On faith

Sarkus said:
Then on what is faith founded? What gives rise to it? (In your view).
Click to expand...

You mean what is "faith in God" founded on/upon.

Basically that takes us to beginning or conceptions of God.

Faith in ones ability to help in crisis, faith in your bodyguards that they will take you out of messy crowd, faith in your pilot that he is equipped with Hudson river landing type techniques..etc...they are all founded on something, they can be rationalized because we have some apriori information on which we deduce and incorrectly call that objective and fact based faith.

But that cannot be applied to in case of faith in God.
 
The God said:
You mean what is "faith in God" founded on/upon.
Click to expand...
If that is what you were referring to then yes. What is it founded upon?
Basically that takes us to beginning or conceptions of God.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's go to your conception of God. What is it about that conception upon which your faith in God is founded?
Faith in ones ability to help in crisis, faith in your bodyguards that they will take you out of messy crowd, faith in your pilot that he is equipped with Hudson river landing type techniques..etc...they are all founded on something, they can be rationalized because we have some apriori information on which we deduce and incorrectly call that objective and fact based faith.
Click to expand...
Yes, the objective evidence that I mentioned earlier, to which I recall you refusing to acknowledge that this could still be faith?
But that cannot be applied to in case of faith in God.
Click to expand...
That is my view as well. This is what is often referred to as "religious faith" so as to distinguish it from the former kind. No doubt Jan will try to tell you that distinguishing them is just some trick atheists play on you, but you have brought this up, you have distinguished between them.

So what is this faith in God founded upon? What is it that results in you having faith in God and someone else not?
 
The God said:
No, physics is not a good example of faith supported by objective evidence.
Click to expand...

I believe that it is, for the reasons that I gave in post #150.

Physics or science has got nothing to do with faith.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of there being 'laws of nature' that hold true universally, in all situations of the appropriate kind, would seem to be something that human beings can't possibly know with deductive certainty. Yet physics assumes their existence and proceeds on that assumption.

Faith as you have correctly written in first para is unevidenced belief
Click to expand...

Except that I never said that. What I wrote was "I would interpret 'faith' to mean trust, confidence or belief in something in the absence of deductive certainty". 'Absence of deductive certainty' needn't be synonymous with 'unevidenced belief'. In the case of physics, we have lots of evidence for many physical propositions, but that evidence still doesn't seem to justify the universal conclusions that are based on it. The fact that we have a set of laboratory observations that are consistent with a particular mathematical generalization doesn't provide any deductive justification for the belief that the generalization must hold true universally throughout time and space.

If faith is 'unevidenced belief', then how does faith differ from wishful thinking, illusion, hallucination and from delusion? Should a schizophrenic hearing voices in his head have the same credibility as the Bible, Gita or the Quran? In religion there's often a strong emphasis on everyone being on the same page and believing roughly the same thing. If religion is purely subjective, what justifies that objective normative dimension?

means it is not the right approach to put faith on the alter of objective assessment.
Click to expand...

So do the words 'true' and 'false' have any meaning when applied to religious statements?

There's certainly a tendency in the philosophy of religious language of trying to interpret religious language as non-cognitive, as expressive of attitudes or feelings rather than anything that can be objectively true or false.

"Peter Donovan argues that most religious language is not about making truth claims, instead it is used to achieve certain goals. He notes that language can be used in alternative ways beyond making statements of fact, such as expressing feelings or asking questions. Donovan calls many of these uses 'performative'. They seem to perform a certain function within religious life... Historian of religion Benjamin Ray uses the performance of rituals within religions as evidence for a performative interpretation of language. He argues that the language of rituals can perform social tasks."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probl...lternative_explanations_of_religious_language

I'm inclined to think that this is very plausible. But... I'm not sure that we can dismiss all questions of truth and justification in religion quite so easily.

Certainly religious believers (!) use epistemological terms when employing their religious language, throwing around words like 'believe', 'knowledge' and 'truth'. They certainly seem to suggest that Jesus' existence, death and resurrection, or Mohammed's experiences in the cave at Mecca, are literally and objectively true. They make very strong claims about the origin, nature and final destiny of the objective reality we all share. So should any of those claims be taken literally?

If theists don't like atheists taking their language literally, then perhaps they should stop using the language of cognitive truth to express their own peculiar non-cognitive meanings. Until they do that, they can't expect to have things both ways.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Exactly, because it's not based on anything except wishful thinking. Unless you can show otherwise.
Click to expand...

It may look a bit odd, use it only to get the drift....why did you write? ....Rest in peace Billy T...

How will you objectively explain this?
 
The God said:
Did you answer, why are you an atheist ?
Click to expand...
Because I lack belief in God. And I lack belief in God because I am not aware of anything that suggests that God exists, other than Man's claim.

Now we've got my part of the quid pro quo out of the way, care to answer my questions?
 
The God said:
It may look a bit odd, use it only to get the drift....why did you write? ....Rest in peace Billy T...

How will you objectively explain this?
Click to expand...
I don't actually believe there is a Billy T anymore to rest, it's just a traditional statement of solidarity with the deceased person. If belief in God were just this, I wouldn't object any more than I would object to someone saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.
 
Tiassa said:
And therein lies your problem.

Really, Dave, you need to stop invalidating everyone:
Click to expand...
This is a highly defensive response.


How is it my problem, and how am I invalidating anyone?

How does an atheist have a relationship with a godhead any more than with a unicorn? Because other people find it important? I'm a little old to bend my views to peer pressure.

Wait, let me set something straight first:

Tiassa said:
You only make my point: "Without God" and "without unicorns" are only remotely equivalent in a perspective that cares none what belief in either actually means.

In the end, you render your own argument unreliable; your critique of other people's beliefs has nothing to do with those other people.
Click to expand...

Correct! The point was not about them at all! It's only about me. I'm not actually critiquing someone else's views, I'm simply saying I don't accept that a lot of back-story obliges me to believe something. I get to do that.

I also get to hold the opinion that my own world-view is more correct than the guy next to me. That is fundamental. It makes no sense to criticize me for thinking I'm right and for choosing not to believe something.


The key is: I only have to be right to me.

To be clear, I don't offer my views for public consumption - I'm not trying to convince anyone of my own beliefs . I don't expect others to acknowledge it. And I am perfectly happy with other people having opposing views. Out in the real world.

The exception is that, here, we are in this discussion discussing it academically, where we are essentially asking for each other's own thoughts on the matter. That is not the same as my public stance. My public stance is that my personal, private views about spiritualism are mine and mine alone, likewise every one else's are theirs and theirs alone. I don't wish to hurt anyone, and my views might well do that. Only here, in an academic discussion, where we have agreed to suspend our personal investment in the issues, will I normally discuss this. That - or if someone raised the argument themselves. Sure, then I'd feel free to express my views.

The only way it is possible to discuss such an issue is if we are free to speak our views without the consequence of someone taking personal offense. That's what makes it an academic discussion.


If we can't do that, then that is reason there can be no discussion.

Let me know.
 
Sarkus said:
Because I lack belief in God. And I lack belief in God because I am not aware of anything that suggests that God exists, other than Man's claim.

Now we've got my part of the quid pro quo out of the way, care to answer my questions?
Click to expand...

There is nothing for me to convince you or answer. I have absolutely no problem with your stand, because you wish to see the God from objective evidence based existence view. Thats not done, thats why I suggested some reading on God. You will realize that any direct proof or evidence of God will bind him into some sort of finite manifestation, and he cannot be.

To me it appears that you are objecting the God at the threshold itself.
 
spidergoat said:
I don't actually believe there is a Billy T anymore to rest, it's just a traditional statement of solidarity with the deceased person. If belief in God were just this, I wouldn't object any more than I would object to someone saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.
Click to expand...

Well, in its simplicity it is just that only.
 
Sarkus said:
So what is this faith in God founded upon? What is it that results in you having faith in God and someone else not?
Click to expand...
Faith in any god or any form of magic spaghetti monster, is I believe based one one's personal comfort zone.
Ancient man held up mountains, the Sun, Moon, stars, rivers etc, because they could not adequately explain such and could not explain in anyway there own existence and why they were there, why the Earth existed, tec.
We put the Earth at the center of the solar system as god's creation simply for that comfort and belief and to add some recognisable purpose to life.
Science though has explained such lack of understandings and such beliefs now are mostly extinguished.
We know why the Sun exists, why the Earth/Moon exists, what stars are, that the Earth is not the center, why mountains become mountains, but still ignorances and misunderstandings of science still see religion/god as seemingly the norm.
Much of that though is traditional...your parents believed in god and sent you to a religious school, your country promotes itself as god fearing, etc.
As the sciences continue to unveil cosmological mysteries, then gradually the beliefs in a deity begin to fail. Science is pushing and has in many cases, pushed religion and god into obscurity and and not needed.
We can even now speculatively and reasonably discuss how the Universe arose from nothing.
On the opposite side of the coin though, some are obviously seething at such audacity of science and cosmology, and this in turn promotes evangelistic types of crusades particularly on forums such as this to discredit science.
Obviously they deny this, but just as obviously it sticks out like dog balls. :)

By the way, I'm not Atheist, or at least I do not class myself as such.
I see science as eternally progressing and in doing that, I see the gradual elimination of god or religion to explain the universe around us.
But I also am aware that maybe one day someone may show that some spaghetti monster made the BB go bang: I don't really believe that will happen but there is always a non zero chance.
 
paddoboy said:
Faith in any god or any form of magic spaghetti monster, is I believe based one one's personal comfort zone.
Ancient man held up mountains, the Sun, Moon, stars, rivers etc, because they could not adequately explain such and could not explain in anyway there own existence and why they were there, why the Earth existed, tec.
We put the Earth at the center of the solar system as god's creation simply for that comfort and belief and to add some recognisable purpose to life.
Science though has explained such lack of understandings and such beliefs now are mostly extinguished.
We know why the Sun exists, why the Earth/Moon exists, what stars are, that the Earth is not the center, why mountains become mountains, but still ignorances and misunderstandings of science still see religion/god as seemingly the norm.
Much of that though is traditional...your parents believed in god and sent you to a religious school, your country promotes itself as god fearing, etc.
As the sciences continue to unveil cosmological mysteries, then gradually the beliefs in a deity begin to fail. Science is pushing and has in many cases, pushed religion and god into obscurity and and not needed.
We can even now speculatively and reasonably discuss how the Universe arose from nothing.
On the opposite side of the coin though, some are obviously seething at such audacity of science and cosmology, and this in turn promotes evangelistic types of crusades particularly on forums such as this to discredit science.
Obviously they deny this, but just as obviously it sticks out like dog balls. :)

By the way, I'm not Atheist, or at least I do not class myself as such.
I see science as eternally progressing and in doing that, I see the gradual elimination of god or religion to explain the universe around us.
But I also am aware that maybe one day someone may show that some spaghetti monster made the BB go bang: I don't really believe that will happen but there is always a non zero chance.
Click to expand...

That's an atheist. Just learn to enjoy the label. :) You don't have to "know to a certitude" that there is no God to be an atheist. You just have to have no evidence for God and until you do you don't have a belief in God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top