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

[sun rise]

@Windwalker wrote much of what I was thinking.

Another dimension is what we mean by faith. In various posts, I see faith being used with different meanings. I've highlighted the ones below that I've seen used in this thread after my specific answers.

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?

To expand what @Windwalker wrote, every religious doctrine offers clear standards. People can and do twist and ignore those standards to suit their desires or make errors in judgement. But the actions of some do not refute that the standards exist.

Religious faith is described as the antithesis to reason. It's used when reason cannot justify a desired belief.

Ignoring reason is like trying to walk on one leg. Reason can and should be employed. People who do so recognize the history of religious doctrine, accept that scriptures can be inconsistent, look at the what effect following a doctrine has one people and so forth.

Agrippa's Trilemma

Great point. How much of what we have found rests on the root assumption that the laws of the universe don't change. But it was not so long ago that someone made the claim that there might be a "spatial variation in the find structure constant" and more recently Four direct measurements of the fine-structure constant 13 billion years ago

This of course leads to speculation about other possible changes Could the Laws of Physics Ever Change?

Faith doesn't result in knowledge.

Faith in the sense of something believed can be tested experientially. People can see what results in following their deepest beliefs with all sincerity and dedication. The result is not scientific knowledge but it is a form of knowledge which can be shared. I can look at the lives and teachings of figures such as the Baal Shem Tov, Rumi, St. Francis of Assisi, the Buddha, Hafiz, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi and others to see the result.

Definition of FAITH
(1) a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
(lost faith in the company's president)
1b(1) : fidelity to one's promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith

2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

2b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return)
(2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs (the Protestant faith)
...

 

[F1fan]

What is a standard for authority if it works on everything?

I suggest that there is an inherent authority in expertise, reason, virtue, equality, fairness, etc. Anything that can be argued for being practical and truthful carries a certain authority of truth.

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.

So you would agree that no religious faith has any authority, thus a religious faith of one type has no authority over another?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suggest that there is an inherent authority in expertise, reason, virtue, equality, fairness, etc. Anything that can be argued for being practical and truthful carries a certain authority of truth.

Well, then you have to ground practical and truth for all humans for all cases. Otherwise it is just your subjective belief for the bold ones.

So you would agree that no religious faith has any authority, thus a religious faith of one type has no authority over another?

I would argue that no human holds authority over another human without believing in that and it can't be established with reason, logic and/or evidence. I am a skeptic.

 

[F1fan]

Well, then you have to ground practical and truth for all humans for all cases. Otherwise it is just your subjective belief for the bold ones.

No, just look at how civilizations have progressed over time. It's been the expertise of scientists and craftsmen that have moved it forward, and with these advances come an authority that has earned natural respect. With science has come a truth about how things are in the universe, and with this growing trust and authority religion has lost ground since it continue to promote ideas that are not only lacking facts, but even contrary to fact.

I would argue that no human holds authority over another human without believing in that and it can't be established with reason, logic and/or evidence. I am a skeptic.

So you agree with me, because as I've noted science and expertise has an authority in a civilization because it is based on facts and has skill the lay person does not have.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, just look at how civilizations have progressed over time. It's been the expertise of scientists and craftsmen that have moved it forward, and with these advances come an authority that has earned natural respect. With science has come a truth about how things are in the universe, and with this growing trust and authority religion has lost ground since it continue to promote ideas that are not only lacking facts, but even contrary to fact.

Yeah, that is an appeal to emotion in the end.

So you agree with me, because as I've noted science and expertise has an authority in a civilization because it is based on facts and has skill the lay person does not have.

No, we don't agree. Science is one good, but limited way of dealing with some aspects of the everyday world. But that it is good, is not science. It is a subjective evolution without strong reason, logic and/or evidence

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

I think you could argue that the crusades were one element in the toxic cocktail that inspired the 9/11 atrocities. 1000 years may be a long time in America's collective consciousness, but significant historical events from further back than that still have resonance in many cultures.

But the crusades weren't really about religion anyway, they were about land and power, as all conflicts are; so you're point still holds. Religion was a powerful propaganda tool, but not the root cause.

 

[John D. Brey]

The problem in the end is that there is no Objective Universal Truth, Proof or even evidence. So for such subjective standards there is no universal reliability.

. . . It seems like it's the "objective" standard that doesn't necessarily exist. Which means that if an individual can know Truth (with a capital T) he can't necessarily share it, or prove it. And if he can't do that, how can he know he has it right subjectively, or personally.

In my opinion, as the religious sages imply, this current existence is something like a test for the world-to-come: who will pursue, accept, knuckle-under-to, Truth, even if every objective, communal, measuring tool that attempts to corral Truth, denies what one subjectively accesses as True.

In this sense, the criteria for Truth, would be its inability to be proven objectively or communally.

The Apostle John's adage not to love this world, or anything in this world, would apply here, since nothing in this world is likely to use Truth as a foundation since in this world Truth is seen as being as rickety as a broken branch swaying in the wind.



John

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

Faith is not a reliable means to the truth. Any honest believer will admit that faith can lead to a wrong answer, or a right answer potentially. After all, Hindu's have faith, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, or even non-religions such as the people who believe on faith that magic is real, or that ghosts exist, or that the earth is flat. There are all kinds of faiths out there, which means that faith cannot be a reliable method to discern truth.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, that is an appeal to emotion in the end.

No, it's an observed fact.

No, we don't agree. Science is one good, but limited way of dealing with some aspects of the everyday world. But that it is good, is not science. It is a subjective evolution without strong reason, logic and/or evidence

That's totally irrelevant to my point. My point is that a natural assignment of authority follows expertise, competency, truth, success, etc. We can say where it comes to dealing with Covid and how society as a whole should manage the pandemic a natural authority would be experts in pandemics and virus transmission. A rational society would defer to expertise because it is recognized as having the best solutions, and in that they should be the authority we follow. We shouldn't follow the advice of political pundits who take advantage of people whop believe conspiracy theories because that is irrational, or even faith-based.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

No! Faith is essentially untestable belief. If my untestable belief is different from your untestable belief, there's no way to decide which (if either) is true or false.

 

[F1fan]

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".

The dilemma for you is the many atheists who have these attributes, yet no religious faith. And the many theist who feel full of faith yet lack many of these virtues. So when does the standard kick in wen so many theists ignore them? It appears to be arbitrary.

But the actual standard is not these virtues. The standard we are referring to that faith lacks is one that ensures the faith is factual and true. It's the standard that reason and logic has, its set of rules, that faith lacks. Faith in religious ideas can be justified by mere interest to believe them true, and there's no standard for evidence or fact.

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".

Well if you are not a Muslim extremist then what right do you have as some other kind of theist to insist they were not following God's commands?

This is what I am asking, do you have any authority as a religious person to insist the 9-11 hijackers were wrong if THEY insist they were following God's will? They followed their faith. What standard applies to them within faith that deems them in error?

 

[F1fan]

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.

Let's not limit the political acts of religious people when they are doing these acts via the religious faith I'm referring to, and questioning. The GOP in the USA is so strongly tied to evangelical Christianity to a degree that they are essentially synonymous.

 

[F1fan]

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?

Is there some confusion about this? I offer the 9-11 hijackers as an example of what faith can justify. What theism via faith shows itself to be factually correct and reliable as a form of describing reality? If you're going to challenge the precision and accuracy of logic and science then I want to see examples of faith working to an equal measure.

Can you do that for all to see? Or are you bluffing?

 

[F1fan]

Interesting, I have understood faith means faithfulness, which means loyalty. It is possible that person is loyal and does bad things.

Good point. Is it fair to say Christians are faithful to Jesus? To his sacrifice for our sins. To the gift of everlasting life given by God to those who submit to God's authority and love.

Would the 9-11 hijackers be any less faithful to give their lives to the will of God?

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.

Would the include the side of Christianity that condemns gays and the side that loves and accepts gays? Which Bible God is correct? Some side is wrong, yes? Both can't be loyal and be correct, can they? Can either side condemn the other with any authority of truth? Or is it a Mexican standoff, no-man's-land?

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

They gave their lives for God, would you? Could you even be so certain in what God demands that you would give your life? Maybe they knew more than you about God. This is what faith allows, yes?

 

[F1fan]

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.)

Judaism is an outlier as far as religion goes. It's unique in that it is not just a religion but a genetic group, and a long historic heritage. It includes Jewish atheists, which is an interesting subgroup.

 

[rational experiences]

Teaching and preaching is a human authority of wisdom.

So interpretation proves it is not wise.

As spiritual is denoted as human applied living standards.

Equal a human.
Mutual a human in relationships.
Extended family diverse and mutual.
Sharing civilization mutual law abidances.

Status spiritual to love care share.

Basic wisdom. All religions abide the standards. As it is functional self survival.

Human wisdom.

Then we have ownership national diversity DNA. DNA expressed creation science applied diverse teaching. As nation land fall was changed historically differently as diversity itself. Mutual.

Causes of men human in science history as human chosen that changed natural.and nature.

As a science teaching.

The information is inter related to being spiritual first then losing said spirituality.

A science creation teaching depending on balanced rational spiritual leadership interpreting basic natural life versus scientific corruption.

By science chosen machine caused changes. In nature.

Some human teachers are irrational in scientific spiritual explanations hence should not own any teaching status.

As once spiritual leadership was denoted to be ordered by the standards of self human spirituality.

Therefore given the title teacher meant you had demonstrated only spirituality balances. As a human self.
By what you interpreted personally from the readings.

Knowing science of creation was involved as reasons for data book status. Human owned only.

By order of the spiritual institution.

Mutual references in holy books is already proven. Changes in creation and changes to living human genesis.

Medical science and occult science.

Hence spiritual healers were once given the teacher privilege. Today the title is medical practitioner who cares nurtures and seeks human health and living standards.

And does not abide its abused chosen by humans attacks.

 

[F1fan]

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.

LOL, alright. How does faith compliment reason?

What function does faith serve? And let's note we are referring to religious faith only, not other definitions which can be applied in secular ways.

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.

This is an ironic example since to creationists it is faith that leads them to reject evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

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.

It's ironic you bring up indoctrination because we see examples of people growing up in homes/communities that are extremist, whether Taliban, or white supremacist, or creationist, etc. Since faith is the basis of these beliefs what tools does a young adult have to question the ideology they are indoctrinated into? You're advocating for them to resist doubt. This is the dilemma and danger of dogma: it is assumed true and authoritative just because it is believed by others. This is the flaw in faith, it offers no test in fact or reality or morality.

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

You are pointing out the severe weakness in faith as it offers no standards to discern truth from falsity. If believers want truth and knowledge they defer to a more reliable process like reason. But faith is used precisely because it offers no standard and no challenge to any concept that is desired, even if immoral or criminal. The ends always justify the means.

 

[F1fan]

@Windwalker wrote much of what I was thinking.

Another dimension is what we mean by faith. In various posts, I see faith being used with different meanings. I've highlighted the ones below that I've seen used in this thread after my specific answers.

Let's not distract from the simple question at hand with changing definition that aim to distract.

To expand what @Windwalker wrote, every religious doctrine offers clear standards. People can and do twist and ignore those standards to suit their desires or make errors in judgement. But the actions of some do not refute that the standards exist.

'
Religious texts and sects may offer standards of behavior (like the Leviticus and Exodus laws) but these offer no standards for determining whether any of these beliefs are true. Faith assumes these are authoritative without any standard for this judgment. THAT is what we are tlking about.

Ignoring reason is like trying to walk on one leg. Reason can and should be employed.

Since we have reason what use is faith, except to justify some non-rational motive to believe in some idea that reason can't justify? And how is that rational? Or wise?

Faith in the sense of something believed can be tested experientially. People can see what results in following their deepest beliefs with all sincerity and dedication. The result is not scientific knowledge but it is a form of knowledge which can be shared. I can look at the lives and teachings of figures such as the Baal Shem Tov, Rumi, St. Francis of Assisi, the Buddha, Hafiz, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi and others to see the result.

Why use faith at all when reason is available as a tool? If reason can validate an idea held on faith it's merely an accident. Faith isn't elevated to the status of reason due to chance.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think you could argue that the crusades were one element in the toxic cocktail that inspired the 9/11 atrocities.

Not really. The Crusades were a conflict and struggle over land, yes, but the "Holy Land". It was purely a religious land-grab, as well an effort by the Christian Church to "check Islamic spread". On the other hand, Osama Bin Laden funded the acts carried out by people from various Arab nations, through al Qaeda, as a response to the United States support of Israel (as a political presence, not a religious one), our involvement in the Persian Gulf War, and our continued military presence in the Middle East that is fueled by oil and money, not anything remotely religious. 9/11 was purely political, and untied to the Crusades.

Let's not limit the political acts of religious people when they are doing these acts via the religious faith I'm referring to--

If your target is the GOP, al Qaeda and 9/11 are terrible examples of this "people acting terribly in the name of their god." A more apt example, if you're looking at 9/11, is the inordinate and heavily religious response that the GOP gave back to that attack. Al Qaeda attacked America for political actions, the GOP made it a "new Crusade" to hunt them down (and never mind the oil) in God's name.

 

[rational experiences]

In my life I was a victim of parental God created human life as information human. By humans as adults.

Abused by behaviour but also self beliefs of adults leading back to their parents.

Going back through history children are victims till you get to the human scientist inventor creator of change.

Science is evil theme. Indoctrination and first cult activity versus natural family group via science. The choice.

Before that circumstance natural family natural balanced. Our life good parenting meaning advice for everyone and everyone the all of us needed in extended tribal living.

Purpose of self was natural lived and established mutual equal.

Real information versus governed indoctrination.

Why God status said all children victims are innocent with God. To reason why science practice irradiation fall of man changed everything.