Theists, what does faith mean to you?

[Catholic_Lady]

---

(my bold)

---

But I don't need other people telling me that he does to know he does. It's not like I wouldn't know it unless others had told me. If we were the only 2 people on earth, and there was no one else to "affirm" that he loves me, I would still have just as much faith that he does.

...

The point is that you can tell that your husband loves you from the same things that other people could use to determine that he loves you, by seeing his actions.  That is, there is actual, real evidence that he loves you.  Anyone who is present can see how he treats you.  It is not something hidden or mysterious or nonexistent.  It is real behaviors that anyone could see if they were in the right place at the right time.  You judge that he loves you based on such things, that other people could see if they were present.  And, if it were needed (though it hardly matters whether anyone else believes he loves you or not), you could point to his behaviors and thus provide evidence of his love.  It is not a matter of blind faith, it is a matter about which you have evidence.  That is what distinguishes the example of your husband's love for you from the case regarding the existence of God.  You don't have anything real to show for God, but you do have real things to point to for your husband's love.

I guess I just don't agree that personal evidence I can't necessarily show to anyone else, shouldn't count as evidence to me.

Nonetheless, there are things I could say to other people... things that have happened to me, etc, but people could easily not believe what I tell them, or not think they mean anything. They'd still walk away not believing in God. And I wouldn't blame them. There's no way I can show people my entire life and all my thoughts and all my experiences, which all contribute to why I believe what I believe.

Likewise, it's my entire experience with my husband that makes me believe he loves me. If someone asked me how I knew he did, I could say things like "well.... he respects me." or "He bought me flowers" or "he sacrificed something really big so that my life could be better."

... but those are still not a full account by any means, and describing a full account of an entire experience would be impossible. A skeptic of love and marriage can just as easily say those things don't mean anything, and that other people's husbands have done the same thing and then cheated on them and left them, etc. You'd have to literally be in my shoes.

[Simon Moon]

Here's one of  the problems with your analogy about your husband loving you.

Most outsiders would probably be able to tell that your husband loves you. We would most likely see: him showing you affection, treating you with respect, taking you out, sharing child rearing, taking care of you when you are sick and much more. 

There is demonstrable evidence that he loves you.  

No such similar types of evidence is demonstrable for the faith you have for your god. All we have is your word that you have had some sort of experience. That tells us nothing more. 

And more importantly, it should cause you to question why there isn't the same kind of evidence for your god, as that of  your husband's love. Especially given the errors and faulty perceptions the human mind is known to produce.

It seems to me you are using 2 different definitions for the word 'faith'.

(my bold)

But I don't need other people telling me that he does to know he does. It's not like I wouldn't know it unless others had told me. If we were the only 2 people on earth, and there was no one else to "affirm" that he loves me, I would still have just as much faith that he does.

You are correct that it would be much easier to show someone else evidence that my husband loves me than it would to show someone else evidence that God exists. It's something they kind of have to experience for themselves to a certain extent.  But the question wasn't about being able to prove my faith to others, the question was about what faith meant for me and why I believe what I do.  

Although when you say this: "No such similar types of evidence is demonstrable for the faith you have for your god." It's not really true, considering there are many other Christian people in the world who can attest for the same thing.

[Bolding mine]

Yes, and there are 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.1 billion Hindus that have the same kind of faith in the existence of their gods that you have for yours. They have personal experiences with their gods, their gods are said to have performed miracles, etc.

You could be able to observe a loving Hindu couple, and be able to tell that the husband loves his wife because of the same kinds of behavior your husband exhibits toward you.

Yet, you would observe the faith they have in their gods and see no evidence for their gods existence. Their personal experiences would be completely unconvincing to you. You would still walk away not believing in their gods.

I'm not sure why you are unable to see the difference in the way you are using the word 'faith' for you husband's love and the existence of your god?

[Catholic_Lady]

But yes, asking what I'd be like if I wasn't Christian would be the same as asking me what I'd be like if I wasn't female. It's that much a part of who I am.

Well it sure is handy for peeing in the woods.  Of course you don't get to go through child birth or menopause or menstruation.

I agree with you that the word "faith" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion.

What I really mean by that is that I think there is more to each one of us than that which is under our direct control, and, I think that part helps me out quite a bit.  There is life apart from calculation.

Hahahahaha!!!!!

...And on a serious note, yes, I agree with that second part, and that was my thinking as well.

[Whateverist]

Yes, and there are 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.1 billion Hindus that have the same kind of faith in the existence of their gods. They have personal experiences, their gods are said to have performed miracles, etc.

That is a good deal of the charm in this believer, she doesn't insist that everyone who beleives differently is mistaken.  They're just not doing it the way that works for her.  I wonder if she'll be able to hang on to this quality over time.  Hopefully.

[Pyrrho]

The point is that you can tell that your husband loves you from the same things that other people could use to determine that he loves you, by seeing his actions.  That is, there is actual, real evidence that he loves you.  Anyone who is present can see how he treats you.  It is not something hidden or mysterious or nonexistent.  It is real behaviors that anyone could see if they were in the right place at the right time.  You judge that he loves you based on such things, that other people could see if they were present.  And, if it were needed (though it hardly matters whether anyone else believes he loves you or not), you could point to his behaviors and thus provide evidence of his love.  It is not a matter of blind faith, it is a matter about which you have evidence.  That is what distinguishes the example of your husband's love for you from the case regarding the existence of God.  You don't have anything real to show for God, but you do have real things to point to for your husband's love.

While you are right Pyrrho, I think her counter point would be just as valid.  You don't personally know CL outside of this forum.  her husband dies and she makes the claim that her husband loved her.  Can you accept her claim?  Do you think she has reasonable reasons to make the claim?  It's kind of a rough analogy, but it certainly has some merit, IMO.

You are right, I do not know her.  So it may well be that her husband does not really love her.  For all I know, she has no husband.  She may not even be a woman, either, as I have never seen her.  One can make up almost anything online.

That said, I have no reason to suppose that she is making any of that up.  There is nothing extraordinary about the claim that she is a woman and is married and her husband loves her.  It is all perfectly ordinary, and so one tends to just take someone's word for such things.  Of course, if it were a matter of particular importance to me one way or another, I would want to look into the matter to see the evidence for myself.  But it is of no importance to me to do so.  So, as a matter of polite policy, one pretends that such things are true, even though none of us really know it at all, as we have not seen the evidence.  All we have is her word on it.

This is following the general rule that how unusual a claim is determines how much evidence one generally requires for it.  If she were to claim something surprising, like that she is Michele Obama, then we would naturally be a bit more skeptical of her claim.  Of course, there is nothing stopping Michele Obama from posting here and pretending to be a white woman who is a Catholic, so we could not be certain that she was not Michele Obama.  But probably none of us would seriously believe her if she made such a claim without providing any evidence.  At least, none of the reasonable ones would believe such a story without some evidence beyond her mere claim to be Michele Obama.

The case would be even greater if she were to claim something impossible.  Like if she claimed to be the Roman Emperor Claudius, who has returned to life and is now posting here.  Then we (at least the reasonable ones) would simply not believe her, and regard her story as false.


None of this makes her claim that her husband loves her anything like the claim that God exists and Catholicism is true.  We know that people commonly do have husbands and we know that there is commonly evidence regarding the husband's feelings toward his spouse. So it is very likely that, if she is really a woman and married and believes her husband loves her, that there is actual evidence of his love for her.  Of course, I have not seen it in this particular case, but I have seen evidence of a like nature, and so I know it is at least very possible that her husband loves her, and that she had good reason to believe that her husband loves her.

That greatly contrasts with the God situation.  No one has ever put forth good evidence on that.  What we have are a bunch of fallacious arguments, slipshod and falsified evidence, and we have that for contradictory religions.  And being contradictory, we know that, at most, one religion is true, though obviously they can all be false (which, in fact, is what is most reasonable to believe, but I digress).  So we don't have any examples of anyone having good reason to believe in a god or religion, so we have good reason to believe that anyone who claims to have such evidence is mistaken or lying.  (Most of the time, I suspect that the person is mistaken, though there have been plenty of religious frauds that have been detected, too.)

In this specific case, the types of evidence that were mentioned for the god belief are exactly the same types of evidence that every other religion has in its favor.  And since we know absolutely that they cannot all be true, we know the evidence is not good enough, and cannot be good enough.  So, regardless of the situation with her husband, we know that there is not adequate evidence for the god claim.

[Catholic_Lady]

I just want to make a quick note here to thank everyone for being respectful and civil throughout this discussion thus far. I really appreciate it.

[Simon Moon]

Yes, and there are 1.5 billion Muslims and 1.1 billion Hindus that have the same kind of faith in the existence of their gods. They have personal experiences, their gods are said to have performed miracles, etc.

That is a good deal of the charm in this believer, she doesn't insist that everyone who beleives differently is mistaken.  They're just not doing it the way that works for her.  I wonder if she'll be able to hang on to this quality over time.  Hopefully.

I know. Despite the mutual exclusivity of the various god beliefs, I appreciate the way she is able to rationalize other believer's mistaking (according to the Bible) beliefs.

My only problem in this discussion is the 2 different ways she is using the word 'faith' to equivocate her husband's love for her, and the existence of her god.

[Kingpin]

That is a good deal of the charm in this believer, she doesn't insist that everyone who beleives differently is mistaken.  They're just not doing it the way that works for her.  I wonder if she'll be able to hang on to this quality over time.  Hopefully.

I know. Despite the mutual exclusivity of the various god beliefs, I appreciate the way she is able to rationalize other believer's mistaking (according to the Bible) beliefs.

My only problem in this discussion is the 2 different ways she is using the word 'faith' to equivocate her husband's love for her, and the existence of her god.

Actually she is using the word in the same way but you are assuming different definition as you don't feel "faith in my husband" can mean the same as "faith in God".

[Pyrrho]

I know. Despite the mutual exclusivity of the various god beliefs, I appreciate the way she is able to rationalize other believer's mistaking (according to the Bible) beliefs.

My only problem in this discussion is the 2 different ways she is using the word 'faith' to equivocate her husband's love for her, and the existence of her god.

Actually she is using the word in the same way but you are assuming  different definition as you don't feel "faith in my husband" can mean the same as "faith in God".

She may trust them both and mean by that "faith," but her belief that each of them exists is entirely different from each other.  For the one, there is evidence, but not for the other.  She is playing a game with the word "faith," pretending that a case with good evidence is the same as a case without evidence.

[Catholic_Lady]

Actually she is using the word in the same way but you are assuming  different definition as you don't feel "faith in my husband" can mean the same as "faith in God".

She may trust them both and mean by that "faith," but her belief that each of them exists is entirely different from each other.  For the one, there is evidence, but not for the other.  She is playing a game with the word "faith," pretending that a case with good evidence is the same as a case without evidence.

With all respect, but who are you to say what can and cannot be evidence for me?