Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hey CS. I am not here to continue old (and ongoing) differences. But I am genuinely interested in faith and what it means to different people. So I will ask a question and I promise not to debate the answer you give. I won't even reply.The faith you describe sounds like a kind of overconfidence in poor evidence rather than what I would have thought many mean by faith. So if evidence did ever appear that did refute or contradict your faith would you abandon your faith?I guess that my question amounts to: Is your faith reliant upon and subject to evidence? Or is it something deeper and independent of evidence at root?

Fair enough. I am genuinely questioning to find out here. Not to confront or to get ammunition for other discussions. Tell me where to get off if you think I transgress that self declared boundary at any point in this topic. I was thinking more about brief conversations with (or that I have witnessed others have with) Blujay and Percy. Their faith seems kind of evidence independent. I wondered if yours was very different. It seems it might be. Direct refutation is impossible with regard to the sort of concepts we are talking about. But others seem to think that their faith based conclusion are flying in the face of likelihood without being particularly concerned by this. Well that is interesting. I am not sure that I understand it. But it is interesting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It has never really been explored just mentioned rather briefly a few different times. Percy made some comments in the original deism thread. Bluejay took part briefly at the start of the Immaterial Evidence thread. It is more just the odd comment here and there rather than a conversation but here are some links of the sort of thing I am referring to.From Percy - Message 75 Message 176Personally I think the thing I have picked up in my time at EvC is an acknowledgement that we all hold irrational beliefs of one sort or another. Not necessarily about gods but all sorts of things and all sorts of apsects of life. Some deny these irrationalities or contort themselves in an attempt to justify them. Others accept them. Some simply remain conflicted. A few change their position. Most probably remain entirely oblivious to their internal contradictory beliefs. In my view recognistion of ones irrationalities is something to aspire to. What we do about them (change beliefs, accept contradictions whatever) is then a conscious and considered, even if not necessarily rational, decision. Blue for me. But I don't then go onto make the claim that blue is objectively superior to any other colour. My personal preference has no bearing on any reality external to my own mind. I guess that is the difference between gods and colours. We may however now be straying into exactly the contentious terriotory that I promised to avoid so you can have the last word on this section if you want. I will leave you with my comments to Oni in the Pseudskeptic thread. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am genuinely intrigued by those who claim to have faith. I am genuinely baffled by those who claim to have faith in things that they also claim are evidenced.I don't undertand how this "faith" differs from straightforward evidence based belief. In the context of claiming evidence the whole notion of "faith" makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why is faith not evidence independent?I am not in this thread to challenge or debate. I want to understand. See my questions and responses to Catholic Scientist from Message 31 and back.I make the same pledge that I did to him to you. Feel free to answer my questions with no comeback and no fear of any answer being cited back at you in other more divisive or contentious discussions.

Just to let you know that your post has not been ignored.You raise a number of issues that I have little doubt we will discuss (and disagree on) again at some point. But in this thread I specifically stated that I was asking to understand the thinking of others rather than to challenge.I am going to stick to that stated aim in the hope that others will explain the basis of their faith based thinking too as per Message 26Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your usual charming self huh Petrophysics. If I was unfortunate enough to be you I might well refuse to face reality. But that aside. By definition my parents are biologically related to me. By definition my children are related to me also. You haven't thought these questions through very well have you? And if I or anyone else had ever claimed that they could or that this is somehow necessary you would have a truly significant and argument clinching point here. As things stand you simply demonstrate your own unique brand of incomprehension and stupidity. Well done. Whilst I could waste my time telling you why atheists and creationsist lie at opposite ends of the spectrum I think I will just revel in the irony of you talking about "nut bags".Keep up the good work.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Possibilities with which everyone has consistently and unanimously agreed. I am bewildered by your ongoing inability to distinguish between the evidence based arguments regarding possibility and likelihood being advocated by your atheistic opponents with your preferred strawman misrepresentations of certitude of impossibility.Time and time again in thread after thread you have demonstrated your complete inability to distinguish between those possibilities that are derived from objectively evidenced facts and those possibilities with no objectively evidenced foundation whatsoever. This is why you will never understand why those of us who consider the possibility of alien life or the possibility of as yet undiscovered species existing here on Earth to be evidentially non-equivalent from the possibility of gods existing. This is why you will never accept that these conclusions are derived from objective evidence rather than subjective world view or faith. Only if each claim is viewed in a complete vacuum of all obejective evidence, only if evidenced possibilities are ignored because they are not evidenced as actualities, can these three examples be consideed to be evidentially equivalent. And yet this hurdle of evidenced possibilities is one your seem incapable of surmounting.As long as you are unable to overcome these intellectual blind spots you are destined to forever misunderstand, misrepresent and argue in circles with those who do not share your cognitive blinkers.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Untrue. The fact that you have to quote me making a general point of principle three years ago rather than citing anything I have actually said to you about what I actually believe in any of our conversations in the last six months exemplifies your need to misrepresent the actual atheist position to have any argument at all. Message 34I would say that the rational position towards any wholly unevidenced possibility is a 6. Except that some possibilities are evidenced whilst others are not. The possibility of as yet undiscovered species existing on Earth, for example, is objectively evidenced. And indeed highly likely. The possible existence of the IPU or any other gods is not objectively evidenced at all. How you cannot see the evidential difference between these examples beyond claiming that it is a matter of opinion and subjective world view I find incredible. But cest la vie. I have lost count of the threads in which this sort of thing has been explained to you without success.At least you seem to have taken the IPU to your newly agnostic, albeit apathetic agnostic, bosem. When we started this series of threads you were vehemnetly of the opinion that the IPU was "obviously made-up" and "absurd". So some progress has been made. If one can call it that............. But it does exist. That is the problem. That is your blind spot. Evidenced possibilities and unevidenced possibilities. You will never get it so I honestly don't know why I bother.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you continue to assert that the possible existence of as yet undiscovered species on Earth, or the possible existence of life on other planets are both equally as objectively unevidenced as the possible existence of gods. You remain simply unable to distinguish between objectively evidenced possibilities and objectively evidenced actualities. There is no objectively evidenced reason to think gods even might exist. Which part of that do you honestly not understand?**sigh**If you ever manage to overcome your cognitive blindspot regarding evidenced possibilities you will come to realise that the possibility of gods being human inventions is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility than the totally objectively unevidenced possibility that gods actually exist.You may then at least understand (whether you agree with it or not) what it is that I have been saying to you in all those previous threads. You may then stop conflating evidenced based arguments regarding possibility, likelihood and mutually exclusive alternatives with your favoured strawman of absolute statements of logical certitude which no-one is making or has ever made at any point in these discussions.But until that happy day you are destined to misunderstand and misrepresent those whose arguments you seem incapable of comprehending. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well you look for the possible causes of those subjective experiences. Obviously. If we assume that a scientific answer is available then we look for natural causes of those experiences. If we don't then we are in "somethingsupernatural of the gaps" terriotory.What we do not do is assume that what the person believes to be the cause of such experiences necessarily is the cause (e.g. God). What we definitely do not do is claim that what the person believes is the cause of their expereince is evidence of that which they believe to be the cause. Because that is circular.

Why do they believe?Is belief itself evidence upon which to justify belief? Or is that circular? The fact that people believe in gods is objectively evidenced. The actual eistence of gods remains a wholly objectively unevidenced answer as to why people believe in gods. Can you seperate the belief itself from the possible reasons for belief? The fact that the theistic/deistic side of this entire debate need the atheists here to be ridiculous figures of black and white absolute certitude who apply illogical IF THEN fallacies to derive illogical conclusions is not my problem.I can only say "I don'tknow for certain" - "I cannot say 100% for sure" - "I don't know" so many times. By their very nature irrefutable claims are impossible to refute. Thus the logical possibilty exists. And nobody denies these possibilities. But the objective evidence for the possibility of human invention is immense whilst the obective evidence that suggests that gods even might exist is literally non-existant.Based on the objective evidence alone (the only evidence which we can assume to lead to conclusions superior to guessing - as we have established elsewhere) - Human invention is far more likely in relation to any given god concept than the actual existence of said god concept.Can you seperate the belief from the reasons for belief? That is the question. Or are you going to insist on the circular argument that belief itself somehow evidences that which is believed?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. The question is why? Do we seek a naturalistic answer? A testable answer? A scientific answer? Psychology? Culture? Etc. etc. etc.Or do we special plead this question and just say "goddidit"? At which point all debate stops, all investigation ceases and we hit the inevitable conceptual dead end. Then we can go off happy that we have at last fiound a gap in which god can exist. Hallelujah! I could not have put it better myself. A preference for pink may well be considered a reason to believe in our dear old friend the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (which your compatriots RAZD and LindaLou have now expressed their deepseated agnosticism towards BTW).But what have my subjective reasons for belief got to do with the reality of what actually exists and what doesn't.I mean subjectively speaking I have very good reason to believe that I am the most intelligent, witty, charming stud muffin in the universe. But objectively speaking even I wouldn't go that far (well.............) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In which case you must agree with me that gods, if such things really do exist, are genuinely unknowable? Radical idea I know. It bewilders me how believers can simultaneously assert that the object of their belief is so definitely "unknowable" whilst at the same time getting so tragically upset at anyone who points out just how unevidenced, genuinely unknowable and thus irrational belief in such things really is. And don't even get me started on the contradiction of knowing enough about something unknowable to know that it is unknowable.... No we don't know with 100% absolute certainty. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring. Because your arguments againts atheism only apply to black and white imbecilic proclamtions of certitude which no one here is making. But your position denies the evidence of what we do know.1) We know that there is a long history of supernatural answers being overturned by naturalistic ones thanks to the application of the scientific method. We know that no supernatural answer has ever yet stood up to scrutiny. In short we know that the "god of the gaps" is a flawed argument. Even if the gap here is belief in god himself.
2) We know that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced.
3) We know that the possibility that gods exist is not objectively evidenced.None of which makes any given god concept a logical impossibility. It just makes it relatively unlikely to be true. And then we have all of the other possible reasons that people might believe in gods to consider in making any assessment of likelihood...............Why is belief in gods not considered to be evidence for telepathic dogs using their psychic powers to infiltrate the minds of people and induce such beliefs? According to LindaLou the evidence for telepathic dogs is irrefutable. Which is more than can be said for the existence of gods.The actual existence of gods is but one unevidenced possible reason as to why people believe in the existence of gods out of a near infinite number of conceivably possible causes for such beliefs. Why do you consider the actual existence of god to be superior to any other answer? Because it is believed by the expereincee that the experience is attributable to god? In which case you are effectively citing belief in god as evidence upon which to justify belief in god.This is circular.

Well exactly. Belief in god itself is being cited as evidence upon which to justify belief in god. This is indisputably circular.Why is widespread belief in gods not evidence for the commonality of human psychology? Or evidence for the existence of telepathic dogs who psychicly induce such beliefs in humans? Or indeed evidence for any other conceivable explanation for the cause of such beliefs? Why? What is the evidence for the possible existence of gods beyond the circular argument that people believe in gods therefore belief in gods is justified? The actual existence of gods is but one possible cause for these beliefs. Why do you give it preferential treatment?Is belief in anything always evidence for belief in that which is believed? Are the beliefs of scientology evidenced by the beliefs of scientologists? Or are you special pleading god again? Whooah! I have never said that anything will "preclude god existing". The entire point of irrefutable claims is that they are irrefutable. Some might say intentionally so. Understanding thunder and lightening doesn't preclude Thor existing. But it does make Thor rather redundant. Likewise scientific evidence as to why people believe in gods potentially makes the entire concept of god redundant if belief itself is the evidence you are citing here in favour of god.The god you are arguing for here is as much a god of the gaps as is Thor the product of ignorance regarding the actual nature of thunder and lightening. There is no difference except your underlying assumptions. What are you talking about here?You seem to be assuming that if people believe in god this is both explained by, and evidence for, the actual existence of god. This is circular on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin. The explanation for the phenomenon (belief in god) is the evidence that justifies the phenomenon itself (i.e. belief in god).Why do you consider the actual existence of god to be superior to any other potential answer? Because it is believed by the expereincee that the experience is attributable to god? In which case you are effectively citing belief in god as evidence upon which to justify belief in god. This is just circular nonsense.If nothing else answer this: Why is widespread belief in gods not evidence for the commonality of human psycholgy or the existence of psychic dogs who induce religious belief in humans telepathically?Seriously. Why?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Absence of evidence? Your cognitive blindspot regarding evidenced and unevidenced possibilities manifesting itself again. In how many previous gaps where the supernatural has been invoked as an explanation has the supernatural answer been borne out? How many times has the supernatural answer been overturned (i.e. been shown to be a product of human invention)? Can you see a trend here at all? And yet you consider the supernatural answer to current gaps no more or less viable, no more or less likely, than the naturalistic one. A one way 100% record of failure Vs success and you see no evidence to suggest any inclination either way. Incredible. You are assuming there must be a "why". On what basis do you make that assumption? You know of no objective evidence that suggests that humans are able to imagine and invent concepts regardless of truth? Are you sure? Back to your "do not", "cannot" strawman again huh? The statements "cannot exist" or "do not exist" do not even come into it so please stop bringing them up in various guises.We have the possibility of human invention. We know for an absolute fact that humans can invent gods. We have the possibility that gods actually exist. But this possibility is based on no objective evidence whatsoever. Thus we have:Possibility derived from fact Vs Possibility derived from........? What? Belief? In which case we are back to the circularity of belief as evidential justification upon which to claim the validity of belief.Are you really going to tell me that the possibility of human invention is no more evidenced than the possibility that gods actually exist? That there is no evidential basis to make any sort of judgement of relative likelihood between these two mutually exclusive alternatives? Only if you are suffering from an inability to differentiate evidenced possibilities from unevidenced ones.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.