A nice tautology, but it ignores the truth that the word faith is used with many different connotations in the english language. Honesty should compel us ot a higher standard. Theological faith is almost universally considered to be an example of the strongest faith. In fact, any decent dictionary will show you definitions of faith that apply entirely and only to religiob. That is a simple reflection of the truth that religious faith differs in character from other applications of the term.
Now, there is another use of faith which is just a little bit less stringent: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This type of faith is shared by almost all people. It is the faith that allows us to extraolate from our phenomenological experience to an objective Universe. We cannot provide proof or rely upon material evidence for the external Universe. However, the vast majority of us neither fall into nihilism nor embrace the more extreme forms of Buddhism.
Similarly, we rely upon induction in asserting that the Sun will come up tomorrow, despite the knowledge that incomplete induction is not logically valid ([sub]and the annoying song from Annie[/sub].
There is, however, a real difference between these uses of faith and the strength of belief associated with religion. I am certain that an objective Universe exists in which the Earth will continue to rotate and the Sun will continue to exist. But I know that my certainty is based upon nothing more secure than my phenomenological illusions. I may well exists as a solitary disembodied mind confounded by maya. I choose not to behave as if that were the case. That does not mean I am correct.
Now, perhpas your personal faith in God is no stronger and more significant than that. Do you feel your God could well be nothing more than an illusion or a convenient shorthand for observed probabilities? I generally grant people of faith a strength of honest conviction beyond that, but if you tell me your faith is the same as mine I will certainly take your word for it.
jenkinsfan, we can go about this one of two ways:
1.You give a precise definition of “faith”, and we tell you whether or not we’ve got it, or
2. You give “faith” such a broad definition that whatever our outlook, you redescribe it as “faith”, we tell you over and over again that it isn’t, and nothing gets accomplished.
Well, jenkinsfan, shouldn’t you use the definition of “faith” by what your bible says it is?
Hebrews 11:1 (NLT) “What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see.”
I would also add that “belief in God” may not necessarily be a “belief without logical proof or material evidence”. A belief may be held based on logical or empirical reasons and still be wrong without being a belief held by “blind faith”; someone may have an error in their thinking or be misevaluating the evidence. In fact, in debates theists usually start out by offering logical proofs (“Everything has to have a cause; the First Cause is God”) or material evidences (“what about the Empty Tomb?”) for God. However, when atheists give what they consider to be good logical or empirical refutations of these arguments, theists will often–or at least so it seems to atheists–wind up saying “Well, you just have to have faith!” I suspect this phenomenon occurs more often with theists who get in over their heads in casual conversations than with experienced Christian apologists or philosophers or what have you. Things can also get pretty tricky if you bring in purely subjective experiences. Is saying “I have felt the power of the Holy Spirit in my life” belief “without logical proof or material evidence”, or is it merely belief based on evidence which, by definition, no one else can share? Certainly such an argument leaves me free to say “Well, I haven’t, so I guess I’ll have to wait until the Holy Spirit works his way around to me before I get saved”. (I can also point out that believers in different “faiths” seem to have equally powerful subjective experiences which they see as validating their beliefs.)
OK, let’s take this from the top. Proofs are accomplished through our assumptions. We assume, for example, that a straight line has 180 degrees in it, that parallel lines never meet, along with some other things which I don’t feel like remembering, and use this to PROVE that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. This is proof. Proofs are based on logical reasoning from axioms or assumptions, which are supported by evidence but cannot, in themselves, be proven. The proofs are contingent on assumptions, and can themselves be tested in observational reality though this is not necessary for all proofs, only for proofs made for the purpose of understanding/explaining/predicting external reality’s behavior. If the assumtions are wrong, this does not make the proof invalid, it just further elaborates that the proof is contingent on the assumptions and those must be revised. Entire branches of mathematics are founded like this. If we change the assumption that parallel lines never meet, for example, we find non-euclidean geometries in which triange’s interior angles never add up to 180 but more or less.
No, you have evidence that she loves you. Say instead, “I do not have proof that my mother loves me, but it is not an act of faith to believe so because that assumption is made from observations on the way she treats me.” Nowhere in this is life-sacrifice relevant. Had she, say, thrown herself in front of a speeding car in an effort to save you and lived through it then this would be evidence. Merely “really loving you” is not evidence of that assumption.
Anything you have evidence on which to support an assumption is not faith. This is really about as clear as it gets.
I never said they were, but as I have shown above the two are very closely related.
OK. Divine intervention, I think, will be necessary to convince most atheists that god exists. No room in this post for evidence of the existence of god, tho. [searches for existing relevant thread]
Re: Buddhists.
I’d say that to the extent that most Buddhists believe in reincarnation that at least some of them may be resting their beliefs on something other than logical proof or material evidence (type 2 faith). (Some of the remainder, I would respectfully and apologetically suggest, might take a more careful look at the evidence.)
At the same time, there are a small number of Buddhist passages suggesting that belief in reincarnation is optional. My interpretation of Buddhist philosophy, if not Buddhist practice, indicates that reincarnation is not essential to the system of beliefs, but I certainly can’t claim expertise in this matter.
To substantiate this, the four holy truths refer to the causes of the cycle of death and rebirth, but that can be seen as merely an example of a more general cycle of attachment and dukkha, if I have my terms correct. The eight-fold path contains nothing directly pertaining to reincarnation.
In contrast, it is difficult to imagine a distinctively Christian outlook that lacks a belief in a diety.
So I made a typo, big deal. I don’t usually tend to spend all my time proofreading. Also if my thought processes have to be perfect to comprehend the majesty of a perfect deity then that does imply that the thought processes of Christians who can comprehend the existance of a perfect deity ARE operating on a perfect level. Here’s a tip for ya, do a search for the posts of a guy called FriendofGod.
But do I have FAITH in Evolution? No. Evolution is (and may DavidB strike me dead if I’m wrong ) a theory. It is a very good theory and it goes a long way to explaining where we came from. It is not perfect, however and I know this. I do however, believe it is A LOT more credible than the story of genesis.I * think * the theory of evolution is correct and until something better comes along or the theory is physically disproved I will continue to think its explanation for the origination of human life on earth is the correct one.
Also, trust in fate, chance and love isn’t the same as faith in the theological sense simply because fate and chance are essentially human creations. I could win the lottery and I could say it was a mixture of fate, luck AND chance, simply because I wouldn’t be able to readily explain how I was bestowed with such good fortune. This isn’t the same as finding God, which requires faith in something, the results of which are intangible on earth. What I mean by intangible results are things like the sense of spirituality which may come with faith or the comfort that belief in a higher power and divine assistance gives through times both good and bad. You cannot quantify those things. You can, on the other hand, quantify the vast amounts of money won each week on lotteries around the world, you can quantify a gamblers winning streak, words like chance are human creations used to describe such good fortune. Trust in them is not the same as theological faith because placing trust in something which is essentially a human creation cannot be put on the same level as faith in a divine entity. A gambler can trust his instincts, can trust chance. This is not the same as a man faithfully believing his prayer will be answered. Therefore any sort of vague TRUST an agnostic might have in fate and chance is not the same as a believer having faith.
No. Why should we? It seems to me that “evil” beats out “good” on a fairly regular basis (or else we’d never have unsolved crimes, for one easy example).
What does one have to do with the other? If good would triumph by itself, it wouldn’t need proponents. If rationality triumphed over ignorance, it wouldn’t need proponents (and we wouldn’t have creationists).
What, are you kidding? I have absolutely no faith in the common sense of my fellow man! Hell, just look at who we had running for president if you need justification for my position!
I’m interested in having a conversation with as many of you as I can, but please keep in mind that I am only one person and y’all make up the teaming millions.
First, Mayor Quimby pegged my definition of faith (which I thought would be more obvious) when he quoted the passage in Hebrews.
Actually, your typo is a big deal considering that you don’t feel you need God and have all the answers on your own. It shows me that you have too much confidence in yourself.
You also don’t understand the Christian perspective. We believe in God through faith and do not claim to be able to understand Him completely. (He wouldn’t be all that special either if someone who couldn’t spell could explain Him down to the smallest of details. ;)) Not one person alive can comprehend God fully since none of us operate on a flawless level of thinking. Some of us accept God, and some reject Him because they find Him too complex to understand.
I believe good will triumph when God uses us to stand for it.
As to your point about rationality vs. ignorance, I take issue with your comment about creationists. The simple logic in the theory of evolution is not fair since evolutionists are allowed to assume two things, force and matter, and creationists aren’t allowed to assume just one thing: God.
To all, I believe everyone has faith. I just wish you would find something to put your faith in that would answer the questions skepticism can’t: What is the purpose of life? Who is responsible for us being here? And what happens when we die? These are perhaps the most important questions a person could ask and they’re the exact ones a skeptic has no definite answer for. The best thing they can do is to say, “I have faith that once we’re dead everything’s over.” Unfortunately, that’s the wrong time to include faith in a person’s existence.
Wow, Jenkinsfan, what a marvelous job of both ignoring teh distinctions that ME and I addresses (in slightly different forms) and setting up a scarecrow of atheistic “faith”.
That you are capable of pulling of such a juxtaposition without external signs of shame indicates that you might have a great future in politics.
It does not, however, make your false identity correct.
And you’re also lucky I’m a nice guy, Spriritus Mundi. I built the scarecrow of atheistic faith to give you some straws to grasp at while I have an inteligent conversation.
Not quite. Proofs are accomplished through assumptions (e.g axioms) AND data (e.g. evidence). That’s why the scientific method requires experimentation, and not just cogitation.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**
Once again though, that assumes that evidence = proof. not the same thing.
It is an act of faith to say that my mother loves me – a reasonable act of faith. For all I know, she could be simply playing the role, due to societal pressures or some nefarious purpose of her own. I reject those hypotheses though, based on the evidence at hand.
Furthermore, I do have evidence that my mother would choose to die for me. I know that she willingly risked her life for one of my siblings, and I have ample evidence that she loves us all with the same degree of passion. I have abundant evidence that she would sacrifice herself for me, but I have no direct proof.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**
No, it’s an assertion, and a false one.
In a court trial, both sides typically provide evidence for their claims – but obviously, both sides do not have proof. As I said before, a smoking gun at a murder scene constitutes evidence, but it does not prove anything.
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof – or failing that, a reasonable estimation of what the truth is. It is not the same thing as proof, and any attempt to equate the two is to set up a strawman argument.
I believe this is due to the tendency for people to confuse “evidence” with “proof” (as I have been contending on this board). The theists in question attempt to provide evidence for their claim, such as empirical arguments (loosely analogous to empirical data in science), but they don’t have absolute proof – and that’s where faith is required.
Unfortunately, some people use the word “proof” a little too loosely.
Ehm - force and matter are hardly “assumed” as they can be observed. God, OTOH, remains unseen, at least these days.
Are you saying people lack faith because they’re unable to comprehend the complexities of God ?? That might come across as just a little arrogant.
You’re free to believe everyone has faith. I believe you’re wrong. I’m not aware of having any faith as you define it. I consider the question of God’s existence unanswerable. I have accepted the existence of an objective universe on faith, though - although I’m aware that I might be wrong. If you consider this to be faith in your sense, sure, I have faith.
Hmm. How about questions like “What can I know ?”, “How can I get to know more ?” and “How can I verify the truth of what I know ?”
As for the purpose of life and for some entity responsible for us being here, I see no evidence for either existing. What happens when I die ? Again, unknowable. I suspect nothing will happen - if something should happen, however, I hope I’ll show enough sportsmanship to admit that I was wrong. Deal ?
Nope. Read my post again. I specifically stated that I’ve debated creationists before, and have found them stubborn beyond belief. I’ve given up trying to convince them. Instead, I simply attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of their beliefs in any way possible, no matter how caustic that may be. The goal is to convince some undecideds who may be lurking and reading, not the creationists themselves, who are mostly a lost cause.
jenkinsfan, since you have told us that you believe that everyone has “faith”, what is the point of the thread title??
Isn’t it true that you had no intention whatsoever of actually listening to our responses, and that you were merely using this thread and its false premise to “witness” to us?
Actually, what I focused on was your pointed avoidance of answering some of who responded to the issues.
Your subsequent postings have simply confirmed this trend…
I am sure of that. In a debate, though, it is sometimes nice to augment belief with an honest investigation of ideas.
If you agree, please review some of the previous posts which pointed out the diverse meaning of teh word “faith” and consider how those affect your OP.
Well, slythe, I’m not talking to myself am I? Is it possible I’ve read your answers and disagree with them? Could it be possible that I am taking the position that everyone does have a God given desire to believe in a deity and am trying to prove that?
) a theory. It is a very good theory and it goes a long way to explaining where we came from. It is not perfect, however and I know this. I do however, believe it is A LOT more credible than the story of genesis.I * think * the theory of evolution is correct and until something better comes along or the theory is physically disproved I will continue to think its explanation for the origination of human life on earth is the correct one.