The need for faith

[nobspeople]

We're told 'you have to have faith' or 'have faith - it will work out' or any number of claims that speak to the need to have faith.

Outside of salvation (as there's a debate if it's by faith or works or grace or a combination of, that salvation is obtained), why?
Why is faith needed?

Does having faith allow the outcome of a certain event to change? Does God favor those that have faith and protect or grant them a different outcome than those without faith?
Give you supernatural abilities? Does faith allow you to breath underwater on your own?
Does faith pay the bills? Does your utility company take 'faith' as payment?
Does faith make you happy or sad? If you're having a good day, does faith come in and make your day terrible?

Why have faith at all? What's the point?

[brunumb]

As soon as she said she'd never had a relationship with Jesus I stopped the video. Now she has an imaginary relationship with Jesus and it has changed her life. For the better? That's debatable, but if a security blanket helps you get through life well and good. Is God/Jesus actually involved? Nah. We make our own decisions and structure our own lives, and there are no mystical beings watching over us with promises of an enchanted kingdom when we die.

[bluegreenearth]

I am giving you the religious perspective and why it has value. You can take it or leave it, but it seems you would prefer to simply ignore it as if it is not there.

The question is whether faith has value. I am showing that it does in terms of the religious perspective, not apart from it.

According to your argument, are you claiming faith has value in the same way a placebo has value?

[Dimmesdale]

I am giving you the religious perspective and why it has value. You can take it or leave it, but it seems you would prefer to simply ignore it as if it is not there.

The question is whether faith has value. I am showing that it does in terms of the religious perspective, not apart from it.

According to your argument, are you claiming faith has value in the same way a placebo has value?

Yes! Well, at the very least it has that kind of value, if not more.

I am arguing that beliefs have power to change people on the basis of their propositional content alone. Something my interlocutors don't seem to understand. I suppose they only think chemicals in the brain have that kind of power -- people who are converted have their minds blown with chemicals and that is the effective cause. That's what I assume my interlocutors think. But I on the other hand am more convinced in the actual reasons behind why people hold onto beliefs. A belief bereft of content has much less power to motivate behavior and other alterations in lifestyle than a belief that is rich in content. Take away the truth value of a belief, and that is deflationary in the extreme for a lot of people. As one preacher said it, if Jesus was a lunatic, then he is wasting his time and we should all be pitied. And he happens to be a very fiery and enthusiastic preacher. Is he riding solely on chemicals?

I wonder, if faith cannot help people, then in what sense can it be said to harm people?

[bluegreenearth]

Yes! Well, at the very least it has that kind of value, if not more.

I am arguing that beliefs have power to change people on the basis of their propositional content alone. Something my interlocutors don't seem to understand. I suppose they only think chemicals in the brain have that kind of power -- people who are converted have their minds blown with chemicals and that is the effective cause. That's what I assume my interlocutors think. But I on the other hand am more convinced in the actual reasons behind why people hold onto beliefs. A belief bereft of content has much less power to motivate behavior and other alterations in lifestyle than a belief that is rich in content. Take away the truth value of a belief, and that is deflationary in the extreme for a lot of people. As one preacher said it, if Jesus was a lunatic, then he is wasting his time and we should all be pitied. And he happens to be a very fiery and enthusiastic preacher. Is he riding solely on chemicals?

I wonder, if faith cannot help people, then in what sense can it be said to harm people?

So, if the usefulness of faith in a claim is much like the usefulness of a placebo, then would you agree that its usefulness does not function to demonstrate the associated claim is true?

[Dimmesdale]

Yes! Well, at the very least it has that kind of value, if not more.

I am arguing that beliefs have power to change people on the basis of their propositional content alone. Something my interlocutors don't seem to understand. I suppose they only think chemicals in the brain have that kind of power -- people who are converted have their minds blown with chemicals and that is the effective cause. That's what I assume my interlocutors think. But I on the other hand am more convinced in the actual reasons behind why people hold onto beliefs. A belief bereft of content has much less power to motivate behavior and other alterations in lifestyle than a belief that is rich in content. Take away the truth value of a belief, and that is deflationary in the extreme for a lot of people. As one preacher said it, if Jesus was a lunatic, then he is wasting his time and we should all be pitied. And he happens to be a very fiery and enthusiastic preacher. Is he riding solely on chemicals?

I wonder, if faith cannot help people, then in what sense can it be said to harm people?

So, if the usefulness of faith in a claim is much like the usefulness of a placebo, then would you agree that its usefulness does not function to demonstrate the associated claim is true?

If something is useful in my book, that means it has a degree of goodness, of value. Even a placebo has that kind of value, even though it amounts to only a state of mind. Perhaps it can give you the added iota of strength to overcome an illness you would otherwise die from.

The OP of this thread was "the need for faith" - is faith, in other words, a worthwhile thing, useful for some purpose? I argue that it is. Even if it amounts to a placebo, it can still save your life. By giving you the endurance, the perseverance, etc, to fight on. That is a good thing and so in my book faith "serves" truth even if it does not always reveal all truth. I think it reveals a basic aspect of truth which is universal among all legitimate "faiths."

By truth I do not mean a particular claim, but the form of goodness inherent in all truth. In the context of suicide, self-preservation is rational, therefore of the nature of truth, whereas sucide is irrational, and therefore of the nature of falsehood. That is what I mean by "serving truth."

To "be" is to exist (a truth) and to exist is good. Existence, Truth and Goodness are very related in my worldview. They have the same ultimate root, in other words.

[bluegreenearth]

If something is useful in my book, that means it has a degree of goodness, of value. Even a placebo has that kind of value, even though it amounts to only a state of mind. Perhaps it can give you the added iota of strength to overcome an illness you would otherwise die from.

The OP of this thread was "the need for faith" - is faith, in other words, a worthwhile thing, useful for some purpose? I argue that it is. Even if it amounts to a placebo, it can still save your life. By giving you the endurance, the perseverance, etc, to fight on. That is a good thing and so in my book faith "serves" truth even if it does not always reveal all truth. I think it reveals a basic aspect of truth which is universal among all legitimate "faiths."

Since you apparently agree to the possibility of faith being like a placebo, would it be fair to suggest that a complete and long-lasting recovery from a difficult life experience may not necessarily be the result of divine intervention but of the placebo effect?

[Dimmesdale]

If something is useful in my book, that means it has a degree of goodness, of value. Even a placebo has that kind of value, even though it amounts to only a state of mind. Perhaps it can give you the added iota of strength to overcome an illness you would otherwise die from.

The OP of this thread was "the need for faith" - is faith, in other words, a worthwhile thing, useful for some purpose? I argue that it is. Even if it amounts to a placebo, it can still save your life. By giving you the endurance, the perseverance, etc, to fight on. That is a good thing and so in my book faith "serves" truth even if it does not always reveal all truth. I think it reveals a basic aspect of truth which is universal among all legitimate "faiths."

Since you apparently agree to the possibility of faith being like a placebo, would it be fair to suggest that a complete and long-lasting recovery from a difficult life experience may not necessarily be the result of divine intervention but of the placebo effect?

How do you know God doesn't have an active hand in all placebo effects?

In my worldview God contains all things and sustains all things. He has a hand everywhere, in all galaxies down to the subatomic particles. His influence extends everywhere.

So actually, no. Without God there wouldn't be a placebo effect, either.

[bluegreenearth]

How do you know God doesn't have an active hand in all placebo effects?

In my worldview God contains all things and sustains all things. He has a hand everywhere, in all galaxies down to the subatomic particles. His influence extends everywhere.

So actually, no. Without God there wouldn't be a placebo effect, either.

It would be impossible to disprove the claim that God was responsible for the placebo effect because the claim is currently unfalsifiable. All unfalsifiable claims have no explanatory value because we have no way to test if those assertions are false or not. Therefore, it is pointless to speculate on the possibility of an unfalsifiable claim being true. So, what would be the logical justification for presuming God was responsible for the placebo effect when the unsupported assertion offers no reliable or defensible explanation for anything?

[Dimmesdale]

How do you know God doesn't have an active hand in all placebo effects?

In my worldview God contains all things and sustains all things. He has a hand everywhere, in all galaxies down to the subatomic particles. His influence extends everywhere.

So actually, no. Without God there wouldn't be a placebo effect, either.

It would be impossible to disprove the claim that God was responsible for the placebo effect because the claim is currently unfalsifiable. All unfalsifiable claims have no explanatory value because we have no way to test if those assertions are false or not. Therefore, it is pointless to speculate on the possibility of an unfalsifiable claim being true. So, what would be the logical justification for presuming God was responsible for the placebo effect when the unsupported assertion offers no reliable or defensible explanation for anything?

Fair enough. But assuming in your naturalistic worldview that faith is a placebo.... I would say that the placebo would depend on people at least having a concept of faith. Otherwise the placebo would never happen, generally speaking. The placebo in other words couldn't be awakened without believers couching it in terms of faith, and latching onto it that way.

So faith has value in that way too.

[bluegreenearth]

Fair enough. But assuming in your naturalistic worldview that faith is a placebo.... I would say that the placebo would depend on people at least having a concept of faith. Otherwise the placebo would never happen, generally speaking. The placebo in other words couldn't be awakened without believers couching it in terms of faith, and latching onto it that way.

So faith has value in that way too.

I wasn't claiming faith did or didn't have value but was curious to learn your perspective on the placebo effect as it relates to faith. I appreciate receiving your responses. Thank you.