Is Faith Valuable?

[nonbeliever_92]

Your definition of "Good" is just fine by me. But you still haven't actually addressed my point.

Subjectivism won't save you here. Everyone will have different ideas about what "Good" "Faith" "Love" are, but that doesn't change the fact that objective results can be observed and so long as those subjective concepts (regardless of actual definition and how that person conceives of them) predispose someone towards an objectively beneficial end, then it hardly matters that people have a different conception of love. I and my neighbor may not agree on what love is exactly, but if our faith in love and the better nature of our fellow man leads us to treat each other with respect and understanding more often than not, then it hardly matters that our definitions are different: only that we treat each other with respect and understanding.

But you are still setting good and beneficial to your standrads and expecting them to apply to the rest of the world. I can find no other way to explain it clearly, but I will try. You have your beneficial objective results but those results directly matter on the definition of "good" and of course those objective results will lean towards your definition also.

You have tacitly admitted that you cannot find a difference between my faith in humanity & in love and faith in a deity. So the only question that remains unanswered is whether you can agree that so long as a person has faith in those things as I do that they would be more predisposed towards objectively beneficial actions.

MTF

I did no such thing
I said that having faith in a diety is different than having faith in humanity, and faith in humanity is not really faith at all.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

But you are still setting good and beneficial to your standrads and expecting them to apply to the rest of the world. I can find no other way to explain it clearly, but I will try. You have your beneficial objective results but those results directly matter on the definition of "good" and of course those objective results will lean towards your definition also.



I did no such thing
I said that having faith in a diety is different than having faith in humanity, and faith in humanity is not really faith at all.

I am working under an assumption if that is what your are trying to drive at, yes. That assumption is that people implicitly value their own lives and that the totality of the system that is humanity preferentially selects (over time) towards whatever behaviors are self-sustaining (that is whatever will ensure survival of the species). But in the final analysis I fail to see how this can possibly undermine the argument. Sure it makes probabilistic assumptions about aggregate behavior and that most people will want to behave in a way that is not painful or harmful to themselves, but these are natural assumptions that are born out by historical evidence.

The point I am trying to illustrate is that at end of the day the vast majority of human actors ascribe to a form of "biologically" motivated morality whether they consciously choose to acknowledge so or not. When someone feels that the member of their family being murdered was wrong they do not believe it is the same "level" of wrong as claiming 2+2=5. Survival of the family is important. There is a certain degree of "relativity" in as much as people will posit different "weights" towards their own survival, family survival, community survival, and species survival, but not enough to claim that the basis for morality is subjective in its entirety.



And you have still not shown how these differ, when I have already shown how they meet your definition of Faith as you wrote it. I have faith that in the end the patient man will be rewarded. i have faith that humanity will overcome its obstacles. I have faith that love will in the end conquer all. I have faith that at the end of the day my neighbor is a decent fellow. They are faith according to the definition you wrote. If you wanted to discuss religiously motivated faiths, then you should have said so. But you know what I will take one into your ballpark:

It is fairly well established that the ancient Greeks welcomed every stranger into their home and treated them with hospitality. They did this because they genuinely believed that any stranger might possibly be a god in mortal guise, and it did not behoove you to mistreat a god. Clearly the ancient Greeks faith that gods walked the earth did something to improve their lives.


MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I am working under an assumption if that is what your are trying to drive at, yes. That assumption is that people implicitly value their own lives and that the totality of the system that is humanity preferentially selects (over time) towards whatever behaviors are self-sustaining (that is whatever will ensure survival of the species). But in the final analysis I fail to see how this can possibly undermine the argument. Sure it makes probabilistic assumptions about aggregate behavior and that most people will want to behave in a way that is not painful or harmful to themselves, but these are natural assumptions that are born out by historical evidence.

The point I am trying to illustrate is that at end of the day the vast majority of human actors ascribe to a form of "biologically" motivated morality whether they consciously choose to acknowledge so or not. When someone feels that the member of their family being murdered was wrong they do not believe it is the same "level" of wrong as claiming 2+2=5. Survival of the family is important. There is a certain degree of "relativity" in as much as people will posit different "weights" towards their own survival, family survival, community survival, and species survival, but not enough to claim that the basis for morality is subjective in its entirety.

I don't see how this is relevant, but i will agree.

And you have still not shown how these differ, when I have already shown how they meet your definition of Faith as you wrote it. I have faith that in the end the patient man will be rewarded. i have faith that humanity will overcome its obstacles. I have faith that love will in the end conquer all. I have faith that at the end of the day my neighbor is a decent fellow. They are faith according to the definition you wrote. If you wanted to discuss religiously motivated faiths, then you should have said so.

The motivation behind my definition of faith is irrelevant whether religious or not, i don't believe believing in anything without good reason is valuable. There is nothing in this world good, that I can think of, that faith provides that cannot also be provided, perhaps even better, by rational thought. If you can, please cite an example.

In any case belief in humanity is different than faith in a diety because there is enough positive objective evidence, from my point of view, to believe in humanity and virtually none to believe in a supernatural force or being.

1) I have no clear idea by which you mean "A patient man will be rewarded" But i suppose that I can agree that yes this is true depending on what he is patient for and what the reward is. If you mean that someone who puts hard work into something will eventually gain benefits for his hard work, well yeah obivously, but this is not faith by my defintion, it's basic common sense. The evidence is that it has consistenly worked in the past. Take any great person with a fortune that they have not inherited, chances are a bit of hard work was required to gain their money.

2) Having a belief that humanity will over come its obstacles isn't faith by my defintion either. This is sort of a rehasing of your first example on a grander scale. The evidence and reason is that humanity has overcome obstacles in the past, that's why we have technology today, that's why we are a live today.

3) Having a belief that love conquers all is faith by my defintion, technically, but then again it depends on your definition of love and conquer. From my standpoint love doesn't conquer death or pain or misery.

4) Belief that your neighbor is a decent fellow at the end of the day isn't faith by my defintion because if your neighbor has repeatedly done good things, or not given you reason to believe that he is a bad person, then you have reason to believe that he is a good person. If you know he is a murderer a gambler and cheats on his wife or something, and at the end of the day you believe he is a decent person, then this is faith by my defintion, and you'd be sort of delusional.

But you know what I will take one into your ballpark:

It is fairly well established that the ancient Greeks welcomed every stranger into their home and treated them with hospitality. They did this because they genuinely believed that any stranger might possibly be a god in mortal guise, and it did not behoove you to mistreat a god. Clearly the ancient Greeks faith that gods walked the earth did something to improve their lives.

I'm not speaking of just religious faith, belief in anything. In any case hospitality isn't exactly faith either. If you treat each person with respect that enters your home and they treat you with respect what reason would you have to believe that they will harm you until they do, if they do at all?

There is a difference between believing in observed, verifiable instances and things and unobserved, unverifiable instances or beings.


MTF[/quote]

 

[Devotee]

I was originally going to title this "Is Faith a Virtrue" but decided against it.

Okay First of all:
In this thread I will define "Faith" as a belief/trust in someone or something and accepting it as true or untrue even if it goes against counter-evidence, reason, and/or logic. If you disagree with this definition of faith, please assert your own definition of faith before you post and if possible provide an example.

Now:
I wish to ask if faith and simple belief are valuable or at least more valuable than scepticism and rational thinking.

I believe that faith is invaluable; my reason why is that I believe that rational thinking and independent thinking holds more ground than believing in something just because it makes you comfortable or just becuase you think you "know" how the universe works although there is an abundance of counter-evidence and a non-evidence. I believe that a rational ignorance about reality is infinitely much better than a religious pretense about reality. (And yes, i would equate religion with irrationality.)

im sorry nonbeliever but to me, if you were to be a true devotee of reason and logic, you would come to the conclusion that its impossible to prove wither side to the world. but you can prove anything to yourself. therefore your rational thoughts of ,"independent thinking holds more ground that believing in something just because it make you comfortable," could be wrong.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

As long as you agree that morality exists, then I can make an appeal to it. If you, however, had made the meta-ethical argument that morality is "relative" to the point of not actually existing, then I cannot make an argument using morality as means. With this in mind it is very nearly tautological that an ideology which causes your predisposition to action to more often correspond with morality than immorality must therefore be a moral good.

But if you don't understand the example with the ancient greeks then you aren't seeing the the argument I am actually making. Hospitality isn't faith. I wasn't making this argument. The hospitality existed because of their faith. So the question becomes was more harm done because of the faith than benefit accrued? And if their faith was a moral good, then it is positive evidence towards the value of faith.



You aren't seeing your own defintion. Irrationality is both a standard of evidence and awareness of causal link. So irrationality can be both a matter of degrees and of logical association. So while human history can afford some evidence that humanity will continue to overcome its obstacles (no causal link to speak of exists here) the degree to which I take this belief far exceeds the rational. Why is this valuable? Because it means I won't give up on humanity. No matter how many dooms-day theorists flaunt their latest piece of evidence that humanity is going to die off; no matter how many tragedies occur (genocides, plagues, natural disasters); no matter how formiddable the obstacle I believe humanity will overcome.

Here again there is some evidence (and a small causal link), but I take it far beyond the rational. All good things come to those who are patient. Not speaking strictly of hard work, but rather I believe that each in turn all things which are needed to have happen to us do. So one should always be patient. Your time in the sun will come. Why is this valuable? Because it alleviates anxiety. I am in large part content. And that which I wish to change I work hard to change, but do not let a lack of progress bother me so long as I am trying hard. A "purely rational perspective" doesn't encompass emotional well-being.

I don't believe that love will raise your loved one from the dead. But I do believe that there is no human obstacle that love cannot in the end overcome. So I DO believe that love can conquer pain (won't stop pain sensation, but can definitely stop you from paying attention to it) and misery (if you truly love someone and are loved by them you will know no misery). So here again; I take the belief far beyond "rationality." Why is this valuable? Because it gives hope and inspiration to people who don't have love and for those who do it helps maintain that love because you believe it will last and that nothing will challenge it.


It is faith by your definition if you know nothing about your neighbor, and there are plenty of neighbors I have which I know nothing about; couldn't even tell you what they look like (like 3 houses down). So I am inclined to give people more than the benefit of the doubt so to speak when it comes to my community. Sure if they absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are scum, then I will treat that person on an individual basis, but it won't shake my faith that at the end of the day my community consists of basically good people even if I don't know that to be true. Why is this valuable? Believing something is true helps make it so. People respond to belief from others; so knowing that someone else believes you are a good person helps give you the strength to do the right thing. And believing that others are largely good people in your community makes you more inclined to do right by them when given a choice. And reinforcing morality is a good thing.


It is impossible to know something and believe otherwise. Having faith does not mean you are delusional; it may mean that you are in a state of denial, but you do not have to be dissociative to have faith. Either you know something and it is true (for you) or you do not and you can have faith. There are a great many things I do not know for sure, but I act as though I did. This means I am taking some things on Faith. I have known a few true men (one woman) of faith and their faith sustained them and aided them in ways that set them wholly and truly apart from most members of their religion. There was a peace, a harmony, and a humble acceptance that seemed to radiate out from them. And this is something I have sought to emulate. Fundamentalism doesn't mean you have great faith. In fact rigid adherence to a particular set of beliefs indicates to me a rather weak faith, as you are not able to accept things as they are and this is backed up by my own experience as none of the truly faithful individuals I have ever met were fundamentalist in their beliefs/approach to life.

If emotional stability and support, positive views of others, and predisposition to moral activity cannot be evidence of the value of faith, then I don't know what else to say. And if by arguing their benefit "rationally" means by your definition that what I am describing suddenly ceases to be "Faith," then you are not playing fair. Your definition never said anything about following the proposition having to be irrational, merely that believing the proposition be irrational.

MTF

 

[nonbeliever_92]

<< - What will happen after life on earth ends? >>

I dunno, why does it matter now anyway?

If your soul survives, don't you think what will happen next will matter?

And staying on the path of logical thinking, research in the field of NDEs (Near Death Experiences) is today investigating whether there is more to humans than just the physical body

This research done in Holland was published in The Lancet in December 2001:

Dutch Study

after all that, that's the only thing you find bothersome with my statements?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

MTF, do you have reason's besides "they make you feel good" (yeah, i know you didn't say this) to believe the things you do?
And I will acknowledge that faith was once probably useful, but now it is outdated and I see no use for it now. It's like using a sundial to measure time today, when there are clearly more useful ways of telling time which have much less faults and disadvantages than a digital watch.

 

[MSizer]

It's a two-phase intellectual process

Phase 1 is mainly a phase of pure logical thinking, including the following questions:

- By observing this amazing universe, the logical question to ask is what is its origin?

- What caused the Big Bang which took place around 14 billion years ago?

- Could this amazing universe be a pure coincidence?

- Where did we come from?

- Why are we here and what is the real purpose of life?

- What will happen after life on earth ends?

Most of the questions of Phase 1 may not have answers based purely on logical thinking, but they are important questions for reflection which lead to 2 main possibilities:

a) Either this universe does indeed have a Creator

b) Or the universe does not have a Creator

If one chooses option (b), one would still not get an answer to the puzzle of this life in this amazing universe, so we could keep (b) on hold for a while, and investigate option (a)

Phase 2 is a phase of comparative reflection

If answer (a) is the right answer, and this universe does indeed have a Creator, He must be a very intelligent Creator to have designed and created all this amazing universe. Intelligence means that each detail in this universe has a purpose, including the creation of mankind.

So the next logical question which needs an answer is why are we here? Why were we created?

As logical thinking on its own won't give an answer to this question, we need to see whether the Creator Himself sent us a hint or an answer to this question. As some religions claim that the Creator sent prophets and messengers to guide people to the right answer, and that He revealed to them this Guidance in Divine Books, the next logical step would be to do a comparative study of these books and see which ones, if any, make sense

If in this comparative study one is able to find one book which makes sense, a book which is free from errors and contradictions, and gives clear answers to the main questions above, then we would be on the right track, and an in-depth study of that book would either lead to faith, or lead to rejecting faith and going back to option (b) above

The main thing is to be objective and to have a true intention to finding out the Truth, whatever that truth may be, irrespective of our preconceived ideas and current subjective preferences and beliefs ..........

Cordoba,

You're making a bunch of assumptions. Just becuase you can't imagine how all that exists came to be, it does not become true by default that the book that contains the explanations most plausible to you must be correct. The incredible improbability of the universe is exactly why god is nothing more than an idea created by humans. In order to create the universe, he would have to be even more improbable than the universe itself. We know that nothing came into existence in it's present form, it is a successive chain of events that got us to where we are, so saying "the Creator did it" is both unlikely and also doesn't help answer the question in any way. You still don't have any evidence as to how the Creator did it, when he did it, what the creator will do in the future... So to simply say "it is god" gets us nowhere. I could just as easily say it was a big bowl of speghetti monster, and we're no closer to understanding anything.

 

[PureX]

I was originally going to title this "Is Faith a Virtue" but decided against it.

Okay First of all:
In this thread I will define "Faith" as a belief/trust in someone or something and accepting it as true or untrue even if it goes against counter-evidence, reason, and/or logic. If you disagree with this definition of faith, please assert your own definition of faith before you post and if possible provide an example.

What you have defined, here, is not faith, but willful ignorance. To willfully ignore the evidence of reality in favor of some preferable fantasy is essentially a form of insanity, and would be a dangerous position to put one's self in as it ignores the probable consequences of one's own actions in the real world.

Faith, I would propose, is acting on hope in the face of one's insurmountable ignorance. Let me give an example. Lets say I desire to visit the land on the other side of a great river. But when I come to the only bridge that crosses that river, I find that it has been severely damaged by a storm. I study the bridge for several days, but I just can't ascertain whether or not it's safe to cross or not. It appears to me that the bridge is just as likely to collapse as it is to stand.

Without faith, I would be stuck. All I could do would be to wait for someone else to come along and try to cross the bridge. If they make it, I could maybe then presume that I could make it as well. But with faith, I could act on my own hope of reaching the land on the other side, and so attempt to cross it even though I don't know what the outcome will be.

Faith is acting on our hopes, in the face of our ignorance. Faith is not a blind allegiance to fantasies or lies.

Now:
I wish to ask if faith and simple belief are valuable or at least more valuable than skepticism and rational thinking.

You are setting "faith" up, by wrongly defining it, as antithetical to skepticism and rational thinking. It's not. Faith is how we take action when skepticism and rational thinking no longer provide adequate information.

 

[Heneni]

Faith is valuabe only as long as you havent seen. When you have seen faith becomes obsolete.

Hence jesus seems to be taking a long time. But he's taking a long time to return, because the moment you see him for real, faith ceases to have any meaning and the school bell of faith rings for after school activities.

 

[MoonWater]

What you have defined, here, is not faith, but willful ignorance. To willfully ignore the evidence of reality in favor of some preferable fantasy is essentially a form of insanity, and would be a dangerous position to put one's self in as it ignores the probable consequences of one's own actions in the real world.

Faith, I would propose, is acting on hope in the face of one's insurmountable ignorance. Let me give an example. Lets say I desire to visit the land on the other side of a great river. But when I come to the only bridge that crosses that river, I find that it has been severely damaged by a storm. I study the bridge for several days, but I just can't ascertain whether or not it's safe to cross or not. It appears to me that the bridge is just as likely to collapse as it is to stand.

Without faith, I would be stuck. All I could do would be to wait for someone else to come along and try to cross the bridge. If they make it, I could maybe then presume that I could make it as well. But with faith, I could act on my own hope of reaching the land on the other side, and so attempt to cross it even though I don't know what the outcome will be.

Faith is acting on our hopes, in the face of our ignorance. Faith is not a blind allegiance to fantasies or lies.
You are setting "faith" up, by wrongly defining it, as antithetical to skepticism and rational thinking. It's not. Faith is how we take action when skepticism and rational thinking no longer provide adequate information.

The system won't let me frubal you for this. But you said it far better than I could(and tried to)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Faith, I would propose, is acting on hope in the face of one's insurmountable ignorance. Let me give an example. Lets say I desire to visit the land on the other side of a great river. But when I come to the only bridge that crosses that river, I find that it has been severely damaged by a storm. I study the bridge for several days, but I just can't ascertain whether or not it's safe to cross or not. It appears to me that the bridge is just as likely to collapse as it is to stand.

Without faith, I would be stuck. All I could do would be to wait for someone else to come along and try to cross the bridge. If they make it, I could maybe then presume that I could make it as well. But with faith, I could act on my own hope of reaching the land on the other side, and so attempt to cross it even though I don't know what the outcome will be.

I'd find another bridge, or simply swim across, as opposed to spending several days twiddling my thumbs before stupidly walking across an unsafe structure on the verge of collapse. But hey, different strokes and all.

 

[MoonWater]

I'd find another bridge, or simply swim across, as opposed to spending several days twiddling my thumbs before stupidly walking across an unsafe structure on the verge of collapse. But hey, different strokes and all.

Notice how he said "only bridge" as in there is no other bridge to find and "great river" as in swimming across it would at least be as dangerous as walking across the bridge in his example.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Notice how he said "only bridge" as in there is no other bridge to find and "great river" as in swimming across it would at least be as dangerous as walking across the bridge in his example.

What great river only has one bridge crossing it? C'mon.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Still as I see it, all beliefs that deal with anything supernatural fall back on my definition of faith: belief without evidence, reason, and/or logic and is therefore useless in the modern world. This includes many religious beliefs...

 

[MoonWater]

What great river only has one bridge crossing it? C'mon.

That's why it's called a hypothetical situation.

 

[PureX]

Still as I see it, all beliefs that deal with anything supernatural fall back on my definition of faith: belief without evidence, reason, and/or logic and is therefore useless in the modern world. This includes many religious beliefs...

Yes, but the problem is that your definition of faith is wrong.

You could define faith as the smelly stuff that comes out of a cow's butt, too, and declare that useless to modern society, but your definition would still be wrong.

Every time you drive through a green light you are acting on faith. You are acting on your faith that the other drivers will obey the red light and stop to allow you to pass through. You don't actually KNOW that they will stop, but you choose to trust that they will do as you wish in that instance. That's faith.

Faith is not believing in things that experience has shown to be untrue. Faith is not denying things that experience shows us to be true. Faith accords with the evidence of experience. And then advances these when no further evidence or experience can be found.

What you are describing as "faith" is nothing more that willful ignorance. And the longer you insist on holding to such a flawed definition, the longer you practice the very willful ignorance you declare to be so useless.

 

[painter49]

Faith is very Valuable... i.e. If you don't have it you DIE.... etc.

 

[darkendless]

Faith is very Valuable... i.e. If you don't have it you DIE.... etc.

I'm still alive and so is Richard Dawkins

I dont think ill ever understand why people need faith in some bloke in a white coat. Its beyond me. The way i see it, if people need faith in something else they have no faith in themselves.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

The reason why I asked people to define what they thought “faith” meant was because I wished to see if people were using the correct term for what they were describing. Faith has a definition and it is the one that I have provided, but also the definitions that most of you’ve supplied is acceptable as faith and do not conflict with my definition.

ManTimeForgot said that I am not recognizing my own definition of faith, but I am! And most of you are too. The thing is that most of you are providing examples of “faith” that aren’t consistent with your own definitions. Most of you are providing examples consistent with hope. I too was unable to recognize these examples as hope because I was unable to find the right word for what those non-faith scenarios.


Faith is believing in something or someone against evidence, reason, and/or logic.
Hope is desiring something to occur that is capable of going against evidence, reason, and/or logic.

1.)One hopes that their neighbor is a good guy.
2.)One hopes that love will conquer all.
3.)One hopes that their car starts in the morning.
4.)One hopes that their spouse and not some other person is home when they get there.
5.)One hopes that when they go through a green light the cars traveling perpendicular to oneself will stop and obey the law.
6.)One hopes that their inference or hypothesis will be correct.
​

Once one has justified their belief with reason, evidence, and/or logic, then it automatically doesn’t count as faith any longer. Now it doesn’t necessarily count as hope either, but still it isn’t faith.

The difference between hope and faith is that faith only exists outside of reason, only in the irrational. I will agree that faith is equal to willful ignorance, but hope can be obtained outside of the irrationality, and can therefore be infinitely more useful than faith.

People who say that their faith is useful because it helps them do good deeds seem incapable or unwilling to realize or acknowledge that those things are possible outside of a belief based on irrationality and ignorance. I believe that all of faith’s “benefits” are capable without faith and that most probably secular means of obtaining these benefits could be acquired much more successfully without faith. This is probably why when asked if their faith is necessary for them to act “morally” they are confused and cannot give a clear answer, and if they do answer they are most likely not comfortable or sated with their response.
If these things weren’t obtainable without faith then there would be only atheists who went around killing and raping and etc…

Faith=Willful Ignorance
Hope= Desired Expectation.