Is Faith an impediment to finding Truth?

[McCulloch]

Defining truth as what you believe is untruthful because you offer mere faith as truth. Faith is not truth and is often an impediment to finding truth.

Faith is confidently believing something to be true, even though available evidence and reason do not support such a belief. This kind of faith is lauded in the story of the encounter between Thomas and the post-resurrection Jesus.

Science is arguably the greatest intellectual achievement of humanity. Science only works when faith is methodologically denied and evidence only is given credence. Modern justice systems again are evidence based, not reliant on faith. When we seek the truth in specific matters, we explicitly and purposefully exclude a faith based approach.

Is faith an impediment to finding truth?
Is faith a virtue? Why or why not?
If we reject faith as a method of determining truth in most matters, why do religions continue to praise and rely on faith?

[liamconnor]

Consider the following exchange:

A: Have I ever lied to you before?

B: Well, no.

A: Then I need you to trust me on this one.


If B proceeds to trust A, is this a blind trust? Is this a trust based on evidence? Or is this not really trust, but proof that A is trustworthy in what he is asking?

[rikuoamero]

Consider the following exchange:

A: Have I ever lied to you before?

B: Well, no.

A: Then I need you to trust me on this one.


If B proceeds to trust A, is this a blind trust? Is this a trust based on evidence? Or is this not really trust, but proof that A is trustworthy in what he is asking?

I'm going to ask the obvious questions. What happens if A then proceeds to lie about what he asks B to trust him on? Or A says something A believes to be true, but is actually mistaken about?

[Realworldjack]

Here is the Biblical definition,

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Do you notice the word, "evidence?"

I noticed the word "evidence." Actually, if good evidence is available, then there is no need for faith.

The kind of faith you are defining would be a blind faith, and there are those who posses a blind faith, for sure. But the Biblical writers never ask their audience to rest there beliefs upon a blind faith, but rather offered evidence.

When Jesus is quoted as telling Thomas that people are blessed when they believe without seeing, then he espoused blind faith.

...have you noticed that the Biblical writers use words that would be used in a courtroom? Here are a list of some of the words they use.

evidence
proof
convict
witness
eyewitness
defense
judge
judgement
justice
guilty
innocent

Using words like proof and evidence is not proof or evidence. Claiming eyewitnesses is not eyewitnesses. Talk is cheap. Where is the evidence?

I noticed the word "evidence." Actually, if good evidence is available, then there is no need for faith.

Exactly! Which is why the Apostles never asked their audience to simply have "faith" that a Resurrection occurred. Rather they pointed to the evidence at hand.

Allow me to give you an example of faith. A young child's relationship with their parents can be, but not always is a good example. The child may have very good evidence that her parents have always been trustworthy, and has never steered her wrong.

However, as she stands on the side of the pool, where her dad is telling here to jump, and assures this young girl that he will caught her, she may be extremely frightened, but her faith in her farther, allows her to overcome her fear, even though she is unsure of the outcome.

When Jesus is quoted as telling Thomas that people are blessed when they believe without seeing, then he espoused blind faith.

And again, as explained in another post, the passage actually reads,

Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.�

So what is it that Thomas saw? Jesus, right! So Jesus is not saying, "blessed are those who believe without evidence." Rather, He is saying, "blessed are those who have not seen me, and yet believe."

In fact, lets look at another passage in order to understand where Jesus stood on this issue.

I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony,

This is certainly not someone who is espousing a "blind faith."

Using words like proof and evidence is not proof or evidence.

I have never said that it was, and this was not the point in the least! The point was, it is clear from the writings of these men, that they never asked their audience to simply have a "blind faith", but rather pointed out the evidence. The use of these sort of words, demonstrates this.

The question now becomes, are you suggesting that these things are not true? If so, on what evidence do you base such a conclusion?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by Realworldjack]

Which is why the Apostles never asked their audience to simply have "faith" that a Resurrection occurred. Rather they pointed to the evidence at hand.

Okay and what evidence was that? What did they point to?

Allow me to give you an example of faith. A young child's relationship with their parents can be, but not always is a good example. The child may have very good evidence that her parents have always been trustworthy, and has never steered her wrong.

However, as she stands on the side of the pool, where her dad is telling here to jump, and assures this young girl that he will caught her, she may be extremely frightened, but her faith in her farther, allows her to overcome her fear, even though she is unsure of the outcome.

Does this example or analogy work on those of us who, like myself, actually have very good reasons to distrust our parents?

Rather, He is saying, "blessed are those who have not seen me, and yet believe."

Yes. People who don't see him and yet believe anyway, are blessed. You just disproved your own point.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 23 by Realworldjack]

Which is why the Apostles never asked their audience to simply have "faith" that a Resurrection occurred. Rather they pointed to the evidence at hand.

Okay and what evidence was that? What did they point to?

Allow me to give you an example of faith. A young child's relationship with their parents can be, but not always is a good example. The child may have very good evidence that her parents have always been trustworthy, and has never steered her wrong.

However, as she stands on the side of the pool, where her dad is telling here to jump, and assures this young girl that he will caught her, she may be extremely frightened, but her faith in her farther, allows her to overcome her fear, even though she is unsure of the outcome.

Does this example or analogy work on those of us who, like myself, actually have very good reasons to distrust our parents?

Rather, He is saying, "blessed are those who have not seen me, and yet believe."

Yes. People who don't see him and yet believe anyway, are blessed. You just disproved your own point.

Sorry that I missed this response.

Okay and what evidence was that? What did they point to?

Well, among other things, the Apostles pointed to the empty tomb. At this point, it really does not matter if there actually was an empty tomb, rather the point we are making is this. Is the Christian Faith confidently believing something to be true, even though there is not available evidence and reason to support such a belief?

My point is, the Apostles did not ask their audience to simply accept what they were claiming upon faith, but rather they at least pointed to what they claim to be, historical evidence. There is a huge difference involved here!

Now we can discuss, and argue about how solid the evidence is, and I will be happy to do this, but this is not what we are talking about at this point. The question is, did the Apostles simply appeal to faith, and leave reason, and evidence behind, as the OP suggests? Or did they appeal to reason, and historical evidence?

Does this example or analogy work on those of us who, like myself, actually have very good reasons to distrust our parents?

If you will notice in the quote you actually cited, I state,

A young child's relationship with their parents can be, BUT NOT ALWAYS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

Why would I say this? Because I knew there were those who would have reason not to trust their parents. Also notice I said, "The child MAY have very good evidence that her parents have always been trustworthy, and has never steered her wrong." I did not say, "does have" for this very same reason. It was simply an analogy, not a law!

Yes. People who don't see him and yet believe anyway, are blessed. You just disproved your own point.

Actually I proved my point, because my point was, Jesus did not say, "blessed are they who simply have faith." Nor did he say, "blessed are they who believe without reason, or seeing evidence." Rather it was, "who have not seen me."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by Realworldjack]

Well, among other things, the Apostles pointed to the empty tomb.

What other things?

At this point, it really does not matter if there actually was an empty tomb,

Oh? So if there never actually was an empty tomb, it doesn't matter? But that would mean the stories in the gospels are falsehoods then, wouldn't it?

Is the Christian Faith confidently believing something to be true, even though there is not available evidence and reason to support such a belief?

Yes. I've heard it from plenty of others. You yourself may not take such a stance, but it is something I have heard from other Christians.

My point is, the Apostles did not ask their audience to simply accept what they were claiming upon faith, but rather they at least pointed to what they claim to be, historical evidence. There is a huge difference involved here!

And that evidence is...? you keep mentioning that they pointed to it, but you have yet to say what it actually IS.

The question is, did the Apostles simply appeal to faith, and leave reason, and evidence behind, as the OP suggests? Or did they appeal to reason, and historical evidence?

Strong arguments can be made for the former, given what Jesus apparently said about those who saw not and yet believed.

Nor did he say, "blessed are they who believe without reason, or seeing evidence." Rather it was, "who have not seen me."

Blessed are those who have not seen me...in other words, blessed are those who believe I am somehow returned from death, even though the best evidence for this would be seeing me alive and well, and not just the word of the Apostles (which so far is all you have to work on, unless you'd like to divulge what other evidence(s) they had pointed to?)

[Neatras]

Decisions made on faith can be incidentally correct. There's nothing explicitly stating that "all faith-based decisions are 100% false," otherwise we could use the inverse-faith decision-making system to determine truth. However, faith is a proposition based not on constituent elements of a system, and it cannot adequately predict the outcome of a scenario (though Christians will often slip evidence based rationalism into their analogies in order to trick you into thinking faith can be a reliable source of decision-making).

Faith provides no filter against bad ideas. We know this because of the countless faith-based decisions made throughout history that... didn't pan out so well.



Faith is only incidentally related to truth, if we're being honest. It can be used for literally any claim, while survivorship bias compels those who have been "rewarded" for their faith to attribute success to their faith, or whatever.

Since no study can reproduce the claims of those who defend "faith" as far as probabilistic events are concerned (prayer impacting the effects of surgical procedures, or lottery winnings, or sports team betting), faith is clearly unrelated to truth. Not opposed to truth, not aligned to truth. Unrelated to truth. It's simply not within the realm of truthfulness for faith to be reliable.

Anyone who asserts that faith can be used to filter out bad ideas ought to demonstrate this. Use faith-based reasoning to determine the outcome of real world events in a binary state, in rapid succession and record the results. No rationalism, after all, that's a secular notion.

[Travellingwagon]

The only scripture which defines faith is found in Hebrews, and I noticed it has already been mentioned... however, my favorite translation is found in J.N. Darbey's literal translation, which is, "Faith is the SUBSTANTIATING of things hoped for- which is the evidence of things unseen."

Substantiating, for an example to those who may not know, is the nose SUBSTANTIATING the sense of smell, which makes the smell REAL to the person that is smelling anything, and that goes for all the senses. Now, taking the passage in Hebrews, applied faith makes spiritual truths (promises) real to the person applying faith. In other words, only faith can make real the promises of God. No faith-No spiritual reality.

For example, Paul stated in Galations that he has been crucified with Christ (past tense), which would only be possible through faith, yet, through applied faith, Paul substantiated the facts of crucifixion, along with the promise of God to deliver from sin, so his reality was a crucified existence through faith.