Faith

[XenoFish]

I think it's the believers that want god to exist. As they seem to be the ones always out to prove their idea of God is real. 

I decided to off shoot this in to a new thread. As it begs the question of Faith vs. Doubt for the theist. Something that pops up on here from time to time is proving god is real. So this is more or less directed towards the theist. I'd like your thoughts on why you try to prove god is real versus just having faith that god exist. 

Isn't the point of faith to believe without needing evidence nor proof?

Isn't the attempt to prove god really your in it doubt?

Why do you feel the need or desire to prove that the concept (idea) of god you believe in be true to non-believers?

Why do you have or not, issues with people following different belief systems or non-belief in general?

If your religious faith is good, why so judgmental? Isn't your faith personal only between what you do and your god?

 

All are welcome. Figured I'd make a stand alone thread for this instead of a derailment. 

Spoiler

I give this three pages before it becomes a dumpster fire.

 

[Alchopwn]

As a linguist, I find a lot of value in looking at the etymology of words, as the evolution of terms can be very eye opening about how terms have been used across the ages and have come to mean what they presently mean.

Etymology of Faith

Interestingly, Faith has several meanings, all related to trust.

1. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; belief in general.
2. Specifically Firm belief based upon confidence in the authority and veracity of another, rather than upon one's own knowledge, reason, or judgment; earnest and trustful confidence: as, to have faith in the testimony of a witness; to have faith in a friend.
3. In a more restricted sense: In theology, spiritual perception of the invisible objects of religious veneration; a belief founded on such spiritual perception.
4. Belief or confidence in a person, founded upon a perception of his moral excellence: as, faith in Christ.
5. Intuitive belief.
6. The doctrines or articles which are the subjects of belief, especially of religious belief; a creed; a system of religion; specifically, the Christian religion. See confession of faith, under confession, 3.
7. Recognition of and allegiance to the obligations of morals and honor; adherence to the laws of right and wrong, especially in fulfilling one's promise; faithfulness; fidelity; loyalty.
8. Fidelity expressed in a promise or pledge; a pledge given.
9. Credibility; truth

This strikes me as all too similar to Stephen Colbert's creation of the word of Truthiness.  It is now in the dictionary btw.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

This strikes me as all too similar to Stephen Colbert's creation of the word of Truthiness.  It is now in the dictionary btw.

Truthiness is eerily on-topic. Or the spark that ignites the dumpster fire .

The British did a study of how they ended up in the second Iraq war to destroy weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Blair apparently believed that the WMDs did exist, with such confidence that when the British intelligence community reported that they looked and couldn't find evidence for them, Blair concluded they hadn't looked hard enough. This despite Blair not having looked at all, just believing what Bush the Younger had spread around.

If the Bayesian model of rational belief is correct (and by and large Bayes at least approximates all the other models that work at all), then Blair's "stubbornness" is rational. As the decision maker's confidence approaches certainty that something is true, it can only be more likely that evidence against that something is somehow defective rather than being the result of the something being false.

Certainty is a tar baby. Even "near certainty" is "almost" a tar baby.

The really bad news is that the above is true regardless of how the decision maker's confidence got to be so strong. It probably is harmless if confidence is the result of a mountain of evidence - (a trusted news source reports that a badly compromised building collapsed minutes before it actually did collapse versus a mountain of evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job). On the other hand, if the confidence has somehow simply happened (Tony thinks George knows things and wouldn't lie to him), then people die for the decision maker's faith.

I don't have a solution for any of this. Just a note that one thing we do know about the kind of surpassing confidence called faith in a religious context: it isn't based on any mountain of evidence.

On a point arising (history doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme):

That Colbert is sure that he invented the term truthiness (pulled it out of his "keister"), but later scholars noticed that it was already an attested word in English (albeit obscure) recalls Thomas Huxley and his invented word agnostic. Huxley wasn't aware that agnostic was already a very obscure philosophical term meaning someone who denies the possibility of any human knowledge. After Huxley died, his critics would exploit that fact to sow confusion about what Huxley actually meant by his use of the term.

 

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

@Pettytalk - please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

[XenoFish]

@Saru

If you need to delete any more post in this topic, I have no issue with it being deleted if necessary. While I would like my questions answered. I dont expect it. 

So I'm okay either way. 

[Sojo]

13 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I think it's the believers that want god to exist. As they seem to be the ones always out to prove their idea of God is real. 

I decided to off shoot this in to a new thread. As it begs the question of Faith vs. Doubt for the theist. Something that pops up on here from time to time is proving god is real. So this is more or less directed towards the theist. I'd like your thoughts on why you try to prove god is real versus just having faith that god exist. 

Isn't the point of faith to believe without needing evidence nor proof?

Isn't the attempt to prove god really your in it doubt?

Why do you feel the need or desire to prove that the concept (idea) of god you believe in be true to non-believers?

Why do you have or not, issues with people following different belief systems or non-belief in general?

If your religious faith is good, why so judgmental? Isn't your faith personal only between what you do and your god?

 

All are welcome. Figured I'd make a stand alone thread for this instead of a derailment. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I give this three pages before it becomes a dumpster fire.

 

Okay, since you went to the trouble of baiting the field, I'll pop in.😁

- I'm a believer but I don't think I'd be able to prove God exists to anyone. It's my opinion that God can't be proven, only realized.

- I think the point of faith is to initiate action. If one does not have faith for accomplishing an action, then one will not even attempt the action. If you didn't have faith the chair would hold you up, you wouldn't even have sit in it.

- I'm not attempting to prove god, it can't be done. Faith is at the core of whether the individual is willing to accept the possibility of a living source greater than themselves. If they can have that Faith, they will act accordingly. If they do not, they will still act accordingly.

- I try to point out why I believe as I do and what makes most sense to me. I simply present my beliefs and reasoning, and if anyone else can find some sense or rationality to it, then okay, but if not, I won't feel any the less.

- I don't have issues with anyone following any different belief system or even non-belief. If they can't see a need for any of what I see a need for, then they will live their lives according to what they see as their needed paths of choice. I just happen so see a need for being able to have Faith in the ability to have past Karmic debt forgiven. The only issues I would have is if anyone tried to exercise their beliefs in harmful ways toward others. I certainly hope that someone stating their own personal beliefs isn't now considered as "taking issue" with the beliefs of someone else. If that's the case then I think everyone will always have to be considered as taking issue with someone else who sees things from a different perspective.

- My Faith is indeed between just me and God. I don't judge others for their Faith except if it is showing in harmful actions toward others, and even then it is only for the specific harmful action not the eternal fate of the individual.

Maybe there's even a right way to have Faith as opposed to a wrong way to have Faith.

Either way Faith will always have to deal with the spectrum of emotions, rationalizing, puzzle-solving, and how everything else does get incorporated into this thing we call life. (One thing about emotions though, I see them as the colors of an internal life that would otherwise be just black and white and shades of gray.)

Anyway, thought I'd give a thought.

Sojo

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Sojo said:

Okay, since you went to the trouble of baiting the field, I'll pop in.😁

Not bait. Just curious and thank you for the reply.

[Crazy Horse]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I think it's the believers that want god to exist. As they seem to be the ones always out to prove their idea of God is real. 

I decided to off shoot this in to a new thread. As it begs the question of Faith vs. Doubt for the theist. Something that pops up on here from time to time is proving god is real. So this is more or less directed towards the theist. I'd like your thoughts on why you try to prove god is real versus just having faith that god exist. 

Isn't the point of faith to believe without needing evidence nor proof?

Isn't the attempt to prove god really your in it doubt?

Why do you feel the need or desire to prove that the concept (idea) of god you believe in be true to non-believers?

Why do you have or not, issues with people following different belief systems or non-belief in general?

If your religious faith is good, why so judgmental? Isn't your faith personal only between what you do and your god?

 

All are welcome. Figured I'd make a stand alone thread for this instead of a derailment. 

  Hide contents

I give this three pages before it becomes a dumpster fire.

 

For me, I look at the beauty of nature, the intelligence and beautiful design of the human body, and the testimonies from the sages of all traditions and ages, and that's all the evidence I need, because nothing else makes sense, anyhow!

Proof comes from meditation, and a connect to Spirit.

This is a personal point of view coming from a place of personal experience, and one may take it or leave it.

Edited November 17 by Crazy Horse

[Guyver]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

 

Quote

Isn't the point of faith to believe without needing evidence nor proof?

Yes. 
 

However, according to St. Thomas Aquinas the reward of faith is seeing what we believe. 
 

Quote

Isn't the attempt to prove god really your in it doubt?

Not really. Some people try to prove God so that other people may be led to faith, and have the joy of believing as well. So, in this sense they are like little Jesus’s, leading others into salvation.

  Hide contents

 

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

While I would like my questions answered. I dont expect it. 

Perhaps it wasn't obvious, but only one of your questions wasn't directed to you or your in a phrase or clause describing that person holding or promoting a religious position. The exception was the first question:

17 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Isn't the point of faith to believe without needing evidence nor proof?

which can be answered by an observant non-believer. It seems to me that @Alchopwn's post was a reasonable place to start that inquiry, and I followed up on his lead about truthiness (which Colbert had applied to the 2003 invasion of Iraq according to Al's link).

I think that that much takes us to a crossroards in answering your question. Certainty demands neither evidence nor proof, and neither does "near" or "practical" or "almost" certainty a good deal of the time. At least some believers' religious faith resembles Tony Blair's secular conviction about the WMDs.

It is difficult to move off of that crossroads without some further guidance from you about what you meant by "the point." Do you mean to ask whether faith is a means to an end, and only by avoiding evidence and proof does the believer fully achieve the goal? Or do you mean what is it about some believers' faith that makes them indifferent to evidence and proof contrary to their beliefs? Or something else?

Meanwhile, I think it is at least interesting that Tony Blair is reputedly a man of religious faith. Perhaps he has some "way of thinking" that he applies to both secular and religious questions that allows him to reach high levels of confidence on little or no evidence. That there may be such a "way of thinking" is strongly suggested by the work of Professor Tanya Luhrmann of Stanford. But I don't know whether that's a direction you want to travel in.

[XenoFish]

@eight bits

You and Al are not the issue. So no worries. 

[Alchopwn]

On 11/18/2023 at 4:05 AM, eight bits said:

I think that that much takes us to a crossroads in answering your question. Certainty demands neither evidence nor proof, and neither does "near" or "practical" or "almost" certainty a good deal of the time. At least some believers' religious faith resembles Tony Blair's secular conviction about the WMDs.

In fact, what most people don't realize is that WMD were discovered in Iraq.  There were in fact quite a lot of WMD in Iraq discovered as a result of the 2003 operation, but the media didn't want to report on it, because they had decided that the USA was the bad guy.

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

In fact, what most people don't realize is that WMD were discovered in Iraq.  There were in fact quite a lot of WMD in Iraq discovered as a result of the 2003 operation, but the media didn't want to report on it, because they had decided that the USA was the bad guy.

Of course, allowance must be made that Wikipedia changes from one day to the next, but the page I just read left me with an altogether different impression. Some 1991-era chemical and biological warfare junk was discovered in the aftermath of 2003, almost entirely in useless condition, more dangerous to disposal crews than to opposing combat troops. No finctioning nuclear program was discovered, even though that supposed threat was headlined at the time.

[Alchopwn]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Of course, allowance must be made that Wikipedia changes from one day to the next, but the page I just read left me with an altogether different impression. Some 1991-era chemical and biological warfare junk was discovered in the aftermath of 2003, almost entirely in useless condition, more dangerous to disposal crews than to opposing combat troops. No finctioning nuclear program was discovered, even though that supposed threat was headlined at the time.

Iraq's nuclear program had been knocked out in the 1980s and never successfully restarted as far as I knew.  The troops in 2003 were going in to stop the chemical and biological weapons, and the super cannon.  WMDs were recovered.

Edited November 20 by Alchopwn

[eight bits]

1 minute ago, Alchopwn said:

Iraq's nuclear program had been knocked out in the 1980s and never successfully restarted afaik.  The troops were going in to stop the chemical and biological weapons, and the super cannon.

The super cannon had been solved with a head shot (well, a few head shots) on Gerald Bull back in '90.

The American troops went in to help W cope with his daddy issues. Why anybody else followed, I couldn't tell you.

[Alchopwn]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Why anybody else followed, I couldn't tell you.

It was all about weapons of mass destruction.  Some believed the Iraqis had them, some didn't.  The truth was, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, but not as many as the CIA thought.

[Piney]

16 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

  The truth was, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, but not as many as the CIA thought.

Because the Pentagon had the receipts. 

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

The American troops went in to help W cope with his daddy issues. Why anybody else followed, I couldn't tell you.

Uncle Dick wanted the oil fields and a invasion of Saudi Arabia where the terrorists actually came from wouldn't fly. 

But they did finally kill Bin Laden's body double after he died of renal failure...

And the Puzzle Palace wonders why everyone is always laughing at MI6......

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

But they did finally kill Bin Laden's body double after he died of renal failure...

I have caught heavy flak for saying that.  I think it's pretty obvious for many many reasons.

[Piney]

Just now, OverSword said:

I have caught heavy flak for saying that.  I think it's pretty obvious for many many reasons.

Especially the lack of a dialysis machine in the photos British intelligence has of the inside of the compound.

[XenoFish]

Guess this should be either locked or deleted. @Saru

[+OverSword]

23 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Guess this should be either locked or deleted. @Saru

Because Piney doesn't have faith?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Because Piney doesn't have faith?

This isn't a political thread. It might as well be deleted, and I hope it does. 

Edited November 20 by XenoFish

[+OverSword]

Just now, XenoFish said:

This isn't a political thread. It might as well be deleted, and I hope it does. 

But the posts are about belief, not politics.  Right? Belief is part of faith, or in this case lack thereof. 

[XenoFish]

Did no one read my opening post? 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Did no one read my opening post? 

Yeah but I simply have faith the God exists and don't worry about proving it.  He proves it to me often enough the hard way 😅

Edited November 20 by OverSword