What is Faith?

[Valjean]

I'm relying on inner experience to tell me that there is substance to abstract phenomena and it needs a separate category that I call spiritual. I know that I have cares, love, character qualities that cannot be described by chemical reactions.

Care, love, virtues cannot be physically observed. Honesty can't be placed under a scope.

Nor are they evidence of God or miracles. They're significant to you, but can't be used in apologetic debate.

 

[Truthseeker]

How is this evidence for God, or for the claims of a prophet?

You would only know if you looked at the life of a Prophet, if you pondered their scriptures for yourself, all with a heart detached from all the peoples of the earth.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe we rarely have the facts of a so called Prophet's life, because there were few that didn't surround themselves with hagiographers and yes men, and neither of those categories are reliable reporters of fact in my view.

How do you know what the attitude of those around the Prophets were in approaching the Prophet? Are you a mind reader?

There is a point that I note there, though. It is hard to prove a Prophet's mission by their reported actions, unless you were present. In effect, what effect they had on those around them, their influence over their environment they were in, the possible inspiration you might see the scripture, whther the scripture was consistent with itself, and other Revelations it claims to recognize, and did they create a civilization that was good at least for a short time before it broke down are probably better ways to determine their truth.

I don't wish to argue any of those criteria with you. I think you have decided against, and I have decided for, and I don't have the time to argue with you. It would take forever, with perhaps no useful result for either of us. You do have your own conclusion, based on your assessment of what you know, and I have mine, based on the assessment of what I know. Let us both continue to investigate further on our own.

 

[Valjean]

Excuse me for jumping in, but I don't believe that faith is beyond physical explanation since there are physical facts that can lead to faith, and some of us believers consider those important. However, there is no physical evidence for God because God is not physical. As I said in my OP, we can never "see God", and that is the reason there can never be any physical proof of God. The only physical evidence for God are the Messengers of God and if we can have faith in them we can have faith in God.

The neuropsychology of faith is researchable, and claims revealed in altered psychic states might be researchable, but the revelations themselves are perceived only by the individual experiencer and don't qualify as testable or observable evidence. True, these revelations may be convincing to the experiencer, but they're imperceptable to everyone else.
The non-physicality of God is not the problem. We can detect, measure and work with all kinds of things imperceptible to the senses..
Faith in messengers? Storytellers are a dime a dozen, and their stories vary a lot. What distinguishes the ones you follow from the one's you reject?

 

[Valjean]

You would only know if you looked at the life of a Prophet, if you pondered their scriptures for yourself, all with a heart detached from all the peoples of the earth.

But as I said above, prophetic claimants are common, and their claims disagree. They can't all be right. How does one determine which, if any, is right, without additional, objective evidence. And if you have sufficient hard evidence to verify a claim, you don't need a claimant.

Scriptures are similar. Anyone can write stories with religious claims. Every religion seems to have some, yet they all disagree. Moreover, some make claims that are veridically wrong, or contradictory, or hearsay, or otherwise apocryphal.

"A heart detached from all the peoples of the earth?" Explain, please.

 

[Valjean]

The Prophets are really the only evidence for God, but their claims are not the evidence since that would be circular reasoning.
The evidence is who they were (their character), what they accomplished on their mission, and what they revealed through scriptures.

But aren't there lots of honorable and meritorious people, some of whom make religious claims? Aren't such people part of lots of different religions?
These 'prophets' are making contradictory claims, so how can prophecy be reliable evidence?

 

[osgart]

Nor are they evidence of God or miracles. They're significant to you, but can't be used in apologetic debate.

They are evidence of a reality beyond physical description. Everyone knows these meanings are realities. Can't just sweep it under a rug, or assume it's been dealt with properly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no problem with faith-based belief, so long as the believer is aware that it's largely subjective and poorly evidenced. It's the repeated insistence that faith is equivalent to objective evidence, or its promotion as 'proof' that I find problematic.

Yes, but that is not limited to theism. Or standard religion as such.

There is a reason how come there are 2 versions of naturalism or indeed how come you can find this text on an Internet teaching site for what science is written by scientists:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Or if you want it for a higher level academic text:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Or indeed how to understand this one:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In effect you get this contraction for e.g. what science is:
One person: I know for all humans for all times that science is about truth and the correspondence theory of truth.
Another person: Science is many versions of understanding knowledge and that one is only one.
The first one: No, I am right and I have objective evidence for that as I have only beliefs with objective evidence or truth.

This even happens in effect on this site regularly for what knowledge is and has nothing to do with religion in particular.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They are evidence of a reality beyond physical description. Everyone knows these meanings are realities. Can't just sweep it under a rug, or assume it's been dealt with properly.

No, there is no evidence for a reality beyond physical description. There is evidence that the everyday world can't be live by humans with only objective evidence.

 

[osgart]

No, there is no evidence for a reality beyond physical description. There is evidence that the everyday world can't be live by humans with only objective evidence.

I can be objective about my honesty. I have self evident awareness of when I'm being honest or having honest intentions. Honesty isn't able defined in a physical sense, yet it's unmistakably evident to myself; my motives.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whether faith is justified or unjustified is only a matter of opinion and opinions vary.

Disagree. Justification for claims is not a matter of opinion or preference.

It is a matter of independently verifiable evidence.

As to the title question of "what is faith".

I like Mark Twain's definition: Faith is what you need to believe things that you know ain't true.

 

[Nimos]

Of course God would know because God is all-knowing, but whether God would use a method that would convince us so there would be no doubt at all would only be true if God was trying to convince us so there would be no doubt at all, but we don't know if that is God's objective.

These atheists argue that God does not exist because we do not see these things. Other atheists argue that God does not exist because if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone in the world.

But none of these atheists have any way of knowing that God would do any of these things if God existed. Moreover, if God does exist and we do not see any of these things happening that means that if God exists God would not do any of these things. So the only logical conclusions one could come to are (1) God exists and chooses not to do any of these things, or (2) God does not exist, because obviously a nonexistent God cannot do anything at all!

But are atheists being unfair in asking or putting forward these objections?

Let's imagine some unspecified idea/claim that we want to examine and we just call this X. Then the first step must be that we have some sort of way to actually verify that X is even possible. What would we expect to see if X is true? and what would falsify X?

If we can't even agree on what we would expect to see if X is true, then we don't really have any way to even approach the claim. Because equally, it would also mean that we have no way to falsify X either then. And by falsifying X I mean, what result of our examination would make X untrue.

So the only logical conclusion is not one of the two options you suggested but (3) We don't know. (1) and (2) are possible conclusions, given the complete lack of a method/agreement on how to even approach the claim in the first place.

When a lot of atheists explain their position of why they are atheists, it is not one of the two conclusions that you presented, but rather the one I did. If we don't know how to even approach the question of whether God exist or not, then there is no logical reason to assume that he does, said in another way, "We see no evidence for God(s) or the supernatural, that would convince us that it is true".

If as you say, we have no way of knowing that God would do any of these things if he existed, then we are not left with a lot of reasons to assume that God exists, because we can't tell the difference between whether God does things or doesn't do things. Said in another way, even if God existed, he might as well not, to us as humans it is the same.

So when atheists say that if God is an intervening one, at least we would have the option to somehow measure/experience some effect if it is something supernatural. That God so far hasn't done this, is not really the fault of the atheists or them being unfair. What other options are there, if we want to examine this?

But even if God is an intervening God, how could we ever know what we were measuring were the effects of God's intervention?

Because God is outside time and space and per definition divine/supernatural. Then it would defy what we consider natural. Meaning that something would happen that we simply couldn't explain as being a natural thing. This is obviously extremely difficult because there are a lot of things we do not know. But science is obviously the biggest none aggressive opponent to religious claims, meaning that science's intention is not to disprove God, but to explain the natural world and as it does that, it leaves less and less room for God.

Some people are "angry/offended" by science, but the fact is that it is the only method we have to examine the natural world and find answers to questions and problems we as humans have. God if he exists, does not provide any answers, so we don't really have an alternative.
Science doesn't intentionally exclude God, in the sense that God must not exist at any cost. Science excludes God, because of its supernatural nature, which is not something science cares about because so far, we have no idea how to even approach such claims, as they in theory can do anything. In theory, everything we know could have been created 2 minutes ago and all of reality imprinted on our brains so we think it is billions of years old. We can't take something like that into account when trying to figure out how the Universe works, and again, we have no reason to assume that it is the case, except for some pointless solipsistic thought experiments. The point is that in theory with the supernatural, everything goes.

That could be why some believers believe in God but it is illogical to say that is why all believers believe in God since that is the fallacy of hasty generalization. These atheists believe that belief is emotional because they are so sure there is no evidence for God. This is their way of saying that no rational person would believe in God so it has to be for emotional reasons.

There can be many reasons why people believe in God, I have no single answer to it. But I think this is an interesting video that is worth seeing if you want to approach an answer, and the fact is that we as humans are "dumb as hell", will probably make more sense after you have watched the video

That is a good point. I do not believe in the fake gods, only the one true God.
Why did so many people believe in those fake gods back in history? It is noteworthy that there are less people who believe in them in the modern age and the bulk of people believe in the the one God of the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Writings of Baha'u'llah. Still, that is only about 55% of the world population, so there are many other God conceptions out there and many people who still believe in multiple gods.

Again I think the video will somewhat address this issue as well. But you see the issue, with drawing the conclusion that some Gods are fake when just above, you admit that there is no way to know what God do and doesn't do? It doesn't seem to be a logical conclusion

 

[Valjean]

They are evidence of a reality beyond physical description. Everyone knows these meanings are realities. Can't just sweep it under a rug, or assume it's been dealt with properly.

They are evidence only to the experiencer. They are imperceptible to others.
If everyone agreed on meanings or realities, we'd have a homogenous world religion. We don't.

General agreement comes with tangible, empirical evidence, like the evidence for a round Earth or germ-caused disease. Faith-based belief, on the other hand, has created a thousand different religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a point that I note there, though. It is hard to prove a Prophet's mission by their reported actions, unless you were present. In effect, what effect they had on those around them, their influence over their environment they were in, the possible inspiration you might see the scripture, whther the scripture was consistent with itself, and other Revelations it claims to recognize, and did they create a civilization that was good at least for a short time before it broke down are probably better ways to determine their truth.

Literally none of what you wrote there is suited for determining "their truth".

I don't wish to argue any of those criteria with you.

Why not? Do you already know that they aren't valid?

I think you have decided against, and I have decided for, and I don't have the time to argue with you. It would take forever, with perhaps no useful result for either of us. You do have your own conclusion, based on your assessment of what you know, and I have mine, based on the assessment of what I know. Let us both continue to investigate further on our own.

The problem is that we don't play by the same rules.
The rules of my exercise require independently verifiable evidence.
Your exercise requires confirmation bias and "just believe". Aka, "faith".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can be objective about my honesty. I have self evident awareness of when I'm being honest or having honest intentions. Honesty isn't able defined in a physical sense, yet it's unmistakably evident to myself; my motives.

Yes and from there doesn't follow what the world is a such, even if not fully physical.

 

[PureX]

Ok, fine, God is so great and mighty that it is impossible for God to present themselves. That is certainly not a reason to have faith in God.

The reason to have faith in God is that it works. And the only way to find out if it works for you is to try it. And keep trying variations of it because like anything else, faith takes practice to become effective.

Keep in mind that faith is not blind belief. It's just choosing to trust in your hope enough to act on it.

If it was the God of the Bible, certainly no reason to trust them. The God who decide to flood the entire world. The God who killed all of the first born of Egypt. The God who allowed Satan to Job experience hell on earth. Not sure why anyone would trust such a God let alone have faith in them.

The Bible has nothing to do with it unless the God it depicts is a God that you would hope exists. For some people it is, and for others it is not. That's up to you.

 

[1213]

An unbeliever wouldn't get his definition from a holy book.

If you use some other definition, it is no wonder, if you don't understand.

The Bible praises faith as a virtue. It has to, since it depends on belief by faith. It's central tenets can only be believed by faith, because the supporting evidence is inadequate to justify belief by the standards of critical analysis.

Sorry, I disagree with that.

 

[1213]

The Bible's definitions are ambiguous, at best. They weren't intended for use in an epistemic debate.

Why do you think so? And why would your definitions be any better?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but that is not limited to theism. Or standard religion as such.

There is a reason how come there are 2 versions of naturalism or indeed how come you can find this text on an Internet teaching site for what science is written by scientists:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Or if you want it for a higher level academic text:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Or indeed how to understand this one:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In effect you get this contraction for e.g. what science is:
One person: I know for all humans for all times that science is about truth and the correspondence theory of truth.
Another person: Science is many versions of understanding knowledge and that one is only one.
The first one: No, I am right and I have objective evidence for that as I have only beliefs with objective evidence or truth.

This even happens in effect on this site regularly for what knowledge is and has nothing to do with religion in particular.

Science doesn't claim to deal with morals, æsthetics or the supernatural. Science is 'relativized' to tangible things, facts and evidence, not to applications. Science and maths do rely on certain axioms, and these have proved reliable. Without starting premises, science, or any knowledge, couldn't make its first step.
Science isn't perfect, but it's absolutely the best investigative modality we have.

We're discussing evidence, what it is, its reliability and application.

 

[Valjean]

If you use some other definition, it is no wonder, if you don't understand.

Sorry, I disagree with that.

How so?