What is Faith?

[osgart]

Yeah, you like logic and reason. Now with logic and reason alone solve the following problem.
You know that a brain can produce a hallucination and you know according to your worldview that it is natural.
In effect the universe causes you to experience something that is not real or true.

So here is the formal problem: If that is true and you can't deny it, because then you deny that the universe is natural and real, because you in effect some unnatural and unreal is caused by the universe, thus it is true and real, that the universe in effect can trick you.

So how do you know that is not happening now? Well, you can't because you then assume that which you question. You question if your experiences are real and true and thus you can't start by assuming that they are, because then you have done a circular argument.

So here it is for the 2 possibilities:
The universe causes you to have experiences that are not real and true.
The universe causes you to have experiences that are real and true.

It comes in many variants: Descartes. A brain in a vat. The computer simulation. A Boltzmann Brain.

The same problem is here on a different scale:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

And thus you get this in the Wiki article about science:
"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] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]"

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am just honest. I don't know that the universe is real. I have faith in that.

If someone who hallucinates could test the hallucination they might find that it doesn't corroborate physically with the other senses and thus know it's a real illusion.

Same goes for dreams. In my mind's eye I can see images produced and as my mind reacts I seem to be able to exert some control over the actions in my dream. I have imagery responses to the images that happen in my mind. They are somewhat nonsensical occurrences.

Even now I can imagine the checkout counter at the grocery store I was just at in my mind. I know it's real because I've been there so many times physically.

All senses should corroborate that I'm actually experiencing an actual reality vs. an imaginary one.

To some extent the hallucination is real it's just not in the same category of real as the actual physical world.

Hallucinations, dreams, and imaginations are separate realities from the physical actuality.

So it's all real, just in totally different ways.

To me one sense should corroborate with all other senses to know I have actuality.

Of course my niece may actually be a purple dragon appearing as my niece, but I don't buy it.

Then there is the topic of pain. Pain that can't be wished away.

I would say everything is real, but there are different categories of real.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is all faith naive - blind faith?

I think faith can be blind and it can be reasonable. For example trust in someone. It's reasonable not to trust a stranger (unless it's necessary) and to trust someone you know intimately and who has proven to be trustworthy.

I don't think that anyone can argue that all faith is blind faith. Blind faith is unquestioning belief in something, even when it's unreasonable or wrong. It is not unreasonable or wrong to have faith in a person who has earned your trust, so why does it have to be unreasonable to trust a Messenger of God and thus God, if they have earned our trust?

Is this knowledge or belief? If it was knowledge we wouldn't have to trust, right? We would just know it.

I think it is belief on faith, since in either case a person had to believe and have faith that a trusted person or a Messenger of God or God won't let them down since that cannot know that for a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, really?
..and you have already died and found out?
No .. thought not.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

The experience of love, forgiveness, kindness, generosity (and etc.) provide significant innate value to all of us, according to my experience of living. They speak for themselves (so to speak ) So I choose these as my general goal. Though the specifics of how are more often difficult to ascertain. And I know that perfection is an unachievable ideological myth.

So I guess what you are saying is that you don't have to believe in those because you can already experience them and see them in people.

Not what I "believe" will happen. What I hope will result, and what I am willing to act toward achieving even though I do not know that it will be the result. This is faith. Belief in the face of our unknowing is dishonest. And because it's dishonest it very often misleads us and confuses us, and others. It's far better to admit that we don't know, and choose our actions accordingly, than it is to pretend we do know, and act dishonestly.

So you have faith in what you hope for but don't know will happen.

I do not think that belief is pretending we know, but that all depends upon how you define belief.
According to the definitions below, belief can mean the same thing as faith.

Faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
faith means - Google Search

Belief:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

When I say I believe something, I mean I have trust, faith, and confidence in what I believe.
I also accept (for myself) that what I believe is true and that what I believe in exists.
I accept (for myself) that what I believe is true because I have trust, faith, and confidence in what I believe.

I do not think that belief in the face of our unknowing is dishonest. What would be dishonest is if I said I do not believe what I do believe.
I do not pretend to know. I admit I don't know, I only believe. If I knew it would not be a belief, it would be knowledge.

Too many theists have fallen for the lie of "belief" and for the dishonest hubris that comes with it. They strut around proclaiming knowledge of God that they cannot possibly possess. I am not against religion, but too much religion has fallen into the dishonesty of "belief" at the expense of the well being of everyone involved and effected by it. And so I feel obliged to speak out against it.s.

I do not think believers should do that. Rather, they should admit that they believe but they don't know.
However, I think it is okay for them to say they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures.

Belief is nothing more than the presumption that what we think is true, IS true. It is the rejection of doubt. When one says that they believe "X = X", they are expressing their lack of doubt in regards to the truthfulness of that statement. And for we humans, and in nearly all instances, we do not possess sufficient knowledge to hold to such certainty. So for us to do so, is fundamentally dishonest. And this is especially true when it comes to the subject of "God".

Belief is not a presumption. It is a personal acceptance based upon trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
If a believer has no doubt, they have no doubt. I don't think anyone has a right to tell another person that they should doubt.

I think the reason some people tell others they should doubt is because they have no belief and it makes them angry or jealous that someone else is so certain of their belief. Why else would it bother them what other people believe? It does not hurt them.

People have certainty for different reasons and certainty does not always come from factual knowledge and what can be proven. Nobody can understand the reasons another person has certainty unless they have walked a mile in their moccasins.

Some people have no doubt that God exists. It would be dishonest to say they have doubt when they have no doubt because that would be a lie.

To "believe what we cannot prove" is both dishonest and illogical. It is the deliberate denial of two of our most effective and valuable human assets: honesty and logic.

I disagree with that since proof is not what makes anything true. Proof is just what 'some people' require to believe something is true.
It is neither dishonest nor illogical to believe in what we can never prove. It is simply a personal choice.

Nobody has the right to tell other people what they should believe or disbelieve. That in itself is disrespectful.
Moreover, if a person tells another person what they should believe or disbelieve based upon their own understanding of 'how it should be done' that is hubris.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it may be helpful to ask another question: if you "know" something is true, what possible use could "faith" be?

Samuel L. Clemens (aka Mark Twain) once wrote: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

I know that if the burner on my stove-top is glowing red, I ought not put my hand on it -- and trust me, short of somebody stronger than me forcing me to do it, I will not. Do I have "faith" or "knowledge?" I know that if I step off of my balcony, 15 floors up, I will fall to the ground and almost certainly die. Do you think I ever think of making an experiment of it, to see if I'm right or wrong? NO! Is that "faith" or "knowledge?"

On the other hand, "I know that if I have been righteous, God will cure my daughter's cancer if I and enough people pray for it," does that lead you to go to church -- or to the oncology specialists in your city's hospital? If the former, you have faith. You'll just have to work out why it didn't quite work after your daughter dies, but that's easily done. (You might be left with a niggling suspicion that the oncologists might have done better, however. Still, if you have enough faith, you can bury that doubt.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Faith is belief in the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is both a story (“The Kingdom is like…”) and a destination, so faith is the ability to navigate through the story.

So a readiness and facility to cope with what may well be fiction?

 

[Trailblazer]

Samuel L. Clemens (aka Mark Twain) once wrote: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Faith is believing what you don't know is so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Faith is believing what you don't know is so.

Okay -- and if you're wrong?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay -- and if you're wrong?

No harm, no foul.
But what if you're wrong?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No harm, no foul.
But what if you're wrong?

I'm human. I'm often wrong, as are we all. But when you have "perfect faith" that God will save your loved one because of all the prayers you, your family, your neighbours, your church have made -- how do you cope when he dies, when it doesn't work ... basically, when God ignores you?

I never face that situation.

 

[blü 2]

I have been having a discussion on another thread with @It Aint Necessarily So, and he claims that the definition of faith is unjustified belief.

As for the meaning of the word 'faith' at large, I'd say it was believing something without (or contrary to) evidence.

In the religious context it seems to mean believing that one or more supernatural beings exist in the world external to the self, reality.

This requires faith because no evidence suggests there are such things in reality. The very word 'supernatural' is an assertion that they exist outside of nature ie outside of reality. The only way that anything is known to exist other than in reality is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

It also explains how there can be so many different kinds of supernatural being peculiar to so many different cultures. It strongly suggests that supernatural beings are cultural artifacts, learnt rather than perceived ─ since if they were perceived, there'd be much greater consistency between the supernatural beings and beliefs of different cultures.

 

[F1fan]

Could you please stop claiming a we that is not there.

I can assure you there are many "we's" on the planet.

You are not humanity and neither am I. It just happens that when believers like you started claiming critical thinking I actually started reading about it and learned the problems with your worldview.

Believers like me (a collection that could be referred to as "we" if applicable)? I'm an atheist.

Yeah , I understand the bold one. But those are your personal opinion.

It is my opinion that doesn't seem to have any argument against it.

As to why I only believe that the universe only exists and don't know that?
Well, you could start reading say this wiki page for science and consider how come it states this:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"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] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]"

Assumptions such as?????

And one thing that occurs to me is that even if this is true it doesn't stop science from doing its works and getting valid results.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm human. I'm often wrong, as are we all. But when you have "perfect faith" that God will save your loved one because of all the prayers you, your family, your neighbours, your church have made -- how do you cope when he dies, when it doesn't work ... basically, when God ignores you?

I have a pretty good idea how people cope with that because I have been attending a weekly GriefShare group at a church for several weeks now.
When your loved one dies and you are a believer you do just what anyone else does, you grieve your loss, and people do that in various ways. The only difference is that believers have hope in God and an afterlife, and if they are Christians they have hope in Jesus.

Believers don't believe that God ignored them because their loved one died. They understand that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

I never face that situation.

It is a fact of life that people are born and people die. There is no way around it. You will face losing your partner if he dies before you, as has happened to me. For a married people, one or the other spouse will die first, leaving the other spouse to grieve. I don't know how atheists grieve but I imagine it is the same as believers, less the God to turn to.

 

[Trailblazer]

In the religious context it seems to mean believing that one or more supernatural beings exist in the world external to the self, reality.

This requires faith because no evidence suggests there are such things in reality.

It requires faith to believe in God since there is no proof that God exists. There is evidence, but no proof.

 

[F1fan]

No harm, no foul.
But what if you're wrong?

The irony is how theists never consider this in regards to their own positive belief in supernatural concepts, like gods, devils, angels, demons, guides, messengers, etc. But they are willing to pressure non-believers as if their skeptisim is somehow flawed, as we see in the case of creationists denying science. The natural approach to any claim by a thinker is doubt, and to judge the claim as being true or likely true requires some evidence. The belief being popular is irrelevant. The belief being something a celebrity believes is irrelevant. The belief being something an authority figure believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is evidence for the claim to make it believable. Faith isn't a justification for a claim that lacks evidence, but it is a common practice.

We all have a responsibility to check our own thinking, but open discussion allows us insights that we might lack on our own.

 

[Trailblazer]

The irony is how theists never consider this in regards to their own positive belief in supernatural concepts, like gods, devils, angels, demons, guides, messengers, etc. But they are willing to pressure non-believers as if their skeptisim is somehow flawed, as we see in the case of creationists denying science. The natural approach to any claim by a thinker is doubt, and to judge the claim as being true or likely true requires some evidence. The belief being popular is irrelevant. The belief being something a celebrity believes is irrelevant. The belief being something an authority figure believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is evidence for the claim to make it believable. Faith isn't a justification for a claim that lacks evidence, but it is a common practice.

We all have a responsibility to check our own thinking, but open discussion allows us insights that we might lack on our own.

In case you haven't noticed, I never put any pressure on atheists to believe in God.
The only reason I said "But what if you're wrong?" was in response to @Evangelicalhumanist asking me "Okay -- and if you're wrong?

Either one of us could be wrong, yet we take a position.

The natural approach to any claim by a thinker is doubt, and to judge the claim as being true or likely true requires some evidence, but you already know where I stand on that so there is no need to beat a dead horse.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know that you have not mastered critical thinking because [a] you commit fallacy after fallacy and you lack the critical thinking skills to see that.

Talk is cheap.
I commit fallacy after fallacy yet you cannot even name one fallacy and tell me why I committed it.
By contrast, you commit fallacy after fallacy and I name the fallacies and explain why you committed them.

If one can't tell a sound argument from a fallacious one, he lacks critcial thinking skills..

Why do you keep ignoring what I say? I have said several times that I am making no logical argument for God's existence since there is no logical argument that would ever prove God's existence, and as such, I cannot be making a sound or an unsound argument.

In case you didn't get that, here it is again in larger print.

I am making no logical argument for God's existence since there is no logical argument that would ever prove God's existence, and as such, I cannot be making a sound or an unsound argument.

No, that's your definition. I never said that. Your fallacy this time: straw man.

That is no fallacy, it was only my personal opinion.

If you hold a god belief, your belief is unjustified, meaning that you hold it by faith. There is no fallacy in those words.

That is only your personal opinion. We all have those.
Besides, I hold my God belief on faith and evidence.

So what? You must think that that is the only fallacious belief that one who commits that fallacy one can hold. What you said was an ad populum fallacy nevertheless, as you are about to repeat next: How logical is it to say that 93% of the world population who believe in God are all unskilled thinkers?

And there it was.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

I have said this several times but I am going to say it once more, this time in bigger print.

I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe it.

I said: How logical is it to say that 93% of the world population who believe in God are all unskilled thinkers?

That is incorrect. Faith is never justified, just as unjustified belief is never sound.

I will say it again, this time in larger print.

The faith in the Messenger is justified if He is truly a Messenger of God.

Demonstrating the truth of the claim it has been easy. Proving it to YOU, however, is impossible. One needs to be able to think critically to recognize a sound argument, which is why I commonly note that there in never a burden of proof with one unwilling or unable to recognize such an argument.

Both are the same claim.

I have already said this several times but I will say it again, this time in larger print.

I am making no claims. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims are true.

Here's more fallacy from you.

That was no fallacy.
A belief is not a claim. That is why there are two words in the dictionary and they are not synonyms.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

I think that's you. You've recognized none even after having pointed them out, and you have not correctly identified a single fallacy in the critical thinkers disagreeing with you. How could you?

I think that's you. You've recognized none even after my having pointed them out, and you have not correctly identified a single fallacy I have committed. How could you?

Wrong again. I had written "There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists."

Correction: "There is no reason for you to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists."

Why bother?

Because you made the allegation so you are responsible to back it up with evidence.

Right in front of you, but you are unprepared to make such judgments. Critical analysis is an acquired skill.

There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists.

Sure I do. I've looked at your opinions. How else could I have identified so many fallacies?

You have identified no fallacies that I have committed.

Nevertheless, this has been fun. I haven't laughed so much in years and God knows I need something to laugh about.

 

[F1fan]

In case you haven't noticed, I never put any pressure on atheists to believe in God.
The only reason I said "But what if you're wrong?" was in response to @Evangelicalhumanist asking me "Okay -- and if you're wrong?

You do mimic others to evade answering their questions.

Either one of us could be wrong, yet we take a position.

It's more truthful to not believe due to a lack of evidence than to believe despite a lack of evidence. Who is more likely wrong? The believer.

 

[blü 2]

It requires faith to believe in God since there is no proof that God exists. There is evidence, but no proof.

Old friend, one reason why there can't be evidence that God exists in reality is that there is no definition of a real God, one with objective existence, sufficient to allow us to determine whether any real suspect we might find is God or not. All the definitions of God appear to attribute only imaginary qualities to God ─ immaterial, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite, and so on.

Thus when it comes to real gods, gods that exist independently of the concept "god" in any brain, I've never found anyone who can clearly state what real entity they're intending to denote when they say "God".

 

[Trailblazer]

You do mimic others to evade answering their questions.

I answer every question I am asked, unlike some people who just ignore the questions I ask them.

@Evangelicalhumanist said: Okay -- and if you're wrong?
I answered his question. I said "No harm, no foul."

It's more truthful to not believe due to a lack of evidence than to believe despite a lack of evidence. Who is more likely wrong? The believer.

It's wiser to believe than to disbelieve when there is evidence. Who is more likely wrong? The disbeliever.