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

Mr Walker
15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The topic is Faith and its applications. Welcome to the wonderful world of slippery definitions. That is, indeed, the definition of "Faith" for a lot of people. They believe something they read in a book, or something read to them from a book. This is the foundation of Faith, for them. People of Islam often refer to Christians as "The People of the Book".

Some people even believe information in encyclopedias and dictionaries to be true ,  taking it on their faith in the reputation of the book or authors . :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, danydandan said:

I don't think we can be discussing Religion, God yeah, but not Religion because in Religion the doctrines are the tangible evidence for their Faith, wouldn't you agree?

no!  Doctrines  must also  be accepted on faith if there is no evidence for them 

Maybe i am missing what you define as doctrine.

  For example I would say that, "Christ died to redeem you from sin" is a doctrine, and must be accepted only via faith, because it cannot be objectively verified 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

no!  Doctrines  must also  be accepted on faith if there is no evidence for them 

Maybe i am missing what you define as doctrine.

  For example I would say that, "Christ died to redeem you from sin" is a doctrine, and must be accepted only via faith, because it cannot be objectively verified 

No, in some Religions the Bible, Qu'ran or Torah or whatever are considered evidence for these faith  Written doctrine, and non written doctrines are considered evidence for some people's faith.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

No, in Religion the Bible is considered evidence. Written doctrine, and non written doctrines are considered evidence for some people's faith.

That is an opinion.

I don't agree with it and many religious people I know don't agree.

Sure some do, eg those who see the bible as a literal word of god  but they are a very small minority of modern Christians 

Don't want to get into another argument with you, if this is just about definitions  

Only the bits of the bible which can be proven with evidence do not require faith to accept them. 

In my experience, ALL doctrinal matters, being subjective opinions, must be taken on faith, or  else rejected They cant be proven Eg the infallibility of the pope  The pope has recognised actual authority in the church, but the idea that this is god given or infallible is a belief 

examples

In Roman Catholic belief, revelation ends with the death of the Apostles; the deposit was transmitted to the college of bishops, which succeeded the Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Bible is the word of God and that tradition is the word of the church.

The four dogmas of perpetual virginity, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption form the basis of Mariology. However, a number of other Catholic doctrines about the Virgin Mary have been developed by reference to sacred scripture, theological reasoning and Church tradition

While it is a provable fact that these ARE catholic doctrines, the doctrines themselves are incapable of objective proof and must be accepted or rejected on faith 

The Catholic Church proclaims these doctrines:

  • Teaching that Jesus is the Son of God sent to die for the sins of the world
  • God is a triune God, consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
  • In accepting Jesus and serving Him, believers are granted life eternal.
  • Members must accept the church as having the fullness of revelation, and according to Roman Catholic catechism is the only Christian body that is "holy, universal and apostolic"
  • Apostolic succession is key in the faith, saying that the pope and bishops have varying degrees of authority from Jesus.
  • Penance and the Eucharist are required at least once a year

https://www.allaboutreligion.org/roman-catholic-doctrine-faq.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That is an opinion.

I don't agree with it and many religious people I know don't agree.

Sure some do, eg those who see the bible as a literal word of god  but they are a very small minority of modern Christians 

Don't want to get into another argument with you, if this is just about definitions  

Only the bits of the bible which can be proven with evidence do not require faith to accept them. 

In my experience, ALL doctrinal matters, being subjective opinions, must be taken on faith, or  else rejected They cant be proven Eg the infallibility of the pope  The pope has recognised actual authority in the church, but the idea that this is god given or infallible is a belief 

examples

In Roman Catholic belief, revelation ends with the death of the Apostles; the deposit was transmitted to the college of bishops, which succeeded the Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Bible is the word of God and that tradition is the word of the church.

The four dogmas of perpetual virginity, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption form the basis of Mariology. However, a number of other Catholic doctrines about the Virgin Mary have been developed by reference to sacred scripture, theological reasoning and Church tradition

While it is a provable fact that these ARE catholic doctrines, the doctrines themselves are incapable of objective proof and must be accepted or rejected on faith 

The Catholic Church proclaims these doctrines:

  • Teaching that Jesus is the Son of God sent to die for the sins of the world
  • God is a triune God, consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
  • In accepting Jesus and serving Him, believers are granted life eternal.
  • Members must accept the church as having the fullness of revelation, and according to Roman Catholic catechism is the only Christian body that is "holy, universal and apostolic"
  • Apostolic succession is key in the faith, saying that the pope and bishops have varying degrees of authority from Jesus.
  • Penance and the Eucharist are required at least once a year

https://www.allaboutreligion.org/roman-catholic-doctrine-faq.htm

If they don't accept the written and non written doctrines of their Religion, they aren't really accepting or following their Religion. You aren't Catholic if you don't accept or agree with succession, you aren't Protestant if you don't accept that the Scripture is Justification of faith alone, you aren't Muslim if you do not adhere to the pilliars of faith etcetera.

Yes I agree what I said is opinion, your only voicing your opinion too. Actually I'd attest that the very vast majority of Christians accept that the Bible is the word if God, if they don't they aren't Catholic. A basic tenet of Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam is this,

"The Bible is the inspired, error-free, and revealed word of God."

Edit: My wife is making me watch MasterChef Australia, it's a quite ehh bad TV show but, some of the individuals are nuts. All they do is cook food. Have you ever seen it?

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I recently watched a youtube video where a woman claimed she was healed of cancer by Jesus because she prayed to him. She found a lump in her breast, believed it to be cancerous, prayed night and day for a week, and the lump disappeared. 

Except.... on being questioned about it, she admitted that she didn't go to a doctor for an examination, or diagnosis either before OR after. She simply decided she had cancer and sought "treatment" from god. THAT is 'faith without evidence', on a whole lot of levels.

While I think that you and I agree that what the woman observed (= evidence) only weakly supports the conclusion she drew, it isn't really clear that her "faith" explains any part of the anecdote except what specific conclusion she proposes. She believes that Jesus often fixes problems like this + she applied Jesus to the problem + the problem was fixed soon after = she concludes Jesus fixed it.

That heuristic isn't peculiar to the faithful.

Example: The woman's car won't start. She opens the hood, cleans the battery terminals, and closes the hood. The car starts soon after she resumes trying to start it. She concludes that cleaning the battery terminals fixed the problem.

To be honest, I can't say empirically whether more cars have started promptly after cleaning the battery terminals or promptly after a driver praying to Jesus. At best, I understand what cleaning the battery terminals might contribute to a generic effort to start a reluctant car. But for all I know, calling on Jesus might be effective, too, and it's my failing that I don't understand how that would work. Regardless, neither the woman nor I would have a strong reason to believe that cleaning the battery terminals fixed the problem.

My point is that I am unpersuaded that "faith" is the key problem with a willingness to engage in dodgy causal reasoning. Good causal reasoning is a skill, and expensive. Many, many problems seem to resolve without stellar causal reasoning. The underlying heuristics don't much depend on "faith."

I also sense that you'd be less upset with the woman if she'd made a video about how clean battery terminals are the key to reliable automotive transport. The reasoning, and the flaw in it, are the same as the woman in the actual video. I think you're making a connection to religion beyond what's clearly there.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

If they don't accept the written and non written doctrines of their Religion, they aren't really accepting or following their Religion. You aren't Catholic if you don't accept or agree with succession, you aren't Protestant if you don't accept that the Scripture is Justification of faith alone, you aren't Muslim if you do not adhere to the pilliars of faith etcetera.

Yes I agree what I said is opinion, your only voicing your opinion too. Actually I'd attest that the very vast majority of Christians accept that the Bible is the word if God, if they don't they aren't Catholic. A basic tenet of Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam is this,

"The Bible is the inspired, error-free, and revealed word of God."

Edit: My wife is making me watch MasterChef Australia, it's a quite ehh bad TV show but, some of the individuals are nuts. All they do is cook food. Have you ever seen it?

No.  Don't watch commercial tv and  don't watch reality shows ( I can't suspend disbelief enough, to believe them to be real ) :) 

Plus I am a plain foods man I am just cooking our tea.

Mashed potatoes with butter, salt, garlic, and  cream.   Peas and carrots steamed, and a roast chicken.  For dessert; a muffin soaked in peach juice and with peaches, warmed up and with cream  . Who needs master chef :) 

I was looking from  outside the paradigm of belief.  Of course, if you are within it, then belief is almost accepted as fact, but it is not 

 What people accept is their own business, but it  is acceptd on faith, or via belief.

It is not  demonstrable, using  any objective evidences. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No.  Don't watch commercial tv and  don't watch reality shows ( I can't suspend disbelief enough, to believe them to be real ) :) 

Plus I am a plain foods man I am just cooking our tea.

Mashed potatoes with butter, salt, garlic, and  cream.   Peas and carrots steamed, and a roast chicken.  For dessert; a muffin soaked in peach juice and with peaches, warmed up and with cream  . Who needs master chef :) 

I was looking from  outside the paradigm of belief.  Of course, if you are within it, then belief is almost accepted as fact, but it is not 

 What people accept is their own business, but it  is acceptd on faith, or via belief.

It is not  demonstrable, using  any objective evidences. 

I accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozymandias
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Some people even believe information in encyclopedias and dictionaries to be true ,  taking it on their faith in the reputation of the book or authors . :) 

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.

Edited by Ozymandias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

This is true. And is a reason that I think religion isn't really on its way out. 

I do think though that with the internet, and public education, that there are strong influences that can turn young people from religion and toward humanism. Not entirely a bad thing, but I've seen many a young person, with very little worldly experience, turn away from their parents/community and flounder off into a world of drugs/alcohol and crime. IMHO, many of these poor souls would have been better served in life if they HAD been brainwashed. 

If they 'flounder' off it is, one way or the other, the fault of the parents...brain washing into religion doesn't make them good people...good parenting skills do...but even that is  not a given....but you could be right I suppose...I just don't see it...eventually many leave the church and go to drugs anyway

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Jodie was saying "Truth" as in the truths of the physical world.

Only the physical can give the truth of the physical - Only Science can be evidence of the material world.

Only the spiritual can give the truth of the spiritual - Only God can save your immortal soul.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Only the spiritual can give the truth of the spiritual - Only God can save your immortal soul.

A 'spiritual truth' is nothing more than a subjective opinion. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

A 'spiritual truth' is nothing more than a subjective opinion. 

Only the subjective can give the truth of the subjective :tu:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Only the subjective can give the truth of the subjective :tu:

Nonsense, lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

If you take the trouble to delve into it, the mystic religious figures, who gave rise to the great religions, basically lay out the conditions whereby the mortal man can enter into communion with the divine, in this life. That is where the proof lies, not in dry theory. But precious few have the commitment to bring it to realisation, the pull of the world is too strong, But as Christ says, "he who puts his hand to the plough, but looks back, is not fit for the Kingdom". This is the most un-dilettante thing imaginable, it is "all-in", no reserve. No wonder no-one, or almost no-one, ventures there. But we may gather an inkling of the gravity of this matter, from the words of the medieval  German mystic, Meister Eckhart, who said that to enter this ground, even for a second, renders anything that has preceded it in one's life, seem like the merest nothing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 hours ago, eight bits said:

While I think that you and I agree that what the woman observed (= evidence) only weakly supports the conclusion she drew, it isn't really clear that her "faith" explains any part of the anecdote except what specific conclusion she proposes

How about the premise, 'Jesus heals cancer if you pray to him'?

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

At best, I understand what cleaning the battery terminals might contribute to a generic effort to start a reluctant car. But for all I know, calling on Jesus might be effective, too, and it's my failing that I don't understand how that would work. Regardless, neither the woman nor I would have a strong reason to believe that cleaning the battery terminals fixed the problem.

That is a significant 'at best' in this analysis though, which concerns faith.  The strongest thing we can say is indeed, 'for all we know', praying to Jesus might be effective.  However, the scientific fact that electrical conductivity can be interrupted by various substances has no counterpart in the Jesus example.  "It is possible to make battery terminals so 'dirty' that they will not conduct electricity" is a fact with loads of evidence supporting it.  Whether that can occur during normal driving I wouldn't know, but it's still quite a difference.  Why did you clean your battery terminals?  Because one evidence-based explanation your car won't start is because the battery won't conduct electricity because there is an non-conductive intervening medium, the latter is not faith-based.  Why did you pray to Jesus?  Because you believe he can heal cancer, even though there's no evidence Jesus has that power, that he would use that power if he does have it, nor is there actually a firmly solid case that he ever even existed (and in the specific example, we're not even sure the prayor had cancer).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How about the premise, 'Jesus heals cancer if you pray to him'?

Yes, the faulty pattern of inference is to try one thing, and if the situation improves soon after, then impute success (causal efficacy) to the one thing that was tried. The pattern is faulty whether or not that one thing was chosen for religious reasons.

Quote

However, the scientific fact that electrical conductivity can be interrupted by various substances has no counterpart in the Jesus example.

Well, first, I don't know that it has no counterpart in the Jesus example. Engaging in prayer may have elicited a physiological response that helped with the lesion (whose actual character we'll never know). Regardless, the fact claim is that cleaning the battery terminals was efficacious in this case. It's not strongly in evidence that there was any problem with the car's electrical system in this case, nor, even if there was, that cleaning the terminals is what fixed it.

Quote

Why did you pray to Jesus?

This would be a good time to recall that I'm not the one who prayed to Jesus. It's also not what I'd recommend as the exclusive response to discovering a suspicious lesion.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That is an opinion.

I don't agree with it and many religious people I know don't agree.

Sure some do, eg those who see the bible as a literal word of god  but they are a very small minority of modern Christians 

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.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  A person CAN get through and out of this life unscathed if they develop the right mindset and "coping mechanisms," because our hurt or our joy only exists within our mind  

As to god, i agree entirely, but every human will; see, perceive, and feel about, such a god in a different way.   

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

There seems to be some confusion, I hope I can clear up what I meant.

I said "faith without evidence" meaning, one who believes in something without reasonable causes for such belief.

Whether that belief in in old holy books, gods, spectres, spooks or whatever.

I recently watched a youtube video where a woman claimed she was healed of cancer by Jesus because she prayed to him. She found a lump in her breast, believed it to be cancerous, prayed night and day for a week, and the lump disappeared. 

Except.... on being questioned about it, she admitted that she didn't go to a doctor for an examination, or diagnosis either before OR after. She simply decided she had cancer and sought "treatment" from god. THAT is 'faith without evidence', on a whole lot of levels.

There are people who refuse to go to a doctor, or take their kids to one because they believe it is 'god's will' whether they live or die. This is 'faith without evidence'.

 

If I get into my car, insert the key and turn it, I have a reasonable expectation that it will start. Although, it's an older model and I sometimes have my doubts. And sometimes, it doesn't start. But more often than not, it does. This is not 'faith' in the manner I am meaning.

If I toss a coin in the air, I know it will fall back to the ground. This is not 'faith' either, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity. If the coin doesn't fall to the ground, I would start to wonder and worry why.

 

The second part of my question is about 'truth'. I am not talking about metaphysical truths, I am talking about factual, observable, testable, reliable truths. Water is wet, fire is hot, night is dark, and stars are very distant.

And I am wondering, if 'faith without evidence' leads to truth, as defined above. If faith can lead me to two different answers, is it then, an accurate and reliable path to truth?

 

As long as you're looking at faith as a way of measuring the objective world, it's gonna fall short.

It's just not about the objective world at all. 

It's a belief in something more than the objective world. 

If there actually is more than the objective world, then people who have faith about that have found an underlying truth.

Even if they've gotten some of the particulars wrong, that would still be huge. 

It's never going to be something that's provable, observable, and testable in the objective world, like the scientific method.

But faith is reaching for something higher than the objective world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Jodie was saying "Truth" as in the truths of the physical world.

Only the physical can give the truth of the physical - Only Science can be evidence of the material world.

Only the spiritual can give the truth of the spiritual - Only God can save your immortal soul.

Good point.....but I think some people would like to know if there actually is an immortal soul and how we know?

Also, I disagree with the Christian teaching that you lose your immortal soul to hell if you don’t believe in Jesus now and live like a Christian is supposed to (whatever that means)  because if God is actually looking to save our souls, and that’s what this world is for....then it’s not going to take something as jacked up as religion to get that done.  It’s gonna take whatever it takes in this life or the next.....IMHO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

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...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Faith in the non-religious sense is just optimism. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

What is in your mind (either pain or joy)  is not make believe but it IS your constructed response to events Religions help formalise standardised responses to events and fears, and things like loss and grief.

  A person CAN get through and out of this life unscathed if they develop the right mindset and "coping mechanisms," because our hurt or our joy only exists within our mind  

As to god, i agree entirely, but every human will; see, perceive, and feel about, such a god in a different way.   

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. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

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.