Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

Scientific arguments are meant to persuade using critical thought and reasoning skills. That your ideas weren't accepted should tell you something about the foundations any proceeding statements would be built upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Scientific arguments are meant to persuade using critical thought and reasoning skills. That your ideas weren't accepted should tell you something about the foundations any proceeding statements would be built upon.

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.

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

I only needed to be clearer.

It would also help if your foundational premises were’t so absurd and easily debunked 

Or shown to be tautological 

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

It is probably time we returned to the topic. Endercreeper, if you have further questions please PM staff or report the post you take issue with. Responding to moderator notes within threads constitutes derailment, which is against the forum rules. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic, faith on top of being  an intrinsically baseless delusion has also a way of grasping minds preventing them from reasonable thought - this thread being a very clear example. In this context, religious faith is also a poison which planted in a young mind is very difficult to counter without extraordinary will power from the individual. Human minds, especially young ones are easilly molded into following atractive at first methodologies like believing something without rational thought and reason which give an illusion of feeling whole. Faith is the foundation of every cult and every religious extremist, not only is it an irrational and delusional line of thinking but also the deeper you’re in the more difficult it is to get out. 14 pages of this thread being an accurate example of people subscribing to the line of thinking I explained above, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, in my opinion there are cases where empathy towards suffering should be put in front of rational thought accepting certain religious stances and respecting ones faith but this thread is not one of these cases. Here, like in any other aspect of life you need to earn respect and here, on a science forum it is done by evidence based reasoning and rational thinking. I haven’t seen a shred of will from the 2 posters above to subscribe to this. 

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

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.

If I understand correctly, you appear to be advocation the existence of a higher power or intelligence as an essential component faith and why you have it.  Although I agree that some responses here haven't been as tactful or civil as they could have been (e.g; equating faith with clinical delusion), scientific discussion demands critical and rigorous evidence for the ideas we espouse.  As I stated previously, I don't believe people of faith are all deluded; however, I do believe in evidence for our ideas that can withstand withering criticism.  Though some comments in this forum make it seem so, it isn't personal--it's just science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is a field. An environment. The space occupied by a set of conditions. They aren't fixed conditions, they evolve and change according to what brings greatest value and meets the method expected,  and  accepted, at a given point in time.

Science does not support anything. 

We support science by what we apply to its practice .  Evidence is what is required for its application.  Evidence supports what we apply to science.

Without evidence, science can not be applied. Or supported.

It has no position with out evidence. It can't be applied.

 

Science is conditional. On evidence, yes.

Not positional. 

Identity is positional.

When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space.

 As far as I can see, you are demonstrating a faith in science as an identity. Giving it a fixed perspective on conditions  beyond its reach.

Not perceiving it as a set of conditions that can either be supported by application of another condition, or not.

Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith?

If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? 

Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ?

And if so,  wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

 

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, naitche said:

Science does not support anything.

It supports knowledge and understanding.

10 minutes ago, naitche said:

Science is conditional. On evidence, yes.

Not positional. 

Identity is positional.

When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space.

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

18 minutes ago, naitche said:

Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith?

If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? 

Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ?

And if so,  wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

Does it matter? The only thing about the faithful that matters to me is the moment they stop telling me I should have some.

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

Does it matter? The only thing about the faithful that matters to me is the moment they stop telling me I should have some.

+1.

It's not like faith is broccoli. Broccoli is good for you whether you like it or not...

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

If I understand correctly, you appear to be advocation the existence of a higher power or intelligence as an essential component faith and why you have it.  Although I agree that some responses here haven't been as tactful or civil as they could have been (e.g; equating faith with clinical delusion), scientific discussion demands critical and rigorous evidence for the ideas we espouse.  As I stated previously, I don't believe people of faith are all deluded; however, I do believe in evidence for our ideas that can withstand withering criticism.  Though some comments in this forum make it seem so, it isn't personal--it's just science.

Very well said. I don't use faith as a form of belief, but I understand why some do. My objections are when people of faith insist they're using trust and reason, the very things that separate faith from hope from trust in my mind. To me, it looks like they do it to make their faith seem less blind.

I grew up hearing religious folks talk about how their faith is unshakeable. I've seen evidence here that many people of faith can't be persuaded from their views. I trust in explanations derived using the scientific method, because I know they're constantly being updated to be the best current explanations for natural phenomena. My trust will also be updated and changed, and that's something else that makes adaptable trust stronger than unshakeable faith. Faith never figures out when its wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Faith never figures out when its wrong.

At least not in time for an update to be effective... To paraphrase what many religious conquerers have said:"Convert or die, M*****f**ker!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Faith never figures out when its wrong.

5 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

At least not in time for an update to be effective... To paraphrase what many religious conquerers have said:"Convert or die, M*****f**ker!"

That doesn't mean it was never right...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, naitche said:

Science is a field. An environment. The space occupied by a set of conditions. They aren't fixed conditions, they evolve and change according to what brings greatest value and meets the method expected,  and  accepted, at a given point in time.

Science does not support anything. 

We support science by what we apply to its practice .  Evidence is what is required for its application.  Evidence supports what we apply to science.

Without evidence, science can not be applied. Or supported.

It has no position with out evidence. It can't be applied.

 

Science is conditional. On evidence, yes.

Not positional. 

Identity is positional.

When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space.

 As far as I can see, you are demonstrating a faith in science as an identity. Giving it a fixed perspective on conditions  beyond its reach.

Not perceiving it as a set of conditions that can either be supported by application of another condition, or not.

Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith?

If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? 

Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ?

And if so,  wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

 

Yes, I would say that I accept science in my faith.

Faith and science can certainly work together.

 

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, I would say that I accept science in my faith.

Faith and science can certainly work together.

 

Agreed...That's exampled by the fact that it was a Belgian Jesuit priest who first proposed the BB, and also the fact that the Catholic church recognise the BB along with the theory of the Evolution of life.

But of course from those points the road diverges with science still looking for answers based on the scientific methodology and empirical evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My trust will also be updated and changed, and that's something else that makes adaptable trust stronger than unshakeable faith. Faith never figures out when its wrong.

My thinking is that it wouldn't be faith if it tried.  The strength and weakness of faith is ignorance of truth--it's that miraculous pill that seems to cure our ills until we learn it's just sugar.

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

It supports knowledge and understanding.

Thats its purpose. If  it can achieve it or not depends on the values brought to it.

Quote

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

I think this thread supports it. That physics supports it. The value of a space can't be measured by conditions beyond it.

It can't be measured by its  position in opposition  to what is beyond it, without with out limiting the possibilities of the space  available to it. 

Surely it must It become fixed in opposition?

Quote

Does it matter? The only thing about the faithful that matters to me is the moment they stop telling me I should have some.

Yes it matters if you are to decide if that faith is baseless or not.

It matters if you are going to respond to to faith in an effective way.

It matters if you hope to open that space up to science because your response must effective. Its unlikely to be effective if you are opposed  to its existence.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

 

There is evidentiary support for this in biology, in the  organism that cannot recognise its environment.

There is support in History in the expression of Nazism and other forms of identity politics,  or Isms.

There is evidence in the evolutionary course of the Kennel Clubs . And many religions. That discredit and/or reduce their environments, because all they can recognise is their own positional image. 

That image must be either replicated, or removed because no response to it is possible without recognition. And that requires familiarity.

 

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

Thats its purpose. If  it can achieve it or not depends on the values brought to it.

That's the outcome, which renders the emboldened somewhat moot.

11 hours ago, naitche said:

I think this thread supports it. That physics supports it. The value of a space can't be measured by conditions beyond it.

It can't be measured by its  position in opposition  to what is beyond it, without with out limiting the possibilities of the space  available to it. 

Surely it must It become fixed in opposition?

4

This seems to be from a random sentence generator App.

11 hours ago, naitche said:

Yes it matters if you are to decide if that faith is baseless or not.

It matters if you are going to respond to to faith in an effective way.

It matters if you hope to open that space up to science because your response must effective. Its unlikely to be effective if you are opposed  to its existence.

I don't care if you have faith, I am prepared to tolerate that, you're a human that thinks differently to me, it doesn't matter to me, so my impact on you is just a reflection of your intolerance to me and my decision not to have faith.

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden.

3 hours ago, naitche said:

There is evidentiary support for this in biology, in the  organism that cannot recognise its environment.

There is support in History in the expression of Nazism and other forms of identity politics,  or Isms.

There is evidence in the evolutionary course of the Kennel Clubs . And many religions. That discredit and/or reduce their environments, because all they can recognise is their own positional image. 

That image must be either replicated, or removed because no response to it is possible without recognition. And that requires familiarity.

7

I'm so sorry, its gone over your head. ;)

 

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

All the folks claiming that will be so disappointed.

It's a fair cop. -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith as praticed by the religious faithful seems a lot more like hope than trust. Religious people hope for things as opposed to trust in things. As such the word faith is often being missed used. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Faith as praticed by the religious faithful seems a lot more like hope than trust. Religious people hope for things as opposed to trust in things. As such the word faith is often being missed used. 

Yet another belief about faith.

Faith and hope are not exclusive of one another, and neither should it be considered such.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This seems to be from a random sentence generator App.

Is that supposed to be a response to a reasoned argument?

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Agreed...That's exampled by the fact that it was a Belgian Jesuit priest who first proposed the BB, and also the fact that the Catholic church recognise the BB along with the theory of the Evolution of life.

But of course from those points the road diverges with science still looking for answers based on the scientific methodology and empirical evidence.

Yes, although both attempt to answer different types of questions in different ways, they can both be integrated into a worldview.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

My thinking is that it wouldn't be faith if it tried.  The strength and weakness of faith is ignorance of truth--it's that miraculous pill that seems to cure our ills until we learn it's just sugar.

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.

On June 21, 2018 at 3:48 AM, koti said:

Getting back on topic, faith on top of being  an intrinsically baseless delusion has also a way of grasping minds preventing them from reasonable thought - this thread being a very clear example. In this context, religious faith is also a poison which planted in a young mind is very difficult to counter without extraordinary will power from the individual. Human minds, especially young ones are easilly molded into following atractive at first methodologies like believing something without rational thought and reason which give an illusion of feeling whole. Faith is the foundation of every cult and every religious extremist, not only is it an irrational and delusional line of thinking but also the deeper you’re in the more difficult it is to get out. 14 pages of this thread being an accurate example of people subscribing to the line of thinking I explained above, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, in my opinion there are cases where empathy towards suffering should be put in front of rational thought accepting certain religious stances and respecting ones faith but this thread is not one of these cases. Here, like in any other aspect of life you need to earn respect and here, on a science forum it is done by evidence based reasoning and rational thinking. I haven’t seen a shred of will from the 2 posters above to subscribe to this. 

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.

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

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.

You don't seem to get any of my jokes...

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.