Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I believe the intent is to suggest that the rejection of faith is itself an act of faith, which is IMO self-evidently ludicrous as a position

We can obviously wait for naitche to clarify directly, but I'm not optimistic that clarity will be added

And that's why religion is so easily dismissed and misunderstood, everyone assumes faith is required for >insert religion< to be valid.

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

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

And that's why religion is so easily dismissed and misunderstood, everyone assumes faith is required for >insert religion< to be valid.

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

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

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

This comes back to the definition of religion. I know here it is taken to mean the worship of some deity, but this isn't an aspect of all the things which are commonly called religion around the world. 'Religion' is not homogenous and the role of faith, if any, varies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

This comes back to the definition of religion. I know here it is taken to mean the worship of some deity, but this isn't an aspect of all the things which are commonly called religion around the world. 'Religion' is not homogenous and the role of faith, if any, varies.

Religions without deities to protect don't seem to rely as much on what science would call supernatural behavior. There seems to be more reason when there's less gods. 

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

Religions without deities to protect don't seem to rely as much on what science would call supernatural behavior. There seems to be more reason when there's less gods. 

 

Considering that the vast majority of problem caused by religion comes from monotheistic religions I would have have some doubt about less gods equal more reason... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Considering that the vast majority of problem caused by religion comes from monotheistic religions I would have have some doubt about less gods equal more reason... 

Less gods than one is... more reasonable. 

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

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

It is about necessity for an explanation. Faith derives from the need to explain one's own existence.

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

A need implies that there has to be an explanation for one's own existence that leads them to faith.

Or one wants there to be an explanation  (beyond the scientific one).

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

A need implies that there has to be an explanation for one's own existence that leads them to faith.

Except, faith is the EXACT opposite of an explanation. 

In its most basic form, faith is the acceptance of something as true despite a complete lack of evidence, and often it’s the continued acceptance of something as true in DIRECT contradiction to the actual evidence we do, in fact, have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bender said:

Or one wants there to be an explanation  (beyond the scientific one).

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Except, faith is the EXACT opposite of an explanation. 

In its most basic form, faith is the acceptance of something as true despite a complete lack of evidence, and often it’s the continued acceptance of something as true in DIRECT contradiction to the actual evidence we do, in fact, have. 

The jump in reasoning occurs once a necessity for an explanation is accepted, such that it leads to faith.

The explanation involves an explanation for existence itself, as opposed to the process of existence.

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

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer.

This is just an eufemistic way of saying "wishfull thinking".

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The jump in reasoning occurs once a necessity for an explanation is accepted, such that it leads to faith.

Accepting something for which there is no evidence (this need) requires faith, so you are argueing that faith leads to faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bender said:

This is just an eufemistic way of saying "wishfull thinking".

Accepting something for which there is no evidence (this need) requires faith, so you are argueing that faith leads to faith.

The acceptance occurs as a result of reasoning by one that leads them to the acceptance. Faith can be placed once one reaches a conclusion, based on previous conclusions reached.

A specific kind of evidence is not always required to reach a conclusion, in certain context. What constitutes evidence is not always consistent in every situation.

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

Accepting something for which there is no evidence (this need) requires faith, so you are argueing that faith leads to faith.

Which, in fairness to our fellow member, the creeper caught in a god fog, is true, but inherently useless. 

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

The acceptance occurs as a result of reasoning by one that leads them to the acceptance. Faith can be placed once one reaches a conclusion, based on previous conclusions reached.

A specific kind of evidence is not always required to reach a conclusion, in certain context. What constitutes evidence is not always consistent in every situation.

The reasoning you are referring to, seems to be "wishfull thinking", which I indeed won't accept as evidence.

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

The reasoning you are referring to, seems to be "wishfull thinking", which I indeed won't accept as evidence.

Wishful thinking involves thinking based in wishing or desiring rather than a necessity. It is not simply a jump in reasoning.

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

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer.

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Wishful thinking involves thinking based in wishing or desiring rather than a necessity. 

IOW You wish to be more important than you are.

 

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

I believe the intent is to suggest that the rejection of faith is itself an act of faith, which is IMO self-evidently ludicrous as a position

We can obviously wait for naitche to clarify directly, but I'm not optimistic that clarity will be added

While I would really like @naitche to answer, I concur: we shouldn't hold our beath on their answer to make sense

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

The acceptance occurs as a result of reasoning by one that leads them to the acceptance. Faith can be placed once one reaches a conclusion, based on previous conclusions reached.

You can't reach valid conclusions about something you can't possibly know (such as the absolute existence of a higher power that can't be observed). Most of the things you claim are impossible to know with ANY degree of trust, by their very definition. You're basically claiming truth because you believe in it.

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

Wishful thinking involves thinking based in wishing or desiring rather than a necessity. It is not simply a jump in reasoning.

But you wish it to be a necessity.

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

You can't reach valid conclusions about something you can't possibly know (such as the absolute existence of a higher power that can't be observed). Most of the things you claim are impossible to know with ANY degree of trust, by their very definition. You're basically claiming truth because you believe in it.

When one reaches a conclusion based on their own understanding in this way, the conclusion can be said to be something that they think or believe to be true. However, this does not mean that their faith is placed blindly in something. They only think or believe in that conclusion because, in this case, they have gotten there based on their own understanding, so that to them, there is a basis for their understanding and conclusion.

Believing can still have a basis for it based on one's own understanding,. It doesn't have to be seen as something that is placed without reason or cause. 

It doesn't have to be known with 100% certainty to be able to have any sort of basis for it. 

3 hours ago, Bender said:

But you wish it to be a necessity.

How is it not a necessity? There is a need to explain everything that exists, including ourselves and our existence within reality. Faith can be a part of the explanation.

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

It doesn't have to be known with 100% certainty to be able to have any sort of basis for it. 

Nothing ever is, in science. But what you've decided to believe in has 0% to trust in. You've simply decided it makes the most sense to you, and now you claim it's the way the universe is. Since you don't appear to value trustworthy explanations, I don't know why you insist on equating your beliefs with anything rational, reasonable, or with any nod to critical thinking whatsoever. 

It's perfectly OK for you to believe these wild things with only blind faith, you know. But you're wasting everyone's time if you think anyone is going to agree that your beliefs are more than guesswork.

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

Nothing ever is, in science. But what you've decided to believe in has 0% to trust in. You've simply decided it makes the most sense to you, and now you claim it's the way the universe is. Since you don't appear to value trustworthy explanations, I don't know why you insist on equating your beliefs with anything rational, reasonable, or with any nod to critical thinking whatsoever. 

It's perfectly OK for you to believe these wild things with only blind faith, you know. But you're wasting everyone's time if you think anyone is going to agree that your beliefs are more than guesswork.

Why can't faith have any basis in reasoning or understanding? Can't faith be based on conclusions that one makes/

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

How is it not a necessity? There is a need to explain everything that exists, including ourselves and our existence within reality. Faith can be a part of the explanation.

No, there is no necessity. You (and many with you) just want there to be. I guess this desire could be caused by a fear that everything would be dull and pointless without it. Then again, I can only guess, because I don't experience any such necessity (at least not to explain the why; science does a great job at explaining the how).

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why can't faith have any basis in reasoning or understanding? Can't faith be based on conclusions that one makes/

If you draw conclusions based on imaginary premisses, it just means there is some internal consistency in your faith. It doesn't mean there is any relation or consistency with the actual world which is independent of your faith.

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.