Do We Need Faith?

[Truthseeker]

It did?

I'm saying how it should be used.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately Egyptology is foundational to almost all assumptions in all fields of science.

That's an absurd statement.

They are the source of absolute dating even after they have been proven wrong. They are one of only two sources for the oldest languages and possibly the sole source if I am correct. Their thinking underlies far more from history, and psychology to botany and zoology. Many of the tentacles of Egyptology are not apparent but they believe that humanity has always been exactly the same except we are "evolving" to be less superstitious, less ignorant, and we're probably a lot smarter. They have completely overlooked the simple fact that ancient people had a language that could NOT have been used to think like we do. The world might be a very different place today without the influence of Egyptology and without the many assumptions that underlie it.

This is not any part of science. And no real scientists take any of this nonsense seriously. And neither should you.

 

[cladking]

This is not any part of science. And no real scientists take any of this nonsense seriously. And neither should you.

Interpretation of history is foundational to every culture and the same assumptions are applied everywhere within that culture.

It is largely these shared assumptions that make, has made, and will make every individual a product of his time and place.

It is what people believe, their faith, that is foundational to societies.

 

[PureX]

Interpretation of history is foundational to every culture and the same assumptions are applied everywhere within that culture.

That has nothing to do with science. Science seeks out the physical facts related to the questions that we ask about the physical world. How people in various cultures interpret these facts is called 'free will'. Science will merely hypothesize based on those facts to generate new questions to explore. Science doesn't tell anyone what to believe or not to believe. And people who "believe in" science like it's some sort of fountainhead of truth are no different from the people who think their religion is the fountainhead of truth.

It is largely these shared assumptions that make, has made, and will make every individual a product of his time and place.

It is what people believe, their faith, that is foundational to societies.

That's not the fault or the responsibility of science. Science just observes the physical facts pertaining to the physical world we live in. Those observed facts stand until and unless some new facts overturn them. How we humans interpret (or misinterpret) those facts at any given time is up to us all.

I think most scientists understand this. But unfortunately, a lot of knee-jerk "social scientists" don't understand it, and so presume a scientific fact is a universal truth. When it's not.

 

[cladking]

That has nothing to do with science. Science seeks out the physical facts related to the questions that we ask about the physical world. How people in various cultures interpret these facts is called 'free will'. Science will merely hypothesize based on those facts to generate new questions to explore. Science doesn't tell anyone what to believe or not to believe. And people who "believe in" science like it's some sort of fountainhead of truth are no different from the people who think their religion is the fountainhead of truth.

It has everything to do with the establishment of the paradigms with which we interpret experiment so it lies at the very heart of science.

Obviously all life has free will however we should not lose sight of the fact that homo omnisciencis does not have free will to experience reality outside of our beliefs. We can do anything at all we want but are constrained virtually all the time by our individual beliefs. A bird would not fly into a tree and a squirrel wouldn't try to take a nut from a bear. A scientist will not interpret experiment in a way that is contrary to his experience or to the prevailing paradigm. At beast the scientist will interpret results as anomalous but usually not be able to develop a new hypothesis or new paradigm to interpret it. Most p[people can't even see anomalies because even our perception and our ability to observe are governed solely by our models and beliefs. Everyone's models due to the corrupt influence of Egyptology puts humans at the very crown of creation and no working definition for the nature of life, "consciousness", has ever even been proposed. Science is a product of belief just as much as religion or anything else and the only difference is science is kept "true" by the influence of experiment and religion is kept "true" because it is founded in logic itself and modern thinkers are still, for the main part, reasonable.

It is my contention that there are unreasonable assumptions underlying everything produced by man. This is not "natural". Naturally life commits errors of various types but in all other life the errors are rooted in a lack of knowledge and in homo omnisciencis they are rooted in beliefs. No other individual than we could do anything injurious to itself or its species in exercising free will. We do and we do it all the time because it is the status quo to which only homo omnisciencis is obliged.

 

[cladking]

That's not the fault or the responsibility of science. Science just observes the physical facts pertaining to the physical world we live in. Those observed facts stand until and unless some new facts overturn them. How we humans interpret (or misinterpret) those facts at any given time is up to us all.

We can only observe facts and reality in terms of our models and beliefs. Many scientists can't even ponder the possibility that the paradigm is erroneous because the paradigm is largely the formatting for their understanding. An Egyptologist can't even consider the possibility that pyramids were not tombs or that the builders were not highly superstitious. We all have a formatting to understand thing and without all the assumptions there can not even be thought. What priest could describe what reality is like if there were no God? Just like the Egyptologist he will shrug off the question as a meaningless and unnecessary hypothetical. He will be uncomfortable addressing it at all. Most priests would have trouble considering that ancients weren't ignorant and superstitious but no trouble talking about what if pyramids were not tombs.

This is all human nature and it gives rise to things like Zipf's Law and a startling inability for unlike individuals to communicate at all. It gives rise to people, even unlike ones, being a reflection of their time and place. It is the basis of all paradigms, cultures, and the way each of us think. Language itself contains numerous assumptions some of which are false. But again other animals including people before the "tower of babel" are not like this. Virtually any beaver could be put down in a different time and place and blend right in. Other languages are simple so their metaphysics undergo only the most minor changes and these changes occur in virtually geological time. Our languages have been evolving at a breakneck pace for 4000 years.

 

[cladking]

Faith in Peers and faith in purchased science has given us global warming, too.

Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency”

The same individuals responsible for making garbage products that pollute stores, the air, and landfills bought the science to funnel even more money to themselves.

 

[PureX]

It has everything to do with the establishment of the paradigms with which we interpret experiment so it lies at the very heart of science.

We humans establish paradigms through which we interpret every experience we have. That's just how we humans work.

It is my contention that there are unreasonable assumptions underlying everything produced by man.

Then that would include your contention, wouldn't it.

Yes, we humans are wrong much of the time about a great many things and most of the time even though we are convinced the\at we are right. But that's the humans condition ... non-omniscience.

 

[cladking]

Yes, we humans are wrong much of the time about a great many things and most of the time even though we are convinced the\at we are right. But that's the humans condition ... non-omniscience.

Yet most religious people believe they know God's will and believers in science are even holier than thou.

I believe we all have faith and this is one of the very few beliefs I have. This is why I call our species "homo omnisciencis". Right now, at this juncture of history I believe the human race has never been so wrong about so many things and this wrongness is a threat to the continuing existence of our species. I believe some people need a little less faith and a lot of people need a very different faith. We need a great deal less faith in science. Other than for some or many experts we should have almost no faith in science.

 

[Truthseeker]

I never said he was a saint though apparently some think he was.

And a person can say appropriate things because they mean it.

There are Christians who consider their country more than their faith. This is prevalent in the US at the moment, difference is in the US they are attempting to mould the country to fit their faith, not the people.

I believe what you saw in stalin was extreme nationalism.

Yes, nationalism was very strong for him, he put principle before people when he put communist collective farming into practice, starving millions in Ukraine, and he was paranoid about the people around him, leading to a purge. Fortunately he didn't purge General Zhukav, who helped save the day for the Soviet Union in the war. If he was religious, I don't see it being applied at all in practice.

Yes, I agree about one specific group of Christians, the evangelistic Christian leaders, who have sold out the country. I don't fathom them at all.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I would say that what we knew from science and what was revealed in religion were adequate for the times in which they existed, but what we knew in former times is no longer adequate for the present time, nor will what we have in the present time be adequate in the future.

I believe that both science and religion evolve over time to meet the needs of the people living in those times. So the scientific knowledge we have now and the religion that was revealed for this age, which I believe is the Baha'i Faith, is adequate for the age we are living in but will not be adequate for future ages when the needs will be different.

I believe that the Messenger of God reveals a message in every age, and that message is suited for that age, since every age has its own problems and requirements. We should be concerned about the age we live in, not past ages or future ages. This concept is expressed in the Baha'i scriptures.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Sufficient for what purpose? All evidence is suited for a particular purpose. Also, evidence for science or law is not the same as evidence for God or a religion.

Sufficient for what purpose?

Sufficient for a justified belief in a god.

All evidence is suited for a particular purpose. Also, evidence for science or law is not the same as evidence for God or a religion.

I might agree…in that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence should be?
Unfortunately for many religious adherents, they tend to start with the presumption that a god exists, and accept less vigorously stringent evidence in order to acquiesce to that presumption.

You previously said: (post #218)

“Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate.

Which I took to mean that neither religion or science were up to the task of explaining an understanding of reality.
Did I misunderstand your meaning?

When I asked: (post #238)

Would you say that since that time (when was this?), the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?

To which you responded: (post #241)

The time that is being referred to in the quote is the time before the modern age of science, the ages that preceded the new age we are living in. I think the quote is saying that in the previous ages people believed that there was an inherent conflict between science and religion, but in those ages religion and science were far from adequate.

Which I replied: (post #289)

I’m still curious though….
Would you say that since that time, the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?

[Please pardon my repetitions here, It’s been a couple days (I’ve been a bit busy) and I’m simply trying to re-coalesce the flow of the discussion in my mind.]

By saying “the time that is being referred to in the quote is the time before the modern age of science, the ages that preceded the new age we are living in.”
Would that be before the scientific revolution and age of enlightenment….say mid 1500’s to mid 1800’s?
Of course science has learned a great deal since Copernicus (mid 1500’s) and now.
Of course the scientific understanding we have today will be dwarfed by our likely understanding in the future.
I’m not sure the same can be said of religions….
The overwhelming majority of religious people belong to one of the major world religions
(we’re talking like 98+%) all of which predate the 1500’s with the possible exception of Sikhism which originated in the late 1500’s.
Granted there has been evolution within each of these religions through the years, but non which served to coalesce towards a better understanding, but rather schisms and splintering into differing sects and denominations thus seemingly diluting understanding to more and more selective individual understandings many of which are ardently opposed to the understandings in other sects which have on several occasions resulted in bloodshed as a means of “reconciliation”.

In science the exact opposite has occurred.
Once opposing points of view tend to coalesce into more unified understandings that become even more universally accepted.

Thus my answer to the question I posed to you:
Would you say that since that time, the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?
My answer would be that science has become more adequate and shows every indication that the trend will continue….
While religions have become increasingly inadequate and show every indication that the trend will continue.

 

[PureX]

Yet most religious people believe they know God's will and believers in science are even holier than thou.

I believe we all have faith and this is one of the very few beliefs I have. This is why I call our species "homo omnisciencis". Right now, at this juncture of history I believe the human race has never been so wrong about so many things and this wrongness is a threat to the continuing existence of our species. I believe some people need a little less faith and a lot of people need a very different faith. We need a great deal less faith in science. Other than for some or many experts we should have almost no faith in science.

What we need is to understand the difference between faith and belief. What we need is more wisdom and less functional intelligence. And we won't get either by blaming, or worshiping science.

 

[ChristineM]

What we need is to understand the difference between faith and belief. What we need is more wisdom and less functional intelligence. And we won't get either by blaming, or worshiping science.

or worshiping bronze age myths

 

[cladking]

What we need is to understand the difference between faith and belief. What we need is more wisdom and less functional intelligence. And we won't get either by blaming, or worshiping science.

Again, I don't think science is the issue here. I think that there is no real difference between "belief" and "faith". One might define faith as a "linchpin of belief" but I'm not sure the distinction often has much utility.

There are many such "linchpin beliefs" that are central to cultures and lead each of us to be a product of his time and place. Many of these fundamental beliefs are passed along as parts of language or in the structure of language. They are part and parcel of language as it is being used at any given time and place. For this reason we each have to deal with the "fact" that ancient people were primitive and superstitious but we're all better now. We have to deal with the "fact" that science has real answers to real questions. We know that 18th century science was not up to the task of creating the Industrial Revolution. We know that anything we can't touch or examine probably doesn't even exist. There are no ghosts, gods, or unicorns. If such a thing existed it would soon be found and appear in a well respected scientific journal.

Then there are beliefs that follow from these like Peers know everything and reality itself depends on their opinions.

I don't believe that in the big scheme of things it matters how you define belief or faith. I don't believe the problem is at all with science but with people's beliefs and their beliefs about science and how science works. I believe the problem is with the lack of understanding how our minds work and the very nature of consciousness. If we had a model for such things it would probably show that all knowledge other than visceral knowledge is held as models (there's a fair probability that even visceral knowledge is modeled elsewhere than higher brain functions just like "muscle memory" is held in ganglia throughout the body: Perhaps in the medulla oblongata).

Our species (no, we are no longer homo sapien) is operated through a part of the brain that is created in each of us in order to learn language. This acts as programming for the brain. This has a profound effect on brain function because it wholly reorganizes its operation. No longer are the billions of brain cells that are created between two and three years of age an integral part of the functioning brain. Instead we "think" and organize everything into models that are governed and built by beliefs. We experience reality in terms of belief and faith. We all must believe in something and most peoples' models of science are built largely on belief. We are a highly mystical species so it should hardly be surprising that some people KNOW there are ghosts or that there is no God.

We lack wisdom for many reasons. We no longer teach things like practical science, applied science, or metaphysics. Some religions teach that they always know God's will and then lead adherents about by the nose. We never stop and look at all knowledge except a few as individuals. There are no classes like philosophy in light of new findings. There is no movement to develop a unified language for communication in science. Here we submit everything to Peers for review but each Peer has a different understanding of what is under discussion! There is no effort to enlighten the public but only to bamboozle and confuse them. Even now the signatories of the new climate report are being cancelled and the report buried. There are trillions of dollars at stake and population will be affected by this. The winners will sit on even bigger piles than they have now and the losers will die or at best not be able to reproduce.

As humans we must have beliefs but there is no reason that we can only have beliefs in science or religion. There is no reason that every individual can't examine his core beliefs (faith?) and see how they apply to current events and his perceptions. There is no reason we can't do a better job at almost everything in the real world of education, business, and governance. There is no reason everyone shouldn't be able to spot salesmen whether they are peddling law suits, God, or global warming. There's no reason we can't act much more wisely even though we all have beliefs founded on thin air. If you at least spot propaganda it loses its hold over you.

 

[PureX]

Again, I don't think science is the issue here. I think that there is no real difference between "belief" and "faith". One might define faith as a "linchpin of belief" but I'm not sure the distinction often has much utility.

Allow me to explain the difference, and why it's so important.

Belief is the presumption that something we hope is true, is true, without knowing it to be so.

Faith is hoping that something that we want to be true, is true, knowing and accepting that it may not be.

Belief is fundamentally both dishonest and impractical in that it pretends something is true that we don't or can't actually know is true. While faith is both honest and practical because it does not presume to know what is not or cannot be known. Instead, one is choosing to act on the possibility that it will turn out to be true.

Belief is an act of the ego: telling itself that it knows what it does not know. Faith is an act of optimism and self-awareness. Choosing to act on hope and desire even knowing it may fail.

I don't believe that in the big scheme of things it matters how you define belief or faith. I don't believe the problem is at all with science but with people's beliefs and their beliefs about science and how science works. I believe the problem is with the lack of understanding how our minds work and the very nature of consciousness. If we had a model for such things it would probably show that all knowledge other than visceral knowledge is held as models (there's a fair probability that even visceral knowledge is modeled elsewhere than higher brain functions just like "muscle memory" is held in ganglia throughout the body: Perhaps in the medulla oblongata).

 

[cladking]

Allow me to explain the difference, and why it's so important.

Belief is the presumption that something we hope is true, is true, without knowing it to be so.

Faith is hoping that something we that want to be true, is true, knowing and accepting that it may not be.

Belief is fundamentally both dishonest and impractical in that it pretends something is true that we don't or can't actually know is true. While faith is both honest and practical because it does not presume to know what is not or cannot be known. But instead, knowingly chooses to act of the possibility that it will turn out to be true.

Belief is an act of the ego: telling itself that it knows what it does not know. Faith is an act of optimism and self-awareness. Choosing to act on hope and desire while knowing it may fail.

Thank you for the definition and thoughts.

Even though I'm very spiritual I lack all "faith" (by your definition), and don't even have faith in gravity. I suppose I do have faith in the good will of people but I've seen the evil they can do when they believe in destructive things so even this faith is tempered by practicalities.

I might agree that "faith" by your definition is a positive thing but it can only be a positive in conjunction with the good will of people and only so long as they don't believe in destructive and evil ideas.

 

[PureX]

Thank you for the definition and thoughts.

Even though I'm very spiritual I lack all "faith" (by your definition), and don't even have faith in gravity.

You have faith in gravity in that you cannot know for certain that it will be in effect tomorrow, or in an hour. And yet you choose to hope that it will be, and to act on that hope. Now granted, this does not take a whole lot of faith in that you have a huge amount of evidence to indicate that it will remain in effect. But if you are being honest with yourself, you must admit that you can't actually know that it will be.

Where as to "believe" that gravity will be in effect tomorrow is an expression of ego. And it both dishonest and arrogant. Because, although there is enormous evidence that it will be, you can't actually know that it will. So your "belief" becomes nothing more than a false pretense of knowledge that you don;t actually have.

Now apply this to the "belief" that God as I understand it, exists as I imagine God to exist. An assertion that I have very little evidence to support, and yet I am choosing to just blindly pretend to know it.

As opposed to choosing to put my faith in the idea of God's existence as I conceive of it, simply because I hope it will turn out to be so. Ans to that end, I choose to act on that faith even though I know that I may be wrong. And God is ither something very different from what I imagine, or doesn't exist at all ... in any way that I would recognize existence.

Now, which of these options is the more honest, and practical? And yet which of these do most theists engage in? And which of these do most religions, push on people?

I might agree that "faith" by your definition is a positive thing but it can only be a positive in conjunction with the good will of people and only so long as they don't believe in destructive and evil ideas.

The fascinating thing about faith is that, because we choose to act on our hopes, they has a tendency to manifest when they would not have, otherwise. So by employing faith in our lives, we actually can create the very ideals or circumstances that we had hoped to be so. It's why so many theists keep telling atheists that they have to put their faith in the idea of God for that idea to manifest in their lives in a meaningful way. Because that's how faith works.

 

[nPeace]

Out of curiosity: does this anonymous atheist live in the real world or just in your head?

And was this a direct quote?

From 1:42:20

 

[nPeace]

Really, which? I've not come across it where I live apart from Jehovah's Witnesses. All the European Christians I know are on-board with modern scientific discovery. Most Jews I know don't care one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, this so-called conflict is not a very European phenomenon. There are some, but they're few and far between.

That's because Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones with their eyes opened.
They know the difference between knowledge, and falsely called knowledge.

Actually, I shouldn't say only Jehovah's Witnesses, since there are a few groups, and individuals who see through the fog of science beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Are we talking about faith or are we talking about religion? The OP title question mentions faith, but the OP makes no mention of it.

I didn't want to confuse anyone... but I guess I failed.