What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

If only there were any evidence for that ... however sleight. Ah, if only ...

Try to think about how we could obtain evidence of an entity that resided in another dimension far beyond our reach, however slight?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A person can acheive any truth they like with the right set of assumptions. That is something to be wary of doing.

It's nothing to do with like or dislike. Utility is an advantage when a person considers an epistemology. I suggest even those who prefer, and claim, other approaches will secretely use a more utilitarian version. Whether the secret includes the self is a question that can be asked.

Yes, and why do advantages matter? You have to learn to ask the next question. Utilitarian is not science. It is philosophy and belong in the field of ethics. That is not science and not epistemology as such.

 

[blü 2]

Try to think about how we could obtain evidence of an entity that resided in another dimension far beyond our reach, however slight?

First we'd have to show that such a thing had objective existence.

You've no doubt read Flatland ? Written some decades after Riemann's writings on the maths of n-spaces and n-dimensional objects, when the implications from those were becoming better known ─ and the idea that God was a being existing in 4 or more spatial dimensions was popular. Spiritualists also located the Astral Plane / heaven there.

But not much has happened to advance the cause in the century since. (I remember the occasional séances of my student days, when I discovered how breathtakingly simple it was to manipulate the ouija board's sliding glass.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First we'd have to show that such a thing had objective existence.

You've no doubt read Flatland ? Written some decades after Riemann's writings on the maths of n-spaces and n-dimensional objects, when the implications from those were becoming better known ─ and the idea that God was a being existing in 4 or more spatial dimensions was popular. Spiritualists also located the Astral Plane / heaven there.

But not much has happened to advance the cause in the century since. (I remember the occasional séances of my student days, when I discovered how breathtakingly simple it was to manipulate the ouija board's sliding glass.)

Yeah, if only all of the world with humans in it and all that goes on, had objective existence. That is as much a wet dream as God.

 

[PureX]

There are degrees of trust. If you have faith you expect something to be according to faith. Hope is a lesser degree of trust than faith. If you hope something to be than you don't expect something with so much certainty. It may be or it may not be.

For example: I have lost faith in life after death but I still have hope.

But you're just restating the error. Faith is not the expectation of a result. If we expect a given result, then we don't need have faith. Because we have that expectation. Expectation is an expression of surety. Surety does not need faith. Faith and surety are mutually exclusive of each other. It's only when we have doubt, because we don't have surety, that we need to engage in faithfulness.

When religions preach "belief" they are preaching surety. They are preaching the expectation that their version of truth is THE truth. That there is no reason or place for doubt. And that is a position that does not require our engaging in faithfulness. Why would we need faith when we have surety? When we have the undoubted expectation that our presumed truth is THE truth? And that we already know the results?

This is how religions fail us when they preach belief instead of faith. When they deny doubt and embrace the pretense of, and expectation of knowing what God is, what God wants, and what will come to pass as a result. They encourage delusion, and hubris. And that's very often what results.

 

[PureX]

Dictionary definitions are not perfect. They use words to define words and they can only approximate a meaning. Also, words mean different things to different people.

presume: suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

presume meaning - Google Search

www.google.com

Which is why we can't just toss them around as though they were absolute facts. And is why I am explaining why faith is not belief, and belief is not faith.

All believers are not the same, we are as varied as the flowers in a garden. If someone were to claim that all believers are the same that would be the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

Belief means different things to different people and not all believers are as certain of their beliefs as other believers.
If someone presumes that God exists, they may or may not have doubts.

If they do not, then they are deluding themselves. Because as human beings, we do not possess the capacity to logically or honestly know 'God' with that kind of surety.

I do not presume that God exists since I do not suppose that God exists on the basis of probability. I do not suppose that God exists, I have no doubt that God exists, and it has nothing to do with probability. It is an inner certitude related to the evidence I see for God, and how I interpret that evidence. I believe that it is by the Grace of God that I have that certitude, part of which was acquired by all the tests and difficulties I have endured in my life.

You need not defend yourself, here, as I am not attacking your theism. I am only illuminating a mistake that a lot of theists, and atheists, too, are making regarding faith and belief.

You are correct. Trust, faith, and confidence are not belief, they are all different terms that refer to different intellectual positions.
I do not have to 'justify' my belief to anyone except myself.
Likewise, atheists do not have to justify their non-belief to anyone except themselves.

Nevertheless, don't you think honesty and logic are important to maintain? I do.

As I said above, I do not presume that God exists even though I don't know it to be so. I do know.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://www.google.com/search

Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: know

I never tell others that they should believe what I believe. I always tell people that they need to come to a belief on their own, if they want to believe, but nobody has to believe in God.

I said: "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."
I am revising what I said before. I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

It only seems irrational and nonsensical to you and the atheists because you and they cannot understand how I know.
Atheists expect me to know that God exists they way they would want to know but that is arrogant hubris.

When you claim your knowledge to others, they expect that you are claiming that they should also 'know', as you do. I get that your knowledge is the result of your personal experience. But unless you say so, people assume you to be referring to common knowledge that we can all ascertain. But it's not.

If they need to know that God exists with some kind of proof that does not exist that's fine, but that is not how I know. I know because of the evidence that is as plain to me as the noonday sun in Arizona. All the great religions are evidence to me.

I said: "I do not think believers should do that. Rather, they should admit that they believe but they don't know. "
Again, I am revising what I said. A believer can say they know if they know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

I will not admit I don't know because I do know in the sense of the definitions of know I posted above.

l get that. But most other people will not. I am not attacking your theological position. I am illuminating a significant proplem that many theist and especially religious theists fall into regarding faith and belief.

The question I think you should be asking yourself is why what I believe bothers you, and I think that atheists should also ask themselves this question. It certainly doesn't bother me what other people believe or disbelieve, what they think they know or don't know. Everyone has a right to their beliefs or non-beliefs. This is all about having boundaries between ourselves and other people and allowing others to be who they are.

There is nothing illogical if a believer says they believe that can know something about God through their scriptures. It is completely logical, since the only way to know anything about God is through scriptures.

Such a claim is not logical. You can believe it all you like, but you can't expect others to buy into that belief with you. So why proclaim it? What do you hope to gain from doing that? As you can see for yourself, all it gets you is the logical rejection of others.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, if only all of the world with humans in it and all that goes on, had objective existence. That is as much a wet dream as God.

That's not my view, but it's a curious one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not my view, but it's a curious one.

No, you do it with a limited effect for the concept of real.

 

[F1fan]

No, I made no such claim change. The quality manifests in feelings and actions. The quality always came first.

And a third version. OK.

That's fascinating that they found a direct correspondence between thoughts and the brain.

Correspondence? As if thoughts and the brain are two independent entities that communicate? No, thoughts are a porduct of brains. Even other animals have thoughts.

Thoughts then manifest in the brain. Ok?

Thoughts are caused by brains. Is there a reason you aren't informed on this? There is information available for free on the internet.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, and why do advantages matter?

Because humans are animals and very competitive, and often our primal aim is survival. Advantages are attractive given that aim.

You have to learn to ask the next question. Utilitarian is not science. It is philosophy and belong in the field of ethics. That is not science and not epistemology as such.

So what? We humans are motivated to survive daily, even hourly. And we seek means to help ourselves survive and even enjoy pleasures. Utility in our thoughts are crucial. No matter how idealistic a person can be in their views inevitably they understand they are human and have needs to accomodate. It's outlined in Maslow's hiearchy of needs. The more a person faces basic needs the less important ideals and philosophy become.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And a third version. OK.

Correspondence? As if thoughts and the brain are two independent entities that communicate? No, thoughts are a porduct of brains. Even other animals have thoughts.

Thoughts are caused by brains. Is there a reason you aren't informed on this? There is information available for free on the internet.

Yeah, but it is even a bit more complicated than that. Some beliefs even if not actual true can have effects on the biological body, that can be measured by science.
So there is something weird going on between in effect the subjective and objective.

And no, I don't mean religion as actual supernatural. I mean subjective beliefs, which are not true as per correspondence truth, yet can be measured for an actual effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because humans are animals and very competitive, and often our primal aim is survival. Advantages are attractive given that aim.

So what? We humans are motivated to survive daily, even hourly. And we seek means to help ourselves survive and even enjoy pleasures. Utility in our thoughts are crucial. No matter how idealistic a person can be in their views inevitably they understand they are human and have needs to accomodate. It's outlined in Maslow's hiearchy of needs. The more a person faces basic needs the less important ideals and philosophy become.

Yeah, there are 5 levels. And only the lowest is strictly survival as biology. The rest are psychology but you can survive and reproduce without them being meet.
In the end biology is not about you and me. We are secondary to the reproduction of the fittest genome.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, but it is even a bit more complicated than that. Some beliefs even if not actual true can have effects on the biological body, that can be measured by science.
So there is something weird going on between in effect the subjective and objective.

Why is it weird? We humans can create false beliefs and fear non-threats and react. Much of this can be addressed by understanding emotional intelligence, which is a set of skills and practices to manage our thoughts so they are less negative.

And no, I don't mean religion as actual supernatural. I mean subjective beliefs, which are not true as per correspondence truth, yet can be measured for an actual effect.

You aren't going to be comprehended with a few sentences at a time. If you have a compex idea you want to share it will take paragraphs.

Yeah, there are 5 levels. And only the lowest is strictly survival as biology. The rest are psychology but you can survive and reproduce without them being meet.
In the end biology is not about you and me. We are secondary to the reproduction of the fittest genome.

And biological needs are always present. As long as each level's needs are met the person can focus on the next. Those with all basic needs met will have vastly more freedom of thought than those struggling to find food and shelter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is it weird? We humans can create false beliefs and fear non-threats and react. Much of this can be addressed by understanding emotional intelligence, which is a set of skills and practices to manage our thoughts so they are less negative.

You aren't going to be comprehended with a few sentences at a time. If you have a compex idea you want to share it will take paragraphs.


And biological needs are always present. As long as each level's needs are met the person can focus on the next. Those with all basic needs met will have vastly more freedom of thought than those struggling to find food and shelter.

Yeah, but unless to have turn utility in to pure objective science, you are deal with some variations.
I get you draw no utility from religion. I do.
So we end here. If religion as natural biological and cultural way of coping, then as long as it is with certain limits as per the idea of general good life, you have no leg to stand on.
How, because your individual psychology is not mine and so in return.

As for dropping claims, we do it both. Emotional intelligence still has to account for actual differences in nature and nurture.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, but unless to have turn utility in to pure objective science, you are deal with some variations.
I get you draw no utility from religion. I do.

And how is your religious belief a utility for you? It's useful in what way that can't be eliminated without consequences?

So we end here. If religion as natural biological and cultural way of coping, then as long as it is with certain limits as per the idea of general good life, you have no leg to stand on.

It's not my claim or argument. Religion both stimulates anxiety and is a solution for coping with anxiety. I am not aware of any religion that isn't designed to exploit primal emotions and then offer abstractions as a solution. This explains why humans can't examine their own religious beleifs objectively. Brain scans confirm the mind of believers bypass the frontal lobes when their religious beleifs are considered, and instead process the emotion and reward centers. The book Emotional Intelligence describes this very well.

How, because your individual psychology is not mine and so in return.

As for dropping claims, we do it both. Emotional intelligence still has to account for actual differences in nature and nurture.

Our nature defaults into bad primal habits, and indicates low emotional intelliegence. Better understanding and managing emotions and thoughts is a way to self-nuture, and take care of our emotional state and well-being.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And a third version. OK.

Correspondence? As if thoughts and the brain are two independent entities that communicate? No, thoughts are a porduct of brains. Even other animals have thoughts.

Thoughts are caused by brains. Is there a reason you aren't informed on this? There is information available for free on the internet.

Please provide a link to the academic paper which shows how activity in the neural centres precedes thought, or that consciousness is an emergent rather than fundamental phenomenon.

 

[F1fan]

Please provide a link to the academic paper which shows how activity in the neural centres precedes thought, or that consciousness is an emergent rather than fundamental phenomenon.

Seriously? This isn’t controversial.

 

[osgart]

And a third version. OK.

Correspondence? As if thoughts and the brain are two independent entities that communicate? No, thoughts are a porduct of brains. Even other animals have thoughts.

Thoughts are caused by brains. Is there a reason you aren't informed on this? There is information available for free on the internet.

Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation. One theory explains that thoughts are generated when neurons fire.Mar 18, 2019

I'm saying there's probably more to it than this because there is an abstract quality to thoughts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Seriously? This isn’t controversial.

You’re claiming a resolution to the hard problem of consciousness. I’d call that pretty controversial tbh.

But if you have a complete theory of consciousness and cognition from a scientific materialist perspective, please do share it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And how is your religious belief a utility for you? It's useful in what way that can't be eliminated without consequences?

It's not my claim or argument. Religion both stimulates anxiety and is a solution for coping with anxiety. I am not aware of any religion that isn't designed to exploit primal emotions and then offer abstractions as a solution. This explains why humans can't examine their own religious beleifs objectively. Brain scans confirm the mind of believers bypass the frontal lobes when their religious beleifs are considered, and instead process the emotion and reward centers. The book Emotional Intelligence describes this very well.

Our nature defaults into bad primal habits, and indicates low emotional intelliegence. Better understanding and managing emotions and thoughts is a way to self-nuture, and take care of our emotional state and well-being.

So do you treat all religions as the same? Well, they are not. In effect a secular modern religion like UU is the same all other religions as a tribal stone age society is exactly the same as a welfare state as they are both societies, right?

So you can't find non-religious people where you can observe the same as with religious people. according to you. Further your example is maybe skewed by what is consider religion and what questions were asked?

The problem is that non-religious people are as a statical measurement more intelligent than the religious one, so therefore all non-religious people are highly intelligent and and all religious people are stupid, right?
In effect for some one as me, I use religion as me to cope with the existential absurdity of being a human in the (post-)modern tradition.