Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 20:56:59 GMT
Most believers think nothing or nothing much of lying to serve the cause of their religion:
I know someone I've lost touch with but used to see quite often. I thought I knew them very well and even trusted them (to some extent) but I once was present when that person told their daughter an obvious lie about something we both knew about. That lie wasn't innocent, it implied that god/jesus/whatever was more interventionist than can honestly be proven or said by someone with a modicum of honesty. When I confronted them with that, they first tried to minimize it, basically telling me it was no big deal, when I insisted that instead they were screwing their daughter's perspective and habituating her to tactical lies and deception, they got angry and told me to mind my own business. After that things between us went to pot and never recovered.
Anyway, this isn't an isolated incident, I often see these "well-intentioned" true believers, defenders of their "faith" do crap like that to their kids often without a second thought. When it's stupid stuff like santa claus or faerie tales , it's not ok but at least it's shall we say tolerable, the kid will eventually realize that they've been lied to and move on, but when it's something more subtle more based on personal trust, it's very bad. The problem is that these "well-intentioned" people have a blind spot in their mind when it comes to religion that they rarely have about anything else (unless they're complete assholes through and through), they sort of think or believe or talked themselves into believing that the cause of religion justifies certain means.
So here you have it. The first of a long list of problems with religion: It turns normal, mostly rational people into lying shits without remorse or anything akin to a conscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 27, 2021 19:44:25 GMT
Plenty of people are willing to lie to defend/promote something they believe in. It happens in politics, in history, and occasionally even in science. (Einstein created a fudge factor to hide that his theories implied an expanding universe.) You can find plenty of things to believe in and lie about.
Why are people lying? They want to protect their views, valuing them over reality.
Instead, we must test our ideas, theories, beliefs, philosophies, religions, ideologies, and political views against reality. Even when we cherish them, we must alter them to better reflect reality. This is just as true for atheists as it is for theists, for the non-religious and religious alike.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Feb 21, 2022 5:28:18 GMT
dj, does this qualify as religion for you?
I love the way he says "Upanishads",
especially as compared to Alan Watts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 22, 2022 17:54:40 GMT
Krishnamurtu:
States premise..."right?" No, that's wrong.
States further premise..."right?" No, still not.
States further premise..."right?" Um...nope.
Inference..."right?" Still nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 22, 2022 18:10:33 GMT
Response to Alan Watts:
Is reality dualistic? Or is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2022 21:33:31 GMT
Response to Alan Watts: Is reality dualistic? Or is it not? Dualism posits that the mind and body are separate entities, it has nothing to do with yes or no... that's binarism, you nit. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 1, 2022 21:59:43 GMT
Most believers think nothing or nothing much of lying to serve the cause of their religion: I know someone I've lost touch with but used to see quite often. I thought I knew them very well and even trusted them (to some extent) but I once was present when that person told their daughter an obvious lie about something we both knew about. That lie wasn't innocent, it implied that god/jesus/whatever was more interventionist than can honestly be proven or said by someone with a modicum of honesty. When I confronted them with that, they first tried to minimize it, basically telling me it was no big deal, when I insisted that instead they were screwing their daughter's perspective and habituating her to tactical lies and deception, they got angry and told me to mind my own business. After that things between us went to pot and never recovered. Anyway, this isn't an isolated incident, I often see these "well-intentioned" true believers, defenders of their "faith" do crap like that to their kids often without a second thought. When it's stupid stuff like santa claus or faerie tales , it's not ok but at least it's shall we say tolerable, the kid will eventually realize that they've been lied to and move on, but when it's something more subtle more based on personal trust, it's very bad. The problem is that these "well-intentioned" people have a blind spot in their mind when it comes to religion that they rarely have about anything else (unless they're complete assholes through and through), they sort of think or believe or talked themselves into believing that the cause of religion justifies certain means. So here you have it. The first of a long list of problems with religion: It turns normal, mostly rational people into lying shits without remorse or anything akin to a conscience. Are they lying?
What is Faith, if not belief without proof. The important word in their is BELIEF.
They have made a choice to see something differently than the evidence supports, and then have the integrity to completely stick to that belief, even in the light of evidence that contradicts it.
So were they lying, or had they simply chosen to permanently view something differently?
For those of us who consider themselves purely fact-based in our outlook, there is no way to jump in their shoes, no way to see it as anything but lying.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 1, 2022 22:05:10 GMT
Most believers think nothing or nothing much of lying to serve the cause of their religion: I know someone I've lost touch with but used to see quite often. I thought I knew them very well and even trusted them (to some extent) but I once was present when that person told their daughter an obvious lie about something we both knew about. That lie wasn't innocent, it implied that god/jesus/whatever was more interventionist than can honestly be proven or said by someone with a modicum of honesty. When I confronted them with that, they first tried to minimize it, basically telling me it was no big deal, when I insisted that instead they were screwing their daughter's perspective and habituating her to tactical lies and deception, they got angry and told me to mind my own business. After that things between us went to pot and never recovered. Anyway, this isn't an isolated incident, I often see these "well-intentioned" true believers, defenders of their "faith" do crap like that to their kids often without a second thought. When it's stupid stuff like santa claus or faerie tales , it's not ok but at least it's shall we say tolerable, the kid will eventually realize that they've been lied to and move on, but when it's something more subtle more based on personal trust, it's very bad. The problem is that these "well-intentioned" people have a blind spot in their mind when it comes to religion that they rarely have about anything else (unless they're complete assholes through and through), they sort of think or believe or talked themselves into believing that the cause of religion justifies certain means. So here you have it. The first of a long list of problems with religion: It turns normal, mostly rational people into lying shits without remorse or anything akin to a conscience. Are they lying?
What is Faith, if not belief without proof. The important word in their is BELIEF.
They have made a choice to see something differently than the evidence supports, and then have the integrity to completely stick to that belief, even in the light of evidence that contradicts it.
So were they lying, or had they simply chosen to permanently view something differently?
For those of us who consider themselves purely fact-based in our outlook, there is no way to jump in their shoes, no way to see it as anything but lying.
Freon
Your assumption is that our "faith" (or "faiths"?) is merely a matter of choice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2022 22:46:46 GMT
Are they lying?
What is Faith, if not belief without proof. The important word in their is BELIEF.
They have made a choice to see something differently than the evidence supports, and then have the integrity to completely stick to that belief, even in the light of evidence that contradicts it.
So were they lying, or had they simply chosen to permanently view something differently?
For those of us who consider themselves purely fact-based in our outlook, there is no way to jump in their shoes, no way to see it as anything but lying.
Freon
Your assumption is that our "faith" (or "faiths"?) is merely a matter of choice. Interesting, so you disagree with the Christian central dogma that we are free to choose? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 1, 2022 23:03:43 GMT
Are they lying?
What is Faith, if not belief without proof. The important word in their is BELIEF.
They have made a choice to see something differently than the evidence supports, and then have the integrity to completely stick to that belief, even in the light of evidence that contradicts it.
So were they lying, or had they simply chosen to permanently view something differently?
For those of us who consider themselves purely fact-based in our outlook, there is no way to jump in their shoes, no way to see it as anything but lying.
Freon
Your assumption is that our "faith" (or "faiths"?) is merely a matter of choice. By definition, Faith is belief without proof. It is a choice.
If it is belief WITH proof, it is not Faith. And belief is nowhere near as useful as Faith, when it comes to non-empirical existential issues, which are its exclusive purview. We can test gravity, laminar flow, and lift, and through observation, determine that an airplane is safe. But we cannot test the afterlife. Cannot test good vs evil. Cannot test the reason for our existence, hope, self-confidence, or the bond with our loved ones. For these metaphysical phenomena, there is only Faith, i.e. the choice to believe, that allows us to provide answers.
In other words, we use a non-empirical strategy, to solve non-empirical problems. Using empirical strategies to try and solve non-empirical problems really makes no sense at all.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 1, 2022 23:39:21 GMT
Your assumption is that our "faith" (or "faiths"?) is merely a matter of choice. By definition, Faith is belief without proof. It is a choice. Not sure that is the end-all definition of "faith." In fact, I'm confident that it is not. Proof only exists in mathematics. To "believe in something (which is not the same as "believing something") without evidence is not just foolish; it's insane. Why would "the afterlife" be a litmus test for something "to be believed in without evidence"? We can do that. Even pragmatically. Well...yes, you can...pragmatically. I don't disagree that there is choice involved. My point is that it is not merely a matter of choice. I don't disagree with you there. Empiricism, as a solitary foundation for epistemology, is self-defeating. People that appeal to it (I would argue) are actually standing on something "deeper" (some of which you have mentioned). |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 1, 2022 23:56:50 GMT
By definition, Faith is belief without proof. It is a choice. Not sure that is the end-all definition of "faith." In fact, I'm confident that it is not. Proof only exists in mathematics. To "believe in something (which is not the same as "believing something") without evidence is not just foolish; it's insane. Why would "the afterlife" be a litmus test for something "to be believed in without evidence"? We can do that. Even pragmatically. Well...yes, you can...pragmatically. I don't disagree that there is choice involved. My point is that it is not merely a matter of choice. I don't disagree with you there. Empiricism, as a solitary foundation for epistemology, is self-defeating. People that appeal to it (I would argue) are actually standing on something "deeper" (some of which you have mentioned). I read your first response, and it is inaccurate, and since each following point flows from that, there is no point responding to them without discussing Faith first.
No offense, but I've had this conversation hundreds of times, mostly IRL, with rabbis, catholic priests, muslims, and not one of them argued with the crucial main point about Faith. It IS a choice. The most amazing choice a person can make, but a choice, nonetheless. In fact, I've had this conversation so many times, I decided to post my position online so I didn't have to go through all this effort every single time ( link). I have challenged every single conversational adversary to find a flaw in my logic, and not once has it happened. Maybe you will be the first.
If Faith is NOT a choice, then what is it. Your own words, no dictionaries. I discovered what Faith was myself, and if you can only recite what others tell you, we are not having an intellectual conversation.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 14:55:41 GMT
Not sure that is the end-all definition of "faith." In fact, I'm confident that it is not. Proof only exists in mathematics. To "believe in something (which is not the same as "believing something") without evidence is not just foolish; it's insane. Why would "the afterlife" be a litmus test for something "to be believed in without evidence"? We can do that. Even pragmatically. Well...yes, you can...pragmatically. I don't disagree that there is choice involved. My point is that it is not merely a matter of choice. I don't disagree with you there. Empiricism, as a solitary foundation for epistemology, is self-defeating. People that appeal to it (I would argue) are actually standing on something "deeper" (some of which you have mentioned). I read your first response, and it is inaccurate, and since each following point flows from that, there is no point responding to them without discussing Faith first.
No offense, but I've had this conversation hundreds of times, mostly IRL, with rabbis, catholic priests, muslims, and not one of them argued with the crucial main point about Faith. It IS a choice. The most amazing choice a person can make, but a choice, nonetheless. In fact, I've had this conversation so many times, I decided to post my position online so I didn't have to go through all this effort every single time ( link). I have challenged every single conversational adversary to find a flaw in my logic, and not once has it happened. Maybe you will be the first.
If Faith is NOT a choice, then what is it. Your own words, no dictionaries. I discovered what Faith was myself, and if you can only recite what others tell you, we are not having an intellectual conversation.
Freon
Faith entails choice. It connotes choice. It does not denote choice. Faith is not "simply choice." My son entered a drama competition years ago with a play he wrote. At the beginning of the competition some "important person" opened the ceremonies with a speech. She began: "Drama is all about making choices..." Well...uh...sure. Everything is about "making choices." That doesn't define drama. Faith necessarily involves choice. It is not just choice. I hope I'm not being unnecessarily and annoyingly nit-picky. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 16:41:50 GMT
I read your first response, and it is inaccurate, and since each following point flows from that, there is no point responding to them without discussing Faith first.
No offense, but I've had this conversation hundreds of times, mostly IRL, with rabbis, catholic priests, muslims, and not one of them argued with the crucial main point about Faith. It IS a choice. The most amazing choice a person can make, but a choice, nonetheless. In fact, I've had this conversation so many times, I decided to post my position online so I didn't have to go through all this effort every single time ( link). I have challenged every single conversational adversary to find a flaw in my logic, and not once has it happened. Maybe you will be the first.
If Faith is NOT a choice, then what is it. Your own words, no dictionaries. I discovered what Faith was myself, and if you can only recite what others tell you, we are not having an intellectual conversation.
Freon
Faith entails choice. It connotes choice. It does not denote choice. Faith is not "simply choice." My son entered a drama competition years ago with a play he wrote. At the beginning of the competition some "important person" opened the ceremonies with a speech. She began: "Drama is all about making choices..." Well...uh...sure. Everything is about "making choices." That doesn't define drama. Faith necessarily involves choice. It is not just choice. I hope I'm not being unnecessarily and annoyingly nit-picky. I don't see it as nit-picky, I see it as attempting to normalize the word, 'choice', as a lead in to some 'special' definition of Faith.
You keep talking around the issue, which is how to define Faith, which I have not heard you do.
Let's cut to the chase. Define it, and then we can have a conversation of your definition vs mine.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 20:54:14 GMT
Faith entails choice. It connotes choice. It does not denote choice. Faith is not "simply choice." My son entered a drama competition years ago with a play he wrote. At the beginning of the competition some "important person" opened the ceremonies with a speech. She began: "Drama is all about making choices..." Well...uh...sure. Everything is about "making choices." That doesn't define drama. Faith necessarily involves choice. It is not just choice. I hope I'm not being unnecessarily and annoyingly nit-picky. I don't see it as nit-picky, I see it as attempting to normalize the word, 'choice', as a lead in to some 'special' definition of Faith.
You keep talking around the issue, which is how to define Faith, which I have not heard you do.
Let's cut to the chase. Define it, and then we can have a conversation of your definition vs mine.
Freon
I know it's been a while now, but I have defined "faith" many times on this board, and more than once in conversation with you. I'm not being disingenuous. Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence, and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. Faith also implies faith fulness. To be "faithless" to something is to demonstrate "lack of faith." For example, I have faith in my marriage, in my wife. That this faith is valid is not "something I can prove," but it's hardly "without evidence." The reality is that my faith could be poorly founded and based on a lie. But if I persist in that doubt, my marriage will not survive. It requires faith (yes, based on evidence and reason) to survive. Similarly, a scientist (even an atheist scientist) has faith that the universe can be rationally understood, that his/her reason is sufficient to grasp it (or a part of it), that the scientific method is a valid means to acquire knowledge about it, and that the authoritative body of scientific knowledge is reasonably trustworthy so that it can be built on. None of this can be "incontrovertibly proven." Yet it is sufficient. We believe that. We have faith in it. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 21:19:36 GMT
I don't see it as nit-picky, I see it as attempting to normalize the word, 'choice', as a lead in to some 'special' definition of Faith.
You keep talking around the issue, which is how to define Faith, which I have not heard you do.
Let's cut to the chase. Define it, and then we can have a conversation of your definition vs mine.
Freon
I know it's been a while now, but I have defined "faith" many times on this board, and more than once in conversation with you. I'm not being disingenuous. Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence, and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. Faith also implies faith fulness. To be "faithless" to something is to demonstrate "lack of faith." For example, I have faith in my marriage, in my wife. That this faith is valid is not "something I can prove," but it's hardly "without evidence." The reality is that my faith could be poorly founded and based on a lie. But if I persist in that doubt, my marriage will not survive. It requires faith (yes, based on evidence and reason) to survive. Similarly, a scientist (even an atheist scientist) has faith that the universe can be rationally understood, that his/her reason is sufficient to grasp it (or a part of it), that the scientific method is a valid means to acquire knowledge about it, and that the authoritative body of scientific knowledge is reasonably trustworthy so that it can be built on. None of this can be "incontrovertibly proven." Yet it is sufficient. We believe that. We have faith in it. So much misuse of the word Faith in your post, it's difficult to pick and choose where to start. Like a buffet of delicious treats, I cannot decide which one is the most desirable to consume.
Let's go with the science one. Scientists have BELIEF that all things are knowable, because all that they know is based on evidence. That is not Faith. Faith is belief WITHOUT proof. It is a choice.
Connoting Faithfulness, and being Faithful, as related to having Faith in something, I believe is strongly disingenuous tangent on your part.
The only thing you've actually said is that Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. I would argue that those things are the CONSEQUENCE of having Faith, not Faith itself. Because you believe completely in something that has no empirical explanation, it results in a ,'life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance,' in the thing you believe in.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 22:06:57 GMT
I know it's been a while now, but I have defined "faith" many times on this board, and more than once in conversation with you. I'm not being disingenuous. Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence, and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. Faith also implies faith fulness. To be "faithless" to something is to demonstrate "lack of faith." For example, I have faith in my marriage, in my wife. That this faith is valid is not "something I can prove," but it's hardly "without evidence." The reality is that my faith could be poorly founded and based on a lie. But if I persist in that doubt, my marriage will not survive. It requires faith (yes, based on evidence and reason) to survive. Similarly, a scientist (even an atheist scientist) has faith that the universe can be rationally understood, that his/her reason is sufficient to grasp it (or a part of it), that the scientific method is a valid means to acquire knowledge about it, and that the authoritative body of scientific knowledge is reasonably trustworthy so that it can be built on. None of this can be "incontrovertibly proven." Yet it is sufficient. We believe that. We have faith in it. So much misuse of the word Faith in your post, it's difficult to pick and choose where to start. Like a buffet of delicious treats, I cannot decide which one is the most desirable to consume.
Connoting Faithfulness, and being Faithful, as related to having Faith in something, I believe is strongly disingenuous tangent on your part.
The only thing you've actually said is that Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. I would argue that those things are the CONSEQUENCE of having Faith, not Faith itself. Because you believe completely in something that has no empirical explanation, it results in a ,'life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance,' in the thing you believe in.
Freon
Start with the dictionary: The first definition on dictionary.com is as follows: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. The second definition is "belief that is not based on proof," and I would argue that faith never meant that prior to the Enlightenment at which point it was inappropriately pitted against reason. It still doesn't really mean that: "Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields." (The final stanza of In Flanders Fields) Substitute "believe without evidence that is a choice" for "faith" in that poem—and it makes no sense. Substitute my definition (remember, it includes faithfulness) and it makes perfect sense. You are arguing in defence of a simplistic distortion. What reasons do you have to support your definition of faith? No, not at all. The scientist does not "know" prior to experimentation. Experimentation yields evidence. Before the experiment, the scientist proceeds based on the faith that truth will be discovered. If he/she already has the evidence, why do the experiment? As for what the scientist "knows" prior to the experiment, he/she has faith (trust in, allegiance to) the systematized process of experimentation itself as well as in the body of knowledge upon which his/her assumptions that inform the experiment are based. Maybe the scientist has actually done some prior experiments to confirm part of that body of knowledge. But not all the experiments. No scientist crafts an experiment from first principles. We have faith in (belief in, yes, but also confidence in and allegiance to) that body of knowledge. Sometimes that body of knowledge is contradicted by the evidence revealed by the experiment. What then? More experimentation that might actually challenge the authoritative body of knowledge. But the scientist still has faith in (belief in, allegiance to) the process itself. Faith precedes evidence. Evidence buttresses faith. Without that faith, the experiment never happens. Without faith, there is no aim, no motivation, no reason...to do an experiment. EDIT: I re-read what you said, and I didn't respond appropriately. You said "because all that they know is based on evidence." That is actually not true. There is no incontrovertible evidence (proof) that our minds can rationally comprehend the universe around us. There is no incontrovertible evidence that the universe has always behaved according the same laws and will continue to do so. There is evidence, yes, but not absolute proof. Besides which, scientists tend to believe in things that are outside the field of science. In good faith, I believe you are meaning "scientists who are acting in the capacity of being scientists" rather than scientists who are fully human (who also have faith in a spouse, a deity, the stock market, or whatever), but the claim still holds true. Despite the success of science in discovering empirically verified truth, science itself is based on foundational axioms that cannot be empirically proven. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 22:31:48 GMT
So much misuse of the word Faith in your post, it's difficult to pick and choose where to start. Like a buffet of delicious treats, I cannot decide which one is the most desirable to consume.
Connoting Faithfulness, and being Faithful, as related to having Faith in something, I believe is strongly disingenuous tangent on your part.
The only thing you've actually said is that Faith is a life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance in an ideal/aim and/or a person. I would argue that those things are the CONSEQUENCE of having Faith, not Faith itself. Because you believe completely in something that has no empirical explanation, it results in a ,'life-orienting conviction, confidence and allegiance,' in the thing you believe in.
Freon
Start with the dictionary: The first definition on dictionary.com is as follows: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. The second definition is "belief that is not based on proof," and I would argue that faith never meant that prior to the Enlightenment at which point it was inappropriately pitted against reason. It still doesn't really mean that: "Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields." (The final stanza of In Flanders Fields) Substitute "believe without evidence that is a choice" for "faith" in that poem—and it makes no sense. Substitute my definition (remember, it includes faithfulness) and it makes perfect sense. You are arguing in defence of a simplistic distortion. What reasons do you have to support your definition of faith? No, not at all. The scientist does not "know" prior to experimentation. Experimentation yields evidence. Before the experiment, the scientist proceeds based on the faith that truth will be discovered. If he/she already has the evidence, why do the experiment? As for what the scientist "knows" prior to the experiment, he/she has faith (trust in, allegiance to) the systematized process of experimentation itself as well as in the body of knowledge upon which his/her assumptions that inform the experiment are based. Maybe the scientist has actually done some prior experiments to confirm part of that body of knowledge. But not all the experiments. No scientist crafts an experiment from first principles. We have faith in (belief in, yes, but also confidence in and allegiance to) that body of knowledge. Sometimes that body of knowledge is contradicted by the evidence revealed by the experiment. What then? More experimentation that might actually challenge the authoritative body of knowledge. But the scientist still has faith in (belief in, allegiance to) the process itself. Faith precedes evidence. Evidence buttresses faith. Without that faith, the experiment never happens. Without faith, there is no aim, no motivation, no reason...to do an experiment. I hear you. As I've said, I've had this conversation hundreds of times over the last 25 years. Your counter-points are tired tropes you've been raised with, but are not describing a journey you personally have taken.
To me, your explanation is evidence that you really cannot define Faith. Makes me think you've always had what you consider it to be, and so never took a journey from not having it, to having it. Which makes me wonder if it is Faith at all, that you have.
If someone were to ask you why they should have Faith, could you give a simple explanation? If they were to ask how they should go about having Faith, could you guide them?
I can and have.
And my Faith has been challenged by life, has been put to the test in life-and-death situations, and armored me, as it was meant to. I have proof that what I consider Faith to be, is actually what it is. This is not the same as proof in what I have Faith in, but in the Faith part itself.
And no offense to you, but my conclusions are difficult intellectually to accept, let alone to implement. That was the point of my articulating it on a web site, to offer to a deeply intellectual audience with a science background a path to not only want Faith, but to obtain it. I have family members who are strong Christians, were raised with it, have always had it, and they could not grasp what I was explaining. It went against all their culture and training. Yet in talking to their leaders, I have found no dissent.
This is why I am asking you to think for yourself. I will give you a strong hint about Faith, and I hope this helps you figure it out. Whatever definition you come to, must apply to ALL Faiths equally. If it only works for yours, then you have missed it completely.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 3, 2022 19:45:27 GMT
Start with the dictionary: The first definition on dictionary.com is as follows: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. The second definition is "belief that is not based on proof," and I would argue that faith never meant that prior to the Enlightenment at which point it was inappropriately pitted against reason. It still doesn't really mean that: "Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields." (The final stanza of In Flanders Fields) Substitute "believe without evidence that is a choice" for "faith" in that poem—and it makes no sense. Substitute my definition (remember, it includes faithfulness) and it makes perfect sense. You are arguing in defence of a simplistic distortion. What reasons do you have to support your definition of faith? No, not at all. The scientist does not "know" prior to experimentation. Experimentation yields evidence. Before the experiment, the scientist proceeds based on the faith that truth will be discovered. If he/she already has the evidence, why do the experiment? As for what the scientist "knows" prior to the experiment, he/she has faith (trust in, allegiance to) the systematized process of experimentation itself as well as in the body of knowledge upon which his/her assumptions that inform the experiment are based. Maybe the scientist has actually done some prior experiments to confirm part of that body of knowledge. But not all the experiments. No scientist crafts an experiment from first principles. We have faith in (belief in, yes, but also confidence in and allegiance to) that body of knowledge. Sometimes that body of knowledge is contradicted by the evidence revealed by the experiment. What then? More experimentation that might actually challenge the authoritative body of knowledge. But the scientist still has faith in (belief in, allegiance to) the process itself. Faith precedes evidence. Evidence buttresses faith. Without that faith, the experiment never happens. Without faith, there is no aim, no motivation, no reason...to do an experiment. I hear you. As I've said, I've had this conversation hundreds of times over the last 25 years. Your counter-points are tired tropes you've been raised with, but are not describing a journey you personally have taken. How do you know this? I grew up with the definition of "faith" as some kind of wishful thinking or willful suppression of doubt. My understanding has changed drastically. It seems you have placed a fair bit of faith in your ill-founded presumptions. On the contrary. I have offered a definition. You have not. Absolutely. Bully for you. Again, bully for you. The problem is that the words we use are not subject to arbitrary, individualized, esoteric definitions. If you want to redefine faith to make it mean what you want to mean, you're better off coining a new word to avoid confusion. Because the word "faith" has a definition already—as I have defined it. Bully for you again. It's always somewhat amusing when someone justifies their offensive condescension with "no offence, but..." In the words of the man in black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." But not so much that you can make yourself understood. It doesn't take pages and pages to define the word. It already has a definition. Sometimes people do not offer their dissent because it's not worth their time and effort. Oh, but it does. That is quite clear. It's not that complicated. Overcomplicating something is not an indication of intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 3, 2022 20:12:01 GMT
I hear you. As I've said, I've had this conversation hundreds of times over the last 25 years. Your counter-points are tired tropes you've been raised with, but are not describing a journey you personally have taken. How do you know this? I grew up with the definition of "faith" as some kind of wishful thinking or willful suppression of doubt. My understanding has changed drastically. It seems you have placed a fair bit of faith in your ill-founded presumptions. On the contrary. I have offered a definition. You have not. Absolutely. Bully for you. Again, bully for you. The problem is that the words we use are not subject to arbitrary, individualized, esoteric definitions. If you want to redefine faith to make it mean what you want to mean, you're better off coining a new word to avoid confusion. Because the word "faith" has a definition already—as I have defined it. Bully for you again. It's always somewhat amusing when someone justifies their offensive condescension with "no offence, but..." In the words of the man in black, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect." But not so much that you can make yourself understood. It doesn't take pages and pages to define the word. It already has a definition. Sometimes people do not offer their dissent because it's not worth their time and effort. Oh, but it does. That is quite clear. It's not that complicated. Overcomplicating something is not an indication of intelligence. I don't think you can make the argument that my explanation is MORE complicated than yours. Faith is a choice. Four little words of tremendous power and significance. Can't be much simpler than that.
Your definition does not seem transferrable, teachable, or implementable.
How then, is your definition practical? I'm simply saying that since it isn't practical, it is not a good definition. With mine, you can implement it right here and now, at this moment, and it applies to all religions and beliefs that are unsupported by physical phenomena.
Freon
|
|
