# the concept of faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270 "2013-08-27T02:07:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/461 "2013-10-23T00:56:50Z")
**Gus Mayo** you should read some books by and or about Richard Feynman. There is one story about him trying to understand what would happen if you put one of those spinning sprinklers underwater and reversed the flow. He spends days trying to work out the answer, one day it remains still the next he is convinced it will spin backwards, he ends up having to resort to experiment. At no point does he resort to “faith” in anything. Regarding atheism and faith, you refer to several common beliefs or ideas put forth by believers that have probably been countered in this thread but I am still not sure you completely got it (I could be wrong myself) so Atheism, there is no evidence for god therefore I don’t believe in god (and therefore god did not create the universe) again no faith required. agnostic there could be god(s) but we cant know so god may or may not have created the universe. no faith required, no evidence to support this statement but no claims are made either. the unicorn farter, The IPU farted and thus began the universe and all things in it. This is a statement is pure faith as it both lacks evidence and makes a claim about the nature of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/462 "2013-10-23T14:07:10Z")
I have faith in a god. He’s the unmoved mover, not your god. He created your god. Your god worships him, sacrifices stars to him. He lets your god get on with the little things like worlds and galaxies and stuff while he takes care of the big things like physics and the multiverse. There used to be a lot of gods, but he had to kill some of them cuz some of them tried to overthrow him. They were dicks. I know cuz he told me. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/463 "2013-10-23T17:57:18Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > There is one story about him trying to understand what would happen if you put one of those spinning sprinklers underwater and reversed the flow. He spends days trying to work out the answer, one day it remains still the next he is convinced it will spin backwards, he ends up having to resort to experiment. Don’t leave us hanging! Which did it do? ---
**Author:** ![Tacit\_Knowledge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@Tacit\_Knowledge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tacit_Knowledge)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/464 "2013-10-23T19:21:50Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > True faith is on experience… > > What most people don’t understand is that we aren’t and shouldn’t be bound by logic and reason. … Faith may stem from misinterpreted experience. And the second statement is so flawed and contrary to logic and reason (the two most reliable tools we have to discern what is true and what is not). ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/465 "2013-10-23T19:24:30Z")
double ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/466 "2013-10-23T19:25:55Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Don’t leave us hanging! Which did it do? Iirc it stayed still, when water is pushed out its moving in a stream in one direction, but when pulled in it comes from all directions around the nozzle not just from the front. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/467 "2013-10-23T21:40:18Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Iirc it stayed still,… Thanks! You’ve saved me _weeks_ of cogitation, which would result in no definitive answer without experimental data, and I don’t have the resources needed to perform the experiment. > [@](#): > > when water is pushed out its moving in a stream in one direction, but when pulled in it comes from all directions around the nozzle not just from the front. … but that ‘explanation’ is probably (almost certainly) wrong, for all the reasons that make it a ‘hard problem’ to begin with. It can’t suck from behind itself. The less it depends on ‘off-axis’ flow, the less that off-axis flow matters. In a manner that drops off. Exponentially, according to anyone who claims it matters. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/468 "2013-10-23T23:11:50Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Thanks! You’ve saved me _weeks_ of cogitation, which would result in no definitive answer without experimental data, and I don’t have the resources needed to perform the experiment. > > … but that ‘explanation’ is probably (almost certainly) wrong, for all the reasons that make it a ‘hard problem’ to begin with. It can’t suck from behind itself. The less it depends on ‘off-axis’ flow, the less that off-axis flow matters. In a manner that drops off. Exponentially, according to anyone who claims it matters. well keep in mind it was a long time ago that I read this, I could actually be misremembering. I am pretty sure that was the answer though. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/469 "2013-10-23T23:24:43Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > well keep in mind it was a long time ago that I read this, I could actually be misremembering. I am pretty sure that was the answer though. So, you have faith in your answer? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/470 "2013-10-23T23:27:21Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > well keep in mind it was a long time ago that I read this, I could actually be misremembering. I am pretty sure that was the answer though. Yeah. My point was that it’s such a hard problem that _only_ experiment will resolve it. And only on an Ad Hoc basis. And it _won’t_ tell you _why_ it works that way. [Dammit, Feynmann!](http://xkcd.com/182/) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/471 "2013-10-23T23:47:35Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So, you have faith in your answer? 😃 [Dogma]No…but I’ve got a pretty good idea.[/Dogma] ---
**Author:** ![Gus\_Mayo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b19c9b/32.png) [@Gus\_Mayo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gus_Mayo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/472 "2013-10-24T06:01:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s a perceptive comment, but I’d change it to “some scientists are.” The cold fusion debacle is an example where some scientists got themselves in so deep that they couldn’t admit they were wrong. I think many believers like the world where the supreme being cares about them - these guys like the fame and the prospect of riches and a Nobel Prize. > Science accepts, not rejects, the idea that some scientists will have faith. They deal with this by supporting those without faith in challenging faith-based hypotheses, in having clear metrics about how to judge whether a hypothesis is supported or not, and by gatekeepers to the journals. > A bigger challenge is when something gets so engrained that it is practically dogma. Then challenging it gets hard, but with enough evidence (like in continental drift) the dogma eventually gets overthrown. I had to look up the history of cold fusion and of continental drift, thanks for your explination. I think I’m on board with, at least, the absence of faith in science… > [@Critical1](#): > > **Gus Mayo** you should read some books by and or about Richard Feynman. There is one story about him trying to understand what would happen if you put one of those spinning sprinklers underwater and reversed the flow. He spends days trying to work out the answer, one day it remains still the next he is convinced it will spin backwards, he ends up having to resort to experiment. At no point does he resort to “faith” in anything. > > Regarding atheism and faith, you refer to several common beliefs or ideas put forth by believers that have probably been countered in this thread but I am still not sure you completely got it (I could be wrong myself) so > Atheism, there is no evidence for god therefore I don’t believe in god (and therefore god did not create the universe) again no faith required. > agnostic there could be god(s) but we cant know so god may or may not have created the universe. no faith required, no evidence to support this statement but no claims are made either. > the unicorn farter, The IPU farted and thus began the universe and all things in it. This is a statement is pure faith as it both lacks evidence and makes a claim about the nature of the universe. Did some reading on Feynman and his work. You, know, I’m never ashamed to admit that I don’t know something, but when it comes to things like the fact that I’d never heard of him before, it always humbles me when I don’t know _that_ I don’t know. Know what I mean? Thanks for the reference… ---
**Author:** ![Gus\_Mayo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b19c9b/32.png) [@Gus\_Mayo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gus_Mayo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/473 "2013-10-24T06:38:37Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Faith vs Blind Faith - both are believing without evidence - for me the difference is in the attitude of the believer - how much checking/thought they have put into that ‘faith’ - for example - I don’t consider a ‘pastors’ faith to be blind - they’ve studied, put thought into it, etc to come up with their faith - compare this to someone that truly believes the 911 conspiracy sites- or someone that says “I’ll vote for politician Y simply because they are in my party” - or “I believe everything that reverend Joe says” - thats the kind of ‘blind faith’ that is dangerous. The person with ‘blind faith’ never changes their position when evidence is shown to the contrary. I wanted to swing back around to this… I would agree that the difference is in the attitude, but I’d differentiate further with: Faith: Belief without adequate proof Blind faith: Belief without adequate evidence. (Or maybe belief in the face of contrary evidence or contrary proof) Or maybe I’m grasping at straws. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/474 "2013-10-24T07:07:15Z")
> [@Gus\_Mayo](#): > > Did some reading on Feynman and his work. You, know, I’m never ashamed to admit that I don’t know something, but when it comes to things like the fact that I’d never heard of him before, it always humbles me when I don’t know _that_ I don’t know. Know what I mean? > Thanks for the reference… I have been on this board for 13 years (!!!) and these guys have taught me a ton of stuff regarding anything and everything. I have been humbled more times than I can count by the folks here. You seem to be seriously interested in learning as opposed to just posting your position and then sticking to your guns so let me drop you a couple of links that may short cut the learning process. (if you are interested that is) > **[List of cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)** > > Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm and/or rationality in judgment. They are often studied in psychology, sociology and behavioral economics. > Although the reality of most of these biases is confirmed by reproducible research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them. Several theoretical causes are known for some cognitive biases, which provides a classification of biases by their common generative mechanism (such as noi... I recommend one a day or one a week or just jump on that wikitrain and ride that bitch to the end. If you haven’t studied cognitive bias this will probably shock and educate the hell out of you. I refer to this list as the owners manual for anyone whos skull contains a human brain. > **[List of fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies)** > > A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. > Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, error in assigning causation, and relevance, among othe... Much like the above cognitive bias list this one is all about argument/debate. This one is pretty essential if you don’t want these guys constantly calling you on your faulty BS. I really wish both of these had been available to me back when I joined. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/475 "2013-10-24T13:05:22Z")
> [@Gus\_Mayo](#): > > I wanted to swing back around to this… I would agree that the difference is in the attitude, but I’d differentiate further with: > Faith: Belief without adequate proof > Blind faith: Belief without adequate evidence. (Or maybe belief in the face of contrary evidence or contrary proof) > > Or maybe I’m grasping at straws. There’s no ‘good’ way to differentiate the two - and we all color our definition of ‘faith’ a bit depending on the context of the word and the person we’re referring to… all religious faith is by definition, ‘blind’ as there is nothing other than the faith of others to build it on - I just give a person who has studied/thought it thru more ‘cred’ than the average bible thumper. Maybe - Faith = belief without evidence/proof Blind Faith = belief without evidence/proof or thought. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/476 "2013-10-24T17:11:21Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Maybe - > > Faith = belief without evidence/proof > > Blind Faith = belief without evidence/proof or thought. It seems to me that blind faith is used to insult faith you don’t happen to share. Does anyone say they have blind faith. Also excellent and early Super Group from the late 1960s. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/477 "2013-10-24T17:22:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It seems to me that blind faith is used to insult faith you don’t happen to share. Does anyone say they have blind faith. > > Also excellent and early Super Group from the late 1960s. 😃 Thats why I said earlier it speaks more to the ‘person’s attitude’ than to the quality of the belief itself - its not really meant as an ‘insult’ - but it certainly can seem that way - the person holding the ‘blind faith’ will usually see it as a strength - Faith == belief without evidence/proof (I believe in X because a,b,c where a, b and c are usually subjective bits) ‘Blind Faith’ == belief without evidence/proof or thought - there is no questioning it - they simply ‘believe’ and cannot explain it (or don’t care to). (and I know I’m just repeating myself) ---
**Author:** ![Gus\_Mayo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b19c9b/32.png) [@Gus\_Mayo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gus_Mayo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/478 "2013-10-25T00:37:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It seems to me that blind faith is used to insult faith you don’t happen to share. Does anyone say they have blind faith. > > Also excellent and early Super Group from the late 1960s. 😃 That’s a great point! > [@simster](#): > > There’s no ‘good’ way to differentiate the two - and we all color our definition of ‘faith’ a bit depending on the context of the word and the person we’re referring to… all religious faith is by definition, ‘blind’ as there is nothing other than the faith of others to build it on - I just give a person who has studied/thought it thru more ‘cred’ than the average bible thumper. > > Maybe - > > Faith = belief without evidence/proof > > Blind Faith = belief without evidence/proof or thought. > [@simster](#): > > Thats why I said earlier it speaks more to the ‘person’s attitude’ than to the quality of the belief itself - its not really meant as an ‘insult’ - but it certainly can seem that way - the person holding the ‘blind faith’ will usually see it as a strength - > > Faith == belief without evidence/proof (I believe in X because a,b,c where a, b and c are usually subjective bits) > > ‘Blind Faith’ == belief without evidence/proof or thought - there is no questioning it - they simply ‘believe’ and cannot explain it (or don’t care to). > > (and I know I’m just repeating myself) All good points, especially **“(I believe in X because a,b,c where a, b and c are usually subjective bits)”** > [@Critical1](#): > > I have been on this board for 13 years (!!!) and these guys have taught me a ton of stuff regarding anything and everything. I have been humbled more times than I can count by the folks here. You seem to be seriously interested in learning as opposed to just posting your position and then sticking to your guns so let me drop you a couple of links that may short cut the learning process. (if you are interested that is) > > [List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) > I recommend one a day or one a week or just jump on that wikitrain and ride that bitch to the end. If you haven’t studied cognitive bias this will probably shock and educate the hell out of you. I refer to this list as the owners manual for anyone whos skull contains a human brain. > > [List of fallacies - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) > Much like the above cognitive bias list this one is all about argument/debate. This one is pretty essential if you don’t want these guys constantly calling you on your faulty BS. I really wish both of these had been available to me back when I joined. Off to read. Glad much of my work involves “hurrying up and waiting.” ---
**Author:** ![DrumBum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e79b87/32.png) [@DrumBum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrumBum)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/479 "2013-10-25T12:55:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It seems to me that blind faith is used to insult faith you don’t happen to share. Does anyone say they have blind faith. > > Also excellent and early Super Group from the late 1960s. 😃 There is a field in the deep water Gulf of Mexico named [Blind Faith](http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/blindfaith/). I have a colleague who was part of the original development team and enjoyed telling people she drilled wells on “Blind Faith.” There are a few other fields with musical references -Tubular Bells, Genesis. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270/480 "2013-10-26T19:03:32Z")
> [@DrumBum](#): > > There are a few other fields with musical references -Tubular Bells, Genesis. OK, I get “Mike **Oldfield** ”, but what’s the Genesis reference? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-faith/667270.md?page=25)