Originally posted by finnegan
You are equating the concepts "faith" and "belief" in a way that is certainly adopted in places like Wikipedia and online dictionaries pulled up by Google, so it is not wrong as such. However, the differences are in reality very significant and historically important. There are good reasons to distinguish the two terms. Indeed, my argument above is based on my objection to people failing to make that distinction.

No I am not equating the concepts of faith and belief.

I am saying that one meaning of the word faith, is that of a method of forming/holding onto, and
defending a belief.

If I was equating belief and faith then I would be quite literally saying that belief and faith mean
the same thing, which they do not, and is not what I am saying.

Faith, or "Blind Faith", belief without and despite of contradictory evidence, is what all theists
[among others] are doing. And beliefs based on faith and that require faith to hold onto them, instead
of being based on reason and evidence, are dangerous and irrational.

This meaning of the word faith is what it is I am most opposed to.

The 'action' of forming and maintaining belief against all evidence and reason to the contrary.

Faith and belief do not under this definition mean even remotely the same thing.

Originally posted by finnegan
So you agree that faith and belief are different concepts doing different jobs, which was my point.

(Sorry Googlefudge - this edit took longer than your response to the original very brief post)

A modern philosopher remarks in a lecture that it is impossible for an atheist to refute a religious believer by arguing from factual evidence, because each g ...[text shortened]... fusion. This is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief hiding behind appeals to faith.

Ah, Spotted your edit...

However, what I find tiresome is the technique of appealing to faith as a defence for beliefs systems which are not based on faith at all, but based on very human and earthly forms of reasoning or (more often) rhetoric. My ground for this objection is that people of faith can and do disagree on their interpretation of their beliefs. To take a concrete example again, I would observe that many Christians, Muslims and Jews object to fundamentalist misreadings of the relevant scriptures based on literalism, which all religions consistently have pointed out can only lead to error and confusion. This is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief hiding behind appeals to faith.

I think we are also using different meanings for the word belief.

Belief is [in my usage of it] the [mental] act of being convinced [to varying degrees of certainty] that a proposition is true.

As such a belief that there is a god is no different than a belief that gravity exists. In the sense that a person is doing the
same mental thing when they say "I believe" that "god exists" or "gravity works". They are saying that they have a conviction
that that proposition is true.

What matters is not the belief but how you formulate and justify that belief.

And in this, FAITH is what their beliefs always come down to.

Now I agree that these beliefs were not formed by faith, because fundamentally you cannot actually in practice form beliefs
based on faith because faith has absolutely no mechanism at all for creating a coherent belief in the first place.
You form beliefs about things based on your personal experience, things you observe/read/get told/ect, and the
connections you brain makes between these things.

But this is true of any and all beliefs, how we come to believe something is [sadly] not a concious process, and all justifications
for our beliefs are in effect 'post hoc' rationalisations for your beliefs.

Now not all 'post hoc' rationalisations are created equal. If your rationalisation is actually logically valid and supported by
evidence then you are fine. If it isn't, and you can't find or make a rational argument supported by evidence to support
your belief/s then that is the sign that you need to change/ditch those beliefs. [which can be painful]

Faith, is the process of deciding to believe something, and keep defending that belief, without any rational or evidential
justification for doing so. It's saying "I am going to keep believing this thing that I believe no matter what evidence or argument
comes my way".

Now you object to people claiming to believe based on faith things that they actually believe based on something else.

I go in the completely opposite direction.

I object to people claiming to have evidence and reason for believing things that in the end they actually believe based on faith.


For example, RJHinds will come up with all sorts of pieces of ""evidence"" [extra quotation marks required] to bolster his position.
But fundamentally [and he has admitted this in the past] none of those so called bits of ""evidence"" are actually why he believes
and even if I/we/somebody were to disprove all of them to his satisfaction, he would STILL believe what he currently believes
about god.

What I thus find disingenuous is people claiming all these bits of evidence, and getting us to spend so much time trying to
disprove these bits of evidence, when they do not in fact believe based on that evidence and will not change their beliefs
even if we successfully refute their ""evidence"".

They, at root, believe based on faith. Based on the desire to keep believing this thing that they feel they need to believe.

Having bits of supposed ""evidence"", including 'personal experiences of god [or whatever]' might help as mental crutches
and make them feel happier and increase their feeling of being right. [which is why it's still actually worthwhile to refute these
evidences] But at the end of the day they have no evidence, they have no rational justification.

They just have [blind] faith.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As I said. the word faith has many different meanings.

And both of you are committing equivocation fallacies by using multiple different meanings
without clarifying which one you are talking about.

The meaning I use, which I consider to be the most appropriate for these discussions,
is faith as a description of the nature of that belief and the ...[text shortened]... lso sometimes written as blind faith.
Believing without evidence or justification for doing so.

The blind faith I object to is the kind that allows someone to believe, or say they believe, that some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings.

To accept that a frog over millions of years became a prince is blind faith in a fairy tale and not really science. Therefore, the theory of evolution is actually a fairy tale that requires blind faith to believe.

The theory of evolution and billions of years of pre-history is dangerous and irrational. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds

The theory of evolution and billions of years of pre-history is dangerous and irrational.

[my bolding]

I find it quite comforting that God chose some to be sons of God before the foundation of the world (Eph.1:5) . And no manner of length of time changed that.

That's astounding and wonderful how God would not forget even if billions of years were involved. Don't you think so?

"Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love. Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."

Are you afraid that more than 6,000 years might have dampened God's desire to fulfill this predestination? Do you think more time lessens the faithfulness of God ?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah, Spotted your edit...

Now you object to people claiming to believe based on faith things that they actually believe based on something else.

I go in the completely opposite direction.

I object to people claiming to have evidence and reason for believing things that in the end they actually believe based on faith.

For example, RJHinds wi ...[text shortened]... , he would STILL believe what he currently believes about god.

They just have [blind] faith.

I like the way you capture and summarise our difference of emphasis. I am not arguing against you. Or not directly. I am taking a different approach though and maybe for different objectives.

Firstly, what RJH presents as evidence is a special case really and may not be representative of religious thinking generally. He certainly does associate himself with a virulent strain of American religious fundamentalism that is surprisingly cheerful about lying and distortion. His heavy usage of YouTube videos produced by seedy bigots is obviously going to blow up in his face routinely when people take the trouble to critically challenge their content. He clearly does not care too much. The material is having its desired effects and if it enrages atheists, all the better.

It is because he does employ such materials and methods that I wished to argue that his beliefs (defined as the list of things he claims to believe, not the process of believing) are not the product of religious faith but the product of seriously flawed reasoning, if there is indeed any reasoning to be found.

I also suggest that there are reasonable people of faith who would deplore RJH's methods without feeling in any way that they compromise their faith by so doing. Indeed I am surprised and irritated when believers on this forum fail to disassociate their views from his. However, I do recognise that this is partly because they do not wish to give comfort to radical atheists who, they may feel, are utterly antagonistic anyway to their faith. So the forum splits into unreasoning rival camps whose members throw metaphorical rocks at each other.

I think you are wrong to allege that religious thinking lacks rational reasoning. It obviously falls foul of the scientific method but rationalism is very much a part of religion. Christianity is described by Nietzsche as "Plato for the masses." One explanation of this aphorism snatched from the net is this: "Platonism is a point of view .. which [includes the belief] that the world can be perfect (the perfect forms of imperfect things), and Christianity is a point of view in which there are perfect beings and ideas (the Lord and holiness)." (It'll do here). Not only is Christianity rational but, as Nietzsche demonstrated, that is precisely what is most wrong about it, because it negates the value of humanity and the material world. Plato's project was, in fact, intrinsically religious. He developed the idea of the higher reality of forms in order to escape the inevitable transience of the material world - in other words, he wanted immortality. So it is no surprise to learn that Judaism was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy after Alexander the Great, nor that Christianity absorbed Platonic thinking wholesale (In the beginning was the word and the word was a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one) while, from the Middle Ages on, Aristotle's reasoning has been a favoured tool of theologians like (the Jew) Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed) and Thomas Aquinas. Complaining that religion is not "rational" is just not a valid complaint. It is deeply rational.

What happens with faith is that an initial commitment is made, a decision to accept scripture as the direct word of God, and only then the believer (who as you say, believes because of faith, not because of scientifically valid evidence) sets about the long (and almost certainly never completed) task of interpretation which yields the list of beliefs and practices described as religion. That process of interpretation is usually entirely rational. It just builds on religious assumptions that you and atheists generally would not accept.

That experience of faith has been described in many cultures and different times in history. More importantly, it has been described in many religions. The subjective experience in itself is totally convincing and will not be refuted by argument. But the ways in which that experience is then interpreted, the specific scriptures chosen as a guide to subsequent belief and the way that is interpreted, all of these things are socially determined. The process by which a believer elaborates and interprets their religion is capable of the very highest levels of rational thinking and critical reasoning, even though it takes place entirely within a sealed and closed space that is not penetrated by scientific refutation. (Chess is sophisticated and complex despite operating within very narrow confines.) That does not mean one cannot argue against religious beliefs, It does mean the argument has to conform to religious thinking in order to be effective. That is not terribly useful for an argument over the existence of God for example, but it is perfectly workable when challenging deviant interpretations of scripture, such as creationism or literalism or fundamentalism.

So where does that leave our debate? You cannot reason with faith. It is a fundamental decision and entirely subjective. A believer will then apply whatever reasoning skills they possess to the interpretation of their religious scriptures, but unless you engage on their own terms then your arguments will simply pass them by.

Originally posted by sonship

The theory of evolution [b]and billions of years of pre-history is dangerous and irrational.

[my bolding]

I find it quite comforting that God chose some to be sons of God before the foundation of the world (Eph.1:5) . And no manner of length of time changed that.

That's astounding and wonderful how God would not forget ...[text shortened]... desire to fulfill this predestination? Do you think more time lessens the faithfulness of God ?[/b]

Before the foundation of the world is not restricted by time that began at the beginning of the creation of the earth and light on the first day. There was no such thing as length of time before that. Therefore your first question seems irrelevant.

Certainly I do not expect time or anything else to dampen God's desire to fulfil His purposes or lessens the faithfulness of His promises.

I find it quite comforting that God chose not to support the theory of evolution by allowing for billions of years of pre-history of sin and death.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Before the foundation of the world is not restricted by time that began at the beginning of the creation of the earth and light on the first day. There was no such thing as length of time before that. Therefore your first question seems irrelevant.

Certainly I do not expect time or anything else to dampen God's desire to fulfil His purposes or lessens the ...[text shortened]... pport the theory of evolution by allowing for billions of years of pre-history of sin and death.

So in these billions of years of pre history, before humans evolved, before Earth was formed, who would have done the sinning and before life started on Earth, who would have done the dying?

Originally posted by finnegan
So in these billions of years of pre history, before humans evolved, before Earth was formed, who would have done the sinning and before life started on Earth, who would have done the dying?

You will need to ask sonship on that for he keeps changing his story as he goes along and he may no longer support a pre-Adamic world with imaginary animals and other creatures that could have sinned and died. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You will need to ask sonship on that for he keeps changing his story as he goes along and he may no longer support a pre-Adamic world with imaginary animals and other creatures that could have sinned and died. 😏

The hypothetical scenario referred to was all of your own making:

I find it quite comforting that God chose not to support the theory of evolution by allowing for billions of years of pre-history of sin and death.

and your answer to my question seems to be in your phrase

a pre-Adamic world with imaginary animals and other creatures that could have sinned and died.

It is interesting that you consider non human creatures capable of sin. I wonder are they capable of suffering guilt and are these dumb creatures punished by a punitive God, perhaps for their own benefit. I have yet to think out how non living things prior to life on earth might come to die. We do talk about the death of stars and the like, but that is really a metaphorical use of the term. I am not sure it counts here.

You open up a whole new vista to explore here on Spirituality.

Originally posted by finnegan
The hypothetical scenario referred to was all of your own making:

I find it quite comforting that God chose not to support the theory of evolution by allowing for billions of years of pre-history of sin and death.

and your answer to my question seems to be in your phrase [quote]a pre-Adamic world with imaginary animals and other creatures th ...[text shortened]... I am not sure it counts here.

You open up a whole new vista to explore here on Spirituality.

That is not my belief. Therefore, I cannot answer your questions. That is why I referred you to sonship, since he is the one that believes in the Gap Theory and other such nonsense. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not my belief. Therefore, I cannot answer your questions. That is why I referred you to sonship, since he is the one that believes in the Gap Theory and other such nonsense. 😏

Come sir it is blatantly obvious, even to my goldfish, that you have a monopoly on nonsense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not my belief. Therefore, I cannot answer your questions. That is why I referred you to sonship, since he is the one that believes in the Gap Theory and other such nonsense. 😏

Well it was your proposition that I picked on here and you effectively made the hypothetical proposal that, if (hypothetically and as others believe) life and the universe had a history of billions of years, then in your terms that would have presented additional opportunities for sin and death. For that reason you were pleased ("comforted" I think it was) that in your opinion there was no such extended prehistory.

Your comment only makes sense at all if it is based on the belief that the long history prescribed in the theory of Evolution and the materialist cosmology of the Big Bang would, if it were real, have presented opportunities for sin and death. Without that belief, your remark makes no sense at all. For that reason, I invited you to justify your proposition.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well it was your proposition that I picked on here and you effectively made the hypothetical proposal that, if (hypothetically and as others believe) life and the universe had a history of billions of years, then in your terms that would have presented additional opportunities for sin and death. For that reason you were pleased ("comforted" I think it was) ...[text shortened]... your remark makes no sense at all. For that reason, I invited you to justify your proposition.

Yes, you got that last part right. If there were billions of years between Genesis 1: and 1:2, then there would be time for God to create a pre-Adam civilization that was judged for sin and destroyed as sonship believes or time for the possibility of the theory of evolution to magically produce animals and apes that eventually evolved into man with death a constant occurrence.

[i]Originally posted by RJHinds[i]
Yes, you got that last part right. If there were billions of years between Genesis 1: and 1:2, then there would be time for God to create a pre-Adam civilization that was judged for sin and destroyed as sonship believes or time for the possibility of the theory of evolution to magically produce animals and apes that eventually evolved into man with death a constant occurrence.

Right so then you do need to have humans in order to permit sin and you do need life in order to permit death. So in the hypothetical case that you were wrong (heaven forfend) and Science was right, then that would not entail magical animals (with which Science could have no patience) and nor would it entail prehistoric civilisations prior to the evolution of humanity (for blindingly obvious reasons), and there would not arise any opportunity for additional sinfulness and its like because there would be no sinners to hand. So your comment is not really valid, is it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The blind faith I object to is the kind that allows someone to believe, or say they believe, that some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings.

To accept that a frog over millions of years became a prince is blind faith in a fairy tale and not really science. Therefore, the theory of evolution is actually a fai ...[text shortened]...

The theory of evolution and billions of years of pre-history is dangerous and irrational. 😏

...some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings...

This nonsensical statement highlights how breathtakingly ignorant you are of the science you are attempting to argue against. It is axiomatic in intelligent discussion that one should at least have a basic grounding in one's opponent's position.