What is faith?

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why can't faith have any basis in reasoning or understanding? Can't faith be based on conclusions that one makes/

What would you say to someone who had faith that vampires (or unicorns, fairies, or other reclusive and impossible to observe creature) exist in real life because that's the conclusion they've come to? They're using as much reason as you are. 

What would you say to that person if they came to a science discussion forum and made this claim?

[Endercreeper01]

12 minutes ago, Bender said:

No, there is no necessity. You (and many with you) just want there to be. I guess this desire could be caused by a fear that everything would be dull and pointless without it. Then again, I can only guess, because I don't experience any such necessity (at least not to explain the why; science does a great job at explaining the how).

If you draw conclusions based on imaginary premisses, it just means there is some internal consistency in your faith. It doesn't mean there is any relation or consistency with the actual world which is independent of your faith.

If everything in reality have an explanation, how is it that there is no explanation for existence?

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What would you say to someone who had faith that vampires (or unicorns, fairies, or other reclusive and impossible to observe creature) exist in real life because that's the conclusion they've come to? They're using as much reason as you are. 

What would you say to that person if they came to a science discussion forum and made this claim?

I would ask them to explain what conclusions would be necessary to take the next step of faith.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[naitche]

On 14/06/2018 at 2:13 AM, Phi for All said:

What kind of belief is required for worshipping an entity that is unfalsifiable? If you choose to believe in a religion, what is there about the doctrines to trust? Wishful thinking is often used, but more often the views seem to require no hard evidence. It's not so much about what is required as what's NOT even considered (like falsifiability), and that sounds like faith to me.

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.

15 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

While I would really like @naitche to answer, I concur: we shouldn't hold our beath on their answer to make sense

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.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, naitche said:

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 understand your analogy, but am unsure of your conclusion. 

Is the idea that faith prevents one from seeing those other perspectives... prevents one from noticing abyss ends one step away?

Or, is the idea that faith allows one to see another perspective... allows one to notice the abyss is really no abyss at all?

Just want to be clear, as I’m pretty sure seeing the frayed rope and jumping to the step is not something that requires me to believe in anything in the absence of, or often in direct opposition to, the available evidence. 

One can change their perspective and find strength in unlikely things without ever accepting childish unprovable nonsense as true. 

[Endercreeper01]

5 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

That's not all that there is to faith. Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

When? Name even one time.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

That's not all that there is to faith. Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the general argument that you can't redefine words and expect them to have the same meaning to others. When you make up a statement like this, it's no different than claiming "Random choices can sometimes have a specific pattern to them". You may be able to hobble and torture a definition to force it to fit your concept, but in doing so you've driven the meaningfulness from it because now it's not a shared definition anymore. There is a difference in the ways we choose to believe things, and I think a rational person would welcome such a distinction.

[naitche]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I understand your analogy, but am unsure of your conclusion. 

Is the idea that faith prevents one from seeing those other perspectives... prevents one from noticing abyss ends one step away?

Or, is the idea that faith allows one to see another perspective... allows one to notice the abyss is really no abyss at all?

Just want to be clear, as I’m pretty sure seeing the frayed rope and jumping to the step is not something that requires me to believe in anything in the absence of, or often in direct opposition to, the available evidence. 

One can change their perspective and find strength in unlikely things without ever accepting childish unprovable nonsense as true. 

That faith prevents one from seeing the abyss ends a step away. 

 That faith is rejection of facts or conditions. Environment maybe. 

 

[Endercreeper01]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You seem to be purposely ignoring the general argument that you can't redefine words and expect them to have the same meaning to others. When you make up a statement like this, it's no different than claiming "Random choices can sometimes have a specific pattern to them". You may be able to hobble and torture a definition to force it to fit your concept, but in doing so you've driven the meaningfulness from it because now it's not a shared definition anymore. There is a difference in the ways we choose to believe things, and I think a rational person would welcome such a distinction.

What I am trying to say is that a belief or faith in God can have some reason with it, instead of being purely based in faith. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

When? Name even one time.

A faith in a higher power having some basis in reason is possible.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What I am trying to say is that a belief or faith in God can have some reason with it, instead of being purely based in faith. 

Moving the goalposts again. When belief has some reason with it, it's not faith anymore. It's trust, based on reasoned arguments and explanations. Deal with it, trust and faith are both types of belief, and it's important, extremely important, that you know which you're applying. The difference is critical.

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What I am trying to say is that a belief or faith in God can have some reason with it, instead of being purely based in faith. 

The reason being, you want to believe, and all power to ya, have at it; I don't give a shit, and therein lies the rub, you clearly do give a shit, but you're relative position on the 'give-A-shit' meter has no bearing on mine.

 

1

 

[Bender]

20 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If everything in reality have an explanation, how is it that there is no explanation for existence?

There are plenty of things that have no explanation beyond random chance. I guess I assumed "random chance" doesn't qualify as an explanation for you, because if it did, your conclusion wouldn't make any sense.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, naitche said:

That faith prevents one from seeing the abyss ends a step away. 

 That faith is rejection of facts or conditions. Environment maybe. 

Thank you for clarifying. It's interesting how we each look at the exact same example and come to polar opposite conclusions.

IMO, faith prevents one from seeing anything else. It closes the mind instead of opening it to possibilities. It's a crunch providing a false sense of security, when security could be equally achievable with a rational/reasonable approach.

My feeling about faith is that it limits one from seeing the step that saves one from the abyss, yet for you it would be impossible to see that step without your faith. It doesn't make any sense to me at all, but I suppose at least we both have ways of transitioning to that step and avoiding the abyss which work for us.

9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

When? Name even one time.

 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

A faith in a higher power having some basis in reason is possible.

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you to provide even one single example.

Given your evasion, I'll go ahead and accept your implicit concession and appreciate the confirmation that you cannot provide even a single example of when there's a reasonable basis for faith.

[nevim]

iNow, I think naitche was describing the same viewpoint as yours?

[Endercreeper01]

53 minutes ago, Bender said:

There are plenty of things that have no explanation beyond random chance. I guess I assumed "random chance" doesn't qualify as an explanation for you, because if it did, your conclusion wouldn't make any sense.

We shouldn't assume that there is no reason for existence. There is a need to search for answers about existence, just as how in science there is a need to search for answers about the universe and it's functioning.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Moving the goalposts again. When belief has some reason with it, it's not faith anymore. It's trust, based on reasoned arguments and explanations. Deal with it, trust and faith are both types of belief, and it's important, extremely important, that you know which you're applying. The difference is critical.

Why can't belief in a higher power have any reasoning behind it? It can become trust and be supported by reasoning while still being a belief.

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you to provide even one single example.

Given your evasion, I'll go ahead and accept your implicit concession and appreciate the confirmation that you cannot provide even a single example of when there's a reasonable basis for faith.

Such as the belief in science as the only way to explain reality.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why can't belief in a higher power have any reasoning behind it? It can become trust and be supported by reasoning while still being a belief.

Why can't you share a single way in which you can take a reasoned approach to show a higher power might exist? Everything we observe so far has a natural cause, so why start guessing about something supernatural, especially when it's not needed to explain anything? 

You're also redefining "reasoning". It doesn't mean "any way I can figure things out to my satisfaction". Reasoning, ON A SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM, requires the use of critical thinking and supportive evidence, none of which you've bothered with in your argument. 

47 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Such as the belief in science as the only way to explain reality.

Science is the BEST, MOST TRUSTWORTHY way to explain nature. Fixed it for you.

[Endercreeper01]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why can't you share a single way in which you can take a reasoned approach to show a higher power might exist? Everything we observe so far has a natural cause, so why start guessing about something supernatural, especially when it's not needed to explain anything? 

You're also redefining "reasoning". It doesn't mean "any way I can figure things out to my satisfaction". Reasoning, ON A SCIENCE DISCUSSION FORUM, requires the use of critical thinking and supportive evidence, none of which you've bothered with in your argument. 

Science is the BEST, MOST TRUSTWORTHY way to explain nature. Fixed it for you.

There is a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist, although my point is only that it is possible to have such. Although, such a discussion should be held in a different thread.

I am making the argument that it is possible for a belief in a higher power to have basis in reasoning, rather than having no reasoning behind it and being strictly based in faith.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist, although my point is only that it is possible to have such. Although, such a discussion should be held in a different thread.

It's not off-topic here, since you're trying to define faith in a way nobody agrees with.

Why don't you show "a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist"? Why do you just claim it without showing it? Also, please don't redefine "higher power". One of its properties seems to be "can't be observed scientifically", and that's the hard part if you're claiming faith is a reasoned form of belief.

[Endercreeper01]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's not off-topic here, since you're trying to define faith in a way nobody agrees with.

Why don't you show "a reasoned approach to showing a higher power could exist"? Why do you just claim it without showing it? Also, please don't redefine "higher power". One of its properties seems to be "can't be observed scientifically", and that's the hard part if you're claiming faith is a reasoned form of belief.

A reasoned approach could start with questioning the nature of the self and of the reality that it exists within.

Once certain conclusions are reached in this way, they can cause more reasoning and lead to other conclusions. 

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

A reasoned approach could start with questioning the nature of the self and of the reality that it exists within.

Once certain conclusions are reached in this way, they can cause more reasoning and lead to other conclusions. 

I think something is wrong with your comprehension. You offer personal philosophy as an alternative to scientific rigor, despite having the differences explained, and still offer nothing but wishful thinking. Your approach is uninteresting and subjective, and gives me no reason to suspect there's anything valid about it.

Sorry, it seems to make sense only to you, and even you can't give yourself a reasonable explanation.

[Endercreeper01]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think something is wrong with your comprehension. You offer personal philosophy as an alternative to scientific rigor, despite having the differences explained, and still offer nothing but wishful thinking. Your approach is uninteresting and subjective, and gives me no reason to suspect there's anything valid about it.

Sorry, it seems to make sense only to you, and even you can't give yourself a reasonable explanation.

I have not offered a comprehensive explanation yet, I am only providing a basic explanation of the approach.

An example of such an approach would be reaching the conclusion that it is ones self that has an independent existence, and therefore reasoning that reality does not exist independently of the self. Thus, in accordance with such reasoning, reality could be attributed to what could be called a higher power.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[Bender]

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We shouldn't assume that there is no reason for existence.

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is.

32 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

An example of such an approach would be reaching the conclusion that it is ones self that has an independent existence,

As I explained earlier, you need faith for this imaginary conclusion, so you are still basing faith on faith.

Besides, I fail to see any logic in the supposed reasoning that follows. 

[YaDinghus]

3 hours ago, Bender said:

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We shouldn't assume that there is no reason for existence.

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is

I grew up in a very faithful region, so, naturally, when I told people I didn't believe in god anymore, I was often asked if I felt an existential Angst now that one pillar of mental strenght was removed. The fact is that I felt no different in that respect whatsoever. I did feel liberated because I didn't have to live a lie anymore, not just to my friends and family, but I stopped lying to myself. I know many people who can't live without faith, they need this pillar. Even the flightest thought that might rock this pillar is abhorrent to them. I might have had this pillar when I was a child - I might not have had it. I don't really know. But in my darkest moments of despair, when I was overwhelmed by fear, I didn't pray to a higher power to save me. Once I realized the power of knowledge and logic, I was never paralyzed by fear again.

The pillar of strength that faith is to so many people was replaced by science. I suspect it is similar with many in this forum. If faith is your pillar of strength, then the axiomatic assumption is that a higher power exists, and that there is a purpouse for everyone and a meaning for everything, because if that weren't the case, your pillar would not only shake and rock, but fall and crumble into dust. So in this manner, it's not only reasonable for people like @Endercreeper01 to assume that this higher power exists, it is existentially essential, and every argument will be structured around the fact that they can't live without this higher power. Their escape from reality is so complete that they forge their own reality based on this axiom.

Faith is worse than any drug in the world in this respect. And unlike any drug, you can't just take it away and give the faithful their God as a Cold Turkey.

@Endercreeper01:

Quote

 

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first.

It should be possible for one to reach the conclusion based on reason. 

The reasoning that follows can lead one to several paths, although this would only be one of them.

I only provided a basic outline of a reasonable approach, not a detailed explanation.

 

Q.E.D.

Edited June 15, 2018 by YaDinghus

[Endercreeper01]

3 hours ago, Bender said:

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is.

As I explained earlier, you need faith for this imaginary conclusion, so you are still basing faith on faith.

Besides, I fail to see any logic in the supposed reasoning that follows. 

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first.

It should be possible for one to reach the conclusion based on reason. 

The reasoning that follows can lead one to several paths, although this would only be one of them.

I only provided a basic outline of a reasonable approach, not a detailed explanation.

1 minute ago, YaDinghus said:

I grew up in a very faithful region, so, naturally, when I told people I didn't believe in god anymore, I was often asked if I felt an existential Angst now that one pillar of mental strenght was removed. The fact is that I felt no different in that respect whatsoever. I did feel liberated because I didn't have to live a lie anymore, not just to my friends and family, but I stopped lying to myself. I know many people who can't live without faith, they need this pillar. Even the flightest thought that might rock this pillar is abhorrent to them. I might have had this pillar when I was a child - I might not have had it. I don't really know. But in my darkest moments of despair, when I was overwhelmed by fear, I didn't pray to a higher power to save me. Once I realized the power of knowledge and logic, I was never paralyzed by fear again.

The pillar of strength that faith is to so many people was replaced by science. I suspect it is similar with many in this forum. If faith is your pillar of strength, then the axiomatic assumption is that a higher power exists, and that there is a purpouse for everyone and a meaning for everything, because if that weren't the case, your pillar would not only shake and rock, but fall and crumble into dust. So in this manner, it's not only reasonable for people like @Endercreeper01 to assume that this higher power exists, it is existentially essential, and every argument will be structured around the fact that they can't live without this higher power. Their escape from reality is so complete that they forge their own reality based on this axiom.

Faith is worse than any drug in the world in this respect. And unlike any drug, you can't just take it away and give the faithful their God as a Cold Turkey.

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

Science is used to explain reality, not explain existence.

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first.

It should be possible for one to reach the conclusion based on reason. 

The reasoning that follows can lead one to several paths, although this would only be one of them.

I only provided a basic outline of a reasonable approach, not a detailed explanation.

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

Science is used to explain reality, not explain existence.

 

14 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I only provided a basic outline of a reasonable approach, not a detailed explanation.

No you provide hairy fairy hand wavy rhetoric at best.

Quote

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

We are all star stuff, born in the belly of stars.

Quote

Science is used to explain reality, not explain existence.

No, science gives explanations, and constructs models/theories based on what we observe....if that happens to align with reality then all well and good. Unlike the recalcitrant nature of religion and accepting some mythical higher power in place of science, science is a discipline in eternal progress.