(btw, the “biodiesel” remark is an inside joke, even though I do eat granola. I however do NOT wear flowers in my hair.)
No it isn’t a joke. Faith, in it’s essence, explores areas that science doesn’t or cannot explore. The inner man. As mojave66 put so very well. Science can explore the objevtive. Where religions have certain traditions and myths that make assertions about the objective world then science can help disprove and dispel those myths. IMHO that is science aiding in the progress of religion and helping bring the focus back to the inner person where it belongs. No the world wasn’t created 6000 years ago, etc. etc. Those type of objective superficial details are the least important of the issues of faith.
This is incorrect. The term faith covers a wide spectrum. In fact I assert that all people operate on faith. It is impossible for humans to function otherwise. If we only consider faith of the spiritual or religious sort it is still a broad spectrum. Some may feel they already know the answers but for many of us faith is an ongoing exploration of the inner person and the boundaries of love, forgiveness, compassion, courage, and all the unscientific qualities that make propel humanity forward. For you to make say “faith does not explore anything” is an unfounded assertion of your that reflects your own bias. Even a brief glance at the various forms of faith shows this to be false.
Faith doesn’t deal with questions?? Please don’t try to pass this off as logic or reason. Another of your own baseless assertions while you criticize others. Faith deals with the biggest ones. Who am I? Am I more than this physical body? Do I have a purpose other than mere survival? What is most important to me, the things or qualities I value most? Do the things I value make a positive contribution to the world around me? All questions that faith deals with. You seem to single out the ugly aspects of faith an humanity and then try to paint all faith with that brush. Then you have the nerve to call that reason. It’s rubbish. It’s the same kind of rubbish you criticize in others. Are you and **Der Trihs ** twin sons of different mothers by any chance?
**Double Truth ** is an interesting term. In thinking about this in the past I considered that science and religion or the spiritual path {a term I prefer} are ultimately paths to *the *truth. Science deals with the objective and the spiritual path deals primarily with the subjective. If the truth is what we are committed to seeking then it is in service to that end that we use science to dispel the myths and traditions that no longer serve us. Admittedly there are areas where science cannot go. The nature of love and other inner qualities that shape our world most importantly. If we are primarily eternal spiritual beings rather than physical bodies then perhaps science will never be able to approach that question. No matter. That question will be answered in due time, or perhaps when time ends.
Double truth might useful in considering the separation of the objective truth of science and the subjective truth of the spiritual journey. The exploration of our outer world and the exploration of the inner man.
I was a little concerned about this statement in the OP
but I think I understand. IMHO we know only a small portion what there is to know. In the same way many of our modern advances were beyond the imagination of men 2000 years ago we cannot imagine what might be 2000 years hence. When making any consideration we should be aware of the *difference *between what we think based on current knowledge and information and what we know. I find we actually know very little. Perhaps that which is currently beyond us to comprehend is what is not subject to logic or reason. What I would call subjective or spiritual truths seem to be beyond the bounds of any kind of proof. Still we must go forward based on our current ideas belief and faith with hope that we continue to grow, despite the evidence against that.
Hi cosmosdan. Not to intrude on your conversation with badchad, but I had a few thoughts on your last post I wanted to share. I’ve restricted my usage of the word ‘faith’ to the sort displayed by Christian believers, as it’s both the faith of the OP and the type of faith I’m most familiar with.
While this is undeniably true, I think broadening the definition of faith in such a manner does little but distract us from the main issue of religious faith. As we all know, there is a colossal difference between having faith that, say, the cashier will give you the correct change, and faith in the existence of the internally contradictory, logically impossible, capricious, and sometimes downright psychotic deity of the Bible.
The former may more accurately be called ‘expectation’, as it is faith based on myriad past experiences both unambiguous in nature and undeniable in fact. The latter…well, the charitable term is ‘faith’ but I feel a more accurate one may be ‘wishful thinking’.
This sounds like ordinary introspection to me. If you don’t mind me asking, how has your faith facilitated your exploration of these unscientific qualities?
Faith certainly does deal with these questions. However, the manner in which it does so does not constitute anything remotely resembling an “exploration”. Taking Christian faith as an example, we can see that it gives definitive answers, the contesting of which is punishable by eternal damnation. Let’s look at the first two questions individually. “Who are you”? The Bible teaches you that you are a servant of God, made in his own image, and that your foremost duty, even more than loving your neighbour, is to worship him.
“Are you more than this physical body”? Unambiguously yes, according to the Bible. You are also possessed of a soul which, when you die, will shed its corporeal ballast and ascend into the heavens for the final judgement. If you dispute this, says the Bible, you face eternal punishment. There’s no room for argument, debate, or exploration. The answer is categorical and final.
Faith does not facilitate the exploration of these questions. It provides doctrinal answers which effectively close off conversation and make further exploration impossible. Indeed, if faith expedited investigation into these questions we could expect to see progress be made towards their resolution. The answers of the Church, however, have remained constant for over two thousand years. The “exploration”, such as it was, has been deemed long since completed, with eminently satisfactory results that preclude revision.
Faith, at least Christian faith, is not conducive to the exploration of the questions you’ve raised. Philosophy, particularly the fields of epistemology, epiphenomenalism, dualism, and monism, have done infinitely more to provide meaningful answers to your questions than Biblical doctrines ever could. Faith simply stagnates.
Fair enough. Keeping in mind that not all Christian faith is exactly the same.
Just a side note not meant to distract.
Aside form the faith in the mundane that you describe I was talking about faith in what we value. Obviously some of the atheists on this board value justice, mercy, honesty {the truth} Many value logic and reason while others claiming to do so seem to only value their own beliefs despite the fact that their illogic is pointed out to them repeatedly. Not much different than the faith of some Christians IMHO. It has been proposed that we not give religion and the beliefs that go with it special status and I completely agree. To me that means not giving it special condemnation when it reflects the imperfections common to humanity. A human flaw is not worse because it has religious connotations.
What we value, is also based on experience and environment but can be very uncertain and constantly evolving. People with or without religious faith have a belief system of what is right and wrong and experience may change their values.
Some Christians take the Bible literally and some do not. It contains much more than just OT stories about God. If you look at the more subjective claims it contains a direction. It depends on what you stress. I don’t agree with a lot of Christian tradition but I also think what Jesus taught and Christian tradition are quite different things. Finding direction in the teachings of Christ and having faith in that direction without any guarantees is what I call faith.
One may select certain qualities of Christianity and use them to discredit Christian faith. I find this less than honest and narrow minded. While Christianity contains some pretty unattractive qualities it also contains the seeds to the spiritual journey which many Christians are on. Love thy neighbor, the unity of all creation etc. Faith that a commitment to spiritual growth, and those qualities I spoke of is the right thing to do is more than wishful thinking. A reward after our physical death for obedience may be just that bit that is not what I’m talking about and not mentioned in the OP.
It started with the faith that God is and has continued to grow. My understanding of God , my concept of God has changed over the years but the concept of God is has remained constant. It has to do with the belief that we are much more than just these physical bodies and only by continuing to explore the inner self will we discover our truest selves.
Incorrect. You are isolating certain aspects of Christianity to make your point. That is not all of Christianity. Most Christians would tell you that spiritual growth such as becoming a more loving and compassionate person. Being less quick to judge others and personal qualities like that is a major part of what Jesus taught. Asking God to help us be better people is certainly a kind of inner exploration.
Of course I believe we are more than these physical bodies. The rest that you are spouting is once again is a traditional belief held by many Christians but not all. Even those that believe don’t all believe exactly the same. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is within. That’s where we need to explore.
Only by your narrow definition which I and many others of faith reject.
Wrong. Faith and the exploration of these inner qualities continues despite attempts by some to limit the answers. What do you mean when you say. *The Church *? It is obvious to even the casual observer that it has not remained constant which, with all it’s imperfections reflects the ongoing quest.
I don’t feel Christianity is the only path to explore these questions. The desire to know more and to seek the truth about things exists within the person and expresses itself in many ways. I honor the different forms of expression. I do believe Christianity is a valid expression of this inner journey and so very much dis agree with your statement here.
Well George Kaplin responded quite ably, but since challenged me here goes.
I defined faith, Christian faith, in my last post. I was clear. “Christian faith, essentially defined in the bible as belief in thing hoped for and unseen…" This definition comes pretty much straight from the bible:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
The OP is Christian, and in attacking Christian truths, I used a definition from their rule book, and a definition they practice whenever they say they believe something with certainty which can not be supported by evidence. You apparently are either not astute enough to notice this, or are dishonestly trying to equate differing concepts in order to attack my post. In neither case am I impressed. But just to be sure I’m making no mistake I ask; why did you do such a thing?
And while were at it, I just checked dictionary.com and found several definitions agreeing with my usage of faith, but not one that calls faith that which “explores what science doesn’t or cannot explore.”
Let me guess, you think all religious beliefs which have shown to be incorrect are superficial and unimportant. Just to clarify, what details do you consider important and non-superficial?
You’re equivocating differing things again. To use George Kaplin’s example I sometimes stick change in my pocket from a cashier without counting it because I know they usually get it right (evidence of past experience) and any error is usually so negligible that it is not worth my time to continually check. Do I have 100% faith that I have the correct change in my pocket? No I do not, and when it comes to dealing with people for whom past experience tells me not to trust, or if we are talking about amounts of money for which mistakes or dishonesty are non-negligible, you can bet I count the money too. This type of “faith” you attribute to our daily lives is better described with other terms (I think Kaplin’s expectation is better, as are some other terms) and is wholly different from belief without evidence that Jesus praised in his talk with Thomas.
Personally I don’t see what is spiritual or religious about love, forgiveness, compassion, courage, etc. While psychology is not the hardest of sciences, I think there is evidence that human interactions are causal every bit as much as chemical reactions, and as far as we can tell are based on physical and chemical reactions. What are you claiming here?
It’s not my bias, I used a Christian definition of faith. Personally I think your attachment for the idea of faith being peachy has to do with your religious upbringing, and while you have shed much baggage you still have emotional attachment for concepts and terms which are unsubstantiated.
No Dan, by definition it does not. A definition that is Christian and a definition I cited. This faith is merely belief that asserts that answers are known, often with 100% certainty, to things which are either unknown, or frequently that which evidence has shown false.
These seem more like opinion/value statements, and I don’t see how mere faith, or belief without evidence, helps you answer them. Belief in things hoped for will likely hinder you. Questioning and thinking will IMO bear better fruits.
I’ve never met him, I do like him though, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he and I respect your thoughts equally.
Then using that logic, with the right technology God’s existance can be proved.
Be careful when you hand-wave with technology.
No, faith doesn’t explore anything; faith is all about not thinking, not knowing, not questioning. It’s the intellectual equivalent of ripping your own eyes out.
Faith doesn’t deal with them, it denies all thought about them by making insane assertions about them and ignoring all dissenting opinion.
Love is just an emotion; the conscious manifestion of large groups of firing neurons. It’s not “beyond science”, and there’s nothing all that profound or noble about it either.
It’s already been answered; we are our bodies. All the evidence says so, and only fools believe otherwise.
In your eyes. In mine, it’s an unspoken admission that “spiritual” matters are such nonsense that they require a second, inferior definition of truth for even many believers to take seriously.
Translation : Give credit for anything good any religious person has ever done or even been associated with, and blame all evil done by the religious on humanity or “bad apples”. Standard religious apologetic garbage.
Oh, garbage. We have brain scanners; do you have a God-scanner ? Not the same thing at all.
I don’t think that necessarily follows; given the right technology/methodology, any given specific claim relating to the existence of pixies can be falsified, however, the same technology/methodology cannot necessarily be used to prove their existence (especially if they do not in fact exist, but even if they do).
Maybe I over “waved” my hand as well. I just get peeved when someone can claim to use science when it suits them, but their opponent cannot use it.
Gosh that’s cute.
Here’s the problem. You used your interpretation of one verse from among the hundreds available. That’s hardly a realistic representation of Christianity. You also use a tactic which is a very common error among those who enjoy slamming religion. You do not clearly differentiate between the subjective nature of the spiritual journey and the objective nature of science. If we are talking about objective claims that religions make by all means make the comparison with scientific facts. When we are talking about the more subjective areas then it is incorrect to compare that to science which just doesn’t go there.
The verse you selected is subjective for the most part because it leaves so much for interpretation. Things hoped for and not seen can be the very qualities I referenced.
Uh huh. In your time spent on the board has anyone told you that dictionaries are not good references for discussions of religion and philosophy? They provide narrow definitions of very broad subjects.
Please don’t guess. You’ve made enough mistakes already. It should be fairly obvious and easy to understand. The spiritual journey is within, the inner person. The things that can be* proven* wrong are external details and not all that relevant. Is the earth 6000 years old? Doesn’t matter to the inner journey. Exactly what did Jesus say? We don’t need to know exactly to make the spiritual journey?
No I’m not. If you read my response to GK you already know I’m not referencing the mundane type of faith you refer to. Every person has a belief and value system they use to make decisions. A Christian may behave a certain way in order to gain a heavenly reward {things hoped for} but it may also be the spiritual belief that living a life on which you share love, mercy, and compassion with others you enrich your life their life and the world in general. An Atheist can believe exactly the same thing without seeing it as spiritual and yet both people are operating on their faith.
YOU DON’T?? Perhaps you’ve heard other words of Jesus in which he references these qualities?
No you didn’t. You used an interpretation you selected of one scripture that supported your premise. Not a big deal, but definitely biased.
Is that what you think? Funny, I had no religious upbringing.
Incorrect. Once again,Your interpretation of a single verse about faith is hardly a reasonable representation of Christianity. I am well aware that some Christians may believe they have all or most of the answers. It is obvious to any casual observer that not all Christians believe that. To assert or infer otherwise is inaccurate and disingenuous.
I believe you don’t see. You seem very comfortable with your narrow definition of religion and faith.
It’s faith in the words of Christ which speak of these things over and over again. It’s faith in seek and you will find. It’s faith in “the truth will set you free” faith that the kingdom of heaven is within. Faith that we should value the qualities of life that moth and rust cannot corrupt. All the words of Christ.
neither would I
Why not just call values, values? Why would you want to call values faith? Or are you calling justice, mercy, and honesty faith? I think calling them by their more specific names only adds clarity, that it appears you want of obfuscate.
Some of that direction says it is ok to stone stubborn children, kill heretics, give away your things, and not marry divorced women.
Three questions here. Do you hold that Christ is of supernatural origin? Do you think Christ is one and the same as the creator of the universe? Do you believe you should follow the teachings of Christ?
You use the word “may.” Do you believe in the reward after physical death? How about punishment?
Why do you think that you are more than just the physical body?
One might think that you choose a broad definition of faith only so that you can hold that more or all people use it, and as such, they then can’t criticize a subset of your definition that you hold dear. I think a precise definition is better than a broad one, thus we can better differentiate what is rational and what isn’t. Too broad a definition of terms can make communication unclear. However, to use your language, how about if we provisionally accept your broad definition of faith, then separate out from it the subset faith that is “belief in things because we wish are true, or are told are true, in spite of no or contrary objective evidence.” Would you agree that this subset of faith is irrational? Would you agree that this subset of faith is worthy of criticism?
Do you have other biblical definitions of faith? The same “faith” that is appealed to when Christians run out of reasons to justify a specific assertion and then tell us we just need to have faith? Definitions of a concept, that Jesus was appealing to, when he told a doubting Thomas, “blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed”?
That’s fine. I don’t use the word faith in the same way you do. I prefer more precise definitions. I did define the faith I was using, and you should have noticed that, and then commented on that version of faith. Arguing about the definition used us a separate issue. It seems you are trying to argue primarily about a definition that you want to make “very broad.” I think your broad definition can be narrowed. And narrowing it as I do, I ask you again; do you think the narrower definition of faith, I used, is reasonable or unreasonable to hold?
Yet again, what do you think of the mundane faith we refer to?
Given how religion permeates this society, I seriously doubt that, unless you were raised in a locked closet by crazed atheists.
I’m not calling those things faith. I’m saying they are the things we have faith in. I’m saying that for either the Christian, the Muslim or the Atheist it is the things we value that matter and either unite us or separate us.
When “The End of Faith” suggested that we stop giving religion special status I was intrigued and agreed. That means in part that “faith” becomes a word on equal footing for the believer and the atheist. What do we have faith in really?
It is the responsibility of the individual to look inside themselves when reading that book and discern what it is or isn’t and what it means. Neither the Bible nor any other book is the word of God.
- No more than any other person.
- No more than any other person
- Yes, but finding the teachings of Christ takes a certain commitment and effort that goes far beyond reading the Bible or listening to your local preacher
No. I believe our choices have consequences.
Because of personal subjective spiritual experiences.
I’m looking for an accurate definition. Things like orange or apple have precise definitions. It means the same thing to everyone. Other words just do not. The word anger by itself doesn’t tell me whether someone is irritated or furious. Love can be I love pop tarts or I love my children. Faith is like that. We might agree to talk about one valid definition but that doesn’t mean there is only one.
I’d like to point out that the words you’ve chosen here are not the translation of the Bible verse you chose. Again I think you’re asking for precise answers to things that are largely subjective and have no precise answers. Should I believe “love is the answer” because I wish it was true or was told it was true. Should I reject love because of the negative I see in the world. I will say that for myself it is the duty of the believer to sort out myth and tradition from the truth and discern the difference. Lot’s of folks still see the Bible as the word of God while I think there is ample evidence that it can not be, even as one who believes in God. IMHO that is clinging to tradition and only hinders growth. I do believe that beliefs should be challenged. I have found that by talking to those who present an intelligent informed opposing argument only helps to clarify and refine our beliefs.
Faith requires a study beyond quoting a verse. Even the verse you quoted begs more than one possible interpretation.
but briefly
I know that some people will use “faith” as a crutch to avoid thinking about things . They accept whatever someone tells them and are reluctant to question it.
It’s unfortunate. I’m only pointing out that faith consists of much more than that.
Concerning the Jesus quote. What’s your point? Should we only believe in things we see? Obviously we have good reasons to believe in things we haven’t personally seen. IMHO Jesus was speaking of more than belief in his existence. He meant believing in his teachings. To believe we are more than the labels that are set.
That’s what I did. I commented that your definition was narrow and incomplete. I think it is unreasonable to present your definition as the definition. You came into a thread about double truth and went out of your way to bring up your own narrow definition to criticize Christianity. There are things about Christianity worthy of criticism and you are free to pick the easy targets if that makes you feel good. My point is that faith and the spiritual journey is much more than that. You are not free to set the definition of faith for others only for yourself. To assume that your definition fits something as wide and varied as Christianity is unreasonable, disingenious and irrational. In other words, doing exactly what you criticize.
I think it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Sigh! Once again your posts have demonstrated that you are the atheist equivalent to the Christian fundamentalists.
It should be obvious that the term “religious upbringing” implies more than merely hearing about religion or Jesus. Since I celebrated Christmas I had a passing acquaintance with the story of Christ. I never attended church or had any other religious teaching until I was an adult.
If that were true, I’d be threatening you with death, or pushing for laws to put you in prison.
Clear to you perhaps. Formal education is only a small part of what shapes a personality. How many children in this country ( not specifically indoctrinated into other religions ) do you think haven’t heard of Christianity, or don’t have the impression that it’s true ? Few, very few. Even fewer who have no such exposure to some religion or other.
False claim. The number of Fundamentalists who actively seek (or even passively wish for) the death or imprisonment of non-believers is tiny. If you can use that miniscule population to claim that such actions are what “Fundamentalists” want, then we are free to accuse you of threatening religious people with having their children forcibly removed from their parents’ homes, since there is also a tiny number of atheists who have expressed a desire to see that happen.
As with your repeated nonsense that “love is an emotion” (using equivocation to confuse studies on infatuation with other meanings of the word love), you are simply spouting mindless rhetoric, unsupported by thought or fact.
utter rubbish
irrelevant. The term was specifically “religious upbringing” I never mentioned formal education. Religious upbringing would imply to most reasonable people a non adult who received some religious instruction from parents which may or may not include formal teaching but would probably include going to church on some kind of regular basis, and observing certain religious practices at home. Since** badchad** dropped the subject when I explained I had none I assume that’s what he meant. I really don’t expect you to admit your error and I don’t plan to waste any more time arguing your obvious mistake.
Cosmosdan, I’m going to have more to say to your message but first I want to clarify a few things just so I don’t get your position wrong.
When I asked:
You responded:
Questions one and two are yes or no. “No more than any other person” is a dodge. I would answer no to both, most Christians would answer yes. What’s your real answer?
Regarding your answer three, how do you find the teachings of Christ outside the bible?
No I am simply asking: Do you think it rational or irrational for people to believe in things (particularly extraordinary things) just because they wish them true or are told them true, in spite of no or contrary objective evidence? If irrational do you think this particular concept to be hands off with regards to criticism?