Question about "faith"

[John 6IX Breezy]

Do you even know what 'faith' is? I'm asking sincerely, since you seem to be having a non-cognitivist stance on it.

To the contrary, I think it is primarily cognitive. Faith/Trust requires the processing and appraisal of information to execute. I think anyone that says faith is primarily a feeling is reaching really deep into their pockets to make stuff up.

[Sal]

Do you even know what 'faith' is? I'm asking sincerely, since you seem to be having a non-cognitivist stance on it.

To the contrary, I think it is primarily cognitive. Faith/Trust requires the processing and appraisal of information to execute. I think anyone that says faith is primarily a feeling is reaching really deep into their pockets to make stuff up.

uh-huh.

How would you know if "processing and appraisal of information" was correct? What comparisons between pieces of knowledge would you need, to determine via faith that it was correct?

Given this, what does faith do that reason, where applicable, does not?

---

Epistemically, faith for me has no mechanism for correction when I'm wrong. Reason, and the mechanism behind second-guessing, to doubt, does that.

Or are you using some esoteric usage of the word 'faith' in line with a priori claims?

[tackattack]

Like your apriori assumptions that all faith is unreasonable? It’s clear you feel reason and faith are clearly two separate things. Why are they mutually exclusive? Why does your definition of faith not have a check and balance system? Why couldn’t reason be the very mechanism by which faith can correct itself, thus having a reasonable faith? The answer is found in your biases that religious faith has to be irrational to support your claims.

[Abaddon_ire]

My mood would not enter into the picture.

I don't need my mood to indicate whether my wife loves me or not. I have LOADS of evidence that she does....

Exactly; your mood shouldn't enter the picture. Yet, since it will, given that we are affective creatures and there is a vast literature on how emotions interact with decisions, faith is trusting your wife's love even on days when emotions interfere with your ability to see that fact.

Emotions are an important part of cognition in individuals with a functional vmPFC. If you personally are detached from emotions and are not affected by them, you could hopefully still understand how this isn't the case for individuals with anxiety or depression. Faith is trusting that the sun will rise tomorrow, even when your emotions feel like the world is ending tonight.

All you are doing, is listing what you believe. If only any theist could explain, with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic, WHY they believe it.

Correct again; faith is not a method of proving God's existence. If you keep attempting to use faith in that context it no longer applies. Faith is trusting a God you already believe exists; faith is idependent of whatever reasons, evidence, or logic you built your belief of God on.

Again, Hebrews 11:1 seems to disagree with you.

If faith has nothing to do with evidence, knowledge or beliefs, it is useless. Because, with regards to existential claims, those things are what really matter.

Just replace the word "faith" with "trust" in Hebrews 11:1 if you have difficulty understanding the verse.

So now, the bible is NOT the holy word of some god and you can substitute any words you like for any other word whenever you "feel" like it.

And you see no problem with that?

[Sal]

Like your apriori assumptions that all faith is unreasonable? It’s clear you feel reason and faith are clearly two separate things. Why are they mutually exclusive? Why does your definition of faith not have a check and balance system?  Why couldn’t reason be the very mechanism by which faith can correct itself, thus having a reasonable faith? The answer is found in your biases that religious faith has to be irrational to support your claims.

Language, at best, is a cipher.

You seem to imply there is some overlap between faith and reason, and that they can influence one another. I'm unconvinced there is. I think that they, in effect, each offer two disparate ways of explaining phenomena, e.g. during thunderstorms it is Zeus throwing lightning bolts as an explanation, compared to one that tries to levy facts about the phenomena (when there are thunderstorms, what conditions are required for thunder, weather patterns, etc.) and try to model that phenomena with whatever knowledge we have about it, which I think is an actual explanation.

Which camp do you think faith is in? (not necessarily the example I gave above).

I think faith and reason are incompatible. If someone applied reason to make correction to their faith, they wouldn't have faith to begin with. They might use the word 'faith' for explaining phenomena, when they actually used their ability to reason to explain their 'faith' first, mental compartmentalization notwithstanding.

At the end of the day, it's about which explanation works and makes us better in understanding reality and our surroundings. While some seem to think that faith is above all that. Again, what does faith do, which is reason (might) not do?

---

Why do you think there are so many god hypotheses abound in human history? They can't all be correct, especially for those that contradict each other.

[Rahn127]

What information are you appraising when you assess whether or not something exists ?

[John 6IX Breezy]

What information are you appraising when you assess whether or not something exists ?

You mean what information are you appraising when you have faith/trust in someone?

[Fake Messiah]

The issue I think you're having is attempting to view a religious topic from an atheist perspective. No Christian ever says "I have faith that Jesus walked on water" unless they are talking to an atheist. Christians by definition already believe God exists and that Jesus walked on water.

It's not just from an atheist perspective, as I tried to explain, but you seem to ignore it.

Just like you would dismiss a faithful Buddhist claiming that Dalai Lama reincarnates as pretending to know things he doesn’t know, that's how it is with an atheist and your faith claim about Jesus walking on water.

[Silver]

The issue I think you're having is attempting to view a religious topic from an atheist perspective.

The issue is actually theists being incapable of separating faith from knowledge. Faith is not knowledge that god exists, because if such knowledge existed then there would be ample evidence available to prove god's existence as real. As it is, faith is merely a belief not based on proof, and faith in god is precisely what theists have. They can falsely claim to know that god exists, but in the end they are always confusing their faith for knowledge that they have deluded themselves into possessing.

[GrandizerII]

They can falsely claim to know that god exists, but in the end they are always confusing their faith for knowledge that they have deluded themselves into possessing.

I think you're meant to emphasize "claim" here, not "know".