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 #300]

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).

Post #281

You said, “Faith goes beyond belief. It demonstrates belief.” That sounds like an entailment: faith in x entails belief in x. Did I misunderstand? My questions pertained to this.

You sure did misunderstand. Unless I am misunderstanding you.

Faith demonstrates belief, means that one that has faith will act, on what they believe.
It means that what one hopes for, or that which cannot be seen, one's faith demonstrates that the person is convinced of it.
In other words, faith is not like a passive belief. Faith is shown by works, and thus demonstrates what one's convictions.
How about strong belief requires faith, which is a demonstration of what is hoped for, or not seen.

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?

You'll have to help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x".
I'm sure you are not trying to confuse me.

Unless you are dumb - I don't mean speechless - you know I did answer your question.
I don't believe you are dumb.
So, your claim is obviously not true.

If you want to play dumb though, that's your call, and I count myself out of that.

Why are you repeating then?

The “faith I have in mind” is your definition of faith, and relating it to your claim that your Christian belief is justified. I was asking if I was correct in saying "if you have faith in X, then X is a justified beliief [of yours)".

Yes, I understood that, but it sounded like (for you) faith entails belief.

I wasn’t trying to trick you, I was trying to dig deeper into your definition of “faith” and how it relates to justifying one’s Christian beliefs. As noted above, I inferred from your comments that faith entails belief, but it’s more than belief. The “more than” part seems entirely personal and seems to have no bearing on justifying the belief (important though it may be to you). I was testing this understanding by asking those 2 questions.

Would you like me to repeat the answer to your question 1?
Would that help you? Which part do you not understand?

It's not because you don't think I am intelligent.
However, this is not about intelligence, is it.
I already said, I know helping me is not your objective.

I don't need to go through the whole thread, to show I answered all your question, and that your statements are not true.
I do not have to say what you want me to say, in order to answer your question.
You are a smart guy.

On that note, I'm sorry you do not understand. I don't think you will either. So, again... Have a good evening.

P.S.
My experience with atheist, is when Plan A fails - to trap the poster, dominate them, or win the argument, they resort to Plan B - insult the poster's intelligence. It's an ego trip, they can't help. So don't sweat it. No skin off my nose.

[Dimmesdale]

"Is faith a reliable path to reality?"

I would say, it would depend on the nature of faith.

And it would also depend on the nature of reality.

If the nature of reality is good, then a good faith ought to be an adequate road-map to traversing it. Because the two are consonant with each other. Their nature is united.

If reality is bad, or at least the particular faith in reality is bad, then faith seems like a dubious or wrong-headed approach to reality.

Ask yourself: is faith a good thing? is reality a good thing? How confident are you in those judgements? Do you think trust in faith is something which follows through into the nature of good reality? Or is it all just a cover-up for something inherently malfunctional and negative?

If faith is simply a worn out patch sown onto a broken shirt, to paraphrase Jesus, then it can't be much good. It'll take away from life more than it gives unto it.

If, on the other hand, faith is a worthy addition, like a third leg of a stool, which then lends adequate support to life, when life seemed lacking. Then one can say both faith is good and the reality which it draws from and helps uphold, is also good.

[fredonly]

Unless you are dumb - I don't mean speechless - you know I did answer your question.

Thanks for the quote, because it shows where I briefly thought you meant "yes it's an entailment", but then you corrected me - saying I misunderstood:

Post #281

You said, “Faith goes beyond belief. It demonstrates belief.” That sounds like an entailment: faith in x entails belief in x. Did I misunderstand? My questions pertained to this.

You sure did misunderstand. Unless I am misunderstanding you....

So that wasn't an answer. Then you said:

Faith demonstrates belief, means that one that has faith will act, on what they believe.

Nope. No answer so far.

It means that what one hopes for, or that which cannot be seen, one's faith demonstrates that the person is convinced of it.
In other words, faith is not like a passive belief. Faith is shown by works, and thus demonstrates what one's convictions.

So...faith is not a passive belief, but this doesn't say whether or not faith ENTAILS belief.

How about strong belief requires faith, which is a demonstration of what is hoped for, or not seen.

"Strong belief requires faith" means strong belief entails faith, not that faith entails belief - which was the question.

I don't know how faith can exist if there is nothing that one has faith in.

Ambigous. Seems to mean "I don't know how faith in God can exist if there is no God to have faith in". Or it could mean, "I don't know how there can be faith without a belief" but your "not knowing how ito figure this out" is not the same as a logical entailment.

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?

Once again: no answer.

You'll have to help me work out what you are getting at with the "faith in x entails belief in x".
I'm sure you are not trying to confuse me.

This sounded like you don't understood the meaning of the term "entails," so this not an answer.

So, your claim is obviously not true.

On the contrary, I just showed you didn't answer the simple yes/no question.

I don't need to go through the whole thread, to show I answered all your question

I asked multiple times if you agreed faith entails belief, and you never answered it. I also asked several times for you to provide the rational justification for your beliefs, and you never did. When you suggested it was a "presumption" of naturalism that "purpose" and "spirits" don't exist, I asked you:

Is there evidence and arguments for purpose or spirits, or do you think we should just believe every possible thing exists unless proven otherwise?

[Diogenes]

I retract nothing.

But you cannot logically assert that there is no historical evidence while also saying there is historical evidence. You have to retract one of those assertions!

You did something similar in your last reply, as well:

ZERO contemporaneous first hand accounts and ZERO contemporaneous accounts by any identified person.

But earlier you said:

The only account from an identifiable, contemporaneous source comes from a man who admits it was a mere "vision" that he recounts as fact only after being blind and unconscious for three days with neither food nor drink

So which is it? Are there "ZERO" such accounts, or is there one?

You keep making these sweeping assertions only to then contradict them, and then complain when I point this out. It's as if you expect your interlocutors to just instinctively know to ignore half of what you're saying to focus on your "real" argument. But perhaps the better course of action here is to, you know, just stop making sweeping, inaccurate assertions.
....

Ahhh! I think I get it now. You are using words as if they were numbers to the nth decimal point. I am using, or attempting to, equivocation as a rhetorical device... an attempt at a poetic conceit. As I explained earlier, I've been pointing out the difference between worthless evidence and competent evidence. Perhaps it would have more clear if I'd written '... the difference between worthless "evidence" and competent evidence.'

Hence we have Paul's contemporaneous "evidence" being a dream he reported when waking from a delirium induced by no food or water for 3 (THREE) days after suffering some kind of sunstroke or other medical event.
This report of Paul's is put forth as "evidence," not by me, but by orthodox Christians. This "evidence" of Paul's is not evidence at all.

If I can be more clear, let me know.

[otseng]

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.

Unless you are dumb - I don't mean speechless - you know I did answer your question.

Moderator Comment

Please just debate without making personal remarks about other posters.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #304]

This "evidence" of Paul's is not evidence at all.

I think it counts as evidence and belongs as a subset of Unjustified Fact (UF) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)

Re that, the belief about the story (no matter the interpretation - as in your critique - that he was suffering some kind of physical malfunction) re those who read the witnesses account - whatever the belief - it is still evidence and the interpretation of said evidence can be classified as (UF) too.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

[John17_3]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #307]

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

No problem.
Evidence
Evidence broadly refers to data and or knowledge that is gathered, analyzed, and used to generate a conclusion.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #307]

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

No problem.
Evidence
Evidence broadly refers to data and or knowledge that is gathered, analyzed, and used to generate a conclusion.

Do you have a way to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias in your collection and analysis of evidence? If yes, please demonstrate how that process mitigates the possibility of confirmation bias. Thanks.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #307]

Would you please clarify what your standards are for evidence? Thanks.

No problem.
Evidence
Evidence broadly refers to data and or knowledge that is gathered, analyzed, and used to generate a conclusion.

Do you have a way to mitigate for the possibility of confirmation bias in your collection and analysis of evidence? If yes, please demonstrate how that process mitigates the possibility of confirmation bias. Thanks.

Exactly. Evidence is indeed collation of data and knowledge, but to be worthwhile as valid evidence, it has of course to be validated. Collating a pile of myths, fairy tales and conspiracy theories is not Good evidence. How do we validate it? Science and reasoning, and we know how religious apologetics thinks about science and reasoning - they claim it is on their side, until it undercuts their faith, and then it is merely 'human opinion'. In short, Religion has no business talking about 'Evidence' if we mean valid evidence.