Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[ChristineM]

Truth : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Anything else is is the window dressing of faith and should be identified as such, perhaps in quotes and/or capitalised but i would much rather people be honest and prefix their claim of believed truth/faith with something along the lines of "I believe...". After all, doesn't the source of much faith decree in many verses that truth should be spoken?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have faith that human intelligence, knowledge, knowing, awareness will expand and we will come to know the truth of our inner nature and external nature more with time. Do you not?

I have reason to believe that over time we will expand our knowledge. But it's not a matter of faith, rather a matter of past experience. Since our understanding of how the world works has steadily increased decade after decade for centuries now, it's reasonable to believe that this trend will continue.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have yet to discover science doing anything, what I do discover is human intelligence/morale performing the work. All are products of human intelligence. Or am I missing your assertion that science itself is a living entity somewhere?

As for the rest, I am not sure what you're imagining was rejected. It's a matter of selection for you based on sound science and mixing confidence/trust with the rest. That may be your personal battle, and lack of acknowledgment.. try not imagine that on others.

If the best you can do is call another delusional, tell them what they can and can't do while doing them yourself and not being aware of it, call someone clueless, create imaginations for responses for things never said due to inability to read, listen, understand, and respond rather than attack...
So be it, in your world you are correct and can't be wrong, others must need to bow down to your supreme rules and control of a conversation to be on the same level. Too much in defensive mode. Take care now.

"I have yet to discover science doing anything, what I do discover is human intelligence/morale performing the work. All are products of human intelligence."

Yes indeed, all scientific discoveries HAVE been reached by someone with a human mind. But human beings have had intelligence for hundreds of thousands of years... yet for SOME reason it's only within the last couple hundred years that we figured out how to harness electricity. Hmm... I wonder if there's any way an intelligent person could determine why in our history there was a sudden increase in our understanding of various scientific truths (like electricity and germ theory)? Actually, there IS! Anyone capable of doing a slight bit of research will learn that mankind's increased understanding of how the physical world works has a DIRECT CORRELATION to the implementation of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This is a method that people using their INTELLIGENCE came up with to help determine reality. Thus far in our existence there has not been a better method for determining how.universe works

Again, I'm truly amazed that someone can use sit at a computer in your environmentally controlled dwelling, without having to worry about numerous deadly diseases that have been wiped out via vaccinations, with medical advances available to you that will probably make you live nearly twice as long as people 150 years ago, all while claiming "I have yet to discover science doing anything!" Yeah, it was humans who made all of those advancements, but it was the use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD that enabled them to do so.

That sounds like a perfect example of someone living in a delusional world.

 

[Ponder This]

"Because the mind doesn't actually require verification in order to believe a thing to be true.
I know that as high-thinking, logical, reasoning, scientific beings that we'd like to think that we only believe things that have evidence, but we don't actually work that way. There's one Spock in a ship full of emotional beings. We actually have a fundamental ability to accept things as being true without proof."

I agree 100% that people are quite capable of believing in all sorts of things on faith without verification. The question was, is faith a reliable means of reaching the actual truth? As for your example of a sword maker adding rice and prayer to his sword making process, that hardly sounds like faith to me. We have a sword maker who has learned from EXPERIENCE that certain methods create better steel for swords. That's certainly not the same as accepting something on faith.

There are two points:
1. If something is true, then it is true, regardless of how you arrived at the fact.
2. Not all things that are true are able to be verified.

The first point shows that faith can be used to arrive at a truth (whether that truth is "reliable" or not is a strange question since, if it is true, then it must be reliable even if it is not verifiable). The sword maker learned from a teacher. He can't verify that someone else doesn't make stronger swords than he makes. He can't even verify that there isn't some other molecular configuration that would be attainable and superior.
The second point shows that faith is a means of comprehending truths that are not otherwise attainable.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There are two points:
1. If something is true, then it is true, regardless of how you arrived at the fact.
2. Not all things that are true are able to be verified.

The first point shows that faith can be used to arrive at a truth (whether that truth is "reliable" or not is a strange question since, if it is true, then it must be reliable even if it is not verifiable). The sword maker learned from a teacher. He can't verify that someone else doesn't make stronger swords than he makes. He can't even verify that there isn't some other molecular configuration that would be attainable and superior.
The second point shows that faith is a means of comprehending truths that are not otherwise attainable.

Point 1 is accurate. If something is true, then it is true. Doesn't matter how you arrive at it.
Point 2 is accurate, but it doesn't go far enough. Yes, not all things that are true can be verified... but at the same time, it's impossible to know if something is true WITHOUT verification. So any 'truth' without verification can just as easily be false.

"The first point shows that faith can be used to arrive at a truth (whether that truth is "reliable" or not is a strange question since, if it is true, then it must be reliable even if it is not verifiable)."

But of course this isn't what I said. I never said that when you use faith to arrive at a truth that the truth is unreliable. What I'm asserting is that as a MEANS OF ARRIVING AT TRUTH, faith is unreliable. Yes, you can have faith in something and it can turn out that your faith was justified, because what you had faith in can turn out to be true. But that DOES NOT mean that everything anyone has faith in is true. People can have faith in all sorts of demonstrably FALSE things. For instance, one man can have absolute faith that it will rain tomorrow, Another person might have absolute faith that it won't. Whether it rains tomorrow, one of them will be right and the other will be wrong. BOTH used faith to arrive at their 'truths', so how could anyone conclude that faith is a RELIABLE means of arriving at the truth?

"The sword maker learned from a teacher. He can't verify that someone else doesn't make stronger swords than he makes. He can't even verify that there isn't some other molecular configuration that would be attainable and superior."

EXACTLY! Without some kind of verification the sword maker nor ANYONE ELSE knows for certain that HIS process is the absolute BEST process for making swords. As good as his process may be, until he's tested EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE METHOD, he has no idea whether or not HIS process truly does make the BEST steel. Is it POSSIBLE that his teacher stumbled upon the absolute best way to make steel? Yes, it's possible... but no one has any way to determine if it actually is until all other methods have been tested and discarded. All the sword maker can know for certain is that the method he uses is the best he's come across THUS FAR, all based on his previous experience. .

 

[Ponder This]

Point 1 is accurate. If something is true, then it is true. Doesn't matter how you arrive at it.
Point 2 is accurate, but it doesn't go far enough. Yes, not all things that are true can be verified... but at the same time, it's impossible to know if something is true WITHOUT verification. So any 'truth' without verification can just as easily be false.

"The first point shows that faith can be used to arrive at a truth (whether that truth is "reliable" or not is a strange question since, if it is true, then it must be reliable even if it is not verifiable)."

But of course this isn't what I said. I never said that when you use faith to arrive at a truth that the truth is unreliable. What I'm asserting is that as a MEANS OF ARRIVING AT TRUTH, faith is unreliable. Yes, you can have faith in something and it can turn out that your faith was justified, because what you had faith in can turn out to be true. But that DOES NOT mean that everything anyone has faith in is true. People can have faith in all sorts of demonstrably FALSE things. For instance, one man can have absolute faith that it will rain tomorrow, Another person might have absolute faith that it won't. Whether it rains tomorrow, one of them will be right and the other will be wrong. BOTH used faith to arrive at their 'truths', so how could anyone conclude that faith is a RELIABLE means of arriving at the truth?

"The sword maker learned from a teacher. He can't verify that someone else doesn't make stronger swords than he makes. He can't even verify that there isn't some other molecular configuration that would be attainable and superior."

EXACTLY! Without some kind of verification the sword maker nor ANYONE ELSE knows for certain that HIS process is the absolute BEST process for making swords. As good as his process may be, until he's tested EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE METHOD, he has no idea whether or not HIS process truly does make the BEST steel. Is it POSSIBLE that his teacher stumbled upon the absolute best way to make steel? Yes, it's possible... but no one has any way to determine if it actually is until all other methods have been tested and discarded. All the sword maker can know for certain is that the method he uses is the best he's come across THUS FAR, all based on his previous experience. .

I agree that faith does not provide a means of verification.
I took your question of: "Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?" to be rhetorical, because faith does not provide verification.

But did I answer your other question?

how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

Not only are some truths only arrived at via faith (because there are no means of verifying them), but people often don't verify the truths they hold because it is more efficient to simply accept things as true from an esteemed source than to spend time personally verifying them. Therefore, the problem imposed by people having "faith in things that are clearly false" is not sufficient to invalidate their claim that faith is required to comprehend a truth. Faith is only insufficient as a means of verification.

If I state for you the Parallel Postulate and you ask me to verify that it is true, then I can't. All I can do is tell you that you must accept that it is true on faith. And unless you accept that it's true, you can't draw the resulting conclusions of Euclidean Geometry.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It seems to me that people are capable of having faith in virtually anything. Since people can have faith in things that are clearly false, how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

Some believe there is a God. Some believe there is not a God. But, both views can't be right. So just belief can't be the determining factor in which is true.

I happen to believe there is a God. I believe his word (the Bible) contains truth. Faith is important, because without faith you won't obey God. It takes faith to believe the promises he has made us. Many twist and wrangle the scriptures, and thus you have many different groups believing many different things. You have to pray and seek God, and study his word, to find out who is teaching the truth and what the truth really is. I believe the Bible is God's word because of all the prophecy in it which has been fulfilled. When you obey his word, and he continues to move for you, then your faith is increased more and more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the case of God and His Religions we have three criteria to accept it as a source of Truth.

They all offer their Person, their Life and then Word they give from God as proof. This in turn inspires many people to build the Faith in them, which in turn helps the progress of Humanity in the age the Message is given.

This is a quote from Baha'u'llah;

"...Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with anyone, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful....."

Regards Tony

You have accepted "truth" something that you would find -- if you were to try -- extremely difficult to parse and express in language that you could then use to point to anything known.

Why do long, convoluted sentences containing lots of archaic pronouns strike people as being almost axiomatically true?

Why don't we begin at the beginning, for example with what you wrote: "Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation." But then look -- you've capitalized "His" and "Self" as if to suggest that the testimony is actually that of Holy God. And yet, was it not written by men? Whose words are those? When were they first written down? Why do you suppose the very human writers holding the pen were channelling God, rather than writing from their own thoughts?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some believe there is a God. Some believe there is not a God. But, both views can't be right. So just belief can't be the determining factor in which is true.

I happen to believe there is a God. I believe his word (the Bible) contains truth. Faith is important, because without faith you won't obey God. It takes faith to believe the promises he has made us. Many twist and wrangle the scriptures, and thus you have many different groups believing many different things. You have to pray and seek God, and study his word, to find out who is teaching the truth and what the truth really is. I believe the Bible is God's word because of all the prophecy in it which has been fulfilled. When you obey his word, and he continues to move for you, then your faith is increased more and more.

But if faith can't be the determining factor in what is true, then your faith that the bible is the word of God or that the promises He made are true is unreliable.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You have accepted "truth" something that you would find -- if you were to try -- extremely difficult to parse and express in language that you could then use to point to anything known.

Why do long, convoluted sentences containing lots of archaic pronouns strike people as being almost axiomatically true?

Why don't we begin at the beginning, for example with what you wrote: "Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation." But then look -- you've capitalized "His" and "Self" as if to suggest that the testimony is actually that of Holy God. And yet, was it not written by men? Whose words are those? When were they first written down? Why do you suppose the very human writers holding the pen were channelling God, rather than writing from their own thoughts?

In the case of Baha'u'llah history has recorded how this Revelation is given. It comes like a torrent, there is no need to consider any of the subject and no need to reference any quotes given. It comes from a source through them. Full books of revelation in the matter of a day or two.

An excellent example of this is the Book of Certitude (aka Kitab-i-Iqan): Baha'u'llah wrote the entire book (around 256 pages) in the space of 48 hours with no corrections or changes!

"Revelation" writing - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

Regards Tony

 

[TrueBeliever37]

But if faith can't be the determining factor in what is true, then your faith that the bible is the word of God or that the promises He made are true is unreliable.

It is true that just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. For instance, many believe in a different God than I do. I happen to believe they are wrong. Time will tell.

However, as I said, I believe the bible is true, because of all the prophecy that has been fulfilled. I think that is one of the main ways he has let us know it is his word. I also believe because of all the experiences I have had where God has moved for me and answered my prayers. For me as an individual he has proven himself to be real, and that his word is true.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is true that just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. For instance, many believe in a different God than I do. I happen to believe they are wrong. Time will tell.

However, as I said, I believe the bible is true, because of all the prophecy that has been fulfilled. I think that is one of the main ways he has let us know it is his word. I also believe because of all the experiences I have had where God has moved for me and answered my prayers. For me as an individual he has proven himself to be real, and that his word is true.

And that's kind of my whole point. If both you and someone who believes in a different God can both have faith that you're right, then CLEARLY faith is not a reliable path to the truth.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And that's kind of my whole point. If both you and someone who believes in a different God can both have faith that you're right, then CLEARLY faith is not a reliable path to the truth.

I agree, since you have to have faith in true things in order to be right. This applies to non-believers also. Just because they believe there is no God, their faith is not a reliable path to the truth.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I agree, since you have to have faith in true things in order to be right. This applies to non-believers also. Just because they believe there is no God, their faith is not a reliable path to the truth.

My lack of belief in any God(s) has nothing to do with faith and is entirely based on the lack of verifiable evidence that any God(s) exist. Since faith is NOT a reliable path to truth then anyone who resorts to faith in determining their beliefs has indicated that they have no real desire in determining actual truth.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My lack of belief in any God(s) has nothing to do with faith and is entirely based on the lack of verifiable evidence that any God(s) exist. Since faith is NOT a reliable path to truth then anyone who resorts to faith in determining their beliefs has indicated that they have no real desire in determining actual truth.

I see two paths have been given to find Truth and both are needed.

Humanity has not found unity in Truth, because they are yet to acknowledge that the two paths lead to the same Truths.

Faith is a required component;and
Science is a required component.

When we balance these in the knowledge that the source is One, great things will be possible.

Regards Tony

 

[TrueBeliever37]

My lack of belief in any God(s) has nothing to do with faith and is entirely based on the lack of verifiable evidence that any God(s) exist. Since faith is NOT a reliable path to truth then anyone who resorts to faith in determining their beliefs has indicated that they have no real desire in determining actual truth.

Based on your belief, what came first the chicken or the egg? Please explain in some kind of a logical way how we got the first chicken. Since you can't have a chicken without an egg, and you can't have the egg without the chicken to lay it. Even if you had the egg, what fertilized it? and what sat on it? To me this is just one of so many evidences that there has to be a God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I see two paths have been given to find Truth and both are needed.

Humanity has not found unity in Truth, because they are yet to acknowledge that the two paths lead to the same Truths.

Faith is a required component;and
Science is a required component.

When we balance these in the knowledge that the source is One, great things will be possible.

Regards Tony

Since people can have absolute faith in completely contradictory concepts, it is obvious that faith is NOT a reliable path to truth. Faith is simply saying 'I accept this as truth, even though I have no evidence to support the notion'. If your goal is to confirm what you already believe without evidence, faith is a wonderful tool, but not if you're interested in finding out what is actually TRUE.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Based on your belief, what came first the chicken or the egg? Please explain in some kind of a logical way how we got the first chicken. Since you can't have a chicken without an egg, and you can't have the egg without the chicken to lay it. Even if you had the egg, what fertilized it? and what sat on it? To me this is just one of so many evidences that there has to be a God.

Evolution explains precisely how the first 'chickens' came about. No creator God required.

Evolutionary History of the Chicken (pigeon, and other birds) + Domestication – The Chicken, changes everything.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Since people can have absolute faith in completely contradictory concepts, it is obvious that faith is NOT a reliable path to truth. Faith is simply saying 'I accept this as truth, even though I have no evidence to support the notion'. If your goal is to confirm what you already believe without evidence, faith is a wonderful tool, but not if you're interested in finding out what is actually TRUE.

There is ample evidence. I leave you to your thoughts as I can not motivate you to look, you must want to.

Regards Tony

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It seems to me that people are capable of having faith in virtually anything. Since people can have faith in things that are clearly false, how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

Is the ability to have faith in what is false an automatic negation of faith as a feeling or sensation? One could argue that faith would not happen if it weren't attracted by something essential and fundamental. Really, I don't see how arguing against faith is other than arbitrary to start with. Is faith better or worse than love and so forth?