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.
if you're inspiration for the first part came from the doubting Thomas story then i'll answer with regard to the Thomas story.
Actually no I was just using that story as an example of how religion (Christianity in particular) seems to regard faith as being more reliable then objective evidence.
These questions stem from the numerous times I have been told things like "God is real if you believe he is" or "you have to have faith first" or "to see the evidence for God I first have to believe he exists". With objective evidence I should be able to come to the same conclusions regardless of what I believe. The evidence leads us to the conclusion, rather then coming to a conclusion and finding evidence. So I would like to know why the other way around is a better methodology or even good to do at all.
i mean i see several "why shouldn't it be the redefiner if it happens to be right?" arguments coming my way... all i can say is "I don't know" and you haven't proven you're right with absolute certainty just yet...
I wouldn't want absolute certainty. Absolute certainty doesn't leave room to admit that we might be wrong, eliminating or at least crippling an important self correcting mechanism in the pursuit of knowledge. So I see disregarding something because of a lack of an absolute to be a fallacy.
what i'm getting at is that if he truly could perform miracles... and those weren't enough for Thomas to have faith then how many more times did Jesus have to prove himself before he would no longer doubt his capabilities?
This skepticism seems to be a recurring theme with the disciples. They doubt his ability, Jesus pulls it off and they are surprised. You would think after a while they would figure out this dude isn't ordinary and can do things that are physically impossible. But that's kind of another subject.
whether its a justified hope in a real deity or a false hope in a fake one I don't know.
Wouldn't it be better to have hope in something proven rather then something that is not, and could easily be false?
as for the gauging reality question.... I dunno. Tell me your take on the question in layman's terms and then I may have my answer. I've read the other posts but I think my right brain hemisphere deflated in the process.
basically what I said first off in this reply. by saying "You have faith God is real" you are making a determination of reality based on faith. I use Christianity as an example here because not only are we to use this method, we are demanded and even treated with punishment of torture by the very deity that by other means has no reason to be believed.
what is "best" isn't always a concrete definitive answer. It varies according to the circumstances of each scenario. There is no response that I can give you that will answer those questions for you. Its something each person has to decide for themselves.
there are only a few things on this subject that i know... (or think that i know (but i don't know if i know that i know them anymore))
-existence is chaos (disorder) ....entropy -existence can be very lonely ...i mean i'm citing personal experience here -trying to comprehend the meaning behind existence and what happens post humus can be a terrifying experience... terror being (in my example) an experience so awing that it's crippling and/or has the ability to stop you altogether
Some people put their faith in what they believe is a higher power. Some put their faith only in what they can see and touch. ... and i think some are just along for the ride.
for those that believe in a higher power, it gives structure to the chaos. It gives the sense of a presence that will always be there to care. It alleviates all of the worry of not existing after the here and now. the argument i hear alot is... "yea... if you don't act like he wants you too he sends you down below to his evil twin brother to let him have forced intercourse (can't say the 4 letter word) with you for the rest of eternity"... that's not how the other half of the people view it. they don't even look at it as "if i do whatever this book tells me I'll get to go to heaven"... its more of a "If I'm a good person I'll get rewarded with eternal bliss". i mean i believe everyone knows the conotations and denotations of the word good. I think I've seen that "what is good" argument every time the word is posted. I'm not doing that... It takes the worry out of not knowing the meanings behind everything. whether justifiably so or not I cannot give you that answer.
as for those who want to explain things with science and theories... it gives structure to the chaos. it can tell someone why they are alone... disorders and such... i'm not sure as to how it can alleviate the voids of lonelieness some people have. ...and finally it says that this life is the end of the road. you only go down it once, and once the road ends so do you. maybe this possible reality is too much for those who believe in the possible "fairy tales" to opt into believing it. Reality may just be too harsh. ...but then again they may be right.
in the end we have but 1 known life to live. its up to you to choose how you want to make that life bearable.
and what is the best way to determine that, just believing it is or finding supporting evidence?
I can't truly believe something if I haven't been able to think about it on my own terms.... if all i ever do is listen to whatever others tell me then I eventually doubt it. you're the only one who can answer that question. my beliefs are not yours and vice versa. everyone's conclusions have to be their own.
It varies according to the circumstances of each scenario. There is no response that I can give you that will answer those questions for you. Its something each person has to decide for themselves.
I don't see how it's that subjective.
for those that believe in a higher power, it gives structure to the chaos. It gives the sense of a presence that will always be there to care. It alleviates all of the worry of not existing after the here and now.
I keep thinking back to an argument on how someone on drugs can feel good. Yes you can have the feeling of self worth and bliss, but they aren't based on anything real.
I can't truly believe something if I haven't been able to think about it on my own terms.... if all i ever do is listen to whatever others tell me then I eventually doubt it. you're the only one who can answer that question. my beliefs are not yours and vice versa. everyone's conclusions have to be their own.
If I said "I have a ball" and without showing the ball to anyone half the people believe me and the other half didn't. What would be more reliable to determine whether I did or didn't? If I held up the ball and showed everyone, or if people just took my word for it?
