Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jodie.Lynne

Is Faith an Accurate Pathway to Truth?

1,348 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Ten years ago the internet was like the open range. Now, before our eyes, it's being fenced in, acre by acre. The range wars have already started and all the incessant hacking by government entities will only exacerbate and accelerate the process.  

I guess we don't notice it so much down under. We are still running fibre optic networks in. Bit to go yet, I thought they would have been done years ago, but I was surprised to hear its only just reaching some major suburbs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
9 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

As the title states:

Is 'faith' an accurate path to truth?

Before we get started, I am talking about 'faith without evidence', in support of concepts for which there is no tangible evidence. Whether those concepts are 'god(s)', ghosts, spirit realms, "higher beings", and the like.

I am NOT talking about reasonable expectations, confidence in, or reliability in mundane matters. Like one's 'faith' in a spouse's fidelity, or the confidence that one's car will start when the key is turned. These are things that can be proven to be (mostly) true by past performance, history, and knowledge.

 

What I am interested in learning, is if people think that religious/spiritual faith is an accurate way to determine truth. If one can believe one thing, solely with faith and without evidence, does that not mean that they can believe anything, without evidence?

 

And, just for sh*ts & giggles, I contacted the Vatican. They said that if a thread on UM could be carried out WITHOUT personal attacks on each other, they would qualify it as a miraculous event. Let's see if we can get canonized!

 

I just don't want you to get canonized. So your smelly and this whole thread is smells.

Regardless of my personal attack on you, your question is interesting.

There have been many Scientific truths found on faith that the initial premise is correct without evidence. Some Scientific truths were discovered without axioms.

William Harvey discovered blood circulation on faith that he was correct, he was obviously proved correct. Same with Einstein's relativity both general and special. You could argue that people took Darwin's initial premise on faith too, ultimately it was proven true.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Where do you see the line drawn between faith and evidence? 

Maybe it's because I'm a simple individual but the two concepts can exist in the same space and time, IMO.  As I said earlier, some people are simply incapable of faith.  They seem to feel that it is a form of willful ignorance to insist on believing in a thing that cannot be measured and proven empirically.  Others have no problem whatever in accepting that a Creator that most on earth call God, was responsible for setting the template for everything and then having it come into being.  I think the disconnect between the two groups mainly centers on a sincere drive to understand the how of everything by the empiricist while the believer is content to watch it all unfold and to be content that it is happening exactly as it was intended to do.  The person of faith may be a physicist or computer scientist and enjoy the quest for knowledge and still accept that mankind's intellectual energies are not the beginning and end of all existence.   

Many here at UM who are Atheist or Agnostic tend to get a bit agitated or do the eye-roll when I mention prophecy.  I feel no need to muddle the discussion but the Bible states that Jesus is the "spirit" of prophecy.  I believe that the only evidence that our faith is a solid, tangible thing is going to come when prophecy is fulfilled in a way so specific that only a committed denier can scoff at.  There are two specific predictions that have not yet occurred that seem to be far more likely today than ever before and, in fact, could literally happen in the coming days or at most, a few years.  Damascus, Syria is predicted to be completely destroyed and left in uninhabitable ruins and it is said to happen literally over a single night.  The other prediction is that Turkey, Iran(Persia) Sudan and several other, smaller states will be led by a Personage referred to as Gog from a land called Magog.  Some scholars believe this is speaking of the peoples that inhabit modern Russia while others think that Gog/Magog IS Turkey.  The common thread is that each modern nation is comprised of the descendants of countries that today are majority Muslim.  When the predictions were penned, Mohammad was about 3 millennia in the future.  The prediction is that this vast confederation of forces will descend onto Israel at a time in the future when its people have come back from the dispersion and are living safely in their land and enjoying great wealth.  The empiricists tend to state up front that even if both of these events occurred, exactly as predicted, they would still not attribute them to valid, God-breathed prophecy.  Of course, the discussion begins over what constitutes self-fulfillment but I've heard no valid, reasonable explanation of how this could occur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 minutes ago, and then said:

Maybe it's because I'm a simple individual but the two concepts can exist in the same space and time, IMO.  As I said earlier, some people are simply incapable of faith.  They seem to feel that it is a form of willful ignorance to insist on believing in a thing that cannot be measured and proven empirically.  Others have no problem whatever in accepting that a Creator that most on earth call God, was responsible for setting the template for everything and then having it come into being.  I think the disconnect between the two groups mainly centers on a sincere drive to understand the how of everything by the empiricist while the believer is content to watch it all unfold and to be content that it is happening exactly as it was intended to do.  The person of faith may be a physicist or computer scientist and enjoy the quest for knowledge and still accept that mankind's intellectual energies are not the beginning and end of all existence.   

Many here at UM who are Atheist or Agnostic tend to get a bit agitated or do the eye-roll when I mention prophecy.  I feel no need to muddle the discussion but the Bible states that Jesus is the "spirit" of prophecy.  I believe that the only evidence that our faith is a solid, tangible thing is going to come when prophecy is fulfilled in a way so specific that only a committed denier can scoff at.  There are two specific predictions that have not yet occurred that seem to be far more likely today than ever before and, in fact, could literally happen in the coming days or at most, a few years.  Damascus, Syria is predicted to be completely destroyed and left in uninhabitable ruins and it is said to happen literally over a single night.  The other prediction is that Turkey, Iran(Persia) Sudan and several other, smaller states will be led by a Personage referred to as Gog from a land called Magog.  Some scholars believe this is speaking of the peoples that inhabit modern Russia while others think that Gog/Magog IS Turkey.  The common thread is that each modern nation is comprised of the descendants of countries that today are majority Muslim.  When the predictions were penned, Mohammad was about 3 millennia in the future.  The prediction is that this vast confederation of forces will descend onto Israel at a time in the future when its people have come back from the dispersion and are living safely in their land and enjoying great wealth.  The empiricists tend to state up front that even if both of these events occurred, exactly as predicted, they would still not attribute them to valid, God-breathed prophecy.  Of course, the discussion begins over what constitutes self-fulfillment but I've heard no valid, reasonable explanation of how this could occur.

Considering that Gog and Magog are as you stated in the Book of Ezekiel, Magog is a person in Genesis and Gog doesn't appear. And in Revelations both are referred to as nation's. You can argue that it's very open to interpretation. As are all prophetic verses in every Religious ideology.

And its argued that the two words mean just unclean nation's, thus they can be anyone.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

self-fulfilling-prophecy.png

When you have stories telling about what "will" happen in the future, then you have people connecting imaginary dots to the point where they bring about the fulfillment of said prophecy.

Its the same principle as a smart kid being told they're stupid. If they come to believe what they've heard is true, they won't make as much of an effort. Grades will drop and they will become an idiot. The opposite can become true as well.

Now if you come back from the shaman and they tell you a future, you tell your tribe, tribe believes it. They act differently and thus fulfill that prediction, its self fulfilling prophecy.

Similar to social engineering.

article-28-2.jpg?w=723

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The thing about many self fulfilling prophecies is that they are made manifest almost on a pure unconscious level. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, danydandan said:

Considering that Gog and Magog are as you stated in the Book of Ezekiel, Magog is a person in Genesis and Gog doesn't appear. And in Revelations both are referred to as nation's. You can argue that it's very open to interpretation. As are all prophetic verses in every Religious ideology.

Indeed, yes.  None of these predictions have a date/time stamp or GPS coordinates, I'll admit :)  IIRC, Magog was a grandson of Noah and a son of Japheth.  It is known in most cases by early histories where these descendants migrated to and resided as future nations.  The term Gog is usually seen as a title rather than a proper noun.  So the point is that we have a near consensus on where these people groups lived at Ezekiel's time and know that the modern nations correspond with were those people lived and multiplied.  The most interesting aspect of the Ezekiel 38/39 prophecy is that with the possible exception of Russia, every other people group mentioned in the prophecy lived on lands that today are Islamic nations.  Islam didn't exist for 3000 years after this prophecy was recorded.  I find it interesting that after such a very long span of time, the conditions for a group of nations to join in an attack against Israel (which was not a nation in the land when Ezekiel wrote) are fast gelling together.  Realistically, all that would be required for a group of Islamic countries to gang-up on Israel would be the element of surprise and the inability of Israel to crush such an attack.  The element of the prediction that explains how this set-up occurs is that Israel, at that time, will be living peacefully, without need of such stout defenses.  THAT points to a future where Israel makes peace and basically disarms.  While that seems an unbelievable condition, all it would take is for Israel to have fought a war against enemies and conquered them so completely that they no longer had real enemies OR that Israel was forced to disarm after nuking someone in a conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

They act differently and thus fulfill that prediction,

Vacuous and unconvincing.  EXPLAIN how this mystical "acting differently" brings about such a complex train of events.  I hear this a lot and on a simple, limited prediction it would be possible.  There are too many complex, intricately moving parts to this prediction to just say 'they believe it so they make it happen".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, and then said:

Indeed, yes.  None of these predictions have a date/time stamp or GPS coordinates, I'll admit :)  IIRC, Magog was a grandson of Noah and a son of Japheth.  It is known in most cases by early histories where these descendants migrated to and resided as future nations.  The term Gog is usually seen as a title rather than a proper noun.  So the point is that we have a near consensus on where these people groups lived at Ezekiel's time and know that the modern nations correspond with were those people lived and multiplied.  The most interesting aspect of the Ezekiel 38/39 prophecy is that with the possible exception of Russia, every other people group mentioned in the prophecy lived on lands that today are Islamic nations.  Islam didn't exist for 3000 years after this prophecy was recorded.  I find it interesting that after such a very long span of time, the conditions for a group of nations to join in an attack against Israel (which was not a nation in the land when Ezekiel wrote) are fast gelling together.  Realistically, all that would be required for a group of Islamic countries to gang-up on Israel would be the element of surprise and the inability of Israel to crush such an attack.  The element of the prediction that explains how this set-up occurs is that Israel, at that time, will be living peacefully, without need of such stout defenses.  THAT points to a future where Israel makes peace and basically disarms.  While that seems an unbelievable condition, all it would take is for Israel to have fought a war against enemies and conquered them so completely that they no longer had real enemies OR that Israel was forced to disarm after nuking someone in a conflict.

Doesn't matter, there will always be land disputes. Always have always will. Regardless if Islam was made afterwards or not. These lands could be Hindu, Christian or whatever. A dispute regarding land will always occur. Thus the prophecy is vague about it and like all Religious prophecies are.

The only Religion that has had the guts to put time and dates on things, are found incorrect, like David Meade's one, the Great Fire of London 1666 etcetera.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
9 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So, basically, I'm asking why one would choose to believe in something that they have no evidence for. 

I don't think you do choose beliefs.

It's tricky, because choices play a role in belief formation, e.g. what range of experience you expose yourself to, what people's ideas you enagage with, etc. You can also choose to be relatively "formal" about critical thinking, but critical thinking worthy of the name is neutral among the hypotheses being considered.

@Liquid Gardens

Quote

 

I've also heard theists tell me essentially, "I just believe", which makes me think to myself, what if I 'just believed' something without requiring the kind of evidence I need for everything else.

 

But it's not everything else. To reason, you need premises. The premises may be robust in the presence of evidence (so far, whenever I drop my keys from a standing position, they've always fallen towards my feet), but they can't be justified fully by evidence (as Hume noted).

And (see above) you don't choose whether the premises are satisfactory to you. You can choose whether and how much to examine, challenge and refine your premises, but you don't choose whether to think that's a good idea (and there does come a point where you must say "enough!," on pain of never doing anything else).

@danydandan

Quote

William Harvey discovered blood circulation on faith that he was correct, he was obviously proved correct. Same with Einstein's relativity both general and special. You could argue that people took Darwin's initial premise on faith too, ultimately it was proven true.

To the extent that that is the actual history, those are examples of hypothesis formation. You don't need to believe that a hypothesis is true  to investigate it (or even approximately true, which is more complicated). After investigation, you don't need to conclude it's true to conclude it's useful and so adopt it.

In real life: consider the persistence of Newtonian mechanics in practice; in theater, Brecht's Galileo (which spends a lot of time on a proposed "compromise" that the church would concede that heliocentrism was useful, but not concede that it was true).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Doesn't matter, there will always be land disputes. Always have always will. Regardless if Islam was made afterwards or not. These lands could be Hindu, Christian or whatever. A dispute regarding land will always occur. Thus the prophecy is vague about it and like all Religious prophecies are.

The only Religion that has had the guts to put time and dates on things, are found incorrect, like David Meade's one, the Great Fire of London 1666 etcetera.

So if these events, countries, and outcomes are all perfectly realized, you still would deny the prophecy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

There have been many Scientific truths found on faith that the initial premise is correct without evidence. Some Scientific truths were discovered without axioms.

yeah, but not quite the same. William Harvey had an idea, and was convinced he was on the right track, and then tested his notion, and proved his idea correct. He didn't just come out one day and say "I have faith that blood circulates through the body! No, don't ask me to prove it, I just believe." 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 minutes ago, and then said:

So if these events, countries, and outcomes are all perfectly realized, you still would deny the prophecy?

Obviously you can't if they are realised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, danydandan said:

Obviously you can't if they are realised.

I have asked the same question of several members here and they are steadfast in their denial, regardless of fulfillment.  Those are the ones who convince me their stance isn't about truth or knowledge.  It's simply a blind rejection of even a possibility that they could be wrong in their belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 hour ago, and then said:

Vacuous and unconvincing.  EXPLAIN how this mystical "acting differently" brings about such a complex train of events.  I hear this a lot and on a simple, limited prediction it would be possible.  There are too many complex, intricately moving parts to this prediction to just say 'they believe it so they make it happen".

100,000 pc jigsaw puzzle and no one knows who's got what piece. Everything that has happened across the span of humanity's existence has started with ideas and action. Like stacking one sheet of paper each day. It accumulates. And over time certain ideas can be turned into a reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
4 minutes ago, and then said:

I have asked the same question of several members here and they are steadfast in their denial, regardless of fulfillment.  Those are the ones who convince me their stance isn't about truth or knowledge.  It's simply a blind rejection of even a possibility that they could be wrong in their belief system.

Perhaps they see it for what it really is and adamant belief has put you in denial? 

Our entire lives are a self fulfilling prophecy. Those future expectations that we hold, the ones that become buried in our subconscious. Like a seed. It takes root and grows, creating our lives through action and inaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Faith is a belief and beliefs seek confirmation. Be it positive/constructive or negative/destructive. 

Edited by XenoFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, and then said:

Maybe it's because I'm a simple individual but the two concepts can exist in the same space and time, IMO. 

Well... Yes they can, but it's like a pizza and a green shirt. Nothing to do with each other. 

1 hour ago, and then said:

As I said earlier, some people are simply incapable of faith. 

Sorry, I'll try not to do this too often, but I think this is important. I can personally say that's how I spent most of my life. Faith let me down, and education opened my eyes. Having kids sort of put me through school again, only this time it was a lot more interesting. And with the Internet we can all see what the latest and greatest discoveries are, and I can't unsee that. From a observers view, there's much better explanations than God to explain everything, and religion didn't ever do anything but make my life more difficult. What I'm trying to say is there are those of us who faith let down. The story of Job only cuts it for so long if you know what I'm saying. 

1 hour ago, and then said:

They seem to feel that it is a form of willful ignorance to insist on believing in a thing that cannot be measured and proven empirically.  Others have no problem whatever in accepting that a Creator that most on earth call God, was responsible for setting the template for everything and then having it come into being.  I think the disconnect between the two groups mainly centers on a sincere drive to understand the how of everything by the empiricist while the believer is content to watch it all unfold and to be content that it is happening exactly as it was intended to do.  The person of faith may be a physicist or computer scientist and enjoy the quest for knowledge and still accept that mankind's intellectual energies are not the beginning and end of all existence.   

But like I say, you can't unsee somthing. Evolution changed the way we think. I feel it was the first big step toward a new era of knowleldge. Today's knowledge removes the reason to fill the holes that we used to fill with religion. They are just not viable next to new information. I suppose I am one of those people you talk about in that I purely can't understand why we would continue to factor in religion amongst discovery, the way I see it we are back at the pizza and green shirt. Science explains what happened and religion is somthing some people decide to incorporate into that information on a way that makes sense to them. I'm not sure if I would describe that as willful ignorance, but it seems very illogical to me. 

1 hour ago, and then said:

Many here at UM who are Atheist or Agnostic tend to get a bit agitated or do the eye-roll when I mention prophecy.  I feel no need to muddle the discussion but the Bible states that Jesus is the "spirit" of prophecy.  I believe that the only evidence that our faith is a solid, tangible thing is going to come when prophecy is fulfilled in a way so specific that only a committed denier can scoff at.  There are two specific predictions that have not yet occurred that seem to be far more likely today than ever before and, in fact, could literally happen in the coming days or at most, a few years.  Damascus, Syria is predicted to be completely destroyed and left in uninhabitable ruins and it is said to happen literally over a single night.  The other prediction is that Turkey, Iran(Persia) Sudan and several other, smaller states will be led by a Personage referred to as Gog from a land called Magog.  Some scholars believe this is speaking of the peoples that inhabit modern Russia while others think that Gog/Magog IS Turkey.  The common thread is that each modern nation is comprised of the descendants of countries that today are majority Muslim.  When the predictions were penned, Mohammad was about 3 millennia in the future.  The prediction is that this vast confederation of forces will descend onto Israel at a time in the future when its people have come back from the dispersion and are living safely in their land and enjoying great wealth.  The empiricists tend to state up front that even if both of these events occurred, exactly as predicted, they would still not attribute them to valid, God-breathed prophecy.  Of course, the discussion begins over what constitutes self-fulfillment but I've heard no valid, reasonable explanation of how this could occur.

I don't know all of the subject in depth enough to comment so no emoticons this time lol. 

But with all due respect, if it is so hard to convince others wouldn't that cause you to question the theory? What do the really smart people like Harte Kmt-Sesh or Badeskov say about the connections? 

You have to understand that there's been a lot of prophesies in history which have all failed, and every description in the bible is extremely broad, I'm not saying your wrong, but how sure are you that you are right? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
49 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

yeah, but not quite the same. William Harvey had an idea, and was convinced he was on the right track, and then tested his notion, and proved his idea correct. He didn't just come out one day and say "I have faith that blood circulates through the body! No, don't ask me to prove it, I just believe." 

 

That's not my point. My point is thinking or believing in something as right, without evidence is faith. Regardless if there are indicators that might suggest your correct and regardless if it's Scientific, Religious or something else.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baldylocks

Sometimes I feel it would have been better if we didn't evolve to the point we got "clever" enough to think this deep into things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
12 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Not really, I am wondering why people can believe "A" on faith, but disregard other subjects that have an equal amount of 'proof'.

For instance, some people believe, have faith in, claims of extraterrestrial visitors, but deny 'ghosts', or vice-versa. Some have faith in a deity, by pooh-pooh the belief in intelligent life elsewhere. Some folk swear that various forms of extrasensory abilities are true, but will scoff at the idea of fairies. And some people believe that their god is real and true, on faith, and other peoples god is false.

And that last one, to me, is like arguing over who would win in a fight: superman or the Hulk. IMO, they are all fictional characters, and that is not meant as a slur on believers.

Take the classic argument: Life on Earth began, because

A - God

B - natural causes.

There are, broadly speaking, three camps:

Theists who say A is the answer.

Non-theists who say B is the answer,

And a bunch of folk who try to reconcile both answers by saying "God did it using natural means.

 

So, basically, I'm asking why one would choose to believe in something that they have no evidence for. 

 

In short, one doesn't 'choose' to believe something...for the most part.  They are taught it from Birth.  From Birth we are taught God...The Bible...The Koran...Catholicism...Judaism...whateverism.  The Birth Box is a difficult box to walk away from.   And so, from generation to generation, the same 'truth' is taught ...from birth.   And whenever anyone questions why some things don't make sense...there is a plethora of Faithful full of answers on how to make the absurd understandable.  

When people are born into a religion...they tend to view EVERYTHING from that religions foundations...the Bible, The koran etc

Edited by joc
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

OoooooKAY. The opening post question was... 

"Is Faith an accurate pathway to truth". 

And the answer is........ 

NO !

Thank you. 

NEXT !

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, joc said:

In short, one doesn't 'choose' to believe something...for the most part.  They are taught it from Birth.  From Birth we are taught God...The Bible...The Koran...Catholicism...Judaism...whateverism.  The Birth Box is a difficult box to walk away from.   And so, from generation to generation, the same 'truth' is taught ...from birth.   And whenever anyone questions why some things don't make sense...there is a plethora of Faithful full of answers on how to make the absurd understandable.  

When people are born into a religion...they tend to view EVERYTHING from that religions foundations...the Bible, The koran etc

They also do that when they "discover" a new religion. These "Buddhists", "Pagans" and "Pan-Indian shaman" who find these traditions as adults still think with a Christian mindset.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
15 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

What I am interested in learning, is if people think that religious/spiritual faith is an accurate way to determine truth. If one can believe one thing, solely with faith and without evidence, does that not mean that they can believe anything, without evidence?

 

No, I still need some form of proof. I have "philosophy" not "faith" because my belief might be disproven and change at any time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
13 minutes ago, Piney said:

No, I still need some form of proof. I have "philosophy" not "faith" because my belief might be disproven and change at any time. 

A philosophy is better than faith, because it can be changed and modified as needed. A spiritual/religious faith often comes with bells and whistles that must be adhered to.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.