Jump to content

The Strength of Faith


Phi for All

Recommended Posts

Well here is my rational....

 

Seriously, that was not a rationale. It's too evasive to be an underlying principle.

 

A big part of the reason I wanted faith to be defined as a belief different from other forms of belief is to examine why people hold it so sacred, and claim it's strong when it's full of this kind of deception and equivocation. It just seems like there's nothing strong about it, and people know that, deep down inside, but pretend it's some kind of special connection that those who question it can't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi for All, and Iggy,

 

Sorry about that. Rather tried to say to much at once and wound up with a rather weak and too long thought.

 

I think my point was that scientific method relies on human judgement. Not only once, but again and again in the repeating of the same experiment by another, "outside" consciousness, to verify the findings of the first and the next and the next. This cannot mean anything but that we count on objective reality to tell us, to inform us, of what is true.

 

We do it once when we see the stars, we do it again when we have faith that billions of objective judges see the same stars.

The stars are true in one way, and then they are true in another way as well.

 

 

Regards, TAR2



Or maybe, put more simply. Some have faith in God. Some take God for granted.



We all attempt to form a consistent worldview, using human judgement and subjectively applying it to the same world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi for All, and Iggy,

 

Sorry about that. Rather tried to say to much at once and wound up with a rather weak and too long thought.

 

Sorry also to have responded so belligerently.

 

 

I think my point was that scientific method relies on human judgement. Not only once, but again and again in the repeating of the same experiment by another, "outside" consciousness, to verify the findings of the first and the next and the next. This cannot mean anything but that we count on objective reality to tell us, to inform us, of what is true.

 

It must just be exhausting constantly dragging science through the mud and propping up God. One wonders how an atheist such as yourself can keep it up.

 

You're correct. Science is reproducible. If someone accomplishes something scientific then someone else with entirely different biases and subjective experiences can get exactly the same result. Human judgment is therefore removed by the furthest extent that it can be. But, good try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Human judgment is therefore removed by the furthest extent that it can be."

 

Iggy,

 

Or you can think, like I do that the scientific method applies human judgment to its fullest extent possible.

 

Regards, Two way TAR



Iggy,

 

You have to remember my motives. I am looking for the ways that the scientist and the fool are similar. We already know where they differ.

 

Plain objective fact, when you consider intelligence quotients, is that most people are grouped together, with just slight differences in capabilities. You have some outliers to the downside, and to the upside, but basically speaking we all have similar equipment, same chemicals, same brain structure, same "way" of sensing and remembering and symbolizing the world. Same grammar, same feelings, same basic sitiuation. Same basic human condition. We were all born, and we will all die.

 

Does not really matter, from this perspective if I believe in God or not. The same thing would be the actual case, in either case.

 

Somebody in this argument recently discounted the religious person's "need" to have a final answer. I am thinking that this need is a human thing. Understandable from the simple principles I am trying to build human consciousness up from.

 

When we are "right" we get a chemical reward in our brains. What does being "right" mean? According to my thinking it may be evolutionarily based and important scientifically in understanding consciousness and thought. We are "right" when the model in our brain, matches the environment we are in. Its what allows the single celled organism to go after food, or the spider to build its web. Or Immortal to speak of emminations, or Krauss to speak of the end of the universe.

 

Its why I say in the "Can you mix Science with God" thread, that we already have.

 

And why I say in this one, that having faith in objective reality is what we do.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Under this thinking "survival of the "fittest"" takes on a whole new meaning, or perhaps, if I am right, it actually means exactly what it states.



Its good when it fits. You win when you get a match. Best match wins.



The Strength of Faith.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Immortal was banned. But he was no fool. He knew there was an important relationship between the self and the all. He just had the whole thing backward. Put the model in the place of the thing. Said he was the thing and the rest was the model. That is obvious to the rest of us, to not be the case. We, in the end, in the "final" assessment, must be models of the thing.



And if we were to build "artificial" intelligence, it is not likely we could do it, by informing a machine of our information. We should instead give a machine the ability to gather information on its own, and design a way to reward the machine, and make it feel good, when it is right about things. We would have to give the machine faith in reality.



Give the machine the ability to be conscious of the way it fit with the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I tried to set some parameters for this thread so it wouldn't just be more arguing about religion-yes/religion-no. I tried to offer definitions that would help posters reply to the specific topic I wanted to discuss. I really wanted to separate faith from other forms of belief and examine why so many people consider it to be the strongest form of belief.

 

tar, I mean no disrespect, but your style makes it difficult to pinpoint your arguments in a discussion like this. I'm certainly not asking you to bow out, but I would really appreciate it if you could be more focused and precise about your answers. I get the feeling you want to object when you feel faith is being attacked, but like many others, you have nothing tangible to argue so you start rambling about robots and magic and how brain cells grow in an infant. You get so passionate about your objections that you seem to forget what we're discussing and you just hop from one idea to another as it occurs to you.

 

It also seems clear that you realize what you're doing, because you sign off so many posts with your regards, and then proceed to add even more obfuscation in postscript. To me, this is a sign that you realize your answer will inevitably confuse, so you tack on what you think will help clarify, not realizing that at this point your readers have often given up after trying in vain to pluck some clear arguments out of what you've written.

 

Again, this isn't about you personally, it's about your style of argument. It has nothing to do with whether you're a theist or an atheist (though, like Iggy, I've known for some time that you're not the atheist you've claimed to be on so many occasions). I'm just telling you that it gets very tedious trying to separate the chaff from the wheat when reading your replies.

 

Sorry if this seems harsh. I just wanted to know why faith, with only feelings as a foundation, often overrides trust, with a foundation of experience and evidence, in the minds of religious followers. I would love to have you shoot down my arguments, but would really appreciate it if you would use a sniper rifle instead of a shotgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I tried to set some parameters for this thread so it wouldn't just be more arguing about religion-yes/religion-no. I tried to offer definitions that would help posters reply to the specific topic I wanted to discuss. I really wanted to separate faith from other forms of belief and examine why so many people consider it to be the strongest form of belief.

 

tar, I mean no disrespect, but your style makes it difficult to pinpoint your arguments in a discussion like this. I'm certainly not asking you to bow out, but I would really appreciate it if you could be more focused and precise about your answers. I get the feeling you want to object when you feel faith is being attacked, but like many others, you have nothing tangible to argue so you start rambling about robots and magic and how brain cells grow in an infant. You get so passionate about your objections that you seem to forget what we're discussing and you just hop from one idea to another as it occurs to you.

 

It also seems clear that you realize what you're doing, because you sign off so many posts with your regards, and then proceed to add even more obfuscation in postscript. To me, this is a sign that you realize your answer will inevitably confuse, so you tack on what you think will help clarify, not realizing that at this point your readers have often given up after trying in vain to pluck some clear arguments out of what you've written.

 

Again, this isn't about you personally, it's about your style of argument. It has nothing to do with whether you're a theist or an atheist (though, like Iggy, I've known for some time that you're not the atheist you've claimed to be on so many occasions). I'm just telling you that it gets very tedious trying to separate the chaff from the wheat when reading your replies.

 

Sorry if this seems harsh. I just wanted to know why faith, with only feelings as a foundation, often overrides trust, with a foundation of experience and evidence, in the minds of religious followers. I would love to have you shoot down my arguments, but would really appreciate it if you would use a sniper rifle instead of a shotgun.

 

You're trying to convey a non-sensory experience with the words 'faith, with only feelings as a foundation' and are upset that the meaning is not getting across to others in the way that you expected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're trying to convey a non-sensory experience with the words 'faith, with only feelings as a foundation' and are upset that the meaning is not getting across to others in the way that you expected?

 

He has been completely rational to me, what is it you don't get? Faith, the religious kind, which has no basis in reality to hang anything on but feelings, how could he be more clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're trying to convey a non-sensory experience with the words 'faith, with only feelings as a foundation' and are upset that the meaning is not getting across to others in the way that you expected?

 

I'm not upset at all. In fact, what I'm hearing seems to confirm that faith is based not on happiness or sadness but more on a "gut feeling", a visceral emotional reaction that has little to do with rational thought.

 

So why is belief based on intuition often considered stronger than belief based on experience and reason? Do so many people consider their "gut feelings" to be stronger than a more reasoned approach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's based on happiness or sadness etc. ?

 

 

Well based on what you perceive is correct and true due to your need to feel good or bad about something, as in "I know god is real because it makes me feel so good to know god is real" or "I just feel like it has to be true" or I know unicorns are real because I like them so much such" personally i would like to "believe that serial killers are a demented fantasy" but belief does not equal knowledge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi for all,

I actually did consider bowing out, for some of the same reasons you delineate. I tend to be too full of myself, thinking that since things make sense to me, they should make sense to others. I get involved in this wordy, flow of consciousness thing, that is fun for me, since I get such a kick out of myself, but don't really offer any sound arguments, just opinions and vague direction of ideas, in some sort of false hope, that others will "catch on" and verify my findings and agree. That I might be right, and get that reward that we get, when we are correct.

 

And I might still back off, 'til I do some work, and put some things together with some more solidity to it. This is, after all a science forum. Random thoughts, might be cute and fun, but not very useful. Not fair to the rest of you, if I keep moving the goal posts about.

 

So let me take one peice of your question. The "marketing" angle. I mean to tie it into the idea, that there is some "fooling" involved in marketing. But I won't start off at the moment, in my usual fashion. Let me put it together in a manner that ties all the peices together in a nice argument that won't require any postscripts and afterthoughts.

 

Regards, TAR2



...later.

 

Um...my theory doesn't work. My wife read me some 17 articles of faith from The Kings College in Manhattan. The faith they are talking about makes no sense at all. It is not consistent with my theory. I can't explain them under my principles of "matching with reality". Their faith doesn't match with reality at all.

 

I will have to go with your spin doctor theory.



I would have to work really hard to contort my theory through the many twists and turns it would take to rationally explain such nonsense. Occum says it would be unwise to attempt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Human judgment is therefore removed by the furthest extent that it can be."

 

Iggy,

 

Or you can think, like I do that the scientific method applies human judgment to its fullest extent possible.

 

Regards, Two way TAR

 

Iggy,

 

You have to remember my motives. I am looking for the ways that the scientist and the fool are similar. We already know where they differ.

 

Plain objective fact, when you consider intelligence quotients, is that most people are grouped together, with just slight differences in capabilities. You have some outliers to the downside, and to the upside, but basically speaking we all have similar equipment, same chemicals, same brain structure, same "way" of sensing and remembering and symbolizing the world. Same grammar, same feelings, same basic sitiuation. Same basic human condition. We were all born, and we will all die.

 

Does not really matter, from this perspective if I believe in God or not. The same thing would be the actual case, in either case.

 

Somebody in this argument recently discounted the religious person's "need" to have a final answer. I am thinking that this need is a human thing. Understandable from the simple principles I am trying to build human consciousness up from.

 

When we are "right" we get a chemical reward in our brains. What does being "right" mean? According to my thinking it may be evolutionarily based and important scientifically in understanding consciousness and thought. We are "right" when the model in our brain, matches the environment we are in. Its what allows the single celled organism to go after food, or the spider to build its web. Or Immortal to speak of emminations, or Krauss to speak of the end of the universe.

 

Its why I say in the "Can you mix Science with God" thread, that we already have.

 

And why I say in this one, that having faith in objective reality is what we do.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Under this thinking "survival of the "fittest"" takes on a whole new meaning, or perhaps, if I am right, it actually means exactly what it states.

 

Its good when it fits. You win when you get a match. Best match wins.

 

The Strength of Faith.

 

Nope. Sorry, we've been over this... not gonna happen.

 

You can keep typing out long winded sermons all day long. One of us isn't reading them.

 

If you have something truly honest to say then I imagine you'd sharpen it down to a point and throw it at me like you mean it to stick, but nothing resembling that there... nope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iggy,

 

Ok. I see your point. I shouldn't pick a fight, if I don't intent to throw a punch.

 

But maybe that is not my approach or intent. I would honestly rather stop the fight. Asking the questions like "what are we fighting about", instead.

 

Phi for all,

 

Spin Doctors are something like Witch Doctors, in that their operations involve fooling people.

 

Smart people can fool stupid people if they want to. Or smart people can teach stupid people if they want to.

 

By definition the "truth" is in the hands of the smarter, to be withheld or dispensed as the smarter sees fit.

 

The stupid person, the one not in possession of the truth that the smarter person has, has the choice of either believing the smart person, or not. This choice is based on the stupid person's faith in the other, or distrust of the others intentions.

 

Nobody likes to be fooled. Everybody likes to be right, to know the truth.

 

Everybody likes to "get it", and nobody likes being played the fool.

 

People tend to trust people that are smarter and more capable and more knowledgeable than they are.

People tend to be fooled by people that are smarter and more capable and more knowledgeable than they are.

 

So track record is the best way to judge other people's facts and intentions. But you never know for sure, whether or not you are putting your faith in the right people. People lie. People have alterior motives. People have true enemies. People have secrets. And other people are "always" in possesion of facts and beliefs and capabilities that you do not have in your possession.

 

So, is there another person we can always put out faith in? Is there another thing, a fact, or principle, that we can always count on? Is there a something that has a perfect track record? That is always true, and never would or could decieve us?

 

My theory, my matching principle, says that reality fills this bill, and thusly becomes in truth, ones personal God.

 

And one is left with the choice of whether to put ones faith in the Witch doctor, or the sky the Witch doctor is under.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So track record is the best way to judge other people's facts and intentions. But you never know for sure, whether or not you are putting your faith in the right people. People lie. People have alterior motives. People have true enemies. People have secrets. And other people are "always" in possesion of facts and beliefs and capabilities that you do not have in your possession.

 

So, is there another person we can always put out faith in? Is there another thing, a fact, or principle, that we can always count on? Is there a something that has a perfect track record? That is always true, and never would or could decieve us?

 

My theory, my matching principle, says that reality fills this bill, and thusly becomes in truth, ones personal God.

 

Interesting, up until reality becomes a god. Why? Reality doesn't need a supernatural component, it just needs to acknowledge that we don't know everything yet. When we do know something we previously didn't, it's natural and explainable.

 

Track record, experience, reliable history, these are things to trust in people, but not to put unwavering faith in. People make mistakes, even if they've always been reliable and loyal. Trust, unlike faith, accounts for this, acknowledges that belief shouldn't ever be 100%, no matter what the spin-priests say.

 

I don't mind hope at all. There are plenty of things I hope are true, but I don't even trust them to be true, much less have faith they are. But it bothers me greatly when people talk about how strong their faith in God is, especially when they pass that kind of extreme hope on to their children, or convince themselves that those who don't have the same kind of faith are less than deserving, less than worthy, less than human even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes i think that the people who profess the extreme type of faith are really terrified of death and religion takes advantage of this causing them, for want of a better explanation, to '"whistle in the dark" deep down they really don't believe it and it makes them crazy to prove they do by asserting some of the most disingenuous bullshit imaginable... I get this from the fundamentalist creationist types for sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phi for all,

 

I am in concordance with both your and Moontanman's last posts.

 

The fundamentalists have taken a step that is contrary to logic and sense, and is unexplainable by my matching priciple.

 

Unless perhaps if you throw in the fear of death thing, as Moontanman suggests.

 

Then there is a possibility that people can either decide to be, or be taught to be their own personal spin doctors. Or accidentally or subconsciouly become such.

 

How many times, in politcal discussions have you heard "a talking point"? The thing has some truth in it, but ones trust in its truth is bolstered if you are an adherent, because its what you thought, but one is skeptical of it if you are an opponent, because you don't trust the intentions of the speaker, and since its "a talking point", you figure they don't really know the thing, don't really have any basis in believing the thing, and are just repeating something that somebody else in the opposition camp has dreamed up.

 

Like you guys trying to figure out, what it is I am trying to smuggle into the discussion.

 

Answer to the faith question most likely is to be found in my own beliefs. In those things I spin in my direction. In those ways I choose to feel right about the world. In those things I have included in my belief system that allow for verification and matching with reality.

 

One of the "aces" I always carry with me, to this talk board, is my faith in you guys and gals. I know I will be right, to assume you have human capibilities similar to mine. You don't even have to agree with me on anything I say. I get the "being right" reward, as soon as I see an acknowleging post that has my name in it, or otherwise indicates that something from me, got to you, and was returned.

 

Forgive my wandering here, but it may be an important point. Yesterday I was smiling as I was walking into the house, looking around at the things I had established, and the things my wife had done, and the things that were done in concert with countless other unknown humans...and there was still a whole bunch of stuff I was in concert with, that had no human behind it. Still felt right.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Might be important as well to consider the association that religion has with the belief in the supernatural, which by definition can only have one natural source, that being a human's imagination.

And the association with spirital "insights" being obtained on lonely mountaintops and through sensory deprivation in caves, and through the peyote of the witch doctor.

 

And it might explain the ritualistic nature of religious services, the repeating of the same words until you take them as true in and of themselves, and you get the matching reward, just by hearing the same words that others hear. Can't leave out 100,000 Muslims circling the stone, reciting the Koran to themselves.

 

Just feels right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not upset at all. In fact, what I'm hearing seems to confirm that faith is based not on happiness or sadness but more on a "gut feeling", a visceral emotional reaction that has little to do with rational thought.

 

So why is belief based on intuition often considered stronger than belief based on experience and reason? Do so many people consider their "gut feelings" to be stronger than a more reasoned approach?

 

The only position based on reason is skepticism, so unless you're advocating that we can know nothing, intuition is a given.

 

Well based on what you perceive is correct and true due to your need to feel good or bad about something, as in "I know god is real because it makes me feel so good to know god is real" or "I just feel like it has to be true" or I know unicorns are real because I like them so much such" personally i would like to "believe that serial killers are a demented fantasy" but belief does not equal knowledge...

 

Either this is merely your belief or you're being paradoxical, which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since this topic is about the Strength of Faith...I will conceide that for some people Faith as it applies to a belief in a GOD...is very strong even if there is no proof to have such Faith. Still a person who follows the Scientific Method cannot prove or disprove the existance of a GOD even if such a question is a bit backwards as Science would first use either mathematical Probability, Physical Evidance, Observation...etc...before a Theory was even presented never mind as in this case...some who claim a GOD exists before such things are available or even if they are available.

 

Now for me the jury is still out. Becuae I have witnessed some very peculiar things specific to the possibility of a Human Soul...I will not state a GOD does not exist...nor will I state one does. What may exist may not be anything people have thought or defined as a GOD and perhaps nothing at all exists...but what I do have FAITH in is my insticts.

 

A Human Being has a few things going for them that allows us clues to make guesses upon possibilities. One of these things is our Subconscious Mind. Everything that our senses pick up is stored and analysed and cross referenced by our Subconscious. Things we are not aware of by the observations of our Conscious Mind tend to come screaming to the top due to the abilities of our Subconscious and many times DREAMS are a way for the subconscious to make us aware of things we can either not figure out or are unaware of on a conscious level.

 

The other thing we have going for us is our Nervous System which I and others believe may be capable of detecting certain particle interactions well beyond those detected by our senses.

 

Between these two...and the combination could be called Human Instinct...a person tends to know about something or if something is wrong or right well before the conscious mind can put together the pieces to make such a determination...this is called a GUT FEELING.

 

So what does my gut tell me? Although there is no decernable proof...I feel that there is perhaps more going on than we are aware of. Can I prove this...no...but do I feel it is true...yes...and I have FAITH in what my gut tells me.

 

Split Infinity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splitinfinity,

 

We absolutely can prove that there is more going on, than we are aware of.

 

My tag line speaks of this. And even if we put EVERYTHING any human on Earth has ever experienced, recorded and shared with other humans, there is still a lot of places on Earth that no one has checked out, in the last year, to see what is going on there, and still other worlds, that we will never know about. Worlds insulated from us, by time and space. And that is if you put everybody together. If you are just talking about you, or me, its a no brainer to prove that there is more going on, than we are aware of. I don't even remember what is in every box in my attic. I doubt you would be aware of the presence and the history, of every object up there.

 

There is a lot going on, that is outside our personal awareness, and is not built into our model of the world.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splitinfinity,

 

We absolutely can prove that there is more going on, than we are aware of.

 

My tag line speaks of this. And even if we put EVERYTHING any human on Earth has ever experienced, recorded and shared with other humans, there is still a lot of places on Earth that no one has checked out, in the last year, to see what is going on there, and still other worlds, that we will never know about. Worlds insulated from us, by time and space. And that is if you put everybody together. If you are just talking about you, or me, its a no brainer to prove that there is more going on, than we are aware of. I don't even remember what is in every box in my attic. I doubt you would be aware of the presence and the history, of every object up there.

 

There is a lot going on, that is outside our personal awareness, and is not built into our model of the world.

 

Regards, TAR2

Yes...I agree with this.

 

But that does not mean the reason for this is due to a GOD.

 

Split Infinity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SplitInfinity,

 

No, it doesn't. But it does imply that we have faith that many things go on, that we personally do not know about. Imagined things that we know are real, that must be real, based on our understanding of our local world. Things we have projected, and "given" to the world, based on our sampling of the local environment.

 

Maybe this post belongs in the "concept of God" thread, but one of the definitions of faith has to do with belief in something, based on something other than material evidence. We assume that the microwave background radiation exists in every direction, even though we do not see it, when we look toward the center of the Milky Way. The dust and stars and possible black hole of our galaxy, block the distant sky, in that direction. We do not "know" what lies behind it. We just have faith, that the pattern we observe in all the other directions, is more or less repeated in that direction as well.

We take this on faith. We understand this, based on something other than material evidence. Its basically unfalsifiable, because we CANT see what's behind. We just have faith, that given a hundred thousand years, our Sun would move around the center far enough, that we could see what is behind what now blocks our view, and that we already "have an idea" of what we would see.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If dead men tell no tales, then the unborn can't either. Since we DO have faith in the unborn to know what we do not, it is alright, in my estimation to extend the courtesy to others alive at the moment, and to extend the same courtesy to our forefathers and mothers, and the guy that died last month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.