Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[Left Coast]

If compassion is buddha, so is love.

A "love"ly sentiment , but one that need not be theistic.

 

[ppp]

If compassion is buddha, so is love.

I can and do feel compassion without feeling love. Though rarely the other way around.

 

[MonkeyFire]

A "love"ly sentiment , but one that need not be theistic.

It depends what is true about nature.

 

[Left Coast]

It depends what is true about nature.

Again, take it to another thread.

 

[Milton Platt]

Correct, but truth has a limit. There is no single universal theory/methodology of truth that applies to everything. Neither in science, philosophy nor religion. In practice we end with a combination of regularity, which also allows for limited cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.

You are playing philosophy and so am I. I just know that and is honest about it. There is no as with conditional knowledge absolute singular truth. In principle there is, but that belongs to a theoretical being we call "God". So you can have absolute singular truth, if you are God, but you are not that, right? Nor am I and I don't claim the truth of God. Do you?

All truth (factual information) must be conditional to some degree. Nobody looks for absolute truth (truth with a capital"T", if you will). But truth which rests upon the scientific method has shown to be by far the most reliable pathway to truth. Confidence in the truthfulness of any proposition is dependent upon the quantity and quality of the evidence underlying it. God claims have a serious lack of both quality and quantity.

 

[nPeace]

You just said the answer to my main question (is faith itself evidence?) for the thread is No. So if your answer is actually yes, then color me confused.

Was your main question "Is faith itself evidence?" Or was it "Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?"
Well color me confused. Which is it?

What I understood you to say is that you take Hebrews 11:1 to mean that having faith implies that you have evidence that produced that faith. So your answer to my main question was No. Correct?

Incorrect.
Clearly what you understand implies you didn't understand what I was saying.

I already had a rather long back-and-forth with Ken in this thread about what constitutes good evidence for something, etc., so I would ask that you go back and reread our dialogue in this thread before replying any further (as well as the shorter dialogue Deeje and I had). I'd really rather not retread the same ground that's already been tread. If you have a new point to make, that hasn't been discussed here, go ahead (as long as it's relevant, obviously).

Did someone mention the point I made? No? Then it's new.

There is no need to go back and forth. If you think I am confusing you, just don't worry about it. I understand.
The way we use expressions in sentences can get quite complicated, and it can get even more complicated when we are not speaking the same "language" (I don't mean tongue).

Here is an example...
a) Evidence is faith.
b) Faith is evidence.
Are they the same... a=b?

c) Jane is black.
d) Black is Jane.
Things are not quite as simple, are they.
We should try to understand what is being said. That's important, imo.

If you care to, you can read my post again... carefully... if you did.
It's up to you.
Without a detailed explanation, and with the correct application, the answer will still be Yes.
A wrong application - e.g. having faith in something, is evidence that that something is true - produces the answer, Emphatically No.

 

[Left Coast]

Was your main question "Is faith itself evidence?" Or was it "Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?"
Well color me confused. Which is it?

My main question, as I explained in my OP, is whether faith itself is evidence of what is believed.

Incorrect.
Clearly what you understand implies you didn't understand what I was saying.

There is no need to go back and forth. If you think I am confusing you, just don't worry about it. I understand.

You're coming across pretty condescending, so I'm just gonna call the dialogue off here rather than feed into it. I don't think a conversation between us will be constructive right now. So let's not.

 

[nPeace]

"Prove," knowledge," "evidence," "faith" -- We're all using these and others in different senses, with different meanings, even after the problem is pointed out. We're talking past each other and then wondering how our interlocutors could be so obtuse.

To wit: "Theory" of evolution. There's a colloquial usage, then there's the technical, scientific usage. Creationists are always creating straw men by assuming the colloquial usage -- implying speculation or guesswork -- for the technical usage.
I'm sure you've seen this one a hundred times right here on RF.

Okay. I agree.
That's not an explanation though, on how there is a different usage of the word faith, at Hebrews 11:1, and having confidence in a hurricane or bomb shelter.
If we explain ourselves, we have a better chance of avoiding talking past each other.
Can you explain?

 

[nPeace]

My main question, as I explained in my OP, is whether faith itself is evidence of what is believed.

What? .... I mean, pardon me?
evidence of what is believed???
I think it would be good to stick with what you asked. Evidence of what is believed is not what you asked. It may be what you are thinking, but puts a completely different spin on the question, because, now you are asking if faith is evidence for someone's view. Definitely No, and that's different to what Hebrews 11:1 says.
Wrong application... again.

You're coming across pretty condescending, so I'm just gonna call the dialogue off here rather than feed into it. I don't think a conversation between us will be constructive right now. So let's not.

I am? How so?
Above, I am a bit strong on words.
I don't think I am condescending, but I understand.
Goodbye. Have a great day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Religion:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

Stop relying on short dictionary definitions unless you have checked that they actually match what is going on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All truth (factual information) must be conditional to some degree. Nobody looks for absolute truth (truth with a capital"T", if you will). But truth which rests upon the scientific method has shown to be by far the most reliable pathway to truth. Confidence in the truthfulness of any proposition is dependent upon the quantity and quality of the evidence underlying it. God claims have a serious lack of both quality and quantity.

Yeah, in effect you use these assumptions:

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
• We can know nature. ...
• All phenomena have natural causes. ...
• Nothing is self evident. ...
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

And you overlook this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So in practice your truth is limited and I can in fact "get away" with being religious, because within your framework of knowledge, it is true that religion is a human behavior and as natural as e.g. gravity. Now you are up a creek without a paddle, if you claim with knowledge/truth, that religion is wrong.
We end in morality/useful and all that jazz and I accept that religion is not useful to you, but I haven't seen any evidence that religion can't be useful to some humans.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Religion:


Stop relying on short dictionary definitions unless you have checked that they actually match what is going on.

Imo there are three points to religion, to protect Gods existence, hope its self, and to know that God exist withouth, but not away from science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Imo there are three points to religion, to protect Gods existence, hope its self, and to know that God exist withouth, but not away from science.

And in my opinion religion has nothing to do with God as such.

 

[Valjean]

Okay. I agree.
That's not an explanation though, on how there is a different usage of the word faith, at Hebrews 11:1, and having confidence in a hurricane or bomb shelter.
If we explain ourselves, we have a better chance of avoiding talking past each other.
Can you explain?

I'm not clear on what you want explained. Clarify?

Hebrews 11:1 is, frankly, inscrutable. It's not a definition and it's not a clear description. It is not clearly written; it's poetic gobbledygook.

"Faith" has a broad range of meaning. It's used to mean or imply: belief, hope, trust, credulity, confidence, duty, allegiance, loyalty, sincerity, &al. This can get very confusing in a serious discussion, when understanding exactly what others mean is important.

In religious discussions I usually use it in the sense of poorly supported credulity, as opposed to knowledge.
Medieval Christians and some Muslims us it in the sense of allegiance or duty, often an obligatory, tribal allegiance, whose violation is the (thought-)crime of heresy or shirk.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not clear on what you want explained. Clarify?

Hebrews 11:1 is, frankly, inscrutable. It's not a definition and it's not a clear description. It is not clearly written; it's poetic gobbledygook.

Appreciate you sharing how you feel about it. Billions feel the same way you do, and billions don't agree with the way you feel about it. Doesn't mean you are right about it, you would agree.

"Faith" has a broad range of meaning. It's used to mean or imply: belief, hope, trust, credulity, confidence, duty, allegiance, loyalty, sincerity, &al. This can get very confusing in a serious discussion, when understanding exactly what others mean is important.

Yes. I agree it can get confusing, but that's no different to any conversation. We have seen how a simple word like it can be misunderstood, or misapplied in conversation. This is a human problem, and in my experience, it usually is due to the most flawed aspect of humans - a sense of feeling that we know, and hence others must agree with us.

In religious discussions I usually use it in the sense of poorly supported credulity, as opposed to knowledge.
Medieval Christians and some Muslims us it in the sense of allegiance or duty, often an obligatory, tribal allegiance, whose violation is the (thought-)crime of heresy or shirk.

Sounds like a common situation of people presenting their ideas.
I believe it is possible to come to a conclusion peacefully, by reasoning, and not feeling hurt because what we thought was a good argument has been "shot down", and shown to be flawed.

I think if one is willing to throw mud, while thinking it's granite, they should be prepared for the possibility of getting hit when the mud splatters.
That's why I make sure I don't launch anything until I make doubly sure it's granite.

So would you like to retract your earlier claim, since you evidently cannot support it?
Stating that you feel X way about S, is not an explanation, you know.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yeah, in effect you use these assumptions:

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
• We can know nature. ...
• All phenomena have natural causes. ...
• Nothing is self evident. ...
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

And you overlook this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So in practice your truth is limited and I can in fact "get away" with being religious, because within your framework of knowledge, it is true that religion is a human behavior and as natural as e.g. gravity. Now you are up a creek without a paddle, if you claim with knowledge/truth, that religion is wrong.
We end in morality/useful and all that jazz and I accept that religion is not useful to you, but I haven't seen any evidence that religion can't be useful to some humans.

We cannot go through life without assumptions....in virtually any endeavor.
The laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Yes, all phenomenon have natural causes so far as we can ascertain
Nothing is self evident.....maybe?
Knowledge is derived from experience.....or other's experience.
Knowledge is at least more desirable than ignorance, but I'm good with superior
Science has limits....as virtually everything in the universe
Religion is a human behavior.....that does not speak to the truthfulness of the religion.
I never stated that religion is "wrong". Only that it has not met it's burden of proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Religion is a human behavior.....that does not speak to the truthfulness of the religion.
I never stated that religion is "wrong". Only that it has not met it's burden of proof.

Neither has any claim as to what the world objectively is. That is not unique to religion. It also applies to science and philosophy.
I can't prove God and you can't prove whatever you believe the world is, if you have such a belief.

So science is a human behavior ... that does not speak to the truthfulness of science.
I never stated that science is "wrong". Only that it has not met it's burden of proof.
It works for both.

 

[Willamena]

Definition? How it it a definition?

It is definition in how it agrees with modern dictionaries. It is adequate description as well.

 

[ppp]

It is definition in how it agrees with modern dictionaries. It is adequate description as well.

It is adequate in that it describe what they mean when they say 'faith'. But what they describe as faith is inadequate as evidence.

 

[Valjean]

It is definition in how it agrees with modern dictionaries. It is adequate description as well.

I'm not seeing an agreement, here.
Jesus Christ is a personage. He's not a feature unique to the thing being defined.
A little green man with no knowledge of Earth would assume "Jesus Christ" was a synonym or alternate word for "Faith. "