The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?
Faith, is it healthy?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #31No, I do not know with 100% certainty the status of the opposing light, but I could take sample data from various intersections and monitor the incidence of malfunctions and determine a pretty useful confidence rating. With the high availability of observational data, I suspect that most folks have a fairly good sense of the reliability of traffic intersection functions well before they reach the age to legally operate a motor vehicle. The vast majority of intersections function properly most of the time.otseng wrote:Suppose you are driving through a green light. The light is red (you assume) for the crossroad. Do you know with 100% certainty that the crossroad has a red light without seeing it? Perhaps the lightbulbs are not operational.
No I don't, but again, I could determine a confidence rating based on a wealth of observational data.otseng wrote:Suppose you do happen to see that it is red. How do you know that the cars approaching the red light will stop? Suppose the car's brakes have malfunctioned. Or suppose the person is driving under the influence. You don't know with 100% certainty that the person will stop.
Not as I see it. My objective is to get through the intersection safely, so I operate on the assumption that the other drivers share my objective, as do the folks down at the Traffic Light Bureau. Faith, in this situation, and most, would involve having confidence in the least likely scenario: that an accident will happen just because accidents have previously happened.otseng wrote:If you did not have faith, and required proof that the cars will stop, you will go through an unhealthy amount of anxiety.
Ah, but you can't use faith to describe both situations and have it retain a meaningful definition. In fact, we could probably establish a Faith-O-Meter with faith as a probability function. Doing so would reveal that more faith is required to believe that an accident will happen at a given intersection at a given time.otseng wrote:Suppose I am lying on my bed at night and think there exists demons under my bed that would snatch my soul when I go to sleep. Do I have any evidence for such a belief? No. But believing this would most likely cause some degree of insomnia and trepidation which would not be beneficial to my health.
Regards,
mrmufin
- anontheist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: Contra Costa County, CA
- Contact:
Faith
Post #32[Replying to post 1 by dangerdan]
If what we believe we want to be true, how do we determine that? How do we determine if something is true? Because we �know� that it is possible to believe something and be wrong or have �faith� in something and be absolutely mistaken; how do we keep from making mistakes of belief or faith?
I suspect that the only way to be sure is to consider the evidence and proof for the belief. That would entail reason and considering evidence collected from the observable world.
As one realizes that the only way to insure you have come to a true belief is to use reason and to begin to question what you simply accepted on “faith.� And that tends to lead to a different conclusions then Christianity or even Theism.
What reason would we have for believing anything on Faith? Suppose we do choose to believe something on faith, is it possible to be mistaken? And if so, how do we determine which “faith� to believe in? How do we determine if someone’s faith is correct or not?
If I want to believe only what is true, the proposal to believe something only on faith would lead to problems. I think it is possible to have “faith� in something that is not true. It is possible to have faith and be mistaken? If someone has faith in the Book of Mormon, are they mistaken or not? If someone has faith that Santa Claus exists, are they correct?
If two people claim that what they believe is true, and both claim this belief is based on faith, yet both believe contradictory things, how do we determine which person is correct? They cannot both be correct. If someone suggest that they believe in Allah based on faith and personal experience, and a Christian says that what they believe is based on faith and personal experience, would it be true they may both be correct? There are some contradictory theologies at play here as well. For example, Christians believe that Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity; Islam does not believe Jesus was anything more than a prophet.
It just seems to me, that even with the claim, “one should believe based on faith� the need for reason and evidence cannot be escaped. And if there is a need for reason and evidence, then there is no need for faith. Are there some objective criteria to determine if a particular belief, based on faith, is correct or not? If not, why would someone make the choice to believe something based on faith if they could be wrong?
If there is some standard by which we can determine if a belief is true, apart from faith, then what would be the point of “faith�?
If what we believe we want to be true, how do we determine that? How do we determine if something is true? Because we �know� that it is possible to believe something and be wrong or have �faith� in something and be absolutely mistaken; how do we keep from making mistakes of belief or faith?
I suspect that the only way to be sure is to consider the evidence and proof for the belief. That would entail reason and considering evidence collected from the observable world.
As one realizes that the only way to insure you have come to a true belief is to use reason and to begin to question what you simply accepted on “faith.� And that tends to lead to a different conclusions then Christianity or even Theism.
What reason would we have for believing anything on Faith? Suppose we do choose to believe something on faith, is it possible to be mistaken? And if so, how do we determine which “faith� to believe in? How do we determine if someone’s faith is correct or not?
If I want to believe only what is true, the proposal to believe something only on faith would lead to problems. I think it is possible to have “faith� in something that is not true. It is possible to have faith and be mistaken? If someone has faith in the Book of Mormon, are they mistaken or not? If someone has faith that Santa Claus exists, are they correct?
If two people claim that what they believe is true, and both claim this belief is based on faith, yet both believe contradictory things, how do we determine which person is correct? They cannot both be correct. If someone suggest that they believe in Allah based on faith and personal experience, and a Christian says that what they believe is based on faith and personal experience, would it be true they may both be correct? There are some contradictory theologies at play here as well. For example, Christians believe that Jesus is God, second person of the Trinity; Islam does not believe Jesus was anything more than a prophet.
It just seems to me, that even with the claim, “one should believe based on faith� the need for reason and evidence cannot be escaped. And if there is a need for reason and evidence, then there is no need for faith. Are there some objective criteria to determine if a particular belief, based on faith, is correct or not? If not, why would someone make the choice to believe something based on faith if they could be wrong?
If there is some standard by which we can determine if a belief is true, apart from faith, then what would be the point of “faith�?
I only want to believe what is true.
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #33I know of no faith that does not rest on evidence unless you are conflating proof and evidence which is illogical.dangerdan wrote: The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
- Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #34Every belief rests on faith in the "evidence" that it has declared to be valid and beyond challenge. The problem for faith occurs when the evidence invariably proves to be without certain foundation. And that's when faith takes over.ttruscott wrote:I know of no faith that does not rest on evidence unless you are conflating proof and evidence which is illogical.dangerdan wrote: The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?

-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #35.
If one defines proof narrowly enough practically nothing can be proved. Something happening as predicted 100,000 times with no exceptions may not be regarded as "absolute proof" the predictive system is correct.
This allows wiggle room for those who attempt to defend positions with weak or absent verifiable evidence to play word games.
If one stretches the definition of "evidence" enough practically anything can be called evidence -- including "My mother said so" or "These ancient storytellers said so" (which seem to have about equal value as evidence).ttruscott wrote: I know of no faith that does not rest on evidence unless you are conflating proof and evidence which is illogical.
If one defines proof narrowly enough practically nothing can be proved. Something happening as predicted 100,000 times with no exceptions may not be regarded as "absolute proof" the predictive system is correct.
This allows wiggle room for those who attempt to defend positions with weak or absent verifiable evidence to play word games.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- anontheist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: Contra Costa County, CA
- Contact:
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #36[Replying to post 33 by ttruscott]
How do you define the term "faith"?
Is it another term for belief, like faith is "a very strong belief"?
Or is faith a kind of knowledge claim, as Peter Boghossian claims in his book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists."
Is it possible to have faith in something and be wrong?
If two people have faith in something that has opposing views, how do you determine who is correct?
How do you define the term "faith"?
Is it another term for belief, like faith is "a very strong belief"?
Or is faith a kind of knowledge claim, as Peter Boghossian claims in his book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists."
Is it possible to have faith in something and be wrong?
If two people have faith in something that has opposing views, how do you determine who is correct?
I only want to believe what is true.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #37[Replying to post 1 by dangerdan]
No. Your definition of faith is not healthy.
Good news is, probably no one in the world does or has ever exercised this kind of blind trust!
No. Your definition of faith is not healthy.
Good news is, probably no one in the world does or has ever exercised this kind of blind trust!
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #38.
The really bad news is that much of Christendom apparently understands faith to be something along the lines of that described by Paul/Saul -- hope and belief without evidence. As indicated in many of these debates there is nothing to back up the claims and stories fundamental to Christian beliefs.
I agree that faith, as so defined, is not healthyliamconnor wrote:No. Your definition of faith is not healthy.dangerdan wrote: The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?
The bad news is that is how Paul/Saul defined faith:“faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen� (Hebrews 11:1)liamconnor wrote: Good news is, probably no one in the world does or has ever exercised this kind of blind trust!
The really bad news is that much of Christendom apparently understands faith to be something along the lines of that described by Paul/Saul -- hope and belief without evidence. As indicated in many of these debates there is nothing to back up the claims and stories fundamental to Christian beliefs.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22808
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
- Contact:
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #39No, not necessarily. Fortunately the bible's definition of faith is different from the subject of this thread since in scritpure, true faith is based on evidence. That faith (scriptural not popular) is the one I hold to and I believe is indeed both logical and ultimately good for ones mental, spiritual and physical well being.dangerdan wrote: The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?
JEHOVAHS WITNESS
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Faith, is it healthy?
Post #40Here is faith in action. Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico destroying an ancient pre-Colombian site because they considered it an affront to God. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a mainstream religion, or a group of dangerous terrorist zealots intent on imposing their beliefs on others? Shades of the Taliban and Isis!JehovahsWitness wrote:No, not necessarily. Fortunately the bible's definition of faith is different from the subject of this thread since in scritpure, true faith is based on evidence. That faith (scriptural not popular) is the one I hold to and I believe is indeed both logical and ultimately good for ones mental, spiritual and physical well being.dangerdan wrote: The term ‘faith’ seems to have a fairly broad meaning in today’s language, but for the sake of this thread, I’m more considering the definition of faith to be –
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from dictionary.com)
So is this faith healthy?
JEHOVAHS WITNESS
TeleSUR TV Network
Christian group vandalizes ancient Mexican archaeological site claiming it’s linked to ‘Devil worship’
The criminals behind the destruction of a sacred millenia-old temple claimed they were serving god.
Members of the Christian sect Jehovah's Witness reportedly destroyed a sacred Indigenous archaeological heritage site in central eastern Mexico in an act of apparent religious intolerance, claiming the traditional rituals practiced at the ancient ceremonial place were “not Christian,� local media reported Monday.
The attack on the more than 7,000 year-old Makonikha sanctuary in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo destroyed at least a dozen stone structures used as altars in the spirituality of the Otomi Indigenous people.
Jehovah's Witnesses have fessed up to being behind the destruction of the stone altars, but have not taken responsibility for a hole that has reportedly been drilled in the base of a pyramid at the San Bartolo Tutotepec archaeological site.
Members of the Christian sect say the destruction was motivated by a belief that the ancient Indigenous religion involved devil worship. The perpetrators claim that they were following the word of god by destroying the temple site.
The ancient religion of the Otomi people traditionally holds sacred various deities including earth, water, and fire, and reveres their gods with offerings.
According to anthropologists cited by the Mexican daily La Jornada, Mayonikha for the Otomi — whose territory spreads across central Mexico in at least eight modern-day states — is comparable in significance to Mecca for Muslims or the Vatican for Catholics.
It remains unclear when the Jehovah's Witnesses carried out the vandalism or how they gained access to the sacred site, protected by local Indigenous people with access only granted to worshippers.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/J ... -0009.html
ALSO
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/jehovah ... l-worship/
http://deadstate.org/christian-group-va ... l-worship/
