What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

We were discussing faith though. weren't we? I was just pointing out that all of us have to use faith. It's not really a bad thing. That's all.

In a religious context..."faith" is simply the insistence that blind guesses about the existence of gods (and what the gods are like) IS CORRECT.

Perhaps it is not a "bad" thing...but it sure is a SILLY thing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Leadfoot: It’s pretty cool that goo from a tidal pond or an under sea vent can ask that question, dontcha think?

Infra: That's still a conclusion based on an assumption, though.

Glad you've come around. I've been saying that Evolution is built entirely on those assumptions since I got here.

1 Reply

Quote:

In a religious context..."faith" is simply the insistence that blind guesses about the existence of gods (and what the gods are like) IS CORRECT.

Perhaps it is not a "bad" thing...but it sure is a SILLY thing.

In any rational context, the existence of Golf is a SILLY thing. The jury is still out on God for most people.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

In any rational context, the existence of Golf is a SILLY thing. The jury is still out on God for most people.

In a rational context these two things can not be compared. "Golf" is a voluntary activity, much like many other games and sports that people engage in. And yes, in the right perspective it can appear silly. "God" is purported to be an unproven supernatural entity which we must accept on faith. This too can appear silly but for different reasons. Humans commonly deem it silly to believe in things for which there is no material evidence or existential need, so making an exception for some cultural artifact like a Supreme Being can look pretty silly. But not the way walking around in plaid pants and a chartreuse shirt chasing a dimpled white ball does.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
In any rational context, the existence of Golf is a SILLY thing. The jury is still out on God for most people.

In a rational context these two things can not be compared. "Golf" is a voluntary activity, much like many other games and sports that people engage in. And yes, in the right perspective it can appear silly. "God" is purported to be an unproven supernatural entity which we must accept on faith. This too can appear silly but for different reasons. Humans commonly deem it silly to believe in things for which there is no material evidence or existential need, so making an exception for some cultural artifact like a Supreme Being can look pretty silly. But not the way walking around in plaid pants and a chartreuse shirt chasing a dimpled white ball does.

If I may, Hightor, I'd like to comment on the use of "believe in" as you used it here.

Part of the problem with discussing this issue...is the use of that construct...that "convention" if you will.

To "believe in" a being like that described in the Bible (as The God of Abraham)...actually means, "to INSIST on the truth of the assertion of the existence of The God of Abraham as true... despite a lack of unambiguous evidence."

Yeah, it is ponderous to use the latter phrasing rather than the shorter "believe in"...but I suggest it takes the discussion to a different, more realistic level.

The moment a person eliminates the insistence...I have no problem with them. If they want to say, "My blind guess is that there is a GOD...and the GOD is best described the way the God of Abraham is described"...I have no problem. The blind guess might, in fact, be correct. (The blind guess that it IS NOT CORRECT...is every bit as much a blind guess.)

Just mentioning that as a thought to be explored.

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

The religious do not make blind guesses,period.They make no guess at all.They HOPE in something just as the irreligious HOPE in something and just as the person who sits on the fence HOPES in something.All anyone has is HOPE.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I once saw a comedian, ( I think it was Robin Williams, but I can’t be certain,) say that golf was the one time a white middle aged man could dress like a black pimp.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I once saw a comedian, ( I think it was Robin Williams, but I can’t be certain,) say that golf was the one time a white middle aged man could dress like a black pimp.

He was probably correct.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/eb/77/e4eb7733f03d5924994c07ef393991cf.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/37/54/aa/3754aa54f680948c0491d90ec595f0fa--classic-golf-golf-attire.jpg

On the other hand:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/0f/f5/060ff5d3ee6837b3df2722a3fc509aec.jpg

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Good point. I'm using the term "belief" as counterposed to "knowledge" — as I first encountered the distinction as a theology major in the writing of Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J. In a real life discussion the usage would probably emerge pretty quickly, but I agree, it can become somewhat ambiguous in online arguments if people are using the term in the insistent manner you describe.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

In a rational context these two things can not be compared. "Golf" is a voluntary activity, much like many other games and sports that people engage in.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. You yourself have pointed out one way in which they (God and Golf) can be compared. They are both completely voluntary activities.

This also points out Frank's misunderstanding. When something is voluntary, there can be none of the insistence that offends him so. The only insistence here is the insistence that no one can know.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Voluntarity is not voluntary!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

They are both completely voluntary activities.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. People who attend church don't describe it as "godding". People who strongly believe in a personal Supreme Being don't see it as a voluntary activity but as a recognition of their devotion to and dependence on the god that they worship. The existence of golf can be proven. The existence of a personal Supreme Being can only be suggested by the faith believers invest in it and the spiritual power they attribute to it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Your conclusion that it had to be ID is based on your assumption that the chances are better for it and not evolution. You're merely choosing one assumption over another.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

It’s been said that you make God in your own image, and that’s certainly true of them, they have a stupid god. Their god is not the master architect capable of designing the universe and setting every thing into motion with one Big Bang.

No, their god is a special needs god who needs to make everything individually like a wood carver or other artisan.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Thanks for asking.
In my experience, talking with Atheists, Scientists, and religious persons who all believe in the theory of evolution and other controversial stuff, I have found that they like to claim science to be the crème de la crème, as though science has all knowledge and every claim made (belief) in science is a done deal.
They never admit to what the honest scientists do. An idea - hypothesis - is not a fact.

I think it's unfair to claim that persons are making a blind guess, when it comes to religion, in a bid (apparently) to paint the religious as irrational, while at the same time, holding on to beliefs that one cannot prove, but which are based on assumptions, and claim those rational... tucking them under the umbrella of science.

Fair, to me, would be to acknowledge that such hypotheses are no different to the religious views... Unless, one can demonstrate the difference.
Is there a difference? is my question, and what's the difference?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Many scientists make blind guesses about stuff. They call those blind guesses..."blind guesses." They would laugh at the thought of insisting that their blind guess have to be accepted as truth.

The honest scientists do yes. They call those ideas or hypotheses.

Quote:

Jiggy, the religious make blind guesses...call those blind guesses "beliefs"...and then insist that every one else "respect" their blind guesses.

Some religious folk do yes. Not all of them do though.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't know where you got your definition from. Perhaps you can post the link here, because what you are describing is not the religious view, but the skeptic's

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

"Blind guess" is a way skeptics seek to demean religious people as irrational.
There are persons to whom the difference has been explained, but they insist on using the term "blind". It's obviously deliberate.

2 Replies

@Jiggy,

Jiggy wrote:

Fair, to me, would be to acknowledge that such hypotheses are no different to the religious views...

To which hypotheses are you referring?

1 Reply

@Jiggy,

I keep getting told off for going on about the same old same old...I do feel like a stuck record at times but at the end of the day it is my view that we do only have hope in the things promised /things made up, all of us.Guess is the wrong terminology to use in my opinion but if someone wants to use that word then I respect that.There are laws that apply to the physical word.It would appear that there is a need for laws of the mind as well...this becomes more apparent following nihilism.One could debate all day whether these laws are promised laws or man made laws.We could also mix in free will into the debate as well which must be connected to these laws.

2 Replies

What is hope...is there a difference between hope and faith

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know