Why bother with faith?

[Gorth]

...and here I thought faith was human fears. Religious people fears that there is no higher purpose, no justice and no accountability for what you did in life. Atheists fears that there is some kind of higher purpose, that there is justice and terrified by the thought of being held accountable for their actions. Agnostics are just afraid of taking a stand.

 

I believe people will lead good lives and be "good persons" because they are inclined to do so, as part of who they are, the way they were raised and a number of other circumstances all playing together to create people whose total is greater than the sum of their parts.

[BruceVC]

...and here I thought faith was human fears. Religious people fears that there is no higher purpose, no justice and no accountability for what you did in life. Atheists fears that there is some kind of higher purpose, that there is justice and terrified by the thought of being held accountable for their actions. Agnostics are just afraid of taking a stand.

 

I believe people will lead good lives and be "good persons" because they are inclined to do so, as part of who they are, the way they were raised and a number of other circumstances all playing together to create people whose total is greater than the sum of their parts.

 

Sadly I sometimes see Religious people actually living bad lives because of Religion? In other words there interpretation of Religion leads them to say and do things that they normally wouldn't have done because they are terrified of being judged in the afterlife

[Cantousent]

The devil on your shoulder doesn't tell you there isn't any God. He tells you nothing you do makes any difference, so don't even try. The cruel reality is that I listen to the devil on my shoulder far too often.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Cantousent

[Prosper]

@ Mr. Ermac

 

 

Let me get this out of the way: I don't care if you or any group of philosophers happen to share an opinion. I also couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not I am saying back to you your every word. I know how to avoid strawman fallacies tyvm.

 

 

Lastly I have a right to reject your rhetoric at any time, and to say I am wrong for doing so doesn't score points for your side. It is known the true test of an argument is it can stand on its own . I do not need to satisfy my opponent's premises.

 

 

 

 

ONWARD!

 

 

You Mr.Ernac seem to confuse two different questions.

 

 

1. What is faith?

2. Where or when is faith required?

 

 

You clearly are intentionally conflating 1 and 2 to avoid burden of proof.

 

 

The examples of (faith) and the definition of (faith) provided end up depending on one another. So as you cite your stories you are making this a meaningless exercise involving circular logic .

 

 

People may develop a different opinion or go more in depth in their responses here on out, but do not mistake that as proof your logic is correct or that you have made a good contribution on the behalf of faith.

@The Rest of the People

If you become so certain of something you end up needing to convince yourself it is not true, you were the problem and not reality. You would have to be be guilty of solipsism to say all people require and should be thought as users of faith.

 

 

Suppose faith can be used to no detriment regarding standard of living or survival outcome. It still does not show a utility in truly saving you from circumstance. Needing to change your mood could have been avoided if you stopped desiring certainty.

 

 

Chasing faith to reach a gnostic position on any issue is ludicrous . Faith is a contradiction in-itself.

[exodiark]

My answer is, I do need faith, because without it my life would be a torture.

 

An example:

My mom will not poison my pasta. Wait. How do I know my mom will not poison my pasta? I don't have any proof! Oh wait, I'm his precious son of course she won't... no, no, my dad has just lost his job and he can't support me and three brothers, she might think that poisoning me will help, since I'm 34 and crippled. Well, I suppose it's possible but, but that's just nuts! But wait! These are desperate times, people are desperate, maybe they're planning to do suicide together? It happened before in the news after all, families doing suicide together. Wait no, that's just stupid! ...well maybe, I can't prove that it's stupid either.

 

Without faith, I will live in doubt for the rest of my life =_=

While doubting something does have its merits, believing something without proof (faith) is important part of life too.

[Rosbjerg]

I get what you are saying exodiark, but that's - no offence - a really weak example. But the premise is somewhat true, we go through life believing in the actuality of certain things, without proof at times too. But to me there's a huge difference between faith in people I love not behaving or acting in a way that's detrimental to my well being and believing in a deity - as faith is the former is still based on observation.. Afterall, my mom hasn't poisoned me so far and has given me no indication of wanting to - so trusting that it won't happen is in perfect line with reason and observation.. Whereas there's never any observational data on God, single or plural, so why do we put our faith in that?

[Gorth]

If I had to point out a single written text that actually impacted my way of thinking, it would be Platos cave allegory (from "The Republic"). A real eye opener and food for thought.

[Hurlshort]

There is plenty of observational data on God, it's just limited to the eye of the beholder.

[pzp11]

Hi, I made the difficult choice to join the discussion. If you'll just bear with me ...

 

To start I just want to say something about faith and religion. Some questions above tried to isolate faith from religion, and then failed (sorry I'm too lazy to peruse the thread to cite individual arguments), and tried to go back again with the example of how people deal with daily lives without really asking every single thing.

 

I think the OP was asking about religious faith after all. Because if the OP was asking about assumptions then the question is already solved. Another word for assumptions would be inductive arguments, which are found on reason, as someone above already pointed out in the mother-poison example. If the OP was asking about why we make assumptions, well, that's an entirely different question.

 

My understanding of religious faith is strictly limited to the Christian tradition. I think faith is an elusive term when it comes to definitions, but I think most will agree that faith is found on reason and experience. This is why I think faith still exists, if not growing, despite the secularization.

 

To explain how faith is found on reason and experience: to go with the latter first, personal experience. Most opponents against the religious faith make the argument that religion is so subjective and personal, but aren't we all subjective and personal when we deal with things we really love and trust? Being subjectively inclined towards a certain flavor does not make your whole appetite invalid and unreliable. But this is not really my argument. I'm just trying to explain that religious faith comes from personal experience that is not as fleeting as a mood but from a 'real' experience, just like any other experience we all personally have. It's not about religious people having weaker judgment or are more susceptible towards illusion. Actually it is so 'real' that one simply cannot just deny it. If there's a life-changing experience, this is it.

 

The point on faith and reason. After that moment of experience, it is not that all doubt disappears. This is why faith is also a journey, but only those who have had the first experience can join it. If you will you could also say that there is a pre-journey to this journey, as a curious unbeliever seeks for that 'first experience', but that's for another discussion. Anyway, after the first experience, all one has is that undeniable experience as proof, and reason at one's disposal. The journey is about using reason, but always relying back on that first experience to grow in relationship with God. So it's not like being converted means losing one's reasoning faculty. Everything outward remains as it is, doubt continues to ask questions (perhaps even more vigorously because there's so much at stake) but the first experience changes his/her every perspective. It's like how one's previous allegiance to one's best friend totally changes when one discovers him/her talking behind one's back -- the new information totally changes the way one sees things. Likewise, the things one may have believed (e.g., nothing beyond the world and idea, there is no God, my belief is all that matters) totally changes because of that first experience. But, regardless of how life-changing this is, I'm not fully sure but I would like to believe, that one may still have a choice whether to accept it or reject it. What is sure is that a believer is one who has taken the step to accept the changes that are going on within him/her, and this translates into taking further steps towards finding more about God.

 

To recap in a sequential form: God acts -> the 'first experience' -> journey with reason

 

---

 

Now, finally, to answer the question: why people bother with faith. The general assumption is that 'faith' is founded upon a certain function or will, be it biological, psychological, spiritual, or political, societal, etc. So questions like, 'why still hold onto some extremely outdated beliefs?' may arise. My short and rather insufficient effort to explain above tried to 'correct' this assumption by saying that faith did not come from a clever human idea, but that it came to us first. I think this is what makes faith genuine and worthy of trust (if not some curiosity). And if a 'believer' does not agree with this, then I suggest he/she best think about what he/she's really believing in.

[Rosbjerg]

There is plenty of observational data on God, it's just limited to the eye of the beholder.

 

Problem with that is there's a lot of subjective observational data on things we know don't exist, like hallucinations, telepathy, ghosts etc - so how come we reject that?

[Hurlshort]

You don't believe in ghosts either?

[Rosbjerg]

You don't believe in ghosts either?

 

Or werewolves, zombies, vampires, horoscopes, psychics, angels or anything which has been examined and evidence found wanting..

 

You do?

[Pidesco]

There is plenty of observational data on God, it's just limited to the eye of the beholder.

 

No. Unless you mean to say there's a lot of observational data of Elvis after he died.

[exodiark]

I get what you are saying exodiark, but that's - no offence - a really weak example. But the premise is somewhat true, we go through life believing in the actuality of certain things, without proof at times too. But to me there's a huge difference between faith in people I love not behaving or acting in a way that's detrimental to my well being and believing in a deity - as faith is the former is still based on observation.. Afterall, my mom hasn't poisoned me so far and has given me no indication of wanting to - so trusting that it won't happen is in perfect line with reason and observation.. Whereas there's never any observational data on God, single or plural, so why do we put our faith in that?

 

Oh sorry, I misunderstand the question, I thought it was faith in general sense, not religious one

 

Well, the best answer I can give you is, because we can. Faith does not require data/evidence/proof, therefore I can believe in anything. In fact, since science can't disprove the existence of God either, or model It mathematically, some people took it as a sign that it's still cool to believe in God

[Hurlshort]

There is plenty of observational data on God, it's just limited to the eye of the beholder.

 

No. Unless you mean to say there's a lot of observational data of Elvis after he died.

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about, and I probably didn't make it any better by joking about ghosts. What I see is a plan, a greater purpose, when I look at certain things. The majesty of Yosemite, or even the smile on my child's face, says to me that this is clearly more than just a matter of happenstance. But this is very individualistic, I don't expect you to look at my child and see the same thing, you will just see it as genetics. That is why I separate faith from religion by the way, I see them as two very different things. My faith makes me more tolerant of religion, but religion doesn't give me faith.

[anubite]

I don't think religion or spirituality is the core of the question here.

 

Why do humans believe? Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be here to talk about it.

 

Belief in anything stems from the choice to live. The crux of all philosophical questions can be reduced to: Shall I live? Or shall I commit suicide?

 

Those that pick the latter aren't here. Those that don't pick it may not have asked themselves the question yet, or believe.

 

One needn't believe in a higher power to have faith. Faith that life has some meaning at all, even if it's the meaning that it has no meaning, is sufficient. Asking why one has faith at all is a question that goes beyond this and too personal to try and squeeze into a single sentence. Just be content that people have faith to stay sane. Without faith that what you're standing on is real, even at some vague paranormal level, leads directly to mental breakdown.

[Pidesco]

There is plenty of observational data on God, it's just limited to the eye of the beholder.

 

No. Unless you mean to say there's a lot of observational data of Elvis after he died.

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about, and I probably didn't make it any better by joking about ghosts. What I see is a plan, a greater purpose, when I look at certain things. The majesty of Yosemite, or even the smile on my child's face, says to me that this is clearly more than just a matter of happenstance. But this is very individualistic, I don't expect you to look at my child and see the same thing, you will just see it as genetics. That is why I separate faith from religion by the way, I see them as two very different things. My faith makes me more tolerant of religion, but religion doesn't give me faith.

 

I see what you're saying, but that's not 'observational data' in any sense of the words.

[Farbautisonn]

Faith is food for the soul, science is food for the mind.

 

Faith is just that. Faith in some untangible abstract of philosophy, morality, ethics, religion, code or whatever. Its not cast in iron and its basically highly subjective no matter who with what size sombrero says what. Even amongst those of the same faith, morality, ethical persuasion etc there are plenty of diversions.

 

Personally I subscribe to my own version of Pascals wager: I have faith, (polytheist) and it gives me some measure of comfort and inspiration for a modicum of effort. I dont consider myself a slave of my faith, nor do I go around proselyting my faith. My kids and my family knows my religious practices but I ensure that they make up their own mind. Im not forcing them to do anything nor am I forcing my beliefsystem on them. My faith is allways secondary to science and what I can put my foot and hand on. If there is nothing beyond the tomb,I have lost nothing because I had some measure of comfort in life. If there is something beyond the grave, I hopefully go whereever I am "supposed" to go and enjoy the benefits of that. Its a win win.

 

Being of faith doesnt mean I cant enjoy and even agree with Hitchens and others of the same stripe. I undestand where they are comming from. Its just a matter of perspective .

 

The dangers of adhering to and proselyting faith is that it inheritly breeds contempt and intolerance if it gets too far. As long as people tolerate that I believe in my santas in the sky, I have no problem with them believing in their santas or in no santa. Its when people try to convince me that I am "wrong", I get miffed. I like my santas. Leave me and my santas the **** alone. Mock them, have fun at their expense, at my expense for believing in them, thats just aces. Make all the "Life of Santa" Youtube and Monty flicks you want. Ill even laugh at them. I have no problem with that. Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however.

[BBMorti]

Faith is food for the soul, science is food for the mind.

 

Faith is just that. Faith in some untangible abstract of philosophy, morality, ethics, religion, code or whatever. Its not cast in iron and its basically highly subjective no matter who with what size sombrero says what. Even amongst those of the same faith, morality, ethical persuasion etc there are plenty of diversions.

 

Personally I subscribe to my own version of Pascals wager: I have faith, (polytheist) and it gives me some measure of comfort and inspiration for a modicum of effort. I dont consider myself a slave of my faith, nor do I go around proselyting my faith. My kids and my family knows my religious practices but I ensure that they make up their own mind. Im not forcing them to do anything nor am I forcing my beliefsystem on them. My faith is allways secondary to science and what I can put my foot and hand on. If there is nothing beyond the tomb,I have lost nothing because I had some measure of comfort in life. If there is something beyond the grave, I hopefully go whereever I am "supposed" to go and enjoy the benefits of that. Its a win win.

 

Being of faith doesnt mean I cant enjoy and even agree with Hitchens and others of the same stripe. I undestand where they are comming from. Its just a matter of perspective .

 

The dangers of adhering to and proselyting faith is that it inheritly breeds contempt and intolerance if it gets too far. As long as people tolerate that I believe in my santas in the sky, I have no problem with them believing in their santas or in no santa. Its when people try to convince me that I am "wrong", I get miffed. I like my santas. Leave me and my santas the **** alone. Mock them, have fun at their expense, at my expense for believing in them, thats just aces. Make all the "Life of Santa" Youtube and Monty flicks you want. Ill even laugh at them. I have no problem with that. Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however.

I am all for live and let live.

 

I will point out, though, that when a person lives by a saying such a "Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however." ..then he has left rationalism behind. It is an oxymoron to think yourself a rational thinker if you dismiss everything that does not correlate with what you decided to believe, just because it (the information that is) doesn't agree.

 

It is a big problem when people take things personally, or see it as others trying to 'convert' them, every time a new piece of fact, truth or knowledge is discovered that doesn't fit into the faith they adhere to.

[Farbautisonn]

Faith is food for the soul, science is food for the mind.

 

Faith is just that. Faith in some untangible abstract of philosophy, morality, ethics, religion, code or whatever. Its not cast in iron and its basically highly subjective no matter who with what size sombrero says what. Even amongst those of the same faith, morality, ethical persuasion etc there are plenty of diversions.

 

Personally I subscribe to my own version of Pascals wager: I have faith, (polytheist) and it gives me some measure of comfort and inspiration for a modicum of effort. I dont consider myself a slave of my faith, nor do I go around proselyting my faith. My kids and my family knows my religious practices but I ensure that they make up their own mind. Im not forcing them to do anything nor am I forcing my beliefsystem on them. My faith is allways secondary to science and what I can put my foot and hand on. If there is nothing beyond the tomb,I have lost nothing because I had some measure of comfort in life. If there is something beyond the grave, I hopefully go whereever I am "supposed" to go and enjoy the benefits of that. Its a win win.

 

Being of faith doesnt mean I cant enjoy and even agree with Hitchens and others of the same stripe. I undestand where they are comming from. Its just a matter of perspective .

 

The dangers of adhering to and proselyting faith is that it inheritly breeds contempt and intolerance if it gets too far. As long as people tolerate that I believe in my santas in the sky, I have no problem with them believing in their santas or in no santa. Its when people try to convince me that I am "wrong", I get miffed. I like my santas. Leave me and my santas the **** alone. Mock them, have fun at their expense, at my expense for believing in them, thats just aces. Make all the "Life of Santa" Youtube and Monty flicks you want. Ill even laugh at them. I have no problem with that. Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however.

I am all for live and let live.

 

I will point out, though, that when a person lives by a saying such a "Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however." ..then he has left rationalism behind. It is an oxymoron to think yourself a rational thinker if you dismiss everything that does not correlate with what you decided to believe, just because it (the information that is) doesn't agree.

 

It is a big problem when people take things personally, or see it as others trying to 'convert' them, every time a new piece of fact, truth or knowledge is discovered that doesn't fit into the faith they adhere to.

 

Im afraid you misundestand. Either deliberately or involuntarily.

 

Im as rational as they come. I will hammer you in a discussion for using logical fallacies or using nonpeer reviewed or biased sources. But the thing is, faith is an abstract you cant "quatitize" or "qualitize" if you will permit such terms. Faith, in its nature is not logical. You can have faith in your dogs behaviour, in your partners loyalty, in your childs love, but you dont KNOW if you are indeed correct from a logical / normative / empirical stance if the dog does indeed love you, if your partner is loyal (by your definition in action and thought) or if you kids/significant other really "loves" you (and the definition of love varies between persons too). Its faith. Its got **** all to do with logic. You can build ad hoc and subjective narratives and "evidence" for its existence buy you cant scientifically prove any of it.

 

If you can define and scientifically prove "love" however, I will defer.

 

I dont take much personally. Im danish. We like cartoons and taking the piss out on our gods. We have been doing it for 1 thousand years. We still do it to the point where people burn our embassies and even that we dont take too seriously. Give us beer bacon and boobs and we are quite open for compromise. :D. We generally dont disregard facts of life... and neither do I. Just dont try to cram your definition of love, faith, morals or ethics down our throat. We generally dont like to be told what to believe.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[BBMorti]

Faith is food for the soul, science is food for the mind.

 

Faith is just that. Faith in some untangible abstract of philosophy, morality, ethics, religion, code or whatever. Its not cast in iron and its basically highly subjective no matter who with what size sombrero says what. Even amongst those of the same faith, morality, ethical persuasion etc there are plenty of diversions.

 

Personally I subscribe to my own version of Pascals wager: I have faith, (polytheist) and it gives me some measure of comfort and inspiration for a modicum of effort. I dont consider myself a slave of my faith, nor do I go around proselyting my faith. My kids and my family knows my religious practices but I ensure that they make up their own mind. Im not forcing them to do anything nor am I forcing my beliefsystem on them. My faith is allways secondary to science and what I can put my foot and hand on. If there is nothing beyond the tomb,I have lost nothing because I had some measure of comfort in life. If there is something beyond the grave, I hopefully go whereever I am "supposed" to go and enjoy the benefits of that. Its a win win.

 

Being of faith doesnt mean I cant enjoy and even agree with Hitchens and others of the same stripe. I undestand where they are comming from. Its just a matter of perspective .

 

The dangers of adhering to and proselyting faith is that it inheritly breeds contempt and intolerance if it gets too far. As long as people tolerate that I believe in my santas in the sky, I have no problem with them believing in their santas or in no santa. Its when people try to convince me that I am "wrong", I get miffed. I like my santas. Leave me and my santas the **** alone. Mock them, have fun at their expense, at my expense for believing in them, thats just aces. Make all the "Life of Santa" Youtube and Monty flicks you want. Ill even laugh at them. I have no problem with that. Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however.

I am all for live and let live.

 

I will point out, though, that when a person lives by a saying such a "Trying to get me to "convert" is not going to work however." ..then he has left rationalism behind. It is an oxymoron to think yourself a rational thinker if you dismiss everything that does not correlate with what you decided to believe, just because it (the information that is) doesn't agree.

 

It is a big problem when people take things personally, or see it as others trying to 'convert' them, every time a new piece of fact, truth or knowledge is discovered that doesn't fit into the faith they adhere to.

 

Im afraid you misundestand. Either deliberately or involuntarily.

 

Im as rational as they come. I will hammer you in a discussion for using logical fallacies or using nonpeer reviewed or biased sources. But the thing is, faith is an abstract you cant "quatitize" or "qualitize" if you will permit such terms. Faith, in its nature is not logical. You can have faith in your dogs behaviour, in your partners loyalty, in your childs love, but you dont KNOW if you are indeed correct from a logical / normative / empirical stance if the dog does indeed love you, if your partner is loyal (by your definition in action and thought) or if you kids/significant other really "loves" you (and the definition of love varies between persons too). Its faith. Its got **** all to do with logic. You can build ad hoc and subjective narratives and "evidence" for its existence buy you cant scientifically prove any of it.

 

If you can define and scientifically prove "love" however, I will defer.

 

I dont take much personally. Im danish. We like cartoons and taking the piss out on our gods. We have been doing it for 1 thousand years. We still do it to the point where people burn our embassies and even that we dont take too seriously. Give us beer bacon and boobs and we are quite open for compromise. :D. We generally dont disregard facts of life... and neither do I. Just dont try to cram your definition of love, faith, morals or ethics down our throat. We generally dont like to be told what to believe.

The you in my post was more a general 'you'

 

A look into neuroscience might shatter your view of love. It might do the opposite. Dopamine brings people together and oxytocin keeps them attached, this has been proven. Neurochemicals *is* love, scientifically speaking. I do, however, wonder if you would accept that.. it is a less 'romantic' way of seeing love for some, I personally find it fascinating.

 

http://Chemistry of Love this link gives a decent description of the processes.

 

The definition of love, however, is in the eye of the beholder.. the processes is measurable and similar. No matter how special a love you have felt, if we cut the access to the processes in your brain that makes love work, you would not feel it anymore. It is all in the brain, and not in the heart for example.

 

Fun fact: When the first heart transplant were made people were deeply frightened that the patient would lose all the feelings and emotions so many thought were centered in that organ.

 

I am Danish myself, so I know well what you talk about.

[Hurlshort]

As you kind of hinted at, we can explain the chemical reaction of love, but we can't really explain why someone loves someone else specifically. So we've answered the how but not the why.

[obyknven]

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[exodiark]

As you kind of hinted at, we can explain the chemical reaction of love, but we can't really explain why someone loves someone else specifically. So we've answered the how but not the why.

 

Naturally, to have better survival chance?

Humans are conditioned to work in teams after all.

Edited November 18, 2012 by exodiark

[Wrath of Dagon]

It comes down to whether you believe life is random or not.