Jump to content
DrmDoc

What is faith?

Recommended Posts

1st,  the following is my own perspective. Not to taken as  statement of facts.

Apologies, I'm still trying to find the language needed to express this.

Identity is a space that is the environment for all it contains. Its unified and defined by  a common  sense of 'self. A 'belief' in a correct manifestation. What is 'Right'.  Generaly based on past experience. Expression of genetic selection seems to me to fit this description. 

We have one identity. Every thing beyond that is environment, or conditions. We are part of that, but its not part of us. Individually, we are components of a subject. From a social science perspective, of humanity.

We respond to conditions based on the limitations of our identity. The conditions of our own space.

We support  environmental conditions that are favourable to us. Family, religion, institutions etc. Race, religion, sex, colour, nationality etc are not identities, they are conditions we are part of and how we respond determines how they manifest.

It seems that we often blur the distinction of self and environment to 'identify with' conditions so we are not components of the condition, but they are part of us.

We give our conditions ( environment or space) identity and demand  qualification to be part of that identity. We lose recognition of our environment and our responsibility to it.

An example I am most familiar with are  the organisations  that started as the Kennel Clubs. Set up as a response to aid the purpose of breeding dogs. Certain conditions were recognised to increase value to the purpose. The Kennel clubs were set up to provide an environment that supports those conditions.  For breeders. Of Dogs.

Dogs were the purpose. In setting up the organisation, the purpose and intent was defined in the writing of the constitution. That defined the culture that would support its conditions, and that would be able to find value in those conditions. That document states  (in effect)  that cross breed dogs are not recognised in that environment, effectively defining it as an identity in its own right. It rules on qualification of both dogs and members to benefit from its conditions. As result, the purpose is no longer to support dog breeders to achieving  value. The value is placed in the pedigree,  limitations and conditions for Dog breeders.  

The organisation has defined its space by conditions beyond its self.

There is a belief or faith that the value is in the pedigree, not the dog in front you.

That the K.C. environment is the correct response  to dogs instead of dependent on the diversity of response to deliver that value. 

Edited by naitche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole thing reads as incredibly tortured, as not even coherent enough to be elevated with the label of wrong. Do you feel as tortured as you sound?

Identity. Self. The environment and our relation to it... these are all fascinating areas for discussion and exploration. Hell, even dog breeding is an interesting topic in itself.

None of them require faith, though. Faith is unnecessary. It’s frankly unrelated and unneeded unless one forces it to be.

Why the attempt at shoehorning these concepts together here? Why bother with faith when trust and evidence are surely enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, iNow said:

That whole thing reads as incredibly tortured, as not even coherent enough to be elevated with the label of wrong. Do you feel as tortured as you sound?

Thank you.

I agree. 

Not as tortured as I might be if I thought I had no chance of responding to that condition.  

Quote

Identity. Self. The environment and our relation to it... these are all fascinating areas for discussion and exploration. Hell, even dog breeding is an interesting topic in itself.

None of them require faith, though. Faith is unnecessary. It’s frankly unrelated and unneeded unless one forces it to be.

I disagree. Not that faith is unnecessary and unneeded in society,  but i think it often  finds  an attachment anyway. Unforced. Or do you think faith is only the preserve of religion?

Quote

Why the attempt at shoehorning these concepts together here? Why bother with faith when trust and evidence are surely enough?

I'd rather not bother with faith and just stick to evidence, but the evidence I see points to its having a place in how things work.

Because if you see identity in this way, it links the sciences. Biology, social science and  physics. doesn't that include quantum if you substitute the word faith with belief?

Isn't there a thread in computing that supports this, or least suggest it? ( 'Do you think D.N.A is a computer program')

I certainly appears to work for cultural identity/identity politics. Confusing the values  of a space (identity) with its condition(s)  seems to cancel out both  measures, with the space discrediting its environment.

 

Edited by naitche

Share this post


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

do you think faith is only the preserve of religion?

Faith is perhaps the worst single reason to accept something as valid or true. Faith not only ignores evidence, but too often demands that one stand in direct opposition to it. 

Those who demand faith are almost without fail dictatorial and insecure, and for such a thing to be demanded by a supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god, it should raise obvious alarm bells even within the mind of a toddler. These people and institutions promoting faith rely on blind acceptance to fill the chasmic void left by their universally untenable, unsupportable, and unwittingly inept positions and claims. 

Let’s change context momentarily to help you better grasp my point. 

If I told you to have faith in the invisible pink dragon beneath my chair as I type this, or that the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you would rightly dismiss my request as silly and unworthy of serious discussion. Yet you and others sharing in your particular brand of woo ask all of the rest of us to have “faith” in your personal flavor of shared mass delusion. You ask us to accept on faith alone claims of outrageous and extravagant proportions, as if that’s somehow supposed to be enough?

I think not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in support of them. Faith hardly rises to that threshold. Quite the opposite, really. 

Faith, or more specifically those demanding it of otherwise kind, capable, quality people in our society preys on the weak. It demands obedience be prioritized over rationality, reason, critical thinking, and even common sense. 

Faith is perhaps the worst single reason to accept something as valid or true, and I suspect somewhere deep inside of you that you know I’m right about this and even agree with me. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


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

Because if you see identity in this way, it links the sciences. Biology, social science and  physics. doesn't that include quantum if you substitute the word faith with belief?

IOW, "If you agree with the definition of belief I've purposely widened to the point of meaninglessness, then everything is taken on faith". It's clear you have a caricature perspective of the mysteries of quantum physics, one which popular science articles often hype to make their articles more attractive.

The real science is based on evidence gathered using methodologies specifically designed to minimize human bias and guesswork. This is obviously not belief based on faith in something we can't know, nor is it belief born of wishful thinking. It's belief based on trustworthy evidence and reasoning. We trust in this science mostly because we can show how this is the way the observable universe behaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, I mostly agree with you both on some of your major points.

2nd, I am not a believer in any God.

I think you mistake my definition of belief, or faith.

The O.P was was "What is Faith?" and why do you have it.

My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition.

Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society? 

Edited by naitche

Share this post


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

1st, I mostly agree with you both on some of your major points.

2nd, I am not a believer in any God.

I think you mistake my definition of belief, or faith.

The O.P was was "What is Faith?" and why do you have it.

My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition.

Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society? 

I think you are conflating faith with trust, I have no faith but I do have trust in things I have a reasonable expectation of being true. 

 

Do you have faith the sun will appear to rise in the morning or do you trust based on reasonable expectations? 

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


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

do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another,

In which case you’re talking about trust and belief, but conflating then w faith.

Edit: x-posted w moonman who said the same thing 

8 minutes ago, naitche said:

Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society? 

If you’re asking me whether I think faith in humanity is required to achieve a cohesive society, I’m a pretty firm no on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iNow said:

In which case you’re talking about trust and belief, but conflating then w faith.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago. Now, I am not convinced. Some cultural groups I've looked at display the same dogged determination to look no further than the single condition they identify with. It looks very similar to religious faith to me.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Edit: x-posted w moonman who said the same thing 

If you’re asking me whether I think faith in humanity is required to achieve a cohesive society, I’m a pretty firm no on that. 

Fair enough.

Share this post


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

Some cultural groups I've looked at display the same dogged determination to look no further than the single condition they identify with. It looks very similar to religious faith to me.

I'm unsure I'm interpreting this comment in the way you intended. Will you please elaborate or state this another way to ensure proper comprehension?

What cultural groups? What did they do to warrant your assertion of "dogged determination" and what do you mean by "to look no further than the single condition they identify with?"

Share this post


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

Some cultural groups I've looked at display the same dogged determination to look no further than the single condition they identify with. It looks very similar to religious faith to me.

1

The problem is, you assume all people are the same and to some extent that is true; we're all different but we're all human.

A child has absolute faith in their parents and then, one day (for most), they do something, often innocuously, that breaks through that faith and suddenly mum/dad are not quite the infallible heroes we thought they were; it doesn't mean we don't trust them, just that we don't always believe them. And that's healthy and it's also true of our culture, cultures grow (as do we), not because of faith, despite it. Religions only grow (like us) when they're young, when they grow old they wither not despite faith, because of it. 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


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

My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition.

There is nothing, NOTHING I believe in using faith, so NOT all of us "have faith in one form or another". Once more, faith is defined as a strong belief that needs no reasoning or evidence to support it. You just "know" it's right. I don't believe in anything that way. Everything I believe in strongly is backed up by evidence, and if I haven't seen all of it personally, I know how to find it and test it myself if I find any of this knowledge conflicts with nature.

I think what you're mistaking for faith is people being led by their emotions rather than reason. That's happening a lot around the world these days, and it looks very much like strong beliefs but it isn't necessarily due to religious faith. Fear is a common motivator, and when people use their hearts before they think things through, events often take a bad turn. Jealousy, greed, even hope and joy can influence us negatively if we aren't using our brains to reason the best course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try another way.

So you all think I am wrong( and maybe I am) To me its about perspective- You can't see mine, partly because of my tortured language.

I don't think faith is any different from the trust and belief of a child for their parents, or that its different from other forms of  belief. Children do change to a more realistic view as do many people of religious faith. i don't see why 'faith' should be a unique mystery of religion. I don't believe in what some here call the 'supernatural' so don't see why faith should be seen as such a mystery. 

I think the distinction in the type of faith you are talking about is an equal belief that holding that position gives them their moral  integrity. That to believe anything else would cost them that. So they are afraid  to  look at another perspective in any depth. By extension, those of us who do not have their faith are lacking in moral integrity and lesser human beings because of that. Our value is discredited.

They are measuring the value of  their personal space by conditions beyond it.

On 29/05/2018 at 11:58 PM, dimreepr said:

The problem is, you assume all people are the same and to some extent that is true; we're all different but we're all human.

No. I don't.

Share this post


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

I'll try another way.

So you all think I am wrong( and maybe I am) To me its about perspective- You can't see mine, partly because of my tortured language.

I don't think faith is any different from the trust and belief of a child for their parents, or that its different from other forms of  belief. Children do change to a more realistic view as do many people of religious faith. i don't see why 'faith' should be a unique mystery of religion. I don't believe in what some here call the 'supernatural' so don't see why faith should be seen as such a mystery. 

I think the distinction in the type of faith you are talking about is an equal belief that holding that position gives them their moral  integrity. That to believe anything else would cost them that. So they are afraid  to  look at another perspective in any depth. By extension, those of us who do not have their faith are lacking in moral integrity and lesser human beings because of that. Our value is discredited.

They are measuring the value of  their personal space by conditions beyond it.

No. I don't.

 

You continue to equate reasonable expectations based on past confirmation with faith. Do you have faith the sun will appear to rise tomorrow? Or do you trust that it will due to seeing it appear to rise every morning of your life?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, naitche said:

No. I don't.

 

Yes, you do. 

If you want more than just simple gainsay, please address the entire post.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reply to the OP.  I believe in a Supreme Intelligence, call it what you will. I approach my thinking from the cause and effect relationships evident throughout the Universe.  Then, I attribute the Big Bang and all subsequent events to this Supreme Intelligence that could conceivably create the forces of nature and allow the potentialities of the Universe to manifest. At some point in my chain of thinking, I come across question marks and I have doubts about the existence of this Supreme Intelligence.  At this point, I need faith to believe that there is an afterlife where the elevated soul can rest after the excrescence of an Earthly existence.  That faith is a strong hope underpinned by not one but 3 revelations and books that seem to give broadly the same message. However, all the above is my opinion, which I believe was requested by the OP. I am not here to bang the drum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

Just to reply to the OP.  I believe in a Supreme Intelligence, call it what you will. I approach my thinking from the cause and effect relationships evident throughout the Universe.  Then, I attribute the Big Bang and all subsequent events to this Supreme Intelligence that could conceivably create the forces of nature and allow the potentialities of the Universe to manifest. At some point in my chain of thinking, I come across question marks and I have doubts about the existence of this Supreme Intelligence.  At this point, I need faith to believe that there is an afterlife where the elevated soul can rest after the excrescence of an Earthly existence.  That faith is a strong hope underpinned by not one but 3 revelations and books that seem to give broadly the same message. However, all the above is my opinion, which I believe was requested by the OP. I am not here to bang the drum.

 Please elaborate, if you are going to assert things that confirm your faith you need to tell us what they are.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. hope you are keeping well mate.  All three Revelations talk about something called the soul which has a relationship with the corporeal part of existence.  By its own deeds, it either elevates itself to a higher plane (Heaven) or a lower form of existence (Hell).  We are also causative agents (apart from the Supreme Intelligence which caused the Big Bang) and our actions on Earth have consequences - to improve or degrade the standard of life of others.  Those who give of their wealth, or time, generously raise society (and their own soul)  whilst those who hoard their money and are filled with the ego of power (e.g. Pharaoh) destroy or corrupt society (and their own soul).  The Revelations gave their guidance in the form of metaphor and allegory.  I am not quoting these directly, it would take too long unless you want me to elaborate further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

Sure. hope you are keeping well mate.  All three Revelations talk about something called the soul which has a relationship with the corporeal part of existence.  By its own deeds, it either elevates itself to a higher plane (Heaven) or a lower form of existence (Hell).  We are also causative agents (apart from the Supreme Intelligence which caused the Big Bang) and our actions on Earth have consequences - to improve or degrade the standard of life of others.  Those who give of their wealth, or time, generously raise society (and their own soul)  whilst those who hoard their money and are filled with the ego of power (e.g. Pharaoh) destroy or corrupt society (and their own soul).  The Revelations gave their guidance in the form of metaphor and allegory.  I am not quoting these directly, it would take too long unless you want me to elaborate further?

So you are basing your faith on things you must have faith to believe? To each his own i guess.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the Big Bang as an act of faith.  I thought the theory had pretty strong evidential basis. Big Bang evidence As a first cause, it is pretty good. And yes I base my faith on my own train of logic and inference which is my own personal opinion based on my own reasoning.  I do not expect others to follow my reasoning.  Like I said, I am not here to bang on a religious book - I am sharing my thoughts and opinions. If there is evidence of consciousness/soul  after death then it would back my thoughts further.

Edited by jimmydasaint
To enter a citation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2018 at 11:17 PM, iNow said:

I'm unsure I'm interpreting this comment in the way you intended. Will you please elaborate or state this another way to ensure proper comprehension?

What cultural groups? What did they do to warrant your assertion of "dogged determination" and what do you mean by "to look no further than the single condition they identify with?"

Are examples O.K?

The person determined to see a Nationality as inherently racist and given other perspectives from the minorities they believe are oppressed , replying that

 Thats 'cherry picking'. That is not a representative perspective. Or they don't want to understand cause and effect, they want to hear peoples stories. They want  confirmation of their bias.  

The Kennel clubs belief in the closed Pedigree  as the only condition giving validity to breeders or a dog,  despite  evidence to the contrary.

There is evidence to support their claims,  If they choose to disregard information that contradicts their perspective. 

That seems very similar to religious faith to me.

Dimreeper, 

I did say It seems to me to be about perspective, where each person sees things from their own. Not so much  'wrong', as incomplete. With other  directions blocked .

Share this post


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

They want  confirmation of their bias.  

That does seem to be a core psychological aspect of faith and superstition. Some people seem to be more prone to it than others. I couldn't say if it was an universal trait of human psychology, but it seems common enough to be considered a special case if anyone missed it.

However, since there are certainly plenty of people who reject faith and still suffer from confirmation bias, it may be a necessary aspect but not a sufficient one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith is not only about belief, it is about trust. True faith is when you have trust in a higher power and you personally connect with the higher power.

Share this post


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

Faith is not only about belief, it is about trust. True faith is when you have trust in a higher power and you personally connect with the higher power.

You’re wrong. “True faith” is about personally connecting with “the higher power” even when your trust is absent... at least, that is, according to all those countless many caught in a god fog with whom I’ve interacted through the decades. 

Share this post


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

Faith is not only about belief, it is about trust. True faith is when you have trust in a higher power and you personally connect with the higher power.

Have you read anything in the thread except its title?

Share this post


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.