How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[JustWondering]

It is very easy to prove the non existence of something, the dodo bird does not exist amymore. That whole idea that non existence cannot be proven is an atheistic trap to seduce believers into proposing the existence of God is a fact, but without evidence for the fact. The existence of God is a matter of opinion same as beauty is a matter of opinion.

And evolutionists who don't understand the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact are social darwinists. Watch out! The most evil group of pseudoscientists there ever was.

The problem with your argument is that there is undeniable physical proof that dodo's did exist.

Dodo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is your undeniable physical proof that a god, let alone your god exists. I will not except unsubstantiated claims such as "the universe exists because my god made it" as proof.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Faith is when you trust in something or someone without reservations of the consequences or benefits. Faith is letting someone trust you to fall into your arms and you trusting them so you fall into theirs. Faith helps you love your friend much more because you don't see just the outside of him/her but the inside that he/she doesn't have to show but you know its there. Faith let's you love your family and put your family above strangers because the bond is so strong that no one can break; only trust and faith in that bond can keep that tie. Faith is taking a blind jump with the evidence you have in hope that what you have will give you the results you want or expect.

Faith is very important in life in general; for without faith, humanity would die because we would not trust ourselves or have faith in ourselves to improve who we are in life.

Taking the above and putting it in religious terms.

Faith is when you trust God (or so have you) without wanting anything in return. It is trusting God to provide for you and you trusting yourself to follow Him.
Faith helps you love other people as you want them to love you. Faith keeps the bond between you and your family and religious family as well. It is "also" the hope for things without seeing it; taking a leap which we do daily to strengthen our lives given we don't know what will happen next.

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

 

[oldbadger]

The original question I asked you was if you believed that faith based beliefs were worth dying for was reasonable? Apparently your answer to that question is yes.

There goes your prejudice again! Because I show you beyond any doubt that more folks die each year because of transfusions than JWs refusing them, you manage to conjure my opinion about faiths from that? You'll be telling me that I'm a JW soon! See? Prejudiced.

For me, denying medical treatment because an invisible sky daddy says modern medicine is evil seems like a ignorant, delusional and dangerous mindset.

............ How funny...... the above writ large by a US citizen, in a land which has denied medical treatment to millions of folks over the years! Yet you pick on one tenet out of one religion and wave it high, as if it could win your case. Funny!

 

[Augustus]

things that are irrational are irrational regardless of how many people believe in the irrational thing.

I think you are using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of rationality.

It would be highly irrational for someone to stop believing in something that benefitted them and society just because it wasn't objectively true.

 

[Augustus]

The idea that people are just going to be stupid, therefore we ought to accept and embrace their stupidity is really a pretty stupid idea, you know?

It is more stupid to think that a belief system that has existed for thousands of years provides no positive personal and societal benefits.

The premise that it is 'stupid' to be religious, relies on the fact that it is beneficial for society for everyone to become non-religious.

I'm unsure about how you can make such an argument without taking a leap of faith at least as big as those you dismiss as being 'stupid'.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The problem with your argument is that there is undeniable physical proof that dodo's did exist.

Dodo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is your undeniable physical proof that a god, let alone your god exists. I will not except unsubstantiated claims such as "the universe exists because my god made it" as proof.

The existence of God is a matter of opinion. With opinions you reach the conclusion by choosing it, as different from facts where you reach the conclusion by evidence forcing to a model of the thing which is evidenced.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

f youknowGod,you have to keep inmindhis
Looking at the teachings
Whichever iscloser tothequalities
It is close to your heart and your mind
Yes, in manymomentsof vulnerabilityaway fromGod
But when I return to my cool
I do not findanywhere else
I always look for call and presence
Whenlooking atbeauty
I saywith myself
God is beautiful and loves beauty
Wheninsearchof peace
I tellmyselfthat God is love
When
It hurts
SearchSaver
Therefore, I feel that I am close to God
SoI sayto him,father
YesNo matter howstrongthe human
There aremoments ofweaknessare haunted
And where looking for a justification for the existence
But the answer will remain fully
Inthe message of Christ
God is love
God so loved the world
Godlovesthe world
Excuse meformy words
Thisis what I offeryou

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

With respect to dodos: it is within the realm of possibility, unlikely but possible, that dodos still exist on a remote unexplored Pacific Island. I do not expect that the do, but I can not prove that they don't. Similarly it is not outside the realm of possibility that a dodo could have been cloned using existing tissue, again, unlikely, but again, not outside the realm of possibility, As a third option it is possible that there are dodos in the rare bird collection of some eccentric one-percenter and he keeps it quiet so that he may enjoy them in private, also not likely but ...

So, for anyone to say unequivocally, that there are no dodos, that there is no possibility of dodos, is, at best, ignorant and at worst reckless.

It is complete nonsense, it is routinely required to establish the non-existence of things as fact.

It is a phony argumentation designed to undermine faith, by seducing people to propose the existence of God is an issue of fact. They lie that belief in God is safe because supposedly non-existence can never be evidenced. But then ofcourse in practice it turns out the non-existence of things can and is routinely established as fact.

 

[McBell]

I think you are using a very narrow (and incorrect) definition of rationality.

It would be highly irrational for someone to stop believing in something that benefitted them and society just because it wasn't objectively true.

Being beneficial or not has nothing to do with being rational or not.

 

[Cephus]

It is more stupid to think that a belief system that has existed for thousands of years provides no positive personal and societal benefits.

The premise that it is 'stupid' to be religious, relies on the fact that it is beneficial for society for everyone to become non-religious.

I'm unsure about how you can make such an argument without taking a leap of faith at least as big as those you dismiss as being 'stupid'.

Which is entirely irrelevant. You can make the same claims about racism and sexism and all manner of other xenophobic beliefs, they clearly have provided a positive personal and societal benefit or they wouldn't have lasted so long, yet we don't accept that these are sufficient reason to keep them around today. Just because the belief makes someone feel good doesn't make the belief true. If all you're going to argue is utility, that religious beliefs are good because they are useful, then you really cannot argue against racism on the same basis.

 

[JustWondering]

There goes your prejudice again! Because I show you beyond any doubt that more folks die each year because of transfusions than JWs refusing them, you manage to conjure my opinion about faiths from that? You'll be telling me that I'm a JW soon! See? Prejudiced.

I derived your opinion from your response. I posited that some faith based beliefs are obviously harmful, thus irrational and used the JW's belief in refusing blood transfusions as an example. Your response was to rush to the JW's misplaced faith's defense. What else am I to think then that you consider JW's refusing blood transfusions is a rational faith based practice? Also, I noticed something interesting when I looked at your link to a respectable source of information on blood transfusions that stated there were 76 cases in the US in fiscal year 2012 were blood transfusions were responsible for fatalities. You failed to mention how at the beginning of the page you referenced it is stated that in 2009 there were 66 fatalities out of 24 Million blood transfusions. So in 2009 there was a horrifying .000275% chance of dying from a blood transfusion. The fact of the matter is the chances of dying because of a blood transfusion are extremely low. The point I made was that the woman did not have to die. She was less likely to die from a blood transfusion than she was likely to get into a fatal car accident on the way to the hospital in the first place.

............ How funny...... the above writ large by a US citizen, in a land which has denied medical treatment to millions of folks over the years! Yet you pick on one tenet out of one religion and wave it high, as if it could win your case. Funny!

So to you a difference of opinion and wanting to discuss it on a debate forum equates to picking on someone/something? If you don't feel up to debating about this subject or with me I'd prefer if you would simply not respond as opposed to picking on someone's country in a desperate attempt to change the topic, thanks.

 

[George-ananda]

I think 'faith' can be justified. For example. I take what a chemistry textbook tells me by faith (I don't do all the proving experiments myself). Now with spiritual teachings I follow the teachers I believe have reached the highest level of understanding (after objective study and consideration of course). Until I experience the teachings through experience I can only call the teachings a hypothesis. But to test the hypothesis one has to engage in spiritual practice with faith in the teachings. You might finally conclude the teachings are bunk or you might experience the truth. You can't sit on a boat and know that there are/aren't pearls below; you have to dive in to explore.

 

[Cephus]

I think 'faith' can be justified. For example. I take what a chemistry textbook tells me by faith (I don't do all the proving experiments myself). Now with spiritual teachings I follow the teachers I believe have reached the highest level of understanding (after objective study and consideration of course). Until I experience the teachings through experience I can only call the teachings a hypothesis. But to test the hypothesis one has to engage in spiritual practice with faith in the teachings. You might finally conclude the teachings are bunk or you might experience the truth. You can't sit on a boat and know that there are/aren't pearls below; you have to dive in to explore.

But the point is, you could do all of that yourself, indeed many others have done all the work themselves, it is entirely possible to perform each and every one of those experiments and confirm the findings. However, with religious faith, there are no experiments. You can't prove the claims to be so. You just have to trust things blindly because it is absolutely impossible to test any of the claims that are made.

Two entirely different things. One is blind faith, the other is well-founded trust that can be verified.

 

[JustWondering]

I think 'faith' can be justified. For example. I take what a chemistry textbook tells me by faith (I don't do all the proving experiments myself). Now with spiritual teachings I follow the teachers I believe have reached the highest level of understanding (after objective study and consideration of course). Until I experience the teachings through experience I can only call the teachings a hypothesis. But to test the hypothesis one has to engage in spiritual practice with faith in the teachings. You might finally conclude the teachings are bunk or you might experience the truth. You can't sit on a boat and know that there are/aren't pearls below; you have to dive in to explore.

I don't think many question their beliefs though. I think most people are indoctrinated to a supernatural belief system at a young age and basically go with the flow after that.

 

[AllanV]

I don't think many question their beliefs though. I think most people are indoctrinated to a supernatural belief system at a young age and basically go with the flow after that.

I far as I understand faith has evidence and that carries a person forward and into a deepening experience of purity and holiness. Or it should, most Christians seem stuck and I think it is because many church leaders are more into psychology. They are more interested in getting people to react and act the way they want.

 

[JustWondering]

I far as I understand faith has evidence and that carries a person forward and into a deepening experience of purity and holiness. Or it should, most Christians seem stuck and I think it is because many church leaders are more into psychology. They are more interested in getting people to react and act the way they want.

I disagree, faith in a supernatural belief system does not require evidence (or what I would consider evidence anyway). If faith in supernatural belief systems required actual evidence, different faiths could be actually tested and scrutinized to discern the correct belief system. I don't see that happening. I don't foresee it happening.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think many question their beliefs though. I think most people are indoctrinated to a supernatural belief system at a young age and basically go with the flow after that.

I think that is no longer true in the modern western world. In fact I know practically no one who is just an unquestioning believer of the faith they were born into. Everybody prides themselves on thinking for themselves in the age of education and information..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

faith acknowledges personal belief, something we all have.
Blind faith is when our faith doesn't recognize itself

 

[idea]

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

We have faith in our bank, faith in our home, in our friends and family... the opposite of faith is fear, mistrust, disbelief... imagine a life where you did not trust anything or anyone.

 

[George-ananda]

But the point is, you could do all of that yourself, indeed many others have done all the work themselves, it is entirely possible to perform each and every one of those experiments and confirm the findings. However, with religious faith, there are no experiments. You can't prove the claims to be so. You just have to trust things blindly because it is absolutely impossible to test any of the claims that are made.

Two entirely different things. One is blind faith, the other is well-founded trust that can be verified.

It's not 'blind' faith. There is a spectrum between 'blind faith' and 'proof'. In a subject where the word 'proof' in the mathematical/scientific sense doesn't exist, one must take all the evidence and argumentation and determine their most objectively reasonable position.