What is Faith?

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

The concept of dark matter / energy is a complex working of mathematics, astrology, and cosmology. It's not a practice of just pulling something out of the air and demanding belief - it's a scientific model constructed to solve scientific problems.

The only role that belief plays is if you're too incompetent to work out the math for yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

If you want to talk about something other than a supreme being, then you should probably use a different word than "God". Just like when I want to talk about horselike creatures with black and white stripes, I use the word "zebras" instead of "shoes" because that's the best way to communicate.

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.

Sure, but that's reasonable. It also depends on the claim being made. If the claim is that there are 500,000 atheists/agnostics living in New York City, I'll buy that, at least until I find out differently. That's partly because it doesn't really matter to me, and partly because it's not a very outrageous claim. Now, if someone claimed there were 5 million atheists/agnostics living in New York City, I'd disbelieve them unless they came up with some good evidence.

But really, the point is, if you're trying to figure out the truth of a claim, the only good way to go is through reason. All you're saying here is that many times we don't even bother trying to figure out the truth of a claim (as in my first example).

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.

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.

If you're using irrational methods to try to reach truth, you're doing the equivalent of throwing darts. It's possible to end up at the truth through irrational means, like faith, but it's unlikely. It really is like trying to hit the bull's-eye. You can use irrational methods like closing your eyes and throwing backwards, or you can use rational methods like looking at the dart board, focusing and throwing straight ahead. Either way, it's possible to hit the bull's-eye, but I think you'd agree that the second way gives you an immensely better chance of achieving that goal than the first.

 

[Magic Man]

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 don't have to believe it exists. You also don't have to believe in gravity. Either way, those things are going to exist. You seem to misunderstand the idea of dark matter and dark energy. Scientists have seen and tested certain phenomena in the universe. The have come up with explanations for what they've seen. They don't fully understand either thing yet. You can see what they've seen, and you can see that something exists there that's causing the phenomena they're experiencing, even if no one fully understands it.

That's quite a bit different from God. There is nothing in the universe that needs God as an explanation, so there is not the same kind of evidence for God as there is for dark matter and energy.

 

[Willamena]

The concept of dark matter / energy is a complex working of mathematics, astrology, and cosmology. It's not a practice of just pulling something out of the air and demanding belief - it's a scientific model constructed to solve scientific problems.

The only role that belief plays is if you're too incompetent to work out the math for yourself.

I think you mean astronomy, not astrology?

At least, I hope you do.

 

[Willamena]

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

That is irrational.

 

[Magic Man]

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

No one wants you to, but if you want to learn about dark matter and energy and see their evidence for yourself, that would be a good way to go.

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

It's useless for you, but not for humanity. It helps us understand the universe better. That has real-world application, even if it doesn't affect your daily life right now. Besides, this is all irrelevant.

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

We do. That's why we understand that there's no god. The people who really need to take this advice are those who don't believe in evolution or don't trust science in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Not true. You can also infer that a thing exists through its effects.

Say you visit a friend's house and you see cat hair on all the furniture, a half-eaten dish of cat food on the floor, and a litterbox with a few clumps in it. Your friend tells you that he has a cat, but it's shy around new people, so it's hiding.

You can't see, hear or touch the cat; is it a matter of "faith" to believe the cat exists?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Any word can be anything you want it to be. I can say "I want to beer today", but not if I want to actually communicate effectively. To do that, you need to use words the way we all understand them in the least confusing way possible. That means using "God" as a noun, since that's what it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is irrational.

How so?

 

[Willamena]

Not true. You can also infer that a thing exists through its effects.

Say you visit a friend's house and you see cat hair on all the furniture, a half-eaten dish of cat food on the floor, and a litterbox with a few clumps in it. Your friend tells you that he has a cat, but it's shy around new people, so it's hiding.

You can't see, hear or touch the cat; is it a matter of "faith" to believe the cat exists?

Before this thread, I probably would. Now I have a much better understanding of what faith is about (thanks, Luna!).

 

[Willamena]

How so?

Irrational: not endowed with reason or understanding

An irrational statement, for example, is one made without a stated reason. "Irrational = false" is irrational until such a time as it is endowed with reason.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

I merely described a possible path to take if you wanted to contest the evidence for Dark Energy and Dark Matter (which despite the name are two completely different phenomena relating to Cosmology).
What you might get use out of is irrelevant to the question you asked.

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

It is hard to know the application of new knowledge in science beforehand. This may one day prove to be absolutely vital and hugely important, or it might turn out to have no practical application whatsoever, but in either case that is irrelevant to the discussion we're having. Science is not primarily about practical application. It is about gathering knowledge and gaining understanding in trying to figure out how the Universe works, and any endeavour that enhances that goal is worthwhile by its very definition.

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

And according to this article atheists apparently know more about god than theists do.
For the record I've read the Bible, the Quran (in English), parts of the Vedas, and many other religious texts, so, yes, I am taking my own advice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irrational: not endowed with reason or understanding

An irrational statement, for example, is one made without a stated reason. "Irrational = false" is irrational until such a time as it is endowed with reason.

You're being overly restrictive in your definition of "irrational". I meant the term in this sense:

not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical

Irrational | Define Irrational at Dictionary.com

 

[Willamena]

You're being overly restrictive in your definition of "irrational". I meant the term in this sense:


Irrational | Define Irrational at Dictionary.com

I could point out that that's the same sense, but I suppose it would be argued, so ...nevermind.

 

[Meow Mix]

How so?

I think she's pointing out (correctly) that things aren't rational/irrational, but beliefs are. (Unless we're talking about a sentient thing, in which case we're saying whether or not that thing behaves rationally or not -- still going back to beliefs).

The original statement you made I think went something like "If God is irrational then it's false" or something like that. It's just splitting hairs, but that's incorrect in all contexts.

If the context is that God behaves irrationally and so is false, that obviously doesn't follow.

If the context is treating God like a regular noun (i.e. "this rock is irrational") then that's an incorrect use of the term.

It's also the case that an irrational belief can be true, but that truth can't be known -- such as if I believe the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City based on a coin toss. I have a true belief, but it's not knowledge; and I can't know that my belief is true.

In any case as I said it's all splitting hairs

It would be most correct to say "If God is illogical then it can't exist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think she's pointing out (correctly) that things aren't rational/irrational, but beliefs are. (Unless we're talking about a sentient thing, in which case we're saying whether or not that thing behaves rationally or not -- still going back to beliefs).

The original statement you made I think went something like "If God is irrational then it's false" or something like that. It's just splitting hairs, but that's incorrect in all contexts.

I disagree. As I tried to explain earlier, I was using the term irrational in the sense of "utterly illogical", which I do think works in this context. However, if it helps it get my point across better and stops us from getting bogged down in semantics, I'll re-phrase:

If a conceptual God is negated by logic, then this God does not exist in actuality.

It would be most correct to say "If God is illogical then it can't exist."

In this case, the two words are interchangeable, IMO.


There - now is everyone happy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I could point out that that's the same sense, but I suppose it would be argued, so ...nevermind.

No, it's not the same sense. "A reason" refers to purpose or intent. "Reason" refers to logic and rationality.

Your explanation suggested a sense of the word meaning something like "without reason", but it's also valid to use a definition that's more like "against reason", which is the sense I intended.

 

[Meow Mix]

There - now is everyone happy?

No!

My pedantic side demands a sacrifice!

:tribal::tribal2::bat:

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Yes, and that lack of objective evidence (that even those people tend to require to believe most other things) means that belief is unjustified.

Unjustified by your criteria...which you call objective evidence...whatever you think that is...is a photograph of a paranormal entity objective evidence then?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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.

Change 'real' to 'not rational', and I'm fine with it. If you are claiming real=rational, then my statement before was correct.
(You do have to assume that real=truth, of course.)

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

If by 'false' you mean 'irrational', then I can't really help you. Why do you put so much value on rational things?