Why is faith (belief without proof) a good thing? Also How is it a reliable way of gauging reality?
I think these are important questions considering theists often say we need to take God's existence on faith.
In fact in the Bible requiring evidence is somehow regarded as a lesser trait. One glaring example of this is in the story where Thomas doubts Jesus's resurrection.
John 20:25-29 (NIV) So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
As we can see the blessed are those who believed without proof. pushing forth the idea that questioning a claim and requesting evidence is some how lesser stance.
I think this story also draws a number of parallels with the typical argument we see between theists and atheists.
Theist: Believe in God. Atheist: What proof is there for God's existence? Theist: There is no proof you just have to take in on faith. Or like in the story above they site some personal experience that proved it to them but expect atheists to go on faith alone.
This often goes around in circles, but I would like to take a different slant on it. If I am expected to believe based on faith alone I first want to know why this is such a superior methodology.
As we can see the blessed are those who believed without proof. pushing forth the idea that questioning a claim and requesting evidence is some how lesser stance.
That kind of thing really gets me annoyed. Its not like trust of a friend or stranger. These are tangible things that you can, for a start, give a slap for breaking your trust j/k.
It looks like manipulation to me.
Im have to take it on faith that most scientific discoverys are correct i.e. distance from the sun, moon and other celestial objects. What the sun is made of. What the earth is made of. Theories on the big bang and the size and expansion of the universe... you get the idea.
However... even tho I take these with a good pinch of faith, when someone gains an understanding of how they find these things out and how they test them you start to have a well placed faith in the big brainz that look into these matters. Having studied a higher level of basic physics and also tech studies (how electronics work, voltages, gates etc...) I can say I have an above average understanding which allows me to appreciate the scientific findings. Sadly I dont know enough to really understand properly.
The reason I have no faith in religion is because it has shown very little in the way of logic or critical analysis.
I base my friends trust on logical faith. He has pulled thru before and I have founded faith he will do so again.
It's not that it is a superior methodology, if we think based on those terms, then Christianity would be the only religion that "thinks" it's the right religion. All religions believe that they are the true and correct religion, why try to say that Christians think they have the superior religion.
Like analogmokey said, scientists tell the correct distance from the sun and planets etc ... how do you know those are correct measurements? You have to have faith and believe that the scientists wouldn't lie ...
You have to have faith and believe that the scientists wouldn't lie ...
Its not misplaced tho. Scientists are very critical... sometimes nastily critical. Its like an internal moderation that all scientists take part in.
e.g. may believe the big bang was the WAY the universe expanded (and thats important as its not an explanation for HOW the universe started or what was before). There are many scientists who disagree and will go to great lengths to disprove this.
Im have to take it on faith that most scientific discoverys are correct i.e. distance from the sun, moon and other celestial objects. What the sun is made of. What the earth is made of. Theories on the big bang and the size and expansion of the universe... you get the idea.
well no we don't have to take it on faith, the evidence is put forth for everyone to see. As for myself I think saying I accept a theory would be more accurate then saying I believe.
It's not that it is a superior methodology, if we think based on those terms, then Christianity would be the only religion that "thinks" it's the right religion. All religions believe that they are the true and correct religion, why try to say that Christians think they have the superior religion.
Should have been more clear here. I was using Christianity as just one example since it's the one I'm more familiar with. Many religions put forth this concept of just believe. This is usually a corner stone in many religions. I want to know why it should hold the status it does.
@Airflipper: Thanks, you just made my day with your trollage. Now that I'm done laughing at the troll, I shall continue.
"Ultimately, blind faith is the only kind." -Mason Cooley. Have you any idea how long I've been waiting to post a suitable quote making fun of faith? You gave me an opportunity too good to miss.
My opinion is short but contrary to, well, everyone else's.
I'm assuming that the comparison here is between faith and empirical evidence? If not then I'm arguing from the wrong viewpoint, so I apologize.
Basically the two can be interpreted, socially, as world views correct? And as religion is largely a social event, phenomena, whatever you wish to call it this will be how I base my argument. So, can we agree that how people view the world is largely caused by past experiences? If so, and if faith vs. empirical evidence is a social world view we can, we can say that whichever you choose to view as higher than the other is a causation of past experiences. So the viewpoint as to which is "better" is subjective to the person to holds the belief, whether or not one is objectively better isn't all that important when it comes to society. Finally, if ever thing I've said here is true we can assume that past experiences are the reason one view point is "stronger" than the other, and this is the reason some put one ahead of the other.
Also, no where does it say that pursuing evidence is wrong just that either way you would be blessed.
If so, and if faith vs. empirical evidence is a social world view we can, we can say that whichever you choose to view as higher than the other is a causation of past experiences.
Not sure about faith but empirical evidence isn't a social world view.
Also, no where does it say that pursuing evidence is wrong just that either way you would be blessed.
From the passage cited it would seem only those who didn't require evidence first are blessed.
From the passage cited it would seem only those who didn't require evidence first are blessed.
You're correct, for some reason I thought it said that he saw and was blessed; I need to read slower.
Not sure about faith but empirical evidence isn't a social world view.
Well, as bad as this is going to sound I don't know if I can explain to you exactly what I mean but as I made the assertion I will do my best to back it up. Let's take the two of us for instance; we're both agnostic atheists an yet we clearly have different viewpoints on a number of issues, now why is that? It's because of our world view, correct? So, is it possible to generalize why the differ or not; I saw it is, I would say I possess a world view of faith while you possess a world view of evidence. Now, we often both come to the same objective conclusion because of the majority of factors that we share but we have different ways of getting there as well a s a different general view of the world.
For example why, when you drive, do you believe that other people wont swerve across the line and hit you? Is it because you have faith they can drive or is it because you know that there's a 99.999% percent chance that they are a competent drive who simply wont do it?
Okay so you meant forming a world view threw the use of faith or empirical evidence?
For example why, when you drive, do you believe that other people wont swerve across the line and hit you? Is it because you have faith they can drive or is it because you know that there's a 99.999% percent chance that they are a competent drive who simply wont do it?
Considering the way people drive where I live I'm not sure that's a good example. LOL :P
Not to jack the thread but can I say how much more trust I have in younger drivers who went to driving school than the 30 something who can dive but doesn't know the laws at all.
