How to Maintain Religious Faith

[Politesse]

Having evidence to support a conviction is not faith. Trust built on experience is not faith.

I do not think that is a matter of common agreement. Or, if that is so, then the relationship a lot of people have with God, the gods, spirits, kami, etc, which is based on experience to a large degree, is not faith. Faith is about degree of trust, not the source of trust. You are faithful to those who you would never under any circumstances turn away, and you have faith in those who likewise commit to you. You may believe in your feelings of mutual goodwill even when there is no evidence of it in a a particular situation, but if you are still confident that your sister loves you even when you are having an argument, it doesn't make it "not faith" simply because that trust is partially built on a memory of many shared experiences. Likewise, I think most people see their relationship to God or the other spirits that be primarily in social/relational terms, not as a philosophical claim, and when they talk about their faith, that social relationship is what they're referring to. VERY few people have any strong interest in philosophy or apologetics, or even any patience for talking about them.

I note that in non-personal spiritual systems, such as Taoism, it's extremely rare to hear anyone reference "faith" or "faithfulness" in relation to themselves.

Perhaps the relationship that people have with their God or gods is not with a God or gods, but the images of these entites being created in their own minds?

Most certainly, though the same can be said I think of all but the most intimate of social relationships. No, I don't think "evidence" comes into it at all, except in the explicit case of apologetic discussions. Even if someone feels that their conversations with God, the miracles they've experienced, etc could be considered evidence in the case of God, evidence and proof are the language of court cases and forum arguments, not the language of everyday faith. The idea of "Witness" comes close in Christian circles, or "Testimony" in Islamic communities, but if you actually pay attention to the content of either genre, you notice that the language is almost always more interpersonal than ontological in focus.

 

[Bronzeage]

Unfortunately, Ciscero died in the year 43.

Then how do you know that Cicero (please use spell check) would have loved this thread? It's best to offer your own ideas regarding the issues raised in the OP.

I assumed this was a reference to Cicero's very well known perspective on rhetoric - as a kind of public melodrama built on the roles assumed by the speakers over and above any of the facts at hand - rather than the living man's personal likes and dislikes in forum perusal.

In Cicero's defense of Archias. he made the point that the prosecutors were ignoring all the evidence offered, while demanding evidence they knew had been destroyed in a historic fire.

The OP proposes, "Believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. If tough skeptics come along who want more than words, then the believer is left empty-handed."

In this case, a believer can claim they have been blessed, but anything they believe to be a blessing is dismissed as insufficient evidence, while something impossible is demanded.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In Cicero's defense of Archias. he made the point that the prosecutors were ignoring all the evidence offered, while demanding evidence they knew had been destroyed in a historic fire.

I don't ignore evidence offered nor do I demand evidence that I know has been destroyed or evidence that can't exist. You appear to be implying that convincing evidence for religious claims does not exist.

The OP proposes, "Believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. If tough skeptics come along who want more than words, then the believer is left empty-handed."

You may be taking what I said a bit too literally. What I meant to say is that as far as I know believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. I've never seen any such proof after thirty-five years of asking for it! So it looks very likely that no such evidence exists--so likely that I'm justified in saying there is no such evidence. If you can prove me wrong, then you are more than welcome to demonstrate any religious claim to me.

In this case, a believer can claim they have been blessed, but anything they believe to be a blessing is dismissed as insufficient evidence...

If there is no sufficient evidence for the claim, then yes, I will say the evidence is insufficient. I'm not going to be gullible.

...while something impossible is demanded.

If you're saying that proving religious claims is impossible, then we may actually agree. If my asking for sufficient evidence for religious claims is impossible for the religious to grant, then I would be right in deeming religious claims to be bogus.

 

[steve_bank]

There is an old video where a baboon is run over by a car. When the same car approches on the riad a cry goes out and the troop throws rocks at the car.

Or the Japnese Snow Monkees. A film maker happed to be around and shot monkees lerning to use a hot spring. In the end they were swimming and hanging around grooming each oter. Put wine in one hnad and cheese in the oer and they coud be Europeans in hot tubs.

Drawing conclusions form one time observation of animlas s is hopelessly anthropomorphic. I doubt yu woyd want to be cught in the open by angry banboons.

Ferl cats and dogs revert to their instincts. Male cats kill kittens to bring females into heat. Dogs form packs with alpha males.

Ukraine is yet another example of human male aggression. Putin and Biden are waving their erect dicks in each others face.

Some here seem to have a myth of a logical, rational, scientific human. Get rid of religion and humans will become rational. In our brias emotion can over ride logic, it is chemistry and hormones.

Steve, I am not drawing conclusions except the conclusions that your claims are false, and that creatures ARE capable of adopting rules that do not comport with their initial emotional impulses, and that when they do, this yields survival value.

From THAT knowledge, I have some latitude to make other statements.

And that this, when applied to socially capable organisms, yields better outcomes as regards the survival of the members of that society.

It is as observable as Darwinian evolution.

This is about game theoretic principles, and those are just as true when the players are chimps, or baboons, or humans.

I am not attacking you or arguing with you. Just expressing thoughts that the OP raises for me. There is no resolution to these quetsions.

 

[steve_bank]

Pne thing religion provides is a way to express feelings.

'I feel blessed' may be related to a belief in god, but t also a way to express feeling good and thankful.

Thank god San Francisco's defense is holding Green bay and Aron Rodgers....SF is only up by 7.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Pne thing religion provides is a way to express feelings.

'I feel blessed' may be related to a belief in god, but t also a way to express feeling good and thankful.

Thank god San Francisco's defense is holding Green bay and Aron Rodgers....SF is only up by 7.

I can express feelings without religion.

 

[Bronzeage]

In Cicero's defense of Archias. he made the point that the prosecutors were ignoring all the evidence offered, while demanding evidence they knew had been destroyed in a historic fire.

I don't ignore evidence offered nor do I demand evidence that I know has been destroyed or evidence that can't exist. You appear to be implying that convincing evidence for religious claims does not exist.

The OP proposes, "Believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. If tough skeptics come along who want more than words, then the believer is left empty-handed."

You may be taking what I said a bit too literally. What I meant to say is that as far as I know believers have nothing to show for their beliefs nor can they demonstrate any of their religion's claims. I've never seen any such proof after thirty-five years of asking for it! So it looks very likely that no such evidence exists--so likely that I'm justified in saying there is no such evidence. If you can prove me wrong, then you are more than welcome to demonstrate any religious claim to me.

In this case, a believer can claim they have been blessed, but anything they believe to be a blessing is dismissed as insufficient evidence...

If there is no sufficient evidence for the claim, then yes, I will say the evidence is insufficient. I'm not going to be gullible.

...while something impossible is demanded.

If you're saying that proving religious claims is impossible, then we may actually agree. If my asking for sufficient evidence for religious claims is impossible for the religious to grant, then I would be right in deeming religious claims to be bogus.

I'm saying you propose an impossible test and then feel superior when the test is failed. It's not much of an accomplishment, but congratulations, none the less.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can fairly well say that all the concepts that religion discusses, all the gods and spirits and demons.... All that is a primitive discussion using imprecise words to discuss things that they had only a tentative grasp on and a woefully incomplete model of, but most or all the underlying observations, even if their descriptions of the explanation of those phenomena are lacking, really are phenomena.

This includes that feeling that people feel when they contemplate "the love of God", which I think I've fairly well described in secular terms and outlined how one may feel of it without believing in (or worshipping) a vindictive hellmaker.

 

[Elixir]

And obviously I would need some good evidence that the religious person received A from God

Why?
If there was a god handing stuff out, what would obligate that god to make its delivery mechanism apparent to you?

Whose purpose would that serve?
(Hint: YOURS)

 

[steve_bank]

Pne thing religion provides is a way to express feelings.

'I feel blessed' may be related to a belief in god, but t also a way to express feeling good and thankful.

Thank god San Francisco's defense is holding Green bay and Aron Rodgers....SF is only up by 7.

I can express feelings without religion.

Are you just being inseminate or are you completely detached from culture?

We all use metaphors and analogies. My fanily ws Catholic but not very religious, but I grew up hearing biblical metaphors. It was in the culture. Along with a number of Jewish Yiddish metaphors like being a schmuck. Schmuck. If rember right the word literaly refers to the leftover skin after circumcision. Or putz or schmaltz.

To be 'religiously' catnapped all the time would be mind numbing. Get it,I p;layed on the word religious to make a point.

IMO psychologically god can simply be a talking point, a point of reference.

In response to all your posts I might say, 'Who do you think you are, Moses down from the mountain?'. or 'Who do yu think you are, I don;t see you walking on water'.

How's the view from way up there on Mount Olympus looking down on all us ignorant fools?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The person is long gone from here but their common refrain was "Show me your god." Nice and direct, so I always liked it. Of course in the theistic sense no one can show you their god, all they can offer is faith behavior because there are no gods.

As I've argued elsewhere I can claim to be a billionaire and my proof would be to show someone the money in my wallet telling them it's part of my billions of dollars. Not too convincing but if I'm convinced that I'm a billionaire that's proof enough for me.

 

[Rhea]

I can express feelings without religion.

Are you just being inseminate or are you completely detached from culture?

We all use metaphors and analogies.

There is almost always a secular alternative, however. And my choice is to use those and stop feeding the religionists with what they think is validation of their supremacy.

There are really good reasons to avoid reigious, especially dominant religious, expressions.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm saying you propose an impossible test...

Your comments are way too vague. What "test" are you referring to?

Anyway, if the test of a claim is "impossible" for the claimant to pass, then like I've already pointed out the claim fails the test. And then I would be right in deeming the claim to be false. That's the way it works.

...and then feel superior when the test is failed.

I do feel good about being right. Do you prefer to be wrong?

...It's not much of an accomplishment, but congratulations, none the less.

Exposing false claims as baloney is an accomplishment as far as I'm concerned. If you want to believe what isn't true, then that's your right to do so. Just don't blame me when disaster strikes.

 

[abaddon]

Your comments are way too vague. What "test" are you referring to?
....
Exposing false claims as baloney...

That's perfectly circular... the falsifying of false claims as false.

Your posts are just cliches strung together. You picked up a few standard phrases from atheist/theist arguments on the net but your application of them needs to be reasoned through better.

One sign of this is the circularity that keeps popping up in your posts.

You say "if the test of a claim is "impossible" for the claimant to pass, then like I've already pointed out the claim fails the test. And then I would be right in deeming the claim to be false."

This is saying that if a person can't pass a test they can't pass a test. If you can't see the circularity there, you need to learn how to or you can't rightly claim to be applying reason.

Another couple examples of circular phrases from your posts include: "If all religions are bad, then they're all bad." And "Uh, they're wrong compared to what's right. What else would they be wrong compared to?"

You need to try to understand that YOU are a claim-maker too. So, by your own standard, YOU need to give reasons for your claims and not merely assume from the start that you're right and so "the opponent" is the only one that makes claims (or, in your words, "false claims") and the only one that must support them.

Bronzeage proposed religious people have a feeling of gratitude to show for their beliefs.

The test you proposed for religious folk's feelings of gratitude is that they need to prove they feel gratitude. Except, in your typical moralizing way, you turned it into the abstract moralism about "backing up one's words... to demonstrate that one is not lying".

So, to figure out if they're lying about the benefit they get from religion (a feeling of gratitude), you should propose a FAIR test about how they can demonstrate it's not a lie (which I would be very interested to see if it can be done). At least the effort at being fair is necessary if you want to reason about this instead of preach about it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Are you just being inseminate...

I think you're using the wrong word here. "Inseminate" is what the vet does to the cow when the farmer wants a calf.

...or are you completely detached from culture?

I'm not sure what you mean.

We all use metaphors and analogies. My fanily ws Catholic but not very religious, but I grew up hearing biblical metaphors. It was in the culture. Along with a number of Jewish Yiddish metaphors like being a schmuck. Schmuck. If rember right the word literaly refers to the leftover skin after circumcision. Or putz or schmaltz.

Yes. Metaphors are commonly used.

To be 'religiously' catnapped all the time would be mind numbing. Get it,I p;layed on the word religious to make a point.

No. I don't get it. What are you talking about?

IMO psychologically god can simply be a talking point, a point of reference.

I suppose God can be a lot of things, but in the context of religion God is a magic man in the sky who's always asking for money.

In response to all your posts I might say, 'Who do you think you are, Moses down from the mountain?'. or 'Who do yu think you are, I don;t see you walking on water'.

You might say that, but I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

How's the view from way up there on Mount Olympus looking down on all us ignorant fools?

Now, that's a question I understand! The way I see it, there are no stupid people--only lazy ones. The knowledge I have and the critical thinking I use came through a huge amount of hard work on my part. I'm proud of my ability to debunk nonsense no matter how much the faithful scream about my doing so. I find it really strange that so many people seem to want to believe lies and mistakes and hate to be set straight. Ignorance might be bliss, but sooner or later the truth catches up to us.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Your comments are way too vague. What "test" are you referring to?
....
Exposing false claims as baloney...

That's perfectly circular... the falsifying of false claims as false.

Your posts are just cliches strung together. You picked up a few standard phrases from atheist/theist arguments on the net but your application of them needs to be reasoned through better.

One sign of this is the circularity that keeps popping up in your posts.

You say "if the test of a claim is "impossible" for the claimant to pass, then like I've already pointed out the claim fails the test. And then I would be right in deeming the claim to be false."

This is saying that if a person can't pass a test they can't pass a test. If you can't see the circularity there, you need to learn how to or you can't rightly claim to be applying reason.

Another couple examples of circular phrases from your posts include: "If all religions are bad, then they're all bad." And "Uh, they're wrong compared to what's right. What else would they be wrong compared to?"

I've posted no circular arguments. A circular argument takes the following format:

1. A is true because of B...
...and...
2. B is true because of A.

To make your case, you need to post something I said that follows this format, and good luck with that!

You need to try to understand that YOU are a claim-maker too. So, by your own standard, YOU need to give reasons for your claims and not merely assume from the start that you're right and so "the opponent" is the only one that makes claims (or, in your words, "false claims") and the only one that must support them.

I just posted a reason for one of my conclusions. I always post reasons for my conclusions.

Bronzeage proposed religious people have a feeling of gratitude to show for their beliefs.

The test you proposed for religious folk's feelings of gratitude is that they need to prove they feel gratitude. Except, in your typical moralizing way, you turned it into the abstract moralism about "backing up one's words... to demonstrate that one is not lying".

If you disagree with that logic, then go ahead and believe whatever you're told. Did you read that email in your inbox telling you you've won the Nigerian lottery and only need to wire them $600 to receive your winnings? You go right ahead and believe them without proof if you don't like my "abstract moralism."

So, to figure out if they're lying about the benefit they get from religion (a feeling of gratitude), you should propose a FAIR test about how they can demonstrate it's not a lie (which I would be very interested to see if it can be done). At least the effort at being fair is necessary if you want to reason about this instead of preach about it.

OK. My fair test is to have a person demonstrate what they claim to be true. If they say they can do A, and they go ahead and do A, then I will believe them.

I think the reactions I'm getting from many of the people on this board are bizarre but not surprising. When it comes to religion, everyday reasoning goes flying out the window. Any prudent person knows better than to be quick to believe outlandish claims without good evidence to back them up.

 

[steve_bank]

Are you just being inseminate...

I think you're using the wrong word here. "Inseminate" is what the vet does to the cow when the farmer wants a calf.

...or are you completely detached from culture?

I'm not sure what you mean.

We all use metaphors and analogies. My fanily ws Catholic but not very religious, but I grew up hearing biblical metaphors. It was in the culture. Along with a number of Jewish Yiddish metaphors like being a schmuck. Schmuck. If rember right the word literaly refers to the leftover skin after circumcision. Or putz or schmaltz.

Yes. Metaphors are commonly used.

To be 'religiously' catnapped all the time would be mind numbing. Get it,I p;layed on the word religious to make a point.

No. I don't get it. What are you talking about?

IMO psychologically god can simply be a talking point, a point of reference.

I suppose God can be a lot of things, but in the context of religion God is a magic man in the sky who's always asking for money.

In response to all your posts I might say, 'Who do you think you are, Moses down from the mountain?'. or 'Who do yu think you are, I don;t see you walking on water'.

You might say that, but I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

How's the view from way up there on Mount Olympus looking down on all us ignorant fools?

Now, that's a question I understand! The way I see it, there are no stupid people--only lazy ones. The knowledge I have and the critical thinking I use came through a huge amount of hard work on my part. I'm proud of my ability to debunk nonsense no matter how much the faithful scream about my doing so. I find it really strange that so many people seem to want to believe lies and mistakes and hate to be set straight. Ignorance might be bliss, but sooner or later the truth catches up to

Are you just being inseminate...

I think you're using the wrong word here. "Inseminate" is what the vet does to the cow when the farmer wants a calf.

...or are you completely detached from culture?

I'm not sure what you mean.

We all use metaphors and analogies. My fanily ws Catholic but not very religious, but I grew up hearing biblical metaphors. It was in the culture. Along with a number of Jewish Yiddish metaphors like being a schmuck. Schmuck. If rember right the word literaly refers to the leftover skin after circumcision. Or putz or schmaltz.

Yes. Metaphors are commonly used.

To be 'religiously' catnapped all the time would be mind numbing. Get it,I p;layed on the word religious to make a point.

No. I don't get it. What are you talking about?

IMO psychologically god can simply be a talking point, a point of reference.

I suppose God can be a lot of things, but in the context of religion God is a magic man in the sky who's always asking for money.

In response to all your posts I might say, 'Who do you think you are, Moses down from the mountain?'. or 'Who do yu think you are, I don;t see you walking on water'.

You might say that, but I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

How's the view from way up there on Mount Olympus looking down on all us ignorant fools?

Now, that's a question I understand! The way I see it, there are no stupid people--only lazy ones. The knowledge I have and the critical thinking I use came through a huge amount of hard work on my part. I'm proud of my ability to debunk nonsense no matter how much the faithful scream about my doing so. I find it really strange that so many people seem to want to believe lies and mistakes and hate to be set straight. Ignorance might be bliss, but sooner or later the truth catches up to us.

The intended word is obstinate. Literature including Chritianity is part of culture and history

If you do not understand the metaphors I'd say you do not understand Christianity and its importance in culture.. The metphors are part of what maintains religion.

I do not take pride debating religion. Given the power people like that tend to be excellent Inquisitors and politically correct thought police. Proud Relgios Debunker sounds like an ideological identity, the flip side of theist. Are you on a quest to rid the world of unscintific beliefs?

IMO analogous to the Macarthy commie witch hunt. There were communists in the country working against us, but he turned it into an Inquisition. Like our current progressives hell bent to uncover any speech and thought that can remotely be interpreted as racist or biased.

Traditional Native Americans have a set of traditional belifs,. Thier orgins myts are proven wrong by gentics. Whay on Erath woud I care what they belive in their culture or rpesume to tell ten they are wrong?

Christianity is different in this country because of its political power and goals of enacting biblcal morality into law. If not for that I would not be here arguing religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Traditional Native Americans have a set of traditional belifs,. Thier orgins myts are proven wrong by gentics. Whay on Erath woud I care what they belive in their culture or rpesume to tell ten they are wrong?

Because it has a negative effect on your life owing to the fact that it is unscientific woo? In a better world we all outgrow Santa belief. But many of us do not. Do you think that is a positive or a negative?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The intended word is obstinate.

Please take care to choose your words properly. Otherwise, I probably won't know what you're talking about.

Literature including Chritianity is part of culture and history

Yes, but what is the relevance of saying so?

If you do not understand the metaphors I'd say you do not understand Christianity and its importance in culture.. The metphors are part of what maintains religion.

What metaphors are you referring to? I'm well aware that religions in particular Christianity uses metaphors, but religions also make claims that are meant to be taken literally. If a religion makes a statement that is factually incorrect, then it's dishonest to arbitrarily interpret that statement metaphorically to save it.

I do not take pride debating religion.

That's unfortunate. Why are you ashamed to debate religion?

Given the power people like that tend to be excellent Inquisitors and politically correct thought police.

I've seen plenty of people debate religion, and I wouldn't describe any of them that way. The way I look at it, people who debate religion simply want the freedom to express their views and explain why they hold those views. It was the Christian inquisitors who opposed open expression of any views not their own.

Proud Relgios Debunker sounds like an ideological identity, the flip side of theist. Are you on a quest to rid the world of unscintific beliefs?

Obviously I'm in favor of science.

IMO analogous to the Macarthy commie witch hunt. There were communists in the country working against us, but he turned it into an Inquisition.

That's an example of what I just pointed out. Inquisitors oppose open and free debate meant to uncover the truth. You appear to oppose my expressing my views. Are you not then one of those inquisitors you denounce?

Like our current progressives hell bent to uncover any speech and thought that can remotely be interpreted as racist or biased.

I'm seeing some people in this forum "hell bent to uncover any speech and thought that can remotely be interpreted as antireligious."

Traditional Native Americans have a set of traditional belifs,. Thier orgins myts are proven wrong by gentics. Whay on Erath woud I care what they belive in their culture or rpesume to tell ten they are wrong?

The reasons to correct them should be obvious. All people including American Indians deserve to be informed and educated properly. They may decide to pursue careers in medical research, for example, in which they'll need to understand genetics to help people survive deadly diseases like Covid 19. Beliefs have consequences, and ignorance of important facts can have disastrous results. We are then morally obligated to tell people what's right and what's baloney.

Christianity is different in this country because of its political power and goals of enacting biblcal morality into law. If not for that I would not be here arguing religion.

But what's wrong with that? Don't people have the right to enact "Biblical morality" into law? It's their belief--let them believe it!

 

[steve_bank]

There is a point at which there is no point to continue with discussion. Two sides keep repeating the same things. I have said everything I need to. The last word is yours.