Religion What is faith?

[Reiku]

It's not a simplified explanation, Reiku, it has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics. This is a common myth that some people seem to like because it confirms their postmodernist bullshit theories. You said it yourself that you tend to 'forget' quantum physics. I say you never learned it in the first place.
And gravity theory never commited the relativist fallacy in any way. Some things are indeed relative, but reality is not one of them (again, go clear up your misconceptions about quantum physics).
Here, I'll give you a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

I see you link, and respond with this one: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec05/wikipedia_12-30.html

Wikipedia articles can be written and/or edited my anyone--including liars, the misinformed, and people who do not know what they are talking about.

In this case however, it is you who is misinformed.

The "relativist fallacy" is indeed a fallacy when expressed within the context of there being only a single reality.

However quantum physics has effectively proven the existance of multiple realities--or more accurately, an infinite number of possible realities existing together as an uncollapsed "probability wave"--in which context, what I described is in fact proven scientific fact, and it is the basic premise of the "relativist fallacy" (namely, the existance of only one reality) which has been proven to be wrong.

I have created a thread devoted to this particular aspect of quantum physics, and have provided links and google search terms there which lead to other sources of information on the subject.

Please present you arguements against the probability wave theory >here< so that we do not go any further off topic.

I would suggest though, that you take the time to look at the actual evidence before calling a theory tested, proven, and supported by respected scientists with PhD's in physics "a common myth that some people seem to like because it confirms their postmodernist bullshit theories."

 

[Tsuyoiko]

It is ironic, because (as Einstien pointed out) an adherance to logic is itself a "faith"--faith in your senses, faith in your ability to understand the evidence, and faith in logic itself.

This is exactly the question I want to answer - is the trust we have in logical proof and material evidence 'faith'?

No, you don't need to have faith on logic, as logic stands by itself, and is supported by its undeniable pratical results.

How do we know that we can trust those 'practical results'? Is that 'faith'?

 

[No-name]

Let me try this again without using the word heuristics or inductive reasoning. (As big words often betray unclear thinking) If I can't explain it in simple English, perhaps I don't really know what I am saying...

Faith is not logic. But what most people rest their belief systems on is not logic either. Most people who trust the logic of science have not actually done the research themselves-- you would never have the time. The reason we believe in gravity is not that we were convinced by scientific research, but because it makes sense and fits our experience. We develop rules of thumb, shorhand ways of percieving and concieving. And most scientific theory-- especially when you get to "softer" sciences like psychology-- works the same way-- we pick and choose beliefs based upon what fits our experiences,our rules of thumb and our world view. Picking and choosing, filling in the blanks, trusting the groundwork of those who have labored before is definitely the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

The reason that many have disgarded God is not that there was any kind of proof, but that it fit the worldview they developed. God was disgarded because the concept didn't fit the experiences, not due to any deductive reasoning or scientific excercise, but because the concept ran counter to function and ceased being useful...rule of thumb: God go bye bye.

In function whether we organize our thinking around faith or what we think is science, there is simply a great deal of fill in and guess work. Those that recognize logic and science as the organizing principle can tell themselves that everything the believe is proven hard science--but functioning in their day to day existence are hundreds of rules of thumb that govern thie actions and decisions.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think there is some truth in what you say there Sabro. It's true that we have faith in what scientists tell us - we don't prove every theory for ourselves. But, scientific theories can be demonstrated. I can ask a scientist to prove it to me. This doesn't work for beliefs, e.g. god. I can't ask you to prove that god exists.

 

[Void]

before i go on

Can you cite one new theory that wasn't based on logic?
(...)
I see this kind of attempt to universalize a personal need as a dishonest
method of self-assurance. After all, the easiest way to justify a personal
weakness is to pretend that everyone else has the same weakness,
with no exceptions.
I don't see any reason to torture semantics so much. As Tsuyoiko pointed out,
faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
Faith is the opposite of logical thinking. No, you don't need to have faith
on logic, as logic stands by itself, and is supported by its undeniable
pratical results. In the same way, you don't need to apply logic to faith;
both are independant and complete systems.
(...)
It was referring to Void's attempt to make it look like it's necessary
to have faith on logic.

Kumo, do you ever think about what you read before jumping to the conclusions? Or anything what contains words "believe", "faith" or "god" affects you as moving red rug a bull?
And you are the one who is abusing semantics now to support your point of view.
what i said was

And in this case scientist better have faith in his own truth and success.
How else he will make logic work?

where is there "faith on logic"? :evil:
Reiku grasped it much closer than you did:

It is ironic, because (as Einstien pointed out) an adherance to logic is itself a "faith"--faith in your senses, faith in your ability to understand the evidence, and faith in logic itself.
It is amazing how many people loudly decry "faith" while worshipping at the temple of "logic".
(...)

 

[Void]

Actually, it's a simplified explanation of quantum physics--and the numerous
lab experiments that confirmed it have yet to be disproved.

actually, i think that you are incorrect about this. This experiments
just proved that with our measurments we bring the changes into
finely tuned micro-world. And to affect this world is the only way to record and understand what`s going on there.
We can study only through the interaction (you can`t see a particle and the
bond what "hold" it with your bare eye.
This only says that on that level the subject, the researcher and the
instrument are closely connected.
Well there are some other means (more natural) but for purity of experiment you have to repeat it in same conditions many times (and result must be the
same to prove the cause-and-effect relation). So it is very close to the
"we get what we are expected to see right before the conducting the experiment"

How do we know that we can trust those 'practical results'? Is that 'faith'?

who was actively to question it? Someone of philosophers Yum? (don`t know
how to spell, sorry). Wasn`t it why - to omit the danger of falling into
contrudictive assumptions Kant was explaining how the mind works,
instead of answering "Why it works and why we trust it"?

 

[kumo]

In this case however, it is you who is misinformed.

You mean misinformed as in WRONG information? But how can it be WRONG if "everybody's right" and "reality is just a reflection of our beliefs"?

 

[No-name]

All things being equal, not all opinions are equal...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

All things being equal, not all opinions are equal...

You've been reading my sig!

 

[dameko]

Maybe this is off the subject, but speaking of faith made me think of this. Everybody knows the expression 'everything that I hold holy'. I wonder, did anyone think about it. If you needed to come up with a list, what would it be?
I myself really don't know. There are lot of things that you might love, like and care for, but what can be said to be holy?

 

[Maciamo]

When talking about religions, the 2nd definition of faith given by Tsuyoiko aplies : "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

Basically, we could divide what compose the human representation of the world in 3 categories :

- facts
- rational theories (e.g. science)
- faith (i.e. anything that is not factually or rationally proven)

Emotions and feelings do not enter in this category.
Emotions relate to our primary instincts (survival, reproduction, well-being), not to some knowledge of beliefs shaping our representation of the world. Feelings are how we associate emotions with facts, rationality and faith. They are something more global and complex (e.g. how one feels about abortion, liberal economics or communism).

 

[No-name]

For discussion, that limits it down quite severely...in human experience however you probably need to broaden you definition of faith into a more functional description-- which is why I brought up heuristics and inductive reasoning-- both to me function the same way that faith does as does our pyramid of trust that builds upon all those "assumptions" we "know" are absolutely "true."

 

[Kinsao]

You could say, that 'faith' (meant in the sense of a 'religious faith'... but not relating to organised religion) is used to account for things which cannot yet be accounted for by science.

Like at one time, if someone has what appears to be a miracle cure (e.g. 500 years ago), if the same thing happened nowadays, maybe a scientist could discover, using logic and science, how this happened, and then say, "It wasn't the invention of God; it was caused by X happening"...

But we can never know everything about the world, and the universe, and about the way things work; not only how they work but also why. So faith still finds its place at the "cutting edge", if you like, where knowledge by logic stops and something else has to take its place.

It's at that edge, I think, where lies the drive of scientists to discover. :relief:

I guess you could say that faith is what gives you the ability to have an opinion(s) on something that can't definitely be proved by logic/science one way or another yet. And it is a flexible thing, too; it's not essential to be closed-minded; it's not like you have to say "I believe the universe was created by Santa Claus and you can't prove otherwise and I'm going to stick to that belief"! It could be an investigative thing, something more like "I don't know this answer yet, but there are these possibilities..."

 

[Mars Man]

OK, I think I'm starting to get my thoughts collected on this matter. . . I believe, at least.

I'm sorry if I missed something, or got lost in the process, and if so, please do correct me. There's the question, "What is faith?", involved in the thread, and then there are the senses given for the word as it would be defined in the various contexts it may be found in during communitive exchange.

As the discussion goes on, it looks to me, at least, that a number or those senses are and have been used, and that they are splattered about even within a single post, at times. This in itself may have helped in some of the miscommunication that appears to have occured once or twice, or so.

If we were to talk about 'faith' as used in science (and not as in scientism) it would surely be synonymous with the term 'assumption'. This, in turn, conjures up 'theorizing' which likewise, comes packaged with the concept of 'falsifiability'--a matter every good science student would know. Therefore in pure science, the effort is to test, and falsify a hypothesis or theory in order to understand better.

If we were to talk about 'faith' as used in the 'faith-based' religions--esp. Christianity (as has naturally been the case so far)--we are more often talking about an acceptance of some claim to know. that, in turn, conjures up an opposition to 'falsifiability'--at least within a narrower framework. (History has proven that it happens, but much more stretched out over time relative to the history of science after the 'enlightenment'.

So, I would only like to suggest, for now, that we provide which sense we wish to convey in a clause, phrase, sentence, or whole post, so as to reduce as much misunderstanding as possible.

I tend to think, but will have to more of that later, that the line of thought that Maciamo has brought out is fitting for the subject, yet, as sabro noted, delimiting--I just feel that that is the way it'd have to be. . . maybe, I'll think some more...Please correct me where I'm wrong. thanks !!source material in short: Science & Religion by John F. haught of Georgetown University, 1995; In the Beginning--It's a Fact: Faith and Theory Collide Over Evolution, by George Johnson; NY Times Weekly reproduced by Asahi Evening News, Aug. 20, 1999

 

[kumo]

For discussion, that limits it down quite severely...in human experience however you probably need to broaden you definition of faith into a more functional description-- which is why I brought up heuristics and inductive reasoning-- both to me function the same way that faith does as does our pyramid of trust that builds upon all those "assumptions" we "know" are absolutely "true."

Sabro, I think you're confounding simple human rationality with scientific rationality. This "functional description" you talk about might be true for many people (even scientists) on a personal level, but it just doesn't apply to the scientific method or science as a whole. Science as a method of discovery doesn't use inductive reasoning in any way whatsoever, and all personal bias is necessarily filtered out sooner or later (remember peer review..).
I agree with Maciamo on this. It's not impossible to associate rationality and faith for subjective opinions (which we all have), but when it comes to objective facts rationality is the only thing that counts. And just because they can be used together doesn't mean one derives from the other; they are completely independent.
Fot those who say logic is ultimately based on faith because that's the only way to "know" it's true: faith is based on what?

But we can never know everything about the world, and the universe, and about the way things work; not only how they work but also why. So faith still finds its place at the "cutting edge", if you like, where knowledge by logic stops and something else has to take its place.

Indeed. Some people use faith to explain things they don't know; some people just say "I don't know", and don't use faith at all. Not everyone is so desperate to know everything.

 

[No-name]

Sabro, I think you're confounding simple human rationality with scientific rationality. This "functional description" you talk about might be true for many people (even scientists) on a personal level, but it just doesn't apply to the scientific method or science as a whole. Science as a method of discovery doesn't use inductive reasoning in any way whatsoever, and all personal bias is necessarily filtered out sooner or later (remember peer review..)

Exactly what I was trying to say. I wasn't confusing them, but making a distinction in how we actually apply this. A person applies science or scientific principal in their life in the same way that religion applies faith. Their trust in science and in the method for developing the heuristics and paradigms to live by is as solid as a belief in a diety.

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko...I think faith can be demonstrated, just not in the same way scientific theories are demonstrated. Whenever a prayer is answered, whenever you trust instead of fear, love instead of hate, give instead of ignore, faith is proven. To me faith is not only a gift, it is the ultimate proof of God. (scientifically circular, but faith is not science.) Proven daily not only in the emotional contexts it gives to life and by every fortuitious coincidence, but in a sense of peace and contentment that has no other explanation.

 

[Mitsuo]

Well, although there really is NO proof that God exists. (I DO BELIEVE IN GOD). In my opinion, faith is all that's required for us. I don't think God wants there to be proof, he just wants our faith. Of course one must prove his existence first. But that's what faith is. We are putting our belief in something that we may or may not know exists. It helps us get through the hardest days that we may encounter in life. Faith isn't just to the divine. We have faith in our families, our friends, our selves. Faith is something that we should all hold dear. Because our faith will be challenged in some point in our life. It is something worth defending, and worth loving.

 

[Void]

I believe that logical proof and material evidence are 'better' ways to understand the world than faith. (...)
Can we prove that logic and science are 'better' than faith?

In short:
Logic can be considered an algorithm of composing complex assertions from simple ones.

Nowdays there exists several "logics"

1. classical logic
a) deals with discrete set of objects about which assertions are made, set of statements is then also discrete
b) Every statement is absolute and doesn`t depend on goal (for what proof or disproof are made)
c) all elements of the set are equal

In spite of all its beauty It includes inner contrudictions and therefore since XIX some other approaches appear

2. constructive logic
if there is no chance to confirm the verity it allows to "omit" the answer

3. Relevance logic.
It allows to avoid paradoxes by "leaving out" formally correct, but logically irrelevant statements

4. Polylogic

5. fuzzy logic

...

But none of them encompasses all the types and classes of tasks modern natural science is trying to solve. And still we trust them...

--------------------------------------------

why would we trust "logic"? Why do we trust its judgement and use it as an instrument? Why our intellection can be applied to the nature and give reliable knowledge?

This questions will be answered when the thorough model of a human brain will be built. But there enough reasons to suggest that inner models (like simple conditioned reflex) "model" the situation of a real word and in some cases can be reduced to statements similar to "if A then B" or "if A and B then", and such.

Historical chain:
unconditioned reflex --> habituation --> conditioned reflex -->
set of reflexes --> ....
can end with --> logic

----
used books D.S.Chernavskii "Synergetics and information",
V.G.Red`ko "Evoluton. Neuralo nets. Intellect"

=========================================

faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

but still i don`t see the evidence that the faith (especially p.p. 1, 2, 6)
absolutely prevents us from understanding the world. It also could be that this is an instrument for different purpose than a cognition of the world for a material advantage. Maybe, it`s sort of stabilizing mechanism to preserve mental balance when current logic (whichever it was) fails and the new one wasn`t found yet

 

[Tsuyoiko]

But none of them encompasses all the types and classes of tasks modern natural science is trying to solve.

That's why it has to be logic and material evidence.

but still i don`t see the evidence that the faith (especially p.p. 1, 2, 6) absolutely prevents us from understanding the world.

I don't think faith prevents us from understanding the world - just that logic and material evidence are more reliable. I think they are more reliable because they are independent of personal belief and experience - whereas faith is entirely personal.

The question still remains: is the trust I place in logic and science a variety of faith? (probably in the sense of definition 1)