Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Do you know anyone that displays faith in the sun rising tomorrow?

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep, while he was still alive George Carlin was a sun worshipper. He tells the tale that he became a sun worshipper overnight. Well, the next morning, as you cannot see the sun at night.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They splashed out £3,000,000 on the windows of a single cathedral.
Created a very pleasant atmosphere, in case the Pope came to visit the Bishop. and of course for the pleasure of the worshippers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/03/stained-glass-windows-photos_n_5256052.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And don't forget how much pleasure it gave the starving and homeless

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you need to be a little more specific about what is meant by sun worshipper...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity

...then perhaps you can elaborate on George Carlin's faith in the sun rising the next day.

Jan.

 

I agree that is a display of wealth, but I don't see how it is a "display of spirituality", given the definitions.

Of course if there are people, such as yourself, who regard splashing out, as spiritual expression (the bigger the splash, the more spiritual), then from their perspective (and yours), it is a spiritual expression. But from the proper meaning of spiritual, that is a material expression.

Jan.

 

Watch the Carlin clip.

 

Exactly!!!!~!!!

See the Carlin clip!!!!!!!

p.s. I ignored that stupid ad hominem and gave you the courtesy of responding with a link to a humorous but profound lecture by Carlin (sorry for the occasional crude language).

 

Write4U is totally correct. This is an equivocation fallacy. The religious meaning of the word faith is different than how it's used in common speech.

 

Have you changed your mind?
You seemed to saying that "spiritual display", or at least a form of, is linked to a display of wealth.

Appologize. I didn't mean to insult you. But you did say...

"Ahhhhh, that where the spiritual context comes in. Impressive scenes inspire awe and submission,"...

Who did the cathedrals honor? IMO, its part of the spiritual illusion of the mind.
The biggest pyramid, the tallest church, the greatest cathedral, the Holy See. All designed to imprint an image of mystical powers to locals and visitors...

It was only in context of opulencein order to impress the faithful and "hopefully" God...

I know this next quote comes from George Carlin, but I get the feeling you agree with the sentiment.

As Carlin said, God is all powerful and can make and do everything we see, except He just can't handle money. Alaways needs a little more,tax-free. For those gold panes no doubt, or perhaps some more gold brocade on the outfits.

Do you regard this as spiritual display or not?

Regarding George Carlin. I think his worship is more a form of appreciation, than worship. Just my opinion.
But where is the faith that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Of course the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That is a forgone conclusion. No faith necessary.

Jan.

 

How is it different?
There are only varying degrees, like compassion, or empathy.

Jan.

 

By the church it seems to be. Or alternatively, it was for personal pride (a deadly sin) by the reigning Bishop.
The argument that this was not the intent of the "belief system" may be true, but it is certainly not adhered to by religionists and in that area religious teaching (knowledge) clearly failed.

I did identify it as the main energy resource of life on earth

Really, read the definitionsof faith again.

The problem is that you are trying to disconnect the various interpretations and definitions. But fundamentally they all connected in the widest sense and the personal experience of faith in God, is the same personal experience of having faith that the sun will shine tomorrow.

The difference is that faith in observable recurring patterns is demonstrably justifiable, whereas spiritual faith has no demonstrable consistency or pattern at all. Too many divine miracles for my taste.

In fact God changes his mind several times in the bible. If we go further back, it appears God was not certain of the outcome of His divine creation and at one time "saw that His creation was good", but later He "saw it was bad" and killed a lot of people to prove the point. Does that indicate He had no faith in his own powers, or is that a clever way to say that something changed God's mind? Or is it a natural probabilistic evolutionary (natural selection) function of trial and error, from which the most adaptable (or lucky ones) will survive to procreate?

Do you see the rabbit holes all these conflicting interpretations create?

Check out the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ as recommended
reading by CFI admin. It lists not only the absurdities, but also gives credit to many constructive biblical declarations or allegories.

I believe the identification of the 7 deadly sins and 7 virtues are very profound, both in the abstract as well as in natural social behaviors of all communal species, except for solitary species, who have no need to adapt to the communal practices, but are also on the decline.

 

Yep, read any book on psychology. It starts as early as with the parent/child relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greater-good-science-center/why-do-we-feel-awe_b_9890824.html

 

The definition of faith you posted, was the various ways faith can be displayed. Not that there were different types of faith.

I wouldn't know as I have never had to have a firm belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't think anyone has.

Why have faith in reccurring patterns, unless there is a strong possibility that they will stop, and the effect being disastrous? Nobody believes the sun may not rise tomorrow. Unless you know such people. But I don't.

Can you Cite chapter and verse, so we can look at it in context?

I see the problem in your interpretation.

Jan.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

Segment from the Huffington post link.

First we can consider the long, evolutionary view: Why did awe became part of our species’ emotional repertoire during seven million years of hominid evolution? A preliminary answer is that awe binds us to social collectives and enables us to act in more collaborative ways that enable strong groups, thus improving our odds for survival.

What does that even mean?

Jan.

 

Exactly.

 

That's not different types of faith, as atheists seem to believe.

Jan.

 

So Awe

when experienced in everyday

perceptual experiences like hearing thunder

is like being shit scared

until we understand what it is

Like we have evidence of the cause so no need of awe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And there it is. Never having to worry that the sun will rise tomorrow is "having faith" that the sun will rise.

Never having to worry that God will favor you is *having delusions*.

But except for some mundane generalities and semantic juggling, you have not contributed a single word in anwer to the OP title: "Is faith a reliable path to knowledge."

OTOH, being an atheist, I have introduced several examples where the influence of religions, in displays of faith and worship fostered certain skills and knowledge of architecture, learning how to build extremely large open spaces in cathedrals, the manufacture of stained glass, double entry bookkeeping, wine making, and a host of other skills which are naturally acquired by those who dedicate their life to achieve a *goal*.
In religious people that goal is to enter heaven. One fundamental law of human psychology is defined; "decision making in the direction of greatest satisfaction".

What greater satisfaction than *everlasting life*. That's were the delusion of a sentient god who will grant that wish enters. Your brand of faith is "wishful thinking".

 

It is. In common usage the word means trust, sure we all trust in certain things, in religious terminology it means unquestioning belief in the absence of evidence.