Faith
Posted on: December 24, 2009 - 5:30pm
Offline
Faith
1) What is faith?
2) Do you have faith?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. -Wiki
The problem I see with discussing free will is the distinction between a person and their body. If you hold the worldview that mind and body are synonymous, how can you even define free will? You can't have control over your brain because you ARE your brain. Does this make sense?
I would argue that free will is insufficiently defined to apply to the materialist view of mind.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
I qualified the statement by stating "assuming of course that you believe your Self to be spiritual."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Because atheistic materialism is the only worldview that is completely incompatible with a spiritual one.
Well, based on your definition, rationality does not depend on consciousness either.
Does decision-making and freedom of choice have anything to do with creativity and intelligence?
Well, if materialism is true, then free will, intentional acts, and intelligence are definitely illusory. I really don't see how one can professed to be rational when he is seriously questioning the reality of his rationality.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Is this where you're placing your hope? Well, the belief that life will continue to exist indefinitely or eternally is a belief which is ultimately based on faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Exactly. It could theoretically go on forever because we would be caught in an infinite regress. We can't argue for the validty of induction and/or deduction without first presupposing the validity of induction and/or deduction. These presuppositions are basic beliefs taken on faith.
Well, I'm not attempting to relegate every form of information to the same level. I'm simply pointing out that faith (beliefs without sufficient evidence) plays a vital role in everyone's life. Also, scientists disagree on what constitues "concise" predictive power, especially when that predictive power is based on probabilities.
That's what I pose as an example of true knowledge....our first-person experience of our own subjective-awareness.
Yes, I am aware of "weak" atheism. But what constitutes "evidence to the contrary" is also subjective. Eminent scientists disagree on what constitutes evidence to the contrary.
I think beliefs matter.
I believe that everyone ultimately desires to be happy. Do you agree or disagree with that perspective? If you disagree, explain why.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Eh, depends on how you frame the question and answer imo. They're ultimately based on experience and experience is all we can know, depending on how you view it (which is the biggest issue it seems). Imo all we have IS induction, deduction, etc... in various forms that are just terms for this general concept of experience we all have. The type of all-encompassing faith you're attempting to argue for wouldn't change a thing in any specialized field of knowledge as it would just be ignored. It would also seem to require many words to either be completely deleted from a dictionary or have their definitions amended. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your version of faith = belief.
How about instead of concise we'll say with some form of regularity. We all know statistics can be manipulated but we also know how powerful a tool science can be; there's almost no place on the planet you can go without seeing (or not seeing for that matter) some form of technology being implemented. Advanced calendar systems can be an easy example; they can predict precisely when eclipses happen and account for leap years etc... Things like these have always utilized some form of mathematics. To my knowledge no one has received a wireless message from god and just scribbled one out on a paper like a fax machine. Religion presents itself with absolutely no form of regularity (don't confuse this with concepts like dogma).
If you believe that "evidence to the contrary" is a subjective matter then I'm really not sure how we can continue. If no one can be absolutely wrong about something then all you've really done is ensure mutual destruction of both your opponent's position and yours.
Ex: Creationists who want to question a ~10,000 y/o Earth vs. a 4.5+ billion one. Their position is absolutely indefensible. If you want to inject your version of faith in here anywhere then I think it's safe to say you'd make a lot more people in the world pessimistic.
I agree with it for sure but I also think you're attempting to brand people with what you think should make them happy and not let them choose for themselves what makes them happy. I disagree with your notion that people can't be happy if they see the universe's ultimate fate to be complete loss of (information, heat death, <insert whatever> ). One can take solace in MANY things, some brand of deity is just another one some people choose to add to their pile.
Well, free will as it is commonly presupposed by our first-person experience is incompatible with the deterministic worldview of materialism. One definition is that free will is the freedom of choice we have which is not completely determined by antecedent physical causes.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Interesting how free will is indeterminate but your faith is deterministic and absolute - how'd you pull that off?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I have already addressed this in a previous post:
"Because the most basic of human desires is to be happy (not miserable) and an interpretation of life that is ultimately positive is more-likely to engender it than one that is negative."
Well, the view that we all will eventually "cease to exist" is your outlook, not mine. However, assuming your view to be true, then it really doesn't make a difference. In fact, in the vast scheme of things, it really doesn't make a difference whether we ever existed or not. Nothing matters. That's why I said that the materialistic worldview ultimately renders life meaningless, purposeless and absurd.
The argument that I have made in this thread is that we all exercise an element of faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). Also, I argued that we cannot engage in rational thought or discourse without making some basic presuppositions (i.e. beliefs ultimately taken of faith). Moreover, faith is not the result of fear. Faith engenders hope, which is the oppositve of fear.
Scientific empiricism is only one form of empiricism.
I employed the term "nonsensory" to mean not derived from the physical senses. Perhaps a better word would be "intuition" or intuitive sense.
I have an intuitive faculty.
Do you consider mathematics and logic to be empirically derived? Has the validity of the scientific method itself been established by the scientific method?
Well, I value subjective experiences because they are the only means by which we have access to true knowledge. For example, I presently have absolute certitude that "I am aware." This is based on my first-person experience of my own subjective-awareness. Albeit, I cannot objectively prove this to your satisfaction.
Materialism has never been established by the scientific method. And if the physical world is simply a figment of our perceptions, then this implies that the phenomenal world is nothing more than the projection of our consciousness. I would think that would be significant because it supports what mystics have been reporting since time immemorial.
I disagree. Our first-person experience of free will provides evidence that there is "something" beyond matter.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"Is this where you're placing your hope? Well, the belief that life will continue to exist indefinitely or eternally is a belief which is ultimately based on faith."
Educated opinion would be a more appropriate description. Your belief in things with no evidence is faith. Life exists and evolves. It would take more "faith" to believe it will end than it would to believe that it will continue.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What scientific evidence do you have that humanity will continue to live for all eternity?
Species evolve and eventually become extinct. In fact, the ultimate fate of the universe is death (i.e the big crunch or heat death). Your "educated" opinion is a belief that is ultimately based on faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"What scientific evidence do you have that humanity will continue to live for all eternity?"
I never asserted it would. In fact, I said the opposite. Try harder.
"Species evolve and eventually become extinct. In fact, the ultimate fate of the universe is death (i.e the big crunch or heat death). Your "educated" opinion is a belief that is ultimately based on faith."
The ultimate fate of the universe is unknown. You are making things up again. My educated opinion is an educated opinion. YOU are the one using blind faith. I don't respect any view made from ignorance such as yours.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"I disagree. Our first-person experience of free will provides evidence that there is "something" beyond matter."
Yep, there's energy out there also.
What first-person evidence do you have for the magic you claim exists?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Of there is 'something' more than 'matter'. There is energy, of course, but there are the structures and patterns in which that matter can form, which, with a flow of energy, can support complex patterns of interactions, energy flows, which can quite plausibly be what supports emergent things like consciousness.
That would be a 'higher', more subtle version of the behavior of a computer running complex inter-actiive software. Software is not material, yet we buy and sell it. Yet it is not supernatural, either. It is information, another very important category in addition to matter and energy.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
This is what you said, and I quote.
That you BELIEVE it will continue to evolve eternally is ultimately a belief taken on faith....because...by your own admission...."the ultimate fate of the universe is unknown."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The term "emergent" is just a euphemism for "magic" here. The argument goes as follows: When the flow of energy reaches a certain level of complexity...presto....consciousness emerges.
What we designate as structures, patterns, and information is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no existence independent of conscious intelligence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"That you BELIEVE it will continue to evolve eternally is ultimately a belief taken on faith....because...by your own admission...."the ultimate fate of the universe is unknown.""
Sucks to have to make things up to hold your ground in an argument eh? Read that again. I didn't say anything about my actual beliefs. I merely pointed out that one of the two positions was more rational than the other. And it is. Try again.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I've seen you make this comment before but I think you're being a little obtuse about it. Emergence is pretty much synonymous with "conplexity in a spectrum" in this context but the way you choose to frame it would make everything we know magic as well. If you still choose to believe that one either posesses consciousness or doesn't (depending on how you define it), then I think you're mistaken. There are millions of people out there all across a spectrum of mental handicaps/disabilities that could easily be described as blending in with animals of "lower" cognitive ability.
Just because someone cannot explain to you in one forum post what took a field of scientists to discern in 50 years does not make it magic. If you need a detailed explanation of how consciousness arises, I think you'll have to reformulate the question. If you want to know how memories are formed, the information is out there.
So do concepts such as god and self fit in there as well? (I don't think anyone can answer that question for sure.)
Deduction is a priori (i.e. not based on experience).
Inductive reasoning presupposes the uniformity of nature - a belief that cannot be rationally justified. Such a belief qualifies as faith as defined by Merriam-Webster (and as the atheist typically defines the term).
Some form of regularity? I have already addressed this. The principle of the uniformity of nature is a belief that cannot be rationally justified. IOW, it is a belief without proof that is ultimately taken on faith. This is the problem of induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
You have already gone on record and agreed that evidence is subjective. Are you retracting now? Also, I am not destroying anything here. Quite the contrary. I am establishing something. And what I am establinshing is that the atheist must live his life based on faith - faith as the atheist defines the term (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence).
The topic of this thread is "faith," not "creationism vs. evolution." I would ask you to stay on topic.
Well, if you agree that everyone desires to be happy, then you agree that we all have the same purpose. And the notion that you can be "happy by choosing to be miserable" is inherently self-contradictory. But I am not preventing you from making this choice. If you choose to live in misery, then I hope you enjoy yourself.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, there is either a subject of experience or there is not. Awareness either exists or it does not. To argue that consciousness exists as a continuum is to make an argument for pantheism.
I don't need a detailed explanation of how consciousness arises. It's a brute fact of existence. And you have already made my argument for me by arguing that consciousness exists in a spectrum.
You have already answered that question by arguing that consciousness exists in a spectrum.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yes, I've seen that all many times before and it's all a matter of perspective. Even concepts that are said to be not based on experience are still based on an amalgam of concepts received from previous experiences that build up to its formulation. A priori to me is just playing with language and definitions which are all learned through experience. My position is that one has to experience the world to know anything at all in the first place.
Yes, some of it's sub-definitions are synonyms, we established that.
If the very reality we experience has no form to present to you that you think you can rely on for any justified belief then you should probably have no opinions of just about anything (which seems like more of an atheistic position to hold). If you simply want to argue over one word and its MANY definitions then I'm really not interested in this kind of mental circle-jerk. Human language is fuzzy like that, that's why ever field of knowledge has it's own vocabulary and sub-set of definitions. Call if faith if you like, hell I'll label my own beliefs faith if you like, but I still wont believe in any literal/classical god concept.
It was merely an example of a clear-cut case of where someone is wrong. If there is no such thing as "sufficient evidence" in YOUR world view then how would one go about stating whether someone is right or wrong? This is probably one of the most important points because it has implications for everything.
Again, maybe you should have read that entire paragraph. How anyone reaches that happiness is up to them. Because it works for you does not mean it works for everyone. Believing existence will come to an end and being miserable about it is a mind-state, not a universal truth that everyone's brain is wired to experience in the exact same way. What you believe to be misery can be solace for another, I'm not sure why you don't understand that. It's not self-contradictory because they're NOT MISERABLE in that mind-state (the one you believe to be miserable)!
All your energy directed at this one word is kind of futile because it doesn't validate any sort of god(s) concept in any way.
That seems to be a key mistake or misunderstanding or assumption of Paisley's part: that belief (I would call it acceptance) that our fate and that of the Universe is ultimately extinction directly and inevitably implies we are 'miserable'.
We can pretty much all deny from direct first-hand personal experience that that is not true for us, whatever contemplation of such a possibility might lead to in Paisley's mind.
Feelings are not purely determined by rational reasoning processes anyway.
Does Paisley never get any pleasure from a great meal, reading a great story, watching a good movie, having a party with friends, receiving expressions of heart-felt appreciation from someone you have helped in some way, etc, etc? Because none of those experiences last forever.
There are many experiences which bring periods of pleasure to a normal person.
Sure, a clear-eyed, rational look at the state of the world and society today could easily trigger well-justified depression, so it is understandable why most people seek to find a way to deal with this.
Alcohol and other drugs are one common way. Denial, or convincing yourself that there really is a 'purpose' for it all, or that we have the prospect of a blissful afterlife to look forward to, are some of the other reactions.
Maximizing the high points, dealing with the lows, is what it's all about.
Life is a mixture of the positive and the negative. There are many strategies to deal with this.
Lying to yourself about reality, ie 'faith', "believing what you know ain't so", in the words of Mark Twain, is just one way.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
A priori knowledge (or justified belief) does not depend on empirical evidence. A posteriori knowledge (or justified belief) does.
1) example of a priori knowledge: "All bachelors are unmarried."
2) example of a posteriori knowledge: "Some bachelors have red hair."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
I am not arguing for complete skepticism here. Quite the contrary. Without faith, we only have pure skepticism. Also, I have not argued in this thread for the existence of God. However, I am arguing that all of our beliefs ultimately rest on faith (regardless of whether we profess to be theists, agnostics, or atheists). Deductive logic employs premises (beliefs that are assumed to be true). Inductive logic rests on the belief in the uniformity of nature (a belief that must ultimately be taken on faith). The bottom line is that rationality itself depends on faith and cannot function independently of it.
I thought we already agreed that evidence is subjective. We may agree on what constitutes sufficient evidence for some things. We may disagree on what constitutes sufficient evidence for other things. That's just the way it is.
The subject matter of this thread is "faith." Faith entails hope and hope looks forward to the future with a positive or optimistic outlook. Therefore, if you ultimately believe that you have nothing to look forward to, then you ultimately do not have an optimistic outlook on life. Logic dictates this much.
Without faith, all your striving in this life will ultimately be an exercise in futility. The saying "hope springs eternal" simply does not apply to you.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What exactly bachelors are and what unmarried even means is learned through experience. That type of knowledge rests on the definitions of the words, which is then dependent on the definitions of the words contained in its definition. If justified beliefs are subjective then so is everything else, including definitions you post.
At this point I simply do not care about your definition of faith because it does nothing to further any argument. All you're attempting to do is say "hay, we all have faith" and thereby implying that others don't have any justified contention with anyone else's views about religion, etc...
To be skeptical implies that you believe things are capable of being untenable at any time. To call this faith says very little, you're only attempting to flip it around in order to give other ideas more credence then they should be allowed under the ruse of subjectivity.
So what constitutes evidence & truth is democratic to you?
You simply don't understand do you? It's frustrating to see you argue from the perspective of subjectivity in one paragraph and then watch it completely go over your head in another. You just argued that justified belief and logic are predicated on faith/subjectivity and then turn right back around and tell me that LOGIC dictates what optimism is? For someone who argues about the subjectivity of other beliefs so much you sure do love to stick to specific dictionary definitions as if they're the be-all end-all of conceptual knowledge.
What constitutes faith, positivity, optimism, and hope are subjective. It's a part of your personality to look toward the future and associate positive/optimistic feelings with it. Someone (try reading up on other religions) else could see death and the end of the universe in a very positive/optimistic way of some form: End of a life cycle, closing of an epic story, a time to finally rest, etc....
The reasoning to recognized the validity of the statement was not learned through experience. It's innate and intuitive, not derived from empirical evidence. This is the difference between "rationalism" and "empricism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
To reiterate: You employ beliefs that ultimately rest on faith. I have made an argument to support this statement. Hitherto, you have not been able to refute it. And if you do not wish to argue the point any further, then I will conclude that you concede the point.
I have never equated skepticism with faith. Where are you getting this from?
Well, that's how they basically determine it in the courtroom. The members of the jury vote.
Yes, I agree. Faith, positivity, optimism, and hope are subjective. However, you have been givig me the impression that you do NOT have ultimate faith and/or ultimate hope. Now, just for clarity, do you have ultimate faith and/or ultimate hope in something? If you do, please share it with us. Because you seem to be wavering on this point.
I am fairly well-read on various religions. I don't know of any religion that places their ultimate faith and ultimate hope in cessation of existence. Is this your religious faith?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Sigh, what you define as "ultimate faith and/or ultimate hope" IS SUBJECTIVE (ultimate, faith, hope... yep, all subjective terms). You seem to be stuck on the concept that everyone has such a concept or that everyone must rank their hopes and dreams.
I simply cannot describe any one single greatest faith/hope, I do not see life in simple black and white terms like that. I look forward to furthering my education but I also like to have fun in the here and now. You can try to tell me that my urge for education implies some form of "ultimate hope" but the justifications will always be subjective. I know getting bogged down on future events is unproductive and juicing my brain's seek and reward circuitry can be done in many ways (video games, dating, drugs, food, etc...). Knowing the universe will die out in a couple hundred billion years is just not a buzz-kill for me anymore than knowing that I will die and forever lose all memories/consciousness I had. Inevitable facts are to be accepted, not denied (also, to call this a subjective matter would doom one to extinction, but hey, maybe that's not such a big deal to some people) . Some people aren't wired to handle them in the ego-centric societies we live in today but others are, that's just the way it is.
One could take optimism in the idea that any family you construct and some form of your personality will live on in others. One could even have faith that one day we have complete knowledge of how the universe works and that there will be loopholes to eternal existence (expansion, alt universes, etc... like the movie supernova).
Guess I win again.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Biochemically no different than eating chocolate"
Yes, one could take the optimism in the idea that...blah, blah, blah. The question is whether you do. If you do, then you have some ultimate faith and/or ultimate hope. If you do not, then you do not have some ultimate faith and/or ultimate hope.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Doesn't require that the hope be 'ultimate', just plain hope, in the sense that it would be nice to think that there is at least a possibility that 'blah, blah' will happen.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I would say the following qualifies as ultimate faith - ultimate faith placed in science.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Why does it matter what I believe to you? I already told you that I don't view the world in simple black and white terms. I'm skeptical about anything beyond next week or even an hour from now since I know it could all be taken away in an instant by some drunk douche bag on the highway. The future is unknown, nor you or I knows how long humans will exist, and how long it'll be before we're not even recognizable as humans if we do live a very long time.
You simply refuse to understand that other people don't see the world you do. I simply do not have a number one hope/dream/goal that I can identify above all others. Most of my goals deal with the here and now but also necessarily require that I look toward the future to alleviate future pain and suffering of myself and others I care about. I'm sorry that you feel like you must have hope for some hopelessly distant future for which no being could predict what events might unfold. Believing something highly improbable (that I'll never experience in person) for the mere stimulation of my motivational circuits is antithetical to optimism/hope for me.
One thing I've always disliked about the (western) society I've grown up in is the obsession with self-identity, uniqueness, ego, etc... You're not special, you're not unique, you're just another human being, cooperating with others. The sooner people realize this the less depressed they'll be when their bodies get older, falter, make a mistake, or explore their sexuality in a taboo way.
It matters because "faith" is the subject matter of this thread. If you are not interested in the subject matter, then you should not be participating in this thread.
Yes, I know. It's simply an evasive tactic. Either you are living your life by faith or you are not. If you are not, then you are living your life without hope. If you have hope, then you are living your life by faith. It's that simple.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
So is unbelief in "God". Personally i find religious faith offensive because it is at the heart of the religious being so unreasonable.
Paisley, that's not entirely true.
The faith that you want to talk about is based on your definition of it (which changes like wind direction).
I can also think of people living by faith in <fill in god or gods here> and not having hope for much of anything. Hell, I was one of them.
Can you take that into account or will your definition change again?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You have no hope beyond the grave.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You have no hope beyond the grave.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
First, you have to establish that there is a "beyond the grave" - still waiting for you to do that.
Next, that's true with faith as well. All you really have is the hope you guessed the right God.
Besides, life is wonderful enough without having to worry about what happens when you no longer exist.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin