The Strength of Faith

[Ringer]

If reason isn't a criterion for validation then what is the problem with faith?

 

1.) If you read past the first sentence you see validation is, by many beliefs, antithesis to what faith is. So there's that.

 

2.) Objective evidence being a criterion for validation makes faith, as is used, purposeless.

[tar]

Nothing trumps the rational mind?

 

That is a pretty big assumption, coming from a tiny piece of mortal flesh, on a relatively small planet circling a star that is just one in millions of stars that make up a galaxy that is just one in a billion or larger number of galaxies that make up the universe.

 

Seems to me that it would only take the existence of one "better" rational mind, to trump a rational mind...and you would not even have to leave the planet to find such a trumper.

 

And to the thread question...does such an assumption, as "nothing trumps the rational mind" require a great deal of faith in the rational mind? How possibly, could any single mind on the planet, or any collective mind we have developed, at this current point in our emergent evolution history be as good as it gets? The collective "rational mind" found on Earth, in 100 years, should be superior to that currently available for comment. So that mind would trump the rational mind of the present, and make your assertion false. And that is not even considering the fact that other kinds of minds other than human minds may be in play, when considering the expanse of the universe, and the fact that the rational mind is not capable of coming up with anything close to the universe.

 

No, I think your assertion is incorrect. The rational mind is in and of the universe. The universe trumps its parts, by default.

 

You would need a tremendous amount of faith (believing in something not requiring evidence)to believe that nothing trumps the rational mind of an early 21st century human on Earth.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And such a statement as "nothing trumps the rational mind" throws down the gauntlet, and challenges the mind that came up with the statement "love conquers all".

 

ydoaPs,<br /><br />The representational nature of symbols that are used in logic systems, contain in and of themselves a logical flaw. You can perform operations on the symbols that cannot in actuality be performed on the things that the symbols represent.<br /><br />Finding that something is true, because the symbols say it is true, is as unreasonable and unrealistic as Immortal finding the "rest of the world" at fault, because it does not match how he sees his representations properly fitting together.<br /><br />Having more faith in your own logic, then in the thing your logic is considering, is somewhat arrogant.<br />The representation CANNOT be more correct than the true thing it represents. Complexity cannot be simplified, and still be what it started out as. You may be able to simplify an equation, but E equals MC squared, does not come close to representing the universe. You can simplify the characters of a representational system, but you have to get the symbols into the system first, and this information is incomplete and representational, to begin with.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

 

And you can not tell me that a picture of a peanut butter cup on my tv screen is going to be sweet and tasty. Even if it is a PERFECT representation. Some important characteristics have been left out.

Edited March 10, 2013 by tar

[Villain]

If faith had a method, and if that method is backed by mathematical epistemology (the stuff I do), then you'd be correct. But faith has no such method, so, once again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

Is this an appeal to authority then? I was highlighting that having a method substantiated by reason doesn't imply that is of any worth with regards to reality.

 

Bayesian Epistemology can be derived (quite easily, actually) from the Kolmogorov axioms which are derivable from Cox's axioms and basic sentential logic. This mathematical epistemology tells us exactly how evidence confirms/disconfirms things. You are completely wrong. Or, hey, let's see you argue that the Kolmogorov axioms are inconsistent.

 

I don't see how any of this solves the problem of induction.

 

 

Probably, yes. Math.

 

Because it happened in the past or do you have a better answer for your probably?

[rigney]

Numbers and math are great tools, but from where did we get them? I visit Vegas plus a few other places each year where numbers and math are extremely important, yet I usually come away a loser. Why? The figures all add up. The odds are the best money can buy, Yet, I usually don't win. Then I pray, Lord, let the blackjack tables by my salvation this time. Somehow it always seems to work. Gambling has gone on for thousands of years and will continue until the end of time. Now we have a bevy of educated mathmaticians who, through number crunching and some good old theory have calculated the age of our universe, what it is made of, where it came from and where it is going. All of this, sight unseen. Or should I say "Untouched"? Might there be a bit of unseen faith in subscribing to such findings? Could there possibly be a few nefarious folks out there, other than preachers; giving us a false sense of hope there is no God, while in the mean time our universe might be only minutes or even seconds from ending? Below is a very good reason to believe in something other than just science.

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/rdesalis-400810-andrea-bocelli-swiss-alps-switzerland-andreabocelli-entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/

Edited March 11, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

Is this an appeal to authority then? I was highlighting that having a method substantiated by reason doesn't imply that is of any worth with regards to reality.

 

I don't see how any of this solves the problem of induction.

 

Because it happened in the past or do you have a better answer for your probably?

 

If I choose to wear a parachute when I jump out of a plane does that mean I've forsaken my faith?

Why do you use the parachute? Have you seen one used on every point on earth, to make sure it works? Would you use it on the moon? On Mars? Science is more then merely guessing from past experience. Science builds models and those models make predictions and results can be verified, modified or overturned at any time. It is a work in progress, yes but it provides the best way known at any point in time. How else can you learn without knowing when your wrong, making the correction and proceeding? It is in our best interest to know what is wrong as quickly as possible. Having ideas that can't even be proven wrong is entertainment at best.

 

So will the parachute work? Most likely and we know why. We know it won't work on the moon and can make better designs for Mars. We might be surprised when we actually try it, we are open to new data, but initially we go with the model we have.

 

You are quite right that one cannot sit in a closet, never observing and understand reality. In fact, I would argue you don't learn much of anything that way. Sure, you might learn to meditate endlessly and become happy by doing nothing, like a dog chasing its tail. If you are in solitary confinement, then kudos, but if you have a choice, experience reality.

 

Assumptions were made that there is some consistency to reality, but the scientific method doesn't rest firmly on those assumptions. QM and blackholes are blasting holes in it. Results trump any assumption.

My point was that neither science nor faith are validated by pure reason so to attack faith as not having reason to validate it and then propose science as the answer is ridiculous. I'm not saying that science isn't a valid concept, but in order to accept it one has to be willing to give up pure reason as a bases of validation. How then can we classify science as better than religion? It certainly seems better suited for certain criteria but that intuitive assumption is the very fault that is given to faith.

 

Kierkegaard's concept of faith in Fear and Trembling which is taken from the Abraham/Isaac story in the Bible is not a faith that is in competition to science and I see little reason to think that science and faith are competing.

 

 

The Abraham/Isaac story, even as a metaphor should just be regarded as crap, IMO. Like discussing ethics in light of the Texas Chainsaw massacre movies. Simply say "Don't do this" would suffice. Very interesting discussions can be had in regards to subjective experience, mythology isn't needed.

 

I do see a use for "faith". Faith is that which gets you back on your feet when all your experience tells you to stay down. Tells you that you will win, when you know down deep that you are doomed. Tells you that the future "you" will be awesome, although the past says something different. Yeah, I do need faith just to get out of bed sometimes or even to convince a group that we will succeed. But this pails in comparison to sober practice, planning and execution. To use the parachute metaphor, design and pack your parachute carefully and learn how to use it correctly. If it does fail, then you can kick in your faith and try to deal with the situation at hand.

 

To me, faith has some emotional use, much like anger or love. But to wrap it in stories that make a mokery of reality and morality should be avoided.

Edited March 12, 2013 by john5746

[Phi for All]

I do see a use for "faith". Faith is that which gets you back on your feet when all your experience tells you to stay down. Tells you that you will win, when you know down deep that you are doomed. Tells you that the future "you" will be awesome, although the past says something different. Yeah, I do need faith just to get out of bed sometimes or even to convince a group that we will succeed. But this pails in comparison to sober practice, planning and execution. To use the parachute metaphor, design and pack your parachute carefully and learn how to use it correctly. If it does fail, then you can kick in your faith and try to deal with the situation at hand.

 

To me, faith has some emotional use, much like anger or love. But to wrap it in stories that make a mokery of reality and morality should be avoided.

 

I still perceive this distinction more along the lines of "hope" rather than "faith". "All your experience" couldn't possibly be so completely negative that it "tells you to stay down". There are always some good experiences one draws from that give one "hope" despite the worst odds. You get up again because there is evidence that tells you, beyond simply "feeling" it, that you stand a better chance of succeeding if you get up and at least try. You "hope" that you can muster the strength to get out of bed and be successful with whatever you're dealing with, "hope" because you can't predict the outcome with any degree of "trust" but there is at least a slim probability you can count on to make success possible.

 

"Faith", on the other hand, is nothing but feelings, even if you've used those feelings in the past to tell yourself that your god has helped you overcome adversity with its supernatural powers. Faith is reason-less, yet we're supposed to feed it as much strength as we can in order to make it work. I would suggest that faith is the weakest form of belief, and that's why we're required to artificially lend it strength in order to make it work. And when it doesn't, we're supposed to explain why with whatever vague justification we can come up with in order to keep feeding it our strength. And we're also supposed to not question why this is.

 

"Hope" might make me play the lottery, but not take it too seriously. "Faith" might make me believe so strongly that I'm going to win that I buy a Ferrari before the winning number is announced. "Trust" might make me realize the odds are astronomical so I save my money for something better.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

I do not agree that faith should be singled out, as a stupid irrational thing, that has no place in a modern human, or that it should be thought of as a negative influence on a person seeking the proper attitute to have toward the world, or to see it as a source for the wrong thinking of a creationist, and therefore condemn it to death, not to be used by a reasonable person.

 

As one rationalizing ones bad behavior, incorrectly, and contrary to truth, should not condemn rationality to the chopping block.

 

Faith is a quality pure and simple. And it is usually based on something other than material evidence. This does not warrant redefining it as a bad word, or pretending we all don't have many areas of our lifes in which we use it, count on it, and expect it in others.

 

You would have no problem defending hope and charity(love). Why do you pick on the sister word, faith.

Even the Humanist believes in the human spirit, and takes it on faith, that everybody else feels the same way, or should.

 

While I would agree that blaming a failure on ones lack of faith, does not seem very scientific, there is evidence that "believing" things are going to work, help them to work. Several areas where I have seen this. One is in sports, where people "get in the grove", and see it working, so strongly, that it just does. Every little subtle muscle movement and coordination between sense and motor signals working perfectly, with no unuseful or competing signals. Another is in speech, the difference between a clearly spoken word, and a studder. Another is in business, where 90% of success is showing up. Another is in human relations were just being there makes all the difference.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Phi for All]

Phi for All,

 

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

I agree with this assessment.

 

I do not agree that faith should be singled out, as a stupid irrational thing, that has no place in a modern human, or that it should be thought of as a negative influence on a person seeking the proper attitute to have toward the world, or to see it as a source for the wrong thinking of a creationist, and therefore condemn it to death, not to be used by a reasonable person.

 

I never said faith was stupid, just that it's often touted as the strongest of beliefs while it actually seems weakest. I also never said it was a negative influence, nor did I attribute it to creationists alone. Again, I think its strength comes purely from what you invest into it, and since it has nothing rational to support it, the investment you make in faith is backed up by feelings alone.

 

Faith is a quality pure and simple. And it is usually based on something other than material evidence. This does not warrant redefining it as a bad word, or pretending we all don't have many areas of our lifes in which we use it, count on it, and expect it in others.

 

As I define faith, unwavering belief based on feelings about the supernatural, I have NO area of my life in which I use it.

 

You would have no problem defending hope and charity(love). Why do you pick on the sister word, faith.

Even the Humanist believes in the human spirit, and takes it on faith, that everybody else feels the same way, or should.

 

I believe in the human spirit, but I don't take it on faith. I have hope in most people's spirit, and I trust the spirit of those I know well.

 

While I would agree that blaming a failure on ones lack of faith, does not seem very scientific, there is evidence that "believing" things are going to work, help them to work. Several areas where I have seen this. One is in sports, where people "get in the grove", and see it working, so strongly, that it just does. Every little subtle muscle movement and coordination between sense and motor signals working perfectly, with no unuseful or competing signals. Another is in speech, the difference between a clearly spoken word, and a studder. Another is in business, where 90% of success is showing up. Another is in human relations were just being there makes all the difference.

 

That's not faith, imo. That's muscle memory, training, focus, knowledge, acumen, and the belief part is more like hope to me. Sorry.

[tar]

Phi for all,

 

To take the thread on a side track, just to explain myself, in how I am thinking that faith is a scientifically knowable thing.

 

Might seem a bit of a reach, but I have done a lot of thinking about this, and it is hard to explain the connections and possible explanations I am considering, theoretically.

 

It has to do with our predictive motor simulator. It evolved to coordinate our muscle movements, to "practice" various combinations of motor signals and timings, BEFORE the motor neurons are actually fired. It evolved so we could walk and run and climb and dig, and bring food to our mouth, but I think we may have usurped its functions and applied them to coordinated actions OUTSIDE our neural reach. Its a theory, but it may be a clue to the advantage that man has, over most of our mammal relatives.

 

Consider what we do as infants. Learning about the world, not only through our senses, but through learning and remembering the combinations of motor signals that will propel us around in it, and manipulate IT. The human use of tools and coordinated activities beyond our neural reach, separate us from many other creatures, but not all. There was a recent news article about a group of whales that came together and formed a whale raft to support a dying fellow, and keep his blow hole above water.

 

Predicting our next move, imagining it, and rehearsing it, in our heads, before we expend the energy, and take the risk of making it happen, is an important part of what we do. We are more than just reflex, and accident, in this regard. We do stuff on purpose. With some thought behind it.

 

We have had this ability for many 100s of thousands of years, and have developed on top of it, language to describe our plans to each other, so coordinated action can be rehearsed and practiced and remembered between fellows. And over the last 10 or 20 thousand years, there is evidence that we planned things out together in very large groups. Groups big enough to build Gobekli Tepe and the pyramids and such.

 

We do not simply hope the other does his part. We know he will, we have faith in him. And we have the same obligation, back.

 

If this theory is correct, or maybe even if it is just something like correct, it gives us REASON to believe in each other.

 

And if you have followed me, so far, in this line of thinking, it is not difficult to understand why we might have some faith in objective reality, because it is an extension of our collective motor simulators, in one sense, it is what spawned us and created us, in another sense, it is what we sense and are informed of, in another sense, and it is what we imagine and remember and rehearse/predict in yet another sense. That is a lot of senses, for it to not be sensible to have faith in objective reality. Belief based on something other than material evidence. To feel a part of it, from before you were born, and to care about it, after you die.

 

I think there is enough there, in the theory, to explain our confusion about what it is that other people consider God, and what it is that we each individually consider to be reasonalby and realistically "within our sphere of influence".

 

And if your faith in this common reality is strong enough...you can move mountains.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited March 14, 2013 by tar

[Phi for All]

tar, what you're describing to me is (belief) trust, not (belief) faith. When I work closely with those I know, they have demonstrated in the past what they're capable of, and I (believe) trust that they will perform to that level I know they're capable of. If I'm working with relative strangers, my (belief) trust in their capabilities is considerably less. Perhaps it's even (belief) hope that they will be capable enough to get the job done.

 

If I happen upon a wrecked, overturned car with a driver who is unconscious, a lot will depend on who is with me to help. If I'm alone, the least helpful thing in the world would be (belief) faith in myself to save the driver. I have no training in emergency rescue. It would be much more reasonable to call for professional help, (believing) trusting that professional rescue services give the driver the best chance of survival.

 

If there are other bystanders present, I still call the pros, but I also (believe) hope that myself and these strangers can attempt to open the bent door and remove the driver from the vehicle. I say (belief) hope because I don't know anyone else's capabilities. If one of the bystanders claims he's had EMT training, my (belief) hope changes to a greater degree of (belief) trust. I still can't claim (belief) faith, or unwavering confidence, because there are still too many things that can go wrong, and I need to be alert for these things. If I have complete unwavering confidence, or (belief) faith, in this EMT, I might miss signs that he was ignoring other dangers. Unwavering faith that the EMT was going to save this driver might make me forget to have someone run down the road to wave and warn oncoming traffic away from the accident, or to check to make sure the gas tank wasn't ruptured, or to check that an ambulance was on the way for when we did get the driver out.

 

Does that make sense? I simply feel that trusting in the unknown with the complete acceptance of faith is dangerous in many situations, and ignorant (NOT stupid) in practically all of them. I get that many people take comfort in their faith, but I feel it's a blissful ignorance situation. Of all the forms of belief, faith has the least to support it, yet claims to be the strongest. I think it's a dangerous masquerade.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

I do not disagree.

 

I would have more faith in the guy on the cell phone, calling for help, than the guy with his hands together, looking at the sky for help.

 

But either way, objective reality is likely to come to the rescue. In the person of a trained, equipped individual or several. Not likely an angel will show up.

 

But people of faith have a different borderline they draw. The emergency rescue people ARE the answer to the prayer.

 

My mother spoke of a time she was walking a long distance, was tired and thirsty and prayed to Jesus for some help. I guy who was a distant aquaintance saw her walking along and picked her up, and drove her home. She took it as an answer to her prayer. I was not able to convince her that it was the guy that helped her, and not Jesus' love. She drew some very different borderlines than I drew, still Jesus's love was not completely out of the equation, the guy was the brother of someone she knew from a church she attended. A sort of loose network of "helpers" traveling about, not adverse to helping someone in need. It remains a difficult thing for me to say with 100% certainty that Jesus had nothing at all to do with it. Even though I know Jesus himself was not listening to her prayer and commanding the fellow to pick her up. Jesus sort of was listening to the request, and providing the answer. In a figurative way. And since it really happened, a literal way, as well.

 

Which parts of what we do for others, or expect of others are based on material evidence, and which are based on considerations that do not depend on physical evidence, but more on promises and feelings and a shared understanding of a common good we feel a part of?

 

The driver had no particular reason to pick her up. No one else, on her long walk picked her up. My mom explained it as sychronicity...what ever that is.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Phi for All]

Which parts of what we do for others, or expect of others are based on material evidence, and which are based on considerations that do not depend on physical evidence, but more on promises and feelings and a shared understanding of a common good we feel a part of?

 

I can hope that my expectations of others are valid, and people give us bits of evidence as to their credibility all the time. If someone strikes me as someone who shares my understanding of the common good, my hope in them may turn into trust.

 

I surely wouldn't have unwavering faith in the credibility of fallible humanity, and the supernatural gives me no reliability at all. Faith, after all, asks us to suspend judgement and simply believe, and asks us to believe strongly based on nothing but feelings about stories and myths and legends.

[Moontanman]

There is also a confirmation bias involved, if no one had picked her up she would either assume it wasn't part of gods plan or not remember it as part of her view of Jesus...

[Phi for All]

I worry that I'm defining my belief system personally and then expecting everyone else to conform. But I need the definitions because I think too many people DON'T make distinctions between the types of things they claim to believe.

 

I definitely see a difference between believing that the traffic light will turn green very soon (because I can see that it's yellow for the cross street), believing that my sports team will beat the rival team (because they've been doing OK this year and the other team has some injured players out), and believing that my place in the afterlife is assured as long as I pray for forgiveness for all the bad things I do to people on a regular basis (because Jesus died for my sins, past present and future, and God knows I'm not perfect anyway). They're completely different forms of belief that people often conflate.

 

I trust in the traffic light, but not unwaveringly (99.9% of the time they work correctly, but I got burned recently by a malfunctioning light and had to eventually run the red when it was safe to do so). I hope my team will win but I don't bet my life savings on them (they've had streaks before but ended up losing to a worse team). And it really doesn't sit well with me personally when people talk about the forgiveness of their sins yet still commit them against each other. A lot of these folks act like total turds to people they don't know and feel little or no remorse when they "sin" against them. Their faith in Jesus' forgiveness of their sins allows them to treat others poorly, judge the religions of others as wrong, be completely intolerant of lifestyles that don't fit their ideals, and still have solid, Rock-of-Ages-type confidence that they'll get into heaven.

 

I wouldn't bet my savings on hope. I wouldn't even bet the light will turn green (with enough conviction that I would approach the red light without slowing down, trusting my life and the lives of others it will function properly), even with 99.9% trust in the science of it. Why would I put 100% faith in something supernatural?

[Moontanman]

I worry that I'm defining my belief system personally and then expecting everyone else to conform. But I need the definitions because I think too many people DON'T make distinctions between the types of things they claim to believe.

 

I definitely see a difference between believing that the traffic light will turn green very soon (because I can see that it's yellow for the cross street), believing that my sports team will beat the rival team (because they've been doing OK this year and the other team has some injured players out), and believing that my place in the afterlife is assured as long as I pray for forgiveness for all the bad things I do to people on a regular basis (because Jesus died for my sins, past present and future, and God knows I'm not perfect anyway). They're completely different forms of belief that people often conflate.

 

I trust in the traffic light, but not unwaveringly (99.9% of the time they work correctly, but I got burned recently by a malfunctioning light and had to eventually run the red when it was safe to do so). I hope my team will win but I don't bet my life savings on them (they've had streaks before but ended up losing to a worse team). And it really doesn't sit well with me personally when people talk about the forgiveness of their sins yet still commit them against each other. A lot of these folks act like total turds to people they don't know and feel little or no remorse when they "sin" against them. Their faith in Jesus' forgiveness of their sins allows them to treat others poorly, judge the religions of others as wrong, be completely intolerant of lifestyles that don't fit their ideals, and still have solid, Rock-of-Ages-type confidence that they'll get into heaven.

 

I wouldn't bet my savings on hope. I wouldn't even bet the light will turn green (with enough conviction that I would approach the red light without slowing down, trusting my life and the lives of others it will function properly), even with 99.9% trust in the science of it. Why would I put 100% faith in something supernatural?

 

 

I think there is a huge difference between faith in something you know and have seen and something supernatural, in fact i would say the definition of the two types of faith are not similar anymore than most peoples definition of theory is the same as the definition of theory in science.

 

I have faith that Phi is a human being, I could be wrong, he could be an advanced computer program but I will go with human for now. But if Phi told me he was in direct contact with god and had a revealed truth for me I would be a bit more skeptical and require evidence... Faith by any definition would not enter into it...

Edited March 15, 2013 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

I have faith that Phi is a human being, I could be wrong, he could be an advanced computer program but I will go with human for now. But if Phi told me he was in direct contact with god and had a revealed truth for me I would be a bit more skeptical and require evidence... Faith by any definition would not enter into it...

 

I can see how this type of belief could be conflated with faith. You believe so strongly that I'm human that it would be pretty Earth-shattering to find out I'm a computer programmed to respond the way I do. You might start to question everything you know about people on the internet. But before you did that, you'd check every resource you could to confirm that this wasn't some kind of joke, that this program really was the one typing my responses to you, public and private. You'd probably remain skeptical until you could force a demonstration under conditions where you could rule out my being human. And now we're really not talking about faith, are we?

 

I'd feel the same way if I tossed a rock in the air and it just hung there without dropping. I'd toss a second rock to see if it was just the first rock that could defy gravity. I'd grab the first rock and toss it in the air 20 feet from the first site, to see if it was something about the location. I'd test everything I could before leaping to the conclusion that gravity wasn't what I'd been taught it was.

 

But this kind of belief is still different than faith, imo. People of faith leap quite easily to supernatural explanations. There is no testing, and in fact faith would require you to accept without testing, to have extreme strength in your belief in the supernatural explanation. It's this easy acceptance I question, because it seems very similar to confirmation bias and other things many people do to fool themselves into believing they're right.

[Moontanman]

I've been spending some time on facebook trying to understand the faith based stuff posted by my facebook friends, I've asked questions and challenged their assertions and ended up being unfriended and blocked by numerous people.. I honestly can't understand what they are about...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I will agree with your confirmation bias assessment. But that did not seem to affect my Mom when I tried such reasoning with her.

 

This common thing, that we seem to run into, when we try to talk someone out of believing in supernatural things, must have an explanation. One theory I was playing with today, consistent with my general understanding of the world, is that "supernatural" is a word that means something other than unreal, to a lot of people. In my book, supernatural is a synonym with imaginary, in that it is refering to something not to be confused with real things. But imaginary things, and unreal things are partially the same type of thing. There is not a lot of distance between a Platonic ideal, and an unseen judge that would be the arbitrator of such an ideal. If we were to think that there was some reason to believe in the ideal, it would probably have something to do with the fact that we had evidence of some sort that somebody else held the same ideal as we did. At which point, even though it was a flimsy "thought" we were talking about, it would gain some wheight as a "real" thing, exactly because another held it as well.

 

Now this would explain why people might believe in something, just because somebody else does. I think it makes sense, ask you if it makes sense to you, you say yes, and have my thinking that it makes sense to back up your thinking. We could together, manufacture some rather unreal theories, if we both work off some incorrect assumptions, or some bad facts, or a lie.

 

If we were two 5 year olds, we might together act as some sort of magnifying feedback loop and convince each other that Santa really was aware of "if we were bad or good", so we would be good, for goodness' sake.

 

It perhaps is not a completely different kind of thing that two 50 year olds could back each other up on the thought that their country's ideals were worth fighting and dying for. Or that a certain set of rules, was sanctioned and valuable and real, because they were held as valuble and real by the other.

 

In the one sense, the conscience of the one, is formed and informed by the other. (and since the other is a real person, the ideal is NOT unreal or supernatural.) But in the other sense, the two, together, have made the thing up, it is imaginary, unreal, and supernatural in the kind or type of thing, that it is.

 

So maybe this word supernatural, partially refers to the ideas that we have together made up, and reinforced in each others imagination. And when we ask another, if they believe in supernatural things, they might think we are asking them, if they believe in the same fairy tales, principles, ideals, and imaginary stuff, as other people are aware of.

 

To test out this thought, consider a spoken promise, that is not heard by anybody but the promiser and the promisee. Is it a real thing, or a supernatural thing?

 

Perhaps I am still considering that faith between two people, is not a completely different thing than faith between one person and the rest of the world. Or the faith between a religious sect and their world.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Interesting that the term is usually "faith in" something or somebody, and not "faith about" or "faith on" or "faith over" or "faith under" or "faith around" or "faith through". Like perhaps it is refering to some part of you entering the the other, or residing there. Like investing yourself in something. This might explain why challenging somebody's faith is taken so personally...because the stronger the faith in something that X has, the more of X there is in that something.

 

Like telling somebody their life's savings are worthless peices of paper.

faith between

[Phi for All]

Supernatural explanations all share common attributes: they aren't observable in a consistent manner, they aren't reproducible by others, and you can't make predictions based on them. They are extremely similar to coincidence and random chance. And the phenomena they describe all have natural explanations, meaning you don't have to rely on magic or gods to understand them.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

Point taken, and point understood.

 

I have to argue along with you against the sense of a pastor giving a sermon "Build the truth into your life". Its not reasonable to attach the word truth to the statements that would guide our interpersonal relations, and trust in each other, and use the word, in the same sense, to trust the promises of Jesus, or the promise of God. Such a sermon comes across to me, as an atheist, as incredibily hypocritical. How can a pastor speak of truth when in the next sentence he speaks such incredible "fabrication" as is contained in the Bible? In general its impossible for me to believe the whole sermon or think anything other than that the pastor is exactly NOT telling me the truth, and is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes, and have me believe I should do these things, ie. tell the truth, that make sense to me, on the basis of something that makes no sense at all.

 

It is as if the religious person believes that true plus imaginary equals supertrue.

Which is, I guess what they mean, when they say that nature plus God equals supernatural.

 

Except I do not know how to explain myself, as a conscious human, without the use of agreed upon imaginary "things" like truth and trust, which can only be understood based on agreed upon definitions of commonly held "images". Such an ability, to talk of objective truth is difficult to do without also having the ability to hold a Godlike perspective. Many would suggest that a human mind is subjective by defintion and can not actually hold an objective position. Yet there is no one here, atheist or theist, that is not capable of considering oneself, objectively, or "from" a godlike perspective. Even if that means simply putting themselves, imaginarily, in the shoes of the person, or other conscious being (ie. pet) next to them, or in the lab, or in the church, or at the other keyboard.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If you can have a faithful pet...and you can put yourself in its shoes, to determine if you are a good owner, and holding up your end of the bargain, might this be the same basic imaginary transaction required to consider an objective judge that is YOUR owner, in which you place your unconditional faith and trust?

 

It is not unlikely, given the random nature of the attributes assigned to this imaginary judge, that he/she/it would be unable to hold up their end of the bargain.<br /><br />And as you put it Phi, having "stronger faith" in this imaginary judge is in no way going to improve its ability to hold up its end of the bargain.

[Civat]

Faith is a very strong thing. You can have faith in something you believe in or it can give you strenght inside.

[Ringer]

Faith is a very strong thing. You can have faith in something you believe in or it can give you strenght inside.

So can knowledge, the difference is that use of evidence and knowledge can do measurably better than placebo.

[Phi for All]

Except I do not know how to explain myself, as a conscious human, without the use of agreed upon imaginary "things" like truth and trust, which can only be understood based on agreed upon definitions of commonly held "images". Such an ability, to talk of objective truth is difficult to do without also having the ability to hold a Godlike perspective. Many would suggest that a human mind is subjective by defintion and can not actually hold an objective position. Yet there is no one here, atheist or theist, that is not capable of considering oneself, objectively, or "from" a godlike perspective. Even if that means simply putting themselves, imaginarily, in the shoes of the person, or other conscious being (ie. pet) next to them, or in the lab, or in the church, or at the other keyboard.

 

Objective truth doesn't exist, imo, although it would seem that we need further distinctions about "truth" the way I feel we do about "belief". The answers to me asking if you brushed your teeth today and me asking if God exists have differing values of "truth". Neither is very objective, since you could fall back on the literal meaning (you ran your brush over more than one tooth), while I meant the dentist's definition (two minutes of vigorous brushing with a dentifrice), but the answers to if God exists are so subjective as to be rendered meaningless for the purposes of defining "truth".

 

If you can have a faithful pet...and you can put yourself in its shoes, to determine if you are a good owner, and holding up your end of the bargain, might this be the same basic imaginary transaction required to consider an objective judge that is YOUR owner, in which you place your unconditional faith and trust?

 

I think my pets do more hoping than putting faith in me. They hope I'll share my sandwich, they hope I'll take them for a walk right NOW, they hope I'll stop typing and pet them....

 

Faith is a very strong thing. You can have faith in something you believe in or it can give you strenght inside.

 

Why is faith strong? It's based solely on feelings about things we've never really observed, and we know that our feelings are often capricious and biased. For something this important, shouldn't we look for more to judge?

[Moontanman]

Faith is a very strong thing. You can have faith in something you believe in or it can give you strenght inside.

 

Is faith strong enough to change reality? My uncle told me a while back he had a neighbor that had so much faith he was sure a bullet fired from a gun couldn't harm him... is faith that powerful? or was he nuts?

[SplitInfinity]

Is faith strong enough to change reality? My uncle told me a while back he had a neighbor that had so much faith he was sure a bullet fired from a gun couldn't harm him... is faith that powerful? or was he nuts?

 

Mootanman...he was NUTS! I have been shot in the field several times at close range. If it were not for a light weight high tech vest...I would have died and although this saved me....due the the range...there was some ballistic penetration.

 

When something like this happens to a person...your life does not flash before your eyes...you do not see or experience and Heavenly Vision...and you certainly do not obtain Enlightenment. Right before it happens....a few words come out of your mouth....OH $#!@!

 

Then after you are shot...an anger of such intensity comes over you that even the most passive of people will be turned into a killer. Even though I was shot...I balanced my rifle on a team members body part and ended the threat.

 

As far as having FAITH....a person should have FAITH in the fact that the bullet coming out of a gun will kill them if aimed properly. THAT is much more certain than any heavenly intervention.

 

Split Infinity