Why Faith?

[connermt]

I'd also like to restate that faith is not fideism. Fideism is easy, faith is not. Faith can also be backed by evidence and logic. A local community college should have a basic philosophy / logic class. Ignorance is easy, eliminating it is too!

Faith is only as hard as you make it.
Fundamentally it's easy to aquire- maybe not so easy to act on/live by - but easy to aquire.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I feel I have asked this multiple times in different ways, and I always get an unclear answer. So, for those who believe with faith, why do you? Why do you choose faith over evidence? That's all, thanks for posting.

EDIT: By faith, I am referring to belief without evidence. I realize that this definition does not apply to everyone, but this thread is meant for those with this type of faith. Sorry for the confusion.

I like the EDIT. But I think nobody wants to admit they have faith without evidence until you press them really hard for the evidence - some people may be honest and open about it though.

 

[sojourner]

Faith, for me, isn't necessarily predicated on a belief in anything that is not extant. For me, faith is a position.

 

[Daviso452]

There actually are laws of logic. The Law of Identity, The Law of Non-Contradiction, and the Law of Excluded Middle.

Alright. That one is yours.

I do not see why this was needed haha. I never said there was no difference.

Because The example I gave was about understanding, then you turned around and used my example as if it was about knowing. You criticized it when you were the one who confused the concepts.

No, there is one idea here, not several. Have you ever heard the idea of the sixth sense, a type of innate, possibly spiritual / divine knowing sense? It is what people are talking about when they are saying they felt something mystical through an experience. The experience holds no validity to anyone but the one who feels it. If one does not think it has happen to them, I can tell you it has not. Trust me, you know haha.

I was going off the logical fallacy of skepticism I brought up. If all knowledge is only from the 5 sense, all that we know would be subjective. What is objective about a true mystical experience is that there is no thought put into it, it is something that you understand without explanation.

I haven't heard it explained as a sixth sense, but I am familiar with the concept. However, the main problem I have is how do you know such a sense actually exists, and is not simply an effect cast on you by your mind? As evidence by the placebo effect, if we think our bodies will feel a certain way, they will.

I understand that there is the possibility of something beyond our senses, and the fact is, you are completely oblivious to the fact that we can still observe them through devices we have made throughout the centuries. Like Gamma radiation. We cannot perceive it with any of our five senses, but certain devices can. What happens, however, is that it is converted into an image of or sound which we can observe with our senses.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with your supposed "fallacy" of skepticism. Skepticism is in fact the most logical of paths to take. To take something on as fact with no reason, I believe we can agree, is absurd. Skepticism means not believing without evidence.

Even more is the fact just because there is no thought does not make it objective. In fact, I would go even further as to say it is even more subjective because it relies, as you have agreed, on a personal basis. Objective truths must be free from bias, which, quite literally, cannot come from just one person.

I also wish to comment on the absurdity of "understanding without explanation." That statement is not admitting the possibility of something such as placebo; your mind changes in order for it to make sense, and, coupled with confirmation bias, uses it to reinforce something you may have already believed, even at a very small level.
Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph
Psychological programming has made us more susceptible to believing in a higher power than not. When given a strange phenomena, it isn't far-fetched to say you only believe it as a spiritual experience because of the faults and biases of the mind.

For me, if there is no purpose we are just wasting time. I do not like wasting time, and if there is nothing greater beyond our suffering I would simple end it. I have experienced ridiculous amounts of pain in my short life, and I would not stick around simply to live a false, self created fantasy out.

Dude, nice on you. I haven't a single problem with that at all. You believe what keeps you going, and thats good.

Well, I do not see why natural drugs should exclude natural (innate / divine / mystical) experiences. I am not talking someone on LSD or Ecstacy, but shamans and mystics have used drugs for centuries and centuries to induce experiences and better understand them. Things like DMT, Salvia, Peyote, Marijuana, etc.

But then my point is that those experiences weren't anything beyond our world; they were just experiences induced by a confusion of the senses and mind. A person who is high seeing sasquatch does not actually see sasquatch; their senses are just disturbed to the point where they envision a totally new reality, but a fake reality nonetheless.

But, again, it is empirical (in a 6th sense, spiritual sort of way). I simply mean you must experience such a thing to even think about it.

And, no. If you do not understand how images created but chemicals that litteraly confuse your senses into a different reality, no matter what this new reality you experience is, is not in any way shape or form evidence without confirming the information outside of the vision itself, then we cannot continue.

Just because a person has more "experience" with the effects of a drug and is a spiritual leader does not make anything they experience any more valid. It just doesn't. It must have someway if validating whether it is true or not.

And that is where many religious beliefs fail. It is unreasonable in every sense of the word to believe something that cannot be invalidated. That is why the concept of the flying spaghetti monster was made. The point of it was to say, "Just because you cannot prove it doesn't exist, does not mean it does.

If anything, please just explain to me how any of your beliefs have a method of invalidation.

However, since you will not be here, the same question is open to everyone else.

 

[BlackBear94]

Originally Posted by Daviso452
I feel I have asked this multiple times in different ways, and I always get an unclear answer. So, for those who believe with faith, why do you? Why do you choose faith over evidence? That's all, thanks for posting.

EDIT: By faith, I am referring to belief without evidence. I realize that this definition does not apply to everyone, but this thread is meant for those with this type of faith. Sorry for the confusion.

Personally I found god by spending 8 months alone in a depressed state laying down in a dark room for 8 hours a day (another 8 sleeping). Though I'm 17 I've always been a thinker and never really polarized towards one side of the Great Debate over the other.
At first I followed the typical train of thought about "lack of evidence" in the bible. but then i started to critically analyze science in the same manor. I found that science had just as many inconsistencies and illogical occurrences as the bible.
You could argue that it was logically impossible for Jesus to turn water into wine. However, you could also argue that it's logically impossible for us to be able to see, having supposedly evolved from a series of cells which, lacking any perceptual sense, had no way of acknowledging any existence outside of itself; yet somehow, through many generations, it adapted a way to see a world it never even knew existed.

 

[Daviso452]

Personally I found god by spending 8 months alone in a depressed state laying down in a dark room for 8 hours a day (another 8 sleeping). Though I'm 17 I've always been a thinker and never really polarized towards one side of the Great Debate over the other.
At first I followed the typical train of thought about "lack of evidence" in the bible. but then i started to critically analyze science in the same manor. I found that science had just as many inconsistencies and illogical occurrences as the bible.
You could argue that it was logically impossible for Jesus to turn water into wine. However, you could also argue that it's logically impossible for us to be able to see, having supposedly evolved from a series of cells which, lacking any perceptual sense, had no way of acknowledging any existence outside of itself; yet somehow, through many generations, it adapted a way to see a world it never even knew existed.

When big misconception I feel people have is that you don't have to believe in evolution to not believe in God. One of the ways of understanding that is knowing what the neutral belief is, which is none. To have no belief. Impartial, unbiased, un-opinionated. That is the atheist. Atheism IS NOT a belief; it is a lack of, and to understand how we atheists think it is key that you understand that concept.

I do not believe there is no God. There is no evidence against God, nor do I think there ever will be.

But then again, there is no evidence for God, and in fact many supposed spiritual experiences are, as I stated earlier, a result of psychological flaws.

As for science, the glory of it is that it is self-correcting. If there are holes, then they are addressed and dealt with. And, if need be, the theory is tossed out.

Another large misconception is the nature of evolution itself as well. There is a reason why it has stood for a long time, and many people choose to ignore that fact. Ever heard of the "argument from ignorance"? It's basically "I don't know, so god must have done it." I'm not saying you're doing that exactly, however it is unfair for you, a single person, to criticize decades of work done by people who are experts in the field and believe it full-heartedly.

Simply put, you are the one at fault, not evolution. That is not to say, however, that you should just accept it. What you should do is understand it. People believe it for a reason, and until you can understand it, you are not really in a position to criticize.

I can explain it if you want. One of my goals here is to eliminate ignorance of everything, whether it be theistic or scientific in nature. In fact i feel it might make for a good discussion! Go ahead and list off what you see as inconsistencies, and I can attempt to explain them. Does that sound like fun?

 

[BlackBear94]

I'm sorry I didn't articulate my point very well. And I'm not trying to convince you to see my point of view, I'm merely sharing my perspective on the topic.

My point was that science is only good for answering "how?" not "why?" people have a little too much faith in science. I'm not one of those crazy guys who doesn't believe in gravity. I just feel like science will tell you every possible way an electron can go around a proton but it can never tell you why. (and no saying one's positive and the other is negative was just a distinction to help describe they're course of motion not reason for why they attract each other)

 

[BlackBear94]

Oh and i don't mean science as in collective knowledge. I mean the modern way people comprehend the universe and all things within. By means of reductionism, trying to explain something extremely complicated by breaking it down and saying it is what the sum of all it's parts is.

 

[Daviso452]

I'm sorry I didn't articulate my point very well. And I'm not trying to convince you to see my point of view, I'm merely sharing my perspective on the topic.

My point was that science is only good for answering "how?" not "why?" people have a little too much faith in science. I'm not one of those crazy guys who doesn't believe in gravity. I just feel like science will tell you every possible way an electron can go around a proton but it can never tell you why. (and no saying one's positive and the other is negative was just a distinction to help describe they're course of motion not reason for why they attract each other)

You actually bring up a good topic. When you stop asking how, and you start asking why, the only explanation I can think of is that it's just how it its. But before people call me out on that, let me try and explain how it differs from saying "It's just how god made it."

The concept of God is an all-knowing sentient being that is outside the laws of our universe. We cannot sense, measure, or prove its existence. And notice how I said "its existence" and not "his existence." How do we know God is male? Following that, how do we know god is even sentient? How can we know anything about God if we cannot sense, measure, or test it? People say "it's only logical for god to be sentient," but that does not make it true. People thought it logical that the heavier ball would hit the ground first. But that was when Galileo discovered objects accelerate at the same rate.

The main thing about "logic" that people don't always understand is that logic is very rarely wrong. The topic of God is where it breaks down the most, however. But the true character at fault are the variables. People are usually just not aware of a certain characteristic, or perhaps an invisible force. Perhaps they were even misinformed about a certain characteristic.

But back to the point I am trying to make,there is no evidence that anything is the source of the characteristics of matter. We have no reason to believe there is a purpose behind them. That is not to say, however, that there is not, but if there is, we do not know of it.

If we were to find out such about such a source, my previous statement would be retracted, which is also where it differs from God, which is supposedly granted freedom from the burden of evidence. However, without any evidence to suggest there is any other reason for the properties of matter besides that just being how they are, why would we believe any different?

And even more is how would a God even explain it? How would you know it wasn't multiple Gods coming together?

One more thing I want to say: Just because science gets it wrong, that does not mean religion is any more true.

Does that make sense?

But again, give me your criticisms of evolution. Perhaps I can clear them up.

 

[ChristineES]

I can explain it if you want. One of my goals here is to eliminate ignorance of everything, whether it be theistic or scientific in nature. In fact i feel it might make for a good discussion! Go ahead and list off what you see as inconsistencies, and I can attempt to explain them. Does that sound like fun?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I hope this statement wasn't like it sounds. You're trying to eliminate ignorance? Do you believe that we of faith are ignorant? Do you think you have all the answers to cure ignorance? That sounds rather arrogant.

 

[BlackBear94]

But back to the point I am trying to make,there is no evidence that anything is the source of the characteristics of matter. We have no reason to believe there is a purpose behind them.

You do realize that saying that there is no source behind the force that attracts an electron to a proton is the same as calling it magic right?

 

[BlackBear94]

We cannot sense, measure, or prove its existence. And notice how I said "its existence" and not "his existence." How do we know God is male?

Refering to god with the male pronouns made sense in ye olde bible times. When they thought of a supreme commanding being they thought of a buff guy. I highly doubt he has any need for a reproductive organ.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I feel I have asked this multiple times in different ways, and I always get an unclear answer. So, for those who believe with faith, why do you? Why do you choose faith over evidence? That's all, thanks for posting.

EDIT: By faith, I am referring to belief without evidence. I realize that this definition does not apply to everyone, but this thread is meant for those with this type of faith. Sorry for the confusion.

All animals have a need to orient themselves -- to know what life is and where they fit into it. It's a natural passion, like procreation or self-preservation.

Humans have so much brain power that they can go in all sorts of directions. We're faced with too many possibilities. So most of us are more comfortable picking an Answer and sticking with it, even in the face of contrary evidence.

So it's about our need for psychological certainty, I think, which often overpowers our need for integrity of thought.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've not met a single person who holds a belief without (something they consider) evidence.

Good point. I am always befuddled, amused and intrigued when I am hammered to provide evidence for my position, even though I have provided tons and tons of evidence.

Apparently our evidence can appear quite invisible to the other guy. By 'evidence' many people seem to mean 'evidence which I myself personally find to be legitimate and convincing.'

Anyway, I agree with you. No one holds a belief for which he has no evidence. Why would he believe it if he had no evidence upon which to base his belief?

'Evidence' is one of those words which should be treated with special care in debate.

 

[Daviso452]

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I hope this statement wasn't like it sounds. You're trying to eliminate ignorance? Do you believe that we of faith are ignorant? Do you think you have all the answers to cure ignorance? That sounds rather arrogant.

Not at all. Evolution specifically is something, however, that many people lack a good understanding of, however. But I play devil's advocate when I see, for instance, a muslim criticizing christianity and specific beliefs when the muslim himself does not understand them.

No, I do not think I have all the answers. And I admit that. I am well aware of my lack of knowledge, and that is something that has made me an incredibly gullible person. I learn what I can in order to understand the other sides, and I do what I can to help other people do the same.

Sorry if I came across that way.

 

[Daviso452]

You do realize that saying that there is no source behind the force that attracts an electron to a proton is the same as calling it magic right?

Sorry, I was not clear; what I meant was that there was no reason to believe there is a purpose behind the forces. The "source" to which I was referring was the higher being that created this force and its purpose.

Refering to god with the male pronouns made sense in ye olde bible times. When they thought of a supreme commanding being they thought of a buff guy. I highly doubt he has any need for a reproductive organ.

Point taken