Logic VS, Faith

[mikkel_the_dane]

That opinion would require your own unique definition of the word "faith." As it applies to religion, mine is "a belief without evidence."

Why only religion? Any belief without evidence is a belief without evidence and if you act on it, you have faith in it. At least faith in this sense: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. That is not limited to religion.

 

[PureX]

That's true. However, accepting a belief because you were told what to believe by an authority figure, and accepting a belief because that authority offered credible evidence is not a subtle difference at all.

It's not that clear a difference, though, either. How does one determine a figure to be "authoritative"? I would think that would involve some sort of functional credibility.

Here's how I look at what people choose to "believe in".

I think it's mostly based on what 'works' for them in terms of what they want from life. If an idea serves that desire, they "believe in" it. If it doesn't, they reject it. Hence, a vengeful man believes in a vengeful god. A jealous man believe in a jealous god. A weak people believe in a strong god. A kind people believes in a forgiving god. And so on.

People believe in whatever ideals serve their natures, and serve their desires as dictated by their natures. And then they create or adopt the gods and religions that bolster these beliefs. And I'm not saying this is wrong. But I am saying that beliefs rarely change people, because people, choose their beliefs. Not to be changed, but to be justified, validated, and bolstered.

 

[Scott C.]

Belief in any religion requires faith. My problem has always been that so much of religion is not logical. The different miracles for example defy logic. The Virgin Birth for example.
The Four Gospels Record 37 Miracles. As A Christian Do You Believe Them?

Yes I believe in the miracles. But I also don't find it illogical that God can do things which defy science as we understand it. I suppose to God it's easy to understand what he does, it's not magic, rather it's God being God and doing what he is capable of doing. I imagine he knows exactly how he can do what he does and it makes perfect sense to him. He looks on us with patient understanding, as we are little children, who don't understand. Smart phones would be illogical and deny science to a person from the 1400s. But to us, they are explainable. All things are explainable to God. He works on an infinitely higher plane. I find that logical.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No. Are you?



That is false.. Had you asked if I had a dictionary definition, I would have said, No, I have not looked for one. But what you asked was, "Or do you have an agree upon definition to back this up?" Which makes no sense, because an agreed upon definition about what something is, would not back up the validity of that definition. Merely the fact that it is used that way.

Okay.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The definition you ask me to accept is fine with me. It supports my definition that faith is a belief without evidence. It does not support your assertion that "Belief in anything requires faith."

Regarding claims of significant importance, my mind requires proof (evidence) in order to believe.

Prove/give evidence that the screen you are reading this on, is there as a thing-in-itself. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are independent of observation. You know objective reality as independent of the mind and since you know and thus prove/give evidence through experiences in your mind, you can't give proof/evidence of the screen as independent of you.
You are in effect believing in objective reality if you believe in that based on faith. I.e. that the screen is there as the screen in itself and you are not in a simulated universe.
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia
It also includes Boltzmann Brain universes in different version.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you have evidence, you have knowledge, not belief.

All evidence as per science and naturalism rests on unprovable assumed axioms. That is fancy words for faith, but it is the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're conflating belief and knowledge just as @joe1776 was.

There is no such thing as really true knowledge. It is all beliefs that appears to work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your definition? Or do you have an agree upon definition to back this up?

No, that is philosophy as epistemology.

 

[MikeF]

Ignorance allows us to be manipulated. And when our knowledge runs out, we all become ignorant. Faith is how we deal with this ignorance. Faith is making the choice to trust in our hopes, and to act on that trust. And yes, this does take courage. Faith is a courageous act. But faith is more than just a courage act. It's also hopeful, and optimistic, and honest.

I am all for hopeful, optimistic, and honest. I'm a glass half-full kind of guy. And yes, ignorance allows us to be manipulated. How is faith in a belief that is contrary to the evidence not clinging to ignorance and thus open to manipulation? When someone expresses faith, there has to be some reevaluation as conflicts arise. What about the concept of misplaced faith? I think what you describe above is hope and is synonymous with guessing in this usage. And sometimes it's better to make no choice at all and simply say it's unknown and live with the uncertainty.

 

[ppp]

Soteriology

What was a rule for living I tested extensively?

I don't know. You didn't tell me. You provided no concrete examples, remember? But I see that you have done so below:

Christ stated that "Love your neighbor as yourself" was one of the 2 great commandments (on how to live life). I found this as an atheist reading various great thinkers about how to live life better. I realized I could test this rule out, actually find out whether it worked better than other ways, or less well.

So, some minor disagreements.
The principle of reciprocity comes from many disparate sources. Jesus was a late arrival to that scene.
Also, I think that do unto others as they wish to be done unto is a far superior position, morally speaking. Love your neighbor as yourself is too centered on the self. Not to say that it isnt positive. It could just be better.

My standard way to live for many years (in many places) had been to choose a few select friends, 1 to 3 people, and focus entirely on them, and keep all other people at a polite distance. I tried the rule with my immediate next door neighbors on both sides, and the results were far better than anything I imagined possible. I thought I was lucky, and continued to test it over and over in new situations and places, trying to find any situation where it would fail to produce good results. It has always given surprisingly good results, to my benefit. Better than the other ways of relating to most people I'd tried. So, that's experimental see. You'd need no faith at all to try it. You'd need a curiosity or scientific attitude or something to help motivate you.

Sure. I went through much the same with similar good results. I just moved into a new apartment last month, and COVID is proving quite the barrier to casual introductions.

But all that being said..what is your point? If you recall, in my original response to you, I agreed that some of the edicts, commandments, tenets and laws found in the Bible are not immoral. And I agree that the principles of reciprocity, while not perfect, are among that moral subset. But there is so much that is not. From the story of the fall to the false salvation of the doctrine of soteriology. All of the immoral edicts of God in the Bible (slavery, misogyny, stonings, genocides, etc), and the unrelenting culture of believers to try to handwave it all away.

 

[ppp]

Okay.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm glad you agree.

If that’s what you read into that, good on you.

In any case, we’re done here.

 

[SalixIncendium]

All evidence as per science and naturalism rests on unprovable assumed axioms. That is fancy words for faith, but it is the same.

Are you saying that evidence is the same thing as faith? Because if you are, I disagree completely.

 

[ppp]

If that’s what you read into that, good on you.

In any case, we’re done here.

Ah. One of those. Ciao!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you saying that evidence is the same thing as faith? Because if you are, I disagree completely.

Well, yes in the end. Nobody has solved solipsism. Thus we get this:
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52] ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
My bold. That one is in effect faith and it says so in the next quote. ""Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. ..."
But that real world could be this:
Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia
E.g.

• The "simulated reality hypothesis" or "Matrix hypothesis" suggests that everyone, or even the entire universe, might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality.

So if you believe your experience of reading this on a screen means that the screen is real. I.e. it exists as the screen in itself and is not e.g. a computer simulation, then you believe with faith, because there is no evidence of what objective reality is independent of your mind other than it is independent of your mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am all for hopeful, optimistic, and honest. I'm a glass half-full kind of guy. And yes, ignorance allows us to be manipulated. How is faith in a belief that is contrary to the evidence not clinging to ignorance and thus open to manipulation? When someone expresses faith, there has to be some reevaluation as conflicts arise. What about the concept of misplaced faith? I think what you describe above is hope and is synonymous with guessing in this usage. And sometimes it's better to make no choice at all and simply say it's unknown and live with the uncertainty.

You can't give evidence for that as objective evidence. That is subjective in you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Belief in any religion requires faith. My problem has always been that so much of religion is not logical. The different miracles for example defy logic. The Virgin Birth for example.
The Four Gospels Record 37 Miracles. As A Christian Do You Believe Them?

Magenta refers.
The Truthful Religion is different than depicted by one, I understand.
It presents a path treaded by the previous truthful messengers/prophets of G-d. It is like one who say lives in Tokyo who has not yet visited London but believes that there is a city in England and has met many persons who have gone to London and decides to go to London for business and has purchased a ticket of an airline to go to London. Shouldn't he have the belief/faith that there is a city called London in England, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[halbhh]

Soteriology
I don't know. You didn't tell me. You provided no concrete examples, remember? But I see that you have done so below:


So, some minor disagreements.
The principle of reciprocity comes from many disparate sources. Jesus was a late arrival to that scene.

it's understandable to imagine that best way to live is originated, created, like a an original work of art.

Having an initial originator, whom others copy.

But that isn't so.

The best way to live naturally depends on the particular attributes of human nature, our common genetic similarity.

Human nature -- what we have in common -- is fixed (constant).

Therefore, a best rule about how to live exists before being discovered. Instead of being created like a work of art, it is discovered, over and over. I'd expect many of these rules have been discovered billions of times.

Billions.

Because many of these rules only need enough life experience (though decades) and some reflection to realize. Not all. Some of the best rules are more subtle. But the basics like "love your neighbor as yourself" are discoverable I think. Perhaps 1 of 100 people could discover that one, or even 1 in 20.

 

[halbhh]

All of the immoral edicts of God in the Bible (slavery, misogyny, stonings, genocides, etc), and the unrelenting culture of believers to try to handwave it all away.

God worked to end slavery, but it took time because people could not follow even much more simple and basic laws like against robbery and murder -- so ending slavery took millennia even to get here where we are, where slavery is more hidden, today, and largely illegal, or at least in most countries. A step in the bible not all seem aware of is the sudden change in Philemon. But that was only an inevitable outcome of Matthew 7:12.

God cannot commit 'genocide' when by definition He makes 'death' only "sleep", from which He awakens everyone.

It's more like....transportation.

As Christ said, it's not what people imagine it is --

Luke 8:52 Meanwhile everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But Jesus said, "Stop weeping; she is not dead but asleep."
Luke 8:53 And they laughed at Him, knowing that she was dead.

See? -- what most people think they know on this is simply mistaken.

Since God merely transports instead of truly destroying, at this initial moment of so-called 'death', the accusation of God doing 'genocide' -- accusing the One Who actually cancels 'death', undoes it -- is inconsistent to the contents of the common bible. It's like you have a different 'god' there instead of the one in the text.

 

[PureX]

How is faith in a belief that is contrary to the evidence not clinging to ignorance and thus open to manipulation?

Acting on "faith in beliefs that are contrary to the evidence" is a form of insanity. That's not to say humans don;t engage in it, because many do. Casinos are full of them. But the abuse of a powerful tool does not negate the power of that tool, nor the positive effect of it when it's used properly.

When someone expresses faith, there has to be some reevaluation as conflicts arise. What about the concept of misplaced faith? I think what you describe above is hope and is synonymous with guessing in this usage. And sometimes it's better to make no choice at all and simply say it's unknown and live with the uncertainty.

I think you are talking about the difference between pretense, and faith. Pretense is assuming that what one wants to believe to be true, is true. Whereas faith is knowing that what one wants to believe is true, may or may not be true. And so is willing to act on it to find out. Faith, in my opinion, is the logical antithesis of doubt. Whereas pretense is the negation of doubt. It may be a subtle difference, but I think it;s a very, very important difference in terms of the positive functionality of what we call "faith".

Too many religious bodies and institutions push blind pretense (the negation of all doubt) as "faith". With the result that they actually become the enemy of faith.