Endercreeper01

My idea of faith is based in a belief. The belief is in the idea that the self is what truly exists as dependent on an external reality for an existence. In this way, the self needs to create an external reality by working through what would be called a higher power, in order to exist. The belief is in the higher power that exists as something that the self works through to create reality, in order to create it's existence. This is what is meant when it is said that "I" has a belief in a higher power as responsible for "my" existence or for existence in general. This would answer such a question as "Why does everything around me exist?, based on my own belief. That is still science explaining the "How?" as opposed to the "Why?" of reality. Science was never meant to be used to answer philosophical questions about existence or to disprove faith by such answers. A computer program?....

Yes, I am not disagreeing with such. Science should not bother with something, such as faith, that it cannot prove or disprove. I would not say that faith is a mental placebo in the way you describe it. That could certainly be true in certain people or situations, though it doesn't have to be for every person with faith or every situation with faith. Faith provides answers based in human understanding to questions based in human understanding. This involves questions such as "Why do I and everything around me exist?". This is distinguished from scientific questions such as "How did everything that exists get to this point that it is at? Or a misunderstood individual... I wonder if it wins in chess too.

What I've been doing is defending faith from certain claims, more than otherwise. So what you said doesn't apply in this situation. What I am saying is that science should not be used as an argument against faith.

No it doesn't, and it shouldn't disprove those beliefs. Exactly. It's not exact truth, and should not be used as a disproof to faith.

Not necessarily... Science and faith can still be reconciled in a way.

You can't just say fallacy to anything that you don't agree with, you actually have to explain yourself and why you disagree. Yes, I acknowledge that. Although it should be worth mentioning that faith in a higher power should not be considered true or false to science. Science should be indifferent to beliefs that it cannot prove or disprove.

I'm failing at explaining how I am arguing for something? I'm defending faith and claims made about it. Faith relates the ouside world as it is a belief about the outside would. No citation needed, as that was a claim about the ability of two different worldviews to converge on a personal level. Maybe you are looking for an example of such a situation. I wasn't talking about it on a non personal level. I can't justify faith in any specific god or gods, I can only attempt to defend faith for the quality that all of the god or gods share. Such would be the attribute of being a higher power.

I'm only trying to use reason to defend an argument...

It's ironic that you have such an enthusiasm with the idea that faith is a delusion. Especially since people with delusions tend to be very enthusiastic about their delusions.

It's not about any specific god or gods, it's about a higher power. To put it a different way, I'm really defending faith more than I am arguing for it. Defending it from certain claims made about it, such as claims of it's equivalence with delusion. It would be acceptable if you did.

I can't provide reasoned arguments for a higher power when I am arguing for faith in a higher power. I did not say that my arguments were based upon acceptance of a higher power, I said they were based on a process of reasoning with a certain result. I am making the argument for faith in a higher power instead of for reasoning in a higher power in this situation. Faith does not have to be motivated by the same reasons for every person with faith or for every situation involving faith. It has something to do with the outside world. They can certainly work together on a personal level, in certain situations.

Trust me, I do... I'll say it in a different way: Faith has the potential to answer questions on a personal level. Faith works on a personal level. Yes, faith can be seen as centered around hope. Or it can be seen as being based on multiple qualities and not centered on them. However, faith does not have to be centered or based on the same attributes in every situation or person with faith, as faith is based on a personal acceptance.

Faith tries to answer questions in a certain way. It does not need to answer the same types of questions as science in the same way. Faith itself is not exclusively a delusion, neither does it have to be. Reasoning is not exclusive to any particular metholodgy, whether scientific thinking or otherwise.

Yet another belief about faith. Faith and hope are not exclusive of one another, and neither should it be considered such. Is that supposed to be a response to a reasoned argument? Yes, although both attempt to answer different types of questions in different ways, they can both be integrated into a worldview.

Yes, I would say that I accept science in my faith. Faith and science can certainly work together.

It would me more of a problem with the way of progression of ideas rather than the proceding statements that follow it that would be at fault.

I understand that I may be confusing sometimes with my posts. However, I was making a statement, in order to establish an idea. The ideas I was trying to establish were meant to be accepted in order to allow me to make another statement that dependsd on this idea. In this way I was trying to create a logical progression of ideas that would explain my argument effectively. What happened was that I ended up getting stuck arguing on specific parts of my argument instead of the broader argument. I was not being dishonest, I was simply not explaining my ideas very well. I only needed to be clearer.

OK. If we are trying to make this an honest discussion, why are you not addressing the behavior of the other posters? I have been trying to address this and nobody is acknowledging me. The very thing I have been trying to do is have an honest I would like an answer please.

Thank you Naitche. It seems like many posters are not actually interested in discussing faith and only want to find a way to dismiss it or to not acknowledge it.

Yes, that would be correct. Perhaps it is possible that a certain brain condition could affect such.

Yes, I was not disagreeing with such. The question is really what is enough or needed to for an individual to accept such into their individual world view. Faith can become a matter of choosing between different ideas about reality, and believing the one that is chosen. So rather than being thought of as simply an belief, it can be thought of as one of the possible ideas about reality that an individual chooses to believe. This sets faith in a higher power apart from beliefs about things, as it is the difference between belief in things and belief in ideas. Faith doesn't become a delusion because you disagree with it.

While that may be right, it should be considered that faith is often developed as one of a set of beliefs in a world view. Rather than having a solid foundation, faith is something that has a context as a belief that forms part of a particular view of reality. Faith can't be considered absolute truth, though it can still be accepted and thought of as true on an individual level, based on a worldview, although such acceptance would not make it absolute truth. Faith is not a delusion, as faith has a foundation in beliefs as part of a worldview, while delusions are isolated beliefs with little to no such context. Yes, although I would add that faith exists within a certain context rather than as a belief with a foundation. Faith has a basis and a context with other beliefs that form a world view. In this sense, faith is not simply a belief with no basis as it has a context that it is based in.

Does that always have to be the case? Can it be any other way in some instances? In this sense, faith does have a sort of foundation based on previous beliefs, does it not? Faith is based in a specific context of a person's beliefs and worldview, instead of being an isolated belief. This is one way that faith is separate from delusion, as delusions are not developed in the sense that faith is.

I am only discussing a topic...

Is faith something that only emerges as a stopgap, as in 100% of instances? Can faith ever emerge from any other way, such as someone's own perspective understanding of reality leading them to faith? The preconception being that there should be an answer to such questions.