I’m not sure that I can make it any more clear, one can have faith both in what you believe and what you know. I don’t see faith as restricted to only those things that cannot be proven, as you seem to believe. I see faith as the knowledge of all things that I believe, or know, are true.
I do not see religion as a source of evil, but I see that the corruption of religion has been the source of much evil in the world. Many have used religion falsely as an excuse for doing bad things to others, and many are still doing it.
Give me the strength to explore and understand the things that I can know, give me the strength to accept, on faith, the things that I cannot know, and the wisdom to know the difference. Too many people are ready to dismiss the things that must be accepted on faith as unknowable and thus unworthy of knowing. Your problem, not mine.
What he meant by belief is primarily the beliefs that are a leap of faith without evidence. How can we create a more sane world if human beings are inherently prone to believe things without evidence? Faith-based thinking permeates everything. -NathanI think it is a bit unfair to characterize all Christians as holding a belief without any evidence. Most Christians that I have encountered have had some experience that has convinced them that God exists and is real, myself included. However I also understand that each person has an experience that is specific to that person, and would be meaningless or easily discounted by others. Many times a non-believer will have such an experience, but will discount it and doubt it's validity, so the experience does not have the effect of convincing them of God's reality. The only thing that could convince a rational person of the reality of a god's existence is objective evidence of it--certainly not anyone's subjective "experiences." There is no objective validity to subjective "experiences." Anyone who thinks there is is fooling himself. Lois
We can have a leap of faith, but not a leap of knowledge. Faith exists in spiteof facts it has leaped over but knowledge can’t “ignore or leap” over the facts. If it does, it becomes faith, not knowledge. Faith is often presented as knowledge to demonstrate the strength of someone’s faith, but that does not make it knowledge.
We can have a leap of faith, but not a leap of knowledge. Faith exists in spiteof facts it has leaped over but knowledge can't "ignore or leap" over the facts. If it does, it becomes faith, not knowledge. Faith is often presented as knowledge to demonstrate the strength of someone's faith, but that does not make it knowledge.Indeed. People have "faith" in astrology, too. Lois
The only thing that could convince a rational person of the reality of a god's existence is objective evidence of it--certainly not anyone's subjective "experiences." There is no objective validity to subjective "experiences." Anyone who thinks there is is fooling himself. LoisI tried to make it clear that I don't expect to convince anyone of God's existence by my experience, that was to convince me. Other people will have their own experience and will either accept or reject it. Perhaps there are many who think that their subjective experience will convince others, I would agree that they are wrong, but that doesn't keep them from trying, I do not.
Religion is a social construct, often a very valuable one. It cannot be investigated using the tools of the physical sciences. If you use the tools of social science you will come to understand it strengths and weaknesses much more clearly. When religion attempts to ignore reality, as it often does when it comes to the physical world, it has gone beyond it's strength and purpose and becomes a handicap rather than an aid. When it attempts to imposes beliefs in the social world that are not based on the equality of all humans, as we are so often seeing, it becomes an a tool that works to the disadvantage of the human race, except the few who are trying to use it for their own selfish ends. When religion works to the benefit of the entire human race; i.e. help the poor; turn the other cheek;; the rich don't get to heaven, the US civil rights in the 60s, then it is a powerful tool for human advancement. The biggest problem we atheists face is our inability, at this point in time, to provide an alternative social organization anywhere near matching what religion has built since the agricultural revolution, so I am glad to here of the various organizations and groups in Maine.There IS an alternative, it's in place and it works. It's called secular government and it provides for infinitely more people than religion ever has or could do. No, it is not something atheists alone have created--it was created by people of religion, as well. Atheists don't have to create their own alternative social organization, nor do religions, as long as we have a working secular government. Neither religions nor atheists can ever begin to do what a strong secular governmemt does in creating and funding a social organization in this day and age. . There is no comparison. There isn't a religion or an atheist organization big enough, powerful enough or wealthy enough to do what secular governmemts do. Are they perfect? Of course not, but they are the best that can be done here and now. Any organization trying to create an "alternative social organization" will fail and will fail miserably. What individual organizations can do would be the merest drop in the bucket in a sea of need. Millions if not billions of people would be left with nothing if we had to depend on religious or atheist organizations to do the job. It takes everyone working together--and only secular governments can ever pull that off. Trying to form "alternatives" would be a waste of time and human energy. Work with secular government programs and forget about telling the world that ATHEISTS ARE DOING THIS or CHRISTIANS ARE DOING THIS! That's what religions have done throughout history, though the best of them no longer do it. Nobody should be doing good works in order to to say "LOOK AT US DOING GOOD WORKS--WE'RE CHRISTIANS OR BUDDHISTS OR MUSLIMS OR ATHEISTS." Forget about the PR and advertising. Just do the work that needs to be done and don't expect credit for your religious or atheist affiliation. It means nothing. Lois
I think what Breakup might be referring to is that faith is sometimes used to describe a prediction or an extrapolation which is in fact supported by evidence. For example someone may have faith that their family member did not commit a crime they are accused of based on a lifetime of experience observing that person, or an engineer may have faith that their rocket booster will work based on the skills he has observed in himself and his colleagues and a perfect record of 50 successful launches.
It may be more useful ( but somewhat more cumbersome) to differentiate between faith and blind faith.
I think what Breakup might be referring to is that faith is sometimes used to describe a prediction or an extrapolation which is in fact supported by evidence. For example someone may have faith that their family member did not commit a crime they are accused of based on a lifetime of experience observing that person, or an engineer may have faith that their rocket booster will work based on the skills he has observed in himself and his colleagues and a perfect record of 50 successful launches. It may be more useful ( but somewhat more cumbersome) to differentiate between faith and blind faith.In religion, I think, faith refers pretty specifically to the special kind of belief that is NOT based on (or even effected by) evidence. Faith itself becomes its own "evidence". I think there is a Bible verse that goes something like "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." As a culture we have decided that Faith is distinguishable from delusion, mostly by its being so ubiquitous and socially acceptable in most pockets of human society.
I think what Breakup might be referring to is that faith is sometimes used to describe a prediction or an extrapolation which is in fact supported by evidence. For example someone may have faith that their family member did not commit a crime they are accused of based on a lifetime of experience observing that person, or an engineer may have faith that their rocket booster will work based on the skills he has observed in himself and his colleagues and a perfect record of 50 successful launches. It may be more useful ( but somewhat more cumbersome) to differentiate between faith and blind faith.In religion, I think, faith refers pretty specifically to the special kind of belief that is NOT based on (or even effected by) evidence. Faith itself becomes its own "evidence". I think there is a Bible verse that goes something like "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." As a culture we have decided that Faith is distinguishable from delusion, mostly by its being so ubiquitous and socially acceptable in most pockets of human society. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This is far different than how most people use the word, when a more precise word would be "confidence" or "trust." I got into a discussion in a psychology class a few years ago when our prof was using faith interchangeably with trust. She said people at a ropes course have the same kind of faith in their fellows as beliefs have in god. I pointed out the big difference is you can see and interact with the other people in the ropes course, and see them holding the ropes. I then quoted the Bible verse above and explained the difference between faith and trust. She had no comeback.
NJR seems to be referring more to believing that a certain outcome will come to pass. As we, ultimately, have no 100 % evidence of what will occur in the future, then belief of what will happen, is technically belief without 100% evidence, until it actually occurs. I have “faith” that the sun will rise tomorrow, and a lot of things that I do or don’t do is based on that “faith”. Of course 99.9999999etc. evidence supports that particular “faith”/belief.
But the power of “faith” to effect current behavior (that can in turn effect outcome) is most interesting, and it is most pronounced when the evidence of the ultimate outcome is not so supportable by available current evidence. In 2007, when I began working as a precinct captain to elect Obama, the evidence was not so good, I would say, that a black man, with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected as POTUS in the USA. But my dogged belief that it was possible, effected my behavior. We won the precinct primary against Hillary by the narrowest of margins, largely as a result of my behavior, that was motivated by my belief (that somewhat flew in the face of evidence).
I think what Breakup might be referring to is that faith is sometimes used to describe a prediction or an extrapolation which is in fact supported by evidence. For example someone may have faith that their family member did not commit a crime they are accused of based on a lifetime of experience observing that person, or an engineer may have faith that their rocket booster will work based on the skills he has observed in himself and his colleagues and a perfect record of 50 successful launches. It may be more useful ( but somewhat more cumbersome) to differentiate between faith and blind faith.In religion, I think, faith refers pretty specifically to the special kind of belief that is NOT based on (or even effected by) evidence. Faith itself becomes its own "evidence". I think there is a Bible verse that goes something like "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." As a culture we have decided that Faith is distinguishable from delusion, mostly by its being so ubiquitous and socially acceptable in most pockets of human society. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This is far different than how most people use the word, when a more precise word would be "confidence" or "trust." I got into a discussion in a psychology class a few years ago when our prof was using faith interchangeably with trust. She said people at a ropes course have the same kind of faith in their fellows as beliefs have in god. I pointed out the big difference is you can see and interact with the other people in the ropes course, and see them holding the ropes. I then quoted the Bible verse above and explained the difference between faith and trust. She had no comeback. Hmm.. "substance of things hoped for". I guess that if we hope for something enough, and trust in its possibility, then the impact of that hope and trust can be manifested currently by motivating current behavior. So that is a kind of "substance", I suppose.
Another interesting example of belief not completely based on evidence, is the belief in the value of currency. We collectively believe in the value of certain printed pieces of paper and certain minted coins. Without that collective belief, our modern world would come to a screeching halt.
Much of our money has “In God we trust.” printed on it. But, I think, what we really trust is that we will all continue to believe that the currency has value, despite the actuality that it is just ink and paper and pieces of not particularly valuable metal.
Another interesting example of belief not completely based on evidence, is the belief in the value of currency. We collectively believe in the value of certain printed pieces of paper and certain minted coins. Without that collective belief, our modern world would come to a screeching halt. Much of our money has "In God we trust." printed on it. But, I think, what we really trust is that we will all continue to believe that the currency has value, despite the actuality that it is just ink and paper and pieces of not particularly valuable metal.So far, at least, belief in the value of money does not extend to praying to it. Lois
Another interesting example of belief not completely based on evidence, is the belief in the value of currency. We collectively believe in the value of certain printed pieces of paper and certain minted coins. Without that collective belief, our modern world would come to a screeching halt. Much of our money has "In God we trust." printed on it. But, I think, what we really trust is that we will all continue to believe that the currency has value, despite the actuality that it is just ink and paper and pieces of not particularly valuable metal.So far, at least, belief in the value of money does not extend to praying to it. Lois Yeah, belief in the value of currency is belief, I imagine, that has been heavily conditioned (i.e., for the most part, as in Pavlovian conditioning). Religious "faith" is probably more a combination of some in-born propensities and a good bit of operant conditioning.