4
   

Faith in facts?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 06:34 am
@vishal1234,
...not aiming to dis value the merits of placing faith in science (I am an enthusiast) your comment is nevertheless a superficial pragmatical exercise in rhetoric as "holy writ" is to much of a vague observation to qualify any form of comparison..."holy" when wisely put can be a to large place holder to deal with so lightly as you did right there...from mathematics of infinity up to the form of function or even the understanding of what Law is as Power I can think of a lot of content to candidly dismiss your side note as being in the least naive...(not that I think that Fresco's post is in any way more profound...)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 07:11 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...being aware of change as a continued process of metamorphosis of the "I" and in there from what is "mine" towards what is yet to be "acquired" is the reason of faith as a vital movement "outward" without any defined direction (the "other" can be anything)...while "believing" aims a target, faith is more of a "condition" without any particular aim...it results of being and becoming...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 07:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...the categorization of having faith in particular or towards something defined is just wrong and results of a simplification in understanding...

One should opt for stating, I "believe in" (something particular) because I have faith (in general) and not the opposite, that is, that I have faith in something particular, because I believe as a general category, which is confusing...having just "faith" does not immediately defines what you have faith in, aside "something ness" as a general qualification....thus the idea of "having faith" as "having life", continuity !...(even if a walk towards resolution)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 08:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Doubt substantiates a concrete absence of information on an objective expected target while faith establishes an abstract aim towards information at large in the process of becoming...no reason other then being aware of change in the self is necessary for faith but doubt more then lack of faith requires an concrete objection to believe in...while the opposite of doubt is certainty, the opposite of faith is death...faith is a poor description for a form of certainty as is certainty in extended somethingness, certainty without direction...a very odd kind of certainty if you will...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 08:25 am
...I insist that with or without good reason believing makes the world "mine"... thus it classifies as concrete rather then abstract...if for one I can believe in many things, all those things must be objectively expressed, if any belief is in place to start with...whether they correspond to something in the real world or not is irrelevant as they correspond to something in the subject which is real...(where the "subject" resides, or what the subject is, of course, is an all new debate)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 09:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I have faith in the abstract although I believe in the concrete...

...and what is more or less concrete by the way, expressing a square, a triangle, or a circle in a geometry sketch, or by numbers ? Are abstractions a natural generalization of regularity's in concrete objects, the form of function ? The measurement of action ?...or concrete objects the natural function of abstract expressions ? The function of form ? The action in the measurement ? What is it that is concrete in abstractness so that it is "mine" although everywhere ?

Yes, philosophy is indeed a mine field in which the more you judge to know the more traps you fall into...a constant dilution and merging of frontiers...
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 09:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...well, let me then develop or further clarify the limitations I can see in such view...

I can understand the easiness of agreement on the relation between faith and doubt fitting quite elegantly on a first look, but still the action of doubting distinctively requires some "material fact" an objective missing linkage on its "return into consciousness movement" that faith does not while forming...forming faith or willingness to faith being expansive in nature aims nothing in concrete or aims nothing objective to go on about...thus to say that they simply are complementary opposites is leaving something important out on the understanding of what is substantial in faith...the impression that doubt as faith is not informative because its not conclusive is naive...doubt always is build on establishing knowledge upon the limits of what is directly tangible feasible or expected in good reason, it informs something indeed by referring to those limitations on the frontier of knowledge even if not establishing final impossibility or lack of resolution...again faith as an "outward movement" does not require any objective knowledge to express itself...while doubt is "material" faith it is not...faith is a "vital" force towards final resolution or "death", it aims the "abstract" !


Perhaps you are simply less neurotic than i am, but i do not require a material discrepancy to doubt something...

If anything, i have heretofore been underselling the connection i see between faith and doubt; to me they are as connected as breathing in and out. i don't think of faith as blindly pawing at reality v. doubt's informative study -- both are are part of our intellectual smelling and tasting the world around us.

Now, if doubt is to be constructive, it had better find some "reasons" for its existence (just as faith finds things to believe in); but both faith and doubt seem to me to not be reducible to either those reservations or leaps.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

faith is a "vital" force towards final resolution or "death", it aims the "abstract" !


i'm not quite certain what you mean here. i agree that faith is a vital force(and thus is mortal), but unless you qualify the term in some way, i don't know how it aims at the "abstract". i've read your other posts, and while i think we probably disagree -- i'd still like further clarification before i discuss it with you. While i agree that certain beliefs, byproducts of faith, are abstractions, i do not think that faith's "purpose" or function is the production of abstractions nor is faith's object of attraction abstract.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the categorization of having faith in particular or towards something defined is just wrong and results of a simplification in understanding...

One should opt for stating, I "believe in" (something particular) because I have faith (in general) and not the opposite, that is, that I have faith in something particular, because I believe as a general category, which is confusing...having just "faith" does not immediately defines what you have faith in, aside "something ness" as a general qualification....thus the idea of "having faith" as "having life", continuity !...(even if a walk towards resolution)


This.

And this is largely why i have a hard time understanding why you advance the position that faith aims at anything abstract -- the "object" of faith seems vague to me, but not immaterial. The sense of "something ness" seems less like a qualification, and more like the experiential basis for subsequent qualifications.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...I insist that with or without good reason believing makes the world "mine"... thus it classifies as concrete rather then abstract...if for one I can believe in many things, all those things must be objectively expressed, if any belief is in place to start with...whether they correspond to something in the real world or not is irrelevant as they correspond to something in the subject which is real...(where the "subject" resides, or what the subject is, of course, is an all new debate).


Interesting, see, i would say the opposite -- that beliefs, particularly inherited beliefs, designate the world as "theirs", requiring one to navigate within the boundaries of the "given" world rather than exploring a strange environment. Perhaps i'm still misunderstanding you, though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 10:04 pm
@Cyracuz,
I find it curious that we can have scientists who understand science very well, and still believe in the trinity or any of the religions created by man.

There is something to be said for what is taught a child when they are very young, and the parents, siblings, and friends reinforce the belief in their religion.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 01:52 am
@Razzleg,
Hi Razz !

1 - I didn't meant that faith is just another vital force, but exactly the vital force, or what is vital in awareness, that is, the sense of a changing world where becoming provides us continued example of a sense of a changing "I"...the restlessness of a wondering self, the vital impulse of being an incomplete inquisitive mind in its expansive outward behaviour where faith expresses the extendedness of existing...faith is thus the faith in somethingness that we still don't are but that we will become, that we still don't comprehend but that we hope to understand and through it achieve completeness, rest, die, or stop inquiry...

2 - ...and yes, in the process of becoming, that somethingness that we walk into openly as breathing through faith, is probably best described as an abstraction, as is not any particular thing...again step by step its resolution to the tangible to the concrete of our experience and understanding materializes as death of inquiry and the stop of wondering...

...hope I did clarify anything however little interest it may carry...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 07:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I find it curious that we can have scientists who understand science very well, and still believe in the trinity or any of the religions created by man.


I used to think that, but I don't any longer. The two do not really come into conflict. When it seems that they do it is because ignorant people want to impose their religion on scientific matters, or impose their science on matters that are strictly religious.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 09:30 am
@Cyracuz,
How do you rationalize the fact that science refutes much of what the bible says?

Ignore the bible? Good trick.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 10:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
You rationalize it by understanding that it is metaphor. If you read the bible with an attitude that would be appropriate when reading a science paper, I'd say you have misunderstood something. It's the opposite of what happens when religious people start treating scripture like it's historical or empirical fact.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:53 am
@Cyracuz,
You wrote,
Quote:
You rationalize it by understanding that it is metaphor.


Metaphors with so many omissions, errors, and contradictions are useless. There is no way to rationalize away most of them.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 12:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are welcome to think that. But as you said, there are many accomplished scientists who find something of value in the bible. Perhaps they don't feel the need to rationalize. Perhaps they don't feel there is a conflict between what they believe and what their work teaches them.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 12:50 pm
@Cyracuz,
That seems to be the case. It's not only scientists, but many folks in the specialties that requires much education and the understanding of philosophy and logic.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Hi Razz !

1 - I didn't meant that faith is just another vital force, but exactly the vital force, or what is vital in awareness, that is, the sense of a changing world where becoming provides us continued example of a sense of a changing "I"...the restlessness of a wondering self, the vital impulse of being an incomplete inquisitive mind in its expansive outward behaviour where faith expresses the extendedness of existing...faith is thus the faith in somethingness that we still don't are but that we will become, that we still don't comprehend but that we hope to understand and through it achieve completeness, rest, die, or stop inquiry...

2 - ...and yes, in the process of becoming, that somethingness that we walk into openly as breathing through faith, is probably best described as an abstraction, as is not any particular thing...again step by step its resolution to the tangible to the concrete of our experience and understanding materializes as death of inquiry and the stop of wondering...

...hope I did clarify anything however little interest it may carry...


Ah, that does clear things up a bit. Generally, i think of of "the abstract" as a degree away from reality --a mental construct. If all that you are referring to is an experienced phenomena denuded of categories and descriptors, then that makes sense -- whether such a manifestation is available to consciousness; well, that's another question all together. But we'll be in the same boat at that point, so let's wait until someone else brings it up.

On the other hand, just to be contentious -- and i can't imagine being otherwise -- what about memory?

While i think that faith and doubt might represent the the extension and compression of a single mental muscle, memory seems a truer antinomy of faith than doubt. Memory, as a form of awareness, is no less vital; it also finds "reality" accessible, it is equally aware of "something ness", it is no less subjectively craft-able, and equally aware of change. It seems to extend in a similar way, but in a different "direction" from, faith. It also resembles faith, in that it has a negative version of itself at the ready -- forgetfulness.

While i'm perfectly content to name faith a vital force, i'm uncomfortable saying that it is the vital force, because memory seems equally so. And while each of the five senses are indubitably filtered through faith and memory, they seem no less vital to me -- going into the complexities of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight seems overly ambitious in this thread; their individual structures and their intellectual import, their input into both faith and memory, and faith and memory's counter input are all relevant to the question of vitality, intellectual or otherwise.

Nonetheless, i agree with you that faith demonstrates, or enables, a version of futurity that helps us become who we will become -- and regardless of the future veracity of our beliefs, those beliefs are helpful in achieving that being.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:24 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

You rationalize it by understanding that it is metaphor. If you read the bible with an attitude that would be appropriate when reading a science paper, I'd say you have misunderstood something. It's the opposite of what happens when religious people start treating scripture like it's historical or empirical fact.


agreed
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 11:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,

Quote:
You rationalize it by understanding that it is metaphor.


Metaphors with so many omissions, errors, and contradictions are useless. There is no way to rationalize away most of them.


Well, i think you misunderstand metaphor then -- metaphors are comparisons that highlight similarities and downplay differences. Their very method is the successful execution of omission and error, while pasting over contradiction with similarity. Rationalization isn't truthful -- it's useful -- "useful" in the sense of making use of the senseless, and metaphor is a tool equally accessible to both rationality and rationalization...

(which i realize are contraries, as well as realizing how weird that is...)

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 03:02 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Hi Razz !

1 - I didn't meant that faith is just another vital force, but exactly the vital force, or what is vital in awareness, that is, the sense of a changing world where becoming provides us continued example of a sense of a changing "I"...the restlessness of a wondering self, the vital impulse of being an incomplete inquisitive mind in its expansive outward behaviour where faith expresses the extendedness of existing...faith is thus the faith in somethingness that we still don't are but that we will become, that we still don't comprehend but that we hope to understand and through it achieve completeness, rest, die, or stop inquiry...

2 - ...and yes, in the process of becoming, that somethingness that we walk into openly as breathing through faith, is probably best described as an abstraction, as is not any particular thing...again step by step its resolution to the tangible to the concrete of our experience and understanding materializes as death of inquiry and the stop of wondering...

...hope I did clarify anything however little interest it may carry...


Ah, that does clear things up a bit. Generally, i think of of "the abstract" as a degree away from reality --a mental construct. If all that you are referring to is an experienced phenomena denuded of categories and descriptors, then that makes sense -- whether such a manifestation is available to consciousness; well, that's another question all together. But we'll be in the same boat at that point, so let's wait until someone else brings it up.

On the other hand, just to be contentious -- and i can't imagine being otherwise -- what about memory?

While i think that faith and doubt might represent the the extension and compression of a single mental muscle, memory seems a truer antinomy of faith than doubt. Memory, as a form of awareness, is no less vital; it also finds "reality" accessible, it is equally aware of "something ness", it is no less subjectively craft-able, and equally aware of change. It seems to extend in a similar way, but in a different "direction" from, faith. It also resembles faith, in that it has a negative version of itself at the ready -- forgetfulness.

While i'm perfectly content to name faith a vital force, i'm uncomfortable saying that it is the vital force, because memory seems equally so. And while each of the five senses are indubitably filtered through faith and memory, they seem no less vital to me -- going into the complexities of taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight seems overly ambitious in this thread; their individual structures and their intellectual import, their input into both faith and memory, and faith and memory's counter input are all relevant to the question of vitality, intellectual or otherwise.

Nonetheless, i agree with you that faith demonstrates, or enables, a version of futurity that helps us become who we will become -- and regardless of the future veracity of our beliefs, those beliefs are helpful in achieving that being.


...well memory works for the future and not from the past but from the present, from who you are...who you were doesn't have memory and its resolved...memory is believe without resolution...(see the anamnesic process of memory)(hope the word exists in English it comes from the Greek "ana" bringing again, and "mnesis" memory)

will continue later...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 03:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
back...

...again what you call forgetfulness I call resolution and what what call belief I call karma which requires continuity up to being resolved...faith is nothing but expectancy of resolution, the continuous need for balance and order, through suffering which is delay...strong emotions normally refer to processes that were never complete, that were unfolding...if something abruptly stops them, if for instance someone close died in a relation, those aspects which were not resolved, that were the fundamental identity of that searching mind, its signature in the relation, will keep unfolding in you, through your memory of such relation in the present...loving is believing without certainty, thus it unfolds forward through faith, it requires relation...knowledge is mostly knowledge of beliefs, of unfolding processes and phenomena, but not of resolution, it never aims the ontological...resolution is not knowledge but forgetfulness...again as I many times have said "God", "Being" its the opposite of "being there", its not alive...exists but its not alive...(...normally the word "exists" wouldn't fit there, but hey, I mean actual...)
 

Related Topics

Are religious beliefs a mental disorder? - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
Abortion - Question by colletk
Where are you God? - Question by jamiemellien
Faith - Discussion by anthony1312002
Premarital Sex - Question by aeckwielen007
What does "which" refer to here? - Question by oristarA
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Faith in facts?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.32 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:41:08