Faith is believing something that you know isnt true.

[Horatio Parker]

Faith from a Platonic perspective has another meaning.

Not believing what you know isn't so, but believing what you think should be. In Platonic terms a "higher vision".

Plato lists four primary virtues: temperance(or prudence or moderation), justice, wisdom and courage.

Courage is the most relevant here, defined as adhering to a higher vision in the face of pain, pleasure, fear or desire(classics loved them some fours). Doing so leads to "being", a heightened state of awareness wherein insight or vision take place. Or, to use more contemporary terms, a state of mind where one can view problems from an detached, objective state of mind.

Faith, then, is simply adhering to your principles.

 

[abaddon]

And if you're going to accuse others of wishful/wilful belief in God, you are open to the reciprocal accusation that your disbelief has an ulterior motive.

And what's the ulterior motive? The desire to do "whatever we like"? What wishful or willful desires do you think would lead to disbelief in God?

Look at the benefits that are handily satisfied by the belief in God: the fear of death, the desire to be given a meaning, to feel like a special creation, to be watched over, to hope that in the end some cosmic justice will be done.

There's appeal there.

But then contrast that with how furtive he is, no trace of a god anywhere other than talk, talk, talk.

I looked for traces of god before I concluded there isn't one. If a person looks and doesn't see it, if he calls out and there's no answer, then what do you think is his motive for disbelief?

Then add in what's known about human psychology and how people excel at believing what they want for self-seeking reasons (making clear why a methodically applied empiricism is necessary to help them with that problem inherent to their natures). Then add in the observations of theists playing word-games to try to make god seem reasonable.

It becomes very clear that God is only a concept with probably no actual referent in reality outside of the human imagination. If that weren't true, theists wouldn't have to keep referencing things tucked safely outside examination -- outside of nature or inside of personal experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Faith from a Platonic perspective has another meaning.

Not believing what you know isn't so, but believing what you think should be. In Platonic terms a "higher vision".

Plato lists four primary virtues: temperance(or prudence or moderation), justice, wisdom and courage.

Courage is the most relevant here, defined as adhering to a higher vision in the face of pain, pleasure, fear or desire(classics loved them some fours). Doing so leads to "being", a heightened state of awareness wherein insight or vision take place. Or, to use more contemporary terms, a state of mind where one can view problems from an detached, objective state of mind.

Faith, then, is simply adhering to your principles.

Very good. I never looked at it that way before.

 

[steve_bank]

Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....

What would you call the beief that a jet in good working order will never just stop flying?

I understand aerodynamics and lift, but the average passenger does not.

s it a faith by the average person that they can rely on science they do not understand?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Faith from a Platonic perspective has another meaning.

Not believing what you know isn't so, but believing what you think should be. In Platonic terms a "higher vision".

Plato lists four primary virtues: temperance(or prudence or moderation), justice, wisdom and courage.

Courage is the most relevant here, defined as adhering to a higher vision in the face of pain, pleasure, fear or desire(classics loved them some fours). Doing so leads to "being", a heightened state of awareness wherein insight or vision take place. Or, to use more contemporary terms, a state of mind where one can view problems from an detached, objective state of mind.

Faith, then, is simply adhering to your principles.

Very good. I never looked at it that way before.

Thanks. I'd like to take credit, but it's just basic Plato(from the Republic). The west's true spiritual heritage.

 

[steve_bank]

Faith from a Platonic perspective has another meaning.

Not believing what you know isn't so, but believing what you think should be. In Platonic terms a "higher vision".

Plato lists four primary virtues: temperance(or prudence or moderation), justice, wisdom and courage.

Courage is the most relevant here, defined as adhering to a higher vision in the face of pain, pleasure, fear or desire(classics loved them some fours). Doing so leads to "being", a heightened state of awareness wherein insight or vision take place. Or, to use more contemporary terms, a state of mind where one can view problems from an detached, objective state of mind.

Faith, then, is simply adhering to your principles.

Very good. I never looked at it that way before.

Thanks. I'd like to take credit, but it's just basic Plato(from the Republic). The west's true spiritual heritage.

I went through Plato in long ago Phil 101. Good summary. it is actually a help. What it shows is that there are alternatives to Aramaic traditions for a solid moral philosophy. Plato might be a good thread to open if you understand him. Get us away from endless arguments in logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What would you call the beief that a jet in good working order will never just stop flying?

DOES anyone actually believe a jet will NEVER stop flying?

I have a certain degree of trust in any jet i ride, but whatever you want to call it, it's certainly not "without evidence."

Planes have a track record thats far oldef than i am. There are far more successful flights in a day than failures. There are multiple agencies trying to make the industry as safe as possible. So while aware of the risks, i think it can be a rational evaluation of the liklihood of arriving at my destination, even if i knew bupkes about lift, drag, fuel consumption, metal fatigue, or any of the science involved. Just counting should suffice. No need for a leap of faith, or silly thinking that it could NEVER happen to me... just hasn't yet.

So, not comparable to religious faith

 

[DBT]

Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....

What would you call the beief that a jet in good working order will never just stop flying?

An irrational belief....given that we have a fair idea, through direct experience, design, etc, of how mechanical systems work.

I understand aerodynamics and lift, but the average passenger does not.

The average passenger may not fully aerodynamics and lift, but does have experience with flying, refueling, etc, and is probably aware of plans crash reports, their frequency and likelihood.

s it a faith by the average person that they can rely on science they do not understand?

It is faith if they start to make up their own explanations without regard for what is understood about the mechanics of flight. Not understanding is the honest position. Not understanding or not knowing is not faith.

 

[steve_bank]

What would you call the beief that a jet in good working order will never just stop flying?

DOES anyone actually believe a jet will NEVER stop flying?

I have a certain degree of trust in any jet i ride, but whatever you want to call it, it's certainly not "without evidence."

Planes have a track record thats far oldef than i am. There are far more successful flights in a day than failures. There are multiple agencies trying to make the industry as safe as possible. So while aware of the risks, i think it can be a rational evaluation of the liklihood of arriving at my destination, even if i knew bupkes about lift, drag, fuel consumption, metal fatigue, or any of the science involved. Just counting should suffice. No need for a leap of faith, or silly thinking that it could NEVER happen to me... just hasn't yet.

So, not comparable to religious faith

Whether somebody disbelieves is not the question. My question is if it is a form of faith to believe a plane will fly without understanding the science, And I did not equate directly to religion.

I'd bet there are people who will question it.

 

[bilby]

An irrational belief....given that we have a fair idea, through direct experience, design, etc, of how mechanical systems work.

I understand aerodynamics and lift, but the average passenger does not.

The average passenger may not fully aerodynamics and lift, but does have experience with flying, refueling, etc, and is probably aware of plans crash reports, their frequency and likelihood.

In the contrary; People overestimate risk, and as a result most airline passengers, due to their lack of understanding of the engineering details, think that flying is FAR mor dangerous that it actually is.

Far from having blind faith, they are actually needlessly frightened by that which they do not understand.

 

[DBT]

An irrational belief....given that we have a fair idea, through direct experience, design, etc, of how mechanical systems work.

I understand aerodynamics and lift, but the average passenger does not.

The average passenger may not fully aerodynamics and lift, but does have experience with flying, refueling, etc, and is probably aware of plans crash reports, their frequency and likelihood.

In the contrary; People overestimate risk, and as a result most airline passengers, due to their lack of understanding of the engineering details, think that flying is FAR mor dangerous that it actually is.

Far from having blind faith, they are actually needlessly frightened by that which they do not understand.

I don't deny that. It doesn't contradict what I said. If they are overestimating the risk, no doubt that many do, they are encroaching into the realm of unjustified assumptions...

 

[bilby]

In the contrary; People overestimate risk, and as a result most airline passengers, due to their lack of understanding of the engineering details, think that flying is FAR mor dangerous that it actually is.

Far from having blind faith, they are actually needlessly frightened by that which they do not understand.

I don't deny that. It doesn't contradict what I said. If they are overestimating the risk, no doubt that many do, they are encroaching into the realm of unjustified assumptions...

Sorry (and it's Sorry Day, so that's perhaps appropriate), I have had quite a few beers this evening, so I didn't express myself clearly - I was agreeing with you, and expanding upon why I agree with your position.

 

[DBT]

In the contrary; People overestimate risk, and as a result most airline passengers, due to their lack of understanding of the engineering details, think that flying is FAR mor dangerous that it actually is.

Far from having blind faith, they are actually needlessly frightened by that which they do not understand.

I don't deny that. It doesn't contradict what I said. If they are overestimating the risk, no doubt that many do, they are encroaching into the realm of unjustified assumptions...

Sorry (and it's Sorry Day, so that's perhaps appropriate), I have had quite a few beers this evening, so I didn't express myself clearly - I was agreeing with you, and expanding upon why I agree with your position.

No problem. Enjoy the beer. I am about to pop the cork on a bottle of Moscato.

 

[remez]

from post 14

I don't know whether the universe is eternal or not. Is that a 'belief'?

But you hold that position (a convenient and inconsistent skepticism) contrary to the prevailing evidence and that was my point to you all. This thread is one of epistemology. A challenge to us all. I offered a challenge back to you all to examine your own issues of faith as described by DBT.

I am certain that Gods don't exist, and that the universe therefore wasn't made by one; That's a belief, but it's one based on good hard logic- by "The universe" I mean everything that exists; In order for any entity to make the universe, it would have to not be a part of everything that exists.

That’s not hard logic. That’s circular reasoning.

The ONLY possibilities not eliminated by logic are either a) The universe is eternal OR b) The universe began to exist spontaneously from nothing.

That is a statement of your faith. Choice A stands against the prevailing evidence. Choice B infers an effect without a cause. Hardly a logical position to hold.

If I accept, ad argumentum that the Big Bang was precipitated by an intelligence that existed before the Big Bang, then that intelligence still needs an explanation for its existence.

Of course it does.

To say that God is the beginning is to miss the point - if there is a God, then you are not thinking about the beginning yet. You could as well say that the question of origins is completely resolved, by the observation that the Solar System formed from the collapse of a cloud of dust and gas. Where did the dust and gas come from? Who cares. Let's just declare that it is eternal and stick a label on it that reads 'Supernatural phenomena beyond this point - please do not question'.

No one is suggesting we stop investigating anything. That is a straw man of the Natural Theology.

There is not one shred of evidence to back the claim that any gods are non-fiction;

Only if you don’t follow the scientific evidence where it leads. To make that assertion you have to ignore the prevailing inference of the SBBM (Standard Big Bang Model) that the universe began to exist. I would agree with you that all of the polytheistic and pantheistic gods are eliminated by the SBBM. Of special note, it would logically eliminate atheism as well, because atheism is wedded to naturalism/materialism. But Theism and Deism remain viable options if the universe began to exist.

I don't believe that the universe is eternal; I do lean towards that possibility, but I really don't know.

That’s fine. You don’t have enough evidence to support your belief. But that does not mean I don’t have any evidence for my reasonable belief that the universe began to exist. With all the evidence we have now I do reasonably believe that the universe began to exist.
Further……
How much do you really know for certain? It is a fiction to believe that all of what you believe is known with certainty. Thus we form and hold our beliefs upon the best explanations of the evidence before us all. A reasonable faith as opposed to a blind faith. Skeptics are not exempt.

I DO believe that there are no gods; I feel justified in that belief because those who claim that it is wrong seem incapable of even clearly defining what a god is, without including contradictions between their definition and observed reality, or worse, contradictions within their definitions.

So your justification for rejecting Christianity is you don’t accept their definition of God and additionally you simply assert that there are contradictions within the definition that you have already begged the question against. Fine. But that sounds more volitional than evidential to me. I see no evidence there to justify your rejection. I only see an assertion of your feelings on the matter coupled with some fallacious reasoning.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that something ill-defined does not exist; And it is completely unreasonable to believe in things that contradict themselves, or that contradict observed reality.

I concur.

 

[remez]

from post 15

Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....

....Like believing that the material universe is eternal.

While our observations indicate that's a viable hypothesis, we don't hold it on faith. It may or may not be true. If new evidence more powerfully indicates matter is only temporary, we would be more likely to consider that true- but we still wouldn't consider it absolutely true.

Observations powerfully infer that the universe began to exist. Thus to believe that that universe has a cause is far more reasonable than its alternative. To withhold reasonable belief for an alternative in the face of the evidence that we do have is a belief in and of itself against the evidence and that was my point.

My belief is not blind. It is actually supported with the scientific evidence on this point.

....Like believing that all explanations must be natural explanations.

Show us something you can explain supernaturally. We might change our minds. (But we won't be holding our breath, waiting.)

You missed the larger point there. So if nature began to exist……then how can its existence be explained by natural explanation or have a natural cause?

.....Like preaching that the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.

That's just a re-statement of your first point; and we hypothesize that it's true, we don't 'preach' it.

Hypothesize? Really? Uncle Karl is turning over in his grave.
Bilby and many others have actually defined the universe to be exactly that. Check it out. Theism is defined/preached right out of existence by exactly that assumption and that was my point.

.....Like teaching that the universe can create itself out of nothing.

Hold on. If the material universe is eternal, it's uncreated. Can't have it both ways. (Do you think God created himself out of nothing?)

I was referring to those like Dennett, Hawking and Krauss who attempt to explain that the universe caused itself. That requires faith against the reason. As to your “if”….. I agree if the universe is eternal it does not have a cause. But with the evidence we have now, to belief the universe is eternal is a belief against the evidence.

.....Like believing the Christian faith is not based on evidence.

"We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years."
-Robert Ingersoll

Non sequitur. I have not defended my belief with sermon or miracle. I was referring to the scientific evidence, specific to the context here…cosmology. Yes scientific evidence exists to support my beliefs. I have offered it on these boards repeatedly. That was my whole point there and you still hold a belief that we have no scientific evidence to support our belief. Your belief is blind to that.

.....Like believing that faith does not have a place in your worldview.

There's senses of the word 'faith' that we skeptics cheerfully admit to having. We can be, and have, faithful friends. We can act in good faith. The secular meaning of the word is a close cognate of honesty, and honor, and I don't deny the virtue of those ideas. Evidenced faith, based on experience and reasonable trust in one's fellows, is nothing to sneer at- as long as one realizes that it can be mistaken.
But in the religious sense- absolute, blind, and unquestioning Faith, which I normally specify by using the capital F- it's no virtue at all.

It is your blind faith that asserts that my Christian faith is blind. My beliefs are reasoned from the evidence as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Thus it is your faith about my faith that is blind and that was my point there.

 

[remez]

from post 16

Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....

....Like believing that the material universe is eternal.

Science makes no such claim. It's not known whether time had a beginning or not. There are several models, nothing is resolved.

I didn’t say science made that claim. The scientific evidence most plausibly infers that it is not eternal. I was challenging your desperate belief that it is still reasonable to believe that it could be eternal. Thus it is a belief you hold against the evidence.

....Like believing that all explanations must be natural explanations.

That is the experience, where once angels or nature spirits were used to explain natural physical processes, we now have natural explanations. If there is a need for a supernatural explanations, this needs a very good reason.

I do not deny your asserted history. I deny that you can with certainty extend from that history to that conclusion that only natural explanations exist. Similarly junk DNA did not junk evolution.

In context here…if nature began than how can its cause or explanation be natural?

.....Like preaching that the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.

A provisional position based on the above, there are physical explanations where once gods and nature spirits were used.

But that position clearly rests on the assumption that the universe has always existed. Which is a position believed against the ever increasing evidence to the contrary. Think about the history of your belief. Over the past hundred years your belief in an eternal universe is a disappearing gap. With all the evidence we have now it is actually unreasonable to hold out hope for that position.

.....Like teaching that the universe can create itself out of nothing.

Nobody is 'preaching' these things.

Where have you been?

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. Stephen Hawking.

But as you suggested let’s look at Krauss….

Virtual particles appear and disappear out of quantum fluctuations, under the right conditions virtual particles can become actual particles.
Nobody is preaching that Universe did in fact begin from a quantum fluctuation. Nobody knows.

Krauss was. His sermon was call “A Universe From Nothing.” It is yet another failed model adding to the strentgh of my position.

.....Like believing the Christian faith is not based on evidence.

Where is this evidence?

Specifically with regards to the universe beginning to exist.
CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

From an atheistic cosmologist….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

.....Like believing that faith does not have a place in your worldview.

You may be redefining or extending the definition of faith into the area of justified assumptions and beliefs based on verifiable evidence, ie, we know how the physical world behaves, its rules and principles, because we have direct and verifiable experience with these things.

That is not faith.

I suspect that you hope to use the word faith as a blanket term in order to justify beliefs that clearly do require faith.

It is you that is extending the notion that all faith is blind faith. Even Keith and Steve recognize the distinction.

So if I have good reasons to believe God exists, even supported by science and evidence,
then............
What is it I have if it is not a reasonable faith?
Because....
I certainly don’t believe it blindly.

But my real point there was to expose the faith of your position…..

Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....

….Even in the face of all the evidence we have to the contrary you still hold to a position that denies that the most plausible inference is that universe began to exist. That is a position of skepticism so severe that it stands against the evidence. It appears to be a volitional blind faith. And that was my point.

 

[remez]

from post 17

Kudos to bilby and Jobar:

There is not one shred of evidence to back the claim that any gods are non-fiction; And there is a mountain of evidence for fictional gods. To believe that one or more gods are real entities, given the evidence available, would be insane. But if any evidence comes to light, I will be happy to review my belief. I am not holding my breath.

.....Like preaching that the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.

That's just a re-statement of your first point; and we hypothesize that it's true, we don't 'preach' it.

That's the problem with religions. They require a commitment in which faith supplants rational thought and supervenes moral judgement.

I am a Christian. And it has never been in my epistemology to exchange rational thought with blind faith. Your statement of faith there is in obvious opposition to the evidence. Read posts 34-36, wherein I have addressed the cosmological evidence supporting my faith.
and....
Do you realize that what you just praised Jobar for, bilby actually preaches?

 

[remez]

from post 27

What would you call the beief that a jet in good working order will never just stop flying?

…..
I have a certain degree of trust in any jet i ride, but whatever you want to call it, it's certainly not "without evidence."

Dittos for my Christian Belief.

So, not comparable to religious faith

Not all religious faith is without evidence. Yes there is such a thing as blind faith and it can be extremely dangerous.

But it is certainly not limited to just religious followers. Example your faith that all religious faith is blind faith.

 

[Jobar]

Remez, while I'm scarcely a professional cosmologist, I do have a degree in Physics from Ga. Tech, and have kept up with the field for decades. Our current physical theories can't say anything definite about the universe before the Planck moment; from Wikipedia-

At the Planck scale, current models are not expected to be a useful guide to the cosmos, and physicists no longer have any scientific model whatsoever to suggest how the physical universe behaves. The best known example is represented by the conditions in the first 10⁻⁴³ seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

Yes, certainly the observable universe appears to begin at that moment; but there is no certainty that matter/energy were not existent in other universes before then. The multiverse/Many Worlds theory would make reality eviternal, always-existing.

But as all of us have been telling you, we make no claim to certain knowledge prior to that instant. We honestly don't know if the universe (or the multiverse, for that matter) can be said to have a beginning, or not.

I will say that it seems to me more likely that matter/energy is eternal and uncaused, from the present state of our knowledge. But I am a mote, and momentary; I know very well I may be wrong about that. You say you're a Christian; are you willing to admit that *your* belief may be mistaken?

 

[remez]

Yes, certainly the observable universe appears to begin at that moment; but there is no certainty that matter/energy were not existent in other universes before then. The multiverse/Many Worlds theory would make reality eviternal, always-existing.

Thus I have reasonable evidence for my belief that the universe began to exist. Remember that was the context.

As to your concern of absolute certainty. We know very little with absolute certainty. Hence the issue of epistemology. Presented in this thread as faith.

We don’t know how it began. But we are just about certain that it began. Hence to hold the belief that it could still be eternal is faith against the evidence.

I theorize that we will never scientifically know the how of the genesis of the universe. Because all we have to examine it are the laws of nature which actually began to exist. We are using a tool to discover how it created itself.

As to your concern that the MV model can create the eternity of your faith, not a chance. You have not kept up on the theories as well as you thought. It has turned into the multiple failure model and is has no physical evidence to support its faith.

I will say that it seems to me more likely that matter/energy is eternal and uncaused, from the present state of our knowledge. But I am a mote, and momentary; I know very well I may be wrong about that. You say you're a Christian; are you willing to admit that *your* belief may be mistaken?

The complete irony….Eternal and uncaused….and you consider my position of a past finite universe a blind faith. Even against evidence and logic. When your position (MV) is so far less mainstream and lacks any physical evidence whatsoever.

As to your concerns of my Christian beliefs being wrong. Some of them were along the way and I revised and moved on. As to me being wrong about the universe having a beginning, well that would be like me admitting that I may be wrong that water always expands when it freezes.