Going back to the question "Why is faith important?" Because it is the only way someone can believe something with no evidence that is completely irrational and illogical

(March 4, 2013 at 9:30 am)sparky Wrote: Going back to the question "Why is faith important?" Because it is the only way someone can believe something with no evidence that is completely irrational and illogical

Like praise, perpetual identity, right and wrong, existence of other humans and life, value of life....none of these have "evidence" either scientifically or philosophically but I think most humans will agree they are rational.

Also the way I like to look at it, is that it's a mistake, faith in religion, but it's not baseless. It's mistake motivated by a lot of factors, but no one can simply believe out of no reason at all.

There is something in the human mind that makes it seem like the religion is true, and that their experience of the holy texts or the philosophy of religion makes it true.

Is it completely illogical? Well I don't think so. I think their is partial reasoning in it.

It's like a person doing a math test. He may get an answer wrong but it's not necessarily all the steps he went through were wrong.

The math test comparison: I used to hat physics class with all of those equations. But if you get a wron answer, it [i]can[/be] be that you used completly wrong logic or thinking, that the beginning was wrong, or just the end is wrong. But in the end, it was wrong and is not something to build upon, but to learn from (if you can) and not do that again.

It takes faith, in the sense of trusting without knowing whether something is true, to understand science as a non-scientist. You must trust that you are receiving the correct ideas. It takes faith to learn a language. You must trust that the concepts you are learning are meaningful and that the words that you use have some sort of validity.

It takes faith to learn about anything.

So it takes faith, in the sense of trusting without knowing whether something is true, to understand religion. But religion can be verified, it is possible to know that God exists. When you seek God and develop intimacy with God, you will know that God is real, God reveals God's ways. I do not ever doubt God's existence. It is not like the mental process that is going on in my head is similar to one in which you are trusting an authority. It is more like one in which you know something very clearly because you have an absolutely clear series of experiences that prove conclusively that what you are seeking is real.

I know God is real and when people say I think God doesn't exist, I feel badly for them, because I know they are ignorant. I know that they don't really know that God doesn't exist, and I do know, because I have experience God. Science cannot prove God does not exist anymore than it can prove Jupiter doesn't exist, but maybe if people are arrogant enough they can prove to themselves that their reasoning and psychologizing about religion equates to real knowledge. It doesn't.

Faith is necessary, because God tests the heart, to see who wants to follow God. God doesn't want to just give people a test in which they make a purely reason-centered selfish choice for God, without any risk or testing the heart. He tests the heart to see who wants to follow God, and who will answer the call to be a moral person.

(March 4, 2013 at 10:59 pm)jstrodel Wrote: It takes faith, in the sense of trusting without knowing whether something is true, to understand science as a non-scientist. You must trust that you are receiving the correct ideas.

In the world of science, a "new discovery" is compiled into a journal and then chucked out into the world for the rest of scientists to tear it to pieces. If it doesn't and experiments reproduce the same observations and similar data, then guess what, you most likely have something reflecting reality. The same amount of "faith" goes into this as the faith I have that there's a computer in front of me, which can be verified by my different family members.

Quote: It takes faith to learn a language. You must trust that the concepts you are learning are meaningful and that the words that you use have some sort of validity.

Wrong. You can test the things you have learned by asking a native speaker e.g. "where's the toilet"? Their response and/or reaction will be the evidence you can then use to know if you indeed asked "where's the toilet"? No faith required whatsoever.

Quote:It takes faith to learn about anything.

This proposition is still just a baseless claim so far, except for when it comes to religion. Learning a particular theological construct about a given god requires faith, obviously.

Quote:So it takes faith, in the sense of trusting without knowing whether something is true, to understand religion. But religion can be verified, it is possible to know that God exists. When you seek God and develop intimacy with God, you will know that God is real, God reveals God's ways. I do not ever doubt God's existence. It is not like the mental process that is going on in my head is similar to one in which you are trusting an authority. It is more like one in which you know something very clearly because you have an absolutely clear series of experiences that prove conclusively that what you are seeking is real.

Said every religious person that ever lived. Warm, fuzzy feelings aren't proof of anything. Good for you that you feel that way, and only you.

Quote:I know God is real and when people say I think God doesn't exist, I feel badly for them, because I know they are ignorant. I know that they don't really know that God doesn't exist, and I do know, because I have experience God. Science cannot prove God does not exist anymore than it can prove Jupiter doesn't exist, but maybe if people are arrogant enough they can prove to themselves that their reasoning and psychologizing about religion equates to real knowledge. It doesn't.

Science isn't concerned with God's existence, but when your god's followers make a faith-based claim inspired by the Bible about the physical world, science usually bulldozes that claim to the ground.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." ~ Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615 during Galileo's trial.

Are you entirely sure that you're calling the right group ignorant, or do you simply know you're right through faith? Because that would be original...

Quote:Faith is necessary, because God tests the heart, to see who wants to follow God. God doesn't want to just give people a test in which they make a purely reason-centered selfish choice for God, without any risk or testing the heart. He tests the heart to see who wants to follow God, and who will answer the call to be a moral person.

But of course faith is required. Faith is the very reason why people at my Pentecostal church keep on praying for healing despite never getting results. I spent 6 years as a devout Christian there and not once did I see e.g. the girl with the crutches walk back to her seat without needing them. Faith is the snake oil salesman's greatest accomplice.

Quote:In the world of science, a "new discovery" is compiled into a journal and then chucked out into the world for the rest of scientists to tear it to pieces. If it doesn't and experiments reproduce the same observations and similar data, then guess what, you most likely have something reflecting reality. The same amount of "faith" goes into this as the faith I have that there's a computer in front of me, which can be verified by my different family members.

No, because you can't understand what is in those journals. You have to trust that someone else has had the experiences. The verification is only possible if you are a scientist. It is no different from following a religion

Quote:Wrong. You can test the things you have learned by asking a native speaker e.g. "where's the toilet"? Their response and/or reaction will be the evidence you can then use to know if you indeed asked "where's the toilet"? No faith required whatsoever.

If you are talking about complex social and cultural issues, when you talk you will have to trust the native speakers assessment of whether those things are good. Of course you can verify very simple things that you can see. But that is not really what it is like to learn a language, which involves becoming familiar with many concepts but yet not having any way to test them or know whether they are good or bad. It is very philosophical.

You do not have an open mind and you are just writing things to disprove what I am saying, without caring whether I am writing something accurate or not.

Quote:This proposition is still just a baseless claim so far, except for when it comes to religion. Learning a particular theological construct about a given god requires faith, obviously.

No, when you learn things, you never learn through verification. When you learn math, you don't learn math through doing proofs. You learn math through recitation. The same thing as learning almost anything. At a certain level you can learn through doing proofs and reading scientific journals themselves and repeating the experiments, but in general most learning is through the argument from authority.

Quote:Said every religious person that ever lived. Warm, fuzzy feelings aren't proof of anything. Good for you that you feel that way, and only you.

Why should I have to prove anything to you? What scientific concepts can you prove outside of a science lab? What can you prove in plain text, maybe there is some mathematical concepts, not much else.

Quote:Science isn't concerned with God's existence, but when your god's followers make a faith-based claim inspired by the Bible about the physical world, science usually bulldozes that claim to the ground.

Christians are responsible for a large part of the current scientific understanding of the world. Science arose in Western Christian Universities that were founded by people to train ministers. If you are talking about YEC, that is true that there is not much scientific evidence for that. But modern science owes its existence to God and the Christian world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

Quote:Are you entirely sure that you're calling the right group ignorant, or do you simply know you're right through faith? Because that would be original...

I know that I am right because I have seen so many miracles and have experienced so much in my walk with God. It is my relationship with God that guides me, made stronger by the things I have seen with my own eyes. Atheists are the ignorant ones.

Quote:But of course faith is required. Faith is the very reason why people at my Pentecostal church keep on praying for healing despite never getting results. I spent 6 years as a devout Christian there and not once did I see e.g. the girl with the crutches walk back to her seat without needing them. Faith is the snake oil salesman's greatest accomplice.

I am sorry to hear that. What was your level of commitment to the Christian church? Did you serve in ministry? Did you have sin in your life? Did you look at pornography or fornicate or abuse alcohol? Were you ready to give your life for Jesus Christ? I do not know why God hasn't appeared to you. I know that God is real, I have seen miracles, I have seen also people not getting healed also.

What was the thing that finally made you leave?

(March 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

Quote:In the world of science, a "new discovery" is compiled into a journal and then chucked out into the world for the rest of scientists to tear it to pieces. If it doesn't and experiments reproduce the same observations and similar data, then guess what, you most likely have something reflecting reality. The same amount of "faith" goes into this as the faith I have that there's a computer in front of me, which can be verified by my different family members.

No, because you can't understand what is in those journals. You have to trust that someone else has had the experiences. The verification is only possible if you are a scientist. It is no different from following a religion

You have no excuse in this day and age. If you seek knowledge in a particular area of science, then jump on the web and enlighten yourself. The difference here between science and religion is that with science you will find the solid justifications for things whereas with religion we get stuck at "just have faith" every time we ask to confirm something.

Quote:If you are talking about complex social and cultural issues, when you talk you will have to trust the native speakers assessment of whether those things are good. Of course you can verify very simple things that you can see. But that is not really what it is like to learn a language, which involves becoming familiar with many concepts but yet not having any way to test them or know whether they are good or bad. It is very philosophical.

What do you mean by "good & bad" here? Are we talking morally, or true/false?

Quote:You do not have an open mind and you are just writing things to disprove what I am saying, without caring whether I am writing something accurate or not.

HUH? The fact that I have evaluated your post and asked myself how accurate it is is what motivated me to respond to you. Isn't that how we all function in forums?!

Please think your thoughts through before wildly pinning something so nonsensical against someone.

Quote:No, when you learn things, you never learn through verification. When you learn math, you don't learn math through doing proofs. You learn math through recitation.

My year 12 calculus & geometry exam was about 30% pure mathematical proofs. I'm now studying engineering and I can't help but literally chuckle at this. Mathematics isn't something you recite in a ritual circle twice a day. It's something derived from pure reasoning that logically builds from foundational maxims. Proofs are the backbone of maths.

Quote:The same thing as learning almost anything. At a certain level you can learn through doing proofs and reading scientific journals themselves and repeating the experiments, but in general most learning is through the argument from authority.

Wrong. The evidence/proofs are out there. If you wish to enlighten yourself, then do so. We live in an age where information isn't bounded, it's everywhere and anywhere you look. Go find it yourself.

Quote:Why should I have to prove anything to you? What scientific concepts can you prove outside of a science lab? What can you prove in plain text, maybe there is some mathematical concepts, not much else.

I expect proof whenever someone says I should believe claim X. In this instance, you obviously are here to shine the light of "the anointed one" and therefore if you wish for me to believe you, I'll need the solid proofs of what you claim to be true.

Quote:Christians are responsible for a large part of the current scientific understanding of the world. Science arose in Western Christian Universities that were founded by people to train ministers. If you are talking about YEC, that is true that there is not much scientific evidence for that. But modern science owes its existence to God and the Christian world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

That's great, but so what? Does this all of a sudden mean Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead?

Quote:I know that I am right because I have seen so many miracles and have experienced so much in my walk with God. It is my relationship with God that guides me, made stronger by the things I have seen with my own eyes. Atheists are the ignorant ones.

Once again, that's good for you and only you. If you stepped back for once and analysed these "miracles", I'm confident that you would be able to see the reasonable explanations for what you have seen.

Quote:I am sorry to hear that. What was your level of commitment to the Christian church? Did you serve in ministry? Did you have sin in your life? Did you look at pornography or fornicate or abuse alcohol? Were you ready to give your life for Jesus Christ? I do not know why God hasn't appeared to you. I know that God is real, I have seen miracles, I have seen also people not getting healed also.

What was the thing that finally made you leave?

I was going to church 4 times a week; Bible study group, worship team practice, youth group & Sunday mass. So my particular commitments to the church was playing for the worship team & being part of the team that would welcome new people to youth group and genuinely build friendships with them. I'm absolutely sure that I gave my life to Jesus because I would actively be doing works to bring heaven to earth. Such actions wouldn't have sprung out from me if I didn't trust Jesus and his claims of who he said he was.

I have briefly explained what made me leave in the thread you recently started.

I believe that we are having a different discussion here. One is trying to show how one must have faith to live life day to day. The other is that faith, based on a dogma or from a religious context is unnecessary.

One who has faith that Jesus loves him and that despite the fact that his child is dying in his arms, his faith in that gets him through the pain with the faith that everything will turn out alright in the end. It is a comfort and something he finds important. For the athiest in the same predicament, he has the same pain, but without the story that God wants this to happen but will make it all better in some fantasy world. I believe that was the core of the initial discussion.

As far as having faith in the unknown, I set my alarm clock for 6:30AM. I have a belief that I will still have a job in the morning, that I will wake up when I hear the noise, and that my alarm clock will actually work, and that everything I need to leave the house will be available. There have been times when one or more of these have disproven my faith in either the Alarm Clock Company, my hearing, and so forth. Sometimes these things fail to work as expected. So I make corrections (buy a new alarm clock, ask one of the kids to make sure I am up before they go to school, or something). I adjust my life based on the earlier failures.

The difference between dogma-based faith and life-based faith, is that for dogma, there can never be the admittance that God failed, while in life-based, I can admit and even replace my alarm clock for failing. Faith due to a religious belief must never be weakened in order for one's identity to that faith to survive. I can curse out the Acme Alarm Clock company and not recommend them to anyone, and still use their product, while having backups, just in case. In religious based faith, I would be put to death for that in some cases.

So I think that we can abandon this entire misdirection to life needing faith, since there is no real equivilant. To use the foreign language example, if I find that the teacher has provided wrong information so that when you strike up a conversation, a local of that language laughs at you, you can go find another teacher with different and better skills. In Islam, if you decide that their teachings are just flat out wrong, and you want to quit, you are liable to the death penalty.

Secular use of faith and religious use are two distincly different ways of being.

(March 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm)jstrodel Wrote: No, because you can't understand what is in those journals. You have to trust that someone else has had the experiences. The verification is only possible if you are a scientist. It is no different from following a religion

I feel like I need to point this out: speak for yourself. All you can honestly say is that you cannot understand what is in those journals; depending on the field, I can understand it just fine.

But there's something more: if I wanted to, I could go out into the real world and replicate any experiments discussed in a journal piece, and get the same results. In fact, it's a safe bet that the professional scientists are doing exactly that, as part of the peer review process. If I wanted to study it, I could, and in doing so find that it is accurate.

This, of course, is a marked distinction from religion, which operates only within personal experiences that are completely unverifiable and impossible to replicate. What you're talking about isn't faith; it's trust. I have a reasonable level of trust in the publication and the scientists involved in the experiments, but I'm also honest enough to recognize when that trust is misplaced and an error has occurred, and when that happens I no longer count the results of that experiment as factual.

By contrast, religion has an attitude wherein it and its god are always right, all the time, with no possibility of correction or redaction. One learns and changes with the facts, the other demands that the facts change to suit its purposes. That's the difference.

The sooner you realise the above ^^^ the sooner you will begin your journey through deconversion without even knowing it.

Been there, done that.