Can the faith of one religion discredit the faith of another?

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do I get for guessing right? Or is it you don't know and need my guidance as a guru?

You seem to be dancing around the issue of the discussion by distracting with other things.

So what is religion in methodological naturalism and with science?

 

[F1fan]

I follow. So God through reason would be religious knowledge, if it exists - and not religious faith.

Faith doesn't result in knowledge. If a God was observed existing it would be a fact. If there was evidence that could compel an objective thinker that it's likely a certain type or form of God existed, then it would be rational. Thus far we have no observations, nor any credible evidence of any gods existing outside of human imagination.

That leaves faith as a justification to believe.

So can faith be sufficient on its own to invalidate the faith of another?

 

[F1fan]

So what is religion in methodological naturalism and with science?

Irrelevant, mostly.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, faith has a reliability that is different from science/reason/logic, but it is different and neither worse or better. So I can't argue what you demand of me.

Yes, "bad reliability" could be defined as a type of reliability on a scale from 0-10.

A broken condom is different than a good one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant, mostly.

Well, to me it is a human and natural behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, "bad reliability" could be defined as a type of reliability on a scale from 0-10.

A broken condom is different than a good one.

You still have to show the there is one and only of overall type of reliability. Hence you can use only science, reason and logic?

 

[RestlessSoul]

On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.. I pointed out that there are examples of faithful people who do criminal things and justify it through their faith. My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago. The person said their motivation wasn't real faith. I pointed out that faith as being argued has no real standards like reason and logic does. Faith is justified through the eye of the beholder, and anything goes.

I asked what authority does this person have as a mortal, just like any atheist, that can discount the faith of another theist or religion. Since faith has no standards the person could offer nothing except his/her own belief, just as the 9-11 hijackers did.

So how can one faith-based believer dispute the beliefs of some other faith-based believer if BOTH insist faith is reliable, yet offer no standards to determine the reliability of faith?

I think I vaguely recognise the discussion you may be referring to here. Only vaguely though. You seem to have redrafted that conversation, presumably to bolster your own rejection of faith as a quality that has value.

Now you say "faith has no standards". I disagree, because as I pointed out to you yesterday, faith is not incompatible with reason or common sense; one can have both, and plenty of people do.

 

[F1fan]

Well, to me it is a human and natural behavior.

We can point to many common behaviors that could be categorized as natural. By natural I would say it is an inclination that is not necessarily moral or reasoned, like waging war and genocide. Or even rape and murder. Humans have many natural impulses, and it is our capacity for reason that allows us to manage responsible social norms.

Faith seems to be another category of natural behavior. But is it reasonable or helpful? Can one faith claim an authority over another if there is no standard being used in the first place?

 

[F1fan]

I think I vaguely recognise the discussion you may be referring to here. Only vaguely though. You seem to have redrafted that conversation, presumably to bolster your own rejection of faith as a valid human quality.

Faith shows itself to be unreliable and often catastrophic. Am I unjustified in rejecting it when we can see how reason is more reliable?

Feel free to articulate your view if I misrepresented something.

Now you say "faith has no standards". I disagree, because as I pointed out to you yesterday, faith is not incompatible with reason or common sense; one can have both, and plenty of people do.

Well as we can all observe you fail to describe what these standards are. You failed then, and you don't bother to list them now.

Are you bluffing?

And as I noted someone could use faith to decide something is true and by sheer chance it is also rational. That is happenstance. People use faith BECAUSE reason won't give them the conclusion they want.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can point to many common behaviors that could be categorized as natural. By natural I would say it is an inclination that is not necessarily moral or reasoned, like waging war and genocide. Or even rape and murder. Humans have many natural impulses, and it is our capacity for reason that allows us to manage responsible social norms.

Faith seems to be another category of natural behavior. But is it reasonable or helpful? Can one faith claim an authority over another if there is no standard being used in the first place?

What is a standard for authority if it works on everything? To me authority is subjective in the end and there is objective authority. There is a limited authority over the objective parts of the world, but no overall authority as far as I can tell.

 

[idea]

Losing faith in one religious group can lead to disbelief in all religious groups.

Some interesting stages - James W. Fowler - Wikipedia

Midlife crisis, or midlife freedom - many re-think their beliefs at some point. Some come away as atheists, others leave with a more universal spirituality, some jump from one group to another. It is interesting to see where honest investigation and life experiences take people.

 

[CBM]

Theists aren't claiming this. In fact most defending faith avoid evidence since many faith-based beliefs are contrary to facts and evidence.

Can you give examples of evidence being used in any way by theists?


If a person has reasonable evidence they use reason. Faith is used due to a lack of evidence.

Judaism has a history of using evidence.
I wouldn’t argue for absolute knowledge, though. I think absolute knowledge is impossible to claim almost anywhere.
There’s always a possibility that you are not you and someone implanted your brain with all your memories this morning etc… but that doesn’t take away from the fact that A. There is enough reasonable evidence for you to know that you are you and B. You know you are who you are regardless of the evidence.

Judaism is based on a story passed on for millennia. It’s a story of mass revelation completely unique to mankind.
I don’t want to go into details right now in this thread what the ramifications of that are but suffice it to say that based on reason, it is highly improbable that such a story was introduced at a later point to an entire nation, having them all believe it hook line and sinker and then subsequently passed down with no significant variations. If it’s possible to do why haven’t other religions introduced that kind of “event” to boost their credibility?

Of course, atheists and perhaps others will find any other explanation preferable to acknowledging that it is in fact reasonable to conclude that such an event did take place. Supernatural events and Divine providence are never in the running as possible explanations, even if all reasonable evidence points in that direction.
Which brings me to my next point: the survival of the Jewish people. There is nothing that can account for that in a definitive way aside from Divine providence - a Omnipotent Being with a vested interest in the preservation of the Jewish people as a nation.
Of course, people again will attempt to attribute this to all sorts of natural causes. However when you take a closer look at each possible cause, not one of them has been shown to preserve other nations so it’s a very hard call, and in my opinion, unreasonable to say that a bunch of individual potential causes (often contradictory) which have not been shown to work for others, thrown together can explain the survival of the Jews away.

(Back to my A and B, many people go straight to B. There’s a deep inner knowing of spirituality that drives people towards religion as a means of expressing that. But I do think any adoption of religion needs to be based on reason.)

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago.

A very poor example, as 9/11 was entirely politically motivated. Al Quaida didn't attack America because we don't worship allah or whatever, they did it because of our damaging and imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

 

[Martin]

A very poor example, as 9/11 was entirely politically motivated. Al Quaida didn't attack America because we don't worship allah or whatever, they did it because of our damaging and imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

Those "imperialistic" actions effectively date back to the Crusades, so it's difficult to separate out religious, historical and political dimensions.

 

[Windwalker]

I pointed out that faith as being argued has no real standards like reason and logic does. Faith is justified through the eye of the beholder, and anything goes.

That is not true at all. Yes faith has a standard. "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."

The standards of a genuine faith are: "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control".

So what fruit did the religious fanatics on 9/11 bear? Any of those? Or were they thorn bushes and thistles, disguising themselves as grape vines and fig trees? They certainly failed those standards of faith and brought death and misery, instead of love, joy, and peace. In a contemporary vernacular, they were practicing "Fake Faith".

 

[viole]

On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.. I pointed out that there are examples of faithful people who do criminal things and justify it through their faith. My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago. The person said their motivation wasn't real faith. I pointed out that faith as being argued has no real standards like reason and logic does. Faith is justified through the eye of the beholder, and anything goes.

I asked what authority does this person have as a mortal, just like any atheist, that can discount the faith of another theist or religion. Since faith has no standards the person could offer nothing except his/her own belief, just as the 9-11 hijackers did.

So how can one faith-based believer dispute the beliefs of some other faith-based believer if BOTH insist faith is reliable, yet offer no standards to determine the reliability of faith?

Any evidence the theists show, in terms of answering to prayers, subjective experiences, miracles, etc. are defeated by identical experiences claimed by believers in a totally different God.

so, the only rational conclusion, ceteris paribus, and with the available evidence, is that they both delude themselves.

ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

Religious faith is described as the antithesis to reason.

Described that way maybe only by certain atheists with an axe to grind. I hold that faith and reason are complementary to each other, each serving a different function, informing the whole person. Not all things in life are lived in the rational sphere of the mind. You know, such as dancing, or love.

Now certainly there could be a concept that is accepted via faith that also happens to be reasonable, but that would be accidental, and the work would have to be shown.

It can also go the greater step and allow knowledge to challenge beliefs that support one's faith, thereby allowing their faith to grow through accepting reasonable, well-supported knowledge, such as accepting evolution.

Many of faith find their faith grows through this. Whereas some, not ready yet, resist. But that's not the fault of faith. That's simply a matter of the person's faith-abilities at that stage. Some people resist letting go of their ideas they learned in childhood. It's hard changing habitual ways of looking at things when you grew up with it. But to me, a true faith helps you through that acceptance and integration process.

From a rational process we can assess whether any given religious concept is more probable and rational or complete nonsense or even criminal. But this is reason doing the work, not faith. Faith will justify any of it.

That's not faith that dismisses knowledge. That's fear, hiding behind the name faith, to put lipstick on a pig, so to speak.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Faith shows itself to be unreliable and often catastrophic. Am I unjustified in rejecting it when we can see how reason is more reliable?

Feel free to articulate your view if I misrepresented something.


Well as we can all observe you fail to describe what these standards are. You failed then, and you don't bother to list them now.

Are you bluffing?

And as I noted someone could use faith to decide something is true and by sheer chance it is also rational. That is happenstance. People use faith BECAUSE reason won't give them the conclusion they want.

You reject faith. That's your prerogative. But if you are not prepared to listen when others try to explain what it's significance is to them, you cannot then define faith on your terms; to do so means defining something you have dismissed without attempting to understand. It is irrational and illogical to assign qualities to phenomena you have no understanding of.

Faith is a personal matter. For myself, it means the absolute conviction that a power, which I choose to call God, has transformed my life in a way that is truly miraculous. That's pretty much all I'm prepared to say to a party from whom I expect only contempt and ridicule by way of a response. But I could introduce you to hundreds of people who would testify to having had profound spiritual experiences, which altered the foundations of their existence. This is faith as a tangible manifestation of something you don't believe exists, so probably this is where the conversation once again breaks down.

I do not ask or expect you to believe as I believe. But there is little hope of any communication between people of different perspectives, if one party is not interested in even trying to understand the other's position. In truth I only responded to you on this thread because I was a a little annoyed that you were trying to publicly score points off a previous interaction. That makes my response a function of my ego, and I'm a little embarrassed at having succumbed in that manner. But there we go.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Those "imperialistic" actions effectively date back to the Crusades, so it's difficult to separate out religious, historical and political dimensions.

Not really. "Get out of our lands" doesn't necessitate any religious overtones and is very different from "God wills your destruction", and as well America was not a thing during the Crusades. While conflict in the Middle East may date back to that, America's actions do not.

 

[1213]

On the discussion "Do atheists have faith" someone argued that faith is a reliable means to truth, to moral guidance, to know God's mind, etc.. I pointed out that there are examples of faithful people who do criminal things and justify it through their faith. My best example was the 9-11 hijackers who were following God's will to plan and attack numerous targets in the USA nearly 20 years ago. The person said their motivation wasn't real faith. ...

Interesting, I have understood faith means faithfulness, which means loyalty. It is possible that person is loyal and does bad things. But, if person is for example loyal to Bible God, he lives by Bible God’s rules and doesn’t do things would not be loyal to God.

I don’t know to what did the hijackers have loyalty for.