Is Faith an Accurate Pathway to Truth?

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Basically you are offering denial as a coping mechanism, this is a natural aspect of human cognition, you don't need a religion of any kind to use this. 

Basically, you have found a formalized system called the  religion you practice to codify this natural coping skill. 

 

Wally Wingnut Walker has openly admitted to lying. So nothing he can say has any further merit. Don't waste your energy on him Sheri. Because anyone willing to lie to themselves about their past, is willing to lie to everyone in order to keep that illusion alive.

[+Hammerclaw]

55 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Basically you are offering denial as a coping mechanism, this is a natural aspect of human cognition, you don't need a religion of any kind to use this. 

Basically, you have found a formalized system called the  religion you practice to codify this natural coping skill. 

 

Philosophically, Zeno of Citium beat him to it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, first, I don't know that it has no counterpart in the Jesus example.

I agree that in both cases they are making the error of concluding something about their respective causes for their respective experiences when there are other possibilities.  But one case (Jesus) is 'supported' by the absolute minimum, essentially 'anything is possible'; in the other we've got lots more to say, like a century or so of electrical science.

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

My point is that I am unpersuaded that "faith" is the key problem with a willingness to engage in dodgy causal reasoning.

I guess it depends on the evaluation of the word 'key'.  It seems to me that the evidence that supports the conclusions has some relevant to the dodginess of the reasoning. Yes, shame on them for their certainty, but we have a known phenomenon supporting one and 'we don't know absolutely for sure it isn't' for the other.  Is it even possible to engage in non-dodgy causal reasoning that involves 'faith'?  What would be an example?

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

This would be a good time to recall

I was using the royal you, not the eightbits you.

[+Sherapy]

54 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Philosophically, Zeno of Citium beat him to it.

Excellent add to Hammers.

I would add that MW is demonstrating how he prefers to use Hueristics based on his interpretation of his subjective reality as opposed to critical thinking. 

We all use Hueristics ( thanks 8tee for bringing this in) it is not a bad thing, it has a place, it is like putting things off, or doing things half arsed, or guessing on a test as opposed to studying, it is like googling answers as opposed to taking the course, it is an adaptive feature of our brains designed to make on the spot decisions or life or death decisions, survival get it done mode,..

For me, this is the brand of faith Jodie Lynn is addressing. 

Hueristics on crack basically. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

28 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Excellent add to Hammers.

I would add that MW is demonstrating how he prefers to use Hueristics based on his interpretation of his subjective reality as opposed to critical thinking. 

We all use Hueristics ( thanks 8tee for bringing this in) it is not a bad thing, it has a place, it is like putting things off, or doing things half arsed, or guessing on a test as opposed to studying, it is like googling answers as opposed to taking the course, it is an adaptive feature of our brains designed to make on the spot decisions or life or death decisions, survival get it done mode,..

For me, this is the brand of faith Jodie Lynn is addressing. 

Hueristics on crack basically. 

 

 

 

 

Ah, yes. Going it alone; playing it by ear, using nothing but one's own wits and innate ability to seek answers, solutions, unscripted and off-the-cuff, finding a way to meet the needs of the moment; winging it, improvisation. A mantra of the USMC: We improvise, we adapt, we overcome.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

sto·i·cism

[ˈstōəˌsizəm]

 

NOUN

1. the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

   .

   synonyms: patience · forbearance · resignation · lack of protest · lack of complaint · fortitude · endurance · acceptance · acceptance of the inevitable · fatalism · philosophicalness · impassivity · dispassion · phlegm · imperturbability · calmness · coolness · cool · stolidness · Dunkirk spirit · unflappability · longanimity
2. an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Dejarma]

On 30/08/2018 at 11:06 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Is 'faith' an accurate path to truth?

 

when whatever those who have faith in prove it as fact (gods etc)=then we'll find out

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I guess it depends on the evaluation of the word 'key'.  It seems to me that the evidence that supports the conclusions has some relevant to the dodginess of the reasoning. Yes, shame on them for their certainty, but we have a known phenomenon supporting one and 'we don't know absolutely for sure it isn't' for the other.  Is it even possible to engage in non-dodgy causal reasoning that involves 'faith'?  What would be an example?

Well, taking that seriously, I think we might turn the topic question around. Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? In other words, can we look at faith as the result of some inquiry rather than as a method for inquiry, and if we do, does it turn out that faith can arise from some respectable method of inquiry?

That's a hard question. It's easy to think of unreliable pathways that lead to faith (like the woman in @Jodie.Lynne's video). A lot of apologists shamelessly use bad inferential methods (and do not get me started on the historical Jesus guild!).

You can see I'm a little stuck here. If I somehow knew that only bad pathways lead to faith, then I'd probably be an atheist. Conversely, if I knew of any  good pathway(s) that lead to faith, then I'd probably be a theist (assuming some god was the object of the resulting faith). But what I am is an agnostic, and in this case, I really don't know all the available pathways.

[Dejarma]

16 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That's a hard question.

For me it's not a hard question to answer= NO.. No respect for anything put forward via faith as in: 'faith in a god or alleged writings/ words of a god etc etc' ! Faith (in this context) deserves NO respect!

This ridiculous illogical BS will be the end of the human race if it carries on....

IN_MY_OPINION 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, taking that seriously, I think we might turn the topic question around. Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? In other words, can we look at faith as the result of some inquiry rather than as a method for inquiry, and if we do, does it turn out that faith can arise from some respectable method of inquiry?

That's a hard question. It's easy to think of unreliable pathways that lead to faith (like the woman in @Jodie.Lynne's video). A lot of apologists shamelessly use bad inferential methods (and do not get me started on the historical Jesus guild!).

You can see I'm a little stuck here. If I somehow knew that only bad pathways lead to faith, then I'd probably be an atheist. Conversely, if I knew of any  good pathway(s) that lead to faith, then I'd probably be a theist (assuming some god was the object of the resulting faith). But what I am is an agnostic, and in this case, I really don't know all the available pathways.

That is an interesting inquiry 8tee, I thought I had something but turns out in typing it out, I had nothing. 

I don't know either. 

[Will Due]

 

I think that's exactly what happens.

Unwittingly, one goes down a pathway which reveals truth accurately. That then, can lead to faith.

Truth is revealed first. Which creates an opportunity for faith to develop.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

That is an interesting inquiry 8tee, I thought I had something but turns out in typing it out, I had nothing. 

I don't know either. 

If one could produce factual, incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, Faith would be a non issue. God's existence would then be knowledge, no Faith required. A confirmed theory requires no belief system. Religion, of itself. is not a path to empirical or Scientific knowledge. There is no known empirical or scientific path that could possibly prove the validity of Faith in God. Such a search quickly resolves into theosophical musings about otherwise alleged inexplicable occurrences with the unsubstantiated conclusion that God must have done it. Thus, empirical supporting evidence for Faith is a wee bit oxymoronic.

[+Sherapy]

55 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I think that's exactly what happens.

Unwittingly, one goes down a pathway which reveals truth accurately. That then, can lead to faith.

Truth is revealed first. Which creates an opportunity for faith to develop.

 

 

What is the truth that is in accordance with reality and how is it revealed ( evidence ) that then creates this opportunity for faith to develop? What purpose does this faith serve in practical matters?

Edited September 2, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

40 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

If one could produce factual, incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, Faith would be a non issue. God's existence would then be knowledge, no Faith required. A confirmed theory requires no belief system. Religion, of itself. is not a path to empirical or Scientific knowledge. There is no known empirical or scientific path that could possibly prove the validity of Faith in God. Such a search quickly resolves into theosophical musings about otherwise alleged inexplicable occurrences with the unsubstantiated conclusion that God must have done it. Thus, empirical supporting evidence for Faith is a wee bit oxymoronic.

I have such major respect for your honesty and humbleness, you have brought a maturity and candor to faith that is inspiring. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Only God can save your immortal soul.

See, this is where things fall apart, for me. There are thousands of interpretations of what the term "god" means. I'm willing to wager that no two believers in god can agree 100% on what god is.

And, as far as 'souls', immortal or otherwise, I've yet to hear a consistent idea of what it is, or where it resides in a human body. Or even if it exists at all.

The big problem, IMO, with theology is that there are terms used for which there are no clear cut definitions, or examples.

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

If one could produce factual, incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, Faith would be a non issue. God's existence would then be knowledge, no Faith required.

would knowledge of god be such a bad thing?

If we take the OT at face value, god had no issue with manifesting in a very tangible way: columns of fire and smoke, manna, various miracles on demand, and manifestestations in the flesh (so to speak).

We are even told that the fleeing Israelites, who witnessed many of these things, "lost faith" when Moses went up the mountain. 

If THEY could disregard their god so easily with proof, how are we supposed to put aside reason, for unsupportable "faith"?

Edited September 2, 2018 by Jodie.Lynne

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

would knowledge of god be such a bad thing?

If we take the OT at face value, god had no issue with manifesting in a very tangible way: columns of fire and smoke, manna, various miracles on demand, and manifestestations in the flesh (so to speak).

We are even told that the fleeing Israelites, who witne4ssed many of these things, "lost faith" when Moses went up the mountain. 

If THEY could disregard their god so easily with proof, how are we supposed to put aside reason, for unsupportable "faith"?

One isn't. Faith is all feeling and emotion, a gut reaction to euphoric religious associations and group gestalt, or summation of personal individual life experience. My sense is the Universe is directed, but I have no proof to offer you, no intimate knowledge of whatever it is behind the curtain, orchestrating it. I'm not an apologist for the Christian Mythos or Hebrew Fairy Tales. It is from them the West acquired theistic symbology, archetypes and stories, not brought down from any mountain or cross, but all without exception written and crafted by the earnest yet fallible human hand. Belief is of the heart, not the material world and the heart--one's own heart-- is the last place most people look to find it.

[Jodie.Lynne]

Hammerclaw, you really are an exemplar of theism. If more people could discuss these issues with the calmness, and clarity that you do, there would be far less animosity between theist and atheist.

I would gladly share a meal with you and listen to your views about these issues. In fact, I have faith that I would be enthralled and hypnotized by your voice of reason. 

[Habitat]

It is slightly amusing that people fancy they can put God in a box. If you think you can analyse this, you are kidding yourself. The mystics are unanimous, you must abolish all concepts of God, and start with a pure heart, and a clean slate, your faculty of reason cannot help you one iota.

[+Hammerclaw]

12 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Hammerclaw, you really are an exemplar of theism. If more people could discuss these issues with the calmness, and clarity that you do, there would be far less animosity between theist and atheist.

I would gladly share a meal with you and listen to your views about these issues. In fact, I have faith that I would be enthralled and hypnotized by your voice of reason. 

Finding Faith is all trial and error--like taking one's first jete--and you know how that often ends. It's more like learning to ride a bicycle; no one can ride it for you. They can coach you, give you pointers--but you have get on the darn thing and ride it and take your lumps like everyone else. Faith is up to the individual because we're here and nobody else--just us. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Jodie.Lynne]

Wouldn't it be nice, if we could see through others eyes and minds to experience what they do.

Like a Vulcan mind meld, we could know what others do

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

What is the truth that is in accordance with reality and how is it revealed ( evidence ) that then creates this opportunity for faith to develop? What purpose does this faith serve in practical matters?

 

The truth that's revealed, is self-evident and the opportunity for faith to develop because of it, is possible to find on every pathway in my opinion. 

This is the practical purpose of faith. To become better at recognizing more and more truth. The truth about things that are outside the basis of scientific evidence.

 

 

[Rlyeh]

20 hours ago, Habitat said:

When one examines the prescriptions laid down by the great mystics who were the fountainhead of the religions, it is clear they are not immediately attractive for the vast majority. That alone, should tell you they weren't selling anything, in the sense that many believe retail religion does, to their own benefit. And that is something to think about, if your really are interested in the truth.

What were the odds these great mystics were competing against the widely held beliefs at the time? Christianity is a prime example. Not selling anything indeed.

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

One isn't. Faith is all feeling and emotion, a gut reaction to euphoric religious associations and group gestalt, or summation of personal individual life experience. My sense is the Universe is directed, but I have no proof to offer you, no intimate knowledge of whatever it is behind the curtain, orchestrating it. I'm not an apologist for the Christian Mythos or Hebrew Fairy Tales. It is from them the West acquired theistic symbology, archetypes and stories, not brought down from any mountain or cross, but all without exception written and crafted by the earnest yet fallible human hand. Belief is of the heart, not the material world and the heart--one's own heart-- is the last place most people look to find it.

You have such integrity my friend. I agree with Jodie you are incredible at making sense of faith. Just an honest representation that is respectful and an inclusive understanding  of diversity is threaded into your responses.. When I have a conversation with you I come away richer for it.

I would like to see more people of faith demonstrate your wisdom, maturity, and empathy. You are truly an example for us all. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

The truth that's revealed, is self-evident and the opportunity for faith to develop because of it, is possible to find on every pathway in my opinion. 

This is the practical purpose of faith. To become better at recognizing more and more truth. The truth about things that are outside the basis of scientific evidence.

 

 

Sorry Will. We just aren't vibing this round.