On the Nature of Beliefs - Part 1

The difference between pragmatic and faith based belief.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• god
• faith
• belief
• truth
• enlightenment
• philosophy
• atheism
• reason
• infinite
• spirituality
• men
• women

[mtstassie]

You used the word, without it having an object. You say "religious beliefs... are grounded in faith" as distinct from rationality. So you define faith as a thing irrespective of object. I think faith is not contradictory to rational thought & analysis. Faith is trusting something, & you can trust something perfectly rational, but it is an extra step.

[MenoftheInfinite]

You evaded my question: faith in what?

Anyway, faith is by definition antithetical to rational thought and analysis. They are inherently contradictory. Faith is not merely "trusting" something.  Faith is belief in an absence of actual evidence. That's exactly what religious faith means.

[Projoiner1]

Interesting stuff ...

[KellyJones0]

How many amanuenses were there, really? How many translators, editors, vested interests, paid 'holy men' looking for more disciples, and Christian wars to destroy opposing viewpoints? On top of that, Jesus wrote none of it himself.

I believe in Zeus and the other Grecian gods, because there are so many corroborating historical stories about them, and they had so many descendants. ;-)

[mtstassie]

I don't think I do "define God". I can only describe him. Defining God presumes he is a concept, or construct, of the mind. If that is the case then we could conceive something real, or imagined. Instead I can only work with the description of God that Jesus himself gives -& you can read that as well as I can.

[KellyJones0]

At this point, I think the best way to respond is to ask you to define God (as you yourself conceive it to be) precisely.

[mtstassie]

If I know I didn't kill someone & have some reasonable,but not conclusive evidence to show someone else,whether they will believe that evidence (given its inconclusiveness) will depend on whether they think I killed the person or not. We always look at the "reasonableness" &"inconclusiveness" of evidence through our preconceptions. Thus MoI argues there is "no evidence" of God,whereas there is evidence,but its not conclusive for him. He therefore interprets it as unreasonable. He assumes 3)is 1)

[KellyJones0]

"the "reasonableness" of my "reasonable faith" may not look reasonable to someone else if I have only reasonable data available to them"

This doesn't make sense.

[mtstassie]

This is how I use the terms, but the "reasonableness" of my "reasonable faith" may not look reasonable to someone else if I have only reasonable data available to them -they will interpret it through their pre-existing beliefs. Thus I distinguish between 2) & 3). There may be even more distinctions others would like to include.

"Blind faith" doesn't have to be thoughtless. Many beliefs look like lots of thinking, but are based purely on presuppositions. [This is how MoI comes over to me]

[KellyJones0]

- Blind faith is based on nothing, e.g. trusting thoughtlessly in hearsay.

- Reasonable faith is based on verifiable data (experience can be verified by oneself if one is a thinking person).

- Pure logic and wisdom don't require faith at all, because neither are contingent.

[mtstassie]

I am happy using "blind faith" because it inherently indicates there is "not-blind faith" [what I would call "reasonable faith"]. Unfortunately most people use "Blind faith" & "Faith" interchangably.

The problem is that there are at least 4 categories, but most people assume only 2

1) That based on nothing -pure guess, myth, presumption.

2) That based on unverifyable data -experience, wisdom etc

3) That based on "non-absolute" data -witnesses, repeatability

4) That based on absolute logic

[KellyJones0]

I don't like confusing the issues by calling that which is based on reason the exact same as that which is not.