What is Faith?

[Meow Mix]

Sorry for the typo, typing too fast.

So "beauty" ontologically exists in so far as the face that is beautiful exists, but beauty cannot be addressed ontologically, correct? I ask because I think your response avoids the question Luna asked rather than addressing it, i.e. the question "Is she not beautiful?" addresses evidence that her beauty exists. If it's not an ontological existence, per se, then the response doesn't address the question.

I'll shut up now. (Have to work, and am just following along for now.)

Beauty is a subjective assessment, not an attribute; though. "Beauty" falls in with qualia like greenness, it's different in principle from things like identity, length, energy.

 

[Meow Mix]

But God is not in the category of ontological existence, but is ineffable. ... God 'is' ineffable More than ontological being. Our contemplation of what God 'is' is limited in the same way a potato would contemplate sentience. It can't, not because sentience is not real, but a potato just does not have the faculties to contemplate it. But can sentience impact a potato? It sure can. I like mine chipped and fried.

I must disagree. Even if something (God) is ineffable it still either exists or doesn't; and if it exists then it does fall under the category of ontological existence. To "be" at all is an ontological question, even if that question is beyond our cognitive capacity.

For instance, quantum chromodynamics would be quite impossible for a caveman to understand -- but quarks are still an ontological question of existence even if it was beyond their understanding; quarks still either exist or not.

This brings up an important epistemic principle, too: if something is beyond your understanding, should you believe it exists? How can you, if you're not even sure what you're asserting exists? Can I believe that slithey toves exist if I'm not even sure what they're supposed to be; how can I make that assertion? Is it rational to assert something specific exists if it's ineffable? After all, how would we know if we can't even cognize what it is we're asserting exists -- how can we narrow down the properties that we use to distinguish existence from nonexistence?

I wouldn't know how to demonstrate a slithey tove exists to myself or anyone else because I don't know what one is -- it's an ineffable being. Do I go out to the woodlands and lay down a bear trap? Do I go to the ocean with a net and sinker? Do I get a telescope? Do I study fractal landscapes? Do I investigate Boolean algebra? What can I do to justify to myself that slithey toves exist if they're ineffable? Likewise, if God is beyond our cognitive capacity, how do we justify God's existence to ourselves if we don't know where to look for justification of its existence since we don't know what it even is?

Noncognitiveness can only rationally lead to weak agnosticism; not positive belief.

So, how do you get to God the ineffable? You choose your worldview. The data need to fit the worldview, but you do not need to limit your worldview to 'only ontological existence is real'.' You are of course free to use Occam's razor to rationalize why you want to just stick to 'this is all there is' and remain rational and consistent. However, it would then appear that Hawking is right, philosophy is over, except for our pushing forward of scientific knowledge that is objectively and empirically testable. Everything else is aesthetics or simply lacking in rational basis, including our illusion that anything can be considered virtuous or good.

This doesn't lead to knowledge that a God exists, or justified belief that a God exists though. How could it? I disagree with Hawking as he has a very narrow definition of what philosophy is. Science is a subset of philosophy, and science can't operate without a wider arena of metaphysics which scientists use all the time even if they aren't aware that it's metaphysics. Bohr did: "Anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics."

We make choices 'in spite of the evidence.' The evidence suggests that there is no inherent value in life; it is a (happy for us) accident of nature. We are evolutionarily honed to survive, and in the last hundred years or so it has entered our collective consciousness that there is no actual purpose to our existence, only the blind perpetuation of the smallest self-reproducing unit. Yet, we do not take this into account as we learn and grow and love. If we truly bought into that logic, we would be making choices that ensure the perpetuation of our genes, such as by limiting the number of children we have, reducing or eliminating our destruction of natural resources, and starting a huge program to get as much of our DNA as is technologically possible off this planet and into space where it can hopefully find another hospitable environment for perpetuation. It does not matter if humans ever evolve again - so long as the gene perpetuates. Or, does our humanity really matter? Why? The answer to the why is not based in ontological evidence. <end rant >

But none of these things are irrational. We don't make blind assertions that the universe has a purpose for us (well... some do, but you know what I mean) -- that would be irrational without evidence. But there's nothing irrational about saying "I value life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" and building a meaning for ourselves and our existence on that. We aren't mistakenly attributing a meaning to something that we have no evidence for there being a meaning because we're freely admitting that we're creating our own; that's not irrational. Nor is it irrational to say "I like the color green."

Saying (without evidence) "The earth is here for us and the meaning of life is to have dominion over everything else" as if that meaning is inherent in the universe, though, is irrational because it's stated without evidence and that statement requires evidence.

Sure, it also applies to 'what most people agree 'is,' which is reasonable. But, how can there be more truth in one philosophical system than another, unless there is only valid philosophical system, one based only on the empirically testable? As I said above, then you must agree with Hawking that philosophy as an endeavor has come to an end, except maybe in the labyrinth of exploring language.

There is only more truth in one philosophical system than another if one is more rational than another. There is no truth value to "I value life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" any more than there is a truth value to "I like the color green." I can't tell someone who says "I value being gloomy and depressed" that my philosophy is true and theirs isn't because those statements don't have truth values. Making ontological assertions, such as "God(s) exist," however, does have a truth value and does become a question of which philosophy is true or not; or rational or not.

... But there is still that feeling, which you expressed so well in the other thread, that is it good to try to help other people regardless of what they have done, and make the world a better place for future humanity, and there is something valuable in our human efforts to promote joy, and culture, and seek knowledge. What is the basis of all of that? Just personal aesthetic preference?

As far as I can tell yes, just personal aesthetic preference. Luckily many humans do value life and altruism, and if they don't believe in those things (making a better future, etc.) then someone can at least debate with them about how valuing life and altruism naturally lead to those things. But I don't think you could debate someone who doesn't value life or altruism to accept those things, and there's nothing blatantly irrational about not valuing those things -- even if I find it gloomy and probably wouldn't want to hang out with such people.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Only insofar as the delusions of crazy people or people on hallucinogenics exist.
Also God does NOT need to be there to fulfill that meaning. That is a non sequitur.

Consider this;

Faith puts us in the creation position. Creations need creators. Therefore, God is named the creator.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Sorry, but no. God is a being. If you want to talk about something other than a being, then you should use a different word. The word "God" is messed up enough with so many people using it for so many different things; it doesn't need you messing it up even more. The one thing all semi-legitimate definitions of "God" have in common is they're some sort of being. If you want to talk about a relationship with a god, you need to use a different word than "God".

The word is not 'messed up' because it's been used many different ways. I agree, a great number of definitions are non-constructive, especially this one where God is a noun. It does very little in terms of faith, except wow (or frighten) one into believing.
Instead of dismissing the many definitions, why not try a few and figure out which is most constructive for you?

What do you mean, how is it a problem? It just is. Believing in something without evidence is a problem because you could believe pretty much anything like flying a plane into a building is a good idea.

Believe pretty much anything you want...yeah, I've heard this one before. Unfortunately, this is very true. It happens invariably to people who, ironically, do not have any faith at all. They create their own little delusional world, which they are effectively God.

That, thankfully, isn't what faith is. If there is anything the world has shown us, it's that we are not God, in any way shape or form. People who don't see that allow themselves to be deluded.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Consider this;

Faith puts us in the creation position. Creations need creators. Therefore, God is named the creator.

And what, exactly, is this supposed to mean? :sarcastic

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you've answered your own question. If you can find meaning in a belief, that is the justification. God must be there in order to fulfill that meaning. Therefore God exists.

This is illogical. Consider if someone has a belief that pixies exist which hide our car keys sometimes in order to bring some chaos into the world, and that they believe that chaos is needed to counterbalance order (I've seen this sort of faux belief in some fantasy novels). Pixies must be there in order to fulfill that meaning... therefore, pixies exist? No. That's nonsense. It doesn't work like that.

There is no correlation between believing that something exists and that thing actually existing because it's required to make that belief meaningful. That's fantasy.

God is the relationship. You don't have a relationship with God, you become the relationship with God.

This doesn't make sense. Does a child's invisible friend exist because they have an imagined relationship with them? Do they "not have a relationship with their invisible friend, they become the relationship with their invisible friend?" This sounds like nonsense to me. Nobody doubts that belief in God exists any more than people doubt than belief in invisible friends exists to some children. What is doubted is the actual ontological existence of God/invisible friends.

There is no relationship between an ontologically existing being (the believer) and an imaginary one (the invisible friend, possibly God); pretending that there is doesn't cause the imaginary thing to actually ontologically exist -- so it goes with children and their invisible friends, and likewise with God. If God exists, it's because God ontologically exists; not as a direct result of people believing in God. The latter isn't a rational claim. The belief definitely exists, but the thing believed in hasn't been demonstrated to exist.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This is illogical. Consider if someone has a belief that pixies exist which hide our car keys sometimes in order to bring some chaos into the world, and that they believe that chaos is needed to counterbalance order (I've seen this sort of faux belief in some fantasy novels). Pixies must be there in order to fulfill that meaning... therefore, pixies exist? No. That's nonsense. It doesn't work like that.

There is no correlation between believing that something exists and that thing actually existing because it's required to make that belief meaningful. That's fantasy.

Yes, it is fantasy. That's why it doesn't make sense.

This doesn't make sense. Does a child's invisible friend exist because they have an imagined relationship with them? Do they "not have a relationship with their invisible friend, they become the relationship with their invisible friend?"

Yes, they do. They both have and are the relationship with the imaginary friend. When they have a relationship with the friend, it is imaginary. When they become the relationship with the friend, the friend is no longer imaginary.

This sounds like nonsense to me. Nobody doubts that belief in God exists any more than people doubt than belief in invisible friends exists to some children. What is doubted is the actual ontological existence of God/invisible friends.

The belief in God is God. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

There is no relationship between an ontologically existing being (the believer) and an imaginary one (the invisible friend, possibly God); pretending that there is doesn't cause the imaginary thing to actually ontologically exist -- so it goes with children and their invisible friends, and likewise with God. If God exists, it's because God ontologically exists; not as a direct result of people believing in God. The latter isn't a rational claim. The belief definitely exists, but the thing believed in hasn't been demonstrated to exist.

There is only the relationship in such a pairing. Both parts become the relationship, and thus only the relationship exists. Not the believer, not the belief.

 

[Meow Mix]

The belief in God is God. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Ok, so do you believe that God created the world? Because the world existed before there were humans to believe in God, and you seem to be saying that "belief in God = God." This implies that God was created by humans, and that God only exists as a belief in human minds and therefore didn't exist a million years ago.

Is the above accurate?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ok, so do you believe that God created the world? Because the world existed before there were humans to believe in God, and you seem to be saying that "belief in God = God." This implies that God was created by humans, and that God only exists as a belief in human minds and therefore didn't exist a million years ago.

Is the above accurate?

Yeah.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yeah.

Ok, I unfortunately posed contradictory questions at the same time, so answering "yeah" leaves me wondering which one you're saying "yeah" to.

Please select which you are saying "yeah" to:

1) "...so do you believe that God created the world?"

2) "Because the world existed before there were humans to believe in God, and you seem to be saying that "belief in God = God." This implies that God was created by humans, and that God only exists as a belief in human minds and therefore didn't exist a million years ago."

And please don't say you were saying "yeah" to both of them because they're contradictory.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ok, I unfortunately posed contradictory questions at the same time, so answering "yeah" leaves me wondering which one you're saying "yeah" to.

Please select which you believe is true:

1) God created the world and humans, and existed before humans and ontologically exists

2) Humans created a belief in God (which you call "God") by forming said belief, and God didn't exist before humans and only exists as a belief that humans have

3) Something else

Number two.

 

[Meow Mix]

Number two.

I edited that a lot since then but that's sufficient methinks.

I'd consider you an atheist then since you don't apparently have a belief that a god ontologically exists, and that it only exists in people's minds in the same sense that unicorns are only known to exist in people's minds.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I edited that a lot since then but that's sufficient methinks.

I'd consider you an atheist then since you don't apparently have a belief that a god ontologically exists, and that it only exists in people's minds in the same sense that unicorns are only known to exist in people's minds.

This is why I don't like the word 'belief'. It is a creation, and therefore isn't really a belief anymore. The word sort of destroys itself.

 

[Magic Man]

The word is not 'messed up' because it's been used many different ways. I agree, a great number of definitions are non-constructive, especially this one where God is a noun. It does very little in terms of faith, except wow (or frighten) one into believing.

Yes, the term is messed up because of the many definitions. That's one of the reasons it's so hard to discuss the topic at all, especially when there are people who want to change it completely because they found this new way to describe it that sounds really cool.

And no, definitions that don't use God as a noun are the most non-constructive.

Instead of dismissing the many definitions, why not try a few and figure out which is most constructive for you?

That doesn't make sense. There is a thing called God. It has been defined, and I reject the idea that it is in existence in reality. The most constructive definition of God to me is a theistic god because that's what the term is meant to be used for. Generally the most constructive definition of a word is the one that is the accepted usage. But most of all, everyone's agreement on a term is what determines its constructiveness. If everyone decided to use "God" to refer to a relationship, OK, but that's not the case. And really, you're using it to mean a relationship with God, which means you're using the word in two different ways in the same definition.

Believe pretty much anything you want...yeah, I've heard this one before. Unfortunately, this is very true. It happens invariably to people who, ironically, do not have any faith at all. They create their own little delusional world, which they are effectively God.

Um...yes, they do have faith. They have faith in certain things, meaning they believe those things without any evidence. If they're creating their own little delusional world, they have faith that their delusions are true.

That, thankfully, isn't what faith is. If there is anything the world has shown us, it's that we are not God, in any way shape or form. People who don't see that allow themselves to be deluded.

You do realize you just completely contradicted yourself, right? You're saying it's obvious in the world (in other words, that there is evidence) that we are not God, but these people believe it anyway. That's exactly what faith is. You might like to use another definition of faith also, but you simply can't deny that that is a perfect example of the typical definition of faith that we're using in this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

I edited that a lot since then but that's sufficient methinks.

I'd consider you an atheist then since you don't apparently have a belief that a god ontologically exists, and that it only exists in people's minds in the same sense that unicorns are only known to exist in people's minds.

Yeah, striker, how do you consider yourself a Roman Catholic when you don't believe an actual God exists?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some backslider quotes on faith....

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Nobody deserves to be helped who don't try to help himself, and "faith without works" is a risky doctrine.
- "Important Correspondence," The Californian, May 6, 1865

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Yes, the term is messed up because of the many definitions. That's one of the reasons it's so hard to discuss the topic at all, especially when there are people who want to change it completely because they found this new way to describe it that sounds really cool.

And no, definitions that don't use God as a noun are the most non-constructive.

Each definition has a reason. Each definition give you a chance to find that reason. If you don't want to take the time to do that, and just have an answer handed to you, I suppose you can call that 'non-constructive'.

That doesn't make sense. There is a thing called God. It has been defined, and I reject the idea that it is in existence in reality. The most constructive definition of God to me is a theistic god because that's what the term is meant to be used for.

I think that's the one you understand the best.

Generally the most constructive definition of a word is the one that is the accepted usage. But most of all, everyone's agreement on a term is what determines its constructiveness. If everyone decided to use "God" to refer to a relationship, OK, but that's not the case. And really, you're using it to mean a relationship with God, which means you're using the word in two different ways in the same definition.

Majority rule, eh?

Um...yes, they do have faith. They have faith in certain things, meaning they believe those things without any evidence. If they're creating their own little delusional world, they have faith that their delusions are true.

They have faith that their world is real, yes. Is that world God? Well, they created it, so I don't see how.

You do realize you just completely contradicted yourself, right? You're saying it's obvious in the world (in other words, that there is evidence) that we are not God, but these people believe it anyway. That's exactly what faith is. You might like to use another definition of faith also, but you simply can't deny that that is a perfect example of the typical definition of faith that we're using in this thread.

They become God, whether they believe they have or not. They become the creators of their own little worlds. Faith is about being the creation, not the creator.

Yeah, striker, how do you consider yourself a Roman Catholic when you don't believe an actual God exists?

When you are not being the creation, there is no need for a creator. When you are being the creation, you must have a creator.

 

[Magic Man]

Each definition has a reason. Each definition give you a chance to find that reason. If you don't want to take the time to do that, and just have an answer handed to you, I suppose you can call that 'non-constructive'.

:sarcastic There is no reason to call "God" a relationship. You can say you have a relationship with God, but the relationship is not God.

I think that's the one you understand the best.

Maybe, but it's also the one that works best because it's the one the term has been used for for many, many years, and it's the one everyone understands.

Majority rule, eh?

Nope, but nice try. Language is about communicating, not trying to see how cool you can sound. It only works when the person you're talking to understands your words. That's why we have dictionaries and things to make sure that when people use words they're using them correctly.

They have faith...

Exactly.

They become God, whether they believe they have or not. They become the creators of their own little worlds. Faith is about being the creation, not the creator.

Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense (surprise, surprise). No, they have faith that what they've been taught that will make them fly panes into buildings is real, meaning they believe it without evidence. Faith is believing things without evidence.

When you are not being the creation, there is no need for a creator. When you are being the creation, you must have a creator.

Yeah, silly me for actually trying to get past this nonsensical drivel. Oh well, if you ever want to answer the question is actual English terms that mean something, let me know.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is why I don't like the word 'belief'. It is a creation, and therefore isn't really a belief anymore. The word sort of destroys itself.

I don't see how. You seem to be admitting that God only exists as a belief just like leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, pixies, goblins, and Jabberwocks. It isn't very clear what you mean by "it is a creation, and therefore isn't really a belief anymore," but in normal English it's still a belief (i.e. it's regarded as true).

In normal English, you don't even believe that a God exists outside people's minds (ontological, actual existence in reality) -- you are, amazingly, an atheist who just puts some kind of mystical, special importance on the fact that belief in God exists (again, using the normal English terms). That's fascinating to me, but I don't think beliefs in things deserve that much special attention. If I had to guess, I'd speculate that you don't like to use the word "belief" as it's normally used in English because it makes your reverence for belief in God (as opposed to an actually existing, ontological God-being) sound ridiculous; but I'm not you... just voicing my best guess. I don't know why someone would revere belief anymore than I would know why someone would morph so many basic English words to make their reverence for belief sound less irrational.

 

[Willamena]

Beauty is a subjective assessment, not an attribute; though. "Beauty" falls in with qualia like greenness, it's different in principle from things like identity, length, energy.

You're still not addressing the evidence that beauty exist, but its nature.