Why do religious believers need 'faith'?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I do remember pointing out that the demand for empirical evidence (and nothing less) before belief in God would be countenanced (i.e. the typical atheist demand) is rendered somewhat problematic by it's reliance on God having been the one to invent empiricism as a way to knowledge.

I mean, accepting that you have to rely on God to demonstrate God - but then "sitting on the throne" in deciding which means of evidencing himself is best (when that is for him to decide) strikes me as somewhat ludicrous.

If God decides some other means of evidencing himself is better than empirical means then so be it.

Not as ludicrous as expecting us to believe that God gave us the capacity for empiricism which - what with God being omnipotent- he would already know would lead those who use empirical methods to determine his existence to usually conclude there is no empirical evidence therefore one would need to suspend their (God given) critical faculties in order to believe in God. He gave us the 'gift' but then wants us to ignore what this 'gift' tells us...

endacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God decides some other means of evidencing him/her/itself is better than empirical means then so be it.

God appears to be getting bored with demonstrating him/her/its existence. He/She/It starts of with creating everything (pretty impressive), moves on to talking topiary (also impressive. I have to admit, creating everything is a hard act to follow, but talking bushes are a good effort), and arrives in modern times with a dancing sun (an upward blip on an otherwise downward trending graph), until today. When the best he/she/it can manage is, for example, is a dubious image burnt onto a slice of toast, or an oddly shaped cornflake.

One might be led to the conclusion that god really couldn't be bothered...

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not as ludicrous as expecting us to believe that God gave us the capacity for empiricism which - what with God being omnipotent- he would already know would lead those who use empirical methods to determine his existence to usually conclude there is no empirical evidence therefore one would need to suspend their (God given) critical faculties in order to believe in God. He gave us the 'gift' but then wants us to ignore what this 'gift' tells us...

The point was addressed only at those who say would only believe in God if he appeared empirically. Not to every drive-by statement of non-belief that happens along.

antiskeptic

endacl wrote: »

God appears to be getting bored with demonstrating him/her/its existence. He/She/It starts of with creating everything (pretty impressive), moves on to talking topiary (also impressive. I have to admit, creating everything is a hard act to follow, but talking bushes are a good effort), and arrives in modern times with a dancing sun (an upward blip on an otherwise downward trending graph), until today. When the best he/she/it can manage is, for example, is a dubious image burnt onto a slice of toast, or an oddly shaped cornflake.

One might be led to the conclusion that god really couldn't be bothered...

The point was addressed only at those who say would only believe in God if he appeared empirically. Not to every drive-by statement of non-belief that happens along.

Sarky

And so it begins all over again.

Have you never thought it a bit stupid that the method your god deems best to reveal himself is on a par with the method people use to predict the rapture? Or jump into a lion enclosure secure in the knowledge that god will protect them from OH HOLY SH*T THEY'RE EATING MY FACE?

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

And so it begins all over again.

Indeed. The same old sieve-like objections made

Have you never thought it a bit stupid that the method your god deems best to reveal himself is on a par with the method people use to predict the rapture? Or jump into a lion enclosure secure in the knowledge that god will protect them from OH HOLY SH*T THEY'RE EATING MY FACE?

God revealing himself non-empirically is not the same as folk thinking God has revealed himself when he hasn't. The two are patently different things. To you, both would seem the same. Your objection needs to deal with the former and not just the latter if it is to float.

Sarky

Yes, yes, the voice in your head is way more valid.

I don't think you bothered reading post #19 at all.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point was addressed only at those who say would only believe in God if he appeared empirically. Not to every drive-by statement of non-belief that happens along.

That statement doesn't address my point.

Why create us with the capacity for empirical investigation and then desire we don't use it?

m4smith

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I never really understood this but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Faith is belief in something with insufficient or negligible evidence because if there was sufficient evidence then we wouldn't need faith. I think that's an uncontroversial definition to start off with.

Many agnostics have their own definition of evidence. I mean is there a standard universal definition. How many people have actually seen an atom? The reality is nobody has, we have seen what a machine shows us.

If you want God to fit unto the sphere that you want him to fit into then you will never believe. Faith goes beyond the sphere of evidence that we have created.

endacl

m4smith wrote: »

Many agnostics have their own definition of evidence. I mean is there a standard universal definition. How many people have actually seen an atom? The reality is nobody has, we have seen what a machine shows us.

If you want God to fit unto the sphere that you want him to fit into then you will never believe. Faith goes beyond the sphere of evidence that we have created.

Slight adjustment.

Oh, and the existence of atoms can be demonstrated by the fixed ration of compounds. Water, for example, is always 2xHydrogen to 1xOxygen. That's what allows you to make a standard cup of tea.

Tea is evidence for the existence of atoms

QED

computer44

Well spoken.

Belief is some thing I lost. Hope I get it back. I mean if Jesus was born in a cave with a virgin mother something has to be correct.

Obliq

Morbert wrote: »

Faith is not simply about believing God exists. You could be a theist and not have faith, for example.

Instead faith is about investment. Christians have faith in the promises made in the Bible, and submit themselves to the doctrine of Christianity.

So, as an agnostic, if you ask the question "God, are you there god?", you have to have already invested in "god" not replying. In other words, faith is investing in the reply (lack thereof) that you expect. Nice one. QED, God exists. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

computer44 wrote: »

Well spoken.

Belief is some thing I lost. Hope I get it back. I mean if Jesus was born in a cave with a virgin mother something has to be correct.

ummmmm...anyone want to get that? I'm watching Die Hard XVII on Film 4 otherwise I would.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ummmmm...anyone want to get that? I'm watching Die Hard XVII on Film 4 otherwise I would.

Rather appropriate, what with Die Hard being the ultimate xmas movie.

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Rather appropriate, what with Die Hard being the ultimate xmas movie.

I have tinsel on the standard lamp behind me for atmosphere*






*and because I find it really funny how much it bothers people if one doesn't remove absolutely all of one's festive decorations within a certain time frame hence my tinselly lamp and the bats hanging off the light shade in the hall. It's my house like, so why the 'uck does it affect others if it looks like a Xmas grotto in March or the Bat Cave in July - get a life like.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

get a life like.

I will, yeah!

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*and because I find it really funny how much it bothers people if one doesn't remove absolutely all of one's festive decorations within a certain time frame hence my tinselly lamp and the bats hanging off the light shade in the hall. It's my house like, so why the 'uck does it affect others if it looks like a Xmas grotto in March or the Bat Cave in July - get a life like.

I have 3 sets of xmas lights still up, and some tinsel about the place but I still don't get how watching Die Harder Again is ok if there's anything else on the telly? Hmmm.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

I have 3 sets of xmas lights still up, and some tinsel about the place but I still don't get how watching Die Harder Again is ok if there's anything else on the telly? Hmmm.

I have a soft spot for these kind of films - visual valium.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have a soft spot for these kind of films - visual valium.

Fair enough. I have a soft spot for Bruce Willis, but I have to draw the line somewhere. However, after the weekend I've had, Die Harder sounds more my speed than Vincent Browne's car crash telly. I think I shall avoid the agro......

lmaopml

Sarky wrote: »

And so it begins all over again.

Have you never thought it a bit stupid that the method your god deems best to reveal himself is on a par with the method people use to predict the rapture? Or jump into a lion enclosure secure in the knowledge that god will protect them from OH HOLY SH*T THEY'RE EATING MY FACE?

It's very true that some people predict a rapture and some people believe in Faeries and others believe in the 'unseen'.

Christianity is actually very simple. It's really about a person and whether one believes him or no - There are very many examples of really cool people who believed that he told the truth.

I think Pascal, whether one likes it or no, had a point that shouldn't be written off or put in the corner with a dummy hat, because he wasn't one - the point wasn't a 'gamble' but the idea behind it was the search...and the search is what we do, whether we are humans who are Atheist or humans that are Theists..

Faith is a journey, it is not a 'blind leap'.

endacl

lmaopml wrote: »

Faith is a journey, it is not a 'blind leap'.

But surely a journey without a destination is simply an aimless wander?

lmaopml

endacl wrote: »

But surely a journey without a destination is simply an aimless wander?

Surely we are all wandering together in a desert of uncertainty? Almost all of us have goals however...
With a few comforts along the way, from people who went out and conquered the world.

We're merely passing through, it's the search that counts imo, and it can be 'fun' or it can be not fun at all when there is no spirit, which clearly we have for good or ill.

It's what we do, and how sincere we are that counts, and how we lived with regards others too.

Triumphalism is not the goal of Christianity, the goal is being fully human and being allowed to be so - it's merely the simple meeting with a Man who claimed to be God. If He told the truth it changes everything.

Some say he was a liar, I'm a Christian, obviously I don't believe that, I think he told the truth, and was the truth...but that's after a long search......My mum on the other hand had 'faith' in abundance without a recourse to anybody - Go figure, I think this has probably been repeated a lot well before the Enlightenment.

gctest50

lmaopml wrote: »

It's really about a person and whether one believes him or no - There are very many examples of really cool people who believed that he told the truth.

We should do something because "really cool people" do it ?

lmaopml

gctest50 wrote: »

We should do something because "really cool people" do it ?

No, you should only do something if you feel the need to do it, i.e. with regards to Christianity. You can conclude and tag yourself or not at any time in your life, that's brilliant isn't it? What fun life is - I think it's great to live it.

Sarky

lmaopml wrote: »

It's very true that some people predict a rapture and some people believe in Faeries and others believe in the 'unseen'.

Do they not have faith? They seem to think so. Right up to the point where the Faeries don't show up, or the dangerous carnivore bites their face off, or the rapture completely fails to happen again. Was it not enough faith? If it was mental illness, as I'm sure most people will call it, how come God made it so hard to distinguish from genuine faith for those people? You'd think something he wants to give everyone would look a tad different to the feeling experienced by the man who jumps off a bridge in his underwear, secure in his rock hard belief that God has his back. Alas, we have a whole lot of failed raptures and tigers with indigestion. But hey, the NEXT guy might get out of the tiger cage alive, right? That'll totally make up for the poor saps who died!

Christianity is actually very simple. It's really about a person and whether one believes him or no - There are very many examples of really cool people who believed that he told the truth.

A person who may not actually have existed, and if he did, lived and died nothing like the stories you read. Gandalf had about as much to teach about morality. Stephen Fry has a better grasp of not being a douchebag than just about anyone mentioned in the bible, and we can actually tell he exists. He's much nicer than Jesus, too. Maybe worship him instead?

I think Pascal, whether one likes it or no, had a point that shouldn't be written off or put in the corner with a dummy hat, because he wasn't one - the point wasn't a 'gamble' but the idea behind it was the search...and the search is what we do, whether we are humans who are Atheist or humans that are Theists..

Faith is a journey, it is not a 'blind leap'.

Pascal's Wager. There's even a clue in the name. The idea that an omnipotent, omniscient entity would be fooled by you hedging your bets just in case he existed is many things, but clever is not one of them.

If faith is a journey, it's with a map that insists that what looks like a minefield strewn with corpses and ongoing explosions is actually a completely safe country road where you should totes stop for a picnic. The explosions, and screams of the dying and the pesky feeling of shrapnel tearing you apart are just a trick of the light. And probably your own fault anyway because the map can't possibly be wrong.

I'll take my life of 'sin' thanks. It's far more interesting and satisfying and downright honest than anything Christianity has to offer.

robindch

Post #19 is here for anybody -- cough -- interested.

Sarky

It's funnier today than it was when it was written. Is that weird?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're merely parrotting the OP definition of fait, which has been responded to by

Parotting? If I was parrotting anything, it's your quote of Hebrews 11:11.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

...God having been the one to invent empiricism as a way to knowledge....

Ah, more history. What year was that then?

Sarky

AbigailBarron wrote: »

Faith is not a statement I believe, but a person I pursue.

Well that didn't sound creepy at all.

endacl

AbigailBarron wrote: »

Just as I have faith each breath is met with oxygen

Well, mostly met with nitrogen. Only slightly over 20% oxygen. This is measurable and demonstrable. But how and ever....

Our atmosphere is not likely to radically change in terms of its composition in the course of any of our lifetimes. This is not a matter of faith.

Metaphor fail.

recedite

Creepy, but poetic.
If that person was in a very stuffy room, they would sense the oxygen levels falling, or to be more accurate, the CO2 level rising.
Therefore, I think the expectation of oxygen is based on biological processes analysing real-time sensory data, more than on the more poetic "faith".
Empirical data, in other words.

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, if God exists and evidences himself to people (albeit in a way not discernible empirically) then peoples faith is per the bibles definition and not yours. And if he doesn't and therefore doesn't, then not. For want of a way of knowing, you'll need to remain agnostic on the matter.

How can you have evidence which is not empirical? The definition of evidence is "that which has been shown to be true/valid", meaning that there has to be at least some empirical testing done to show that it is evidence and not either hearsay or fantasy.

What you are saying here is "I have no evidence, but you have to treat the random stuff as evidence because I believe it." As Sandals and Shorts should say, "the ego of some people, though, would not be able to deal with the salient fact of this truth".

[-0-]

Humans have a predisposition to believe.

It is a serious flaw in our evolution. One of many.

Sarky

It's probably something we can fix further down the line. If non-belief is a mutation, it's a beneficial one, and trying to stamp it out will do more harm than good to the species.

endacl

[-0-] wrote: »

Humans have a predisposition to believe.

It is a serious flaw in our evolution. One of many.

Not so much a flaw as a remnant. Kind of like a 'cognitive appendix'. It served a useful purpose once, but can poison everything when it goes wrong.

Sarky

I wonder how much of it is because we grow up in a society that expects some kind of belief. Brain development has rather a lot of 'making it up as you go' to it, and society and the ways of thinking it imposes has got to have a heavy influence on it. And most societies are still geared in some way to privilege religion and its hangers-on.

Be very interesting to see how people develop as society becomes less religious/ more secular. Perhaps it's a 'flaw' we inflict on ourselves. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.