5 ms·

That is the definition of faith used by the irreligious -- as hostile a definition as if you asked one political party to explain the beliefs of the other! An

by Dove 3y ago

That is the definition of faith used by the irreligious -- as hostile a definition as if you asked one political party to explain the beliefs of the other! An insider, and particularly a Christian, would never define faith that way. Speaking as a Christian myself, I would say faith is belief in motion. And I would say that faith doesn't oppose rationality and evidence, but is rather sort of orthogonal to it. Let us suppose you believe there is a horrible and dangerous pandemic going on outside your house. You rationally are afraid to go outside. And then as days pass, you gather evidence that the pandemic has subsided and things are safe now. At first you don't trust it. And then you think it might be true. And then probably true. And then virtually certain. That process of gathering evidence and becoming more certain is rationality. Faith... is when you go outside. Belief in motion. Now, that step out the door can happen at any point. It can happen when you first hear a hint that things are better, and in a reckless rush of hope, you run outside. It can happen long after you are certain certain certain and fear keeps you inside too long. These are both examples of bad faith, unhealthy faith, faith misused. A Christian speaking of faith really means healthy faith - you go out when you should. Sound faith doesn't imply a lack of evidence, or complete evidence either. It's about deciding the evidence is sufficient and moving forward from there. And it's not only that - it's faith in something. If you step outside because a certain analyst convinced you it was safe, and you later take that same analyst's advice on diet, and on this, and on that, and it keeps working out - you are growing in faith in that analyst. Eventually, you may trust them quite a lot. This is what I would say faith is: belief in motion, working towards building trust.

angoragoats 3y ago
I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. There is a lot of nonsense, bad analogies, and fallacious reasoning here that I don’t care to respond to individually, so I’ll just ask a question that should be easy for you to answer given your explanation, and will also let you pick up a Nobel Prize or similar award if you answer successfully: What is your evidence for god existing? In other words, framed in terms of your (bad) pandemic analogy, what is your equivalent to the verifiable evidence gathered showing that the pandemic is subsiding?
- Dove 3y ago
  > I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. Oh, I know, I know, and both of you are only rehearsing what is common knowledge in the culture. It's just, that culture consists of people who don't have faith, and among people who do, it's something quite different. Ask a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, heck even a Buddhist - it won't be exactly what I said, but it'll be a lot more like what I said than what you said. I'm not trying to be hostile - just executing a cultural exchange. What is the evidence for God existing? This will no doubt annoy you, but I'll frame the answer to that by talking about faith a little more. See, the way I've described things, faith is a very rational process, something an intellectually healthy person does all the time. You have some notion of "sufficient" evidence that lets you believe something, trust something, act on something. I presume you have a lot of faith in the scientific process, such that when it tells you something you believe it! That is an example of healthy faith. You did have a rational basis for belief at some point, long ago, but really by now you've been trusting it for a long time, and it's been working out, and it makes sense of everything. That's strong, healthy faith. It isn't weird at all. It's rational and normal. I have that sort of rational and normal faith - in God. Which makes it weird if you ask me for evidence that God exists, sort of like asking how you know science works. It kind of takes a minute to even get your head around a perspective that could ask a question like that. You are coming from an alien perspective to me, a position of zero faith, of distrust, you want evidence of a distant and theoretical God, God as an abstract and safe idea, like you might ask for evidence of the existence of electrons. My first inclination is to laugh, and point at the nearest power cable! That must seem nonsensical, but the truth is that to me God is as concrete and real and close and dangerous as an electrical socket. I don't believe in God the way I believe in electrons, but more like the way I believe in my car. I drive it to work every day. Of course it exists. I interact with it, in an undeniable way, on the average Tuesday. But of course, my evidence wouldn't be yours, much the same as a science skeptic wondering about electrons is unimpressed by an electric tea kettle. He doesn't know how it works, but who says it has anything to do with electrons? Okay, you might ask yourself, why do I believe in electrons? And - after moment sputtering and hardly knowing where to begin - you say well, all right, there's this paper, and they guffaw at the scientific establishment. And you say, well okay, there's this one experiment that's actually accessible enough I did it myself, personally, in college, it was really neat... And they poke holes in that. And on and on. The science skeptic in that story is coming from a position of zero faith, of hostility to faith, and is committing a very similar intellectual sin to the the pandemic fearer who won't come out in my previous example. This individual won't have faith when he really ought to, when he really should, and it's clear something else is going on. Of course, it's always possible to doubt any evidence, reality is never certain certain, but something about this guy is clearly messed up. You start to wonder if what's actually going on is that an electron kicked his dog at some point. And generally speaking, that's usually exactly what it is. I've heard it said that the opposite of faith is fear, and I think it can be. I would say it's emotional dysregulation towards belief. Sometimes you refuse a conclusion out of fear. Sometimes shame. Sometimes pride. I have found with atheists it's often anger. It's a phenomenon we're all familiar with in politics, right? That dang left-wing/right-wing guy cannot see the obvious because there's something emotionally wrong with him. So I mean, all of that is to say, Why do I believe in God? What is the evidence? First of all, evidence is not why people believe or resist belief - the evidence is good, faith is the default, skepticism means something is going on and it's almost never about evidence. But second of all, I hardly know where to start! I guess, going back to the beginning for me personally, I was most impressed by the out-of-its-time wisdom and excellence of the Bible. Whoever wrote that is someone I want to follow. I think the facts surrounding the laws of physics, the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are particularly strong - the case that convinced Anthony Flew. Miracles are surprisingly, shockingly well documented, if you look. So routine you wonder how people manage not to believe in them. There are always the prophecies. And of course, I've spent a lifetime in the church, seeing faith accomplish astonishing things. And very personally, none of this matters - I am like Gideon, who put out the fleece, once, twice, it was enough, and I've been betting my life on it ever since. That is sufficient for me, but hardly accessible for you. For a tour of rational research leading to faith, Lee Strobel's Case For Christ is excellent, and is even available in movie format. There's another one about C.S Lewis that came out recently. Both depictions of hardened, rational skeptics who did the research and came away convinced. In another direction, if you want an astonishing and unbelievable depiction of what life is like on high magic settings, I recommend Reese Howell, Intercessor. I hail from somewhere in the neighborhood of Howell's reality. But it sort of doesn't matter, in your case - what convinces one person doesn't convince another. Zero faith is a wall that can't be gotten over with evidence, no matter how much. I would much rather convince one person to follow Jesus than pick up a Nobel prize, but the truth is that neither one is really in my power. But there is a test to look for the real issue. You can pray - something along the lines of, "God, if you're there, I'd like to know - show me." I think people from a zero faith perspective generally react to that proposition, not with the rational "lol what's the point?" but with more of a "No way, no how, absolutely not!" If you stop and think about it, that's an odd, strong reaction. What emotion was it? Why? See, a prayer like that is the sort of thing I'd expect God to take you up on, maybe eventually, or at least it seems like a possibility. Which, if you're emotionally hostile to faith, makes it a threat and lets you see what the problem is. If you don't want to do that, if there's an emotional reaction to the possibility that Someone really is out there and really might respond to you in a convincing way... the emotion that makes you hostile to a very small, very pointless, very tiny and experimental exercise of faith, is the dysregulation at the root of your hostility to faith in general. That is the reason no amount of evidence is sufficient, because evidence isn't emotion and doesn't untangle emotional issues. If you want a really dangerous next step from there... God untangles emotional issues. Sincerely asking for help with whatever the issue is, is close enough to the sinner's prayer to start things rolling - do it if you dare. ;)

by Dove 3y ago

angoragoats 3y ago

I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. There is a lot of nonsense, bad analogies, and fallacious reasoning here that I don’t care to respond to individually, so I’ll just ask a question that should be easy for you to answer given your explanation, and will also let you pick up a Nobel Prize or similar award if you answer successfully: What is your evidence for god existing? In other words, framed in terms of your (bad) pandemic analogy, what is your equivalent to the verifiable evidence gathered showing that the pandemic is subsiding?

Dove 3y ago
> I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. Oh, I know, I know, and both of you are only rehearsing what is common knowledge in the culture. It's just, that culture consists of people who don't have faith, and among people who do, it's something quite different. Ask a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, heck even a Buddhist - it won't be exactly what I said, but it'll be a lot more like what I said than what you said. I'm not trying to be hostile - just executing a cultural exchange. What is the evidence for God existing? This will no doubt annoy you, but I'll frame the answer to that by talking about faith a little more. See, the way I've described things, faith is a very rational process, something an intellectually healthy person does all the time. You have some notion of "sufficient" evidence that lets you believe something, trust something, act on something. I presume you have a lot of faith in the scientific process, such that when it tells you something you believe it! That is an example of healthy faith. You did have a rational basis for belief at some point, long ago, but really by now you've been trusting it for a long time, and it's been working out, and it makes sense of everything. That's strong, healthy faith. It isn't weird at all. It's rational and normal. I have that sort of rational and normal faith - in God. Which makes it weird if you ask me for evidence that God exists, sort of like asking how you know science works. It kind of takes a minute to even get your head around a perspective that could ask a question like that. You are coming from an alien perspective to me, a position of zero faith, of distrust, you want evidence of a distant and theoretical God, God as an abstract and safe idea, like you might ask for evidence of the existence of electrons. My first inclination is to laugh, and point at the nearest power cable! That must seem nonsensical, but the truth is that to me God is as concrete and real and close and dangerous as an electrical socket. I don't believe in God the way I believe in electrons, but more like the way I believe in my car. I drive it to work every day. Of course it exists. I interact with it, in an undeniable way, on the average Tuesday. But of course, my evidence wouldn't be yours, much the same as a science skeptic wondering about electrons is unimpressed by an electric tea kettle. He doesn't know how it works, but who says it has anything to do with electrons? Okay, you might ask yourself, why do I believe in electrons? And - after moment sputtering and hardly knowing where to begin - you say well, all right, there's this paper, and they guffaw at the scientific establishment. And you say, well okay, there's this one experiment that's actually accessible enough I did it myself, personally, in college, it was really neat... And they poke holes in that. And on and on. The science skeptic in that story is coming from a position of zero faith, of hostility to faith, and is committing a very similar intellectual sin to the the pandemic fearer who won't come out in my previous example. This individual won't have faith when he really ought to, when he really should, and it's clear something else is going on. Of course, it's always possible to doubt any evidence, reality is never certain certain, but something about this guy is clearly messed up. You start to wonder if what's actually going on is that an electron kicked his dog at some point. And generally speaking, that's usually exactly what it is. I've heard it said that the opposite of faith is fear, and I think it can be. I would say it's emotional dysregulation towards belief. Sometimes you refuse a conclusion out of fear. Sometimes shame. Sometimes pride. I have found with atheists it's often anger. It's a phenomenon we're all familiar with in politics, right? That dang left-wing/right-wing guy cannot see the obvious because there's something emotionally wrong with him. So I mean, all of that is to say, Why do I believe in God? What is the evidence? First of all, evidence is not why people believe or resist belief - the evidence is good, faith is the default, skepticism means something is going on and it's almost never about evidence. But second of all, I hardly know where to start! I guess, going back to the beginning for me personally, I was most impressed by the out-of-its-time wisdom and excellence of the Bible. Whoever wrote that is someone I want to follow. I think the facts surrounding the laws of physics, the origin of the universe, and the origin of life are particularly strong - the case that convinced Anthony Flew. Miracles are surprisingly, shockingly well documented, if you look. So routine you wonder how people manage not to believe in them. There are always the prophecies. And of course, I've spent a lifetime in the church, seeing faith accomplish astonishing things. And very personally, none of this matters - I am like Gideon, who put out the fleece, once, twice, it was enough, and I've been betting my life on it ever since. That is sufficient for me, but hardly accessible for you. For a tour of rational research leading to faith, Lee Strobel's Case For Christ is excellent, and is even available in movie format. There's another one about C.S Lewis that came out recently. Both depictions of hardened, rational skeptics who did the research and came away convinced. In another direction, if you want an astonishing and unbelievable depiction of what life is like on high magic settings, I recommend Reese Howell, Intercessor. I hail from somewhere in the neighborhood of Howell's reality. But it sort of doesn't matter, in your case - what convinces one person doesn't convince another. Zero faith is a wall that can't be gotten over with evidence, no matter how much. I would much rather convince one person to follow Jesus than pick up a Nobel prize, but the truth is that neither one is really in my power. But there is a test to look for the real issue. You can pray - something along the lines of, "God, if you're there, I'd like to know - show me." I think people from a zero faith perspective generally react to that proposition, not with the rational "lol what's the point?" but with more of a "No way, no how, absolutely not!" If you stop and think about it, that's an odd, strong reaction. What emotion was it? Why? See, a prayer like that is the sort of thing I'd expect God to take you up on, maybe eventually, or at least it seems like a possibility. Which, if you're emotionally hostile to faith, makes it a threat and lets you see what the problem is. If you don't want to do that, if there's an emotional reaction to the possibility that Someone really is out there and really might respond to you in a convincing way... the emotion that makes you hostile to a very small, very pointless, very tiny and experimental exercise of faith, is the dysregulation at the root of your hostility to faith in general. That is the reason no amount of evidence is sufficient, because evidence isn't emotion and doesn't untangle emotional issues. If you want a really dangerous next step from there... God untangles emotional issues. Sincerely asking for help with whatever the issue is, is close enough to the sinner's prayer to start things rolling - do it if you dare. ;)