What is faith?

[naitche]

On 26/06/2018 at 3:25 AM, Phi for All said:

Why does dependency on a perspective change the way we believe in it? I depend on critical thought, which is data gathered as information using reason, tested rigorously so I can trust it to accurately represent what we observe in nature, so I can make informed choices that reflect the value of my identity. I would no more call that faith than I would call a hammer a saw or a drill. I depend on science as the most accurate, objective way to derive such information, and I see no value in listening to any individual perspective that doesn't agree with natural observation and experiment. I know why you think it's important, but I also know you can't understand why science is based on trust and not faith if you don't bother to study it rigorously. It's intellectually dishonest to discount scientific principles if you haven't studied them. 

A late attempt to answer, while I have time.

I don't discount the principles of science at all. 

I  see them as conditions, of an environment that exists as it is because we uphold them.

What I am saying is I don't think a personal perspective of what those conditions  'mean' for anything that is (presently) beyond them add anything to your value as a scientist, or science itself. Insistence on a personal perspective of science,  applied to what is currently beyond it, can only limit  the  direction science  might take in regards to the subject.

Your value as a person of science depends on what you bring to its conditions. Not  others. They don't apply, and shouldn't.

Quote

This is a common claim from those facing rigorous pushback from sceptics. Since science ALWAYS looks for the best supported explanations, and uses them as a test for other explanations (Can your TOE match the accuracy of Relativity?), it can seem hidebound, especially since you may not understand the whole theory (which is probably why you might think it's wrong and needs fixing). Science perspective isn't fixed at all. In fact, that's one of the big differences between trusted beliefs and faithful beliefs; trusted beliefs are capable of figuring out when they're wrong or incomplete.

I don't think science needs fixing either. Its fine as it is, as long as we don't try to apply it  to other environments  where its conditions are not supported.

There is no evidence to support  science in religion. Science should not be there until there is support provided .

That seems to me to be where the danger for science lies. It measures the value of  science against what is beyond the scope of its  space. So limits the potential for its space.

Fixes science in time and space. Ie: I experience phenomena that some here might prefer to call supernatural. I don't believe in 'woo' as some here like to call it- so I look to science to explain it , one day. Rather than occultist environments.

While science is discouraged from looking for evidence, and is more interested in discrediting or disproving what is provided, that limits its direction and  the potential space  it might occupy. No fault of science if the evidence is not there, or does not meet the scientific conditions.

But until acceptable evidence is provided one way or another, evidence that  supports its conditions, science  shouldn't have a perspective on that subject. That would  rely on faith, (or what I have come to view as 'faith') and a fixed 'identity'  for science, and who/what belongs in the space it occupies.

Meeting the conditions of science should be the only criteria of what science is, or  its perspective becomes limited.

No longer a set of environmental conditions, but a fixed identity with limited ability to respond to the changing conditions of its environment.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

beecee,

I don't question that  a belief in a supreme being, or god,  is how faith is defined by general consensus of the the scientific community.

Just that any such consensus must be the  final definition of science.

That a scientific  'identity' rules out the chance there is more to faith, or  there is any more to be learned from it. That it would block a direction science might take, based on past experience. Ruling out other possibilities.

Edited August 3, 2018 by naitche

[DrmDoc]

23 hours ago, naitche said:

While science is discouraged from looking for evidence, and is more interested in discrediting or disproving what is provided, that limits its direction and  the potential space  it might occupy. No fault of science if the evidence is not there, or does not meet the scientific conditions.

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science.  Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.   

[studiot]

9 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science.  Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.   

Yea it's not for want of trying +1

[naitche]

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science.  Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.   

I'm gad you said 'may'. My understanding is not as poor as assumed here.

I did say no fault of science if evidence is lacking.

It was wrong to say  paranormal research is discouraged by science.  Enough people of science though, do a pretty effective job of discrediting  those interested enough to undertake its research .Few who value their credibility to science  are willing to try.  Leaving the field more open to those who don't value credibility to science. I'm sure that and much more  has a huge effect on the  availability of suitable subjects.

I agree clear, cogent and reliable evidence is lacking.

But this is not the topic here, just an example used for its similarities to the question 'What is faith?' The assumptions made of  people or their credibility who might be interested enough to try an idea. 

Thank you Phi for All, for your considered questions.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by naitche

[DrmDoc]

6 hours ago, naitche said:

I'm gad you said 'may'. My understanding is not as poor as assumed here.

I did say no fault of science if evidence is lacking.

It was wrong to say  paranormal research is discouraged by science.  Enough people of science though, do a pretty effective job of discrediting  those interested enough to undertake its research .Few who value their credibility to science  are willing to try.  Leaving the field more open to those who don't value credibility to science. I'm sure that and much more  has a huge effect on the  availability of suitable subjects.

I agree clear, cogent and reliable evidence is lacking.

But this is not the topic here, just an example used for its similarities to the question 'What is faith?' The assumptions made of  people or their credibility who might be interested enough to try an idea. 

Thank you Phi for All, for your considered questions.

 

If a fear of lost credibility discourages our investigation, then we obviously need to develop tougher skin to become successful scientists.  Also, I don't think much of the opinions of individuals who follow the crowd and dismiss a subject a woo just because everyone say it is.  I esteem individuals who demonstrate a firm grasp of a subject that's clearly rooted in their personal investigation or study of the relevant facts.  My perspective of faith, similarly, is unbiased by the crowd and based on my own investigation of the available evidence pro, con, and personal.  Unfortunately, impartial and open-minded study of the paranormal hasn't as yet uncovered incontrovertible evidence for the paranormal. 

[naitche]

Agreed.

Though I think far too few have the confidence of self you favour, when   group affiliation is increasingly promoted as part of ones identity.

 Its easy to miss judge the effects and strength of the concerted opposition of a group you choose to identify with.  It doesn't need to be universal to that group to have a huge effect on that groups diversity , while people who disagree with the vocal consensus prefer to avoid the same opposition.

The effects on the environment also seem to be underestimated.

As an area I've been led to explore,  Its looking to me like faith is tied in to identity, by  limiting perspective and available response.

More than a 'property' of religion.

Edited August 5, 2018 by naitche

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, naitche said:

 Its looking to me like faith is tied in to identity

It seems to me that nearly everything is tied to identity.

Perhaps it’s time to start identifying ourselves as willing to change our minds based on what available evidence shows, to loosen our confidence in things unsupported by anything more than hope or wish thinking, and to identify ourselves as critical thinkers instead. 

Let’s make THAT the tribe to which we choose to belong.

“It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.” ~C.Sagan

Edited August 5, 2018 by iNow

[naitche]

Yes. Willing to look beyond past experience and conditioning to recognise whats present.

Edited August 5, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

6 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

 Unfortunately, impartial and open-minded study of the paranormal hasn't as yet uncovered incontrovertible evidence for the paranormal. 

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that.

Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could.

Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

Edited August 5, 2018 by naitche

[iNow]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that.

Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could.

Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

By saying this, you continue to reinforce your previously denied ignorance of science.

The most famous people EVER are the ones that turned conventional understandings upside down.

Those who show the flaws in previous understandings are the MOST celebrated, yet you persist in these suggestions that they’d be ostracized and would need to go into hiding for demonstrating flaws in existing theories. 

If you think that’s how it works, you’re badly mistaken. 

 

[DrmDoc]

11 hours ago, naitche said:

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that.

Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could.

Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

As it concerns faith, I think science has a firm grasp on what's happening.  As it may concern the paranormal, the evidence provided through real scientific methodology has, IMO, shown the paranormal or supernatural to be quite normal and not so super.  The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

[naitche]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

By saying this, you continue to reinforce your previously denied ignorance of science.

The most famous people EVER are the ones that turned conventional understandings upside down.

Those who show the flaws in previous understandings are the MOST celebrated, yet you persist in these suggestions that they’d be ostracized and would need to go into hiding for demonstrating flaws in existing theories. 

If you think that’s how it works, you’re badly mistaken. 

 

No, you miss understood. 

I was referring to the a person who could demonstrate evidence reliable, clear and cogent. Not the science behind it or the research  that explained it. The subject who could provide it. As a possible contributing factor for its lack.

But thanks, it explains the  down vote and lets me see where I went wrong.

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

As it concerns faith, I think science has a firm grasp on what's happening.  As it may concern the paranormal, the evidence provided through real scientific methodology has, IMO, shown the paranormal or supernatural to be quite normal and not so super.  The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

Yes. So I expect more will be explained in future, concerning things still often dismissed as woo.

Edited August 6, 2018 by naitche

[beecee]

10 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

  The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

+11111111111!!!!!!

[iNow]

1 hour ago, naitche said:

But thanks, it explains the  down vote and lets me see where I went wrong.

I didn’t down vote you. I replied to you with a clear cogent response. The neg rep was not from me. 

1 hour ago, naitche said:

I was referring to the a person who could demonstrate evidence reliable, clear and cogent. Not the science behind it or the research  that explained it. The subject who could provide it. As a possible contributing factor for its lack.

Will you please state this in another way? I’m struggling to parse it and feel that I may have...

1 hour ago, naitche said:

miss understood. 

...misunderstood. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by iNow

[naitche]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I didn’t down vote you. I replied to you with a clear cogent response. The neg rep was not from me. 

I didn't assume you did, but your response was still helpful to my understanding.

Quote

Will you please state this in another way? I’m struggling to parse it and feel that I may have...

Quote

...misunderstood. 

 If there were a person who could demonstrate clear reliable and cogent evidence of phenomena currently regarded as paranormal, its assumed its in their interests to provide that evidence for science. I think it very likely that person might see it  differently.

It seems there is little thought  about the effects that  might have on a person, the people around them,  the reactions it could provoke or the demands made of them.

Such a person may well not be in a state to think  dealing  with that is such a good idea.

It seems to be viewed as an 'ability'. Its not unless you understand the causative factors.

Too far off topic though and not the interest that brought me here.

 

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, naitche said:

Yes. So I expect more will be explained in future, concerning things still often dismissed as woo.

At one point in time you would have had a point, before the scientific method woo was thick in the world, so thick in fact that many things we now know to be true were considered woo... 

Meteorites... total woo, no person with a brain would believe stones fall from the sky. 

Lightning... total woo no known cause had to be god. 

Spherical Earth model replaced the flat earth model, then the oblate spheroid model replaced the spherical earth model, and now the budding shaped like pear model rules.

The point is that some woo is about things that are not well understood but they are things that have a measurable effect on reality. The second example shows that we become ever more accurate in our measurements the number of things that have a measurable effect but cannot be explained become ever more rare. Science marches on and the gaps become ever smaller..  

[naitche]

 My point is still missed.

Science is supported by evidence. Its not science without that. Yes you still have reason, critical thinking, probability etc. but with out evidence, science can only apply those to past experience and conditioning.

Good reasoning to support a belief of expectation, or at the least to be extremely sceptical, yes.

Not enough for me to have faith in that belief  though.

I'm not trying to support belief in a supreme being, or 'paranormal' experience.  I've noted the results often and they can be horribly damaging.

Just a persons right to have them, with out invoking science to discredit them. With out the evidence needed to support that as science.

I can't assume a persons belief is based on faith with out taking their perspective into account. I don't see a perspective as wrong, just often incomplete. Faith when its unable to adapt and respond to changed or  contributing conditions.  

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by naitche

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, naitche said:

I'm not trying to support belief in a supreme being, or 'paranormal' experience.  I've noted the results often and they can be horribly damaging.

Just a persons right to have them, with out invoking science to discredit them

Nobody is attempting to deny a persons right to hold their beliefs, so you appear to be attacking a straw man.

However, you also appear to be requesting these mostly nonsensical beliefs be treated with an undue deference; that they for reasons unclear be immune from valid criticism and informed counter argument. 

The moment a person introduces their beliefs into public discourse, that same public has a right... nay... a duty to scrutinize them and demand they be worthy of acceptance by a critical informed mind.

As citizens in this Information Age, anything less represents a dereliction of duty and a laziness of character, one that retards the progress of society as a whole.

But again, any fool retains their right to accept foolish things. Their freedom to believe ridiculous things is unabated, unchallenged, and unimpeded.

Whom specifically do you suggest has argued otherwise, here or elsewhere?

Edited August 8, 2018 by iNow

[DirtyChai]

On 8/6/2018 at 3:56 AM, Moontanman said:

The second example shows that we become ever more accurate in our measurements the number of things that have a measurable effect but cannot be explained become ever more rare. Science marches on and the gaps become ever smaller..  

That is of course until new discoveries open up an entirely new realm of things we cannot explain, perhaps even causing us to question everything we've ever known about a particular subject.

[jawediqbal]

faith is confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief, ...

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, jawediqbal said:

faith is confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief, ...

By definition, if you have confidence and trust in your religious belief, it's a blind faith, based on nothing tangible or reasonable.

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

That is of course until new discoveries open up an entirely new realm of things we cannot explain, perhaps even causing us to question everything we've ever known about a particular subject.

Name a particular subject that a new discovery has led us to question everything we've ever known. Name something recent, not something that was discovered several hundred years ago, accuracy goes up and gaps get smaller. 

So far in no way has a new discovery led to anything supernatural, not being able to explain something straight away doesn't mean the supernatural is the cause...

[DirtyChai]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

accuracy goes up and gaps get smaller.

And in closing one gap, we may open five more that we never knew existed, bringing more questions and newer ideas.    The more we learn, the wider the gap becomes.  Science is an ongoing endeavor in an ever expanding universe.

[naitche]

@Strange  from the percentage thread. If I'm not mistaken, its faith we are talking more than simple belief.

It seems to work, for me, seeing identity as a space. Limited or confined to/by its common direction. That gives its 'character' or manifestation. A human is not a spider. The direction a human takes is limited  to what can be characterised as human. What the human culture/environment accepts as part of its 'self' depends for the most part on what is recognised as ' Humane' or agreeable to the overall human  condition.

This debate seems to have reached agreement that 'faith' is essentially 'holding to a positional perspective'.If someone states their position, they don't expect to be moved.

Faith seems to be when the value of a persons space (character or or identity) is seen to be dependent on the position they hold, or conditions they adhere to.

Measuring the value of their space by its conditions. To do that seems to require a characterisation of that condition by other than its given definition. By perceived characteristics of the condition. What it means to the individuals character, or what it says of them. So their self belief or 'self reality' is dependent on holding  to that perception of condition to retain personal integrity.

Holding  to that position has little effect mostly, on their environment depending on how the conditions they up hold for personal integrity are supported by the environment they find themselves in. Any costs are generally restricted to that person or their  immediate space.

Cultural conditions, to be identified with,  are also characterised by other than than a strict definition. To give identity to women or Christianity for example require a characterisation of that condition and what it means to individual perception of self to belong. To retain identity, that characterisation has to hold true. To be an identity requires a positional perspective of self to be upheld. Its not based on commonality with the Human environment, but with what defines it as apart  or as separate and distinct from.

A space is defined by its limits or direction. Not by its conditions.To measure it by definition of its conditions can only limit it to those conditions.

Conditions are limitations. Response of life  overcomes limitation, and ideally gives direction or space to the identified subject. And ability of response, or response-ability depends on its diversity or what can be accepted as part of an identity. What is environment and what is 'self'.

It seems to me if a cultural identity is invested in its position, or committed to its perspective, its direction must be limited to where they are unopposed by environment. To where conditional values hold true. Other values (or response) brought to subjective conditions  must be discredited where they conflict with conditional value of the identity.

It seems this is a contributing factor to the polarisation of cultural society we see today. Space is denied to conflicting cultural values of condition. Agreement is demanded  for conditions of locality or position, rather than common  direction.

From my perspective here, This seems to be supported by physics,  the language we use to describe it, and biological selection. ie cultural  'faith' does not recognise environment not inclusive of its conditions, or characterisation of  being.  

If you can find fault with this reasoning it will be welcome. So far its only been reinforced in debate and thats kind of scary for its implications.

Accepting characterisations as truth of identity must fix those in place, and to deny  environmental input over conflicting values of condition requires reducing environment to what its  able to contribute to the characterisation. Discrediting or eliminating conditions in conflict with the 'ideal' of characterisation.  

 

I tested this with the Kennel Clubs as the cultural identity. That body was set up to to create conditions more favourable to Dogs and Breeders as the subject.

Then characterised by their own standards of pedigree with a  statement that other manifestations of Dog or breeder are not recognised by the body of that identity.

Its not parts of their environment they don't recognise. Its Dogs and Breeders they don't recognise. Those are valid to the K.Cs reality only if they meet the Pedigree standards of recognition. They recognise the Pedigree. The dogs become a representation of the standard, or invalid.

The subject is still dogs and breeders. But the environment that enabled that body is discredited and reduced in an attempt to characterise what it means to hold that identity, and the result is dogs and Breeders being reduced by a process of definition or standards of being.

Edited April 15, 2019 by naitche