Faith by definition is believing with out evidence. You may base it off of what you personally feel, but this position can be flawed and leaves no means of critical examination to discover those flaws. Some might point to a personal experience or old text and assert that's evidence. But this is just that person projecting their personal feelings onto that text or experience. This doesn't give them evidence to work with but rather more claims they have to find evidence for. If one does have evidence for their claim then faith is unnecessary to believe that claim. So how can one defend a position based on faith that by definition has nothing backing it up, and becomes an unnecessary position if it can back itself up?
So how can one defend a position based on faith that by definition has nothing backing it up, and becomes an unnecessary position if it can back itself up?
They can't but, unfortunatly, faith is also immune to being proven wrong. Clearly the burden of proof lies with those that have faith in a deity but some refuse to acknowledge this.
You made, stated and posted the thread having the opposing argument already killed.
I was trying to see if my logic was faulty or if there was a counter argument that I was missing. I will be able to expand my questioning on this subject.
Umm... The entire world is an illusion, and really, there is a God.
Because this does not accept a premise that you must prove first - why must we believe our perceptions and our mind, which underly everything in the universe?
So how can one defend a position based on faith that by definition has nothing backing it up, and becomes an unnecessary position if it can back itself up?
do huh?
I think that if what the person believed in were proved true then their faith will have just been rewarded. The argument for me is that I believe that the science behind things can be seen as the mechanism by which God(s) could possibly act. The counter is then... all we know is that there is science... and since there is science God then becomes unnecessary in the equation. Just because there a high likelihood that there is no God based off of logical assumption doesn't mean that is the case. Just because there is no observable 100% proof of the confirmation of a deity doesn't mean there isn't one. This is where the faith part of the discussion enters the equation for those that choose to believe. Your argument seems to be that since there are so many discrepancies with the past human perception of such deities (discontinuity issues) and that you can't prove it one way or the other then you shouldn't choose to believe anyway. Those that choose to believe are those that have decided (or in my case)that even tho it can't be proven either way they will continue to do so until its been proven wrong. I think ur right in that if there was proof then there would be no reason to have faith... I'm just not sure about what point that proves... or what point ur getting at by making that statement.
The problem with defending the religious position is that in conversation w/ intelligent atheists I'm going to sound like an illogical idiot by default to most of them. ie the proposed video game explanation of things I attempted... it had alot of "if you have any logical bone in your body, then you'll drop it now" flack shot at it. The same sentiment is received for most if not all religious propositions.
you asked me once to give you a response for your "Why should I just take it in faith?" thread... I have another response that I would like to add to your list. Don't get me wrong... its not a end all debate answer to the situation... its just a proposed answer that only serves as true if there is in fact a God.
I'm going to reference a bible verse in this explanation... >_> no i don't remember the actual designation of where it can be found (too lazy to google it)... and I'm just using it as a concept... the literal meaning doesn't really apply. again... just using it as a similar concept that I'm going to bend and warp to apply it to this situations...
The whole... "Its easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven" phrase... (assuming there is heaven...and that you earn your way there in some form or fashion) The intelligent logical person "rich in knowledge" is going to be our rich person here... see... not really money, so I hope I haven't lost any of you by paraphrasing and warping... If you are intelligent and logical and you don't believe then you will always be able to conceive an explanation for every phenomena you come across... and you will always be able to justify that there is no necessity for a deity that is the behind the scenes driver/creator and that will in itself be enough to opt out of believing. Pretty much anything short of a deity showing up and bringing back someone you know that is deceased (even then there will probably be doubt about legitimacy of the situation) will be explainable through some scientific means that leaves the deity out of the equation. ...and that's probably my best/last attempt at giving that query a shot. I'm assuming more then a few of this posts readers will have thought it stupid and a waste of time. Oh wells... and I hope that was coherent and understandable... I may've left something out. If I see that i did, or i remember something that I wanted to put in then i'll finish it when I come to that realization.
maybe there's an answer to your "how can you defend something you can't prove" question somewhere in there... i got a little off track w/ regard to the thread, but I think its all still pertinent... at least for those that care to read it all and attempt to understand it
Umm... The entire world is an illusion, and really, there is a God.
If everything is just an illusion of my mind, then I'm God.
Because this does not accept a premise that you must prove first - why must we believe our perceptions and our mind, which underly everything in the universe?
We have no other mechanism by which to use. Because of this we can never fully rule out the possibility you state. But we have no reason to accept it either.
I think that if what the person believed in were proved true then their faith will have just been rewarded.
I'm sure it does feel good to have something substantial backing up what you believe. I find that one of the nicer things about not going on faith. Of course then they would no longer need faith to believe it and how could they support that position before hand?
The argument for me is that I believe that the science behind things can be seen as the mechanism by which God(s) could possibly act. The counter is then... all we know is that there is science... and since there is science God then becomes unnecessary in the equation. Just because there a high likelihood that there is no God based off of logical assumption doesn't mean that is the case. Just because there is no observable 100% proof of the confirmation of a deity doesn't mean there isn't one.
The problem is the observable evidence for God sits at a big fat 0%. We use the same reasoning with Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy. The idea is irreconcilable with science and has no supporting evidence. So why should God be treated any differently?
Those that choose to believe are those that have decided (or in my case)that even tho it can't be proven either way they will continue to do so until its been proven wrong.
The problem here is this line of thinking creates the argument from ignorance fallacy.
I think ur right in that if there was proof then there would be no reason to have faith... I'm just not sure about what point that proves... or what point ur getting at by making that statement.
Some make the argument that faith is somehow necessary, that's to point out that it's not necessary. You could say it's necessary to believe in that which is unproven, but I don't see how that's a positive quality.
If you are intelligent and logical and you don't believe then you will always be able to conceive an explanation for every phenomena you come across... and you will always be able to justify that there is no necessity for a deity that is the behind the scenes driver/creator and that will in itself be enough to opt out of believing.
Though this position would be arrived at through what is proven, with what is not being dismissed until evidence can be provided for it. Also in science you want to come up with the most simplistic explanation you can to build from, so adding things with no evidence is just extraneous. So there is really more behind it then just convincing yourself into not believing.
Pretty much anything short of a deity showing up and bringing back someone you know that is deceased (even then there will probably be doubt about legitimacy of the situation) will be explainable through some scientific means that leaves the deity out of the equation.
Of course there would still be room of reasonable doubt. That's why we would go and further examine the evidence provided.
well, isn't everything based on faith? i have faith that the sun will come up in the morning, and based on previous data, its just about a sure bet. but what if it didn't? personally, i take everything with a grain of salt, so to speak. now, i know how you atheists work. and i have faith that someone will tell me how all this stuff is proven, and based on facts, and religion is crazy. but i have a good question for you. why is proof important to you. no bias either, i'm not partial to either side.
Faith by definition is believing with out evidence.
I think the counterargument is going to rest on this premise. The interpretation one would provide for this claim would involve what is meant by 'faith' and what is meant by 'evidence'. From an epistemic standpoint (which I think you're coming from), this comes down to a question of justification. But faith itself is not a belief, it's a way of arriving at a belief. Now, you could argue that this method of belief formation is unjustified. But why is it? You're move here would be to argue the method is unjustified because there is no account of evidence in the belief formation process. But this is clearly false - this would amount to a belief just spontaneously forming in someone. You're argument, then, is that the belief is unjustified because the evidence for the belief (customs, parents, seeming to be true) is the wrong kind of evidence. You could make the further claim that it is not properly called evidence, but this amounts to the same claim.
The counterargument to this question is simply epistemic externalist views of justification. If there is a god, then the belief in that god would be justified by that god's existence. Like them or not, externalist views get us out of a lot of sticky epistemic situations.
For my it's probably because I have an (sometimes unhealthy, I'm told) obsession with being correct. I have some innate need to understand everything I possibly can. The only way to reach understanding is to evaluate evidence (proof). Without evidence any idea, no matter how wonderful or even potentially correct, will never be more than an untested hypothesis and thus cannot be assigned any truth value.
I think the counterargument is going to rest on this premise.
Way to get around the definition of faith - use this explicit Bible quote:
"Blessed are those that do not see and believe"
(extended version goes like this: Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." From John 20:29)
You are correct. Faith is undefendable. And it is also immune to attack. As convenient as it would be if it was otherwise, this is the case. No argument on this one.
For my it's probably because I have an (sometimes unhealthy, I'm told) obsession with being correct. I have some innate need to understand everything I possibly can. The only way to reach understanding is to evaluate evidence (proof). Without evidence any idea, no matter how wonderful or even potentially correct, will never be more than an untested hypothesis and thus cannot be assigned any truth value.
you need proof to understand something? if you feel the need to understand everything, then how do plan on understanding faith?
You're argument, then, is that the belief is unjustified because the evidence for the belief (customs, parents, seeming to be true) is the wrong kind of evidence.
That would be my position. However because of this I wouldn't go so far as to say that this type of faith is indefensible, but rather irrational. As you pointed out, faith is more of a justification for a belief, and as such the reasoning for having faith must be rational and sound.
e.g. I have faith that if I sit in my chair it will hold me. I don't have this faith because there is no evidence, rather I have this faith because I have an understanding of the structure needed to maintain my weight as well as remain balanced, and I have tested this countless times with similar shapes and materials which could be classified as a chair. I know that if the chair is of a proper shape and made of the proper materials and is not in such a state of disrepair as to be an ineffective chair then it would stand to reason that it will perform as intended.
Because this faith is grounded in sound logic, and backed by numerous independent experiments then it is a sound reason to have faith in the chair. Furthermore, my personal evidence is increased due to seeing others performing the same experiments (sitting in various chairs) all throughout my life, and they almost always arrive at the same results as I have, that a properly shaped and built chair will function as intended. Certainly I've seen (and experienced) instances where chairs have failed, and most often it is because they are used improperly (i.e. people leaning back in them) ergo I can know that the fault lies with the user, not the chair.
Faith in religion is rather opposed to my chair example. There is no empirical data suggesting said religion to be a fact. Numerous personal experiments have arrived at widely varied outcomes, often resulting in the religion having absolutely no effect at all. Observation of other people's experiments with religion have also netted widely varied results, often with people observing or experiencing similar things yet arriving at vastly different conclusions.
The multitude of experiments with no result, the variance between experiences, and the lack of empirical data regarding the keystones of religion have resulted in the arguments in favor of them being unsound. Because the support is unsound, I would contend that affirming any such faith as irrational, although not entirely indefensible.
