What is Faith?

[jarofthoughts]

I don't care exactly how my microwave works. I have that luxury, not needing to care. As with most things technological, I care more about what it does than how it does it. Science in general I do not trust because it is a playground for mankind's every evil and perverse imagining while also serving mankind in the best & noblest of ways. Since human nature is Janus-headed, so is science.

So what you are essentially saying is that "I don't trust science, but I trust science"...
You do know that you owe all of that luxury and technology to science, right?
And you don't even care enough to learn how and why stuff works...

Do you have any idea of how hypocritical that sounds?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why don't you care about being truthful?

Edit: less inflammatorily... I care about contradiction because I care about truthfulness. Logically contradictory things cannot be true. If an argument contradicts itself, I'm completely safe in rejecting the argument as invalid.

Truth through rational argument is only one truth, and in my experience, a very limited one at that. There are many truths besides.
If you are implying that truth=only rational argument, which is what I think this is all about, you will find, as you have, that God, being irrational, is not a truth.
If you remove your clause of 'only', it will be much easier for you to understand and participate in this thing called 'God'.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Can you give an example?

Because so far, this seems to me to be utter nonsense. IMO, trying to communicate the incommunicable is a fundamentally futile endeavour.

God, life, death...experience in general.

It's not quite the same. Without some sort of relationship between the understanding and the thing being understood, the "picture painted" can't validly be said to be "of God". If God is ineffable, then this means that relationship is impossible.

No, it just means you have to experience God for yourself in order to understand it. If you don't understand God, than the relationship is impossible.
Moreover, when you try to combine two images of God, you have to not only understand your own image, but the other person's image as well.

 

[Meow Mix]

Truth through rational argument is only one truth, and in my experience, a very limited one at that. There are many truths besides.
If you are implying that truth=only rational argument, which is what I think this is all about, you will find, as you have, that God, being irrational, is not a truth.
If you remove your clause of 'only', it will be much easier for you to understand and participate in this thing called 'God'.

God can't be "irrational," since rationality/irrationality apply to statements (not to beings). If the word you're looking for is "illogical," then such things don't and can't exist.

The problem with irrational belief is that it's unjustified and impossible to know whether or not it's true. It's basically a dart toss at a random wheel; it's epistemic nonsense and nothing short of the butchery of reason. If it's irrational then that means there's no checking for internal or external consistency and you might as well be barking at the moon.

Most people use the word "irrational" negatively for a reason; it is indeed a negative thing: the abandonment of the doxastic duty of epistemic integrity. What's really puzzling is why someone would gladly and proudly hold irrational beliefs in one respect but probably wouldn't do the same in their daily lives when it can have more immediate consequences on them: why do you suddenly turn to reason when you have to cross a busy street, or get a job, or have to really find out an answer to a serious question but you'll abandon it for the folly of irrationality when it comes to gods?

It seems to me a cop out to be able to believe what you want, reality (and consistency) be damned.

 

[Willamena]

Can you give an example?

Because so far, this seems to me to be utter nonsense. IMO, trying to communicate the incommunicable is a fundamentally futile endeavour.

Qualia. Back to the beginning, the first example given in this thread.

Edit: You mentioned criteria. I was about 40 years old when I felt jealousy for the first time. It's qualia, ineffable, but I had no problem distinguishing what I was feeling --took a while, but realization sunk in. I could not have re-cognized jealousy if it hadn't been communicated to me at some time earlier in my life.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

God can't be "irrational," since rationality/irrationality apply to statements (not to beings). If the word you're looking for is "illogical," then such things don't and can't exist.

if you want to look at it this way, then I'll go with that. Of course, how you've figured out that God is, and only is, a being is beyond me.

The problem with irrational belief is that it's unjustified and impossible to know whether or not it's true. It's basically a dart toss at a random wheel; it's epistemic nonsense and nothing short of the butchery of reason. If it's irrational then that means there's no checking for internal or external consistency and you might as well be barking at the moon.

You are implying that the goal is to figure out what is 'true', and by true you mean what is logical or rational. I can say with reasonable certainty that you don't use this system in every day life, at least not on the level that you do here. Why is that?

Most people use the word "irrational" negatively for a reason; it is indeed a negative thing: the abandonment of the doxastic duty of epistemic integrity. What's really puzzling is why someone would gladly and proudly hold irrational beliefs in one respect but probably wouldn't do the same in their daily lives when it can have more immediate consequences on them: why do you suddenly turn to reason when you have to cross a busy street, or get a job, or have to really find out an answer to a serious question but you'll abandon it for the folly of irrationality when it comes to gods?

I didn't say to abandon reason. Reason has its uses, and is very valuable in a lot of ways.
But using it to pick apart something that wasn't meant to be rational in the first place is overkill. You've trapped yourself in a box and believe that, because you have done it, everyone else should as well.

It seems to me a cop out to be able to believe what you want, reality (and consistency) be damned.

There is a difference between believing what you want, and letting life tell you what you believe.

 

[Meow Mix]

if you want to look at it this way, then I'll go with that. Of course, how you've figured out that God is, and only is, a being is beyond me.

It's what the term means; a god or deity is a being.

You are implying that the goal is to figure out what is 'true', and by true you mean what is logical or rational. I can say with reasonable certainty that you don't use this system in every day life, at least not on the level that you do here. Why is that?

I do apply reason to my every day life; why would you assume that I don't? Nearly everyone does (those who don't are usually secluded in institutions).

Of course the goal is to discover what's true. You believe in a god, is that true? (Think carefully before answering that question!)

I didn't say to abandon reason. Reason has its uses, and is very valuable in a lot of ways.
But using it to pick apart something that wasn't meant to be rational in the first place is overkill. You've trapped yourself in a box and believe that, because you have done it, everyone else should as well.

You can't examine irrational things at all; or believe in them, because there's nothing to be believed if there's nothing to examine. I haven't "trapped myself in a box," I'm being epistemically consistent. I don't go flitting about believing things willy-nilly on a dart toss.

 

[Midnight Pete]

So what you are essentially saying is that "I don't trust science, but I trust science"...
You do know that you owe all of that luxury and technology to science, right?
And you don't even care enough to learn how and why stuff works...

Do you have any idea of how hypocritical that sounds?

I trust science, but not like I trust God. I give thanks to God, I appreciate science. What good is all the luxury and technology science provides if I live in a 3rd World country where it benefits me none? What good are microwave ovens if I must literally scavenge what I eat from piles of garbage? What do I care for science if I wear rags and sleep in the cold?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's what the term means; a god or deity is a being.

Let's not have this debate again. I'll accept that this is the definition that you will be using. That also means that we can't go very far, but that's now your choice.

I do apply reason to my every day life; why would you assume that I don't? Nearly everyone does (those who don't are usually secluded in institutions).

Of course the goal is to discover what's true. You believe in a god, is that true? (Think carefully before answering that question!)

First, I don't think you use reason as doggedly as you do in this instance. I think, like most people, you will believe what you consider to be a trustworthy source until the issue or topic comes to be of higher importance.

Second, we are not talking about what I believe here. You believe that the idea is to reach truth. I will agree with that. What I do not agree with is that, in order to reach truth, you must use rational methods.

You can't examine irrational things at all; or believe in them, because there's nothing to be believed if there's nothing to examine. I haven't "trapped myself in a box," I'm being epistemically consistent. I don't go flitting about believing things willy-nilly on a dart toss.

I do not go 'flitting about believing things willy-nilly on a dart toss'. As I said, there is a difference in believing what you want, and letting life tell you want to believe.

You, from what I have observed, have taken the first option in this case. What you call being 'epistemically consistent' is the same as 'trapped in a box'. There's nothing bad about it, but you cannot say anything meaningful about things outside your box until you come out and experience them.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I trust science, but not like I trust God. I give thanks to God, I appreciate science. What good is all the luxury and technology science provides if I live in a 3rd World country where it benefits me none? What good are microwave ovens if I must literally scavenge what I eat from piles of garbage? What do I care for science if I wear rags and sleep in the cold?

If you trust science, then you should trust it when it says that dark matter and dark energy is real, if for no other reason then to be consistent. However, blind trust (which it appears as if you have for science) is almost as bad as having blind faith (which one must by definition have for god) since it leaves you open to exploitation by all kinds of charlatans and pushers of snake oil.
I mean, there are people who buy homoeopathy "remedies" for crying out loud...

You are not living in a third world country and you do not have to scavenge for food, so I'm not sure why you would bring that up.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If you trust science, then you should trust it when it says that dark matter and dark energy is real, if for no other reason then to be consistent. However, blind trust (which it appears as if you have for science) is almost as bad as having blind faith (which one must by definition have for god) since it leaves you open to exploitation by all kinds of charlatans and pushers of snake oil.
I mean, there are people who buy homoeopathy "remedies" for crying out loud...

You are not living in a third world country and you do not have to scavenge for food, so I'm not sure why you would bring that up.

Because of all the people who really do live in 3rd world countries and really do have to scavenge for food. You telling me to believe in dark matter and dark energy is really really ironic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Because of all the people who really do live in 3rd world countries and really do have to scavenge for food. You telling me to believe in dark matter and dark energy is really really ironic.

Right. I'm at a loss here. Tell me how that relates to what we are discussing please, because I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. :sarcastic

 

[Midnight Pete]

Right. I'm at a loss here. Tell me how that relates to what we are discussing please, because I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. :sarcastic

If I can't see or hear or touch it, then I must simply believe it exists through faith. You seem to be telling me that this dm/de stuff is as touchable and knowable as the keyboard I'm typing on. But is it? Should I simply *believe* it exists? If so, then dm/de is just another article of (scientific) faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If I can't see or hear or touch it, then I must simply believe it exists through faith. You seem to be telling me that this dm/de stuff is as touchable and knowable as the keyboard I'm typing on. But is it? Should I simply *believe* it exists? If so, then dm/de is just another article of (scientific) faith.

You can see the effects of dm/de and you can verify its existence for yourself since science is based on objective evidence. Of course, checking every scientific fact known to man would take you far longer than your natural lifespan, but the trust we put in scientific theories are not at all similar to religious faith. Science has a track record for getting reliable results and while we might not personally check every theory and fact for verification you can rest assured that there are scientists working on it them continuously, and should you have doubts about a particular area of science or about particular facts and conclusions you can, if you want, check them for yourself.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Midnight Pete]

You can see the effects of dm/de and you can verify its existence for yourself since science is based on objective evidence.

How can I do this? How can I verify the existence of dm/de with objective evidence? And more importantly, why should I care about dm/de in the first place?

 

[jarofthoughts]

How can I do this? How can I verify the existence of dm/de with objective evidence?

Well, you could start by taking a course in Cosmology for instance, and then later after yu get a degree apply for a position that gives you access to a decent telescope, and then you can do your own observations and calculations.

And more importantly, why should I care about dm/de in the first place?

That is up to you. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are scientific phenomena that are unlikely to have much of an impact on your daily life so it is in no way vital to most people.
As a precaution though, it is generally not recommended to have strong opinions about subjects one knows little or nothing about, so if that is the purpose I would do some research at least.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Well, you could start by taking a course in Cosmology for instance, and then later after yu get a degree apply for a position that gives you access to a decent telescope, and then you can do your own observations and calculations.

You want me to get a degree in Cosmology? I'd get more use out of a degree in Philosophy.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are scientific phenomena that are unlikely to have much of an impact on your daily life so it is in no way vital to most people.

Yes, it's what I would call Useless Knowledge. A whole crapload of specialized book-learning with no absolutely no real-world application.

As a precaution though, it is generally not recommended to have strong opinions about subjects one knows little or nothing about, so if that is the purpose I would do some research at least.

Atheists should take this advice when they talk about God. It's good advice.

 

[Willamena]

It's what the term means; a god or deity is a being.

God is deity.

If you accept that "God" is "the creator of everything," then "God" can be noun, verb, adjective/adverb, and even definate article.

 

[Midnight Pete]

God is deity.

If you accept that "God" is "the creator of everything," then "God" can be noun, verb, adjective/adverb, and even definate article.

No, God is not verb or adjective or anything but a Person. A Creator.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Truth through rational argument is only one truth, and in my experience, a very limited one at that. There are many truths besides.
If you are implying that truth=only rational argument, which is what I think this is all about, you will find, as you have, that God, being irrational, is not a truth.

I'm not saying "truth = only rational argument", but I am saying that irrational = false.

If your God is irrational, then your God is not real.

If you remove your clause of 'only', it will be much easier for you to understand and participate in this thing called 'God'.

It was your clause, actually, but why would I want to believe false things?