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

Habitat

The best faith to have, in the absence of any proof, is the faith that the proposition might be, not that it is, that is leaning too far to wishful thinking. That accords better with the words so often heard from the wise, "I don't know"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
10 hours ago, Sherapy said:
10 hours ago, Habitat said:

Sometimes the objective proof, can only be arrived at, personally.

Habit this doesn't make sense. Objective is reality based. 

Bingo. Yes, it can be arrived at personally. But, I feel it’s going to be the same truth each personal times. I may have not said it very well, my apologies, but that is what I was trying to point out. I think Sheri clarified it for me a lot better. :)  

10 hours ago, Habitat said:

psychological realities are the most important realities, in making the world of humans, what it is. I don't know what blood tests would conclusively prove people are "in love", in the sense I described, for all I know, the blood tests would show nothing different to those who feign being in love, who are ecstatic at the thought they have snagged a good partner, but are not "in love" with them. And how would the experimenter know what blood test, matched which condition ? it would depend on honest reportage, and who is going to admit they are faking it ?

I think, in the end, it’s the commonalities that speak for themselves. No matter how a personal truth comes to a person, it’s important to them, but still personal. I think, it’s objective, when every personal truth matches exactly each other. One person’s truth, is not the end all to say it is the objective truth. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
10 hours ago, Habitat said:

ANyone who has been "in love" or truly loved another, two very different things, would not hold with such reductionism.

Right.  But, I think there should be a distinction between love and lust.  Two different things.....IMO.  Now, if one can put those two together, I think that's where the fireworks happen.  :]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
11 hours ago, Habitat said:

Sometimes the only proof, is the personal experience.

Agree.  It's like my cousin and her ex-husband who claimed to witness a UFO.  She would have never even mentioned it because she's just not a "woo" person at all.  She's the opposite of that.  Sort of the nurse Rachet/librarian type.  Anyway, I love talking about weird stuff, having had weird experiences myself....and the ex proceeds to tell me of this experience, that she did in fact confirm.

So, they observed a craft that once they were watching it, morphed into something else.  It seemed to change shape and appearance right before their eyes.  

Do I believe it?  I really don't.  I would have had to experience it for myself to actually believe it.  Is it possible?  Yes.  I do admit it is.  It is possible because it could simply be a type of optical illusion it was as they perceived it.....perhaps even incorrectly....

Or, it could have been real.  I do not doubt that they were speaking the truth as they understood it to be.....but the actual truth of it - I have no way of knowing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Perhaps we could all agree that Pilate's question in John, What is truth?, is more complicated than it might first appear. That said, it would be interesting to know whether Faith is a pathway to any sense of truth worthy of the name, or whether any reliable pathway to truth in any worthwhile sense arrives at Faith.

Personally, but I don't think I'm the only one, the only kind of truth I'd credit as "worthy of the name" is one where my belief or disbelief didn't matter to the question of whether or not something was true. That is not without consequences (some version of "subject-object duality" would need to hold), but I'm willing to take my chances on those.

 

When it comes to truth and faith, I think it's best to take the chance of wholehearted faith. What can I lose for doing that? Nothing is taken away. Things are only added. I get to have my cake and eat it too. :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Agree.  It's like my cousin and her ex-husband who claimed to witness a UFO.  She would have never even mentioned it because she's just not a "woo" person at all.  She's the opposite of that.  Sort of the nurse Rachet/librarian type.  Anyway, I love talking about weird stuff, having had weird experiences myself....and the ex proceeds to tell me of this experience, that she did in fact confirm.

So, they observed a craft that once they were watching it, morphed into something else.  It seemed to change shape and appearance right before their eyes.  

Do I believe it?  I really don't.  I would have had to experience it for myself to actually believe it.  Is it possible?  Yes.  I do admit it is.  It is possible because it could simply be a type of optical illusion it was as they perceived it.....perhaps even incorrectly....

Or, it could have been real.  I do not doubt that they were speaking the truth as they understood it to be.....but the actual truth of it - I have no way of knowing.  

What premise would you consider that it's possible to see a UFO? For me, a person that is prone to Skepticism claiming a UFO is not reason enough to accept a UFO claim without some supporting evidence.  Optical illusion are common place. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
19 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right.  But, I think there should be a distinction between love and lust.  Two different things.....IMO.  Now, if one can put those two together, I think that's where the fireworks happen.  :]

What is wrong with lust? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
10 hours ago, Habitat said:

Reductionist nonsense, the chemicals are not guiding anything, they are concomitant to psychological processes, you might as well say adrenalin guides anger or fear. What caused the adrenalin to flow was a psychological reaction to an external stimulus, or a perceived external situation.

"In 2005, Fisher led a research team that published a groundbreaking study that included the first functional MRI (fMRI) images of the brains of individuals in the throes of romantic love. Her team analyzed 2,500 brain scans of college students who viewed pictures of someone special to them and compared the scans to ones taken when the students looked at pictures of acquaintances. Photos of people they romantically loved caused the participants’ brains to become active in regions rich with dopamine, the so-called feel-good neurotransmitter. Two of the brain regions that showed activity in the fMRI scans were the caudate nucleus, a region associated with reward detection and expectation and the integration of sensory experiences into social behavior, and the ventral tegmental area, which is associated with pleasure, focused attention, and the motivation to pursue and acquire rewards."

In other words, habit, the cognitive appraisal comes after the biological reaction. 

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
30 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What is wrong with lust? 

Nothing.  It's just fine.  Purely natural.  But I am distinguishing it from love.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
32 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What premise would you consider that it's possible to see a UFO? For me, a person that is prone to Skepticism claiming a UFO is not reason enough to accept a UFO claim without some supporting evidence.  Optical illusion are common place. 

 

I don't think a premise is necessary Sherapy.  Observing a UFO is common experience.  Happens all the time.  If what was observed was known, it wouldn't be called a UFO.  It would be a KFO.....yes.....I made that up.  A known flying object.....also seen all the time.  But, to claim that seeing a UFO is somehow the type of experience that requires a premise......I don't understand.  Certainly, people who have observed UFO's (and I am in that number) are witnessing some type of flying craft that they don't know how to identify.  What that particular craft actually is, is the unknown part.  

The one that I saw, I;m guessing was some type of stealth glider or other stealth aircraft......probably military?  But, IDK.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
34 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

"In 2005, Fisher led a research team that published a groundbreaking study that included the first functional MRI (fMRI) images of the brains of individuals in the throes of romantic love. Her team analyzed 2,500 brain scans of college students who viewed pictures of someone special to them and compared the scans to ones taken when the students looked at pictures of acquaintances. Photos of people they romantically loved caused the participants’ brains to become active in regions rich with dopamine, the so-called feel-good neurotransmitter. Two of the brain regions that showed activity in the fMRI scans were the caudate nucleus, a region associated with reward detection and expectation and the integration of sensory experiences into social behavior, and the ventral tegmental area, which is associated with pleasure, focused attention, and the motivation to pursue and acquire rewards."

In other words, habit, the cognitive appraisal comes after the biological reaction. 

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain

https://aeon.co/essays/the-dopamine-switch-between-atheist-believer-and-fanatic

People get 'high' off ideas as well.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Faith is a form of expectation, that of some reward. Neurochemicals such as dopamine are part of the reward system. So someone who has faith, has an expectation, and a dopamine high. This could lead to some type of beneficial behavior or something very stupid.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

When it comes to truth and faith, I think it's best to take the chance of wholehearted faith. What can I lose for doing that? Nothing is taken away. Things are only added. I get to have my cake and eat it too. :D

 

 

 

You lose objectivity, rational thinking and un-biasness.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
23 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I don't think a premise is necessary Sherapy.  Observing a UFO is common experience.  Happens all the time.  If what was observed was known, it wouldn't be called a UFO.  It would be a KFO.....yes.....I made that up.  A known flying object.....also seen all the time.  But, to claim that seeing a UFO is somehow the type of experience that requires a premise......I don't understand.  Certainly, people who have observed UFO's (and I am in that number) are witnessing some type of flying craft that they don't know how to identify.  What that particular craft actually is, is the unknown part.  

The one that I saw, I;m guessing was some type of stealth glider or other stealth aircraft......probably military?  But, IDK.  

Gotcha, you are correct it is my mistake.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
24 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Faith is a form of expectation, that of some reward. Neurochemicals such as dopamine are part of the reward system. So someone who has faith, has an expectation, and a dopamine high. This could lead to some type of beneficial behavior or something very stupid.

I was thinking this after I posted, reading a bible, reading the UB seeing an image of relgious significance could be the perceptual  impetus that sets off the chemical spike followed by the cognitive appraisal. 

Excellent point. 

I think this is why there is a need to validate, rehash the same belief over and over the person is getting a buzz off it. 

Just my two cents. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

When it comes to truth and faith, I think it's best to take the chance of wholehearted faith. What can I lose for doing that? Nothing is taken away. Things are only added. I get to have my cake and eat it too. :D

 

 

 

Basically 'fake it until you make it"?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I think this is why there is a need to validate the same belief over and over the person is getting a buzz off it. 

Which is why magical thinking, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias is so strong in those of faith. Someone says a prayer, gets a 'sign', confirmation bias kicks in and so does the dopamine reward.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
35 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Nothing.  It's just fine.  Purely natural.  But I am distinguishing it from love.  

I think lust is a wonderful part of love. :wub:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, XenoFish said:

Which is why magical thinking, wishful thinking, and confirmation bias is so strong in those of faith. Someone says a prayer, gets a 'sign', confirmation bias kicks in and so does the dopamine reward.

Indeed, makes a lot of sense. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, makes a lot of sense. 

It's that magical placebo effect. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
42 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think lust is a wonderful part of love. :wub:

I certainly enjoy it anyway.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I certainly enjoy it anyway.

Me too, even after :P many years of marriage it plays an integral role. 

Thank god! Lol

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Congratulations. You folks have taken reductionism to where--as an argument against anything--it breaks down and begins devouring it's own tail, since--as piles of the same parts--all things are equal. One then flees back up the ladder to the constituent whole to other philosophies such as Emergentism, to discriminate and illuminate what the sum of those parts produce.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 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.