Is faith superior to knowledge based on physical evidence?

[MineralMan]

If you believe its is, in any way, please explain why you believe that. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

1. Each has a place.

[MineralMan]

2. That was not my question.

[guillaumeb]

25. Here is an answer:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218281252

[MineralMan]

29. No. It's not.

Explain in your own words if you can. This is an intellectual challenge. Copy and paste just won't do.

[guillaumeb]

32. Sarcasm and condescension?

I understand. Google NOMA. I have explained my personal understanding numerous times.

[MineralMan]

100. Only where warranted.

[Gothmog]

3. No

There are some great Jewish scholars who do a great job of reconciling the Torah and science. Some of these works are amazing. Science and belief are not inconsistent if you are able to deal with the concept that the Torah is not literal

Here is an example that it too 15 seconds to find https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-science-101/

The Bible and Talmud saw science and the Jewish tradition as manifestations of the same divine truth. The rabbis of the Talmud even used science in legal decision making– using astronomical calculations to create the Jewish calendar–and referenced many of the scientific theories of their time.

Medieval Jewish thinkers–many of them scientists—were forced to struggle with new scientific theories and apparent contradictions between Judaism and science. Maimonides strove to integrate Judaism and science, going so far as to assert that if the eternity of the universe was proven though science he would reinterpret the biblical passages figuratively bring them in line with scientific truth.

I converted to Judaism in part because it was more flexible on issues like this. There are some really good works on reconciling the big bang and the Torah that I read a long time ago.

[MineralMan]

4. Thank you.

That was a good, informative answer.

[Gothmog]

9. Why Judaism Embraces Science

I found one of the articles that I remember reading a while back (I have a strange memory). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why-can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html

Science, too, is very much about process. Science at its best is about testing hypotheses, setting up experiments and exploring ideas. And if new data or new evidence arises, scientific knowledge changes. Science can’t be tied down to old theories — it is dynamic and ever-changing.

Just like our experience of God.

And perhaps that’s how science and religion can be reconciled — not as two realms that are in conflict or as “non-overlapping magesteria” (as Stephen Jay Gould once described them), but as things you do.

Science is about creating hypotheses and testing data against these theories. Judaism is about how we act to improve this world, here and now. And these processes can easily go hand in hand.

So yes, if science and religion are seen to be competing sources of truth and authority, they will always be in conflict — especially if religion is “blind acceptance and complete certainty about silly, superstitious fantasies.” But if instead religion is about helping people create a deeper sense of meaning and a stronger sense of their values, then I truly believe that science and religion can be brought together to improve ourselves, our society and our world.

For me, I found a home in a religion where questioning things is not only accepted but is required. This makes it easy for me to reconcile science and religion.

What works for me, may not work for others

[MineralMan]

11. That's well-stated. Thanks.

[marylandblue]

109. You just violated the 11th commandment

Shame on you.

[MineralMan]

111. The shame is palpable, indeed.

[Major Nikon]

12. No matter how flexible, organized religion still tries to hamstring science

It’s really just a question of degree. Some religions do a better job of providing separation, but none seem to be able to divorce themselves completely.

[dameatball]

5. No. But assuming an absolute answer is equally erroneous. Your answer exists in your head.

[MineralMan]

8. I didn't ask for an absolute answer.

I asked for answers for any situation where someone believed faith to be superior. It is not a binary question.

[Brainstormy]

17. It certainly sounds like you did, but at any rate

the answer is no. Faith is belief without evidence. You cannot reconcile that with science. And Gould was quite wrong.

[guillaumeb]

22. An excellent answer.

[trotsky]

97. Knowledge based on physical evidence can change when new evidence is presented.

As a result, that knowledge comes ever closer to the truth.

How does faith self-correct? Be specific.

[yallerdawg]

6. "Then saith he to Thomas...

Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

Then, billions followed who never had "knowledge based on physical evidence." They had nothing but faith.

Billions.

[MineralMan]

10. Thomas lacked faith and demanded proof.

If you believe the story, he got the physical proof. All of those later people must believe the story on faith. Thomas is not available to verify.

[Gothmog]

13. This midrasch (sp?) is sort on point

This may or may not help https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why-can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html

The classic story about this comes from the Talmud, where a Rabbi named Eliezer was arguing with all the other rabbis about a minute detail of Jewish law, and trying to convince them all that he was right. As the story goes,

...Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but the rabbis did not accept any of them. Finally he said to them: “If I am right, let this carob tree prove it!” Sure enough, the carob tree immediately uprooted itself and moved one hundred cubits, and some say 400 cubits, from its place. “No proof can be brought from a carob tree,” the rabbis retorted.

And again he said to them “If I am right, let this river prove it!” Sure enough, the river of water flowed backward. “No proof can be brought from a river,” they rejoined...

Finally, Rabbi Eliezer then said, “If I am right, let God Himself prove it!” Sure enough, a Divine voice cried out, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is always right!” Rabbi Joshua then stood up and protested: “The Torah is not in heaven! We pay no attention to a Divine voice, [because now that the Torah has been given to humanity, people are the ones who are to interpret it.]” (Baba Metzia 59b)

So even though the Torah was seen to be a gift from God and was sacred scripture, as soon as the Torah had been given to humans, any arguments would have to be settled by logic and reason — and would trump even a voice from God.

Again, I found a home with a religion that values logic and reason. It works for me.

[MineralMan]

21. Another fine story.

[Major Nikon]

19. Generally speaking does nonsense become more valid as more believe it?

[MineralMan]

23. There is strength in numbers, but not truth,

I think, necessarily.

[Major Nikon]

35. Thats why its a fallacy

[yallerdawg]

24. It is not nonsense to a believer.

To billions of believers.

But disdainfully dismissing their faith is your absolute right.

[Major Nikon]

30. I said generally speaking

In other words for instance, if billions of people believed the moon was made of green cheese, would that assign any level of credibility to that postulate?

[yallerdawg]

34. God - green cheese.

You think these are valid equivalencies?

[Major Nikon]

38. Im not saying they are

I’m just trying to get a simple answer to a simple question.

Assuming you won’t provide a simple answer, let’s try one that’s more complex. Will you explain how they are different?

[yallerdawg]

43. If I believed the moon was made of green cheese...

and then I went to NASA or the Smithsonian and was able to look at and taste a "moon rock" I would be proven misguided at best.

Prove to me - show me evidence - that there is no God as billions conceive Him to be.

[Major Nikon]

49. So the difference is falsifiability, yes?

[yallerdawg]

52. No.

You must be talking about something other than faith, which requires no proof.

You put your faith in proof, and don't realize how shaky a ground that really is.

[Major Nikon]

56. So you are now claiming falsifiability isnt different between the two?

... right after explaining how it was?

Are both of those things falsible or are both of those things infalsible?

[marylandblue]

58. So eating moonrocks is a shaky way to decide they aren't cheese?

[yallerdawg]

73. The great thing about scientific proof is...

it only needs one piece of cheese to come back from the moon - and it's all down the toilet!

That's the problem with "knowledge based on physical proof." It only takes that one exception.

Faith is definitely superior to THAT!

[Major Nikon]

85. Personally I wouldn't call closed mindedness superior, YMMV

Meanwhile the point you keep dancing around is one can come up with an infinite number of infalsifiable claims and place "faith" in them. They do not get the least bit more valid regardless of how many other people do so, yet you seem to "believe" otherwise.

[marylandblue]

94. So it's better just to keep "faith" and ignore facts?

[marylandblue]

53. There are billions of Christians who think God is a Trinity

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

There are billions of Muslims who believe God is not a trinity. There are a billion Hindus who believe in Brahma, which is not a personal god at all. They can't all be right. Therefore there is no God as billions believe him to be. We just don't know which billions.

[yallerdawg]

57. There are billions and billions of believers.

I think you would get a better idea of what they believe if you asked each and every one of them.

What you THINK they believe might not even be close.

[Major Nikon]

59. So its not reasonable to assume the vast majority of Muslims are monotheists?

Must one canvas all of them to find out?

[yallerdawg]

74. Do you want to dispute and argue with them...

the fact that they believe in one God? Of course not!

But that God has a personal relationship with each and everyone of them as they see it and feel it.

Each and everyone of them.

[Major Nikon]

83. So now you're the one claiming to know what every one of them believes

While simultaneously claiming one can't make such assumptions.

I guess it's not that much different than the false claim that anyone who rejects belief is a believer.

[marylandblue]

60. You asked for evidence about the beliefs of billions of people

But you say that I can't know what those beliefs are. Fine then, you show me evidence that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[yallerdawg]

62. See - you didn't go with the "green cheese" argument, either.

You came up with something serious.

[marylandblue]

63. See post 58, I got you eating moonrocks

[Mariana]

61. That is an excellent idea.

You are a believer. What do you believe?

[yallerdawg]

64. I believe that divisive, intolerant attacks on people of faith...

do not reflect my liberal progressive values.

Like I said before.

[marylandblue]

107. Sure, and I believe that Donald Trump sucks eggs

But that obviously wasn't what Mariana was asking about.

[yallerdawg]

113. Maybe y'all should just go ahead and answer the questions directed at me...

so you get the answers you want to hear.

Skip the middle man!

[marylandblue]

114. You can answer any way you like

But I'll admit I often don't see the relevance of your answers. Or maybe I just don't understand them.

[Mariana]

119. Oh, he understands them, I'm pretty sure.

He just doesn't want to answer them.

[edhopper]

67. When all the stories in the Bible

supposedly took place, the vast majority of the World's population did not believe in tha God. Most hadn't even heard of him.

Did that make him less likely real then?

[Mariana]

26. Among people of faith

even more billions have had faith that that story is false. Their faith led them to totally different conclusions. How trustworthy is faith, then, at determining what is true?

[yallerdawg]

33. For ALL people of faith...

faith is superior to knowledge based on physical evidence.

This would seem to be self-evident, but from the outside looking in, maybe it isn't?

[Mariana]

37. That doesn't answer my question.

How do you determine that the things you have faith in are true, and those other people whose faith told them something completely different got it wrong?

[yallerdawg]

41. The question was answered.

You just want to go on and on.

You and I are done.

[edhopper]

68. So you side with

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 11:42 PM - Edit history (2)

the Creationist, whose faith is superior to physical evidence?

What about the faith of Christians that Jesus is the son of God compared to the faith of Muslims and Jews that he most certainly is not.

Which faith is true?

[yallerdawg]

71. That's simple.

My faith is true to me.

I don't tell anyone else what to believe.

[edhopper]

75. So to completely contrary things

can be true if it's a faith.

Jesus is both the Son of God and Not the Son of God.

[Fix The Stupid]

90. "For ALL people of faith... faith is superior to knowledge based on physical evidence."

Can you believe this?

And you wonder why trump is your president?

Can't even wrap my head around such an ignorant statement.

We have someone here speaking for "ALL people of faith"...It knows what ALL (Capitalized, even) people of faith believe incredibly arrogant.

Let's watch the religious priviledge in action here as we revise this statement with a twist...

" for ALL people of faith, their faith is a childish notion, probably cemented into their brains thru years of indoctrination and they don't have the intellect or the honesty to see it is ALL a total bullshit human construct designed to control the more gullible people in our society".

There - I just spoke 'for ALL people of faith" as well...

Why is your statement OK, but you are probably foaming at the mouth about mine?

[NeoGreen]

91. Irony...

...and obtusiveness, all rolled into one:

[Comatose Sphagetti]

7. No

[msongs]

14. faith is believing in something even though you know it is absolutely not true nt

[yallerdawg]

18. Faith:

"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Proof and truth are two entirely different concepts.

[Bretton Garcia]

135. So the question is. ..

Is it smart, wise, to believe in things for which there is no proof. Or even, as we often see, in things - like Miracles - which are strongly contradicted by proofs, and science.

You might say it is your 1) right. But is it 2) smart?

[marylandblue]

137. Maybe it's belief and truth that are two different concepts

[MineralMan]

138. You think?

One can certainly believe in things that are not true. We see evidence of that every day. Belief does not require truth. It merely requires faith. Faith in falsehoods is quite common.

[guillaumeb]

20. Incorrect.

[MineralMan]

27. Explain why.

Use some words.

[guillaumeb]

31. msongs made an assertion.

I responded.

Faith and science are separate fields.

The scientists who invent weapons of mass destruction are obviously not concerned about the uses to which their weapons will be put. They focus on the work of inventing those weapons.

The philosopher who speaks of the use and possession of those weapons is concerned with how that use and possession reflect on us.

Which is the superior use of intellect?

[marylandblue]

40. Philosophers generally don't rely faith

The whole enterprise is about thinking rationally, not about accepting things on faith.

[yallerdawg]

45. Unless of course meaninglessness becomes nauseating...

and then the only way out is to make a commitment to faith.

[marylandblue]

47. You create your own meaning

and nothing outside yourself can absolve you of the responsibility to do so. You can invent a god to worship if you wish, but if you forget that.you have invented it, you become inauthentic.

[yallerdawg]

48. If you have any doubt you are inauthentic.

This is a life-changing commitment, a turning point in one's life.

Some might even call it miraculous.

[marylandblue]

50. Doubt is not inauthentic, you can commit with doubt

What is inauthentic is looking to a god to provide "higher truth." You can say "I do it because a god wants it," because then it would be asked "why did you choose that god?" So in the end, you just made your own choice. You didn't choose "by faith," you just chose. That's why you are condemned to be free. Faith can't save you.

[yallerdawg]

55. Doubt is meaningless. Doubt is purposeless. Doubt is nauseating.

Doubt is inauthentic.

Our authenticity is rooted in our commitment to our faith in what we believe. That can also be Atheism.

[marylandblue]

65. I don't find doubt to be meaningless or nauseating

By doubting, I see things that others do not.

I am not an atheist.

[yallerdawg]

72. Everyone has some things they believe in.

If what you have is all you need for fulfillment and peace of mind, good for you!

[marylandblue]

77. You are using ambiguities in the word "faith"

To make it seem like doubt can be faith. War is also peace I suppose. And we have always been at war with Oceania. I have faith in that.

[Mariana]

84. To be fair, most religious people did not choose.

Some did, but the overwhelming majority just continue to believe the religion they were indoctrinated into as children is the one that's true.

[marylandblue]

92. That's one of the oddities of faith as a philosophical position

People believe they chose their faith, but in reality, their parents chose for them. So they end up with the fact that they were born to certain parents supposedly leading to a higher truth than if you had actually thought about it.

I went to a lecture by a devout Christian called "Why I am not a Muslim" which discussed all the wrong things in Islam. I walked away thinking he wasn't a Muslim because he wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.

[marylandblue]

123. You seem to mixing up Kierkegaard, a theologian and Satre, a philosopher

[yallerdawg]

125. I'm pretty sure you have that backwards.

[marylandblue]

131. Sartre was an atheist

His play "No Exit" took place in hell, but the theme was entirely this worldly and human-centered. Read it, it's a good play.

[yallerdawg]

132. Exactly. Atheist.

And Kierkegaard was the philosopher.

[Voltaire2]

133. What?

Sartre is perhaps the most well known and influential philosophers of the post war period.

[marylandblue]

134. Kierkegaard was trained as a theologian

and wrote extensively about religion, but he is considered a philosopher now because he had more influence on philosophy than theology. You should be careful about citing Kierkegaard. He thought other theologians served people "lemon-twaddle for children." I think he is right.

[guillaumeb]

121. Feel free to cite with proof of your assertion.

[marylandblue]

122. Feel free to take a course in philosophy

[guillaumeb]

124. Alternatively,

try to divert.

[marylandblue]

130. Sorry, not everything is available by cite on the internet

I know it through my readings in philosophy a d courses I have taken. Philosophy has always been about the use of reason to understand the world going back to the beginning. Among major philosophers, Kierkegaard is unique in his emphasis on faith. Even philosophers who talked about God, like Descartes, Berkeley and the Medieval philosophers were trying to understand God through reason.

[guillaumeb]

142. Trying also to understand humanity's purpose in creation.

But to understand the relationship between man and a deity is different from trying to understand the physical universe.

[marylandblue]

143. Yes theology is different philosophy and science

Though there were people who did all three.

[guillaumeb]

144. True, And some did it well. eom

[marylandblue]

145. Still doesn't support your point

[guillaumeb]

146. We must continue to disagree on the matter. eom

[Major Nikon]

51. There are some intersections between religion and philosophy

Faith isn’t one of them.

[trotsky]

95. "Faith and science are separate fields."

Not only have you never provided any evidence for this claim, you yourself have violated it when you claim your creator provided the "spark" for the Big Bang. You forced your faith into the realm of science. If you're going to shove NOMA in everyone's face as a way to stop criticism of your faith, then you need to get your faith the fuck out of science.

[Iggo]

120. Faith is belief in the impossible.

I was going to add "without evidence," but I realized "impossible" covers that.

[BigmanPigman]

15. Hell no!

[Major Nikon]

16. Pretty much all other forms of evidence are superior to faith

[MineralMan]

28. So I believe, too.

But, I thought I'd provide a space for arguments to the contrary.

[marylandblue]

36. The Jewish answer is interesting

By Christian standards, Judaism is "a faith." By Jewish standards, faith is worthless for establishing knowledge. So the whole faith vs reason argument that Christians have thought an essential dichotomy completely disappears.

Thanks, gothmog.

[Gothmog]

39. I found a faith that fits me

YMMV

[marylandblue]

46. It doesn't sound like faith in the Christian sense

[AncientGeezer]

42. Not mutually exclusive...

[bitterross]

44. Absolutely not.

I can have unshakable faith in the belief that the Earth is flat or that the Messiah will return before the end of the lives of Jesus' apostles. Many people had and have complete faith in those two things.

Neither proves out to be physically true and all physical evidence points to neither being true.

[Docreed2003]

54. No...

I think far too many people see faith as some absolute, something to which they must cling to, and perhaps that absoluteness is what comforts them...I guess I've always seen faith a journey and not a destination. My own personal faith journey would likely be seen as heretical to many within mainstream religion, in particular mainstream Christianity, because it doesn't fit within those confines That doesn't mean that I view my "faith" as any more or less significant, how could it be? My faith is my own and it is something that I hope continues to develop throughout my life. I feel that my experiences help me to better relate to others and to be a better human.

That being said, physical evidence will always carry more weight in the present moment.

[MineralMan]

98. Thank you for a very good personal answer.

That was the idea of this thread. I hoped people would think about the question and provide a personal perspective as an answer. Several have done just that, including you. I appreciate it.

[Docreed2003]

108. Glad to contribute...thanks for reading it!

I always enjoy your thought provoking threads like this one!

[Doodley]

66. Is faith superior to knowledge based on physical evidence? Yes.

Faith is different to knowledge based on physical evidence. A computer can process the later, but it takes the complexities of the human mind to have faith. We are what we believe - about ourselves, our world, the past and the present and our projections of the future - all of which can be fallible. These things take a leap of faith. Look at how easily we can be fooled - optical illusions for example - we take the leap to believe the world we think we see, even though we are often wrong. If we believe nothing, we are nothing. We have to make assumptions and firm beliefs to make sense of our world. Two people can look at exactly the same physical evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. Show a hard line Republican physical evidence of climate change, then show a Democrat - our own unique perceptions, based on biases, experiences, education, memories, mind skills and much more lead us to hold our own unique collections of beliefs, essentially data, that means we are always taking leaps of faith, big and small, from trusting somebody we meet to believing the world was formed by a big bang or a God. Is one superior to the other? Yes, the one that makes us human.

[edhopper]

69. I disagree with everything you said

I don't have your energy to write a longer reply.

I can only say faith, like belief has different uses.

I don't think you have used faith the way Christains do.

And btw Climate Change doesn't take faith, just facts. Republicans are wrong, not just looking through a different lens.

[Doodley]

70. Where do you get your 'facts' to form your belief in climate change? Are you a scientist? Have you

taken measurements and made calculations? You are constantly taking a leap of faith to believe your "facts," that form your view of the world. You are welcome to disagree with that. You can be so stone-cold certain of your world as you see it, that you never question it. That is your choice.

[edhopper]

76. No that is not how

science works. That argument has been tried here before, failing miserably.
Science does not work by faith.

It seems it is the faithful that refuse to question their world.

[Doodley]

81. Did I say science works by faith? My point is that we can pick and choose our 'science.'

"I believe in science" isn't a validation of science itself or the methods used to communicate "science."
I believe in evolution - that doesn't mean I have personally seen the evidence. It means I have put my trust in others to have provided the correct data and I have been influenced by those who have suggested it. The same with man-made climate change - I believe in it, but my belief involves trust in those reporting the data and the conclusions. Most of what we believe is based on third-party sources, and when it is based on our own perceptions, it is distorted.

[marylandblue]

80. I've looked at measurements from others and made my own calculations

I can verify that I and others have come to the exact same conclusion as 99% of the people who took those measurements and made more detailed calculations.

On the other hand, I can't find anyone who can demonstrate that they have spoken to God. There are people who claim it, but God doesn't seem to tell everyone the same thing, so it puts all their claims in doubt. Nobody has been able to demonstrate verified miracles or 100% accurate prophecies.

So are you saying that relying on things I have verified myself, or using information I can get from living persons who did the verification is just as much an act of faith as believing somebody rose from the dead 2,000 years ago?

[Doodley]

82. Where do you get the figure of 99% all getting exactly the same conclusion?

Where did you read that? Where is the original source? Where is the data? Why have you taken a leap of faith to believe that figure? Are you sure you are talking about knowledge based on physical evidence in this instance? Which actual "living persons" do you get your information from? Why do you trust them? Are you telling me that you can personally verify all the things you believe in? I think you are taking a leap of faith.

[marylandblue]

86. The 99% figure is from scientific journals

Where researchers have estimated how many climate scientists have written papers in support of global warming. As for living persons, I have spoken with scientists, and also seen them on TV, or read their statements in journals, newspapers, technical journals etc. Now, I realize it is perfectly within the theoretical realm of possibility, that these people on TV, people who publish in journals, things I have learned in science textbooks and my own professors are all participating in a conspiracy that began about 120 years ago by Svante Arrhenius (whose paper I also read), but I would say that conclusion requires a much larger leap of faith, than my actual conclusion.

It's also possible than my microwave oven doesn't generate microwaves at all but instead has a magic heating element operated by a tiny invisible gnome, but since the physics of microwave ovens is related to the physics of climate change, and I know my microwave does work, I'd say it's a lot more likely that it generates actual microwaves than contains an invisible gnome.

[Doodley]

87. Funny, but I have consistently seen the figure of 97%. Where is your evidence that the figure

is 99%? What is your source of that figure and why do you trust it?

[marylandblue]

89. 99% may be my bad memory, 97% sounds right.

[Act_of_Reparation]

93. 97% vs. 99%

That's pretty pedantic... even for this forum.

[Doodley]

104. My point is that we accept things that may not be true. Our own perceptions of the world and

our own identities are made up of a jigsaw puzzle of beliefs that may not be reality.

[marylandblue]

110. Yes that's true, but if we were to argue the point

We'd be able to go to the original sources, see what they said and come to agreement on the number written there.

If we didn't think they did a good job, we could redo their method or use a different method to see if we get the same conclusion then publish our own work for everyone to see and verify.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How do we decide that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

115. So what.

[trotsky]

116. You're equivocating.

That's a really tired old apologetic trick.

[Act_of_Reparation]

117. Damnit, trotsky.

He was a hair's width away from arguing himself into the ol' hard solipsism hole. That would have been funny to watch.

[trotsky]

118. LOL

Sorry!

[Voltaire2]

140. I'm the Boltzmann Brain.

You guys are fun, but fictional.

[MineralMan]

99. That's an interesting interpretation of the word "superior."

Not the one I had in mind at all. Your statement, "If we believe nothing, we are nothing.", however is completely illogical. No belief is required for me to be in full existence. Thinking, on the other had is required, as Descartes so eloquently stated.

[Doodley]

102. Take away everything you believe, and what do you have left? Nothing.

[MineralMan]

105. Nope. Take away everything I think about and that might be true.

You seem to be equating "faith" and "belief." They are not the same thing. I "believe" that Darwin was correct in his original thinking about evolution, as far as he could go with that at the time. I do not have "faith" in that. I simply "believe" that it is an accurate description of a process - a description that has increased in detail since his day.

The two words mean different things. Faith is held without need for evidence to support it. Beliefs can be held based on mountains of evidence. I do not have "faith" in science. I "believe" that many of the things science has demonstrated are backed by evidence.

[LuvLoogie]

78. Sometimes you have faith because you did the math,

sometimes in spite of the math.

You can predict, but you can never know.

[Bretton Garcia]

136. Predictions that come true 100 % of the time. ..

... like many scientific predictions, seem better than those that come true 0 % of the time. Like the prediction that if you pray, God will give you the power to walk on water (John 14.13, etc.).

Yes, you can doubt the evidence of your eyes. But too often, that's fatal:: is that a bus headed straight for my car?

Yes it is hard to prove that the physical world is real. But the vast bulk of evidence suggests it is.

[LuvLoogie]

139. Many people of faith believe the physical world is real.

Last edited Sat Apr 28, 2018, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Many incorporate spiritual knowledge into their decision making, having seen evidence that cause and effect is not a zero sum game where the human condition is concerned. If will can trump instinct, then the outcome is always in question, regardless of intent. People succeed in spite of the odds. People fail in spite of the optimum conditions.

Spirit drives perseverance over failure, forms new equations, creates the math that results in success because we have faith that it can.

Religious doctrine is not faith. The Bible is human allegory. Some use it as a crutch or an excuse. And some ridicule it to negate the power of faith.

[Voltaire2]

141. Which is why casinos are filled with fail.

[byronius]

79. Only if we're living in a simulation.

And the programmers can hear us.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

88. I once had Faith.

We're just friends now.

[Doodley]

128. LOL!

[trotsky]

96. In no way, shape, or form.

Faith has no correction mechanisms. Anyone can have faith in anything they want - and be equally justified in doing so. That is a very unstable and dangerous basis on which to build a system of common society and laws.

[MineralMan]

112. I agree, of course.

Faith in things unsupported by evidence can lead to serious problems. Some people have faith in many very wrong things.

[Doodley]

126. In saying that, do you feel that you only have faith in things supported by evidence?

[MineralMan]

129. No. If things are supported by evidence, no faith is needed.

Faith is needed only for beliefs that have no evidence to support them. I don't do faith. I find it unnecessary to my life.

[Kolesar]

101. Parts of our brains are way stimulated by fear and social needs and religion fills that need

That is what I think after watching David Eagleman, Brain Games, and a bit of this book I am reading about unconscious thinking. That is also what I think after spending 25 years in fear of God's retribution on my wretched self. Geez, I'm glad I'm past that!

[MineralMan]

103. That's an interesting thing to consider.

The unconscious thinking parts of our brain are generally thought to be those that are the earliest aspects of brain evolution. We share those parts of the brain with most vertebrates. I, too, am interested in neuroscience.

[Kolesar]

106. Our conscious thinking is in the cerebrum, but we have mighty unconscious thinking in the cerebrum

Our fear centers are in the simpler parts of the brain and they keep firing off interrupts that take our attention instantly. Carl Sagan wrote about that as "the Id" in "Dragons of Eden".

The abstract of Bargh's book drew me in. I am still in Chapter One. I am trying to sort out these "God like messages" that I had since my preteenage years. I hope it is there. I am slowly making sense of my fear and anxiety.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1108281/before-you-know-it/

[Doodley]

127. A long time ago, I feared everything. Somebody asked me what it was that I feared.

I said nothing for I was not awakened to my own fears. Once the foundation of my fears were shaken, they all came tumbling down.