What is Faith?

[Meow Mix]

Faith is not a justification for the existence of god --you'll get no argument from me. ...or, I suspect, Luna. ...or, I suspect, 98% of the people on the planet. ...or in the galaxy.


By the way, very well said. Nice post. I'm out of frubals at the moment, but then they're not as fun as they used to be.

And you'll get no argument from me that faith (in the context of trust or confidence in something) has great utility and isn't irrational in the slightest: so long as that which trust/confidence is being placed in justifiably exists.

That's my argument, and arguably the general atheistic argument regarding faith: it has at least two major contexts, and an issue with each of those contexts.

1) Faith as belief without justification, e.g. "I have faith that God exists." You're not disputing this one so I'll leave it at that, but it's important to recognize that many people do have this type of faith or at least assert so. I dispute it, atheists generally dispute it.

2) Faith as trust or confidence, e.g. "I have faith I won't fall through my chair" or "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow" or "I have faith my friends will be true to me" or "I have faith in humanity to do the right thing." This is generally rational and has utility if and only if the thing we have trust in justifiably exists and if the behavior/event we have confidence in is justified.

Even when we have "faith" in a stranger, we're generally basing it on the statistical likelihood that they're probably a person that shares some of our values such as not attacking or cheating one another.

It becomes clear that even such examples of faith are based on reasons/justifications because otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as "feeling afraid when entering a bad neighborhood." If you walked into a grimy meth lab and had "faith" that people probably wouldn't attempt to rob you if you announced loudly that you were carrying $1,000 in your purse then indeed that is irrational faith.

That's also what I and atheists argue in general: faith in the 2nd context isn't irrational by first principles but it can be under certain conditions. In order for it to be rational, that which trust is confided in must be evidentially (or even statistically) trustworthy and it must justifiably exist.

This is why "faith in God" as in "trust in God" also doesn't work: first, God must justifiably exist.

 

[Midnight Pete]

first, God must justifiably exist.

Stop this, please. We've been through this.

 

[Willamena]

That's also what I and atheists argue in general: faith in the 2nd context isn't irrational by first principles but it can be under certain conditions. In order for it to be rational, that which trust is confided in must be evidentially (or even statistically) trustworthy and it must justifiably exist.

This is why "faith in God" as in "trust in God" also doesn't work: first, God must justifiably exist.

For some people, "God" is existentially trustworthy, and God's existence doesn't need to be justified (as previously mentioned). It's justification, then, that has nothing to do with faith in God.

 

[Midnight Pete]

For some people, "God" is existentially trustworthy, and God's existence doesn't need to be justified (as previously mentioned). It's justification, then, that has nothing to do with faith in God.

:yes:

 

[Meow Mix]

For some people, "God" is existentially trustworthy, and God's existence doesn't need to be justified (as previously mentioned). It's justification, then, that has nothing to do with faith in God.

But this is presuppositionalism, which is epistemologically invalid and irrational. Also, what you said equates to the "belief without justification" that you previously (I think) denounced.

 

[Midnight Pete]

But this is presuppositionalism, which is epistemologically invalid and irrational. Also, what you said equates to the "belief without justification" that you previously (I think) denounced.

Now you're just using big words to sound smart. You don't have to do that, Meow. We know you're a smart girl.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you're just using big words to sound smart. You don't have to do that, Meow. We know you're a smart girl.

Would your post be called meta-posturing?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Now you're just using big words to sound smart. You don't have to do that, Meow. We know you're a smart girl.

What she said was that this is mere opinion and that this essentially boils down to belief without evidence. Which makes it basically worthless.

 

[Midnight Pete]

What she said was that this is mere opinion and that this essentially boils down to belief without evidence. Which makes it basically worthless.

Says you.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Says you.

Says me...and science. You know the concept that you owe almost everything in your life to.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Says me...and science. You know the concept that you owe almost everything in your life to.

Let me know when science proves there is no God.

 

[Meow Mix]

Now you're just using big words to sound smart. You don't have to do that, Meow. We know you're a smart girl.

That's not my intention; those words exist so I don't have to type a paragraph to express the same thing. :flirt:

 

[jarofthoughts]

Let me know when science proves there is no God.

It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, also known as proving a negative, so I can confidently say that that will never happen.

Rather the onus is on those who claim that something exists to prove that this is indeed the case. If it was not so then we would have to believe in all sort of things.

Try it for yourself; let me know when you have proved there is no such thing as faeries.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let me know when science proves there is no God.

This is already proven unfalsifiable. There is in essence no argument whatsoever to be made from this, save from that of a philosophical aspect.

 

[Walkntune]

Says me...and science. You know the concept that you owe almost everything in your life to.

Its the giver of the life itself that matters most and deserves the greater appreciation.

 

[Nothing]

It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, also known as proving a negative, so I can confidently say that that will never happen.

Rather the onus is on those who claim that something exists to prove that this is indeed the case. If it was not so then we would have to believe in all sort of things.

Try it for yourself; let me know when you have proved there is no such thing as faeries.

Your jar must be relatively empty if it can hold only thoughts of what is proven.

 

[mayacrisol]

Says me...and science. You know the concept that you owe almost everything in your life to.

what science? which one? the big bang theory? that says all things are just from an accident or the theory that says your ancestors were apes? what some of them evolved and some did not? LOL.
nice concept.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Its the giver of the life itself that matters most and deserves the greater appreciation.

Good luck with that. I'll stick with ideas that have actual practical application.

Your jar must be relatively empty if it can hold only thoughts of what is proven.

I have many different thoughts and notions. But I do not call them knowledge and I do not necessarily believe them to be truth. For that I need evidence.

what science? the big bang theory? that all things are just from an accident? LOL.
nice concept.

Accident? Where did you get such a misconception from?

No mate, you owe just about everything you see around you and everything you make use of on a daily basis to the method of science.

Your computer, your phone, the internet, your food, your clothes, the house you live in, the plane you take on vacation, modern medicine, the use of electricity, the car you drive to work... All owe a debt to the scientific method.

It -is- a nice concept and it -is- the most effective and powerful idea we humans have ever come up with.
And if you don't think so I strongly suggest you go live in the forest some place without the niceties of modern society.

 

[Meow Mix]

what science? which one? the big bang theory? that says all things are just from an accident or the theory that says your ancestors were apes? what some of them evolved and some did not? LOL.
nice concept.

I'd suggest understanding any topics that you want to publicly disagree with before posting such things.

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." (Can't find the source for this quote, a google search attributed it to Lincoln, Franklin, Plato, and Twain... I have no idea who said it, sorry)

The big bang event wasn't necessarily an "accident," and all modern apes are just as evolved as modern humans are. If you're not sure how that can be the case then you do not understand evolutionary theory.

 

[Willamena]

But this is presuppositionalism, which is epistemologically invalid and irrational. Also, what you said equates to the "belief without justification" that you previously (I think) denounced.

Presuppositionalism.

Not quite. It's more usually, and usefully, called joyful participation. The "God" so believed in is believed in because it exists and is real, in exactly the same way the world exists and is real.