Faith

@snood,

Quote:

To answer your question, no. If someone says they don't look forward to death, I don't think that makes them a liar about their faith.
There are differing degrees of depth of faith.

I may have been unnecessarily harsh there. Faith does need to start somewhere.
But since the faith we are speaking about is so fundamentally tied to life after this one (for every religious faith that I know of) would not that require them to examine it frequently or at least whenever the fear of death came up for them?

Quote:

Fear of death is a natural human thing that polls second only to fear of public speaking.

Yes it is. But as CI pointed out, if #1 can be overcome by mere training and practice, shouldn't fear of death be equally conquerable? Especially if you profess that death is not the end of life?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Faith is believing in something which can neither be proven or disproved. If you have faith you've chosen to believe in something that resonates within you, but of which can't be certain.

Some people find this unsettling. I don't know why.

Since faith is based on individual resonance it's a poor basis on which to act because it lacks objectivity.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Since faith is based on individual resonance it's a poor basis on which to act because it lacks objectivity

Interesting take on it - Faith that should not be acted upon because it's not objective.
That could explain why confronting the fear of death is so uncommon.

But my question for infra is: What if you act on that faith and it actually works?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

All of your actions; all of your days are based on objective decisions?

I think not.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Since faith is based on individual resonance it's a poor basis on which to act because it lacks objectivity
Interesting take on it - Faith that should not be acted upon because it's not objective.
That could explain why confronting the fear of death is so uncommon.

But my question for infra is: What if you act on that faith and it actually works?

With nothing objective upon which to base the claim that "it works" it can only be relegated to coincidence.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

All of your actions; all of your days are based on objective decisions?

I think not.

You're right. The fact doesn't negate the point I made.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

All of your actions; all of your days are based on objective decisions?

To the one making the decision, it's objective. That's why people who believe in their religion know they are right.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

All of your actions; all of your days are based on objective decisions?

I think not.

You're right. The fact doesn't negate the point I made.

The problem with faith is the certainty. There is nothing wrong with making subjective decisions.

Faith is making subjective decisions with absolute certainty that you are correct. That's what makes it foolish and dangerous.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

With nothing objective upon which to base the claim that "it works" it can only be relegated to coincidence.

'Coincidence' or not is susceptable to objective analysis.

Acting on faith does not mean abandoning reason.
Reason can tell you whether it's coincidence or 'it works'.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

The point you made is that it is a "poor" basis and that isn't something you've supported with evidence.

First of all anyone's belief that they are making a complex, meaningful decision objectively is subjective. If you base a decision on something you read by a learned scholar, or scientist unless he or she has zero refutation on the given conclusion, (and even then it's not a guarantee of being correct) you've made a subjective decision. The scholar/scientist's conclusion resonates within you based on what you know and have observed.

Yes you can decide to go through an intersection in your car based on the objective evidence that the traffic light is green, but how many people are making the wrong decision in such a case based on personal resonance? If there are any, they are probably mad and two few to even consider.

Your problem is that you want to view this topic at the edges, rather than the core, because it's easier there

There are people "of faith" who believe the world is 5,000 years old. They are demonstrably wrong.

There are people "of faith" who believe in a supreme creator. Demonstrate them wrong.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The point you made is that it is a "poor" basis and that isn't something you've supported with evidence.

Now, that's a thought to live with.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
With nothing objective upon which to base the claim that "it works" it can only be relegated to coincidence.

'Coincidence' or not is susceptable to objective analysis.

Acting on faith does not mean abandoning reason.
Reason can tell you whether it's coincidence or 'it works'.

Something that is based on "individual resonance" cannot be observed or measured.

"Individual resonance" is the antithesis of reason.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You make decisions all day long based on subjective analysis and you proceed with them because you are largely certain they are right, and that the opposite isn't, from a probability standpoint, worth considering.

You and others are asking for certainty based on dubious definitions of objectivity because you think it is an unassailable argument. You're being arrogant.

Humans evolved with a remarkable level of what is often considered "intuition." It's hardly mystical. It's a sub-conscious analysis of data input that can't possibly happen fast enough on a conscious level.

Our long ago ancestors walking through a green jungle or a yellow plain perceived, on a sub-conscious level, that a pattern had been broken...something was amiss and as a result, they ran like hell and avoided being eaten by a leopard. The danger resonated within them.

Was there always a leopard about to pounce? Probably not, but there was enough of the time to make our reliance on intuition; on resonance to become an evolutionary advantage.

You who worship the objective and reason are, in your lives quite frequently apostates. You don't live the lives you expect from the faithful.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's not true Finn.

I don't say that I am "largely certain" that I am right unless there is evidence supporting my certainty. Believing you are certain when you don't have a factual basis for this certainty is dangerous.

And that is why faith is dangerous.

Let's look at your examples.

1) When there is a dangerous threat that requires an immediate response, the fight or flight response is an important evolved trait. This isn't faith. It is panic. We have a panic response because when it is right, it saves our lives, and when it is wrong, it generally does nothing worse than make us look funny.

2) Having a fear of something where there is no factual evidence it is actually dangerous is not so useful. This is called prejudice or intuition... what you call it doesn't matter. Rational people challenge their fear... even if you keep the fear you should realize that you are probably wrong (since there is not factual basis for your fear).

3) There is nothing wrong with being unsure. And there is nothing wrong with making decisions where you don't have enough evidence to be certain. The key here is to be honest that you don't really know... that way you can question your decision when new evidence appears or when the cost of your decision gets to high (i.e. when you are hurting other people).

4) It is very bad to be certain when you don't have evidence to support your certainty. Being certain means you stop questioning, you stop counting the cost of your decisions.

This is why faith is behind wars, and hatred, and prejudice. People who are certain can justify there actions... and since they are not basing their certainty on factual evidence, the facts don't matter.

Of course faith can motivate both good actions and bad actions. The problem is since faith is certain, there is no questioning when the beliefs are not justified by evidence or new facts appear.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The point you made is that it is a "poor" basis and that isn't something you've supported with evidence.

In regard to whether to have pizza or a hamburger for lunch, "individual resonance" is sufficient, and moreover necessary, to base that decision on.

For choices like those that would affect others, however, "individual resonance" is a poor basis upon which to base a decision because it lacks objectivity, i.e. facts, evidence, etc, based on observation of how one's choices would affect others and not subjective, i.e. feelings, emotions, etc, bases.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

First of all anyone's belief that they are making a complex, meaningful decision objectively is subjective. If you base a decision on something you read by a learned scholar, or scientist unless he or she has zero refutation on the given conclusion, (and even then it's not a guarantee of being correct) you've made a subjective decision. The scholar/scientist's conclusion resonates within you based on what you know and have observed.

You're confusing the premise of your own statement. One thing is coming to a decision, which is a subjective action. Another thing is coming to that decision based on either objective or subjective criteria, which was the statement you made in regard to faith based on "individual resonance."

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yes you can decide to go through an intersection in your car based on the objective evidence that the traffic light is green, but how many people are making the wrong decision in such a case based on personal resonance? If there are any, they are probably mad and two few to even consider.

You've illustrated my point.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Your problem is that you want to view this topic at the edges, rather than the core, because it's easier there

The problem, actually, is that you have your assertion muddled, as I've pointed out above.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There are people "of faith" who believe in a supreme creator. Demonstrate them wrong.

If a supreme creator is something subjective, then faith is all that is required of the believer.

If a supreme creator is something objective then faith is a poor basis upon which to base one's belief. Surely, there would be objective evidence.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Humans evolved with a remarkable level of what is often considered "intuition." It's hardly mystical. It's a sub-conscious analysis of data input that can't possibly happen fast enough on a conscious level.

You're confusing your assertion that faith is based on "individual resonance" with "intuition" which, as you state, is "a sub-conscious analysis of data input." Intuition involves objectivity, faith, as you've defined it, does not.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Leadfoot quote:
"'Coincidence' or not is susceptable to objective analysis.

Acting on faith does not mean abandoning reason.
Reason can tell you whether it's coincidence or 'it works'."

Infra:
Something that is based on "individual resonance" cannot be observed or measured.

"Individual resonance" is the antithesis of reason.

I guess you changed from Faith to the term Finn used for it but if you are talking about the same thing, you didn't address my point.

If something works, whether you call it faith or individual resonance matters not. It can be reasoned out whether it is coincidence or not.

If your faith leads you to the right answer 10 times in a row to something you could not have otherwise known, Reason will tell you it isn't coincidence.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

You worship the so called "objective."

You still haven't demonstrated why a complex decision that incorporated the subjective or "resonance" is a "poor" process.

You just keep saying that it's poor because it lacks what you worship.

The rest of your response, to me, is incoherent

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If your faith leads you to the right answer 10 times in a row to something you could not have otherwise known, Reason will tell you it isn't coincidence.

You should go to Vegas with your kind of luck! LOL
Most of us humans aren't that 'lucky.'

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Not good, CI. Vegas imposes a very objective evaluation, often to the detriment of strongly held faith.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know