Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 881
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely  consistent with there being no God? And do yo

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through. "I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and intera

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion.   ! Moderator Note

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I don't ignore the answers, I question them.

Do you? Well, let's take a quick straw poll, who here agrees with this statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I doubt it...

I should've turned it off :rolleyes: , I knew it was a risk; sort of worth it though, that's a hall of fame-r (worth a new keyboard too), I'm still chuckling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith should not have to be based in science to have a certain form of legitimacy.

If I may comment on this previous post, the legitimacy of faith resides in its psychological effect, which isn't dissimilar to the effect of delusion.  Faith is a quality of mind that isn't based on anything considered scientifically legitimate or tangible.  It emerges, IMO, as a stopgap for lack of knowledge, insight, or understanding most often amid exigent circumstances.   Delusion, conversely, is distinguishable by its established association with mental illness.  I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people of faith are all mentally ill and, frankly, I don't believe they are.  They are, I feel, mostly misguided or unwilling to investigate beyond their Eden of ignorance that so comforts them or to which they've grown so accustomed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am not so quick to stop looking for answers.

Sure, you are showing that you won’t be satisfied until you find answers which satisfy your pre conceptions. Don’t worry, you are not alone. - its a very common attitude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking, in your case, and there's nothing you can say that's going to persuade anyone on this site otherwise. 

I think you're wrong in this. Rarely does wishful thinking produce the kind of blind obstinance and adamant certainty that faith does. Obviously, those who rely on faith for belief are willing to actively twist their viewpoint to support their beliefs and make them work, while wishful thinking rarely causes such a global change in thought.

Endercreeper01 exhibits faith in his higher power, not wishful thinking, and certainly not trust. No observable phenomena need his higher power to explain them, yet he is adamant about its existence. If he only hoped or wished for this power to exist, he wouldn't insist on its certainty. 

Faith is always 100% belief. Trust is NEVER 100%. Wishful thinking is usually less certain than trust, yet persists nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

If I may comment on this previous post, the legitimacy of faith resides in its psychological effect, which isn't dissimilar to the effect of delusion.  Faith is a quality of mind that isn't based on anything considered scientifically legitimate or tangible.  It emerges, IMO, as a stopgap for lack of knowledge, insight, or understanding most often amid exigent circumstances.   Delusion, conversely, is distinguishable by its established association with mental illness.  I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people of faith are all mentally ill and, frankly, I don't believe they are.  They are, I feel, mostly misguided or unwilling to investigate beyond their Eden of ignorance that so comforts them or to which they've grown so accustomed. 

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?

23 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure, you are showing that you won’t be satisfied until you find answers which satisfy your pre conceptions. Don’t worry, you are not alone. - its a very common attitude. 

The preconception being that there should be an answer to such questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Can faith ever emerge from any other way, such as someone's own perspective understanding of reality leading them to faith?

It can if you want it to, I really don't care; but why do you care what I believe? It's like saying, I'm not allowed to enjoy a bacon sarnie because you don't, to which there's an obvious answer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

It can if you want it to, I really don't care; but why do you care what I believe? It's like saying, I'm not allowed to enjoy a bacon sarnie because you don't, to which there's an obvious answer...

I am only discussing a topic...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am only discussing a topic...

Are you? Well, if that's a joke it went way over my head, please don't explain it, I really don't care...

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Can faith ever emerge from any other way, such as someone's own perspective understanding of reality leading them to faith?

But it is still just based on their beliefs (ie. their "own perspective understanding of reality"). So it is faith based on belief. 

Which is, of course, entirely reasonable. After all, that is what faith means. If it were based on objective evidence, for example, then it wouldn't be faith

4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If the higher power is not considered to be a physical thing, it only follows that believing in the higher power is not the same as believing in a physical thing.

You have added "moving the goalposts" to the growing list of rhetorical fallacies. Well done. Next up? "No True Scotsman", perhaps.

4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why can't you respond with any reasonable counter argument to my posts?

YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE (and even brilliant) COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.

You have chosen to ignore them. Shrug.

13 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith should not have to be based in science to have a certain form of legitimacy.

If it were based on science it wouldn't be faith, would it.

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I doubt it...

That is exactly what a bot would say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Can faith ever emerge from any other way, such as someone's own perspective understanding of reality leading them to faith?

Faith seems to support or fills the void in that someone's understanding of reality where reason, evidence, or comprehension is insufficient or where same doesn't sufficiently satisfy his or her expectations.   Faith appears to evolves from a conclusion by believers that aspects of their reality are too exact or miraculous to be random or the result of some definable process within the scope of their understanding.   They'd rather exist in the mystical or believe in the magical rather than accept the ordinary or consider the mundane.  Because they are so taken by the magic, they can't or won't envision or consider anything less than the magical.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Faith seems to support or fills the void in that someone's understanding of reality where reason, evidence, or comprehension is insufficient or where same doesn't sufficiently satisfy his or her expectations.   Faith appears to evolves from a conclusion by believers that aspects of their reality are too exact or miraculous to be random or the result of some definable process within the scope of their understanding.   They'd rather exist in the mystical or believe in the magical rather than accept the ordinary or consider the mundane.  Because they are so taken by the magic, they can't or won't envision or consider anything less than the magical.  

Does that always have to be the case? Can it be any other way in some instances?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

But it is still just based on their beliefs (ie. their "own perspective understanding of reality"). So it is faith based on belief. 

Which is, of course, entirely reasonable. After all, that is what faith means. If it were based on objective evidence, for example, then it wouldn't be faith

If it were based on science it wouldn't be faith, would it.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

Yes, faith is just something you believe, based on your beliefs. That may mean it has no basis in reality (it might correspond to reality, but that is not because it is based on reality, it would just be a coincidence between your beliefs and the real world).

I would agree that beliefs are distinct from delusions. But they are both based on what the person believes to be true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith conveniently enables you to think you know everything about everything by subscribing to „God did it” rhetoric. Science and reason is not afraid to say „I don’t know” The former prevents you from acquiring further knowledge, the latter enables you to want to acquire further knowledge. In this sense, faith is not only intrinsically delusional but it also plants seeds for further delusions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Does that always have to be the case? Can it be any other way in some instances?

To believers, in some instances, faith is enough because it doesn't require an explanation--just belief.  However, believing doesn't necessarily make what is believed truth especially to those of us who desire proof or evidence before acceptance.  In other words, faith isn't truth because truth demands real and tangible evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

To believers, in some instances, faith is enough because it doesn't require an explanation--just belief.  However, believing doesn't necessarily make what is believed truth especially to those of us who desire proof or evidence before acceptance.  In other words, faith isn't truth because truth demands real and tangible evidence. 

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.

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Faith conveniently enables you to think you know everything about everything by subscribing to „God did it” rhetoric. Science and reason is not afraid to say „I don’t know” The former prevents you from acquiring further knowledge, the latter enables you to want to acquire further knowledge. In this sense, faith is not only intrinsically delusional but it also plants seeds for further delusions. 

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.

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, faith is just something you believe, based on your beliefs. That may mean it has no basis in reality (it might correspond to reality, but that is not because it is based on reality, it would just be a coincidence between your beliefs and the real world).

I would agree that beliefs are distinct from delusions. But they are both based on what the person believes to be true. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

If it had some basis, other than just personal beliefs, then it would not be "faith". It would be knowledge.

The lack of a factual basis - the fact it is based purely on belief - is what defines it as faith.

If you disagree with this, then you are using the wrong word (or using the word wrongly).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

What you seem to be advocating here is, essentially, the incorporation of either an untruth or unprovable ideal into one's worldview.  Personally, I consider holding a worldview based on untruths or unprovable ideals untenable.  A basis, for me, necessitates provability.  Otherwise, believing in what's not or can't be proven will most certainly lead to self deception. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

This is pretty much exactly what I said many pages ago in one of my first answers to you: Faith based on imaginary premisses can be internally consistent.

36 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

So faith is an internally consistent set of delusions, rather than a stand-alone delusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it had some basis, other than just personal beliefs, then it would not be "faith". It would be knowledge.

The lack of a factual basis - the fact it is based purely on belief - is what defines it as faith.

If you disagree with this, then you are using the wrong word (or using the word wrongly).

Yes, I was not disagreeing with such.

39 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

What you seem to be advocating here is, essentially, the incorporation of either an untruth or unprovable ideal into one's worldview.  Personally, I consider holding a worldview based on untruths or unprovable ideals untenable.  A basis, for me, necessitates provability.  Otherwise, believing in what's not or can't be proven will most certainly lead to self deception. 

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.

35 minutes ago, Bender said:

This is pretty much exactly what I said many pages ago in one of my first answers to you: Faith based on imaginary premisses can be internally consistent.

So faith is an internally consistent set of delusions, rather than a stand-alone delusion.

Faith doesn't become a delusion because you disagree with it.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.