naitche

I Don't think Vegans have the moral high ground, Until thats the only option we leave viable. If it is needed, we will have new problems related to that 'choice'. We tend to settle and build our cities on the most fertile and watered lands as populations increase, and monocultures, Well, they only have one thing going for them at any time. Pasture lands often act as a buffer zone protecting crops from predation, while retaining a measure of diversity. Inter-generational farmers are learning .Free range live stock production often serves as incentive for reclaiming desert lands, and increasing diversity. Sustainability is still the problem, until causative issues ( of the reasoning for veganism being the moral choice) are recognised and addressed. i think a moral choice would be to recognise and address the issues that answer 'yes' to your questions.

I prefer We are here. What do we do with it? What meaning will we give it?

If faith is seen as the same thing as a belief in a God, then it doesn't apply to me. I can't say why people do have that belief because its subjective to their own perspective. My interpretation of faith is when someone is dependent on a perspective as being central to the value of identity. Being faithful to an idea. Not turning aside from a value recognised, to enable recognition of others. Holding on to that rope for dear life with all your focus on the view in front of you, So you can't see the step that would change your circumstance or the danger in its condition. I don't think you can understand faith in a belief unless you can separate the two. If you can't, I don't think it can be a scientific question either. My interest in faith isn't in its specific manifestation of a belief in god, or discrediting one. Science can't do that. Science is dependent on evidence and to assume otherwise is assuming properties of science it hasn't got. Individual perspective is essential to diversity. My interest is in when diversity of perspective is not recognised or valued. When perspective is fixed, and seeks to enforce its view of reality as correct. Even when its missing the pieces needed for it to be.

There is evidentiary support for this in biology, in the organism that cannot recognise its environment. There is support in History in the expression of Nazism and other forms of identity politics, or Isms. There is evidence in the evolutionary course of the Kennel Clubs . And many religions. That discredit and/or reduce their environments, because all they can recognise is their own positional image. That image must be either replicated, or removed because no response to it is possible without recognition. And that requires familiarity.

Thats its purpose. If it can achieve it or not depends on the values brought to it. I think this thread supports it. That physics supports it. The value of a space can't be measured by conditions beyond it. It can't be measured by its position in opposition to what is beyond it, without with out limiting the possibilities of the space available to it. Surely it must It become fixed in opposition? Yes it matters if you are to decide if that faith is baseless or not. It matters if you are going to respond to to faith in an effective way. It matters if you hope to open that space up to science because your response must effective. Its unlikely to be effective if you are opposed to its existence.

Science is a field. An environment. The space occupied by a set of conditions. They aren't fixed conditions, they evolve and change according to what brings greatest value and meets the method expected, and accepted, at a given point in time. Science does not support anything. We support science by what we apply to its practice . Evidence is what is required for its application. Evidence supports what we apply to science. Without evidence, science can not be applied. Or supported. It has no position with out evidence. It can't be applied. Science is conditional. On evidence, yes. Not positional. Identity is positional. When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space. As far as I can see, you are demonstrating a faith in science as an identity. Giving it a fixed perspective on conditions beyond its reach. Not perceiving it as a set of conditions that can either be supported by application of another condition, or not. Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith? If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ? And if so, wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

Faith to me is a positional, rather than conditional, perspective of reality that denies any other. I think Endercreeper was saying much the same. I don't see the problem being with a positional perspective, Until it refuses to recognise the conditions of another.

My perspective on this thread is different. Again. The O.P was to explain faith. Not justify its manifestation. Not justify a God. I see Endercreepers answers as honest and courageous in the face of opposition and dismissal. Dismissal that does nothing to further an understanding of Faith. On comparing faith to mental illness resulting in delusions...... Such a mental illness is not classed as 'woo', unworthy of science because its manifestation is not supported by science. Both faith and mental illness are conditions with supportive evidence for their existence. Its unscientific to dismiss faith because you don't think its manifestation shouldn't exist just as it would be unscientific (and bigotry) to dismiss mental illness from the realm of science because its manifestations are unsupported. There has been a statement on this thread that ' I think all people are the same'. I would argue that perhaps I'm more familiar and comfortable with the shifts of perspective needed to recognise and respond effectively. Understanding and recognition of Human diversity demands a shift of perspective to understand its conditions. Not dismissal of the perspective you are given because you can't accept it. You aren't asked to accept it, only recognise it as a human condition in the space of humanity. Denial of its validity in that space is not a response to it, it does nothing to change the condition or improve it. It provokes an entirely different, opositional reaction.

Limited agreement from me. I think it can have a truth at its base, but thats lost over time. Excuse the analogy, its not meant to insult, but I equate faith to the fixed responses geneticaly inherited. So my analogy is is pigs that instinctively root for food. Its based in an effective strategy. Pigs can easily be trained to do tasks for food, but once learned, the behaviour of rooting will often interrupt the trained task. The value is in that fixed response, to the animal. It has trouble transferring the value to the task. Or the Kennel clubs faith in the pedigree. It is helpful to understand the background genetics of breeding stock. But not when any value recognised is in a single tool used to do that. The purpose and meaning is lost and corrupted.

Thank you nevim, I was having a hard time trying to work out how I blew that so badly.

That faith prevents one from seeing the abyss ends a step away. That faith is rejection of facts or conditions. Environment maybe.

I agree with this. Not so much about what is required as whats not even considered, So no, @iNow I'm not going to say no faith is an act of faith in itself. Thats what I'm trying to say about perspective. That faith looks to me to like the man who clings to a rope above an abyss for dear life, refusing to loosen his grip or look down because he believes the rope is all that he has and to do either would risk loosing that grip- but in clinging to that perspective, he can't see the 'abyss' ends a step away and the rope is frayed. That its a fear of loosing what you believe you have, that blocks ability to see or recognise what you actually have. A refusal to relinquish the reality of your rope, to recognise another reality. I will try to learn from your critiques. Hope thats better, but dealing with a lot atm so can't focus on this as much as I'd like.

I think the term 'survival of the fittest' would be better replaced with some thing that more accurately describes the process. ie; delivery of value to the space occupied is favoured. 'Survival of the fittest' is used to support less than ideal conditions .

So you don't think think this could be an aspect of faith taken in other direction?

Are examples O.K? The person determined to see a Nationality as inherently racist and given other perspectives from the minorities they believe are oppressed , replying that Thats 'cherry picking'. That is not a representative perspective. Or they don't want to understand cause and effect, they want to hear peoples stories. They want confirmation of their bias. The Kennel clubs belief in the closed Pedigree as the only condition giving validity to breeders or a dog, despite evidence to the contrary. There is evidence to support their claims, If they choose to disregard information that contradicts their perspective. That seems very similar to religious faith to me. Dimreeper, I did say It seems to me to be about perspective, where each person sees things from their own. Not so much 'wrong', as incomplete. With other directions blocked .

I'll try another way. So you all think I am wrong( and maybe I am) To me its about perspective- You can't see mine, partly because of my tortured language. I don't think faith is any different from the trust and belief of a child for their parents, or that its different from other forms of belief. Children do change to a more realistic view as do many people of religious faith. i don't see why 'faith' should be a unique mystery of religion. I don't believe in what some here call the 'supernatural' so don't see why faith should be seen as such a mystery. I think the distinction in the type of faith you are talking about is an equal belief that holding that position gives them their moral integrity. That to believe anything else would cost them that. So they are afraid to look at another perspective in any depth. By extension, those of us who do not have their faith are lacking in moral integrity and lesser human beings because of that. Our value is discredited. They are measuring the value of their personal space by conditions beyond it. No. I don't.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago. Now, I am not convinced. Some cultural groups I've looked at display the same dogged determination to look no further than the single condition they identify with. It looks very similar to religious faith to me. Fair enough.

1st, I mostly agree with you both on some of your major points. 2nd, I am not a believer in any God. I think you mistake my definition of belief, or faith. The O.P was was "What is Faith?" and why do you have it. My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition. Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society?

Thank you. I agree. Not as tortured as I might be if I thought I had no chance of responding to that condition. I disagree. Not that faith is unnecessary and unneeded in society, but i think it often finds an attachment anyway. Unforced. Or do you think faith is only the preserve of religion? I'd rather not bother with faith and just stick to evidence, but the evidence I see points to its having a place in how things work. Because if you see identity in this way, it links the sciences. Biology, social science and physics. doesn't that include quantum if you substitute the word faith with belief? Isn't there a thread in computing that supports this, or least suggest it? ( 'Do you think D.N.A is a computer program') I certainly appears to work for cultural identity/identity politics. Confusing the values of a space (identity) with its condition(s) seems to cancel out both measures, with the space discrediting its environment.

1st, the following is my own perspective. Not to taken as statement of facts. Apologies, I'm still trying to find the language needed to express this. Identity is a space that is the environment for all it contains. Its unified and defined by a common sense of 'self. A 'belief' in a correct manifestation. What is 'Right'. Generaly based on past experience. Expression of genetic selection seems to me to fit this description. We have one identity. Every thing beyond that is environment, or conditions. We are part of that, but its not part of us. Individually, we are components of a subject. From a social science perspective, of humanity. We respond to conditions based on the limitations of our identity. The conditions of our own space. We support environmental conditions that are favourable to us. Family, religion, institutions etc. Race, religion, sex, colour, nationality etc are not identities, they are conditions we are part of and how we respond determines how they manifest. It seems that we often blur the distinction of self and environment to 'identify with' conditions so we are not components of the condition, but they are part of us. We give our conditions ( environment or space) identity and demand qualification to be part of that identity. We lose recognition of our environment and our responsibility to it. An example I am most familiar with are the organisations that started as the Kennel Clubs. Set up as a response to aid the purpose of breeding dogs. Certain conditions were recognised to increase value to the purpose. The Kennel clubs were set up to provide an environment that supports those conditions. For breeders. Of Dogs. Dogs were the purpose. In setting up the organisation, the purpose and intent was defined in the writing of the constitution. That defined the culture that would support its conditions, and that would be able to find value in those conditions. That document states (in effect) that cross breed dogs are not recognised in that environment, effectively defining it as an identity in its own right. It rules on qualification of both dogs and members to benefit from its conditions. As result, the purpose is no longer to support dog breeders to achieving value. The value is placed in the pedigree, limitations and conditions for Dog breeders. The organisation has defined its space by conditions beyond its self. There is a belief or faith that the value is in the pedigree, not the dog in front you. That the K.C. environment is the correct response to dogs instead of dependent on the diversity of response to deliver that value.

I did say related. A relationship to be avoided I agree. Still considering how that needs doing.

I don't think it is different. You can have many types of purpose. Faith or Belief don't have to be part of it. They are unnecessary to purpose. Some times we have them anyway, with out recognising it. Religious faith is just the more obvious example. Then what exactly? loosing the reality you have invested in.

I see Faith or Belief to be more often related to purpose. With a fear of losing that purpose, in altering that concept or perspective. To invest your identity in a perspective or concept of reality.

Science is the specific set of conditions agreed on by the scientific community to support its purpose in the environment. Most of the arguments I've seen to discredit Russel Targs work and paranormal research in general is not part of those conditions, But based on beliefs of what science should be or what it should do. Those beliefs have no place in science. Those qualifications can only limit science. Those beliefs if accepted as part of science tie the subject, and science together in opposition. I would rather see people who have inexplicable experience seek their answers in science than where else their possibilities are accepted.

Or to 'fix' the identity, in time and place. Or both. (sorry, I can't find my edit) The measures used to support identity politics are opositional.