[Guest]

After reading though some of the other discussions and debates, ie. Religious debate, War Club sign up, and Athiest discussion, I feel that the concept of theism is misrepressented on this site.

I would like a thread were people can ask questions and talk about theism, and calmly explain why they believe the way they do.

Its a gross misinterpetation that religous people are ignorant and that they dont believe in science and reasoning.

Anyone can post, but in this thread but I would like to keep to the assumption that there is a god, regardless of who you think he/she/it is. The purpose of this is not to argue over the existence of something that can neither be proven nor disproven. Otherwise it will just turn into the religous debate part 2, and I dont think anyone wants that.

And we will define religion as a belief system, not neccissarily organized.

[Guest]

Well, that concludes my posts on this thread. I am disappointed that EJL and myself and the other theists couldn't enjoy conversing about the different aspects of our faith without having to constantly defend it to someone who has already decided that they are not going to put any stock into anything we have to say. DId it ever occur to any of your athiests out there that we (at least I) find your answers to be just as moronic as you think mine are? None of you has said one thing that has put even the tiniest dent in my faith. In fact, the more you persist the more aware I am of God's presence around me. I guess I should thank you in that regard, because you have grown my faith even stronger.

Blessings - PG

Edited September 13, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

Edit

Edited September 13, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

In my opinion, those who prominently display Bioinc stats obviously have very little self esteem and feel the need to boast in one form or another in order to conpensate for not their lack of social skills and quite likely, under-developed genetalia. But that's just a definition I came up with. I think I'll create a poster just to show you all how clever I am...I hope you won't find that inappropriate.

What the hel does that have to do with my question you quoted.

For your information:

The BOINC stats are something common on the RichardDawkins.net forum, as our group is something of a big promoter of it

The Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing is something we support strongly as (contrary to many assumptions I am sure) that forum and website is very much about reason and science more than anything else.

I (and many others) put our BOINC stats on our signatures, and I chose to copy it over here when I was invited from there, as something of an advertisement of the BOINC system. Perhaps one or two people will see it and decide to check it out, and perhaps add their idle computer time and power to the project, do their part for science.

Actually as it happens, my computer is crapping out on me so I have suspended the program for now, so those stats don't boast anything 'cause they aren't increasing , and really make a poor showing compared to the vast majority of the others on that forum, hardly a boast then is it?

And please tell me how "lack of social skills and quite likely, under-developed genetalia" equates at all to what I wrote - it was an attempt top mimic what I said wasn't it?

Even though in this case you were clearly trying to bring it out; I do not take personal offense at what you wrote. Perhaps that is because it doesn't hit home for me. Hmm did the definition I gave, and no one has yet challenged or attempted to correct, hit a little too close there perhaps? But primarily because what you wrote above speaks far more loudly about your nature and 'reasoning' skills than it does about me (of which it in truth says nothing):

1. "obviously have very little self esteem and feel the need to boast": Genetic Fallacy and Ad Hominem attack

2. "lack of social skills": Genetic Fallacy and Ad Hominem attack

3. "under-developed genetalia [genitalia]": Genetic Fallacy and Ad Hominem attack <_<

Very poor show there puzzlegirl; did you HAVE to try to personally insult and make unfounded assertions about the nature of the arguer there? If you had nothing to say about the actual content of the argument then that is what you should have said: Nothing. <_<

[Guest]

Well, that concludes my posts on this thread. I am disappointed that EJL and myself and the other theists couldn't enjoy conversing about the different aspects of our faith without having to constantly defend it to someone who has already decided that they are not going to put any stock into anything we have to say. DId it ever occur to any of your athiests out there that we (at least I) find your answers to be just as moronic as you think mine are? None of you has said one thing that has put even the tiniest dent in my faith. In fact, the more you persist the more aware I am of God's presence around me. I guess I should thank you in that regard, because you have grown my faith even stronger.

Blessings - PG

Hmm, that too says a lot more about you than I am sure you would like (that second to last sentence especially - wow!)

Fair enough puzzlegirl; you essentially bowed out of any rational discussion when you pulled the Faith card anyway.

And yet again we see another example of the faith-head cognitive dissonance retreat tactic: take (unjustified) personal offense at something as an excuse too cut and run.

[Guest]

An apt reminder of the Offense card:

EDIT:

Oh and to show "how clever" I am at making the poster:

The Parody motivator Generator

EDIT 2: by the way that "Faith" poster was created by me as a part of a thread dedicated to such posters - funny ones, one that made an amusing or interesting message, stuff like that.

Edited September 13, 2008 by ADParker

[Guest]

Well, that concludes my posts on this thread. I am disappointed that EJL and myself and the other theists couldn't enjoy conversing about the different aspects of our faith without having to constantly defend it to someone who has already decided that they are not going to put any stock into anything we have to say.

Welcome to the world of public message boards having members of various views.

In my opinion, those who prominently display Bioinc stats obviously have very little self esteem and feel the need to boast in one form or another in order to conpensate for their lack of social skills and quite likely, under-developed genetalia. But that's just a definition I came up with. I think I'll create a poster just to show you all how clever I am...I hope you won't find that inappropriate.

[Warning]

Do not do this again! One more personal attack of this nature to a member of our forum or the need to give you a warning for anything else at this point will result in the permanent deletion of your account. I'll remind you of this one more time since it doesn't seem to sink in: This thread is not the place for a response to this post in any fashion.

[/Warning]

[Guest]

ADParker,

so you're still looking for a better definition of faith other than "belief through a willful abandonment of reason?"

I'll try to offer a rational one, but I'm sure that it wont hold up with you. oh well.

Faith: the personal belief in things unseen.

Let's see why this definition is different and possibly better than yours.

1. Your definition of faith implies that those with faith are unreasonable. This is untrue. There are many reasons to believe in the supernatural, regardless whether or not you agree with them. This statement also implies that the atheistic worldview has been 100% proven to be correct and reasonable, which it has not. Ex. If faith is the abandonment of reason, then the acceptance of reason is the abandonment of faith.

2. My definition allows for the existence of things that cannot be seen. There are many examples of things around us everyday that we cannot see, yet everyone will agree that they exist. Ex. We cannot see love, or beauty, or distrust, or antimatter, or covalent bonds, or friendship, ect. These are all things that can be measured, but they are measured differently. We can see the effects of love between two people, but there is no scientific tests for love. Its like the quote “I’ve never seen God, have you ever seen Him? I’ve never seen the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I’ve never seen the wind.”

Something’s cannot be seen but many of us can feel the effects of them. This does not mean we have abandoned reason, if you felt the effects of God, it would be an abandonment of reason to not believe.

ps. sorry about PGs comment. It was unnecissary and "below the belt"

[unreality]

A technicality, but "seeing" is essentially "measuring" via rods and cones sending electrical and chemical signals to various parts of the brain. It's just another form of "measuring", or, in broader terms, gaining information about the world around you. It does not take faith to "believe" in covalent bonding, since not only can we measure but we can also see patterns and diagrams of it in textbooks, electron microscopes, whatever.

Faith has nothing to do with measuring or seeing... it has to do with evidence. I would agree with you NM, that ADP's definition was too harsh, so I would word faith this way (the kind of faith I'm talking about is faith in a higher power, or unicorns, or fairies, or whatever)...

Faith - (n) The personal belief in an object, thing, being, idea or concept without any empirical evidence, logical proof or scientific acceptance

That definition rings true - accept it. You don't believe in Goddess because of the overwhelming scientific evidence of Her existence, you believe in Her because of one or more of a variety of possible reasons:

(a) you were brought up believing in Her

(b) you just know that She exists

© you want Her to exist, or have convinced yourself that She does

Hopefully that's a good definition of faith because that's all the opinion I've got on the matter Sometimes faith is good, other times it's not. I just hope that the faithful know when to reel in their faith and think rationally

[Guest]

I'd say we're pretty close.

[unreality]

Here's a cool question I just thought of, aimed at people who believe in a god:

If someone is truly random, does God know the outcome?

[Guest]

Here's a cool question I just thought of, aimed at people who believe in a god:

If someone is truly random, does God know the outcome?

That's more of a hypothetical question, because nothing can be truly random.

[unreality]

I know

[Guest]

I know UR's had a stab at this but it seems we're so close to agreeing on something I can't resist sticking my oar in...

ADParker,

so you're still looking for a better definition of faith other than "belief through a willful abandonment of reason?"

I'll try to offer a rational one, but I'm sure that it wont hold up with you. oh well.

Faith: the personal belief in things unseen.

I'd like to compare your definition with this one (a slight variation of UR's version):

Faith: A strength of conviction which is disproportionate to the supporting evidence

So by criticising faith I am merely suggesting that our conviction about the existence of a thing should only be as strong as the evidence we have for it (common sense?)

I didn't use the word "belief" there, because to me that implies an absolute conviction, which would therefore be an act of faith in all cases except where something is proven.

Let's see why this definition is different and possibly better than yours.

1. Your definition of faith implies that those with faith are unreasonable. This is untrue. There are many reasons to believe in the supernatural, regardless whether or not you agree with them.

If there are many reasons to believe in something, and those reasons are sound ones, who needs faith?

This statement also implies that the atheistic worldview has been 100% proven to be correct and reasonable, which it has not.

As far as I'm aware there is no particular atheistic world view (atheism is just the absence of a belief in god), so nobody's claiming that it's 100% correct, or even that it exists.

Ex. If faith is the abandonment of reason, then the acceptance of reason is the abandonment of faith.

Nicely put.

2. My definition allows for the existence of things that cannot be seen. There are many examples of things around us everyday that we cannot see, yet everyone will agree that they exist. Ex. We cannot see love, or beauty, or distrust, or antimatter, or covalent bonds, or friendship, ect. These are all things that can be measured, but they are measured differently. We can see the effects of love between two people, but there is no scientific tests for love. Its like the quote "I've never seen God, have you ever seen Him? I've never seen the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind."

Something's cannot be seen but many of us can feel the effects of them. This does not mean we have abandoned reason, if you felt the effects of God, it would be an abandonment of reason to not believe.

Certainly we can accept the existence of things which are not seen, but we can do so without faith. I say "accept the existence", but belief is another matter. The existence of covalent bonds or antimatter is established by evidence. Should we believe in these things? Well, I wouldn't. If new information comes to light to suggest that antimatter probably doesn't exist, a rational person won't cling to the notion that it does. So in a sense you're right that belief in antimatter is an act of faith. It is also irrational, for obvious reasons.

Belief in anything is irrational unless we have proof that it exists. With things like friendship, distrust or love there is sufficient evidence for their existence that we can pretty much consider them proven, so we can believe in them without faith.

As for feeling the effects of God, well that still counts as evidence. Of course we should consider the possibility that those effects may have other causes, and form an opinion based on the strength of the evidence. If there is strong evidence, a rational person may have a strong conviction that God exists. But as far as I'm aware God's existence has never been conclusively proven, so to believe in God (to be certain that God exists) is always to form a conviction beyond what the evidence supports. That's irrational, and that's faith.

Furthermore, religious people often take on extra beliefs based on no evidence at all. The false dilemma I referred to in an earlier post is often overlooked by people going into religion. It's understandable. You start off thinking you have a world view that makes sense. It's rational, scientific, everything in the world can potentially be understood. Then something convinces you otherwise. Maybe this is a "miracle", or just something in your mind. For whatever reason, you decide that your whole world view is wrong and that there is a supernatural. The existence of the supernatural implies that the impossible is possible, any physical or logical rule can be broken. Nothing makes any sense any more. This is a hugely disorientating experience and the mind looks for something solid it can cling to, any port in a storm. You need to grasp one constant thing. In a supernatural world, what can you count on? Only God. And in such circumstances you will not stop to think "Ah, but is there really any evidence for this? Any reason to believe that?". You quite happily grab onto whatever supporting mythology is on hand. In confusing circumstances cold rationality goes out the window. The best you can do is take another look after the event and think about whether you picked up any convictions you didn't have evidence for. Any certain beliefs that lack certain proof, but which you are unable or unwilling to doubt? That's faith.

[Guest]

Evidence for the effects of God. (just a question in order to start discussion)

Is personal witness evidence? It stands in most courtrooms, but does it really count. People argue that there is no evidence for the existence of any god or the supernatural. If we could take a poll from the entire human population on earth, over a billion (probably a couple of billion) people would testify that they have had a Spiritual experience in their life. Could this be seen as evidence for the supernatural?

[unreality]

Octopuppy: wow you basically nailed the mindset of the religious.

NM: Firsthand accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Even if someone did "experience" God (or, more likely, though they did in their mind), their testimonial account would be extremely different and morphed

[Guest]

ADParker,

so you're still looking for a better definition of faith other than "belief through a willful abandonment of reason?"

I'll try to offer a rational one, but I'm sure that it wont hold up with you. oh well.

Faith: the personal belief in things unseen.

Always looking

I'm a Reasonist; always looking to improve my knowledge and understanding. And most of all that involves correcting ones erroneous beliefs, assumptions etc., even more important than learning that which I know I am currently ignorant of.

Ah yes, heard it - practically a direct bible quote:

Hebrew 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (New Int Ver)

How about this one as well?

Alma 32:21

"And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." (Book of Mormon)

"In the Koran, the term 'faith' means 'to consider something to be sure and reliable' without doubting. Faith can only be given by God, and means above all, that a human being acknowledges Allah's greatness and superiority, his own position as God's servant, who owes Him gratitude for His mercy towards man." (Here)

Sounds like my definition to me. In fact the more versions of the bible verse in particular one reads (why are there so many?!) the more and more my definition seems to leap out at you! As far as I can tell the only real problem people seem to have with it is that it shows up Faith as an undesirable thing - and rather than contemplate for one second that this might be the case, they try to bring up rewordings saying essentially the same thing, which might read in a somewhat better light (i.e. disguising the flaws.)

But on to your explanations:

The question arises from your definition: What do you mean exactly by unseen?

That which you can not literally see? No, that sounds odd; what about that which you can hear, smell, taste and/or feel?

How about that which you can not sense directly? Again that excludes things that we can measure indirectly - using devices for measurement and recording - basically a great deal of modern science and scientific discovery. Things which are about as far from what one would consider "faith" as one could possibly imagine.

That seems to leave us with belief in things that we have no understanding or knowledge of; that is those things for which reasoning can not tell us anything (or enough), or we believe without utilising reason. In short the wilful abandonment or Reason. Of which there are two paths:

1. Ignoring any possible reasoning and just believing anyway, or

2. Believing something for which ones reasoning can not (or has not been able to yet) reach. That is the "Leap of Faith"; when reason will only get you so far and you choose to go beyond that limit to reach conclusions that can not be rationally justified.

So again it sounds to me like you are agreeing with me but not liking it worded in such away to show its flaws: The problem with my definition is that it reveals to much it seems...Hmm. Do you prefer your far more vague definition for that very reason, that it is vague and doesn't reveal all of its flaws so readily?

Just so you know: your definition (well the bible verse actually) played a major part in my devising of that definition. And no; I will not downplay my definition to make it seem more nice and agreeable: palatable - Because I see Faith as a bad thing, a negative to be avoided, and the "faith is a virtue" claim as a great evil.

Let's see why this definition is different and possibly better than yours..

1. Your definition of faith implies that those with faith are unreasonable.

Well; more accurately that it involves the abandoning of reason (in either of the two ways mentioned above) in order to obtain and keep certain beliefs - Often beliefs that one is indoctrinated to cherish, which is a rational mistake in and of itself. One should cherish the truth (and the seeking of) not one particular believed truth (because what if it isn't? True that is.)

In other words: no, one who believes in one particular thing is not necessarily an irrational person in general (they may or may not be) but simply that they have forgone (abandoned) reason in order to hold that particular belief. Yes; they are irrational in that one circumstance at least. Rationality is not an on or off kind of thing, something one either has or does not have. One can quite easily be rational in one area of their lives yet not in another, in fact the degree of rationality can fluctuate quite widely within an individual.

This is untrue. There are many reasons to believe in the supernatural, regardless whether or not you agree with them.

I have yet to hear any that stand up to critical scrutiny. And as I said many such beliefs are actively protected from such scrutiny which is a rational error. But anyway: Lets assume that there are such reasons (it matters not) If there are such reasons to believe then fine: That is belief through reason, belief because there are rational reasons to do so; there is in a word Evidence (of some variety and nature.) That is not Faith. As far as I am concerned people who believe in god(s) (or anything for that matter) based on reason do not have Faith, are not relying on faith. Who needs faith when you have reason?

That is pretty much the whole point of Faith: believing even though there is no evidence or rational basis for doing so. How many times have we heard the ridiculous claim that:

"The reason God doesn't just reveal himself so as to prove without a doubt that he exists is that if he did then there would be no need for Faith - and FAITH IS A VIRTUE."

Basically it seems to come down to the belief that we need to have the need for Faith so as to prove to God the strength of our belief or some-such - I don't know, people tend to get rather waffley at this point in the argument. It comes down to the "Belief in Belief" canard. For some reason it is seen as a great virtue to be able to believe without sufficient rational reason (without evidence - its easy to believe based on evidence) to believe no matter what.

Its NOT a virtue, its not something to be proud of; its irrational. This has nothing to do with the ultimate truth-value of god (or whatever it is one has Faith in.) Its about ones reasons for belief, and holding to that belief.

This reminds me of that rubbish with Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Mother Teresa); the letters etc. where she confessed that she had lost her faith and couldn't even bring herself to believe in church, Mass etc. And the replies form the upper clergy was "That's Good; its a test of your Faith - Persevere." In essence try really hard to believe even though you can find no Reason to do so. Because apparently achieving belief in the Catholic version of God when you have no good reason to do so, is a very noble and praiseworthy thing to achieve - Not merely that though; apparently it is FAR BETTER and a greater achievement worthy of praise to believe on no evidence or reason than to believe because there is reason to do so!

When she lost her Faith did she think "Oh no, perhaps I was wrong to believe that for all these years, perhaps I should reason it out and see if it is true or not?" No instead she became AFRAID of losing her Faith (losing that particular belief,) and tried to reacquire it, not assess its truth value, just get it back!

You see why I am so down on this whole "Faith" thing yet?

This statement also implies that the atheistic worldview has been 100% proven to be correct and reasonable, which it has not.

Say what now?! It implies no such thing, it doesn't even hint at atheism in the least. What on earth are you on about? Seriously, this makes no sense to me whatsoever!

The "atheistic worldview" is one of not accepting any of the tens of thousands of Theistic worldviews, nothing more. It is not accepting your worldview: it is not a worldview in and of itself. If one does not share one of the theistic worldviews then one is an atheist, what their actual worldview might be beyond that is left wide open.

Honestly what is there to prove? That atheists really don't have a positive belief in any gods? Because that is all atheism is. You are really clutching at non-existent straws there - and so early on too.

Ex. If faith is the abandonment of reason, then the acceptance of reason is the abandonment of faith.

Well Faith isn't the abandonment of reason; Faith is believing something through that abandonment. It's the believing bit that makes it Faith, without that it's just being irrational.

"The acceptance of reason is the abandonment of Faith", well yeah if by faith we mean the abandonment of reason (ignoring the bit about belief) then yes:

The acceptance of reason is the abandonment of "abandonment of reason". But "the abandonment of the abandonment" is rather a bizarre way to put it isn't it? It just means:

The acceptance of reason is in not abandoning reason; pretty much a tautology.

But no; the search for reason and evidence (this is what science does for example) is the dedicated attempt to remove or at least minimize as mush as possible all instances of faith, assumption, and uncertainty. It will probably come up so I will deal with it now:

In science, especially the cutting edge stuff, certain assumptions are made, and hypotheses are made on premises that are weak or in doubt to some degree. Now we could go on about how these examples aren't what one should call Faith (they are based on reasoning to some degree and are always held as tentative etc.) but lets let that slide for now and allow that they amount to faith, at least in the widest stretching of that word.

The thing is this: In so much of religion Faith (big Faith, far more than this little faith in science) is held up as a virtue as a good thing to have. BUT in science (and all areas where Reason is held as paramount - and that is important to note, goes directly to my definition) this couldn't be further from the case: These examples where one relies on this (little) faith, they represent the the weak spots in any theory, the areas scientists want desperately to work on (and do so when they can, sometimes new technology needs to be created first - like the LHC for instance ) Why? Because they want to minimise, eradicate if they can, every one of these weak points, these spots of faith - they are the problem areas, the areas of greatest concern! They are in a word BAD.

The reasons are two-fold: A scientist realises that it is these points (faith-spots, lets call 'em) where other scientists are going to work on in the effort to prove them wrong - science is a highly competitive 'game'. But if the scientist is an honest one, the other reason is more personal (to do with the scientist herself, not others proving him wrong) this can manifest in numerous ways as reasons to attempt to eradicate those faith-spots:

1. It is in testing them that one can find means of falsification - which if the theory passes it makes the theory that much stronger - And our scientist of course likes that idea; far more as it happens (if honest remember) than simply protecting it from critical assessment. Because passing critical assessment if far cooler.

2. In testing, and as early as possible, one can find those means of falsification, and if it is falsified (and if it is, it will no doubt be at one of those faith-spots) then the scientist can abandon the theory, rather than wasting ones precious time and resources on something that is false. The scientist cares more about the truth than protecting ones cherished theory, and would rather have his pet theory demolished than waste their life on a bad theory.

3. I have heard of a number of scientists who have earned standing ovations by thanking a fellow scientist for proving their pet theory (or one they personally defended) to be false. And a scientist can get a great deal of respect (rep. points) for being the one who put in the effort to prove their own theory false.

As this forum doesn't allow that many quote blocks I will continue in my next post.

[Guest]

2. My definition allows for the existence of things that cannot be seen.

So does mine, so I don't see what you are getting at. The unknown is the unknown; whether whatever it is we imagine might be out there does or does not exist. That is kind of what "unknown" means. My definition and yours aren't nearly as different as you might like, they are both about why one believes something. Neither even touches on whether the thing in question (and it could be anything at all) does in actual fact exist or not.

Already your second point is an irrelevant non-starter.

There are many examples of things around us everyday that we cannot see, yet everyone will agree that they exist. Ex. We cannot see love, or beauty, or distrust, or antimatter, or covalent bonds, or friendship, ect.

As I have already dealt with the sight issue, this is pretty much irrelevant. No we can not see love or beauty of distrust But does that mean we take them on Faith? No it most certainly does not, they can all be determined on evidence and reasoning. As you mentioned love I will mention one witty fellows response to this "love on Faith" canard. (Paraphrasing):

There is a word for someone who simply takes it on Faith that some particular person is in love with them; they are called a Stalker

You get the point? If not: If one believes someone is in love with them and has no rational reason to believe this, that is they have no evidence, no signs of affection for example, no body language etc. all the clues we get that some one loves (or hates or distrusts...) us (which might be correct or mistaken, it doesn't matter here), then they are being irrational; just like a stalker - For instance:

"I believe that Jessica Alba is head over heels in love with me. No she has given no signs, I have not seen any body language or received any signs whatsoever for this, (we have never even met) but I take it on Faith that it is true."

Now; what does that sound like to you? Rational? Sensible? Or the words of a stalker and/or insane person?

If the latter (And I hope you answered the latter) then why is that? Could it be because believing something with no evidence, without "seeing" such evidence (allowing that "see" is taken in the broadest terms, argued for enough above I think) is completely Irrational?

These are all things that can be measured, but they are measured differently. We can see the effects of love between two people, but there is no scientific tests for love.

Who said anything about science (in the defintions I mean) this as about reason. Just because there are no strictly scientific tests for Love does not mean that its existence is not reasoned out. There are some tests could be done for love; cardiac, respiratory, sweat etc. responses to certain stimuli etc. perhaps not enough to say "this is the scientific test for love", but still; that someone loves you (or some one or thing else) can still be assessed through observation and assessment; measurement as you put it: this is reasoning and critical assessment, not Faith!

Its like the quote “I’ve never seen God, have you ever seen Him? I’ve never seen the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I’ve never seen the wind.”

I've head that argument, and variations thereof as well: its inane. It implies that seeing - actual direct visual sight, with your own to optical units... is all that differentiates non-faith based belief with faith-based variety. Its just plain stupid (and probably a case of Equivocation: Mistaking the more general use of the word "see" with the specific). Neither of us have "seen" a sonic boom either or thunder or a birdsong ; does that mean that we take it take it on Faith that they exist? NO! Because we have heard them, and they have been measured etc.

Just like "The wind" has. We know the wind exists because it has been observed, directly as it happens, not that it need be direct for us to accept it based on evidence and reason as opposed to Faith.

Something’s cannot be seen but many of us can feel the effects of them. This does not mean we have abandoned reason, if you felt the effects of God, it would be an abandonment of reason to not believe.

The wind is something measured and examined, to quite some degree as it is the very air we breath PLUS it forms so much of our weather from the gentlest breeze to the most deadly hurricanes. All through reasoning and science without a hint of Faith involved. So what was your point again?

You make the mistaken assumption that I think that seeing is all that counts, that without seeing something it is Faith - not at all the case!

Iff (and a big iff it is) one did feel the effects of God and could establish that rationally (that it was the effects of a god, or that that is a rational conclusion to make) then that would be believing based on reason, not Faith.

ps. sorry about PGs comment. It was unnecissary and "below the belt"

No need to apologise for another's actions. To be honest I don't even care if she doesn't bother to apologise herself. I'm used to it, and feel no need to take offense at the drop of a hat. As I said in response to that event; it reflected far more on her and her character than it did on mine anyway

[Guest]

Faith has nothing to do with measuring or seeing... it has to do with evidence. I would agree with you NM, that ADP's definition was too harsh, so I would word faith this way (the kind of faith I'm talking about is faith in a higher power, or unicorns, or fairies, or whatever)...

Faith - (n) The personal belief in an object, thing, being, idea or concept without any empirical evidence, logical proof or scientific acceptance

Sounds pretty darn close to mine actually doesn't it?

All it does is gloss over the serious flaws in Faith that mine exposes - the flaw is still there, make no mistake! It is just a little harder to see, a little easier for the "Faith is a Virtue" defender to ignore. And that is not a good thing, not at all.

That definition rings true - accept it. You don't believe in Goddess because of the overwhelming scientific evidence of Her existence, you believe in Her because of one or more of a variety of possible reasons:

(a) you were brought up believing in Her

(b) you just know that She exists

© you want Her to exist, or have convinced yourself that She does

Hopefully that's a good definition of faith because that's all the opinion I've got on the matter Sometimes faith is good, other times it's not. I just hope that the faithful know when to reel in their faith and think rationally

Your detailing of it (a, b, c) does what my definition makes clear: Faith is irrational, it ignores it, fails to apply it, and does not value it. See the problem everyone? The flaw is still there but my version does not require that one tease it out to become apparent. My definition...well; defines it clearly, and if that makes certain people uncomfortable, well good; they should feel uncomfortable. But they should face it, not try to hide it.

No unreality; Faith is never good, "good" is not is not a subjective thing; true for you but not for me. You in fact hit the nail on that head right there: you hope that they can Reel it in - in other words try to minimise it. Why? Because isn't good at all. I think I covered that reeling in thing (in respect to science but it applies everywhere, kind of the point actually) in my previous posts.

[Guest]

That's more of a hypothetical question, because nothing can be truly random.

And you KNOW this how exactly?

You should read up on quantum physics sometime, you might be surprised. No strike that; you WILL be surprised - who wouldn't be. Hel; Quantum physicists live in a never ending state of surprise.

To answer the question of course one would have to know, or pretend to know, the mind of God. Which is not a problem; many do!

[Guest]

I know UR's had a stab at this but it seems we're so close to agreeing on something I can't resist sticking my oar in...

Stick away.

I'd like to compare your definition with this one (a slight variation of UR's version):

Faith: A strength of conviction which is disproportionate to the supporting evidence

Not quite I would say. This definition can include simply sloppy reasoning; the assumption that one tiny weak piece of 'evidence' is sufficient to lead to a personal conviction, or even "belief" (Which is different to "acceptance" which is what Reasonists have for scientific theories for example.)

A perfect example is the Argument from Design: Basically complex organisms look designed, like a watch is, so they are designed - BY GOD. Now, that one is bad for so many reasons, but of relevance here is the error in thinking such a flimsy observation is sufficient to warrant belief in God (even belief in a designer based on it is bad enough!)

Faith I think goes further, it does not rely on the evidence at all, it is the very point of Faith - if you had the supporting evidence, Faith would be unnecessary, redundant even. The Faith in your definition would be the leap from the insufficient evidence, which only gets you so far, to the conclusion that far exceeds the reach of the evidence. But for it to be Faith rather than simple poor reasoning one much intentionally make that leap.

You see; one who has "A strength of conviction which is disproportionate to the supporting evidence" may be making a leap of faith, and might then make claims that they got there through Faith when the evidence failed them, or simply have made a rational error - they would be unaware, and would not claim that there was any leap of faith, rather would claim (erroneously) that they got their through assessment of the evidence; reason. Creationist apologists (including Intelligent Design Creationists) do this all the bloody time; they are claiming that it is not just a matter of Faith, that there is reason, scientific reason, to believe.

One would simply not claim "Faith" or that Faith is a good thing unless they think that making the leap is justifiable; the intent (hence the "wilfully" in my definition) must be there for it to be faith, and not just poor reasoning. In short for it to be Faith one has to have Willfully abandoned reason to reach the conclusion.

So by criticising faith I am merely suggesting that our conviction about the existence of a thing should only be as strong as the evidence we have for it (common sense?)

You are right about the value of the strength of evidence But I think Faith is a whole different kettle of fish. More than simply jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence (of course that is absolutely something to be argued against as well) but actually devaluing Reason itself.

I have had arguments with people who claim that Faith involves a "different way of getting to the truth". Different than what, you might ask? Different than Reason. As you can imagine; it is next to impossible to have a Rational discussion with someone who makes such a claim - How can you Reason that Reason is not the way to go? But they never offer any real alternative; Faith involves abandoning Reason to reach a conclusion, but not a way to reach the truth, or have any clue that you are approaching truth.

Oh and on a side note: No; If Science has shown us one thing it is that Human "Common Sense" pretty much sucks. I like Richard Dawkins explanation for this (paraphrasing wildly):

Our brains are evolved for our ancestors to deal with middle world things (not too big [galaxies...] or too small [atoms...]) while we run along the African Savannah hunting deer and avoiding lions. Out "common sense" completely fails us when we look anywhere beyond this basic level of observation. Did you know that that wall in front of you is made up entirely of atoms which are mostly made up of nothing at all?! (a tiny nucleus with tinier electrons wizzing around further out, relative to scale, than Pluto is to the Sun with a whole lot of nothing in between) Common sense demands: "Then why can't you see through it?!"

I didn't use the word "belief" there, because to me that implies an absolute conviction, which would therefore be an act of faith in all cases except where something is proven.

I am largely with you on that one. Belief is essentially assuming that something is true; it implies that one need not question it further. There has been a push in scientific circles (esp. atheist ones for obvious reasons) to avoid using the word "believe" (unless that is really what one is talking about of course ) especially when talking about scientific theories etc. (like "I believe the Theory of Evolution to be correct") but rather to use "Accept"; this has a subtly distinct meaning, it openly allows for change for progress. For example:

Newton came up with his theories of physics. Some believed it, others accepted it, as true.

Then along came Einstein who improved on that science (refined it and broadened its scope). Those who Believed Newton's theory were resistant, in their belief they had come to rely on Newtonian physics as true, so they tried to defend that belief. Those who accepted it however, accepted it as all scientific theories should be accepted (and this is where the distinction lies): It is to be accepted as true based on the evidence, and as the evidence changes so too should the acceptance. So long story short; in assessing the data the Newtonian physics acceptors became Einsteinian physics acceptors, with no sense of loss whatsoever.

IN other words; one accepts that that which they accept as true is only as strong as the evidence and reasoning supporting it. Strong evidence leads to strong acceptance, weak to weak.

The difference is that Acceptance is dynamic (like science itself) or at least readily open to shifting dynamically, while Belief is resistant and not overly open to change to it at best.

If there are many reasons to believe in something, and those reasons are sound ones, who needs faith?

Precisely! Feel like a bit of semantic twisting to hide the shameful truth is going on here? Whether recognised by the perpetrators or not?

That is one thing indoctrination can do to you; render you unaware of the deceitful nature of your own behaviour, because you have been tricked into believing it to be otherwise. (note that the tricksters here might we have been indoctrinated themselves, so might not be to blame either.)

[Guest]

Evidence for the effects of God. (just a question in order to start discussion)

Is personal witness evidence?

Guess my answer

Only playing; I am not the dogmatic atheist propaganda pusher that some would like to paint me as. I in fact consider myself more of a Reasonist; a true lover of Reason, and my atheism - lack of any theistic beliefs, only comes as a consequence of that. For instance none of what I have said in this thread has a whit to do with my atheistic conclusions (which only amounts to not adhering to, accepting as true, any theistic conclusions actually) but just my reasoning (hopefully not flawed reasoning, but I must leave that to others to evaluate.)

One could even take it that I "played the game" of the OP and assumed god (hel all of 'em) exist, and everything I have said would still stand.

okay enough of that; my answer:

Nope.

Well at least not good enough evidence by itself. details to follow.

It stands in most courtrooms, but does it really count.

Actually a signle eye witness account rarely stands up in court without something to back it up; either:

1. A corroborating (and independent) eye witness account.

2. Very good reason to assume that the eye witness account is reliable and untainted, that they have no reason to lie for instance, or any reason to suspect that their judgement, assessment or recollection is at all untrustworthy.

An eye-witness account has to be very strong indeed if it is to carry a case on its own.

The problem is that personal experience is highly subjective. It is something that can not be tested - is that really what they saw? Did they interpret it that way based on prior assumptions? Did subsequent experiences, thoughts, etc. colour their recollection? And so on. The human mind is a tricky beast, and recollection and personal experience can be and should be highly suspect - even to the one having the experience.

We actually notice that ourselves at times; we see something and ask "is that really what I thought it was, did I really see that?" - we doubt our own immediate personal experiences, especially the unusual ones. Can you really expect us to accept your recounting of those personal experiences, especially if they are extraordinary ones, when so often you yourself can not even do so?! Especially considering that we don't even have the (imperfect and jumbled as they might well be) memories of those experiences to assess them by?

And as I said earlier: Common sense, which is what we generally, at least immediately, use to judge our experiences by, is notoriously bad and suspect.

Do you realise for example how distressingly easy it is to implant a false memory (with strong conviction of its validity) in a persons mind?! It is truly frightening!

Of the few religious personal experiences I have been able to coax out of people (amazing how many have claimed to have them, but how few are willing to recount them in any detail) they have all come up ridiculously short. Amounting to rather ordinary events coloured excessively by religious assumption. Plus a few cases where the subject has revealed themselves to be suffering from a mental illness. No, not because of the experience alone, but their general behaviour, I have had professional experience in that area (the last one admitted that he used to believe he was Jesus, whether or not he still did was very much in question.)

People argue that there is no evidence for the existence of any god or the supernatural.

For the record, I am not so arrogant to claim that I know anything like that (how could I?) I simply state that I have never been presented with any such evidence. Plenty of claims that something is that evidence, but nothing that has stood up to even the most rudimentary levels of critical assessment. You would not believe how many threads have been started on the RichardDawkins forum with titles of variations of the theme "My Proof that God exists." How how poorly every one of them has fared. And on a side note; how very few (the actual number would be ZERO) of the OPs have admitted that their proof attempt had indeed failed.

If we could take a poll from the entire human population on earth, over a billion (probably a couple of billion) people would testify that they have had a Spiritual experience in their life.

Oh goody The Appeal to Popularity

Surely you know the standard rely to this one by now:

Billions of people believed that the world was flat, that they knew it to be so. Billions knew that the Earth was the stationary centre of the solar system (if not the universe) - I like that one because the Catholic Church via the Pope only admitted that it might not be the case after all in 1992, only 350 years after Galileo Galilei died (he wasn't the one to prove this beyond reasonable doubt, that was Johannes Kepler, but he is important here because unlike Kepler he was Catholic) - And they were WRONG.

These "billions" also claim that there spiritual experiences were "definitely" of God, or Jesus, YHWH, Allah, Mohammad, Krishna, Zeus, Ra, Odin, The Buddha, John Frum, ... So does that mean all of them are real?! I don't think so. And if not, why should we consider those of your particular deity as any more trustworthy than any other? In fact considering that practically everyone would readily and immediately declare that any experience of any deity other than their own is clearly false in some way, should we not expect the very same to be true for those of yours?

Tell you what; point me to a verified case where a God/Jesus-ignorant Hindu has a definite "spiritual experience" of Jesus, and I might be interested.

But this brings up a favourite quotation of mine - its about miracles but I think it applies here as well:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), `That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

DAVID HUME Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Section X, "Of Miracles" (1748)

Could this be seen as evidence for the supernatural?

No.

Not for anyone other than the experiencer, as all that would amount to is a story from the claimant, hardly evidence. Evidence is something that can be confirmed in some way. If some scientist claimed to have done an experiment and found the theorised graviton. That would not count as evidence until his experimental data had been verified, most likely not until it had also been repeated independently.

And should not even count as evidence for the experiencer; a rational mind should realise that one's experiences are highly suspect, and that which are often called "spiritual" even more so. Why? They tend to be of both (or at least either) a highly extraordinary nature (experiencing the creator of the universe, something never even hinted at scientifically or any evidence found for through conventional means, would most definitely count as extraordinary wouldn't you agree?) and a non-empirical/physical one as well (not actually seen Jesus walking down the street, but in ones mind or whatever - don't even go the "encountered Jesus in my Heart" route, what the hel is that supposed to mean?!) As such one should consider just how real the experience was.

Another quote springs to mind:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" CARL SAGAN Cosmos (1980) - page 339 of the book and about 1.25 mins into chapter 12 of the documentary series (here it is - watch the whole series; it seriously rocks.)

[akaslickster]

Here we go again.

[Guest]

"I'd like to compare your definition with this one (a slight variation of UR's version):

Faith: A strength of conviction which is disproportionate to the supporting evidence"

Not quite I would say. This definition can include simply sloppy reasoning; the assumption that one tiny weak piece of 'evidence' is sufficient to lead to a personal conviction, or even "belief" (Which is different to "acceptance" which is what Reasonists have for scientific theories for example.)

Well, yes. I would call that faith. Example:

"I had a miraculous experience and now I believe in God" - That would be an absolute conviction based on inconclusive evidence (but it may still be evidence, in some people's eyes at least). I'd still call that faith, so I expanded UR's definition to include it.

This example is a bit more ambiguous:

"I think there probably is a God. I don't know why, I just do" - That is a partial conviction based on no evidence.

Whether that actually is an example of faith would be a matter of opinion, but I've made my definition quite inclusive so it would encompass this as well. Personally I would consider any conviction in excess of evidence to be irrational, and faith is as good a name for that as any.

Faith I think goes further, it does not rely on the evidence at all, it is the very point of Faith - if you had the supporting evidence, Faith would be unnecessary, redundant even. The Faith in your definition would be the leap from the insufficient evidence, which only gets you so far, to the conclusion that far exceeds the reach of the evidence. But for it to be Faith rather than simple poor reasoning one much intentionally make that leap.

You see; one who has "A strength of conviction which is disproportionate to the supporting evidence" may be making a leap of faith, and might then make claims that they got there through Faith when the evidence failed them, or simply have made a rational error - they would be unaware, and would not claim that there was any leap of faith, rather would claim (erroneously) that they got their through assessment of the evidence; reason. Creationist apologists (including Intelligent Design Creationists) do this all the bloody time; they are claiming that it is not just a matter of Faith, that there is reason, scientific reason, to believe.

I don't see the distinction. At no point does your Faith-head say to themselves "here is my evidence, it is insufficient, so now I will abandon reason to form my conclusions". Faith is always just poor reasoning. The believer thinks they have justification to believe, but has not been clear about what that justification is. The error in reasoning frequently has to do with the fact that faith is considered a good thing so therefore a certain belief would be a desirable outcome. But it is lack of clarity which leads to this error.

Maybe we are splitting hairs about the intent issue, but in my opinion faith is faith whether or not it is recognised as such. I am sure that those who believe in faith also believe that they are reasonable and rational. The problem is that they have been miseducated by religion, effectively taught to think badly, and to defend those thought processes fervently. In that sense the devaluation of reason is something that underpins faith, rather than being a conscious choice made by those who exercise faith.

In a sense there are two aspects to faith here: faith in practice, or Faith as a principle (Faith, the principle, essentially says that faith, the practice, is good). As a principle it is a big fallacy waiting to be wheeled out as bogus justification for a belief. It is frequently used by the religious, and you might say their conscious use of it is a conscious choice to be irrational. But only if they recognise it as irrational. Actually I think a lot of the time they do it just to wind you up

Oh and on a side note: No; If Science has shown us one thing it is that Human "Common Sense" pretty much sucks. I like Richard Dawkins explanation for this (paraphrasing wildly):

Our brains are evolved for our ancestors to deal with middle world things (not too big [galaxies...] or too small [atoms...]) while we run along the African Savannah hunting deer and avoiding lions. Out "common sense" completely fails us when we look anywhere beyond this basic level of observation. Did you know that that wall in front of you is made up entirely of atoms which are mostly made up of nothing at all?! (a tiny nucleus with tinier electrons wizzing around further out, relative to scale, than Pluto is to the Sun with a whole lot of nothing in between) Common sense demands: "Then why can't you see through it?!"

Again, we may be splitting hairs over semantics, but to me common sense is where intuition meets rationality (yes they do overlap). Intuition may lead us astray, but not always. We don't have to abandon it completely, only recognise where it fails.

[Guest]

i believe octopuppy and ad parker to be good people - is that wrong. it is important to believe in yourself, without belief in self no belief in anything. that makes life empty and of no purpose.

is my purpose and your purpose to exist after birth physical death certain but not certain no spirit life after - now is a guarantee, after now we do not know, if you know you are high spirit. you are free to deny the concept/possibility. i believe that i am here to do good. it makes me happy to do good. it does not matter to me that i dont understand why. this is what an enjoyable life can be. i have no deity belief. i make no claim i am right. i claim i am happy to be healthy. i do not believe in chance. i beleve we find chance and make better life if we want.

[Guest]

Evidence for the effects of God. (just a question in order to start discussion)

Is personal witness evidence? It stands in most courtrooms, but does it really count. People argue that there is no evidence for the existence of any god or the supernatural. If we could take a poll from the entire human population on earth, over a billion (probably a couple of billion) people would testify that they have had a Spiritual experience in their life. Could this be seen as evidence for the supernatural?

I would count myself as one of those people, and with the benefit of hindsight I know that such experiences are very questionable. On the other hand, I would not give you a flat "No" to that question. Evidence is evidence, and personal perception is the only source of information we have about anything. The problem is that our perception is flawed, and we must fully understand that when we look at the evidence. Also we must consider whether there is any sense to our conclusions.

Here's an example from my own day to day life. I develop software and often have to find bugs. Occasionally when hunting down software bugs I come across something unexpected; miracles! This doesn't happen often but on very rare occasions it does. Every now and then I find that the computer is behaving in a way which, after I have looked closely at it and thought deeply on the subject, I can only conclude to be absolutely impossible.

Now anyone who is familiar with Boolean logic will know that falsehood implies anything. To put that in physical terms, a single impossible event would mean that the universe is without structure. Anything can happen, there are no rules at all. This is effectively what miracles and other supernatural events imply, and I think on some level we all understand this. When faced with the impossible, everything we think we know is open to question. It's a scary but exhilarating experience, I'm sure many people can relate to that.

And I get a little flutter of that unsettling feeling when I encounter software miracles. Tingles go up my spine. I test them and test them, and verify that, yes, the impossible does actually happen. So what do I do then? I persevere, I look deeper, I hunt down every inconsistent state until I discover the cause. And guess what? There is always a perfectly mundane explanation. Every time. It's just that occasionally, things behave in a way you might never have imagined, for perfectly rational reasons.

Now that's fine for me, but what happens in the real world when the "impossible" happens? Can we repeat the situtation, looking closer and closer until we get to the root cause? Usually not. So what we are left with is a mystery. The unexplained. Some might say the unexplainable. But it is only unexplainable because we lack the practical means to discover the explanation. We must never jump to the conclusion that what has occurred is truly in defiance of logic, or the laws of physics. The laws of physics have never been known to fail (though we have had to update our understanding of what they are, and continue to do so). Such as they are, they remain completely consistent. So if some rare event occurs in which you cannot understand what has happened, the fault is yours. You simply failed to perceive the situation completely. That happens all the time at magic shows. We would expect this to happen at random occasionally, as software "miracles" are to be expected on rare occasions, and of course it does. To throw rationality out of the window and start believing in the supernatural would be very rash.

And if our spiritual experience is an internal one, we should not rush to conclude supernatural causes until we have eliminated the possibility of a delusion. People who suffer from mental problems often hallucinate, but we do not consider their experiences to be as real and valid as our own. Why be so confident that your own brain is above the occasional mis-fire, if you could even call it that? One thing that many civilisations over the world have in common is a tendency to believe in the supernatural. This evidence does not suggest that the supernatural exists, since people can never agree on its nature. Is there heaven and hell? Do we reincarnate? What is ze meaning of life? Are there ghosts? Are there gods (if so how many and what do they want from us)? Humankind cannot decide. But one thing is certain: we do have a tendency to believe all sorts of crazy stuff. It seems that religion is part of human nature. All the more reason to doubt your own perceptions, if they point you that way. Not to dismiss them completely, just take them with a pinch of salt.