Is Faith an Accurate Pathway to Truth?

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

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.

A million to one.

[Davros of Skaro]

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.

 

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

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. 

So do you admit that your God belief is not evidenced, reasoned, and logical?

It just makes you happy and that's good enough?

[danydandan]

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

A million to one.

Probably evens.

[Habitat]

Competition has nothing to do with it.

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Competition has nothing to do with it.

Yes it most certainly does, do you have any idea how many Christian sects there were in the early days? Most of these were wiped out violently too. Until the Pauline sect was the only one left.

Also why do you think most accepted Christian holidays fall on the exact date of Pagan holidays? Christmas's date is Pagan in Origin, as is Easter, Feast of Annuciation, etcetera.

Edited September 2, 2018 by danydandan

[Habitat]

Forget about sects and cults, I am talking about the individuals they sprung from, and they certainly had no part in the post-mortem politics.

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Forget about sects and cults, I am talking about the individuals they sprung from, and they certainly had no part in the post-mortem politics.

So you think they played no act nor part in influencing it?

That's like saying The Policy of Appeasement prior to WW2 had no bearing on the acts of horror carried out by the Nazis.

Every action has a reaction and has a bearing(miniscule or large) on what other actions occur.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by danydandan

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So you think they played no act nor part in influencing it?

That's like saying The Policy of Appeasement prior to WW2 had no bearing on the acts of horror carried out by the Nazis.

Every action has a reaction and has a bearing(miniscule or large) on what other actions occur.

 

So you think these people incited others to commit crimes ? Or turned a blind eye to crimes committed by their followers ? Please give examples.

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Hello Davros Kitty said:

 

So do you admit that your God belief is not evidenced, reasoned, and logical?

It just makes you happy and that's good enough?

Yep, like binging on a sack of Oreos. Not one rational reason to eat the darn things, but the God damn sugar rush is euphoric!

Edited September 2, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Hammerclaw]

59 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yes it most certainly does, do you have any idea how many Christian sects there were in the early days? Most of these were wiped out violently too. Until the Pauline sect was the only one left.

Also why do you think most accepted Christian holidays fall on the exact date of Pagan holidays? Christmas's date is Pagan in Origin, as is Easter, Feast of Annuciation, etcetera.

Excellent observation. Christianity arose in a multicultural, polytheistic society and to compete with other religions, held their own celebrations at the same time as their neighbors, or me too'd it by creating their own from whole cloth.

[Mr Walker]

12 hours 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. 

 

If that is how you see it go with it 

I haven't done anything at all associated with relgion or faith  As a child and an atheist teenager   i developed a self aware cognitive abilty to identify and manipulate my emotional responses so that i could construct ones I wanted to, and deconstruct others that were negative.  This has nothing to do with religion and is about psychology and human cognition which i then went on to study a t uni

Religion is an easy and formalised method of dealing with the awareness of loss death and grief.

You make it sound like a crutch but its actually an evolved bionic strength we can  all call on  Only humans need it because only we suffer the abilty to know about life, death, pain, loss, grief, etc as intellectual abstract ideas which disturb the peace of  our minds.

  Those who Do NOT have any mechanism for coping often   suffer so much pain that  it can wreck their lives and limit their emotional and psychological development  so evolution provided a form of cognition to cope with our self awareness.

It does a good job.

Reject it a your peril (unless you have constructed other cognitive coping mechanisms, like displacement,  to survive ) 

We use defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from feelings of anxiety or guilt, which arise because we feel threatened, or because our id or superego becomes too demanding.  They are not under our conscious control, and are non-voluntaristic. 

 

Ego-defense mechanisms are natural and normal.  When they get out of proportion (i.e., used with frequency), neuroses develop, such as anxiety states, phobias, obsessions, or hysteria.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, Guyver said:

PS.  Isn’t it a tad ironic that Christians believe in the eternal soul but think we only have one life?  Maybe it’s just me... but yeah... immortal does mean immortal.  So anyway...

Two lives... One now, one later. 

Maybe even count as three... One here on Earth, one after you die (Hades/Grave), and one after the New Heaven/New Earth.

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If that is how you see it go with it 

I haven't done anything at all associated with relgion or faith  As a child and an atheist teenager   i developed a self aware cognitive abilty to identify and manipulate my emotional responses so that i could construct ones I wanted to, and deconstruct others that were negative.  This has nothing to do with religion and is about psychology and human cognition which i then went on to study a t uni

Religion is an easy and formalised method of dealing with the awareness of loss death and grief.

You make it sound like a crutch but its actually an evolved bionic strength we can  all call on  Only humans need it because only we suffer the abilty to know about life, death, pain, loss, grief, etc as intellectual abstract ideas which disturb the peace of  our minds.

  Those who Do NOT have any mechanism for coping often   suffer so much pain that  it can wreck their lives and limit their emotional and psychological development  so evolution provided a form of cognition to cope with our self awareness.

It does a good job.

Reject it a your peril (unless you have constructed other cognitive coping mechanisms, like displacement,  to survive ) 

We use defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from feelings of anxiety or guilt, which arise because we feel threatened, or because our id or superego becomes too demanding.  They are not under our conscious control, and are non-voluntaristic. 

 

Ego-defense mechanisms are natural and normal.  When they get out of proportion (i.e., used with frequency), neuroses develop, such as anxiety states, phobias, obsessions, or hysteria.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html

Very detailed confession Mr. Walker, or one hell of a Freudian slip. Either way, I commend you.

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

False logic. The 'truth' we take on trust or in good faith from encyclopedias and dictionaries is verifiable (if we doubt it). The bible cannot be verified in the same way that objective facts from reference books can be.

lol yes it IS verifiable, but my point was that personally we never verify it we acceptit to be true based on faith 9inthe book or autheors )

Plus while it is verifiable that does NOT mean it is true  Careful checking might find that many definitions and facts presented in reference books are false  

So it is not false logic it is precisely the same thing (taking something on faith)  applied to a more common scenario 

UNTIL: you verify those facts for yourself, you are doing exactly what a bible believing christian does  ie Just believing them to be true and probably acting on them as IF they were true .So if you tell me you check every fact you read before accepting it, i will agree with you But you dont.   None of us do.  We just take the information on faith 

 

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Very detailed confession Mr. Walker, or one hell of a Freudian slip. Either way, I commend you.

lol I don't get it 

just because i explain the basis of human coping via cognition and psychology, doesn't mean i do those  things. And just because i outline the evolutionary advantages of faith and belief doesn't mean i employ those, either  

As i said to sherapy, i developed my own personal  system beginning when i was very young and consciously worked on it from  about the age of 4 or five 

Basically this was to identify and control all elements of my own mind, including my subconscious, so that i was always in conscious control of my thoughts, emotions, and responses.    I gradually gained control over the more simple emotions such as fear  and anger by the time i was 14 or so,    and by the time i was 21 had basically total control over all my thoughts, emotions, and responses .  

Edited September 2, 2018 by Mr Walker

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

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.

I think it is a little like how a person deals with their emotions... It is not possible for anyone to tell someone else how hatred feels exactly to them. Or love, or fear... We know we all feel this to some degree, and have to deal with these emotions, but does that guy you are fighting with hate you to the same degree you hate him? Does your daughter love you to the same degree you love her? Impossible to know IMHO.

So, you are right in that how each person thinks about god is completely different. You have 2 billion Christians and 2 billion versions of God. Yet, we choose to believe that all of those have a few things in common, outlined by way of the teaching of the Bible and Church.

The ancients believed the soul lived in the lower abdomen, if I remember right. People today seem to think it should be the brain, or the heart. I don't think it matters. It could very well be like quantum entanglement, were the soul is even someplace else entirely. Ask a million Christians, and you are likely to get at least a million different answers. 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours 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.

This is something I often say myself. If we had evidence of God, he wouldn't be part of a religion, he'd be a factual Overlord, with near infinite powers over us. 

This goes back to what I was trying to say that only the physical can prove the physical, and only the metaphysical can prove the metaphysical. 

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Yes it most certainly does, do you have any idea how many Christian sects there were in the early days? Most of these were wiped out violently too. Until the Pauline sect was the only one left.

Well, to be fair, the major sects all got together in the 4th century and outlined what they all had in common. This allowed what it meant to be Christian to be more clearly delineated, and then to figure out what teachings were heretical, so they could be prevented. The first century, or two, Christians were being killed, not only by other Christians, but by almost everyone else also. It was an extremely violent time for cult religions that didn't bend knee to the Roman Emperor.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Hello Davros Kitty said:

 

So do you admit that your God belief is not evidenced, reasoned, and logical?

It just makes you happy and that's good enough?

Hummmm..... Yes. And the most of the teachings (of Jesus) are conducive to a orderly benevolent society.

[+Hammerclaw]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

This is something I often say myself. If we had evidence of God, he wouldn't be part of a religion, he'd be a factual Overlord, with near infinite powers over us. 

This goes back to what I was trying to say that only the physical can prove the physical, and only the metaphysical can prove the metaphysical. 

And only to the individual, subjectively. Faith is an internal rationalization of what is, externally, irrational. As the song says, we each-- walk in the garden alone, and the thoughts we share, as we tarry there, no other has ever known.

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Thus, empirical supporting evidence for Faith is a wee bit oxymoronic.

But "emprical supporting evidence" doesn't exhaust the possibly accurate and reliable ways of knowing. It doesn't give you any of mathematics, for example. Not that the history of "formal proofs of God's existence," in the sense of Aquinas, Anselm or Godel, is at all encouraging.

Maybe an example: Famously, Henri Poincare, a great mathematician, was working on a new, difficult and large-scale mathematical problem. One day, he steps onto a public bus, and when he does, he experiences what we might describe as a "download." There's the solution to his problem, all in his head, all at once, as if years of work were accomplished in a heartbeat. It takes him a good long while to write it all out, to verify the validity of the proofs involved, and to publish it all for others to appreciate and to verify for themselves (i.e., what mathematicians ordinarily do and how they ordinarily work). The download content was in fact accurate, and Poincare reportedly experienced confidence that it was accurate, although he didn't (couldn't) know that it was true in an approved way-of-knowing until he'd written all of it up and published it.

Is not whatever happened to Poincare a "pathway to truth"? And is not the confidence he seems to have experienced, from the time he continued to his seat on that bus until he'd published the finished product, very similar to "faith"? Granted, eventually his formal proofs replaced that initial "unfounded" personal feeling of confidence, but except for the download and his confidence, he wouldn't have had anything to prove.

And hypothetically, during that interval when Poincare was working on it, suppose somebody who knew him and whom I trusted said to me "Henri thinks <some aspect of the problem> is true, but I haven't seen his proof." Isn't that a warrant for me, who wasn't a party to the download, to have some confidence that <some aspect of the problem> is true?

I think this is a harder problem than some other people do.

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

But "emprical supporting evidence" doesn't exhaust the possibly accurate and reliable ways of knowing. It doesn't give you any of mathematics, for example. Not that the history of "formal proofs of God's existence," in the sense of Aquinas, Anselm or Godel, is at all encouraging.

Maybe an example: Famously, Henri Poincare, a great mathematician, was working on a new, difficult and large-scale mathematical problem. One day, he steps onto a public bus, and when he does, he experiences what we might describe as a "download." There's the solution to his problem, all in his head, all at once, as if years of work were accomplished in a heartbeat. It takes him a good long while to write it all out, to verify the validity of the proofs involved, and to publish it all for others to appreciate and to verify for themselves (i.e., what mathematicians ordinarily do and how they ordinarily work). The download content was in fact accurate, and Poincare reportedly experienced confidence that it was accurate, although he didn't (couldn't) know that it was true in an approved way-of-knowing until he'd written all of it up and published it.

Is not whatever happened to Poincare a "pathway to truth"? And is not the confidence he seems to have experienced, from the time he continued to his seat on that bus until he'd published the finished product, very similar to "faith"? Granted, eventually his formal proofs replaced that initial "unfounded" personal feeling of confidence, but except for the download and his confidence, he wouldn't have had anything to prove.

And hypothetically, during that interval when Poincare was working on it, suppose somebody who knew him and whom I trusted said to me "Henri thinks <some aspect of the problem> is true, but I haven't seen his proof." Isn't that a warrant for me, who wasn't a party to the download, to have some confidence that <some aspect of the problem> is true?

I think this is a harder problem than some other people do.

 

 

That's just circling the wagons around the flag of personal faith which can be about anything. One either knows something or one does not--anything else is speculation with a high or low statistical probability. 

In the case of Poincare, his subconscious must have been working in overdrive to produce a solution. I don't see any metaphysical hand in it.

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Guyver said:

Disagree.  Virtually all Evangelicals consider the Bible the word of God and the basis of their faith - therefore the evidence they need.  The Catholics are the largest group of Christians and of course they consider the bible divinely inspired, or the Word of God.  You have non-denominational Evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel with hundreds of thousands of members world wide, and they are only one example.

Then you have the Baptists.  Virtually all of the Baptist organizations have as a basic tenet or doctrine that the bible is divinely inspired, or the Word of God, and the Baptists are a very large number of people when you take all their numbers in total.

I disagree with your disagreement with Dan that this represents a small percentage of Christians.  I'm guessing these types of Christians may make up the majority when you add in the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.  

 I used the word literal not inspired 

I don't think most Catholics take the bible literally ie they are not creationists believing the world was made in 7 days (even the pope has declared this to be untrue ) 

 I live with many who do believe just that, but in the wider environment  my friends family and society show no evidence of  believing the bible to be literally the word of god or infallible.  it s true that Australian christian religions are more socially inclined in terms of doctrine than theologically but this is also true across most of the developed world 

But in any case,  as i said to danydandan, such people are trapped within the paradigm of their faith and believe the bible to be evidence.

This does not make it so,  in any real sense. Only the parts of the bible independently verified to be historically accurate (a growing percentage ) can be used as evidence.

Believing something is evidence, remains belief   

In america less than half of Christians believe in creationism with the highest figure for protestants 

In england the numbers are much lower 

"After carrying out detailed face-to-face interviews with over a hundred Christians and Muslims, Unsworth designed her own survey. Of 2,116 people in Britain, she found that only 3% reject the idea that plants and animals have evolved from earlier life forms, whilst 6.8% reject the idea that humans have evolved from non-human life forms. Only 4% would qualify as young earth creationists.

Further, she discovered that even amongst regular worshippers--meaning those who attend religious services once a month or more, only 14.3% reject plant and animal evolution, 28.6% reject human evolution and 10.2% think the earth is young."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2015/01/27/new-survey-finds-creationism-in-britain-has-been-overstated/#146ce0fe2685

figures for america

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/02/which-religious-groups-are-creationist/#.W4uuGs4zaUk

 

I admit i am surprised the numbers remain so high but then ive spent years in a sytem where only evolution was allowed to be taught  in a country where fundamentalism never really took off  

One survey in south Africa showed that, even among declared  atheists and agnostics, almost 20% believed in creationism (and  no, i cant work that one out either) 

 

The results showed differences between teachers from different religions with regard to their views of evolution. Among teachers who identified as agnostic or atheist, 17% held creationist views.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532016000300016

 

[+Hammerclaw]

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol I don't get it 

just because i explain the basis of human coping via cognition and psychology, doesn't mean i do those  things. And just because i outline the evolutionary advantages of faith and belief doesn't mean i employ those, either  

As i said to sherapy, i developed my own personal  system beginning when i was very young and consciously worked on it from  about the age of 4 or five 

Basically this was to identify and control all elements of my own mind, including my subconscious, so that i was always in conscious control of my thoughts, emotions, and responses.    I gradually gained control over the more simple emotions such as fear  and anger by the time i was 14 or so,    and by the time i was 21 had basically total control over all my thoughts, emotions, and responses .  

Ah, but you clearly do--to everyone else. To set loose the dogs of reason can have the unfortunate consequence of them turning around and biting one in the ****. One must learn to keep them on a shorter leash.

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Guyver said:

The fact that they have coping mechanisms doesn't mean they get out unscathed.  I disagree with you.  No one gets off this rock alive, and no one gets out unscathed.  The pain of existence, even in the best of environments here......is filled with heartache, sorrow, disappointment etc. and so forth.  Of course, there are also "good times" scattered in......but....

You get your foot crushed in a grinder at work......it doesn't matter what mindset you use.....you're effed up.  Even if it heals and you can limp around for the rest of your life, every time you look at that mangled appendage the reminder of the pain of this existence stares you right in the face.  But whatever....I guess you and I disagree about it.  And that's just fine by me.  

That is not true, and i know it from  my own life. Humans do not HAVE to feel pain, suffering, grief, loss etc  We think of these as natural, and even productive emotions, but they are only how we are taut to feel and respond.We  know now that even physical pain is a construct of the mind not a product of the body, and can be  largely managed using mental techniques 

I do not feel any of those destructive emotions you describe and have not done so for over half a century  I prefer constructive and beneficial responses.

Ive lost loved ones to suicide accident and illness,  and everything we owned.

I've  had major operations

Yet i've never felt any of that  sort of negativity grief loss pain etc.   It happens that  I am in the 17% of humans who never suffer from  depression or anxiety but it is more than tha t I CHOOSE how i want to feel and i construct the emotions i feel most beneficial and helpful  

Also my father drummed into me as a child "never waste time worrying. If you can't do anything about it then worrying won't help. If you CAN do something, them spend your time doing it, rather than worrying " 

You can believe this or not, but in the last half century i have not spent a total  of 10 minutes worrying about anything. I've never not been able to fall asleep immediately 

And no i've had serious injuries (as did my father who had a railway tie/nail pushed right through his hand by a machine)  Neither of us ever felt angry annoyed or etc about the injuries You just get on and cope. ATM i am beginning to have problems with a leaky heart valve which limits what i can do and makes my breathing difficult.

It doesn't worry me or make me anxious or stressed, because i am not afraid (i eliminated all forms of fear from my life while a teenager )   if it gets to bad I will go and see if the y can fix it even though my father died on the operating table during the same operation    It is not the physical things in life but our perceptions of them which define us and who we are.

When we lost our house and everything we had built up over 40 years  of marriage and hard work  we did not feel anger or hate or pain or grief  or loss.

  We felt joy at being alive. Hope at  a new beginning, and sadness for others who had lost loved ones.  We were surrounded by the love of others. 

My point is that all and any  human being can live like this if they really want to. There is nothing unique or special about me    

I remember some of those feelings you mention from  when i was very young and had not fully come to understand myself and the nature of reality, life, and feelings.

But I 've not felt one of them for almost 50 years. They are not given room to grow, in a life filled with love, joy, happiness, friendship, hard work,   purpose, and  growth.