Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #282]

They are some of the arguments William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher/apologist) presents to make a case for God. But absolutely - make your case, and I'll look for the presumptions.

It seems I am not making myself clear. I will try harder.
When I refer to presumption, I am referring to the understanding that the prefix "pre" involves something done before, so in the sense of "To assume or take beforehand".
I am not referring to what one may use after as evidence.

I start with no presumptions. I look at the evidence, and go from there.

Nope. I form beliefs on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Is there evidence and arguments for purpose or spirits, or do you think we should just believe every possible thing exists unless proven otherwise?

So you have not decided there is no purpose in nature, or spirit, without considering any evidence for it. That is good.

You should have referred to it, instead of erroneously asserting that I "presume" ~purpose and ~spirits.

I assume you are reading my posts carefully, and made an honest mistake.
There isn't anywhere in my post where I said you ""presume" ~purpose and ~spirits"?
I don't think you changed the word "naturalism" to "you" deliberately, because while that will certainly lead to the statement you just made, it would not accurately represent what I said.

Of course, we can make mistakes, but there can be less mistakes, when we take our time to listen to what others say.
I'm sure you agree.

Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc.

Naturalism is not you... of course.

It's possible I don't understand you, but I wonder if you understand the meanings of "belief" and "entail".

Entail = logical necessity. In a deductive argument, the premises entail the conclusion. In general,
A entails B means:
if A is true then B is necessarily true
and
If A exists then B necessarily exists

I understand that, but consider your phrase "what they believe". What they believe, is a belief (which may be a conjunction of many beliefs).

If you are convinced of X, then you believe X.

So...if you hope for being with God in Heaven, you must believe God and heaven exist.

I don't think it's possible you don't understand me. I think it's beyond possible. It is clearly evident that you don't understand me.
However, I conclude from the evidence that you do not want to understand me.
Take just one piece of evidence, below.

An active belief is still a belief.

This makes it abundantly clear that you will refer to faith as belief, regardless of what is said to you.
So, I think, as long as that is the case, we are simply not communicating, and any further conversation... to use your expression, is moot.
We could always let you peer review that though, to see if you reach the same conclusion.
Let me know. Please don't be biased.

If you have faith in God, then you necessarily have the belief "God exists". That's an entailment.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The evidence one has, of what is not seen, is a basis for believing in what one does not see.
Does one believe in what one does not see, and then has faith in it? No.
Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.
Does one's belief amount to faith? No.

Let me see if there is a real basis for my conclusion, I have reached though. Just to be doubly sure.

I don't know how faith can exist if there is nothing that one has faith in.
The definition tell us, it is the substance - the assurance, of what we hope for and the evidence - proof, or certainty of what we do not see.
What we hope for, or do not see has to be believed in. How else could we look forward to it?

Please tell me what you understand this to be saying.
How different is it to what you said, or how different is from what is said at Hebrews 11:6?

So, can I inquire again. Can you please help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x.
In other words, what is your point?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #282]
I don't think it's possible you don't understand me. I think it's beyond possible. It is clearly evident that you don't understand me.
However, I conclude from the evidence that you do not want to understand me.
Take just one piece of evidence, below.

An active belief is still a belief.

This makes it abundantly clear that you will refer to faith as belief, regardless of what is said to you.

I cannot fathom how you would infer that I don't want to understand you based on a quote of mine that doesn't even include the word "faith". I wasn't arguing the definition of faith, I was just demonstrating why I have inferred that faith entails belief(s), even with your definition of faith.

You haven't even said that my inference is wrong. You just continued to expound on the meaning of faith, as if I had disputed it. I didn't dispute that!

Do you understand that the phrase "A entails B" is not the same as saying "A is equivalent to B"? Consider a different entailment:

I have a college degree in math. This entails that I took a college course in math. But taking a math course is not equivalent to having a degree.

Analogously, if you have faith, then you have a belief. At least it seems that way - since in your description of faith, you repeatedly used the word "belief". This may very well be wrong, but try to understand why I would draw that inference. That portion of my prior reply was an effort to explain why I inferred it so you could dispute it, if it's wrong.

If you have faith in God, then you necessarily have the belief "God exists". That's an entailment.

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

You did not dispute what I said, you just expounded on what faith is. I have not challenged your description of faith. I merely noted that faith ENTAILS belief. Please answer this question: does faith entail belief or not? No need to again expound on everything that faith is. Just tell me if you agree that faith entails belief or not.

But keep the math analogy in mind: if a math degree does not entail taking a math course, than a person could get a math degree without taking any math courses. And if faith does not entail belief, then one could have faith without belief.

Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.
Does one's belief amount to faith? No

I never suggested it did.

If you encounter a person who has a math degree, you will know they took a math course - because that is entailed by having the degree.

But if you encounter a person who has taken a math course, you cannot infer that they have a math degree (taking a math course does not entail having a math degree).

Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.

This again suggests you reversed the entailment, or believed an entailment works both ways. I hope I've cleared this up.

They are some of the arguments William Lane Craig (a Christian philosopher/apologist) presents to make a case for God. But absolutely - make your case, and I'll look for the presumptions.

...
When I refer to presumption, I am referring to the understanding that the prefix "pre" involves something done before...

I start with no presumptions. I look at the evidence, and go from there.

You repeated the claim that you can make the case for Christianity (without depending on presumptions), but haven't done so, despite my repeated requests. I don't think you can do that.

There isn't anywhere in my post where I said you ""presume" ~purpose and ~spirits"?
I don't think you changed the word "naturalism" to "you" deliberately, because while that will certainly lead to the statement you just made, it would not accurately represent what I said.

I'm so glad you brought this up! I was referring to your judgement about naturalism:

Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc.

Was that a presumption of yours, or was it a judgement based on evidence? I assume you'd say the latter, since you deny making presumptions. But it then implies you erred in making that judgement, because your statement entails ME (a naturalist) making presumptions.

Of course, we can make mistakes, but there can be less mistakes, when we take our time to listen to what others say.
I'm sure you agree.

I took your broad statement about naturalism literally. An entailment of that statement is that it applies to me, because I embrace naturalism. So what mistake did I make? Should I not take your statements literally? Should I not consider what is entailed by your statements?

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #292]

I cannot fathom how you would infer that I don't want to understand you based on a quote of mine that doesn't even include the word "faith". I wasn't arguing the definition of faith, I was just demonstrating why I have inferred that faith (as you define it) entails belief(s).

You haven't even said that my inference is wrong. You just continued to expound on the meaning of faith, as if I had disputed it. I didn't dispute that!

Do you understand that the phrase "A entails B" is not the same as saying "A is equivalent to B"? Consider a different entailment:

I have a college degree in math. This entails that I took a college course in math. But taking a math course is not equivalent to having a degree.

Analogously, if you have faith, then you have a belief. At least it seems that way - since in your description of faith, you repeatedly used the word "belief". This may very well be wrong, but try to understand why I would draw that inference. That portion of my prior reply was an effort to explain why I inferred it so you could dispute it, if it's wrong.

I don't think you are just making statements purposelessly.
You did follow up the statement "faith is not like a passive belief. faith is not like a passive belief." with "An active belief is still a belief."
Why would you do that, if you are not referring to faith as active belief?
The statement does not seem to connect to anything you said prior.

You did not dispute what I said, you just expounded on what faith is. I have not challenged your description of faith. I merely noted that faith ENTAILS belief. Please answer this question: does faith entail belief or not? No need to again expound on everything that faith is. Just tell me if you agree that faith entails belief or not.

But keep the math analogy in mind: if a math degree does not entail taking a math course, than a person could get a math degree without taking any math courses. And if faith does not entail belief, then one could have faith without belief.

I'm trying to find out what your point is. In other words, why this entail stuff is relevant.

I never suggested it did.

If you encounter a person who has a math degree, you will know they took a math course - because that is entailed by having the degree.

But if you encounter a person who has taken a math course, you cannot infer that they have a math degree (taking a math course does not entail having a math degree).

Is it that you are trying to understand it from the perspective of a person with a Math degree?

You repeated the claim that you can make the case for Christianity (without depending on presumptions), but haven't done so, despite my repeated requests. I don't think you can do that.

No. i did ask you to point out any presumptions, and you failed to do so. So why do I have to come up with what does not exist?
I'm not Houdini.

I'm so glad you brought this up! I was referring to your judgement about naturalism:

Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc.

Was that a presumption of yours, or was it a judgement based on evidence? I assume you'd say the latter, since you deny making presumptions. But it then implies you erred in making that judgement, because your statement entails ME (a naturalist) making presumptions.

It's a quote from here. The second paragraph.
If it is wrong, then the author of the article erred.

I took your broad statement about naturalism literally. An entailment of that statement is that it applies to me, because I embrace naturalism. So what mistake did I make? Should I not take your statements literally? Should I not consider what is entailed by your statements?

Evidently, your assumption was incorrect, and your statement was not correct, since it misrepresents and alters what I actually said.
Do you admit to this, or do you think it is okay to interpret a person's statement anyway we assume, and then stand by it being correct?

If you hold to a different naturalism, then I think you would be obligated to explain that naturalism holds different viewpoints, and perhaps explain that yours does not match that. Just as I did, when you mentioned the 5 assumptions you hear of in theism.

[fredonly]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #293]

[Replying to fredonly in post #292]You did follow up the statement "faith is not like a passive belief. faith is not like a passive belief." with "An active belief is still a belief."
Why would you do that, if you are not referring to faith as active belief?

Because I was trying to help you understand what it means to say faith entails belief. Its clear you didnt understand what it means, since you felt the need to say:
"Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.... Does one's belief amount to faith? No"

If you understood the meaning of "entail", there would be no reason to make those comments. Furthermore, at the end of your last post, you asked:
"Can you please help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x."

So when you said, "faith is not like a passive belief", I could see that you had some understanding of a relation between faith and belief, and was trying to call your attention to it.

I'm trying to find out what your point is. In other words, why this entail stuff is relevant.

My point is: faith entails belief. I can make no further points until you demonstrate that you understand this.

Is it that you are trying to understand it from the perspective of a person with a Math degree?

No! It was an ANALOGY to help explain the meaning of "entail". I could have used "Chemistry degree" or "Art degree":

If you encounter a person who has an Art degree, you will know they took an Art course - because that is entailed by having the degree.
But if you encounter a person who has taken an Art course, you cannot infer that they have an Art degree (taking a math course does not entail having a math degree).
Analogously:
If you encounter a person who has FAITH, you will know they have BELIEFS associated with that faith - because that is entailed by having FAITH
But if you encounter a person who has BELIEFS, you cannot infer that they have FAITH (having beliefs does not entail having a faith).

Does this make sense now?

You repeated the claim that you can make the case for Christianity (without depending on presumptions), but haven't done so, despite my repeated requests. I don't think you can do that.

No. i did ask you to point out any presumptions, and you failed to do so.

Its impossible to point out the presumptions in someones reasoning when they have not provided that reasoning (and I have not PRESUMED you make presumptions). Youre overlooking that I had previously said:

make your case, and I'll look for the presumptions.

To be clear: I anticipate that you probably depend on some presumptions, but I've been careful to avoid asserting that you do until I see your reasoning. Remember, I provided an outline of my reasoning for naturalism, and you haven't reciprocated.

I took your broad statement about naturalism literally. An entailment of that statement is that it applies to me, because I embrace naturalism. So what mistake did I make? Should I not take your statements literally? Should I not consider what is entailed by your statements?

Evidently, your assumption was incorrect, and your statement was not correct, since it misrepresents and alters what I actually said.

If I made an error, then help me understand that error. You said, "Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc" (you asserted this, irrespective of your source). Does this not entail that a person who believes naturalism "presumes there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits, etc"?

If you hold to a different naturalism, then I think you would be obligated to explain that naturalism holds different viewpoints, and perhaps explain that yours does not match that. Just as I did, when you mentioned the 5 assumptions you hear of in theism.

So you have a limited knowledge of naturalism (you hadn't previously mentioned that you were depending on a single source) and you feel its up to me to educate you (ROFL!) Despite your limited knowledge on the subject, you should now realize that naturalism does not entail presumptions. So consider yourself sufficiently educated that you will not make the same mistake in the future.

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #294]

Because I was trying to help you understand what it means to say faith entails belief. Its clear you didnt understand what it means, since you felt the need to say:
"Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.... Does one's belief amount to faith? No"

If you understood the meaning of "entail", there would be no reason to make those comments. Furthermore, at the end of your last post, you asked:
"Can you please help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x."

So when you said, "faith is not like a passive belief", I could see that you had some understanding of a relation between faith and belief, and was trying to call your attention to it.

I don't think you were trying to help me understand anything. however, I won't say what I think you were, or are trying to do.

Analogously:
If you encounter a person who has FAITH, you will know they have BELIEFS associated with that faith - because that is entailed by having FAITH
But if you encounter a person who has BELIEFS, you cannot infer that they have FAITH (having beliefs does not entail having a faith).

Does this make sense now?

Why do you think it didn't make sense before?
Perhaps answering these questions would have solved that misunderstanding.

I don't know how faith can exist if there is nothing that one has faith in.
The definition tell us, it is the substance - the assurance, of what we hope for and the evidence - proof, or certainty of what we do not see.
What we hope for, or do not see has to be believed in. How else could we look forward to it?

Please tell me what you understand this to be saying.
How different is it to what you said, or how different is from what is said at Hebrews 11:6?

If I made an error, then help me understand that error. You said, "Naturalism, on the other hand presumes that there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits; etc" (you asserted this, irrespective of your source). Does this not entail that a person who believes naturalism "presumes there is no purpose to nature; there are no spirits, etc"?

If they believe Metaphysical Naturalism, Yes.

So you have a limited knowledge of naturalism, and its up to me to educate you. Despite your limited knowledge on the subject, you should now realize that naturalism does not entail presumptions.

I don't know, sorry.
Yes. I don't know everything.
In cases where I am getting familiar with something, I rely on what is written.
SSo, what I quoted, is false?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #294]

Analogously:
If you encounter a person who has FAITH, you will know they have BELIEFS associated with that faith - because that is entailed by having FAITH
But if you encounter a person who has BELIEFS, you cannot infer that they have FAITH (having beliefs does not entail having a faith).

Does this make sense now?

Why do you think it didn't make sense before?

Because, even after I defined it, you responded:

"Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.... Does one's belief amount to faith? No"

In your last post, you showed you didn't even understand the "math degree" analogy.

At no point did you acknowledge that faith entails belief.

Do you now acknowledge that faith entails belief? Yes or no.

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #296]

Because, even after I defined it, you responded:

"Does one's believing in something, mean that one has faith? No.... Does one's belief amount to faith? No"

In your last post, you showed you didn't even understand the "math degree" analogy.

At no point did you acknowledge that faith entails belief.

Do you now acknowledge that faith entails belief? Yes or no.

I expressed myself very clearly. If you do not understand, I am sorry.
I made the points I did, so as to be clear about what is, and what isn't.
If you cannot say if what I said is in agreement or not, then we are not communicating.
The way people formulate their words, and interpret them, as well as responses to those, differ.
I'm not going there.

Are we at the end of the road now?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #296]

At no point did you acknowledge that faith entails belief.

Do you now acknowledge that faith entails belief? Yes or no.

I expressed myself very clearly. If you do not understand, I am sorry.

You're unwilling to answer a simple yes/no question, so yes- I think I understand. You're embarrassed that you didn't know the meaning of "entail", and you lack the confidence to defend your beliefs.

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #298]

You're unwilling to answer a simple yes/no question, so yes- I think I understand. You're embarrassed that you didn't know the meaning of "entail", and you lack the confidence to defend your beliefs.

Regardless, I'm glad I could teach you a couple of things. It could be useful to you when you graduate high school.

The insult is certainly useful to the thread. Thanks.
However, I did answer your question, and in so doing, I followed up with a couple questions which you did not answer.

Have a good evening.

[fredonly]

However, I did answer your question

It was a simple yes/no question. You stated neither "yes" nor "no".

Sorry for the insult, but I gave direct answers to all your questions. You haven't answered most of mine. (Quoting scripture and expecting me to draw certain inferences, is not answering).