swansont Posted October 2 Posted October 2 2 hours ago, dimreepr said: Fair enough; scienceism = people who put their faith in science; I count myself among their numbers. That includes a lot of people who don't really understand the science, bc we don't speak the language properly; the great thinkers evolve our thinking, sometimes against the prevailing/dogmatic understanding. Ditto religions. I'm not sure how else one could interpret that word, in the context of my post. Which definition of faith are you using? trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence?
dimreepr Posted October 3 Posted October 3 23 hours ago, swansont said: Which definition of faith are you using? trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence? The one that fits the persons ability and intelligence on the spectrum of faith, you are certain of your position bc what you've built can be seen to be working, no faith needed, but you're an outlier; the outlier at the other end of the scale is a baby. All I'm saying is that most of us are dotted around the middle, whatever ism we follow, requires a fair bit of faith. For me, this statement applies to everyone on the spectrum equally. On 10/2/2024 at 2:21 PM, swansont said: trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence? There's no evidence that science will continue to evolve, tomorrow.
dimreepr Posted October 5 Posted October 5 I'm happy to acknowledge your right to neg my post, but without a reasoned argument, I really don't care; but thanks for participating... 🤒 -2
Harrot Posted October 5 Posted October 5 I dont think faith is something that can be more or less. There is no value to faith between some kind of limits; this would be "belief", not "faith". Because, in my opinion, faith is a fact, not a skill. There IS faith when "Someone want something related to God's will <=> it occur." It occur or it does not occur, there is no quantity involved. The fact is or it is not. Or course if someone want too much or too less of something, it can happens that it does not occur, but it is not because it can't, due to the "weakness" of the faith, (like some Jedi trying to bend reality to his will 😄) , but it is because it is not related to God's will. God want it more or less and the faith need to correspond to his will, thats all. So "faith" is some kind of "being an actor in the name of God".
dimreepr Posted October 5 Posted October 5 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Harrot said: I dont think faith is something that can be more or less. There is no value to faith between some kind of limits; this would be "belief", not "faith". Because, in my opinion, faith is a fact, not a skill. There IS faith when " omeone want something related to God's will <=> it occur." It occur or it does not occur, there is no quantity involved. The fact is or it is not. Or course if someone want too much or too less of something, it can happens that it does not occur, but it is not because it can't, due to the "weakness" of the faith, (like some Jedi trying to bend reality to his will 😄) , but it is because it is not related to God's will. God want it more or less and the faith need to correspond to his will, thats all. So "faith" is some kind of "being an actor in the name of God". Why do you have faith in these word's? 19 minutes ago, Harrot said: I dont think faith is something that can be more or less. "It's wrong to call a banana a fruit, it's very wrong to claim its a car"... Edited October 5 by dimreepr
Harrot Posted October 5 Posted October 5 (edited) 23 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Why do you have faith in these word's? "It's wrong to call a banana a fruit, it's very wrong to call it a car"... On 10/3/2024 at 3:33 PM, dimreepr said: All I'm saying is that most of us are dotted around the middle, whatever ism we follow, requires a fair bit of faith. Yes it is wrong to use words instead of others or we end up loosing some concepts. It is not because lot of people is doing a mistakes that it become right to do so. Therefore i try here to explain that faith is not belief. The two words are not here for aesthetic purpose, they really mean something else. Quote Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:1 – 3 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20 You see, here per example (i show it just here for some reference purpose, not for proselitism) it is said that faith is... faith and that this is not a question of quantity. Saying that you could have "as little faith as a mustard seed", so little as nothing, is to be understand as "you can have as small faith as it could be", faith is faith, so only THE FACT FAITH is required, with no consideration of any quantity, to do the biggest thing that could be done (like here moving a mountain). It is straightforward to understand, isn't it ? Edited October 5 by Harrot
dimreepr Posted October 5 Posted October 5 10 minutes ago, Harrot said: It is straightforward to understand, isn't it ? Not if it's not what you want to believe...
swansont Posted October 5 Author Posted October 5 3 hours ago, dimreepr said: I'm happy to acknowledge your right to neg my post, but without a reasoned argument, I really don't care; but thanks for participating... 🤒 Maybe it’s because you didn’t answer the question. Worse, your response is self-referential, so it’s not even helpful.
LuckyR Posted October 8 Posted October 8 (edited) On 10/2/2024 at 6:21 AM, swansont said: Which definition of faith are you using? trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence? To my understanding faith is belief in the absence of evidence, though this situation can come about because there happens not to currently be evidence, or in the case of gods, because some things (of a supernatural nature) don't exist in a physical way and thus don't create physical evidence. You reference another scenario of faith and that is belief in the face of some contradictory, but not conclusive, evidence. Edited October 8 by LuckyR
dimreepr Posted October 8 Posted October 8 On 10/5/2024 at 4:40 PM, swansont said: Maybe it’s because you didn’t answer the question. Worse, your response is self-referential, so it’s not even helpful. Maybe you didn't understand the answer or maybe you didn't want to; self-referential is a good place to start when thinking about what others maybe feeling/thinking. It may not be helpful to you, but most philosophies use it as starting point.
swansont Posted October 8 Author Posted October 8 5 hours ago, LuckyR said: To my understanding faith is belief in the absence of evidence, though this situation can come about because there happens not to currently be evidence, or in the case of gods, because some things (of a supernatural nature) don't exist in a physical way and thus don't create physical evidence. That's religious faith, i.e. definition 1 But that's not the only definition of faith. 5 hours ago, LuckyR said: You reference another scenario of faith and that is belief in the face of some contradictory, but not conclusive, evidence. No, that's not what I referenced
Harrot Posted October 8 Posted October 8 (edited) Faith is not belief. Belief is the opposite of faith. Faith is a state you obtain by using your “will”: it is therefore obtained when you are “active”. Belief is a state you obtain by using your “observation”: it is therefore obtained when you are passive. When we talk about willpower, we're talking more precisely about “free will”, because “willpower” is either “free will” or ... it isn't. There is no will that is not free, so we can continue to say “will” instead of “free will” to simplify the explanation, but you must understand “free will”. Will goes hand in hand with “being”. Being” is what distinguishes each person as an individual. You can transform yourself, lose a leg, become Alzheimer, your being remains: it's “YOU” and everything that happens concerns you, applies to “you”. You can't sell it, you can't deny it, and nothing can destroy it... it's eternal. It's immaterial. So “you” are supposed to have a “will” for eternity, because God is the creator of it and because of his perfection his creation is not corruptible. God created man in his own image: So a "being" eq an "entity where things happen to him", which is immaterial and has a will. It looks so obvious that we can experiment the world as an individual... but it is not : It is supernatural, it gets over the materiality of the nature. The will of this creature is conceived to be independent of the will of its creator, which is perhaps why we added the word “free” to the term “will” to better understand what it is. Therefore, unlike things that have no will, we can “disobey”, and in doing so, we contradict the will of our Creator but we have been created to permit us to do so. If your will is compatible with God's will, then faith leads to real action in this world. What, then, is God's will ? (the part of his will that concerns us, of course, not all his will, which could be whatever he wants, since he is “transcendent”) You can know it as soon as you experience faith, because then something happens. At that moment it happens that you understand, you don't understand, you think it's natural or you think it's supernatural. All these things can happen. Of course, it's when things seeems to be supernatural that it gives you the most information. So faith doesn't give you supernatural power, it reveals God's will. That's the minimal theory. There's much much more to say of course, like "what is man ?", but in my opinion it is not a good thing to let it know to anyone when it comes to achieve God's will. So let keep it simple : Faith is not belief. Edited October 8 by Harrot
Phi for All Posted October 8 Posted October 8 1 hour ago, Harrot said: So let keep it simple : Faith is not belief. We can keep it simpler. It's all belief because it's what people believe. The difference is what it's based on. Faith is based on belief in powers we don't observe but are convinced of their existence. Trust is based on belief in what can observe and quantify and explain scientifically. Wishful thinking is based on belief in what we hope is true. Faith might tell me I'll live eternally as some kind of heavenly soul being. Trust tells me my consciousness will fail as my body does, and when the body is dead "I" will cease to exist. Wishful thinking tells me some part of me will still be thinking thoughts after my body is gone. This is the way I've always defined belief.
MigL Posted October 8 Posted October 8 3 hours ago, Harrot said: Faith is a state you obtain by using your “will”: it is therefore obtained when you are “active”. I 'believe' that's wordplay, and mostly crap.
CharonY Posted October 8 Posted October 8 5 hours ago, Harrot said: Faith is not belief. Belief is the opposite of faith. Faith is a state you obtain by using your “will”: it is therefore obtained when you are “active”. Belief is a state you obtain by using your “observation”: it is therefore obtained when you are passive. When we talk about willpower, we're talking more precisely about “free will”, because “willpower” is either “free will” or ... it isn't. There is no will that is not free, so we can continue to say “will” instead of “free will” to simplify the explanation, but you must understand “free will”. Will goes hand in hand with “being”. Being” is what distinguishes each person as an individual. You can transform yourself, lose a leg, become Alzheimer, your being remains: it's “YOU” and everything that happens concerns you, applies to “you”. You can't sell it, you can't deny it, and nothing can destroy it... it's eternal. It's immaterial. So “you” are supposed to have a “will” for eternity, because God is the creator of it and because of his perfection his creation is not corruptible. God created man in his own image: So a "being" eq an "entity where things happen to him", which is immaterial and has a will. It looks so obvious that we can experiment the world as an individual... but it is not : It is supernatural, it gets over the materiality of the nature. The will of this creature is conceived to be independent of the will of its creator, which is perhaps why we added the word “free” to the term “will” to better understand what it is. Therefore, unlike things that have no will, we can “disobey”, and in doing so, we contradict the will of our Creator but we have been created to permit us to do so. If your will is compatible with God's will, then faith leads to real action in this world. What, then, is God's will ? (the part of his will that concerns us, of course, not all his will, which could be whatever he wants, since he is “transcendent”) You can know it as soon as you experience faith, because then something happens. At that moment it happens that you understand, you don't understand, you think it's natural or you think it's supernatural. All these things can happen. Of course, it's when things seeems to be supernatural that it gives you the most information. So faith doesn't give you supernatural power, it reveals God's will. That's the minimal theory. There's much much more to say of course, like "what is man ?", but in my opinion it is not a good thing to let it know to anyone when it comes to achieve God's will. So let keep it simple : Faith is not belief. ! Moderator Note These declarative statements do not invite discussion and are a form of preaching, which goes against rule 8. Also, it has nothing to do with OP (faith in science). Don't bring that up again here.
Night FM Posted October 9 Posted October 9 (edited) On 10/2/2024 at 8:21 AM, swansont said: Which definition of faith are you using? trust/confidence in something 1. despite there being no evidence, or 2. because there is lots of evidence? I'd argue that trust in the axiom that something should be supported with evidence in and of itself cannot be supported with evidence and is predicated on circular reasoning. This also doesn't touch on the fact that most people have not personally acquired the evidence, and are simply relaying what others have told them is evidence. Therefore, their faith isn't actually in the evidence itself but in individuals. (e.x. Most people have never traveled to the moon, so their faith in what the surface of the moon is reported to look like isn't evidence they have seen with their own eyes, but rather what others have told them. Even seeing a photograph of the moon's surface isn't the same as traveling there oneself and seeing it with one's own eyes). On 10/3/2024 at 8:33 AM, dimreepr said: The irony is that this quote, if true, would argue that faith is superior, and that being a "disciple of truth" is a waste of time. That isn't my belief, since I think that trying to be intentionally ignorant of something wouldn't give a person true peace of mind. It would be more akin to getting drunk, and I don't believe that most reasonable people would agree that being an alcoholic is the key to true happiness. Regardless, it leads me to believe that Nietzsche didn't really think through much of what he said and makes me question why he is popular. Is there a "God" somewhere compelling people to "care about truth" even if they get nothing out of doing so? If not, then a person would be better off believing in Santa Claus if that's what makes them happy. Edited October 10 by Night FM
swansont Posted October 10 Author Posted October 10 28 minutes ago, Night FM said: I'd argue that trust in the axiom that something should be supported with evidence in and of itself cannot be supported with evidence and is predicated on circular reasoning. Sure. But since I offered no such axiom, this is a bit of a straw man 28 minutes ago, Night FM said: This also doesn't touch on the fact that most people have not personally acquired the evidence, and are simply relaying what others have told them is evidence. Therefore, their faith isn't actually in the evidence itself but in individuals. (e.x. Most people have never traveled to the moon, so their faith in what the surface of the moon is reported to look like isn't evidence they have seen with their own eyes, but rather what others have told them. Even seeing a photograph of the moon's surface isn't the same as traveling there oneself and seeing it with one's own eyes). To an extent, yes, but science is so interconnected that for anything that’s not a new or cutting-edge finding, you have corroboration in the form of follow-up studies, and/or technology based on the science to support the idea that it’s right. In the former case, it requires a massive conspiracy for that faith not to be justified, and in the latter case, you’d need an entirely new and probably undiscovered paradigm to explain why the technology works; either it’s being covered up (again, a massive conspiracy) or you need scientists to be completely inept. Not personally witnessing or experiencing something does not turn this into religious faith.
exchemist Posted October 10 Posted October 10 8 hours ago, Night FM said: I'd argue that trust in the axiom that something should be supported with evidence in and of itself cannot be supported with evidence and is predicated on circular reasoning. This also doesn't touch on the fact that most people have not personally acquired the evidence, and are simply relaying what others have told them is evidence. Therefore, their faith isn't actually in the evidence itself but in individuals. (e.x. Most people have never traveled to the moon, so their faith in what the surface of the moon is reported to look like isn't evidence they have seen with their own eyes, but rather what others have told them. Even seeing a photograph of the moon's surface isn't the same as traveling there oneself and seeing it with one's own eyes). The irony is that this quote, if true, would argue that faith is superior, and that being a "disciple of truth" is a waste of time. That isn't my belief, since I think that trying to be intentionally ignorant of something wouldn't give a person true peace of mind. It would be more akin to getting drunk, and I don't believe that most reasonable people would agree that being an alcoholic is the key to true happiness. Regardless, it leads me to believe that Nietzsche didn't really think through much of what he said and makes me question why he is popular. Is there a "God" somewhere compelling people to "care about truth" even if they get nothing out of doing so? If not, then a person would be better off believing in Santa Claus if that's what makes them happy. The requirement for (reproducible) observational evidence is only axiomatic for applying the scientific method, the purpose of which is the study of nature. The scientific method is shown to "work", in the sense that we can understand and predict far more about nature than we could before the Renaissance. So I can't see there is anything circular about employing it. Secondly, you are wrong to characterise faith in science as faith in what you call "individuals". The whole nature of science is that it is a collective enterprise that does not rely on individuals. That's why observations need to be reproducible, i.e. capable of being agreed upon by different people, in different places and using different methods. The hypotheses and theories put forward by any one individual to account for observations are also subject to criticism by other people. Active areas of research are full of disputes and argument. You are obviously right that we all take on trust a great deal of what one can call "settled science", by reading books, attending lectures and so forth. The same is true in all other disciplines of study. If nobody did that we would all be constantly reinventing the wheel. But that obviously does not mean, in the case of science, that we have abandoned the requirement for reproducible evidence. We simply trust the observations reported and validated by others and well-tested theories associated with them.
dimreepr Posted October 10 Posted October 10 13 hours ago, Night FM said: The irony is that this quote, if true, would argue that faith is superior, and that being a "disciple of truth" is a waste of time. That isn't my belief, since I think that trying to be intentionally ignorant of something wouldn't give a person true peace of mind. It would be more akin to getting drunk, and I don't believe that most reasonable people would agree that being an alcoholic is the key to true happiness. There is no irony in the quote, it was taken from a letter to his sister; he, I think, recognised that some people (his sister) aren't capable of understanding the truth that he's seen. Being a disciple of truth is hard work but never a waste of time, although it can be very frightening. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but how does one go about being intentionally ignorant without lying to the world and oneself; for instance, if you're walking down a train track, happy in a day-dream, your blissfully ignorant when the train hits, OTOH if you see the train and choose to ignore it, you won't be having a happy day-dream...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now