Question about "faith"

[tackattack]

I reason from what I know of the definition of what a chair is and my experience with that chair that it will hold my weight if I were to sit in it. I also reason that from what I know of the definition of the Christian God is and my experience trusting in God that my life is better because of it. You're being disingenuous asking for physical evidence of the spiritual. Just because your materialist view adds requirements to your definition of faith doesn't mean I have the same hang ups. If you're being disingenuous and I'm a liar I guess we're just not going to get a lot accomplished hunh?

Atheists have faith in their memories, faith in your reason, faith in your senses, etc. You don't rationalize and reason every thought or action, no one does. If you want to define faith as "blind trust, in the absence of evidence or despite evidence" then go right ahead. I believe that is not the common Christian understanding of the work faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

The common christian understanding of a great many things doesn't reflect those things reality.

Look at all the arguments that christians have been giving for the mundanity of their faith as the kind of thing people have in chairs and hot dogs, in this thread, for example.

[Fake Messiah]

I also reason that from what I know of the definition of the Christian God is and my experience trusting in God that my life is better because of it. You're being disingenuous asking for physical evidence of the spiritual. Just because your materialist view adds requirements to your definition of faith doesn't mean I have the same hang ups.

Hey man, don't blame the atheists. You have the same "materialistic" stance towards Muslims who have faith that Muhammad is the last prophet, as well as when Buddhists claim that Dalai Lama reincarnates.

Your "reason" and experience is just a delusion. Just as when Laura Prepon says she feels much better going through Scientology rites.

[Sal]

Atheists have faith in their memories, faith in your reason, faith in your senses, etc. You don't rationalize and reason every thought or action, no one does.

I'm sure there are atheists who don't believe, for irrational reasons, non-cognitivist "reasons", emotional convictions, or simple irreligiosity (lack of belief in the supernatural due to no exposure or otherwise unaware of any theistic thought).


I can't speak for other atheists on this, because I don't know why they don't believe in a god. But I will say this, you're wrong about the faculties of the mind. Of the inflection in memory, reason & senses. Very wrong.

I don't have faith in my faculties precisely because they're prone to error. This is also the case for the mind itself. The possibility exists.

My usage of my faculties, as best I understand them, is probabilistic. The mind itself, consciousness, is probabilistic along the same pathway as its faculties. The mind has to be, because if it wasn't - it would be static - impossible for change to occur in the mind. It would be like to deny that entropy affects the brain's ability to function. This is esoteric, I know, but I don't conceive of consciousness any other way.

I accept the cognitive limits in my memory, which is why I record stuff I consider important I want to review later. I can forget & I can remember incorrectly. This has made me realize that the imperfection of memory excludes certainty. I can only trust, insofar I'm unable to detect otherwise like a recording would demonstrate, that my memory works sufficiently enough for my mind. Do you think that this realization of imperfection is the same as faith in my memory? If you do, we're talking past each other and no common ground in understanding is possible to be reached.

My cognitive ability to reason is likewise imperfect as my memory is. Even if I had all the relevant precise facts to base, on reasoning ability, a conclusion - I could still reach a wrong conclusion. I'm well aware of that, which is why I like consensus so much, insofar that the demonstration on the exact same relevant precise facts were known to others. If more people come to the same conclusion as I do upon their own reasoning ability of the same relevant precise facts, then I'm inclined to think that the conclusion is correct. Now, consensus on a conclusion doesn't mean certainty. We could very well all be wrong, regardless of consensus. Can you really say the same thing for faith, when the standard of faith has created thousands of denominations within Christianity itself? I personally think not, and this lack of consensus makes faith useless IMO.

As for the senses they are merely provisional and faulty. In my case, for instance, I have to use glasses to adjust my eyesight because I'm nearsighted. But that's not why I don't have faith in my senses. Due to these limitations, I know that they're imperfect, case in point, the blindspot in my vision that my brain simulates "filling it in". Same for hearing, I can't hear anything above 20khz sound, and this limitation in hearing tells me, like with eyesight, of the imperfection of hearing. You get the point, I think. I don't have faith in my senses, likewise for my reason & my memory, because my senses give me an imperfect, provisional access to my environment. A demonstration of this imperfect, provisional nature of senses are optical illusions. I don't see how faith in my senses can possibly reconcile this, especially due to optical illusions.

---

Same as for my faculties, I think my mind - my consciousness - is imperfect in the same line. A very easy demonstration of this is that I've changed my mind. I'm an apostate. Convictions aren't choices. I don't choose to not believe in a god, any more than you choose to believe in a god. That's not how minds work. People undergo alterations to their convictions all the time, choice never enters into it. What do you think faith does, that reason cannot?

[Simon Moon]

Has the word salad been settled yet? Honestly, it's probably a good read, just far too many pages to catch up on. I have faith in God. I have faith that this chair will hold me up when I sit on it. They are the same faith. I believe in God and I believe in my chair. I do not have absolute faith that all people are good all the time. I do have faith that most people can be good.

I can't believe you are unable to see the problem with this!

You can take the chair to any culture, with any religious belief, or no religious beliefs. You can explain what it is for, you can teach cultures that don't have chairs, how to build them so that they are structurally sound. YOu can show them chairs made out of wood, metal, wicker, bamboo, etc, etc, and you would have no problems convincing them that they are all the same thing, with the same purpose. And most importantly of all, you can easily demonstrate to them that the chairs exist.

Please show how you can do the same thing with your god? Show them how trusting that the chair will hold them up, is even in the same ballpark as trusting that your god exists.

---

Atheists have faith in their memories, faith in your reason, faith in your senses, etc. You don't rationalize and reason every thought or action, no one does. If you want to define faith as "blind trust, in the absence of evidence or despite evidence" then go right ahead. I believe that is not the common Christian understanding of the work faith.

I don't have faith in these things. They are what I am presented with. I am forced, pragmatically, to accept them.

They have shown to be reliable.

I have never been presented with a god in the same way that I have been presented with my memories, reason or senses.

[Sal]

That's an excellent point about the difference between faith in chairs and faith in the supernatural.

[Simon Moon]

I reason from what I know of the definition of what a chair is and my experience with that chair that it will hold my weight if I were to sit in it. I also reason that from what I know of the definition of the Christian God is and my experience trusting in God that my life is better because of it.

Please demonstrate that the reason why your life is better, is actually due to an extant god, and not just your belief in a god, that may not exist.

I have a good friend I've known for decades. We started surfing together when we were 15. In his 20's, his life made a bad turn to drugs, alcohol, petty crime, and living on the street. Years later, he walked into a Hindu temple in LA, claims he saw the incarnation of a Hindu god, and instantly quit all drugs, got his life together and now he has a successful high end tiling business, a wife and 2 kids. To this day he's a practicing Hindu, and credits Hinduism for turning his life around.

So, is his drastically better life due to the actual existence of the Hindu god?

Please explain why not, and try not to use special pleading...

You're being disingenuous asking for physical evidence of the spiritual. Just because your materialist view adds requirements to your definition of faith doesn't mean I have the same hang ups. If you're being disingenuous and I'm a liar I guess we're just not going to get a lot accomplished hunh?

Not at all. But without physical (empirical) evidence, what should our justification to believe a god exists?

Is your god unable to find a way to convince me that he exists?

And let me add, I'll bet there are dozens of spiritual claims that you reject, precisely due to lack of physical evidence, just as we reject the same claims. People all over the world make claims about: Jinn, ghosts, zombies, voodoo, tarot card reading, seances, faeries, etc, etc, etc. I am sure at least some of these spiritual claims you reject for the lack of physical evidence.

[Belacqua]

Please show how you can do the same thing with your god? Show them how trusting that the chair will hold them up, is even in the same ballpark as trusting that your god exists.

When tackattack says that he has faith of this kind, he's talking about his own mental disposition. He trusts God in the way he trusts a good chair. This is what is happening in his mind.

To say that he can't prove the existence of God to your satisfaction doesn't change what his mental disposition is. 

You no doubt believe that he shouldn't trust in God the way he trusts in a chair, but you can't say the trust is different. He knows what's happening in his mind, and you don't.

They [my senses] have shown to be reliable. 

I have never been presented with a god in the same way that I have been presented with my memories, reason or senses.

Right, according to the common definition, you have faith in your senses. And while we all know that the senses can be fooled, we don't worry about that when we're going about our daily business. We don't have to have a scientist confirm for us that the pavement isn't an illusion. 

The fact that some people feel that God has been adequately demonstrated, and you don't, doesn't mean that the word "faith" doesn't apply to what they feel.

[Simon Moon]

Please show how you can do the same thing with your god? Show them how trusting that the chair will hold them up, is even in the same ballpark as trusting that your god exists.

When tackattack says that he has faith of this kind, he's talking about his own mental disposition. He trusts God in the way he trusts a good chair. This is what is happening in his mind.

To say that he can't prove the existence of God to your satisfaction doesn't change what his mental disposition is. 

You no doubt believe that he shouldn't trust in God the way he trusts in a chair, but you can't say the trust is different. He knows what's happening in his mind, and you don't.

I completely understand his thought process (his own mental disposition) as you describe. I used to have the same thought process when I was a theist.

But his use of faith describing something that may only be a thought process in his mind (his own mental disposition), and thinking he's using faith in the same way to describe his trust that the chair will not collapse, is a completely flawed thought process.

It's not even apples to oranges. It's apples to bigfoot.

[Belacqua]

I completely understand his thought process (his own mental disposition) as you describe. I used to have the same thought process when I was a theist.

But his use of faith describing something that may only be a thought process in his mind (his own mental disposition), and thinking he's using faith in the same way to describe his trust that the chair will not collapse, is a completely flawed thought process.

It's not even apples to oranges. It's apples to bigfoot.

Both John and tackattack feel they have adequate reason to trust in God. They are confident that it has been demonstrated. When a person feels that God, or a dentist, or a chair, or the Japanese post office, have been found reliable, then a person may have faith in that thing. 

You disagree that God has been found reliable in this way. But they think he has. For you it's apples to Bigfoot because you think that God can't be shown to be reliable. For them the type of trust is the same as relying on a chair, though on a different scale. 

It might be interesting to hear them describe how they came to find God reliable. The reasons vary a lot among Christians. But I see no reason to doubt that their mental disposition is as they describe.