The Strength of Faith

[john5746]

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?

I think this is what we have been dancing around, the amount of conviction in a belief. I think Phi is right, at least in my case, but some people seem to have strong convictions, that should lead them in the wrong direction most of the time, but can have huge payoffs. This would explain the Donald Trumps of the world. He certainly didn't acquire his wealth with his IQ.

 

sorry about linking to TED again, but I found these vids to be relevant to the topic. One is regarding marketing.

 

 

people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. I think for most people, science is sold at the what level, not the why level. They don't "feel it" in their gut. No emotion.

 

 

Self-transcendance - losing oneself and becoming part of the group.

Edited March 18, 2013 by john5746

[Phi for All]

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?

 

This is a great example of what faith has been described to me as (although taken to an extreme, life-threatening level). Unwavering conviction that your God will keep you safe, to the point where you'll do something irrational because of that strong belief.

 

I know there are scriptures that tell Christians not to tempt God by putting themselves in these types of situations, but if you dial it down a notch or two you see numerous examples of faith so strong it leads Christian Scientists to pray instead of seeking medical help, or families to sell everything they have and give it to charity because they're convinced the Rapture is tomorrow.

 

The part that makes me so skeptical of faith is that, in this instance, if the neighbor could convince someone to fire a bullet at him to test his faith, the outcome would always be attributed to God, no matter what. If the shooter had a last-second reconsideration and purposely missed, it would be because of the neighbor's faith. If he just simply couldn't fire at all, again it would be chalked up to faith. And if the neighbor was killed by the bullet, those who share the neighbor's faith would attribute his death to God's will ("The Lord called this faithful man home"). Every outcome is justified by feelings alone and rational thought is forgotten while the faith of those still living is "strengthened".

[tar]

Phi,

 

While I get your point, I had a conversation with a family member recently, where she allowed as that faith gave her the strength to continue on through a difficult time.

 

Who am I to tell her that she did it wrong, and based her faith on something other than material evidence.

 

And who am I to know what rock she found to stand on. And since she is still standing, I have no evidence that it was not solid, that thing that she had faith in. Rather it seems that it was present and effective, in her case, whatever real thing it was, that she latched onto to help her through.

 

Just saying, that if faith is a personal investment in something, whether that something is material or other than material, it still causes real differences in the thinking and actions or non actions of people that have made the investment.

 

It still pays real dividends in some cases. And in the case I am talking about, I think she made a good investment.

 

I had no interest in shaking her faith. And no better bank than the one she found, to suggest a transfer of funds.

 

Regards, TAR2

and I am thinking I might have a few dollars in an account at the same bank, but that only seems likely

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

While I get your point, I had a conversation with a family member recently, where she allowed as that faith gave her the strength to continue on through a difficult time.

 

Who am I to tell her that she did it wrong, and based her faith on something other than material evidence.

 

And who am I to know what rock she found to stand on. And since she is still standing, I have no evidence that it was not solid, that thing that she had faith in. Rather it seems that it was present and effective, in her case, whatever real thing it was, that she latched onto to help her through.

 

Just saying, that if faith is a personal investment in something, whether that something is material or other than material, it still causes real differences in the thinking and actions or non actions of people that have made the investment.

 

It still pays real dividends in some cases. And in the case I am talking about, I think she made a good investment.

 

I had no interest in shaking her faith. And no better bank than the one she found, to suggest a transfer of funds.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And that's exactly how faith gets justified every time. I'm not saying it doesn't work for some people. I'm saying that the nature of faith is one of complete mental justification, so that faith is strengthened if it works, and faith is strengthened if it doesn't work.

 

When difficult times are weathered, faith gets the credit rather than personal resilience, patience and fortitude. When difficult times get even more difficult, God's will is invoked and more justification for faith is generated. A life-threatening illness is overcome and faith in God rather than trust in the doctor is responsible. Angels watch over us rather than all the real-life steps you've taken to ensure your family's safety, but if something bad still happens, it's God's will testing your faith.

 

Faith is God giving us the choice of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. Reasoned thought is the only way God loses in these scenarios.

[tar]

I guess at the possibility that everyone might have a few emotional, intuitive coins in the same bank and trust, metaphorically speaking.

Phi,

 

And why would you want God to lose, if faith in God was really faith in personal resilience, patience and fortitude.

 

You would not hope that personal resilience, patience and fortitude would fail.

 

Regards, TAR2

You rather have put your faith in them succeeding.

[Phi for All]

And why would you want God to lose, if faith in God was really faith in personal resilience, patience and fortitude.

 

You would not hope that personal resilience, patience and fortitude would fail.

 

Because it's not FAITH in personal resilience, patience and fortitude. It's TRUST in those things, because those things aren't supernatural, you've come to trust yourself. Trust built from everyday experience, tempered by reason and rational judgement. Faith is unquestioning, without doubt, while trust overcomes doubt and invites a questioning, rational mind to continue exploring for explanations based on yourself and your abilities.

 

God loses because he's not needed. The person who is resilient and patient, who overcomes his problems based on TRUST in his own abilities, that person doesn't just give up his responsibility to be persistent about looking for ways to protect his family, or ensure his health, or get that promotion at work, or pass that test, or avoid an accident while driving. I'd go so far as to say faith makes us weaker since we rely on it for no rational reason, and ignore our own strengths.

[tar]

I don't think I will ever meet the pup we put to sleep a few years ago rompping in a field on the other side of a bridge, but I don't mind the image.

Phi,

 

God loses because he doesn't exist, and is not real, not because we don't need the thought of God.

 

Regards, TARw

But I mince words.

It is better to believe in the real things that are attributed to God, than to believe in a God that is not real.

[CarbonCopy]

Wow, I think Phi is a little harsh on faith. It has nothing to do with denial or anything, as you put it. To me, people need something to trust in their lives and need a source of comfort. Blind faith serves this purpose. And I think that is about it, I think.

It is mostly a play of chemicals in our brain, that is why it is such a powerful thing.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CarbonCopy

[Phi for All]

Wow, I think Phi is a little harsh on faith. It has nothing to do with denial or anything, as you put it. To me, people need something to trust in their lives and need a source of comfort. Blind faith serves this purpose. And I think that is about it, I think.

It is mostly a play of chemicals in our brain, that is why it is such a powerful thing.

 

There are multiple good reasons why we place importance on things we can't see. It played a heavy role in our evolutionary success to imagine predators in every shadow. It allows us to predict and prepare for multiple eventualities. These are good applications of belief in things we can't directly observe.

 

I'm just saying that gods or the power of gods seems an unlikely place to invest your strongest, most doubt-free form of belief, your faith. I'm also beginning to think the people who describe their faith to me in those terms must be exaggerating, otherwise they would be like Moontanman's friend's neighbor who would allow himself to be shot to prove his faith,

[tar]

Carbon Copy,

 

I almost plused your post, except I don't think it is "just" the play of chemicals in our brains. I think we humans stake out a middle ground, between being controlled by everything, and controlling everything. Sure chemicals have everything to do with it, but it is not like we are not chemicals. If we were to be at the "mercy" of chemicals, it would be what we are, that we would be at the mercy of. Such is a similar conundrum that we face when considering the universe and God and the self. Its what religions address. How one can be simultaneously, only universe material and energy and form, AND something different than the universe. Its the basic "hard problem of consciousness". Its why people come up with the thought, phrased one way or the other, that we are God, in some general sense. Its when its taken specifically to be the case, that it makes no sense, because the self is something different than the all. Immortal thinks the ancients figured it out, and he frames it as eminations from a greater consciouness, or a bunch of them vieing for attention and controll. But it makes no sense. We don't see evidence of this in any way but imaginarily or metaphorically. Its not what is "really" going on.

 

What I am realizing in this discussion, is that Phi for All, and I, may be arguing from the same philosophical/religious stance, that it is reality that we should have faith in. Even if that means we should have faith in ourselves.

 

Iggy, in another thread, was trying to figure out what I was smuggling. I had a thought, just before posting this, that I am smuggling "human judgement", and arguing for it, as the thing that matters most. If we are human, by "accident", it is still "our" accident to have. If we are human by the thought of God , we are still God's thought. In either case, in the general sense, we belong here, and its our universe, and the only one we have.

 

A distinction between us and a rock though, is that we are alive, and do a different thing than try and loose our heat. We try and keep it. Against the general tendencies of the world and universe around us. We represent a long history of evolution, of life on Earth. Carbon based life forms building on each other, separating and collecting cabon chains, making it easier for the copies to do the same. We could not breath but for the trees, we could not eat but for the flora and fauna, we could not drive or fly, or make plastics but for the many lives, the many carbon chains, the heat, concentrated and stored in the coal and oil.

 

Does this mean we should worship carbon? Or worship mitochondria? Or DNA? Or chemicals?

 

It is not "just" chemical interplay that we are. Its specific to us, and we are owners of it, and responsible parties to it. We can have faith in ourselves, because there is a lot there to have faith in. Millions of years of struggle against the entropy of the general universe to call our own. To rely on and have faith in. And we can call the rest of life on Earth our fellows in our success, in our victory. And have faith in ourselves, because any way you look at it, this is what the universe is doing around here, at the moment.

 

Human judgement is what I am smuggling into the discussion. It is ours, and it is valuable and good, and we own it, and use it, and reap the benefits of it being excercised in everybody around us. We should put our faith in it, because however fleeting and frail life is, we are the owners and the judges of it, and it is ours to carry on.

 

Regards, TAR2

But you already know this. Its your name.

Edited March 20, 2013 by tar

[Phi for All]

What I am realizing in this discussion, is that Phi for All, and I, may be arguing from the same philosophical/religious stance, that it is reality that we should have faith in. Even if that means we should have faith in ourselves.

 

And at the same time I'm arguing that faith, doubt-free and unquestioning, should be replaced by trust in reality. Scientific method tells us that our reality is constantly being updated, like a jigsaw puzzle die-cut from the skins of an enormous onion, layer upon layer deep, piecing together explanations for phenomena that we should never consider complete. We should continue to question what we know and never assume truth, but rather trust that reality gives us the most reliable way to accumulate knowledge.

 

Faith is too final, it claims something is True, and that that Truth be accepted without reservation. That's the part that seems dangerous to me, to accept something as ultimately True when we know that our knowledge of the universe can change. Trust is built up from a foundation of many observations and experiences and is a much more reliable place for our strongest beliefs, imo.

[tar]

Phi,

 

 

I have no come backer. No argument left, against your OP. It is probably true or at least truish.

 

But I have no comeback because I feel rather grounded and at one with things, in a vague, general sense, and that probably means I am in some way fooling myself and anchoring myself to something I can not prove, and in so doing, putting my faith in something that is not real.

 

And I would hate to argue myself right off of whatever rock it is I think I am standing on.

 

So I guess I will just leave it at that, and float the hypothesis that at least some people need to have a base, to operate off of, and that might require making the thing up.

 

Regards. TAR2

[tar]

...the next morning...

 

OK, I have an argument.

 

Science is a kind of focus. A breaking down of things into simple rules. And then applying the simple truth back on the complex and seeing where it applies and where it does not. Those simple rules, do not, in themselves exist. They are imaginary theories that are representative of the greater reality. Confirmation bias is so strong because the whole purpose of the exercise is to hold within, a model that fits exactly (explains real past and or predicts real future) with every aspect of that which we are in and of.

 

We would all, being rational humans, rather accept, as a good model, that model that accounts for everything. But we all, being rational humans, know that a complete model cannot fit in our heads, we do not know everything well enough, to in truth, make the claim that our model is complete and as you put it, a FINAL assessment.

 

Under the circumstances we have to have faith in that which we do not understand, that which we cannot see, but know must be there. We only have eyes in the front of heads, we only see the scene we are facing and focusing on, yet we have faith in what is unseen behind us. We don't KNOW there is not a child or pet or bug sneaking up behind us as we sit at our computer, but we take it on faith that we don't have to worry about that being the case, that it is safe back there, and we would be surprised if the absence of threat was not the case.

 

You say that a religious person would say it was God, whether the the bullet killed or failed to kill.

I say my faith in what is behind me is solid, even if I am surprised because I was a little wrong, and there was a bug that crawled on my neck. The chairback is still true, the shelves full of games and toys my children played with when they were young is still there. I don't have to turn around and look. I don't have to test my theory, (well actually it did just turn around before to check that what I remember being on the shelf was correct and had not changed), I can take it on faith. Along with the side and front wall of my house, the yard and road out front, the highschool a mile away, Pennsylvania, most of the U.S. and the rest of the world and universe that is behind me at the moment. And I can take on faith that the same is mostly true of the stuff infront of me, but outside my view because of walls and distance. I only need a little evidence, the faint glow of light on the tiles above the casement window alcove 15ft infront of me, to know the sun is rising, or the Earth is turning toward it, and everything else that I have faith in being true, is still true.

 

If we have faith in that which is beyond our focus, that is reasonable. Why fault faith if the faith is in that which is beyond our understanding. Beyond the reach of our intellect. It is still OK to have faith in its existence. We know it must be true and we are created by it, subject to its whims, beneficiaries of its beauty and complexity, and manifested entities composed completely of it.

 

I have no faith in God, if God is to be thought of as the model of the universe that exists in another humans head.

On the other hand, I have complete faith in God, if God is to be thought of as the thing in which that other guy is placing his faith in. He might be looking at it differently than I look at it, but the "it" must be the same one I have to have faith in.

 

Regards, TAR2

Is there not a similarity between "having faith in the system" whether you are talking about your company, or the financial system, or the scientific community., or the solar system?

 

Something other than "hope".

[Ringer]

...the next morning...

 

OK, I have an argument.

 

Science is a kind of focus. A breaking down of things into simple rules. And then applying the simple truth back on the complex and seeing where it applies and where it does not. Those simple rules, do not, in themselves exist. They are imaginary theories that are representative of the greater reality. Confirmation bias is so strong because the whole purpose of the exercise is to hold within, a model that fits exactly (explains real past and or predicts real future) with every aspect of that which we are in and of.

 

. . .

But you're changing the definition from the OP. You trust that science is giving a good explanation because it's consistently being tested and it consistently brings results that have real effects. I cannot see magnetism, but when you place metal shavings around a magnet they seem to organize in a consistent pattern. I am not putting 'faith' in the belief that there is a magnetic field. I am putting my 'trust' in evidence that has been thoroughly explained.

 

On the same line, the point is that it is being tested, and that what is being trusted is an explanation of something that happens and if that thing happens differently a different explanation is needed. But faith, how it is used in the OP, uses the same explanation, without regard, or in absence of, tests. Faith is something that doesn't even need testing because, for the faithful, it is self evidently true in any circumstance.

[Phi for All]

 

But you're changing the definition from the OP. You trust that science is giving a good explanation because it's consistently being tested and it consistently brings results that have real effects. I cannot see magnetism, but when you place metal shavings around a magnet they seem to organize in a consistent pattern. I am not putting 'faith' in the belief that there is a magnetic field. I am putting my 'trust' in evidence that has been thoroughly explained.

 

On the same line, the point is that it is being tested, and that what is being trusted is an explanation of something that happens and if that thing happens differently a different explanation is needed. But faith, how it is used in the OP, uses the same explanation, without regard, or in absence of, tests. Faith is something that doesn't even need testing because, for the faithful, it is self evidently true in any circumstance.

 

Thanks for this. I thought I was explaining myself badly, but you grasp the concept very well.

 

Just yesterday, someone told me, "Have a little faith", and I thought about this thread. Was he really asking me to hold out some hope that our work would pay off? Or perhaps trust that the efforts we'd made to improve our probability of success would tip the scales in our favor? But since he said "Have a little faith", and since I know this guy is somewhat religious, I think he was asking me to rely on his god's providence to make us successful. Overlooking the obviously oxymoronic "a little faith", I couldn't help but think that if he really was applying unquestioning, indubitable belief (faith) in our success, he's already be spending his commission check.

 

I think most people use "faith" interchangeably with "hope", and that's a big part of what bothers me when I hear them justifying why their religion is the Truth, the Way, and that faith in their god provides miracles. Faith isn't magical, it's just hope with irrational rationalization.

[Iggy]

I think most people use "faith" interchangeably with "hope", and that's a big part of what bothers me when I hear them justifying why their religion is the Truth, the Way, and that faith in their god provides miracles. Faith isn't magical, it's just hope with irrational rationalization.

 

To second that, I like the way the New International Version translates Heb. 11:1, "faith is confidence in what we hope for".

 

I think that has it exactly right.

[Phi for All]

To second that, I like the way the New International Version translates Heb. 11:1, "faith is confidence in what we hope for".

 

I think that has it exactly right.

 

I can live with that, I suppose, until someone tells me they're so confident in their hope for salvation that it lets them lie to me or cheat on their spouse or steal from a neighbor but still be forgiven.

[SplitInfinity]

I can live with that, I suppose, until someone tells me they're so confident in their hope for salvation that it lets them lie to me or cheat on their spouse or steal from a neighbor but still be forgiven.

I have found a truth working in the field. That being that when a person is faced with a possibility of dying...very few will stick to Athiestic views. Now this is just natural as in any type of similar situation...say a person falls in an old well...their cell phone smashed on impact. They KNOW that their cell phone will not work. Still a person stuck there will try again and again by pressing every button on that smashed phone...even if the battery was lost as it smashed...to see if they can get the phone to work. The same thing with No Athiests in a Foxhole.

 

What is outright DANGEROUS is a person who has extreme Faith and because of it puts themself and others at risk because they either think that a GOD will save them or they believe that they will die and go to paradise.

 

I have seen both types of people in the field and the later...the person of extreme faith...is not someone you would want beside you and I have made sure such people I had the unfortunate experience to be in the field with were transfered OUT ASAP.

 

As far as Faith is concerned for me...Many have asked me if I believe in GOD and I answer...ABSOLUTELY! Someone is out to get me!

 

Split Infinity

[Ringer]

Thanks for this. I thought I was explaining myself badly, but you grasp the concept very well.

I think you're explaining it well, but then again I am from the bible belt were I got kicked out of Sunday school because I didn't think Noah could fit that many animals on a boat.

I think most people use "faith" interchangeably with "hope", and that's a big part of what bothers me when I hear them justifying why their religion is the Truth, the Way, and that faith in their god provides miracles. Faith isn't magical, it's just hope with irrational rationalization.

I wouldn't even say it's hope, I would go so far as to say it tends to be false knowledge. I like to use prayer as an example of this. Someone prays for something, while concurrently believing that their god has a plan. If the person gets what they pray for they know their prayer worked, if not it was just part of god's plan. But they have the 'false' knowledge that it was god that chose to answer or to stick to the plan.

[john5746]

I have found a truth working in the field. That being that when a person is faced with a possibility of dying...very few will stick to Athiestic views. Now this is just natural as in any type of similar situation...say a person falls in an old well...their cell phone smashed on impact. They KNOW that their cell phone will not work. Still a person stuck there will try again and again by pressing every button on that smashed phone...even if the battery was lost as it smashed...to see if they can get the phone to work. The same thing with No Athiests in a Foxhole.

In regards to the smashed cell phone, why not just pray? Surely god works better than a phone without a battery?

 

Anyway, haven't been in a situation like this, so not sure how I would respond. I probably will cry and yell at myself for getting in that situation. But, if I do pray to something in that situation, its quite different than leading my life that way. I mean, if you and I were stuck in a situation with no food and you were sick, I might eat you. That doesn't mean I think we should eat people, just a desperate situation.

[Prometheus]

I have found a truth working in the field. That being that when a person is faced with a possibility of dying...very few will stick to Athiestic views...

 

What 'field' do you mean? A battlefield?

 

I have a different experience of being with people when they die - some people turn to faith, others turn from faith and others stick to what they thought before. Perhaps it is different for soldiers and the context they find themselves in.

[Moontanman]

I've been in a situation where death appeared to be inevitable, I was snorkeling in about 20 feet of water and got caught in a roll of fencing lying on the bottom when i tried to extract a lobster, my dive buddy couldn't get to me to help and I was under water long enough for him to have to got the surface and take three breaths. My vision started to fade as i worked to get myself free, god never occurred to me, i never thought to pray or to ask for supernatural help, if i had I would have died, I see no reason to assume a person who lacked belief in the supernatural would suddenly stop working to live and decide to pray, the concept is less than productive and when you are in that situation non productive thoughts are not where you go... it's amazing just how narrow your mind can focus when you have to...

[tar]

Split,

 

A platoon was taking wave after wave of attacking soldiers and running low on ammo. A young recruit, out of bullets stood, pointed his finger and said bang. An enemy soldier fell. "Bang, Bang, Bangity, Bang, and four more enemies fell. His comrades watched in amazement as another wave of attackers fell, "Bang, Bang, Bangity, Bang". One enemy did not fall, and ran right over the young recruit, chrushing him. Those close, reported hearing the breaching enemy uttering "Tank, Tank, Tankity, Tank.

 

Regards, TAR2

[SplitInfinity]

In regards to the smashed cell phone, why not just pray? Surely god works better than a phone without a battery?

 

Anyway, haven't been in a situation like this, so not sure how I would respond. I probably will cry and yell at myself for getting in that situation. But, if I do pray to something in that situation, its quite different than leading my life that way. I mean, if you and I were stuck in a situation with no food and you were sick, I might eat you. That doesn't mean I think we should eat people, just a desperate situation.

 

Some might say...Praying couldn't hurt. But if you and others get into a bad place and state...the absolutely WORSE THING that a person can do is lower moral. So if I am with a few others and we seemed to be screwed...and we KNOW this...and instead of keeping cool and thinking how we can get out of this mess...one person was to start PRAYING...well THAT just freaks out EVERYBODY who is unfortunate enough to be in such a situation.

 

Now the Team I sometimes work with are a bit above the norm in that they are Pro's even if some are young. Such people are not prone to panic and think quickly or fall back upon training as well as Psych 101...Anger is more useful than despair...Cold calculating rationalism is more useful than anything.

 

But is this was a Platoon of Green Kids and one of them started PRAYING either out loud or even silent but either crossing themselves or doing some other Religious Dogma based movements that denote praying...the other kids in the Platoon are going to start to panic!

 

I just want to say although I sometimes work with members of the U.S. Military...I am NOT Military. I am "CIVILIAN".

 

That kid praying in front of the rest of the platoon at a moment of decision where time is essential as well as making the right choice imparitive to staying alive...that kid might as well be screaming hysterically..."We are all going to DIE!"

 

Split Infinity

[tar]

Splitinfinity,

 

In the Tankity Tank joke, faith in the impossible was successful. Surprisingly the stategy backfired as the enemy impossibly countered.

 

It speaks to Phi's OP. It supports Phi's OP. Why have faith in the most impossible thing you can think of. As the joke shows, once you are into lala land, all it takes is someone also into lala land to trump you. Like playing rock paper scissors. Your solid rock is covered and defeated when paper is thrown. And the paper, while stronger than rock, can't stand up to the scissors, which is broken by the rock.

 

My God is better than your God, seems to be the biggest problem we Atheists have with the thinking of Theists.

Praying is an internal conversation as far as an Atheist is concerned. While there is evidence that internal strength can be summoned, there is no evidence that an external force can be contacted and petitioned, by having an internal conversation.

Except maybe in the sense that a prayer may associate with actual real powers that one can allign themselves with, and affect reality, by unspoken pact and alignment with such.

 

I read the Koran, twice. Once to get the gist, and once for comprehension, after the 9/11 attack, to get an understanding of why such evil as was evident to me that morning, watching the pillar of black smoke rising from lower Manhattan, could have been spawned by a book. (After learning that a believer in Allah had purposely orchestrated the destruction and death). My take a way, was that Mohammed had usurped the power of Allah, and associated himself with it. This is on the one hand, perfectly understandable, as that we all are associated with this power, this greater reality thing that created us, that we are in and of, from which we have emerged, and to which we will return...BUT on the other hand, our internal association with it gives us no unique link, and Mohammed's insistence that disbelieving in the messenger was the same as disbelieving in Allah, was the underlying mark of insanity, or irrationality, or impossibility, that showed me the flaw that ultimately brought down my twin towers.

 

The ALL, by definition, is on everybody's side. There are no chosen people, there are not believers and unbelievers, there are no Secrets of the Vedas, there is not a special key held by any one man. Religions define "a way". They say this way is THE WAY. It is evident to me, being the Great Satan standing in the way of all the world being for Allah, that someone has gotten their wires crossed. Someone has faith in an impossible thing. And its not me.

 

Regards, TAR2