely accurate: I examined the religion(s) I'd been exposed to and influenced by critically and (hopefully) reasonably, but my personal beliefs are almost entirely based on experience, most of which would be anecdotal, and the rest of which would be almost impossible to explain (which is why I never present any of it over the course of any debates).

What I'm saying is my personal theology doesn't need to be rationalized. In fact, it would take some impressive rationalizations in order for me to talk myself out of any of it.

For instance, I can rationalize what life on Titan would probably be like fairly well -- but it isn't convincing if I have no reason to assert there actually is life on Titan in the first place.

But, if you had a dream where someone appeared to you claiming to be a being from Titan, and this being told you a bunch of things, it might get you thinking.

If some of what this being told you turned out to be more insightful or profound than anything you'd imagine you'd be capable of coming up with yourself, it might get you wondering.

If this being told you a couple of things you couldn't possibly know---details about people you haven't met yet, or the current circumstances involving people far away from you who you hadn't spoken to or heard anything about in a while, for instance---and those details turned out to be accurate, consistently, I think at the least you might start leaning in the direction of believing that there actually was life on Titan, and that what you'd been told about it was at least as likely as not to be accurate.

Edit: But you'd still have no reason to assert there actually is life on Titan. Not saying you wouldn't have any reason to believe it, but assert implies trying to get someone else to, and what would be the point of that?

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually, the analysis is "if I'm right - gain, if I'm wrong - still gain." The only way to lose is if one of few flavors of religion that insists they are the only way that is right, really is.

If I'm right, I've lived my life in a manner aligned with God's will. If I'm wrong, I've lived a good life and done things that build up myself, my family, my immediate community, and my world.

But belief isn't necessary for living a good life, building yourself, family, and community, etc. So why count those as benefits of belief when they're not? If anything, examining belief systems of the world have many interpretations that actually limit the amount of good that you can do (for instance, by prohibiting you from voting for marital equality between heteros and homos), etc.