Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the idea of Faith and Skepticism, and about their relevance in determining Truth. To me, the biggest difference between faith and skepticism is that faith relies on a number of preconceptions, while skepticism seeks to eliminate preconceptions by considering several possibilities in a debate.The epitome of a faith-based approach is one that holds that it knows the truth from the onset, while the epitome of a skeptic will question everything.A person who takes everything he believes on faith relies on the truth of his beliefs. Since there are so many possible worldviews, he/she is statistically very likely to have the wrong one, and will never know since he/she will not test it.Many Creationists who I have talked to have used a faith-based approach to their worldview. In other words, they believe for no other reason than that they believe. One creationist asked me how I can be so sure which scientists to listen to. How do I know that the majority of biologists with relevant degrees are right?Truth is, as a skeptic, I can't be sure that there isn't some great conspiracy engineered by the devil to trick the faithful into accepting evolution. But it seems to me that skeptics (I'm speaking for myself here) do develop a form of faith in that which has shown itself to be reliable in general. Science has always seemed to get closer and closer to the truth (as in the move from Geocentrism) while steadily opposed by those of faith.My question is: How do you argue a faith-based approach to Truth? Those of you who believe the Genesis account is true on account of faith, why do you think your faith is better than a faith in reason and logic, and material evidence? Why is blind faith taught as a virtue, when in its essence it requires the acceptance of doctrine that others prior have accepted for no other reason than faith itself. Not to mention the surrender of individual exploration of all other possible explanations for the world we live in.-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : Better title

Thread copied here from the Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't think that most faithful theists categorically state that they adhere to a blind faith, but rather an informed faith; a testable faith. If believing in God was solely by faith, there would be no need for things like prophecy or special revelation.That said, there is still no question that most will, by blind faith, defend something that is thoroughly debunked because now there belief is so deeply engrained that it almost seems reactionary. But even the largest oak tree, as resolute and stubborn as it is, can eventually be whittled down in to a useless stump.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

skeptisism doesnt seek truth...its the seat of doubt reducing everything to a state of uncertainty. Apparently everything is relative and there is no definitive truth to a skeptic. Your own statement shows this is true "Truth is, as a skeptic, I can't be sure"for those on the side of faith, they are much more open in their attitude that truth can indeed be found while i agree that a lot of people dont test their belief, many do, and so your generalisation is not accurate. this is an unfair question. You are assuming that the genesis account is not based on 'reason and logic' when in fact it is.the account says that God made the animals 'according to their kinds'. this is in harmony with the natural world. Animals reproduce according to their kinds, species dont interbreed. It is exactly what we see in nature.Yet evolution does not agree with that, it says that over time speciece changed thus developing more new species. Well that is not what we see in nature. Birds remain birds no matter how varied they become. Cats remain cats no matter how different they appear. Dogs are still dogs and horses are still horses. so what sort of faith are you talking about here? faith in doctrinal beleif or faith in a creator who made us? Im confused. can you explain what you mean by this?
Are you talking about the possiblity that we evolved rather then were created?

prophecy is one of the ways people 'test' God and the bible. Im pretty sure that if it werent for prophecy there would be a lot less believers

Right, so I am saying that God is not taken solely on faith.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Most people find uncertainty distressful. Some people find it very much so and tie themselves up in all kinds of cognitive knots to remove the uncertainity from their lives.Some people have a very rigid way of life to try to eliminate as much uncertainty possible.Some people need to believe that [i]this[i] is the correct answer and that is that and anything that conflicts with that is very very bad as it causes distress.This is what happens to people who put their faith in the inerrancy of what ever version of the bible they hold as gospel (pardon the pun).Faith in science as the best way to examine the world means there will always be doubt in ones mind.Some people can cope with this; some can't.

That seems fairly accurate. One qualifier I might add is that faith is capable of considering several possibilities too. That doesn't fit for me and my faith.From The Catholic Encyclopedia on Faith:

quote:

---

Faith may be considered both objectively and subjectively

​

Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see RULE OF FAITH) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths.

---

quote:

---

(a) The twofold order of knowledge. "The Catholic Church", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

---

bold added for emphasis Too though, the objects of faith can be questioned. Not so much with my faith.And who takes everything they believe on faith!? I don't think I'm fitting into your target audience here. Oh well, that ain't gonna stop me from replying I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has some great pages pertaining to your topic. I don't think they are the explanation you are particularly looking for, but maybe if you just want to honestly learn about it, you can find some answers in these pages: The Catholic Encyclopedia on TRUTH

quote:

---

Truth is a relation which holds (1) between the knower and the known Logical Truth; (2) between the knower and the outward expression which he gives to his knowledge Moral Truth; and (3) between the thing itself, as it exists, and the idea of it, as conceived by God Ontological Truth. In each case this relation is, according to the Scholastic theory, one of correspondence, conformity, or agreement

---

The Catholic Encyclopedia on REVELATION

quote:

---

Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

​

The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason.

---

I hope this helps explain how a faith-based approach to truth is not necessarily the antithesis of approaching truth through "questioning everything"I realize your discussion focuses on those for which this is not true but I just wanted to explain that the way you're expressing things here doesn't fit for many poeple. Like when you say this:

That's not true. A Skeptic will ask for proof before accepting an explanation, rather than just accepting what someone tells them on...faith.Now, for many things, have an expert tell you something is true, you will either accept it, as you can't realistically do the necessary tests yourself, or you will get a second opinion to see if they match, and therefore test, if not the prediction, then at least the conclusion.I'm a skeptic, I accept things provisionally, unless they are backed by a lot of evidence. Things with no evidence, I tend to reject provisionally until evidence comes along. I am seeking truth, but I know I will never reach a perfect understanding or complete certainty.Like a famous coach once said, "Those who pursue perfection attain greatness." It's a goal that can never be met, but we can do great things as we get closer to it, rather than just assuming we're already there and not trying any more.

Hi Peg,This was a difficult topic to start, as I found it difficult to explain my question without making a few generalizations. Hopefully my skills in formulating questions will improve as I post on this forum.Anyway... I think you're closer to what might be called agnosticism in your description of skepticism. A skeptic does believe there is such a thing as truth, he just (or at least I do) believes in a sort of process of elimination by testing each of several possible answers, to achieve this truth. A person of faith also believes there is truth, but, by definition, already believes in that which he/she has faith in.Dictionary.com defines faith as:

quote:

---

Faith -noun
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

---

If I have faith in something, I already believe it to be true! Why would I then be compelled to test it?When I was a little kid, my parents told me there lived a troll in the creek where I lived. This was to keep me from playing in the water. I, of course, believed them (in my defense I was 6 or 7). I never questioned this view, so you could say it was a faith position. Eventually I noticed that not everyone believed in the troll, so I asked my mother (who in my eyes was omniscient) why people did not believe in the troll. She told me it wasn't real. And my beliefs about the troll were shattered. I like to liken this to what happened a few years later when I started reading about evolution and my creationist worldview was shattered.In both cases I had relied on faith, and had it not been for curiosity, or people laughing at me for believing in a troll, I would never have questioned either. I did not intend my statement to be generalization. It was a description of the epitome, the extreme faith-based worldview. I think most people on the scale fall between this position and that of pure skepticism. You're right Peg. I did phrase that question rather unfairly. I've read your arguments, and while I don't always agree with your reasoning, I do believe you and many other creationists do employ reason in defense of their belief. I was thinking more along the lines of a friend of mine, who tests a scientific idea merely by cross-referencing it with the Bible. If the Bible disagrees with it, he won't consider it. Which is an example of the pure faith-based approach. This is off-topic, although I just have to point out the unfairness of your statement. Evolution does not predict that dogs will not bring forth dogs. They have too! No species has ever been born directly off another species. That would be like a wolf giving birth directly to a pekinese (analogy: they are still the same species). The change in populations is gradual, and this we do see.When I read statements like that I do question whether you do not understand the basics of evolution, or whether you are posing strawmen arguments only to bolster your own 'faith' about creation. What's the difference? That would be a good example of what I'm talking about.-Meldinoor

Interesting. Maybe we should distinguish between 'weak' and 'strong' faith.Weak faith is faith that is based on observable evidence. Example: I have faith in my friends because they have shown themselves to be reliable in the past. If, however, one of my friends was to break into my house and steal my TV, I would no longer have faith in him.Strong faith, on the other hand, shapes one's worldview. All evidence is aligned with it per necessity. Someone who has a strong faith in my creek troll would interpret footprints and broken twigs as having been caused by the troll. While repeated scans of the creek not having discovered it can be blamed on its amazing ability to camoflauge itself by turning into a log.While weak faith is susceptible to change, strong faith cannot be attacked, because it interprets the evidence in favor of itself.Curious to see what you think of this definition of faith. I can't imagine anyone takes everything they believe on faith. Just like I can't imagine anyone is 100% skeptical of everything.Thank you for your definition of truth CS. If I follow correctly, Truth consists of: Logical truth, Moral truth, Ontological truth. I assume logical truth is truth that can be determined empirically. I'm curious how you go about finding moral truth and ontological truth. Would you say your approach to the latter two is more of a faith approach, or can you use an empirical approach to find moral and ontological truth as well?-Meldinoor

Hi Meldinoor,I'm not sure how likely it is that you will get fundamentalists answering the questions in your OP; the one who has posted here so far has basically said that the book of Genesis is rational, which isn't a promising start. But I do find the discussion you're having with Catholic Scientist interesting.To quibble over a semantic point, I don't think I would ever say I had "faith" in my friends; I'd say that I trusted them. But really I think the two are just about the same. Why would we trust our friends? Because they had done things in the past to earn that trust. So our continued trust is based on empirical evidence. It can shift if new evidence causes us to doubt the wisdom of that trust.When you talk about "strong faith" it seems clear that you are referring to theism. There have been quite a few threads recently dealing with faith and evidence, for example Pseudoskepticism and logic, Immaterial "Evidence", How does one distinguish faith from delusion?. I think someone could have strong faith but still be willing to question it, as you did, when evidence that contradicts that faith arises. People who feel threatened by such new evidence and who are not willing to change their beliefs accordingly will usually employ cognitive dissonance strategies.

quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

---

The cognitive dissonance strategies that creationists use to deal with the mountain of evidence against the Bible being literal word-for-word truth, seem to know no bounds. And yet there are people who have managed to reconcile their faith with the evidence. I think that even the most hardline believers cannot escape evidence in their lives that calls their beliefs into question; it's simply a matter of what they are willing to do about it, consciously or unconsciously.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

\i think people have the wrong idea of what faith is.
to me faith is as the bible says"an assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld" Hebrews 11:1Paul explained it this way to show that christians have an assured expectation of the promises of God because they have seen a demonstration of those 'future realities'Jesus showed that in the future there would be a resurrection of the dead by bringing people back to life. He showed that in the future all sicknesses would be cured by curing all sorts of sicknesses. These were 'demonstrations' of 'realities though not yet beheld'So for me, faith is based on that evidence, its not blind.

i agree that its good to question things and to have some form of evidence to go by. Its because of what we see in nature as to why I dont beleive in evolution. within a species there are changes yes. But never have we seen one species turn into a new species. You are placing a degree of blind faith in this becuase it is unseen and the explaination is that it happens over a very very long time. that is blind faith. You believe somethign that you cannot see and that noone has EVER seen.

i guess thats the difference between skeptics and people of faith, one believes that the truth lies with God, the other beleives that truth will never be 100%