What is Faith?

[bobhikes]

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.

@It Aint Necessarily So said: Millions agree with me that belief by faith is unjustified belief whether they use those words or not.

@Trailblazer said: If you are going to try to use that argument, many, many, more millions agree with me that belief by faith is justified belief whether they use those words or not.

Whether faith is justified or unjustified is only a matter of opinion and opinions vary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is the definition of 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.

Using definition 1 which I believe is a good definition.

Faith is necessary for human's to learn. You must have trust or confidence in something or someone to be able to learn stuff. That faith can be in yourself, your parents your teachers or your god; books, computers, community or the internet but without faith in someone or something you cannot learn. What you learn will not necessarily be fact but will be a knowledge that you will base decisions on because of your faith.

 

[osgart]

That is general so for all concepts of morality. Most humans have a notion of harm, but we can't agree on what it is.
So there really is no one universal meaning for such concepts.

Okay so you got your meaning across. So among English speaking people we can find consensus, but universality is harder to find.

Now we may not have discovered universal truth, but that doesn't mean there are not universal commonalities among all humans that are meanings we all must grapple with due to their importance. Things we may fall on the right or wrong side of.

I think underneath all the imperfect definitions, and total and partial misconstruances is a universal commonality. Everyone comes at meaning from different angles, and some have well defined meanings, and others poorly defined meanings. Yet underneath all that we have meanings that all have in common.

We definitely know that harm is to do damage to someone, or sometimes it's to cause pain. A reasonable person will look for the common rights and wrongs that all reasonable people would share. Things no one wants to have to go through, and times where something unpleasant becomes necessary, or when something seriously irreconcilable has to happen. The universal aspect of harm is that there are things no reasonable person wants to go through or see happen to others. Outside of those things we find differences. And of course there are those with no conscience at all. I'm not looking to find universal agreement with those having little to no conscience. I merely look to find the common ground for as many as are capable, responsible and willing to find it. Those things must exist.

 

[F1fan]

Many people make claims but claims are not evidence of anything. They need to have evidence that supports their claims.

You are one of these people. You try to evade accountability and categorization by claiming (another claim) that you are just posting your beliefs and not making a claim. It is the fact that you are presenting your belief in a diverse group discussing the validity of beliefs like yours that puts you on the hook ads making a claim. You can't defend your beliefs as being rational, and that seems to be why you are trying to claim exemption.

I do not believe that 'true Prophets' make contradictory claims, as they all claim to speak for God, but they do bring different messages from God, and maybe that is what you are referring to.

Eye of the beholder. One person's prophet (or messenger) is another person's fraud. How do you elevate your choice to a higher level? Evidence and reason. You don't have it, so, alas, in the gutter with all the other false prophets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay so you got your meaning across. So among English speaking people we can find consensus, but universality is harder to find.

Now we may not have discovered universal truth, but that doesn't mean there are not universal commonalities among all humans that are meanings we all must grapple with due to their importance. Things we may fall on the right or wrong side of.

I think underneath all the imperfect definitions, and total and partial misconstruances is a universal commonality. Everyone comes at meaning from different angles, and some have well defined meanings, and others poorly defined meanings. Yet underneath all that we have meanings that all have in common.

We definitely know that harm is to do damage to someone, or sometimes it's to cause pain. A reasonable person will look for the common rights and wrongs that all reasonable people would share. Things no one wants to have to go through, and times where something unpleasant becomes necessary, or when something seriously irreconcilable has to happen. The universal aspect of harm is that there are things no reasonable person wants to go through or see happen to others. Outside of those things we find differences. And of course there are those with no conscience at all. I'm not looking to find universal agreement with those having little to no conscience. I merely look to find the common ground for as many as are capable, responsible and willing to find it. Those things must exist.

I will use me as an example. I can't work due to a defect in my brain and you can't see it. To help me in Denmark people pay taxes because the system believes that I am telling the truth. To some people I am lying and causing them harm, because they are forced to pay taxes so I can be lazy.
What is the Truth?

That is your problem. Sam Harris had the same solution as you in the end. Define harm and let science do the rest. It doesn't work in practice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are one of these people. You try to evade accountability and categorization by claiming (another claim) that you are just posting your beliefs and not making a claim. It is the fact that you are presenting your belief in a diverse group discussing the validity of beliefs like yours that puts you on the hook ads making a claim. You can't defend your beliefs as being rational, and that seems to be why you are trying to claim exemption.

Eye of the beholder. One person's prophet (or messenger) is another person's fraud. How do you elevate your choice to a higher level? Evidence and reason. You don't have it, so, alas, in the gutter with all the other false prophets.

Please given only objective evidence for what rational is. Not what you think/feel. Only objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's not evident to the senses, it's not evidence. Evidence is the noun form of evident. That which is evident (adjective) is evidence (noun), just as that which is sweet (adjective) contains sweetness (noun), darkness contains dark things, honesty (noun) refers to honest (adjective) things.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Since sight and hearing are two of the senses, the evidence we see (read about) or hear (are told about) is evidence that is evident to the senses.

I said: "Evidence for some things is evident to the senses, but evidence for God will never be evident to the senses."
I stand corrected. Evidence for God that we see (read about) or hear (are told about) is evidence that is evident to the senses.

It's not evidence if it doesn't arrive via the senses.

Of course not, since everything arrives via the senses.

There are five basic human senses: touch, sight, hearing, smell and taste. The sensing organs associated with each sense send information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us. However, there are in fact other human senses in addition to the basic five that you couldn't live without.

The Five (and More) Senses

Humans have more than five senses that help us navigate the world.

www.livescience.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Since sight and hearing are two of the senses, the evidence we see (read about) or hear about (are told about) is evidence that is evident to the senses.

Of course not, since everything arrives via the senses.

There are five basic human senses: touch, sight, hearing, smell and taste. The sensing organs associated with each sense send information to the brain to help us understand and perceive the world around us. However, there are in fact other human senses in addition to the basic five that you couldn't live without.

The Five (and More) Senses

Humans have more than five senses that help us navigate the world.

www.livescience.com

Well, for my bold. That is only one version of empiricism as what in the end experience is.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are one of these people. You try to evade accountability and categorization by claiming (another claim) that you are just posting your beliefs and not making a claim. It is the fact that you are presenting your belief in a diverse group discussing the validity of beliefs like yours that puts you on the hook ads making a claim. You can't defend your beliefs as being rational, and that seems to be why you are trying to claim exemption.

I am not making any claims, I am only stating beliefs. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims based upon the evidence.

Eye of the beholder. One person's prophet (or messenger) is another person's fraud. How do you elevate your choice to a higher level? Evidence and reason. You don't have it, so, alas, in the gutter with all the other false prophets.

I elevate my choice to a higher level using evidence and reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not making any claims, I am only stating beliefs. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims based upon the evidence.

I elevate my choice to a higher level using evidence and reason.

Well, here is a trick. Ask F1fan for evidence that his reason is with evidence and yours are not. He can't because reason is not based on the five sense, which is the base for his version of evidence.
You can see a cat. But you can't see good or bad reasons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I said: "Evidence for some things is evident to the senses, but evidence for God will never be evident to the senses."
I stand corrected. Evidence for God that we see (read about) or hear (are told about) is evidence that is evident to the senses.

OK, you've revised your claim. That's better. Now, we're back to where we were - whether the evidence you cite supports your belief. It does not if by support we mean making that claim more likely. If it's enough for one to just point at something and call it evidence in support of his belief, then he'll be satisfied with whatever that is, but then he has gone off the reason rails.

I am not making any claims, I am only stating beliefs.

Same answer. Repeating this isn't going to help you if you don't add a sound rebuttal. You'll be told the same thing again if you repeat it again without establishing that it is correct. "I am only stating beliefs" is also both a belief and a claim of yours.

Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims based upon the evidence.

But then you repeated them. If they were his claims when he said them, they're still claims when you say them, but now they're your claims if you say you believe them.

I elevate my choice to a higher level using evidence and reason.

Not yet, you haven't. You'd need to study and master how to do that first. What you call reason is what people who study it call fallacy. Sorry, but you won't make any progress here, either, by repeating successfully rebutted claims. You are stuck in a repetitive loop of ignoring rebuttal and repeating your claim unchanged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, here is a trick. Ask F1fan for evidence that his reason is with evidence and yours are not. He can't because reason is not based on the five sense, which is the base for his version of evidence.
You can see a cat. But you can't see good or bad reasons.

@Trailblazer
It comes at prize. It always works on your reasons, my reasons and everybody else's reasons. Not just F1fan's.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, you've revised your claim. That's better. Now, we're back to where we were - whether the evidence you cite supports your belief. It does not if by support we mean making that claim more likely.

You just do not understand and apparently you will never understand.

.... whether the evidence you cite supports your belief. It does not if by support we mean making that claim more likely
That is only your personal opinion, so why do you state it as if it were a fact?

Here is my personal opinion, which is different from your personal opinion:
The evidence I cite supports my belief. It supports it because it makes the claim more likely

Now, if you want to have an honest debate, you would have to explain why your personal opinion is more accurate than my personal opinion.
To respond that your opinion is more accurate because you are a critical thinker and I am not is only smoke and mirrors because that is just a claim about your thinking abilities that you 'believe' surpass my thinking abilities, a claim that is yet another personal opinion you hold.

Why not just say the following?

In my opinion, the evidence you cite does not support your belief because the evidence you cite does not make that claim more likely for me to believe.

If it's enough for one to just point at something and call it evidence in support of his belief, then he'll be satisfied with whatever that is, but then he has gone off the reason rails.

I call it evidence in support of Baha'u'llah's claims because Baha'u'llah called it evidence. Who is better qualified to say what is evidence for a claim than the person who makes the claim? Nobody. If I claim that I have a red car in the driveway I damn well better be able to provide the evidence of the red car in the driveway. Nobody else can provide the evidence because it is not their car in my driveway.

You can say that in your opinion that evidence does not support His claim and that is a fair statement.
I can say that in my opinion that evidence supports His claim and that is a fair statement.

Same answer. Repeating this isn't going to help you if you don't add a sound rebuttal. You'll be told the same thing again if you repeat it again without establishing that it is correct. "I am only stating beliefs" is also both a belief and a claim of yours.

Obfuscation won't work. I am stating a belief, not making a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe His claims are true.

But then you repeated them. If they were his claims when he said them, they're still claims when you say them, but now they're your claims if you say you believe them.

They are not my claims because I have nothing to claim since I did not get any messages from God.

No, they are not my claims because I said I believe them, not unless I am claiming they are true, but since I cannot prove they are true, I am not claiming they are true.

They are my beliefs, nothing more and nothing less.

Not yet, you haven't. You'd need to study and master how to do that first. What you call reason is what people who study it call fallacy. Sorry, but you won't make any progress here, either, by repeating successfully rebutted claims. You are stuck in a repetitive loop of ignoring rebuttal and repeating your claim unchanged.

You have rebutted no claims because I never made any claims.
Baha'u'llah made the claims, but you certainly have not rebutted Baha'u'llah's claims with your personal opinion, which is all you have.
You have no rebuttals, only personal opinions that you 'believe' originate from critical thinking.

 

[Valjean]

Yesh, I understand what you are saying. But I wish you wouldn't claim the bold one, because that is without objective evidence.

What more productive investigative modality do we have? We've done trial-and-error, mythology and imagination for millennia, without even getting off the ground.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why not just say the following? In my opinion, the evidence you cite does not support your belief because the evidence you cite does not make that claim more likely for me to believe.

How about, "The evidence you cite does not support your belief because the evidence you cite does not make that claim more likely" and leave it at that? That's my position, not what you wrote. You keep overlooking that the consensus of experts in reason is more valuable than the unsupported opinions of people who haven't learned logic. You don't have a leg to stand on when you are on the wrong side of that.

Who is better qualified to say what is evidence for a claim than the person who makes the claim? Nobody.

Anybody qualified to evaluate evidence and the claim that it is said to support.

I am stating a belief, not making a claim.

Same thing. How many times to want to have that claim rejected? Say it three hundred more times if you like. It will still be wrong: "Beliefs are prepositional and can be either true or false. Beliefs can be compared to a judgement or an opinion. When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement." 1. What is critical thinking? | WorldSupporter Summaries and Study Notes.

Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe His claims are true.

There are two more beliefs and claims of yours.

You have rebutted no claims because I never made any claims.

You don't know what a claim is.

 

[osgart]

I will use me as an example. I can't work due to a defect in my brain and you can't see it. To help me in Denmark people pay taxes because the system believes that I am telling the truth. To some people I am lying and causing them harm, because they are forced to pay taxes so I can be lazy.
What is the Truth?

That is your problem. Sam Harris had the same solution as you in the end. Define harm and let science do the rest. It doesn't work in practice.

There is a truth and you know what that is. I wouldn't assume laziness. I'd seek a doctor's approval of the diagnosis. Science only deals with tangible evidence. I'm approaching knowledge from inner experience coupled with objectivity about it. Inner experience reveals knowledge that can't be tangibly evidenced. I know my motivations though others don't.

A third person person perspective is only good for tangible evidence, and behaviour.

There are other paths to knowledge that are earned that rely on honesty, trustworthiness, and understanding.

I guess I don't see it as the same path to knowledge as science.

 

[Valjean]

It's true that it is evidence only to the experiencer but it's evidence nonetheless. Not everyone agrees on meanings and realities is why many people talk past each other. Still meanings are realities, and actualities, of which go largely unexplored, and unrecognized for the reality they actually have.

General agreement comes with honest accounts of meanings recognized as important among more than one person. Shared meaning is communication.

So all these disparate "realities" are ontologically true/real? How can that be?

Subjective evidence is a whole different epistemic category. It doesn't lead to a common understanding or to technological advancement like objective evidence does. At best it might achieve a degree of psychic comfort or social cohesion, though religious oppression and war are common results, as well.

 

[Valjean]

I agree that the revelations themselves are perceived only by the individual experiencer and don't qualify as testable or observable evidence.
However, there is no testable or observable evidence for God.

[/QUOTE]
Which puts God in the same category as leprechauns and pink unicorns.
Most people consider it reasonable to withhold belief in these, indeed, they'd consider such belief, in the absence of evidence, un-reasonable.

What puts religious belief in a separate category?

Maybe we can detect, measure and work with all kinds of things imperceptible to the senses, but it does not follow that we can measure and work with God.

Exactly!

 

[Valjean]

There is not and never will be any verifiable evidence for God because verifiable evidence is proof, and there will ever be any proof of God.
There is evidence, just no proof.

I wouldn't go that far. Verified evidence is verified evidence; ie: correct or true evidence.

IMO, it is perfectly justified to believe in God on evidence and faith, because we have faith in the evidence that God provides.

You're saying that unjustified belief belief is justified. Explain, please.

What is this evidence that God provides? If it's actual, objective evidence, where's the universal acknowledgement?

IMO, a rational person believes in the evidence that is available, not in evidence that can never be acquired.

A rational person believes in the evidence that's rational and demonstrable, and rejects available "evidence" that is not.

If the available evidence is not good enough then they can choose not to believe in God.

Anyone who thinks that God could ever be independently verified knows nothing about the nature of God.

Doesn't this put God in the same unverifiable category as Cthulu or the FSM?
It's reasonable to defer belief in these, so why isn't it reasonable to withhold belief in God, as well?

 

[osgart]

So all these disparate "realities" are ontologically true/real? How can that be?

Subjective evidence is a whole different epistemic category. It doesn't lead to a common understanding or to technological advancement like objective evidence does. At best it might achieve a degree of psychic comfort or social cohesion, though religious oppression and war are common results, as well.

Many meanings are ontologically true and real, yes. It's as simple as the ability to care or not to care. It's not imaginary. Whatever honesty is it drives actions, and forms relationships. They are capacities of character. Why should life embody character? It does though. Life isn't merely stimulus and response, change and function. It's the choices of character we make for better or worse. Character is an intelligible reality too. So I acknowledge the reality of it. Why am I not an automaton that just carries out programmed responses? Of course I take it further than this, but that's as far as I want to say at this time. I sense there is a source to the character reality, but the God terminology doesn't ring true with me.

 

[Valjean]

All kinds of things. It depends on what we need. Sometimes it's clarity, sometimes it's courage, sometimes it's patience, sometimes it's persistence, sometimes it's change, sometimes it's to forgive, sometimes it's to be forgiven. People need help with nearly every aspect of life at one time or another. And faith in God can and does help a great many of us to achieve those things.

So belief in God is a psychotherapeutic modality.

Why would one wish to deny others that help just because he thinks he doesn't need any help, himself?

One wouldn't. Just make it clear that this is make-believe, like rebirthing therapy, and not a claim of actual reality.

Demonstrating correctness seems to be quite the obsession of yours. While the rest of us are just doing the best we can. Perhaps you could use a bit of faith, yourself, in that regard.

But this is to counter religion's insistence on -- and often enforcement of -- its own correctness.

If you were to build a whole movement around a flat Earth doctrine or holocaust denial, would it be obsessive for someone to point out your error?
It seems to me that it's the religious who are obsessive.