Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[Deeje]

So regarding spiritual experiences - if they don't use the "regular tools" of mind and senses...how do you have the experience?

What “tools” do humans have that don’t always involve our mind and senses in the obvious ways? ‘Seeing isn’t always believing’ for most of us.

Why do we come to “accept” things because others have convinced us, and we “believe” them because of who they are? Are our minds and senses always a reliable Influence in that case. The battle between religion and science is a good example of “beliefs” that become acceptable to us because of who promotes them.

Faith in the Bible as a reliable source of information is based on the same kind of confidence that drives theoretical science.....the evidence is not always demonstrable....it is accepted because of suggestion, rather than actual ‘hands on’ proof. Much of theoretical science is “faith” based because there is no actual proof.

The current pandemic is also a good case in point. How many of the measures in controlling the spread of Clovid 19 are based on facts rather than on suggestion? What are people being “led” to believe?

*** Mod Edit ***

What are we to “believe”? How are our perceptions influenced?

Suffice it to say, based on what you said here, that you agree that faith is not evidence that the thing you have faith in is true.

Unless there is actual “proof” that something is true, we are all “believers” in some way or another. ‘What’ we believe is usually what we ‘want’ to believe. We believe what others tell us if what they promote, resonates with us. But what actually determines that on an individual basis?

From my perspective, as a Christian, I totally understand Hebrews 11:1 and wholeheartedly support its premise. My own life has been ‘faith’ based and has not ever led me to disappointment. The Bible supplies all I need to know, and relying on its laws and principles has been a wonderful protection from much of the heartache that affects those who ignore them.

I also have a confident view of the future, which in the current world situation of dire predictions.....financial collapse....food shortages....disease epidemics (of which cancer and heart disease qualify if you consider the annual tolls) and no real relief in sight for recovery any time soon.....people without faith in a higher power have no one and nowhere to turn. This puts “believers” in a better position to cope with adversity.

Faith has its benefits in my view....

 

[sun rise]

I support the idea of "deep reflection" and bringing both intuition and reason to bear on a question. But I don't think that means my belief is evidence that I'm right. Particularly when my belief is given in absence of good evidence (which is the kind of "blind faith" you're talking about I think).

I agree that we make mistakes. That to me is a good reason to test by putting my beliefs into action and not just rest on the assumption that my understanding is correct. The test is not one of science but of experience.

 

[ppp]

If we try to constrain God with human logic we will never win because God does not operate on logic, like humans do. So it might seem circular to you that you need faith in order to believe, but that is what God requires, and since God is the one who is in charge of providing the evidence, it makes sense to abide by His requirements.

What you are trying to do won't work. You are trying to claim that logic doesn't work for God in order to avoid the logical incoherence of your claims. If God is not subject to human logic, then there are no human sentences that can apply to it. Without human logic, no human sentence is true about anything at all. Not even "God is."

 

[Babygirl2010]

".....the evidence (elegehos) of things not seen."

This Greek word only appears in Hebrews 11:1. No where else in the New Testament. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, this word means; That by which invisible things are proved (and we are convinced of their reality).

 

[ppp]

Both. True for being scientific and satisfying for giving yourself new morals.

But faith is not even vaguely scientific. So you don't have that. As for satisfying, I will give you that. But you have no way to determine whether your faith produces morality, immorality or amorality. Faith is no better than rolling dice.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Really? Then what do you do with faiths/religions that contradict?



What's ironic about it? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

What is a religion? There can only be one God, and he is perfect and knows all things. What would you do if life were conflicted?



Because if God exist, he would be omniscient, and then he arrives to the fact that atheist know very little and you lie about being smart

 

[MonkeyFire]

But faith is not even vaguely scientific. So you don't have that. As for satisfying, I will give you that. But you have no way to determine whether your faith produces morality, immorality or amorality. Faith is no better than rolling dice.

Then science is false. Faith is just as scientific as skepticism, but faith isnt hopeless. Faith is defined as absolute trust, that means you know the truth and thus you the moral character of whomever you believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you are trying to do won't work. You are trying to claim that logic doesn't work for God in order to avoid the logical incoherence of your claims. If God is not subject to human logic, then there are no human sentences that can apply to it. Without human logic, no human sentence is true about anything at all. Not even "God is."

God is not subject to human logic because God is not subject to anything humans can devise since God is beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by humans.

It's that simple.

 

[blü 2]

Do you believe faith is the evidence of things not seen? Why or why not?

Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

It's not evidence of anything but itself. If your view is supported by examinable evidence, you don't need faith.

It can be very useful in particular situations, which may suggest the human capacity for faith is an evolved trait.

And coupled with experience, it can give a workable basis for living.

If I didn't have faith that particular pieces of printed paper, and particular electronic signals, were valuable, I'd abandon money and go back to barter.

And I have faith that my three assumptions are correct: that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and that reason is a valid tool.

However, with each of those, my faith isn't blind. Should I find evidence that I'm wrong, I'll do my best to adjust to the consequences.

I don't know that this can be said of every person's religious faith.

 

[ppp]

Then science is false. Faith is just as scientific as skepticism, but faith isnt hopeless. Faith is defined as absolute trust, that means you know the truth and thus you the moral character of whomever you believe.

If you think that then you do do not know what the steps of the scientific method are, let alone grasp them. Science and faith are antithetical. In science conclusions follow the evidence. In faith, you come to conclusions without evidence, or depending on your religion, in the face of contradictory evidence. Is science failsifiability is required. In faith, falsifiability is scorned. In science, absolute certainty is considered to be strutting arrogance. In faith, absolute certain is a matter of pride.

 

[ppp]

God is not subject to human logic because God is not subject to anything humans can devise since God is beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived by humans.

It's that simple.

Then you, as a human who is limited to human logic, can say nothing about God. Not even that God exists. It's that simple.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

How would you tell the difference between these "other tools," as you describe them, and dreams or visions or other altered states of consciousness?

The same way someone knows whether he's dreaming, having a vision or messing with his ability to sort out various inputs (hallucinate) using "mind-altering" substances. You simply know, don't you, you are able to tell. This choice, this action leads to this result. I go to bed, I dream. I pop a pill, I hallucinate. Same is true for one's endeavors to plumb the spiritual realms. Knowledge of the use of available tools is all we're talking about here.

BTW, it's not that consciousness gets altered, it's our awareness of it which fluctuates. The "regular tools" (intellect, mind and senses) can only relay information during and about things available to the waking state of consciousness. Maybe a little spillage into the dream state. But the regulars are totally absent and unavailable during the deep sleep state of consciousness (science knows this) and beyond, i.e., the transcendental states of consciousness (science doesn't yet know this). That doesn't mean that those two layers of consciousness aren't "real." It merely means that science (and the individual who has yet to experience a transcendental state) is not yet aware of the tools, means and methods to obtain knowledge of those realms.

 

[ppp]

BTW, it's not that consciousness gets altered, it's our awareness of it which fluctuates.

You think that your consciousness is some how separate from you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you, as a human who is limited to human logic, can say nothing about God. Not even that God exists. It's that simple.

Why would you think that logic could prove anything about God?

I am not limited to human logic. The way I know about God is by what the Messenger of God revealed about God. That is the only way to know anything about God.

 

[Trailblazer]

However, with each of those, my faith isn't blind. Should I find evidence that I'm wrong, I'll do my best to adjust to the consequences.

I don't know that this can be said of every person's religious faith.

But that does not mean it cannot be said about some religious faiths.
Should I find evidence that I'm wrong about my religion, I'll do my best to adjust to the consequences.

 

[Left Coast]

What “tools” do humans have that don’t always involve our mind and senses in the obvious ways?

Good question. I'm hoping @Sw. Vandana Jyothi will enlighten us.

Why do we come to “accept” things because others have convinced us, and we “believe” them because of who they are? Are our minds and senses always a reliable Influence in that case. The battle between religion and science is a good example of “beliefs” that become acceptable to us because of who promotes them.

Yes and no. It's true, when it comes to science laypeople do often rely on expert opinion. But there's a difference between expert scientific opinion and expert theological/supernatural opinion. Scientific experts can show their work. If pressed, they can demonstrate their views in a way that's empirically verifiable. Not so with religious authorities who opine about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Faith in the Bible as a reliable source of information is based on the same kind of confidence that drives theoretical science.....the evidence is not always demonstrable....it is accepted because of suggestion, rather than actual ‘hands on’ proof. Much of theoretical science is “faith” based because there is no actual proof.

Not so. Part of the confusion in your equivocation here is that you're using a sort of casual, layperson definition of "theoretical," to mean something purely abstract with no applied demonstration of it. That is not at all what scientists mean when they speak of theories. A theory in science has to be supported by demonstrable evidence, or else it will quickly be discredited and discarded as useless. So no, much of scientific understanding of the world is not "faith," unless by faith you just mean "confidence" or "trust." And if that's all you mean, then our "faith" has to be proportional to the evidence - and in science, it is. When it comes to the supernatural (ie things that can't be empirically verified) there is no such evidence, so one's "faith" is given in the absence of evidence. In other words, it's a totally different kind of "faith."

The current pandemic...

I'm not going to bother responding to the COVID stuff, because it's just plain inaccurate and would be too much of a rabbit trail.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

You think that your consciousness is some how separate from you?

Which you are you asking about, Joe? I am consciousness itself, it's not something I "have." In other words, I am immortal soul (a spark of consciousness), containerized within a mortal body undergoing a human experience. So are "you."

 

[Left Coast]

What is a religion?

Definition of religion | Dictionary.com

There can only be one God, and he is perfect and knows all things.

And you know you have accurate information about this God, and everyone who disagrees with you about her is incorrect because...?

What would you do if life were conflicted?

I don't even know what this question means.[/quote]

 

[robocop (actually)]

But faith is not even vaguely scientific. So you don't have that. As for satisfying, I will give you that. But you have no way to determine whether your faith produces morality, immorality or amorality. Faith is no better than rolling dice.

Einstein had to suspend belief in metric space to come up with relativity. He gave up what he didn't need and that took 12 years but he came up relativity, same as my definition.

If you believe all morality is relative then of course not. Maybe you should suspend belief in moral relativity .

 

[ppp]

Which you are you asking about, Joe? I am consciousness itself, it's not something I "have." In other words, I am immortal soul (a spark of consciousness), containerized within a mortal body undergoing a human experience.

You said, "BTW, it's not that consciousness gets altered, it's our awareness of it which fluctuates."

Which implies that you think that your awareness and your consciousness are two different things. No?

So are "you."

No. I'm not. I am entirely my body and my body is entirely me. No souls required. Souls are superfluous.