It All Comes Down to Faith

[Riverwolf]

Faith is a euphemism for prejudice, there is no virtue in it.

Surely in the time you've spent here, you'd have realized that faith and prejudice don't always go hand in hand.

In fact, you can have prejudice without faith. I've seen many atheists who are prejudiced towards religions, lumping all of them together, thinking that all people who are religious are Bible-thumping members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Sorry, but the two are completely separate. Sure, people of faith can be prejudiced; I'm not denying that they exist. The aforementioned church is proof of that. But faith is not a requirement for prejudice, and most of the people I've met who have faith in God's existence, however they perceive God to be, accept that others hold a different view of God, and that one of those views is that God does not exist.

 

[sojourner]

They most certainly do believe it w/o doubt, w/o reservation, w/o question and w/o concern for possible error.

You're overgeneralizing. Most of us do have doubts. Most of us know that questioning is a healthy part of faith development.

And yes it is prejudice as define as the predisposition to adopt an unresonsble position or belief.

We don['t beleive it's uneasonable.

 

[sojourner]

The assumption here is that faith is a blind thing. it isn't.
Most of us believe because we, when we were young, we were told of God's existence. That presumption became part of our world view, and a part of the cultural expression in which we were reared.

As we get older, and began to expand our awareness and our experience, that belief in God changes in order to accommodate new awarenesses. Our faith in God grows from a sort of supernatural belief (like the belief we have in Santa Claus) to one based upon intuitive evidence, due primarily to a deeper awareness of our spiritual natue. We begin to conceptualize God less as an old man in a white robe with a beard, and more as an ineffability -- the unnamed essence of our true selves and of the world.

Faith, for the mature believer, is more a world view than a belief in the supernatural, informed by evidence that we experience in the world around and within us.

 

[cottage]

hmm... nothing about prejudice there far as I can tell.

Nothing about faith there as far as I can tell.

Honestly cottage I don't see how you managed to draw the connection to prejudice in your post. It seems as though you just threw the word in there randomly without connecting it back to what you had said. I'm not seeing the relationship.

‘Prejudice: any adverse, pre-conceived notion made by those of religious faith against unbelievers.’ Is that the sort of ‘relationship’ you are saying is not to be found among dictionary definitions? The reason you won’t find it is because such a stereotyping definition would itself be a prejudice, and quite untrue. I was referring to a disposition, a pre-conceived partiality that holds dogmatically to particular view as if it were certain. It is found in many ideological beliefs. In this case I’ve identified the prejudiced view in the dogmatic belief that the statement ‘there is no God is false’, which is in essence no different to any other judgement made in advance of knowledge.

 

[cottage]

What is the difference? For people who believe that (the sun will rise) what is the distinction to be made?

Well, logically you can't believe in a Supreme Being without believing that there is a Supreme Being. But you can believe that there is a Supreme Being without believing in it. Those of faith, by definition, believe in a Supreme Being.

 

[cardero]

atotalstranger writes: I've encountered many people, that once you wade through all the standard debates, they admit, or perhaps realize, that the only relevant reason they believe, is because they have faith that a deity exists.

I can debate belief, but I can’t debate faith, it’s much too personal. A general sign that someone is leading a debate with their faith is how quickly they become defensive. They would rather preserve their faith than reason or conclude their own or the opposing belief. Usually I am out of the debate once I recognize faith or before my opponent cries "personal attack" or "persecution".

You can’t debate or reason with faith.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
I'm sort of inclined to agree (with the prejudice part).

For those with faith (belief in, as opposed to belief that) there is supposedly no doubt.


Where is that supposition coming from?
From those who argue that their religion is a ‘truth’.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
Nobody of faith says I believe there might be a God.


So agnosticism is a myth?
I said ‘Nobody of faith’.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
Of course doubt there may be, but any admission is internalised and fleeting. (If it amounted to more than a momentary experience and became a regular and questioning occurrence, then the faith would be misplaced.)


Don't know which unsubstantiated, subjective assumption in that paragraph to address first.
Then may I suggest you just pick any part (or parts) of the passage and we’ll go from there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
Meanwhile, regardless of these doubts (and it is my view that all believers have them)

Without doubt, faith would be meaningless.
Faith implies belief without doubt. But we can agree that doubt exists none the less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
the supposed veracity of the faith (or experience) continues to be declared.

Apparently, people with direct experience just got flushed down the toilet along with the agnostics.

Just a suggestion; if you have to deny the existence of entire groups of people in order to validate your point, you should probably give your point another go-over.
And I suggest that if you were to read my post properly you would see I’m addressing ‘those of faith’. An agnostic is committed to no belief. And it is a trivial complaint to say I’m ‘denying the existence of entire groups of people’ when this is a public forum and they have the opportunity to make their own positions clear (which I welcome).


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...81558-all-comes-down-faith-2.html#post1572452
Now I've not seen any argument or any doctrine, or heard of any experience, that leads me to conclude that there is a supernatural entity worthy of belief as faith. But I don't hold to that view dogmatically, for it cannot be known that 'there is no God'. But where does the prejudiced view that 'there is no God' is false find it inception? So, yes, faith is prejudiced by definition.

You lost me. In what way does this; "But where does the prejudiced view that 'there is no God' is false find it inception?" equal this; " So, yes, faith is prejudiced by definition".
Because ‘there is no God’ isn’t a truth, anymore than ‘God exists’ is a truth. Therefore it is a preconception, a view held from dogmatism.
__________________

 

[cottage]

Quote:
They most certainly do believe it w/o doubt, w/o reservation, w/o question and w/o concern for possible error.

You're overgeneralizing. Most of us do have doubts. Most of us know that questioning is a healthy part of faith development.
I entirely agree. While OmarKhayyam is right to say a faith is generally put across as belief without doubt, without reservation and without error, it is also correct in my view to say religious belief is not a static or dead thing locked away in the back of the mind. For any thinking person it presents challenges, and believers may have to work extremely hard to maintain their faith in the light of many contentions.


Quote:
And yes it is prejudice as define as the predisposition to adopt an unresonsble position or belief.

We don't beleive it's uneasonable.
Yes of course. But the definition is correct.

 

[Willamena]

Well, logically you can't believe in a Supreme Being without believing that there is a Supreme Being. But you can believe that there is a Supreme Being without believing in it. Those of faith, by definition, believe in a Supreme Being.

If your first sentence is intended to express that you cannot believe in something without something to believe in, I agree. But then that contradicts your second sentence, because you also cannot have something to believe in without believing in it.

 

[cottage]

If your first sentence is intended to express that you cannot believe in something without something to believe in, I agree. But then that contradicts your second sentence, because you also cannot have something to believe in without believing in it.

I'm making the distinction between belief in and belief that. It does not follow from my belief that there is a Supreme Being that I must believe in it. Belief in implies a commitment or emotional investment to a thing, while belief that only acknowledges its existence, or possible existence.

 

[Storm]

‘Prejudice: any adverse, pre-conceived notion made by those of religious faith against unbelievers.’

That one wasn't in there. Did you just make it up?

 

[cottage]

That one wasn't in there. Did you just make it up?

Yes, that's right. See the two sentences that followed that contrived (false) statement.

 

[Alla Prima]

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, for the purposes of this thread, when referring to faith, I'm using the definition "belief in something for which there is no proof", not "trust."

Personally I don't use that definition. Faith for me is trust.

 

[Storm]

Yes, that's right. See the two sentences that followed that contrived (false) statement.

Right, because dictionaries are more concerned with political correctness tha actual meaning.

 

[Fatihah]

Any logical or philosophical argument for god's existence falls short. There is no proof, nor objective evidence, of god's existence. Ultimately, any belief in a deity has to come down to faith, and faith alone.

I've encountered many people, that once you wade through all the standard debates, they admit, or perhaps realize, that the only relevant reason they believe, is because they have faith that a deity exists. I can respect this. I am not a person who relies on faith, nor could, but I understand that we are all built differently, and they can change no more than I could.

I understand that many debate on here out of the enjoyment of debating, or as an intellectual exercise, but, at the end of the day, fully realize that it all comes down to faith, and their belief isn't based on logic, reason, or philosophical arguments.

How many believers here agree that, ultimately, their belief rests on faith? If not, 1) what do attribute your belief to; 2) does faith play any part in your beliefs - how much?

Is there anything more pure/noble/etc. about basing belief only on faith? Is it better to try to formulate other arguments to bolster your faith?

EDIT: In case it isn't clear, for the purposes of this thread, when referring to faith, I'm using the definition "belief in something for which there is no proof", not "trust."

Response: My understanding and reasons for following islam is based on truth and has nothing to do with faith. I do not believe or have faith in Allah's existence. I know.

If you look around you, everything you see was created. For example, the t.v. you're watching, the car you drive, the dinner you'll make later, the post that either you or someone else will make in response , all are creations, created by a creator. If I were to ask anyone as to how any of these things mentioned above came into existence, who in here will actually say, "it evolved" or "they were just here already"? So it is most logical that this universe and life itself is a creation by a creator. The question then only becomes as to what are the creator's attributes. And for this, we as muslims find it clear in the qur'an and sunnah.

 

[dogsgod]

Response: My understanding and reasons for following islam is based on truth and has nothing to do with faith. I do not believe or have faith in Allah's existence. I know.

If you look around you, everything you see was created. For example, the t.v. you're watching, the car you drive, the dinner you'll make later, the post that either you or someone else will make in response , all are creations, created by a creator. If I were to ask anyone as to how any of these things mentioned above came into existence, who in here will actually say, "it evolved" or "they were just here already"? So it is most logical that this universe and life itself is a creation by a creator. The question then only becomes as to what are the creator's attributes. And for this, we as muslims find it clear in the qur'an and sunnah.

You're so called knowing only begs the question; who created the creator?

 

[cottage]

Response: My understanding and reason's for following islam is based on truth and has nothing to do with faith. I do not believe or have faith in Allah's existence. I know.

If you look around you, everything you see was created. For example, the t.v. you're watching, the car you drive, the dinner you'll make later, the post that either you or someone else will make in response , all are creations, created by a creator. If I were to ask anyone as to how any of these things mentioned above came into existence, who in here will actually say, "it evolved" or "they were just here already"? So it is most logical that this universe and life itself is a creation by a creator. The question then only becomes as to what are the creator's attributes. And for this, we as muslims find it clear in the qur'an and sunnah.

I'm sorry but I disagree. To say 'all creations are created' is a tautology. While it is true by definition, and tells us nothing we do not already know, it isn't the same as saying 'all existent things are created'. We can't declare that whatever exists was caused to exist as a necessary truth because all existent things are in wont of a creator if, at the same time, we want to argue to being who is self-existent. So, at a stroke, that argument falls down.

It falls down for a second reason, too. In order to make that argument (all existent things are in wont of a creator), we are saying one thing is the cause of another and thus the existence of the world is an effect, which is to say all worlds must be as this. But there is no 'Law of Cause and Effect' that obtains necessarily. To say every action is an effect that is caused is not the same as saying a triangle's three angles must be equal to two right angles, which is a contradiction if denied. So it's 'truth' lies in the past and probability - not necessity. And an argument from the past cannot be used as an argument to certainty and the future. That being the case, we cannot say the world was created, implying a creator, as a logically true conclusion.

 

[cottage]

Right, because dictionaries are more concerned with political correctness tha actual meaning.

Fortunately the opposite is true.

 

[MoonWater]

Well, logically you can't believe in a Supreme Being without believing that there is a Supreme Being. But you can believe that there is a Supreme Being without believing in it. Those of faith, by definition, believe in a Supreme Being.

wrong. I'm a person of faith and I don't believe in a "supreme being". And I'm sure there are many others who will attest to the same. Faith does not equal the definition you give

 

[Fatihah]

You're so called knowing only begs the question; who created the creator?

Response: No one.