# Not much faith in faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940 "2003-08-22T15:38:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/41 "2003-08-26T07:33:22Z")
Yes Zahava424, we are much in agreement but the question(s) I asked in the OP are still unanswered. What you guys are giving me is a lot of **data** but no **mechanism**.You are telling me “faith is this” and “faith is not that” and not only do we STILL have no clear definition of what faith is(other than another word for things like hope, confidence, trust etc.) but we still have no mechanism described by which faith operates. Note that my OP was SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED at a particular type of “faithist”.The ones who claim that they have certain knowledge gained through a method called “faith” which they assert is at least as viable as reason. SImply saying “it cannot be explained” or " it is beyond logic" strinkes me as a copout, not an answer.The “it is beyond reason/logic/rationality” chestnut can be thrown in to support ANY claim no matter how wild and unqualified. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/42 "2003-08-26T17:59:39Z")
I’m intrigued by your signature. Is it intentional for this thread? Do you think that faith is an absurdity that leads the world to atrocity? You may see my and others’ definitions of faith as a copout, and looking over them, they do sound like that, but what can I do? Faith is, by definition, other than logic. Not necessarily of a GREATER level than logic, but different. Perhaps the phrase “beyond logic” you used in your last post is not apropos; Faith is not any more than logic, but it is extremely, exceedingly, intensely different from it. Yor quote is from Voltaire, and you’re obviously a die-hard rationalist, something I can respect. But you ask for people who claim to have a certain knowledge gained through faith, which is interesting. Knowledge is a rational thing; to be asking for that, you can’t really be asking for people who subscribe to the definition of faith many of us set out earlier in this thread. If I claim to have anything extra because of faith it isn’t knowledge. Anyone can get a religious education without subscribing to the doctrine, and anyone can believe with no background in their faith. Belief and knowledge are seperate in that respect. But I do have a greater acceptance of the direction my life takes, knowing that it does, in some cosmic way, make sense, and that puts me more at peace with my life. I imagine that atheism sometimes leads you to feel like the victim of some arbitrary joke. Faith helps me there. It’s also great guidance for when I have to determine the direction of my life. And I do have this-- maybe this is what you meant by ‘knowledge’-- Thee are times when I grasp a religious concept or perform a religious act or something like that and it will spur a feeling in me, like: I get it. I’m grasping something greater than myself, if only for a second. It makes me feel full, more complete than I was. It comes in flashes, and it’s kind of like a great awareness. It is one of the gifts of faith. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/43 "2003-08-26T18:00:29Z")
**GodlessSkeptic** , you are putting words in my mouth. > [@](#): > > AGAIN, you are assuming that evolution has some goal to which it aspires.Evolution does not even aspire towards SURVIVAL of any given species.Adaptions/mutations are just as likely(if not more so) to kill a species off than to grant an advantage.It just happens that advantages lead to survival which leads to passing along one’s genes and so on and so on… > > You are thinking of evolution as being directed towards some end.As if it is deciding to do this or that for some species benefit. No, I am not assuming that evolution has a goal. I’m treating it as a process. Saying that evolution has a goal is similar to saying that gravity has a goal. You’re misunderstanding my statements. Maybe if I said it like this: Why would the ability to destroy ourselves make us better at survival than instinct that doesn’t allow self-destruction? > [@](#): > > Paleontologists and biologists have found that many dinosaurs suffered broken bones which, if they had been left to deal with on their own would have lead to their deaths.However they did not die from these injuries.The bones had completely healed(allowing them to die from other causes) which means they were cared for by other members of the pack. This “moral code” is the same as saying that a mother bird who carries food to her nest for the kiddoes is making a moral decision. They both are to advance the gene pool of the species. Animals having the instinct to protect their own is not a moral code. They just want to survive. Doing the right thing requires the opportunity to choose to do the wrong thing. Can you give me an example of indecision? > [@](#): > > Your initial challenge in this thread was that free will must have come from God. Again, I never said that. I was giving free will as an example of something that cannot be explained through reason. > [@](#): > > SO why did you drag evolution into this anyway? If you do not think it has anything to do with God, prayers, faith etc. then why try and lure me into a bait-and-switch debate? I was giving an example of something that cannot be answered by reason alone. As you can see, I’m leaving God out of the evolution debate. I’m just defending that evolution cannot explain rational thought. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## …to you. Not to me. > > This made no sense.I think you misread what I wrote or perhaps I was not clear. I was finishing your sentense with an opinion of my own. You proposed that God seems to be the product of man’s imagination. I was disagreeing with that assertion. God doesn’t appear to me to be a product of someone’s imagination. > [@](#): > > What rational justification exists for believing that Yahweh exists but not Zeus? I can’t do my side of this argument on your terms. Maybe someone else can, but I can’t. Asking me to disregard faith when talking about belief in God is similar (to me) like asking me to explain gravity without using physics. > [@](#): > > The “it is beyond reason/logic/rationality” chestnut can be thrown in to support ANY claim no matter how wild and unqualified. Actually, that chestnut doesn’t support the claim. It is a reason it cannot be debated. Because it is through faith that someone believes, and you don’t have faith, there is no possible way for me to convince you that God exists It’s a catch-22. It’s like you need to have faith to have faith. As someone who doesn’t have faith, you don’t know as much about it or give it as much credit as I do. On the same token, I don’t know as much about atheism as you do, so you would have a tough time convincing me that I’m wrong without using faith as a reason. Since faith is the vehicle through with I believe, you must use faith to make me not believe. That, or an undeniable preponderence of reason. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/44 "2003-08-26T18:21:48Z")
Thank you, Jonmarzie, for pointing out the impossibility of convincing the faithless of the validity of faith. You’re absolutrely right. I do know of a book that tried to invalidate atheism and leave only agnosticism and belief as viable options, but I’ve never read it. It’s called Permission to Believe. But anyway, luckily, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, GodlessSkeptic. You asked for opinions. In my first post, I was as annoyed as you at public demostrations of faith that seem to be only there to prove something to the world. In this thread, by now, you seem to be trying to debunk faith. Aren’t you, and those you mentioned in your first post in the Godless Americans March, doing the same thing as those who gathered to demonstrate against it? Sorry-- just being nitpicky. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/45 "2003-08-26T23:22:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonmarzie \* > \*\*This “moral code” is the same as saying that a mother bird who carries food to her nest for the kiddoes is making a moral decision. They both are to advance the gene pool of the species. Animals having the instinct to protect their own is not a moral code. They just want to survive. \*\* So people don’t have innate, emotional drives that govern morality? > [@](#): > > **Again, I never said that. I was giving free will as an example of something that cannot be explained through reason.** What evidence do you have that it exists and needs explanation? > [@](#): > > **I was giving an example of something that cannot be answered by reason alone. As you can see, I’m leaving God out of the evolution debate. I’m just defending that evolution cannot explain rational thought.** In what way? Being able to draw correct conclusions about the environment in which an organism lives would seem extremely adaptive. > [@](#): > > **I can’t do my side of this argument on your terms. Maybe someone else can, but I can’t. Asking me to disregard faith when talking about belief in God is similar (to me) like asking me to explain gravity without using physics.** You can’t state that gravity is the name for the movement of things towards the center of the Earth? That’s what the name “gravity” was given to, after all. > [@](#): > > \*\*Actually, that chestnut doesn’t support the claim. It is a reason it cannot be debated. Because it is through faith that someone believes, and you don’t have faith, there is no possible way for me to convince you that God exists It’s a catch-22. It’s like you need to have faith to have faith. As someone who doesn’t have faith, you don’t know as much about it or give it as much credit as I do. On the same token, I don’t know as much about atheism as you do, so you would have a tough time convincing me that I’m wrong without using faith as a reason. Since faith is the vehicle through with I believe, you must use faith to make me not believe. That, or an undeniable preponderence of reason. \*\* I can’t decide whether this argument is merely stupid, or actively insane. Faith can justify _anything_, which is why it’s useless as an instrument for finding truth. Something that cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood obviously cannot help us make that distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940/46 "2003-08-27T04:51:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Posted by \ ***TVAA** > So people don’t have innate, emotional drives that govern morality? I’ve only contended that while humans can choose to protect their own, animals can’t. Of course humanity has emotional drives that cause them to protect children/feed homeless, and the like. But, we can choose whether or not to do it, while animals can’t. This is the moral code and is free will. You can’t be moral if you don’t have a choice. > [@](#): > > What evidence do you have that it exists and needs explanation? What, free will? Certainly I don’t have to prove that free will exists, do I? I figured it was obvious. I’m not trying to explain free will, I’m just saying that it is something that cannot be explained fully through reason. > [@](#): > > You can’t state that gravity is the name for the movement of things towards the center of the Earth? That’s what the name “gravity” was given to, after all. Well, gravity is quite a bit different than that, and you still used a little physics when you said “movement.” > [@](#): > > I can’t decide whether this argument is merely stupid, or actively insane. You just proved you have free will! You have a choice and can’t decide! 😃 But seriously… > [@](#): > > Faith can justify anything, which is why it’s useless as an instrument for finding truth. Something that cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood obviously cannot help us make that distinction. I’m not justifying anything. I’m saying it is near impossible to disprove God without using faith, because faith is the reason folks believe. Don’t assume that all Christians in religious debates are actively trying to prove the existence of God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-much-faith-in-faith/196940.md?page=2)