In which religion should I have faith?

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh I almost forgot...to answer the question: doesn't my decision become arbitrary, and probably result more from my upbringing/what I'm exposed to in society than from how deserving the person is?

Well, your decision isn't arbitrary, as your feelings are an objective (though not necessarily easy) way of determining how you feel about someone. Still, I would say that yes, the decision probably results more from our upbringing/what we're exposed to in society...and genetics, I suppose...than from how "deserving" the person is. After all, someone could be very deserving, but live half way around the world and never come into contact with you.

 

[martha]

Linwood, perhaps I should clarify.

When I say none of this mattered, I don't mean our existance doesn't matter. What I mean to say is that our personal convictions or beliefs in a god or no belief in a god, were not really that important, if in the end there was nothing. We live, love, share, have compassion and seek to understand life. We are part and parcel of creation, whether by God, the big bang or evolution, take your pick.We are the embodiment of creation and it should be considered a privelage to be here and to help humanity endure the trials of this existance. We here at RF do a great service to each other by sharing our experiences. We help each other to find our own truth and we will, by our sharing, help many others who come after us who read these posts. Our lives and our being here is very difficult for us to fathom. It is good that we share our life experience. For upon reading these things, one day something will ring true to the soul and give us peace.

Wherever you came from my dear linwood, you are beautiful.

 

[BUDDY]

I'm asking whether or not the preceeding are true, and I question the idea that my emotional response to the claims has any relationship to their validity.

Very well stated.

It is very difficult to convince someone that is totally focused on fact as a means of belief, and I can see that this would hinder you from believing in a god(s). For my part, I try to take both the emotional part of my faith and the intillectual part of my faith and combine them. I haven't found enough that there is enough on either side for me. There is a bit of this though in many things. Columbus new the earth was round before he had the evidence to prove it. So is my belief in God. I believe that He exists, but I can't show him to you, or go somewhere and bring back evidence that will make you believe. In the end, I believe in the Gos of the Bible because I want to.

 

[martha]

My dear Mr. Spinkles, forgive me but it seems to me that you are really asking "What makes us think?" Whoa, now there is a thread! To add..."Just who do we think we are and why?"
I often wonder as I sit and look out through these windows we call eyes. Who is that, that is in there? Who am I? How is it that I can have a dialog with myself? What is it that propells my mind to question my existance? If anyone has the answer to that, my hat is off to them!

 

[lilithu]

See, this is exactly the miscommunication I'm having with NetDoc, lilithu. There is a big difference between how one feels about someone/something and figuring out whether or not something is true. Allow me to explain...

No need to explain, Spinks. I understand how reason works. You still don't understand how faith works. Faith has more to do with the heart than with the mind. You see it as a failing of the mind. I see it as an achievement of the heart. My example was not a miscommunication (at least on my part); I chose it very deliberately.

The problem, lilithu, is that I'm not asking how I feel about Jesus returning someday as the Messiah; I'm not asking how I feel about there being only one God, and Allah is his name; I'm not asking how I feel about the existence black holes; and I'm not asking how I feel about the existence of Grendel;. I'm asking whether or not the preceeding are true, and I question the idea that my emotional response to the claims has any relationship to their validity.

The problem, Spinks, is that your original question assumes that objective truth is a prerequisite for faith. You start your argument by claiming that you're ready to give up the requirement of objective evidence and just take things on faith. And then you turn right around and make objective evidence the necessary condition for that faith.

 

[linwood]

Linwood, perhaps I should clarify.

Actually Martha on reading the post again I think I should have read more carefully the first time.
It`s obvious to me now that my reply came more from my sometimes militant atheism than the context of your statement.
What I mean is your statement could have been taken as you meant it just as easily as I how I mistook it.
It was apparently my bias that led me down the wrong path.
I`m trying to fix that.



Thank you.

 

[linwood]

In the end, I believe in the Gos of the Bible because I want to.

I do love running into a theist who is honest with themselves.

Thank you EEWRED, great answer.

 

[martha]

Much of our being is based upon emotion. Therefore our emotional response to a belief makes it valid or invalid in our mind. If your emotional response to the coming of the Christ overwhelms your soul with joy then it becomes real and valid to you. It seems that we do not have any control over our emotional response. It is something that emanates from our core. Should I dare to say , "If it feels right, then go with it," but consider the consequences or ramifications of your choice?Boy this is a tough one, eh? Thanks alot Spinks, now my brain is totally reeling with questions.

 

[martha]

My dear Linwood,

You are the sweetest militant I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Blessings and peace to you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You still don't understand how faith works.

I don't understand how magic charms work either. Maybe it's because they don't.

Faith has more to do with the heart than with the mind. You see it as a failing of the mind. I see it as an achievement of the heart. My example was not a miscommunication (at least on my part); I chose it very deliberately.

No, there has definitely been some miscommunication....I'll explain below...

The problem, Spinks, is that your original question assumes that objective truth is a prerequisite for faith.

It does not assume that objective truth is a prerequisite for faith: the question stipulates that I want to have faith in something that is true. Other people can have faith in things that are not true if they want....but I specifically stated that I want to have faith in something that is true.

You start your argument by claiming that you're ready to give up the requirement of objective evidence and just take things on faith.

Right. My question is IF (hypothetically) I want to have faith in something that is true, how can I determine which claims to have faith in other than by looking at the evidence?

And then you turn right around and make objective evidence the necessary condition for that faith.

No lilithu, I do not "make" objective evidence the necessary condition for faith in true things. Judging by your statement, however, I can see that you have come to that conclusion on your own, exactly as I have.

From the very beginning, the question "How can I have faith in true things without looking at the evidence?" was a rhetorical one. I don't think we can.

 

[lilithu]

I don't understand how magic charms work either. Maybe it's because they don't.

Cute. I wasn't making a claim about faith creating miracles or whatnot. I was talking about its underlying nature. That faith itself exists is not in question; only whether or not it is "justified."

It does not assume that objective truth is a prerequisite for faith: the question stipulates that I want to have faith in something that is true. Other people can have faith in things that are not true if they want....but I specifically stated that I want to have faith in something that is true.

That's exactly my point. You're putting a pre-condition on faith. By starting your whole argument with "I want to have faith in what is true" you automatically bring in the requirement for objective evidence, even as you say that you don't require it. How else does one decide what is true? You're building your argument a semantic sleight of hand.

No lilithu, I do not "make" objective evidence the necessary condition for faith in true things. Judging by your statement, however, I can see that you have come to that conclusion on your own, exactly as I have.

You can see how I came to that conclusion because that is what you're doing.

From the very beginning, the question "How can I have faith in true things without looking at the evidence?" was a rhetorical one. I don't think we can.

Yes, Spinks. You set up another straw man to knock down.

 

[kiwimac]

Zoroastrians do not worship fire. They worship Ahura Mazda. Fire is a symbol of Mazda just as the crescent & star are a symbol of Islam or do you worship those?

Kiwimac

 

[martha]

Mr. Spinkles,

You stated , "Sorry for all the questions folks, I am only trying to demonstrate something."

What were you trying to demonstrate? Please tell us.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Cute. I wasn't making a claim about faith creating miracles or whatnot. I was talking about its underlying nature. That faith itself exists is not in question; only whether or not it is "justified."

Actually, whether or not faith is "justified" is a related--but seperate--issue. Having faith in claim X might be justified whether or not claim X is true.

That's exactly my point. You're putting a pre-condition on faith.
By starting your whole argument with "I want to have faith in what is true" you automatically bring in the requirement for objective evidence

I agree! But not everyone does. Many people want to have faith in what is true, and this does not, in their view, automatically bring in the requirement for objective evidence.

Yes, Spinks. You set up another straw man to knock down.

I asked a rhetorical question, lilithu. Please quote this straw man argument, as well as all the "other" straw man arguments to which you refer.

*edit*-- Martha-- lilithu has demonstrated precisely what I'm getting at: the only determinant for which claims are true and which claims are false is evidence. If I want to have faith in true things, I should have faith in those things that are well-evidenced, and defer the unevidenced to the unknown (i.e. in the absence of evidence, I would have to say I honestly don't know how many gods there are).

 

[Scuba Pete]

So the real question is what evidence will you accept?

Physical, spiritual or both?

 

[lilithu]

I asked a rhetorical question, lilithu. Please quote this straw man argument, as well as all the "other" straw man arguments to which you refer.

I've already spelled it out twice Spinks. You're claiming to not require objective evidence while at the same time requiring objective evidence by making what is "true" a prerequisite for faith. Therefore, you are setting up an argument in which it would be logically impossible, not just physically impossible but logically impossible, to provide a counter example. A straw man is an intentionally weak counter argument set up to be easily refuted. You've made the counter argument as weak as it can possibly get.

It is similar to what you did in the "scientific view of right and wrong" thread.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=90464#post90464

I vaguely recall that there is another example but can't identify it at the moment. Of course, by calling these stawmen arguments, I'm assuming that you're doing it intentionally.

 

[Hope]

First of all, my hats off to NetDoc and Lilithu for their excellent and frubaliscious points and arguments. Very well done!

Spinkles, according to the Bible, the very definition of faith is "the evidence of things not seen." So to have faith in something that is already completely seen and proven is actually not having faith at all! By its very nature, faith requires a 'leap'. Especially initially. When I first became a Christian, I did not base my faith on some direct evidence that God gave me. It was a totally blind leap. But, strangely enough, after I made that first leap, God gave me more and more evidence and validated my belief in Him in numerous ways. My faith is such now, that while I cannot prove to you directly God's existence, I know without a shadow of a doubt that, although I can't 'see' God, He is very, very real.

Jesus said "Seek and you shall find." So I want to encourage you....seek!!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've already spelled it out twice Spinks.

I didn't ask you to spell it out, I asked you to quote it.

A straw man is an intentionally weak counter argument set up to be easily refuted.

A rhetorical question is a question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect. Now that we have our definitions straight, please quote the part of my post that you feel was a straw man.

It is similar to what you did in the "scientific view of right and wrong" thread.

Oh right, the one where I took your words "out of context".

So the real question is what evidence will you accept?

Physical, spiritual or both?

Well, I suppose that depends. What is "spiritual evidence"?

So to have faith in something that is already completely seen and proven is actually not having faith at all!

There are two general definitions for faith:
1) Belief in something despite the absence of supporting evidence, or evidence to the contrary
2) Confidence in a person, thing, or idea

When I say I want to have faith in true religious doctrines, I'm saying that I want to be able to have confidence that the ideas of various religions are true. My question is: if there is no evidence for one god or six gods, by what methods does one gain confidence (faith #2) that there is one god instead of six? How can I figure out if the doctrines of Hinduism are true and the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism are false if there is no evidence to suggest either?

My faith is such now, that while I cannot prove to you directly God's existence, I know without a shadow of a doubt that, although I can't 'see' God, He is very, very real.

I understand, Hope. But Hindus might tell me "I cannot prove to you directly that Brahman holds cows as sacred, but I know it's true without a shadow of a doubt." Meanwhile, some Christians might tell me "I cannot prove to you directly that all animals of creation are meant to serve man, but I know it's true without a shadow of a doubt." Then some guy from an upstart cult might say "I cannot prove to you directly that cows must be killed because they are secretly planning to destroy the Earth, but I know it's true without a shadow of a doubt."

Either the Hindu, the Christian, the cultist, or some combination of them have faith in something that is not true, despite the fact that they all claim to know it to be true "without a shadow of a doubt". Apparently, our confidence in an idea tends to be a poor indicator of how true the idea is. Even those things we have absolute confidence in might not be true.

Can anyone tell me how one could possibly figure out how many gods there are?

 

[kiwimac]

There is only one God with many faces.

Kiwimac

 

[lilithu]

I didn't ask you to spell it out, I asked you to quote it.

A rhetorical question is a question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect. Now that we have our definitions straight, please quote the part of my post that you feel was a straw man.

The idea of rhetorical effect is to make a desired point. Your rhetorical question is an argument. As you said in post #8 of this thread, "Sorry for all the questions, folks. I am just trying to demonstrate something."

I've pointed out the flaw in your argument three times now, and you have ceased to argue that point, instead insisting that I quote the strawman which you know is difficult to do because of the way that you presented your argument. It's a semantic shell game. Tell you what: I'll gladly withdraw the strawman comment if you will concede that the argument within your rhetorical question is flawed.

Oh right, the one where I took your words "out of context".

I wasn't refering to that part of the argument Spinks. I was refering to the logical flaw in your argument, which No*s pointed out and you finally conceded. I even provided the link to the particular post. You're going for the easy retort without substance. It makes it less interesting to continue this discussion.