Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

sideshowbob said:
I thought it was fairly clear: Everything that comes naturally isn't necessarily good. Specifically, faith coming naturally doesn't mean faith is good. What do you not understand about that?
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you apply that line of reasoning to me. I stated it's a natural part of everyday life. we can't help but exercise it. We can discern which type is beneficial to us, which is why I choose a fact based view, something I can verify either objectively or subjectively as it pertains to my personal benefit.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
I'm curious why you apply that line of reasoning to me. I stated it's a natural part of everyday life. we can't help but exercise it. We can discern which type is beneficial to us, which is why I choose a fact based view, something I can verify either objectively or subjectively as it pertains to my personal benefit.
Click to expand...

But in nature that argument applies to all organisms, good or bad, such as virulent bacteria that kill us or symbiotic bacteria that keep us alive.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is a double-edged sword, it applies indiscriminately to all forms of life.
 
Write4U said:
But in nature that argument applies to all organisms, good or bad, such as virulent bacteria that kill us or symbiotic bacteria that keep us alive.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is a double-edged sword, it applies indiscriminately to all forms of life.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how does the do unto others passage apply to the discussion of faith? To me faith is about having a desired result, then having that desire met after acting on it in an effort to achieve...like sitting in a chair. We do this daily. Finding cures for diseases is another type. Efforts are made with that hope, and although a slow process at times, they are often times substantiated by finding cures through the efforts.

My personal take on the passage you quoted is if I don't like it, I wouldn't apply it to someone else unless I know there's a real benefit. I wouldn't expect a sadist to treat me as if I enjoyed that sort of thing. Good things for me are not moral based, but rather based on evident benefit and how they effect me as a person. Evil things are those that I haven't found to be beneficial and that cause me distress or trauma.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
I stated it's a natural part of everyday life. we can't help but exercise it.
Click to expand...
Sure we can. We overcome our natural instincts all the time. Social behavior is nothing BUT overcoming our natural instincts for the good of the species (the community).

Not to mention the fact that our natural instincts often conflict with each other - e.g. our instinct for individual survival often conflicts with our instinct for survival of the species (we feed our children AND ourselves).
 
sideshowbob said:
Sure we can. We overcome our natural instincts all the time. Social behavior is nothing BUT overcoming our natural instincts for the good of the species (the community).

Not to mention the fact that our natural instincts often conflict with each other - e.g. our instinct for individual survival often conflicts with our instinct for survival of the species (we feed our children AND ourselves).
Click to expand...

Ok, so your faith in community efforts being more beneficial than individual efforts has you in a mindset that we don't exercise faith daily? Individualistic interdependence is essentially how communities function effectively. Faith is something we exercise daily, although unrecognized as faith by some. Overcoming ignorance would be beneficial but a loss of faith when evidenced with some substance.
 
James R said:
1. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence.

I look forward to your responses.
Click to expand...

Believing a thing means that something makes sense... it clicks.

Plato believes in the Gods, and what he says makes sense to me: I can reason it out and come up with the same conclusions.
Is it a leap of faith when that happens?

I.e., Plato says the First Cause created the Gods, and the Gods created mankind so that mankind would not be immortal... and mankind worships that which created them.

"the term philosophy points to the rational quest for wisdom"--Dictionary of Political Science
 
Ligurian said:
Believing a thing means that something makes sense... it clicks.
Click to expand...
I don't think this a good definition. Some people believe things even they don't think make sense.

A good example of this is children believing in God and the Bible (some of whom grow up to reject them). I'd argue that some children are prone to believing things before they are sophisticated enough to judge "what makes sense" or "what clicks". They basically believe based on trust.
 
The definition presented seems a counter element of faith, which throws it in the sphere of delusion. Without evidence, it's delusion. Definitions of terms and application can get convoluted and so twisted up that the term faith becomes a sigh and shrug to anyone under the deluded definition of, any definition suggesting faith equates to no evidence is delusional and inaccurate.
 
Ligurian,

Welcome to sciforums.

It's interesting to me that you quoted my opening post, but then decided not to answer the specific questions I asked. Are you willing to answer them? If not, why not?

Turning to what you wrote...
Ligurian said:
Believing a thing means that something makes sense... it clicks.
Click to expand...
I would say something similar. Believing in something means that something convinced you that it is true.

It sounds like you're talking about a sort of gut feeling that something is true. I agree that gut feelings are one way that people can become convinced that certain propositions are true.

Do you think that gut feelings are sufficient to justify a belief?
Plato believes in the Gods, and what he says makes sense to me: I can reason it out and come up with the same conclusions.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you believe in a God or gods because you "reasoned it out" (i.e. because you agree with Plato's reasoning)?

If so, then you don't have a faith-based belief, in the sense that I described in the opening post. You have a belief based on whatever the arguments were that persuaded you.

Do you agree?
 
ThazzarBaal said:
My personal take on the passage you quoted is if I don't like it, I wouldn't apply it to someone else unless I know there's a real benefit. I wouldn't expect a sadist to treat me as if I enjoyed that sort of thing. Good things for me are not moral based, but rather based on evident benefit and how they effect me as a person. Evil things are those that I haven't found to be beneficial and that cause me distress or trauma.
Click to expand...
Morals are a human invention to make us feel good.
Do you eat meat? No qualms about killing a cow for that juicy steak, right?

This is truth: "Life must take Life, in the interest of Life itself"

Dr. Hellstrom:
Of the billions of living things on Earth, only Man ponders his existence. His questions lead to torment, for he is unable to accept, as the insects do, that life's only purpose is life itself.
Click to expand...
 
I believe that faith in "evolution via natural selection" is the only path to knowledge. It is the only testable concept that is reality based.
 
Write4U said:
I believe that faith in "evolution via natural selection" is the only path to knowledge.
Click to expand...
That's quite kookie. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that is based on evidence. Faith is among the worst reasons to accept it.

If this is how you approach your belief in scientific claims in general, then clearly you know even less about how science works than I thought you did.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Faith by definition is believing something without evidence. If you accept the Theory based on the lines of argument and stacks of evidence then that would be reasonable.
That does not require faith.
Click to expand...
I understand the term in a religious context. That is the Abrahamic mindset. But I am atheist.

I was referring to the more general definition of "faith" as in "trust".

‘Faith’ is a broad term, appearing in locutions that point to a range of different phenomena. We speak of ‘having faith that you will succeed, despite setbacks,’ ‘having faith in democracy,’ ‘putting faith in God,’ ‘believing that God exists by faith,’ ‘being a person of faith,’ ‘professing and keeping the faith (or losing it),’ ‘keeping (or failing to keep) faith with someone’, and so on. At its most general ‘faith’ means much the same as ‘trust’.

Faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As long as the definitions are wiggly there can be no firm consensus. As no side is likely to concede points on the definitions we're where we were and always will be.
 
As long as the OP is in the "comparative religions" sub-forum, I will admit that my choice of "faith" in this instance may be confusing if not outright misleading.

The suggested replacements are more neutral in context...B-)

However, in context of the Theory of "Evolution via Natural Selection", I have complete faith in Darwin's fundamental insight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top