Do you understand Religion, or do you think you understand Religion

[icehorse]

Faith is the way forward when we finally accept that we do not know, and never will know "the truth". This is why I say it's as close to the truth as we're ever going to get.

We might just be having a semantics issue here. I think the golden rule is a corner stone for living a life worth living. Unless you're a relativist, I think it's fairly easy to "prove" that valuing the golden rule leads to a "better" life. I guess the question is whether that belief is "faith" or a "value"?

 

[PureX]

We might just be having a semantics issue here. I think the golden rule is a corner stone for living a life worth living. Unless you're a relativist, I think it's fairly easy to "prove" that valuing the golden rule leads to a "better" life. I guess the question is whether that belief is "faith" or a "value"?

If you believe in the positive value of that ideal, then why don't you trust in it?

For me, the confusion comes with the word "belief". I try to leave that "belief" gibberish out of it. I simply trust in the idea that mutual respect and appreciation, when acted upon, will bring positive results more often than not. Thus, I have "faith" in this ideal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see how that's even remotely possible since people can have equally strong faith in completely contradictory concepts.

I can and thereby I have show you something contradictory. You have strong faith in X and I have in non-X. You are looking at it.
Truth is in the mind and nowhere else.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

If you believe in the positive value of that ideal, then why don't you trust in it?

For me, the confusion comes with the word "belief". I try to leave that "belief" gibberish out of it. I simply trust in the idea mutual that respect and appreciation, when acted upon, will bring positive results more often than not. Thus, I have "faith" in this ideal.

I might have missed it, but did you define faith somewhere or explain how one performs it or does it? I have difficulty with these terms being used. I think a lot of people use the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" or something, which makes it sound a little more scary to me, but I don't think that is what you are suggesting, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We might just be having a semantics issue here. I think the golden rule is a corner stone for living a life worth living. Unless you're a relativist, I think it's fairly easy to "prove" that valuing the golden rule leads to a "better" life. I guess the question is whether that belief is "faith" or a "value"?

Well, as long as we can agree that both "faith" and a "value" are subjective, individual and so on, it is fine with me.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

there is no weh in hebrew
Yahuah is apparently the original pronunciation ...before it was changed in the text into Lord and God, both names of pagan deities

What qualifies as a Pagan deity? What isn't a Pagan deity, but is also a deity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it's not reliable it's useless. Verifiable evidence is a far more reliable path to truth.

Useless is in your mind and nowhere else. What you consider useful and reliable is a cognitive construct in you.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Well Moses asks God what name, and God replies say "I am" sent you, so unless God's answer was irrelevant to the question, it is reasonable to deduce that "I am" is a name of God

Yeah, I thought that was recognized even, but I think that this person thinks Jehovah is the only true name of God or something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ROFL... okay, I'll take that as a NO, you can't provide any examples. Thanks for playing!

So how is "ROFL" true, useful and reliable with evidence?

 

[PureX]

I might have missed it, but did you define faith somewhere or explain how one performs it or does it? I have difficulty with these terms being used. I think a lot of people use the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" or something, which makes it sound a little more scary to me, but I don't think that is what you are suggesting, right?

Faith, to me, is choosing to trust in an ideal that we hope to be valid (though we don't know this to be so), via our actions.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Useless is in your mind and nowhere else. What you consider useful and reliable is a cognitive construct in you.

What isn't useless and isn't just in my mind? All I know is what I experience, and there is no way to verify anything outside of my mind, or even that you are experiencing anything or exist independently of whatever I experience of you. For the sake of normal interactions though, we don't bother with that reality or circumstance, and so don't end up super annoying like Jim Carrey during his epiphany stage a few years ago.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Faith, to me, is choosing to trust in an ideal that we hope to be valid (though we don't know this to be so), via our actions.

Ok, that is interesting. Could you (and sorry if you have already) lay out an example of such in practice, like if you could provide an example it might help me understand even more how this definition is working out.

So like, believing (based on some sort of evidence that has given to us the impression of the likelihood of something) that being nice to people might make them more likely to do us favors? So that would be having faith in the ideal of being kind to people increasing the chances of they will be more beneficial towards us?

 

[icehorse]

Well, as long as we can agree that both "faith" and a "value" are subjective, individual and so on, it is fine with me.

Well we're trying to make a distinction between the two here

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Well we're trying to make a distinction between the two here

I'm lost basically. When people say "have faith" my general response is "why should that be necessary? No way, Jose!", but if they mean "have faith that the water will boil as the heating apparatus is on and functional" then I'm like "alright" but that would mean more "have patience" rather than "blindly trust in something unlikely, unproven".

 

[PureX]

Ok, that is interesting. Could you (and sorry if you have already) lay out an example of such in practice, like if you could provide an example it might help me understand even more how this definition is working out.

So like, believing (based on some sort of evidence that has given to us the impression of the likelihood of something) that being nice to people might make them more likely to do us favors? So that would be having faith in the ideal of being kind to people increasing the chances of they will be more beneficial towards us?

Proposition: being kind to others will result in their being kind to us.

Counter-proposition: being kind to others will result in their taking advantage of us.

Both appear to be logically based, and equally possible, but there is for more value FOR ME in the first proposition, rather than in the second. So I would reasonably hope that the first proposition is the more valid of the two. However, I don't know that to be so, and the only way for me to find out is to trust in the proposition that I hope to be the valid one, and then act accordingly.

This is faith: to trust in a hoped for idea of 'truth', and follow through with one's actions. Faith is what allows us to move forward when the requisite knowledge is not available. And surprisingly, it often happens that our actions, themselves, then become the evidence that what we'd hoped to be true from the start, IS true. We end up fulfilling our own ideological desires by acting in accordance with them.

In the case of the 'golden rule', the more people trust in it, and act on that trust, the more valid (true) the rule becomes. Once you understand this, you begin to understand how "God" works, and why.

 

[icehorse]

I'm lost basically. When people say "have faith" my general response is "why should that be necessary? No way, Jose!", but if they mean "have faith that the water will boil as the heating apparatus is on and functional" then I'm like "alright" but that would mean more "have patience" rather than "blindly trust in something unlikely, unproven".

Again, semantics. I would say that - since I value science - I believe the water will boil.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well we're trying to make a distinction between the two here

Well, I would like to learn more about that.
To me "faith" and "value" are subjective, mental constructs which give rise to further behavior and which both are without evidence, proof, truth and/or what not.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I would like to learn more about that.
To me "faith" and "value" are subjective, mental constructs which give rise to further behavior and which both are without evidence, proof, truth and/or what not.

I think it's sort of inevitable that these discussions end up being about philosophical relativism. In my experience, if you take the stance of the relativist, there simply is no argument to defeat that stance.

But personally, I find relativism to be unhappy and unsatisfying. So I take a few common sense axioms and work from there. FWIW, I think I can defend my stances given the following two axioms:

1 - I believe we can know (or come to know), if an action improves or decreases well being.
2 - I believe in utilitarianism.

I know I cannot defend those beliefs if attacked by a relativist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it's sort of inevitable that these discussions end up being about philosophical relativism. In my experience, if you take the stance of the relativist, there simply is no argument to defeat that stance.

But personally, I find relativism to be unhappy and unsatisfying. So I take a few common sense axioms and work from there. FWIW, I think I can defend my stances given the following two axioms:

1 - I believe we can know (or come to know), if an action improves or decreases well being.
2 - I believe in utilitarianism.

I know I cannot defend those beliefs if attacked by a relativist.

I actually learned from your: Value science vs. believe water will boil.

If you catch me on a good day, I can minimize my relativism. You are nice and not triggering me. You are good at it.

 

[MNoBody]

Well, I would like to learn more about that.
To me "faith" and "value" are subjective, mental constructs which give rise to further behavior and which both are without evidence, proof, truth and/or what not.

to just jump in here,
faith has come to mean ...more like say... a hunch that one gets...it may be vague and nebulous or more developed,
but like a good detective that has a kind of feel for the job and that suspicious mind that does imagine things, yet uncannily accurate,
as follow-up has to show,
if not, then those hunch's were as valuable as any popfart idea ends up being seen as.

which is the basic idea, and there has to be some follow-up to verify the hunch....
maybe the case isn't solved, but the hunch paid off and there is now new clues to look into.....
if not, it may be wrong, and usually gets re-evaluated at that point......
but it is also cliche in that this plot line is common fodder for tv series/movies.
how many shows are made where somebody has an idea [about whatever].....it is sneered at, they get discredited and smeared, made to look foolish, but they stick to it, classic underdog, who ends up proving they were right when everyone said they were wrong, usually because the secret nemesis was working to sway public opinion to discredit the one who was actually onto them.