Evidence -- making it useful

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The placebo provides the possibility, and through faith in that possibility, that possibility is fulfilled. It’s as plain as the nose on your face, and yet you refuse to see it.

God can provide us with a possibility in the face of the seemingly impossible. And our faith in that possibility can then do for us what we could not do, before. Faith works. But for it to work we have to be able to trust in the possibility enough to act on it. To live it. That’s what the “placebo” as you want to call it is for … to provide us with a trustable possibility when we otherwise didn’t have that.

Read your own words -- find the circular reasoning, because it's there in spades.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is, I'm sorry to say, perfectly meaningless. It does not even get all the way to the level a "deepity."

You are stringing words together so that you think they have a profound meaning it is not possible to know and Love God," but then you pair it with with another notion that is entirely unrelated "knowing one's own self!"

Unless one has read what religious scriptures offer.



"He hath known God who hath known himself."

Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 178

"You must die to self and live in God."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Lights of Guidance, p. 213

"Do thou reckon thyself only a puny form when within thee the universe is folded?

Bahá’u’lláh, Seven Valleys, p. 34

Regards Tony

 

[PearlSeeker]

Are you sure about that? Beethoven is very "metal". Some of Mozart might qualify, but nothing springs to mind right now. His music does not have the same weight. And it has been far too long since I have heard Puccini.

Thanks for a good idea for a thread in Music forum.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The placebo provides the possibility, and through faith in that possibility, that possibility is fulfilled. It’s as plain as the nose on your face, and yet you refuse to see it.

God can provide us with a possibility in the face of the seemingly impossible. And our faith in that possibility can then do for us what we could not do, before. Faith works. But for it to work we have to be able to trust in the possibility enough to act on it. To live it. That’s what the “placebo” as you want to call it is for … to provide us with a trustable possibility when we otherwise didn’t have that.

Placebo/nocebo works only in the head (and can act also on what is connected to the brain). And the one using it isn't aware of this.

 

[PureX]

Placebo/nocebo works only in the head

I don't understand why you think that matters. It works. It saves lives. It changes people for the better when nothing else can. It doesn't matter whether God exists or not. We will never know, anyway. What matters is the possibility. Because it's through that possibility that we can find a reason to hope, and a reason to act of that hope. That's what faith is: the choice to act of our hope when we otherwise have no reason to. And when it works for us, it works. And that's what matters. That's all that matters.

Everything you believe, you believe because it "works" according to your experience of the world. And faith is no different. if the mechanism of one's faith requires trusting in an unknown possibility, so be it. What matters is that it works i the end result. For huge numbers of people and in lots of different ways.

 

[PureX]

Read your own words -- find the circular reasoning, because it's there in spades.

But somehow you were unable to articulate, yourself. Nor able to explain why it would even matter.

 

[PureX]

Wow, the best God can do is ....maybe? That sounds like a believer who ha doubts and is leaving themselves some plausible deniability.

Every sane theist has doubts. And there is no deniability needed because doubt is reasonable and acceptable. It's part of the human condition as there is so much that we cant know. Faith either works for us or it doesn't. And we all engage in acts of faith all the time because we don't have sufficient knowledge to justify our chosen actions, otherwise.

You pray to God to save your child as it fights for life, and God doesn't come through. Maybe your kids was going to grow up to be a serial killer and God was just saving lives, you can tell yourself. God knows what he's doing, better off to let the kid die.

Yes, you can tell yourself that be cause it is possible. It is that possibility that opens the door to faith. And it is through that faith that you can find meaning and healing in that child's death. Something you could not have otherwise been able to do.

It takes a lot of work for it to work.

Everything that matters to us tales effort.

It must be exhausting to keep thinking possibilities are possible, and having no certainty even though you think a God exists and is on your side.

Not nearly as exhausting as it must be to keep negating it for no reason, or gain, at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Faith you have in science, is indeed unshakeable.

My Faith is also evidence based. As the OP stated, we must make use of it. That is not possible if it is rejected prior to looking at it all.

Regards Tony

Faith is useless in science. I have no need for faith, since anything can be believed on faith, it isn't a useful pathway to truth.
I don't have to take anything in science on faith. It's the complete opposite of religion in that way, because science is EVIDENCE-BASED.
Not sure if you know this or not, but scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals that anybody can read and see their evidence for themselves.

 

[PureX]

Faith is useless in science. I have no need for faith, since anything can be believed on faith, it isn't a useful pathway to truth.

Every instance in your life that you lack certainty, you make up for it with faith. Evidence, reason, and probability can only take us so far. And if we are being honest with ourselves, it cannot provide us with certainty. We have to choose to trust in our reasoned probability even though it remains uncertain. So your claim of not needing faith is nonsense. You not only need faith to live, you engage in it almost every moment of every day of your life. The facts and your reason provide you with an estimate of probability. But then you have to choose to trust in your hope that your estimated probability will turn out to be the result, because you have no way of knowing that it will.

So you are no different than a theism except that you place your faith mostly in your own ability to ascertain the necessary facts and reason the likely probability of an outcome. And you reject the possibility of a God influencing that outcome.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Every instance in your life that you lack certainty, you make up for it with faith. Evidence, reason, and probability can only take us so far. And if we are being honest with ourselves, it cannot provide us with certainty. We have to choose to trust in our reasoned probability even though it remains uncertain. So your claim of not needing faith is nonsense. You not only need faith to live, you engage in it almost every moment of every day of your life. The facts and your reason provide you with an estimate of probability. But then you have to choose to trust in your hope that your estimated probability will turn out to be the result, because you have no way of knowing that it will.

So you are no different than a theism except that you place your faith mostly in your own ability to ascertain the necessary facts and reason the likely probability of an outcome. And you reject the possibility of a God influencing that outcome.

"Reasoned probability" isn't faith, imo. Rather, it's evidence.

Faith is useless to me. Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they have no evidence. Otherwise, they'd provide the evidence instead of resorting to "faith."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Faith is useless to me..

Really??
Do you perform every scientific experiment for yourself, and verify the data and conclusion?
..or do you have faith in the books you read, and that scientists have not made errors, or exaggerate their findings through bias.

Your black and white picture does not represent reality.

 

[F1fan]

Every sane theist has doubts. And there is no deniability needed because doubt is reasonable and acceptable. It's part of the human condition as there is so much that we cant know. Faith either works for us or it doesn't. And we all engage in acts of faith all the time because we don't have sufficient knowledge to justify our chosen actions, otherwise.

I acknowledge that reliogious belief is a common human behavior that is both biological and learned. This makes the believer trapped in the circumstance of their evolved state of being, their societal norms, and the ability to reason objectively. Reasoning tends to be what is set aside since it is a skill that has to be taught and acquired by the person. Most can get away with unskilled thinking so long a they stay within the societal norms. Not everyone has to think for themslves. Religion and politics are two areas that do require a person be able to think for themselves since both are highly dogmatic and appeal to identity and belief.

The amount of doubt is related to how well a person can reason. How many believers are exposed to criticisms? How many actually subjected their religioius belief to criticisms themselves? Again, we go back to the biological and societal elelments of belief.

Yes, you can tell yourself that be cause it is possible. It is that possibility that opens the door to faith. And it is through that faith that you can find meaning and healing in that child's death. Something you could not have otherwise been able to do.

And how often does God come through and perfom a miracle? If you say it happens, even on rare occassions, that begs a follow up question as to why just those few miracles and not for all the little kids who struggle for life despite doctor's efforts to save them? Of course people in the West think there's a possibility for a miracle, that's how they are taught to think and believe. In the East people suffer loss as well, but they are taught that life is a cycle, and death comes as part of the natural order. Those in the West are promised everlasting life, and this creates a sort of greed for life. I suspect the reason Westerners still want a miracle and don't ask God to help loved ones dies faster and into heaven, is because they really don't buy into the afterlife.

I personally like the idea of an afterlife and wish it was a thing, but that impulse makes any loss I have suffered worse because I am holding on to some illusion that is unlikley. It's better to accept death as a permanent state of nature.

Everything that matters to us tales effort.

I find the effort to maintain illusions something that offers no benefit in the long run. Looking at some of the members on RF who believe the afterlife is what is important and this life is to be dedicated to faith suggests an absurdity to me. But I can see how religious faith as a sort of hobby, something that occupies the interest of some folks. Collecting shells on beaches isn't anything I'd want to do, but I'm sure there are people that do. I have been racing bikes for 40 years, and that takes a lot of time training. Some suggest I retire but it keeps me fit and most of my friends are athletes. The difference between hobby activities and religion is that religion requires belief in ideas that don't correspond to reality. Collecting shells does. Racing bikes does. Baking does. Yoga does. Religion is unique in that it requires a mental framework that is illusory and highly assumptive. Does all the work (including denial) work as a benefit to the religious? Look at creationists. Look at evangelicals who support Trump. These examples are real due to the bad habits of religious thinking.

Not nearly as exhausting as it must be to keep negating it for no reason, or gain, at all.

Quite the contrary. I do my hit and run debates, and I turn off the computer and go about my day without having a huge set of non-rational assumptions hanging over my head. Atheists have less baggage. Look at some of our member Baha'i have had their minor emotional outbursts and breakdowns as they try to convert skeptics. And they learn nothing. In psychology there are theories that explian the attraction to self-abuse and pain. This includes the satisfaction of spicy foods and endurance sports, but also people who are attracted to abusive relationships. These aren't the same phenomenon, but it illutrates that humans can open themselves to pain as a way to experience life, and some are not destructive and some are. It is apparent that some religions are not healthy for believers, and they are in some way like a toxic relationship. It's learning about what we subject ourselves to in forms of pain that alow us growth and maturity, emotional intelligence.

 

[PureX]

"Reasoned probability" isn't faith, imo. Rather, it's evidence.

Reasoned probability is not certainty. Which is why you need faith to follow through on it.

Faith is useless to me. Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they have no evidence. Otherwise, they'd provide the evidence instead of resorting to "faith."

You have to act on faith to get the evidence (in the form of results).

 

[F1fan]

Really??
Do you perform every scientific experiment for yourself, and verify the data and conclusion?
..or do you have faith in the books you read, and that scientists have not made errors, or exaggerate their findings through bias.

Your black and white picture does not represent reality.

Nor does your switching definitions. Religious faith is not the same as secular faith. Secular faith is waht any animal, including humans, does as it navigates a social environment, that being trust. Religious faith is belief in non-rational concepts for the sake of personal belief.

 

[PureX]

Nor does your switching definitions. Religious faith is not the same as secular faith.

Faith is faith. The only difference is what you're placing that faith in. Theists gather facts and reason the probabilities the same as you do. But when that doesn't cut it, they also have the possibility of God, that you reject. That's the only difference, really.

 

[F1fan]

Faith is faith.

No it isn't. You are eager to see religious faith having the credibility that secular faith has. Secular faith is crucial to a society functioning, religious faith isn't. We members of a society have to extend secular faith as we drive around ouyr city streets. We need to have a faith that other drivers will obey speed limits and stop lights. Sometimes they don't. That is the risk we take. Usually it pays off because of mutuality of safety. Religious faith? Atheists get along fine without it. The religious? Well it depends how deeply invested they are in what they believe, and how dependent they are in using their belief in functioning in life.

You don't drive your car praying to God you don't get T-boned, you clear your mind of distractions and pay attention to what's going on. That is how others can trust you.

The only difference is what you're placing that faith in. Theists gather facts and reason the probabilities the same as you do. But when that doesn't cut it, they also have the possibility of God, that you reject. That's the only difference, really.

There are no facts and probabilities about any gods. The religious make assumptions and rely on learned habits of belief, not reasoning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really??
Do you perform every scientific experiment for yourself, and verify the data and conclusion?
..or do you have faith in the books you read, and that scientists have not made errors, or exaggerate their findings through bias.

I've extensively studied the scientific method during my post-secondary education years. I know how to read, write and analyze scientific papers, I know what to look for, I know what evidence looks like, I know how to dig out reference papers, I know how to carry out a meta-analysis to compare and contrast findings, etc. I know the scientific method is the best tool we've ever come up with to help us discern fact from fiction. It's the method that has provided us with all knowledge we currently hold about everything. Put simply, it works.
No faith required.

Your black and white picture does not represent reality.

I haven't painted a black and white picture as far as I can tell.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reasoned probability is not certainty. Which is why you need faith to follow through on it.

Who said anything about certainty? I said it's not faith.

You have to act on faith to get the evidence (in the form of results).

No, I don't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are no facts and probabilities about any gods..

If that was true, then there would be nothing to talk about..

..but then, as far as your concerned, there is only fiction .. or historical fiction.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that was true, then there would be nothing to talk about..

..but then, as far as your concerned, there is only fiction .. or historical fiction.

Enlighten us then.
What are the facts and probabilities about gods? And how did you calculate those probabilities?