# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  What is faith?

## Tsuyoiko

What do you understand by the term 'faith'? It is a term I have difficulty with. I have felt for quite a while that faith was a last resort after all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted, but for others, faith is the guiding principle of their lives.

Here are some definitions:


> *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.


When I use the word 'faith' I usually mean definition 2.

When Einstein spoke about religion, he did not mean what we usually mean by that term. Here is how he defined it:


> But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.


Why does Einstein say 'faith' here?

I believe that logical proof and material evidence are 'better' ways to understand the world than faith. But I'm not sure if that belief rests on logical proof and material evidence, or if it is just something I have faith in - I think that's sort of what Einstein meant. Can we prove that logic and science are 'better' than faith?

----------


## No-name

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."

I use "faith" rather than "religion" because religion to me connotes an outward set of behaviors, while faith is something more inward.

----------


## Void

> I believe that logical proof and material evidence are 'better' ways to understand the world than faith. But I'm not sure if that belief rests on logical proof and material evidence, or if it is just something I have faith in - I think that's sort of what Einstein meant. Can we prove that logic and science are 'better' than faith?


why should it be 'better' or 'worse'? all in due time and place.
It is not always logic what brings out a discovery. Sometimes it is just a 
hunch which no one accepts, 'cause it might contradict current theories and ideas. And in this case scientist better have faith in his own truth and success. How else he will make logic work?  :Laughing:

----------


## kumo

> It is not always logic what brings out a discovery. Sometimes it is just a hunch which no one accepts, 'cause it might contradict current theories and ideas.


Can you cite one new theory that wasn't based on logic?




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


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.

----------


## No-name

Although faith is not based on logic, I don't see them as opposites. I also don't view faith as dishonest, weak or easy. It always mystifies me as to why people without faith have to view faith in such a negative way.

----------


## kumo

> Although faith is not based on logic, I don't see them as opposites. I also don't view faith as dishonest, weak or easy. It always mystifies me as to why people without faith have to view faith in such a negative way.


They are opposites. If whatever you believed was supported by logic and evidence, then you wouldn't need "faith" anymore-- it would be just a fact.
And I didn't say faith was dishonest; I said it was dishonest to torture semantics in order to pretend everyone thinks the same way as you do.

----------


## No-name

I'm sorry, but you did call it a "dishonest method of self assurance."

Kumo, I doubt that you can understand how patronizing you sound. Faith is no weakness. Nor is it the "easy way to justify a personal weakness." I have no need to pretend that "everyone else has the same weakness" and it is not something needed because I fail to understand some logic or evidence. That is simply not a "fact." It is an opinion you base on your exclusive belief system. Just because someone does not adhere to your belief system is not reason to denigrate their beliefs. Because I have faith it does not make me inferior, ignorant, unintelligent or less than honest.

----------


## kumo

> I'm sorry, but you did call it a "dishonest method of self assurance."


Ok, let's test my grammar skills:
"I see this kind of attempt to universalize a personal need as a dishonest method of self-assurance."
The blue part is referring to the red part. Does "attempt to universalize a personal need" equals the word "faith"? No. It was referring to Void's attempt to make it look like it's necessary to have faith on logic.

EDIT: hmmm, now I see why you misunderstood it. The red part was referring to all the quote, not just the word 'faith'.

----------


## No-name

Was it faith or Void's statement that you were refering to? I took it as "faith." It was ambiguous. The rest of the statement is still valid.

----------


## kumo

> Was it faith or Void's statement that you were refering to?


Already answered. I'll admit to have called faith a sort of weakness, and my opinion is still the same. You can try to convince me of the contrary of course, but just saying "it's not" won't be enough.




> The rest of the statement is still valid.


Is it? I don't remember calling you "inferior, ignorant, unintelligent or less than honest" in any way whatsoever.

----------


## No-name

I don't think I need to convince you. Having no faith, I don't think you would be able to understand.

----------


## kumo

> I don't think I need to convince you. Having no faith, I don't think you would be able to understand.


Well, I guess now we are even when it comes to patronizing.  :Relieved:

----------


## Reiku

Many people have such opinions on faith--usually caused by bad experiences with organized religion.

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".

Since I'm about ten seconds away from being accused of that very thing, let me explain...  :Laughing: 

Faith is "belief without proof", but that doesn't mean that belief is wrong. Often faith comes from an intuitive awareness of something you do not consciously realize. For instance:

If you look at the world logically, it is highly improbable that such an intricate and well balanced system could have been created by mere chance.

But before we ever thought about it consciously, our subconscious has already been looking at the sum of our experiences and making deductuons about the nature of reality from them. We don't have all the information, so we are left with a belief that has insufficient proof.

This belief might be that there is an intelligent (or at least self-aware) creator, that for some inexplicable reason the laws of physics "loaded the dice" in favor of order, or perhaps that none of it is actually "real" in the first place--just a result of our perceptions.

In any event, we subconsciously choose whatever "feels" right to us.

You could argue that sceintific beliefs are more accurate because they are based on evidence and logic--but that evidence is based on human perceptions and therefore is unreliable--so in the end science is just another faith.

After all, what proof do we have that "logic" is reliable?

Just another faith--and like most, it vehemently opposes any faiths that contradict it.

----------


## No-name

Kumo, sorry for the sarcasm-- it was funnier in my head then it came off in text...

Reiku, I generally agree with you. I don't think faith and logic are antithetic. I think atheists and scientists underestimate the times when they are filling in the blanks of existence with personal heuretics... and how much the mechanisms of "faith" play out in their daily existence.

----------


## Reiku

Yeah, I do that alot myself.

It seems I can recognize certain things consciously, but subconsciously I have only my own experiances to go by--and that paints a very different picture of reality than what I "know" to be true.

As a result, I tend to vaccilate back and forth between my subconscious, experience-based philosophy of: "People are mean, ignorant animals totally at the whim of nature" and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"

In the end I suppose it just comes down to quantum physics being a damn hard thing to wrap your brain around, so I tend to forget what I've learned and just go by what I feel instead.  :Laughing:

----------


## kumo

> ...and my conscious, research-based philosophy of "Reality is a reflection of our beliefs, so technically everybody's right--at least within their own reality"


Also known as Relativist Fallacy, which can be disproved by the simple fact that there are people who disagree with it. I'm yet to see any philosopher worth his salt that would agree with what you wrote. Remember that Philosophy and postmodernist bullshit are two very different things. :Sou ka:

----------


## Reiku

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

Remeber that gravity was postmodernist bullshit at one time, and try to avoid jumping to conclusions about other people's ignorance. It's not a fun mistake to live with, I can assure you.

----------


## kumo

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

----------


## No-name

Postmodernism, relativistic fallacies, heureistics, teleologistic, quantum theory, faith, science, inductive, deductive, cogent... reality... all we need is pot smoke and bongo music and I think we could turn out some great poetry.

----------


## Mars Man

A quickie here before I get back...well, maybe...

At first glance, the line popped up in my head, "...here's another can of worms opening up, is it?" then, when looking at the opening post, thought to myself,"....oh...ok...not really then, huh?" It looked like we'd be discussing the senses that we'd use the word 'faith' in. As I read on, it looks (I could be wrong here, though) like the weather was rapidly changing. I'll run get an umbrella just in case, and come back to see if I can see the sun between the clouds.

...oh, and my fishing pole too.

----------


## 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/fe...dia_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

:Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:  



> 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 
> ...


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.  :Relieved: 

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)

----------


## No-name

You can do both. Trust logic and science for the answers they can give you and faith for the answers only it can give. They need not be at odds. Although some reject one entirely in favor of the others, I think our task is like Gallileo's tactic at his trial-- to reconcile the two.

(However don't defend your faith on a JREF thread...you will be banned.)

----------


## Void

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


i think they are alike. Let`s look at some examples.
1. Person. We usually confident in people we know well, we trust them
basing it on quite simple reasoning: "if he/she was "good" before ths person
unlikely to fail us now(in a future)". With people we don`t know, or know slightly it can be transformed into: "he/she is a decent citizen, therefore it is unlikely for him/her to fail us"
But, frankly speaking, it is more rare to have trust in complete strangers when it come to some seriuos issues (seriousness everyone defines for oneself)

2. idea. "This idea proved to be right before (in various cases), therefore
we extrapolate that it will work well in any other occurences never encountered before" (the degree of positive outcome often defined in terms of probabilities, those probabilities tend to bear tint of individuality - simply some trust more, some less) 

Very similar with science. We trust the theory (though, usually limits of its
application well defined) to work well and not to fail us in a future. But since every theory has its boundaries, when we encounter the evidence which 
doesn`t fit current theory (-ies), we trust that our logic (or we trust scientists if you like it this way) will find the explanation(s) and will build another theory(-ies) encompassing or complementing the previous one.
It reminds me forecasting the values of a trend, when the equation is built 
on previously collected data.
Therefore i can`t get rid of a feeling that there is some hew of irrationality
in this trust, but it doesn`t derogate science at all.
As i said above it can be considered as some instrument of stabilizing.
`Cause if we shall stop trusting our mind we shall admit then that all theories we`ve created in science have nothing to do with nature, but just a product of our mind. 
We trust facts, cause and effect relations and logical constructions 
(disregarding the logic`s types) our intellect makes.

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

Unfortunatly, i can`t say much about religious faith (especially, the frentic forms of it) from my own experience , because i can put up with idea of God or Demiurge (though, not the one(s) described in various scriptures or myths) and i can live well without existance of such idea or entity (i don`t have to tell you thet the idea can well exist without the object representing it) 
But let me elaborate a little bit on this subject. As i mentioned, i leave aside fanatics, especialy those ones who even deny the achievements of modern 
science. Let`s take a look at ....mmmm... let`s call them "reasonable believers" (doesn`t matter deists, agnostics or whatever else, but since these forum is more overanxious about people of the Book, i guess i`ll emphasize on them mostly) 

*First.* Maybe, what is called _supernatural explanation_ (or mysterious) was born before the _scientific explanation_. But with ages natural science developed and with every step could substitute some supernatural explanations with theories and logical constructions. But the question of _primary cause_ is still unanswered what leaves room for a god as creator. Disregarding the stage (varied in different belief systems)
at which creator stoped influencing this world, believers feel greatfull for the possibility to live here an witness its beauty. They do not reject science,
many of then even accept that in future it will explain more, but they still
have reasons to believe in god.

*Second.* There is always a ... sort of arguement between "physics" and "lyrics" (as we say here in RF). Because in spite of existance of physiology, psychology, psychiatry and such inner world of a human being often exceeds all the logics (it is well seen on a personal level and less on a bigger scale of a society).
Emotional, sentient (i am not about sensuous), aesthetic often irrational.
And it also leaves a room for supernatural or divine.
Every sapient creature (and not only sapient) strives for better, for comfort 
(physical and emotional), for balance. If someone finds out that idea of god
(any of its development in religion, laws, rituals and such) brings him peace, 
warmth and comfort, and this discovery is proved repeatedly, it becomes a fact.
We tend to trust facts. It doesn`t matter that this is very individual fact, 
since we speak about inner world. And even more, communicating with others
person might find out that such facts also work for them, and they even might verbalize their experience if not in same then in similar words. 
Take love, for example, with due efforts and explanations it can be reduced 
to the chains of chemical reactions and needs of species in survival. It can be
very logical. But at the same time such explanation shall bring to ground
and simplify our attitude toward this feeleing called "love". What is so
exciting and "miraculous" about set of chemichal reactions and ultimate need to reproduce? Frankly speaking, i wouldn`t feel comfortable in a world where the attitude will change. Will you?
The "relation with god" for believers is no different from this "love" thing.
Should they deny all the greate feelings they experience and reduce all to 
chemical bouds and electric signals? 
Who cares about what inspires my inner world, especially if it leads to honorable ddeds? And why should they nowdays, when religion doesn`t govern anymore? Anyone obsessed with preachers? I am not, i always have polite words to tell them mind their own lives but not mine (if polite speech don`t work, i wouldn`t disdain abusive language then  :Laughing: ). If they will not stop bothering me, i can go to police station and claim that this preachers invade my privacy. I even can just pass by or close my door right in front of their noses, pretending that i don`t notice them. Just that simple. 

---- offtop ----
yeah, i know one counterargument to follow. It probably will be that we should care about what inspires the inner world of muslims, because Islam is aggresive and dangerous. Ought to tell, that i am not even going to bother and answer such comments, due to their pure emotionality and dragged in logic (i guess, logic screamed and objected such abuse, but who listened?  :Laughing: ).
-----------------

*Third.* Once i`ve heard that lot of religion is sphere of spirituality. Maybe. If religious practice works for someone better than moral philosophy, let it be so. The richness of this world is in its varieties not in uniformity

----------


## Thor

Faith is just confidently believing in something/someone. You can interpret faith in many different ways. Like Tsu-san interpretted as it being religion-based. I guess it could also be a set of principles/beliefs.

----------


## rhixs

Faith is the acceptance of the unknowable and unknown, it is a surrender to the mystery of life and a refusal of the cult of death that claims that all can be explained, that we are the chaotic aggregate of a random event that just happened to create our reality, and that when we die aware snuffs out like a smokeless candle that doesn't even leave a lingering trace in the air to mark its passing.

----------


## Mars Man

Nice to see that you have finally jumped in, rhixs san ! I can definitely hear the philosopher in the waves of dancing particles that enjoin in sounding out the rings in your choice of words. 

I would take it that the above statement's entering phrase would not have been meant to have been absolute in that there can well be said to be a 'faith' that is based on a fair accumulation of previous empirical knowledge. 

Hope to hear more from you. !!

----------


## No-name

Take your choice: 
185

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.

Emily Dickinson

Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
H. L. Mencken

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.
Blaise Pascal

OR
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Friedrich Nietzsche

----------


## Mitsuo

Not only is faith confidently believing in something or someone. But it is something that is cherished. Once someone loses faith, it seems they lose faith in themselves.

The most important faith, it the faith in ones self.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> That would be essentially correct- if the "Truth" is absolute and exclusive, then any other version by definition is not the truth. So simply because they exclude each other doesn't mean that both are false, it only means that in the world of absolutes, only one is true and the other has to be false...


Thanks Sabro - this statement has just led me to an epiphany that I have been grasping at for months - i.e. why I think that logical reasoning and the scientific method are better ways to understand the world than faith. If two people believe mutually exclusive things, one of them has to be wrong. The only way to resolve this is to find the evidence to prove which is right. If that evidence isn't immediately available, then no claim can be made as to truth. The belief is a hypothesis only. When something is proven by logic or science though, the truth of it is known absolutely, and no belief is necessary. What other criteria are necessary to claim the superiority of these methods?

----------


## No-name

That would be essentially correct and you could plug that reasoning into that part of the human psyche that seems to drive us toward faith and reverence and worship... you could for a functions pseudo-religion out of science as some have done... but religion makes for bad science and science makes for a bad religion.

----------

