FAITH - What's the big deal?

Originally posted by Vladamir no1

In another context you and Dr Scribbles would have my full agreement but not in this context, so we'll agree to dis agree ................

The context is not important here; if you won't accept an argument by contradiction in this context on the basis you give (as I understand it), then it would be inconsistent to agree with this method in other circumstances.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."

Was Galileo wrong? Did God intend for us to not use our intellectual capacities?

If we come to one conclusion via reason and a competing conclusion via blind faith, do you think God intends for us to reject what our reason tells us? Are we making the most of God's gifts to us when we do this?

I absolutely and unreservedly agree with you 100%. Spot on. I'm not talking about blind faith though but just little ol' simple faith (aka trust , experimenting , risk taking , learning etc etc etc)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I absolutely and unreservedly agree with you 100%. Spot on. I'm not talking about blind faith though but just little ol' simple faith (aka trust , experimenting , risk taking , learning etc etc etc)

No atheist denies engaging in these things. He simply doesn't choose to denote them by the term faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
We all exercise faith all the time. I show faith in my mechanic (that he knows what he is doing) . I takes risks (or leaps of faith) in trusting people on instinct. A manager keeps faith with a player in his team. A depressed man holds on to faith that life is worth living , even against his feelings or how things seem at the time. I get to find out th ...[text shortened]... itating habit but I like it for the time being so Get used to it--oooops there I go again...)

If 'faith' just means belief justified inductively or abductively, then us atheists don't have a problem with faith. If 'faith' means belief despite an absence of evidence, or belief in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, then faith is antithetical to reason. The problem with you theists is that you commonly equivocate between these two very different notions (witness KellyJay).

Originally posted by bbarr
If 'faith' just means belief justified inductively or abductively, then us atheists don't have a problem with faith. If 'faith' means belief despite an absence of evidence, or belief in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, then faith is antithetical to reason. The problem with you theists is that you commonly equivocate between these two very different notions (witness KellyJay).

Here's an equivocation:

A priest told a group of students at our college, that I "cannot be reasoned with because I only believe in the rational".

Let me paraphrase, "I cannot be reasoned with because I only believe in the reasonable". There were just so many mistakes in his comment, I just didn't know where to begin. I don't think it would make reasonable discourse to speak unreasonably.

So, depending on your definition of faith, would you classify logic or reason as a faith?

Theists tend to regard logic as a system of faith that is not full-proof whereas atheists do not.

Originally posted by bbarr
If 'faith' just means belief justified inductively or abductively, then us atheists don't have a problem with faith. If 'faith' means belief despite an absence of evidence, or belief in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, then faith is antithetical to reason. The problem with you theists is that you commonly equivocate between these two very different notions (witness KellyJay).

Do you not think that there are times when what 'seems' reasonable at the time is not the thing that ought to be followed. There are also times when the evidence seems overwhelming for something and other times when it seems very distant. It is in these times when we need faith to hold on to truths we know to be true even though everything else seems to conspire to make it seem unlikely. There is also the issue of what appears convincing evidence to one may not be to another.

CS LEWIS said that every Christian has to accept there will be times when God seems quite unlikely and that every atheist will have times when God seems likely. Without faith we can have our beliefs blown about like the wind by our moods , events etc

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No atheist denies engaging in these things. He simply doesn't choose to denote them by the term faith.

Why not? My experience is that Atheists dump blind faith and normal faith together and chuck the baby out with the bath water on a regular basis

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why not?

I cannot explain it any more clearly than bbarr did.

Faith is fine. In fact, it is a necessary aspect of life.

When your faith begins to impede on my life, it is no longer fine.

Learn the difference.

-JC

Originally posted by knightmeister

Do you not think that there are times when what 'seems' reasonable at the time is not the thing that ought to be followed.

I overwhelmingly believe just those propositions that I take myself to have good reasons for, and to perform those actions that I take to be reasonable (all things considered). In general, I think people ought to do that which seems to them, all things considered, the most reasonable course of action. But, of course, some people don't deliberate well, or value the wrong sorts of things, or have false beliefs, or suffer from weakness of will. In such cases it is surely possible that what one ought to do is not that which seems to one as reasonable. Although members of Opus Dei find it reasonable to torture themselves and to hunt academics, they ought not do so. They labor under a bevy of false metaphysical assumptions.

There are also times when the evidence seems overwhelming for something and other times when it seems very distant.

Yes, sometimes you simply don't have very much evidence. The best thing to do in such circumstances is to withold belief.

It is in these times when we need faith to hold on to truths we know to be true even though everything else seems to conspire to make it seem unlikely.

No. If you know P, then, minimally, you are justified in believing that P. But it is a necessary condition on being justified in believing that P that you don't have cognitive access to evidence for the falsity of P that, when all the evidence relating to P is considered, makes P unlikely.

There is also the issue of what appears convincing evidence to one may not be to another.

Yes, so? Sometimes people believe P despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sometimes people believe P despite the complete absence of evidence for P. Sometimes people mistakenly take E as evidence for P. Sometimes people correctly take E as evidence for P, but then believe P solely on the basis of E even though E, by itself, carries very little evidentiary weight.

The moral: People aren't always rational.

CS LEWIS said that every Christian has to accept there will be times when God seems quite unlikely and that every atheist will have times when God seems likely.

C.S. Lewis should have stuck to writing children's novels.

Without faith we can have our beliefs blown about like the wind by our moods , events etc

And, again, if 'faith' simply means inductive or abductive belief, then I completely agree. If you take it to mean anything more than this, then I disagree that the remainder is necessary for having a relatively stable set of beliefs.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm working on earthing an interesting one in the Age of the Universe thread. So far, KellyJ appears to believe that humans were designed to both reproduce and live forever. Any inconsistency that fails to acknowledge the implications of finite resources coupled with infinite exponential growth is an interesting one.

You don't think the God who created the universe and started the
process can at will, deal with the issues that would arise?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Do you not think that there are times when what 'seems' reasonable at the time is not the thing that ought to be followed.

I overwhelmingly believe just those propositions that I take myself to have good reasons for, and to perform those actions that I take to be reasonable (all things considered). In general, I think people ought to do that which ...[text shortened]... disagree that the remainder is necessary for having a relatively stable set of beliefs.[/b]

So what do you think about the idea of faith as experiment in the sense of using faith to find something out or test a hypothesis. For example , Jesus makes an offer or promise and we either respond or don't respond. I have yet to hear an Atheist say " I knocked on the door on it didn't open and I sought and I didn't find , I genuinely dared God to do something in my life and he did nothing" ...it's usually a case of "why should I have faith , I need proof first , I won't give it a go until I know it's true" Whatever happened to giving it a go IN ORDER to find out if there's anything in it? The proof is in the pudding.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't think the God who created the universe and started the
process can at will, deal with the issues that would arise?
Kelly

But this is ridiculous epistemology.

Not everything that is within God's power will be in accord with his will.

It would also be in within God's power to make your car ascend and fly at 800 miles per hour, but you don't rely on this when planning how long it will take you drive across the country. Or do you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what do you think about the idea of faith as experiment in the sense of using faith to find something out or test a hypothesis. For example , Jesus makes an offer or promise and we either respond or don't respond. I have yet to hear an Atheist say " I knocked on the door on it didn't open and I sought and I didn't find , I genuinely dared God to do ...[text shortened]... it a go IN ORDER to find out if there's anything in it? The proof is in the pudding.

O.K., I hereby dare God to reveal himself in my life. I'm going to pray tonight that he show himself tomorrow. Tomorrow I'll get up early and go to bed late so as to maximize the amount of time God has to show himself.

What should I look for?

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., I hereby dare God to reveal himself in my life. I'm going to pray tonight that he show himself tomorrow. Tomorrow I'll get up early and go to bed late so as to maximize the amount of time God has to show himself.

What should I look for?

What should I look for?

Only you could possibly answer that question in truth.