• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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

"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. "

I've yet to see any evidence of this creator's 'self', nor has this creator 'revealed' anything to me. As for words, I've had people direct me towards numerous different books they claim are the Word of the creator (most of which I have read), but of course in order to believe that any one of them is the actual Word of God I I would have to do so based entirely on faith.

So my original questions remains. Is faith in any way a reliable means of determining truth?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Faith or trust in what you believe in helps you find the truth despite what you your doubts. If you really believe in something, then you trust that your senses even the ones that doubt are senses of a person spiritually growing. So, if an atheist came to be christian and still had an issue with believing in a deity, if he really has trust/faith in his belief and want to believe, his mindset would be one of "wanting to find the truth" that he is still learning how to gain.

Depending on faith means trust yourself. If you don't trust yourself to learn things you are uncomfortable with, how are you growing in general. It isn't specific to religion but all things in life. If you don't have faith, how are you trying new things? How are you going out of your comfort zone to find out what you thought wasn't true is true? How do you define your comfort zone if you don't have trust and courage enough to question what you believe?

That's what faith does. So, yes, it does show people what is true and what is false. It's putting trust in.. not a religious word in and of itself. People come up with different conclusions. I don't see how one conclusion is more true than the other. That's ego.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble comprehending how a person trusting in themselves is a path to genuine truth. I suspect that the idiots who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 had great trust in their belief that this was what God wanted them to do. Just because they had great faith in what they had concluded, I certainly don't believe that it is TRUE that a creator God WANTED them to do this.

Personally I wish they had spent more time insisting on verifiable EVIDENCE that their God even existed, instead of focusing on their 'faith' that they'd accurately concluded what this God wanted them to do.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Except that once fact is introduced, you do not need faith....

Sure you do. If I have a smoking gun with a dead body on the floor you believe I killed him by faith. You didn't see me do it but it is pretty obviously I most likely did it.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
We all trust that our beliefs are true.
Not really. I can easily believe the wild fires in California will soon go out, but I have no need to trust that this belief be true.

But if faith does not motivate then it's not deeply held.
When I'm driving and come to an uncontrolled intersection slightly before a car to my left does, I have faith that (I trust) he will let me go through the intersection without T-boning me. I can't say this is a deeply held faith because I'm still wary of the possibility he will slam into me; however, it does motivate me to proceed.

.
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I think you are looking at it backwards.

When people know something, someone, they may at times put faith in that person, or something. At times, this is proven wrong, e.g. when you have faith in a car sales person simply because of his nice signs and polished cars. At times, such faith is substantiated and proven worthwhile.

Many people are quite unaware of the Christian nearly 2000 year old definition of faith. In this then, you have one word, but depending on who you are, the definition of the word differs.

I agree that people take things on faith all of the time. If my coworker tells me she has a dog at home, I'm more than willing to take it on faith that she does. That's because I know other people who own dogs and have owned a dog myself in the past. Furthermore, if it turns out she's lying to me, it's no skin off my nose that I accepted a falsehood as truth. On the other hand if that same coworker claimed that she had a talking dog at home who could magically pick the winning numbers for the lottery and if I'd just give her $1000 she'll tell me what the dog says will be the next winning lottery numbers, I will NOT take it on faith. Such incredible claims require some sort of verifiable evidence.

And since an all powerful creator God that has specific rules I'm supposed to follow is an even more incredible claim, I'm going to require genuine evidence that it's true before I'm going to be willing to put my faith into it. I assume that you are the same.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
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?

I think you supplied the answer to your own question, faith can be false yes, and that's it's scientific advantage over 'fact' / or 'scientific truths which are beyond question' like phrenology, Piltdown man, classical physics, steady state, global cooling, take your pick.

Acknowledging our faith simply acknowledges our beliefs as such, leaves them open to question, without this we have only blind faith, faith which does NOT recognize itself, and this is a very poor way of finding the truth!
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Wow, great idea! So can you tell me, is faith a reliable means of finding this 'truth'?

If you wish to find the truth whether it be philosophical or scientific there are many paths you must take. Inspiration is usually a good one. Faith in oneself is a necessity. Can you find truth without faith no. When you find the truth your looking for you will know if faith was reliable.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Faith must be based on fact to be real. Faith purely based on fantasy is just fantasy.
So because Zoroastrians believe there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Ahura Mazda, and regard Ahura Mazda's existence as fact, their faith in him is real. Which means that your one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Jehovah, cannot be a fact; there being no room for two sole gods in the universe, which means your faith is based on fantasy.

Hmm, interesting how you've so easily wiped Jehovah off the playing field.

.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
So because Zoroastrians believe there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Ahura Mazda, and regard Ahura Mazda's existence as fact, their faith in him is real. Which means that your one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Jehovah, cannot be a fact; there being no room for two sole gods in the universe, which means your faith is based on fantasy.

Hmm, interesting how you've so easily wiped Jehovah off the playing field.

.

Take or retake Philosophy 101. For you to think such an argument is logical is illogical or you don't know how to make a logical argument.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You mean like "macro-evolution"? :p
I'll admit macro-evolution isn't obvious, and I suppose that it would take a verifiable instance of it having happened that human-kind can actually document (perhaps something in the low cell-count spectrum of life), to gain that full, obligatory acceptance as "fact." But my money is on that happening before evidence of God turns up. God surely isn't interested in providing it. I wonder if He even has any?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble comprehending how a person trusting in themselves is a path to genuine truth.

I suspect that the idiots who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 had great trust in their belief that this was what God wanted them to do. Just because they had great faith in what they had concluded, I certainly don't believe that it is TRUE that a creator God WANTED them to do this.

If you fall in love with someone, do you need someone to give you evidence of their love or can you have a genuine all around attraction by just being around each other displays more love than getting roses or or chocolates?

Do you need evidence from a family member to know they love you or do you know regardless? Do you love your loved ones based on what you give them or do you love them unconditionally without needing to give anything for them to know you love them?

Do you need evidence in order to trust someone?

Personally I wish they had spent more time insisting on verifiable EVIDENCE that their God even existed, instead of focusing on their 'faith' that they'd accurately concluded what this God wanted them to do.

You're mixing facts with truth. Many religious evidence is not based on facts but experience. If you shift your view of reference and go by the definition they use, you see how it makes sense even though you disagree.

If you are only using facts as evidence, you will not understand religious conviction and belief. You have to broaden your view of evidence to encompass experiences that actually exist, claims that actually exists, and beliefs that actually exist. A lot of which are not based on facts and that is not the purpose of many belief systems.

If you do not change your point of reference or the other person's shoes, you will not understand or be open to understand.

-

God has many definitions. In the most general definition it just means something that you worship. Something that you put at higher authority than yourself.

Describe what an entity or god is and start from there?

I am an atheist; so, I don't know what a god is just the experience of what others call god and the claims of his existence.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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?

You don't need faith to comprehend truth, IMO, but rather you need truth to have faith. Then, also, we need to define faith in as much, IMV, there is faith as well as foolishness and presumption in the name of faith.

A child may know the truth that they can walk a 4inch beam at ground level and yet have no faith to do it at 30 ft.

So there are too many variables as I see it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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?
How is that a sensible question?

From your parking place you can walk east to the store, south to the Starbucks, and south-west to the bank. Since one can walk to numerous locations that are clearly not coffee shops, how can anyone claim that walking is required to get one's pumpkin spice latte?​

To show that faith is an insufficient guarantee is not at all the same as demonstrating that faith is unnecessary.
 
Top