Faith

That is why I brought it up. There is, somewhere down there some things which we all take without hard, evidentuary "proof". However, if you take this as being "faith" in the sense the word is often used in religious cirles you are missing the nuances of the words.It is down to nuances now if you want to have a sensible discussion. The other choice is to debase the meaning of religious faith to a simple acceptance without thought or proof.Those unproven base postualates which I take are done because you need some of them to make any forward progress. That seems to be something different than that which leads to faith in "god" or "Jesus", isn't it? If I spend all my time worrying if there is a physical universe out there or not I will spin in the same circle forever. If I don't provisionaly accept that the behaviour of the universe which I observe is moderately stable over space and time then I will not have a base upon which to predict anything at all.Since having "faith" in these simple, but perhaps deep, assumptions has worked enormously well it seems to make sense to carry on down this path for awhile.Some philosophers have listed these basic assumptions. I should look them up but don't have time right now. I have yet another online coffee date and then I'm going to be visiting friends in Victoria for a day or two.It sounds like this might be a good thread to list each others assumptions.

You can look at things like this (in a very simplified way):1) There are core things that you can trust or have (non-relgious type) faith in, because you can sense and test them yourselves on a daily basis. Eg: gravity, sharp knives and speeding trucks!2) There are other things that you can trust and have (non-relgious type) faith in, because you have sound reasons to believe, often based on past experience, that they are reliable. This includes thnigs like travelling in planes, trusting modern engineering (buildings, bridges, tunnels etc), modern medicine etc. We trust these things, not necessarily because we have analysed or tested the knowledge on which they rest, but because we accept the methodology of the knowlegde gathering techniques behind them. And, of course, through personal experience and the experience of others we have utilised these successfully in the past.We regularly trust categories 1 and 2 with our lives.Christians and non-Christians generally agree on the above, although Creationism and like pseudo-science places Christians in an hypocritical position of having to pick and chose from areas of science.3) The final category are those things that you have not studied and have not tested, but have trust and faith in because there is no reason not to. You wouldn't and shouldn't trust your life to these things.For instance, I trust that man did walk on the moon (which I cannot personally test or verify) because the evidence is persuasive, there seems to be no logical reason that this scenario would be made up and the arguments for it being made up are unconvincing and generaly forwarded by conspiritorial crackpots. I wouldn't bet my life that it actually happened, however (although I'd come close).Coversely, I would never take any religion and it's fantastical claims on face value, because the arguments and evidence is unpersuausive, there are more compelling alternate explanations, and there is significant motivation for people to want to make this stuff up and promote it.If you are going to trust your life (that is countless hours of your life, emotional energy and money) and your hypothetical soul, you should subject it to the same test of validity as you would any thing else that you trust with with your life.But Christians will ask you to have "faith", and to not subject their religion to test and analysis (because it will fail). This is faith in the religious context, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".Never trust your life on such.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 08-15-2004 10:01 PM

You are preaching !Your message is natural: doubt.A drunk on the street could deliver that message.All the education you got and you have to rely on what comes natural: doubt.That is as old as the serpent in the garden asking Eve a question - introducing doubt.

Can you only trust or believe in those things that can be tested and verified?What about beauty? I have seen pictures I thought were beautiful that others thought simply paint smears.How about love? I've known people in love that I simply could not understand. It seemed totally absurd yet they loved each other and were happy. Many people have asked, "What does she see in that guy?" Could be the story of my life. What about music? Some pieces I like others consider just noise.Must everything resolve to just the results of tests?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar These are things that can only be tested or verified subjectively,unless,you can find a means by which to measure them that people involved can agree upon in which case they,too,fall into that category.

quote:

---

What about beauty? I have seen pictures I thought were beautiful that others thought simply paint smears.

---

And are you right about them being beautiful, or are they right about them being just smears? I'd say neither of you are right or wrong since it's entirely a subjective opinion. Only objective things can be tested, things that aren't tied to a single individual. Love is subjective, the condition of someone else loving is not the same as the condition of you loving. There's no objective standard to judge if two people are in love since it's totally subjective to them. I don't think that "faith" comes into things like that at all.As has been mentioned before in this thread I think there are two fundamentally different definitions of faith being put forth here. Religious type faith and experiential type faith. I'm often asked why I don't believe in god, and when I say that i've never experienced anything that makes me think a god exists i'm told to have "faith". Since i've already stated that nothing i've experienced has led me to think a god exists the only possible definition of this faith i'm told to have is something like "belief without or despite a reason", and it's this type of faith that I (and i'm sure most atheists) don't have or want.That doesn't mean i'm saying that all believers are doing so without or despite a reason, just that this is what i'd be doing if I did as I was told and had faith. The other things (such as the sun rising tomorrow etc) I leave to experience. The sun has never failed to rise in my lifetime, and I know that the only things that could stop it rising would be the earth being tidally locked with the sun, or the sky being covered so I can't ever see the sun. Since these two occurences are very very unlikely I think i'm justified in discounting them. I don't call this faith because then that get's confused with the definition of faith I mentioned above. It's more induction, which is no different to what happens in the scientific method. I accept it provisionally because I would be going against a whole load of evidence not to

I see it as having different kinds of faith within faith.First off, I HAD faith in God, until he proved himself to me over and over again by living up to his word in the bible. So now its not really faith anymore.Its faith when I do something he asks, and expect him to follow through on his promise.So its faith that he will do what he promises, but not so much faith that I believe in him, because he has proven himself to me over and over again. If all that stops happening, then I retain the right to question his exsistance. Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. I also do not need to prove my proof's to any of you, the truth lies within yourself. Its a spiritual thing for which you say is impossible.If I pray for something and it happens, isn't that proof?
Don't tell me about any placebo effect, because that would then make all medicine untrue.
There are many rules for praying and getting what you asked for, if it is within those rules, and your prayers consistantly get answered, isn't that proof?
If Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to us as a guide, and I recieve it, and use it as a guide, and he never lets me down, isn't that proof?It would seem an athiest believes if he does nothing, he has faith that nothing happens. So it happens over and over agin, so now its true for him.

So what your saying is because Love is subjective, and cannot be tested it is therefor untrue? So the sun doesn't actually rise, its always in the same spot. Now what?

So what your saying is because Love is subjective, and cannot be tested it is therefor untrue? So the sun doesn't actually rise, its always in the same spot. Now what?

It would seem for some, that is the case, yet they would never say as a result of those tests that it is 100% proven. So since nothing is ever proven, all things require an element of faith to believe in.I agree with you, it's sad

What would make you deviate from that path?

I agree with that, but if you trust in something such as reasoning isn't that actually faith since reasoning is baloney?
Do you think trusting in a reason until the reason changes isn't faith?

quote:

---

So what your saying is because Love is subjective, and cannot be tested it is therefor untrue?

---

Not at all, i'm just saying that love is subjective and not objective. There isn't a definition of love that I can objectively test to determine wether or not someone else is in love.

It really depends. There are reasons that are baloney and there are reasons that are valid.For example, I know for sure that when I sit down my chair will not collapse and hurt me. Why? The reason is because it hasn't done it before and as I am jumping up and down on it it seems as solid as ever.An example of a reason that is baloney is when you drink and drive. I am more than sure that every drunk driver in this world at one time or other thought that he wasn't going to get into an accident because he can drink and drive (I actually heard this argument from someone I know... he thought people should be allowed to drink and drive) without hurting anyone. Would you trust this kind of reasoning?

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

So the sun doesn't actually rise, its always in the same spot. Now what?

---

Not sure what you mean here. I was just saying that I do not have faith the sun will rise as such, I just know that the conditions that would need to be met to stop it rising are so very unlikely as to be not worth thinking about.