Faith and Belief... Whats the difference (if any)?

[SkyChief]

In these interviews, the distinction between Faith and Belief and Rationality is discussed. Clearly, these terms are NOT synonymous, yet many folks seem quite comfortable substituting one for the other.

Before commenting, please review these 9 interviews:
[/url]https://www.closertotruth.com/series/re ... n[url]They are relatively short; you can view all of them in under an hour.

Not very much drama here, but somewhat enlightening. Two of these interviews make a lot of sense to me.

Tell us where you stand. I hand it over to you guys :pope: The link failed. sorry. What a bleeding mess.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

I feel that respect for such views goes a long way in convincing such a person to consider any contrary ideas of which (you) wish to convince him.

The problem I have with this is that if we give irrational ideas "respect" then we are condoning and loaning support to irrational thinking.

Agreed. I think it's possible to respect the methods by which a person believes and respect the person while expressing contempt for the idea(s) they hold. Discounting people and their bad ideas "too much" and "too often" gets you a dynamic where Trump gets elected president. (No offense intended).

Some religious people have faith precisely because of coincidences that seem to have validated their belief. For example, a person may be diagnosed with a disease, consider a particular spiritual belief, experience the benefits of a positive attitude and the luck of remission, and feel that she is "healed" by her belief in her deity/by the deity.

I think it's ok to acknowledge this coincidence and how it could cause a person to support a belief in a deity. But at the same time shouldn't we also point out that there are many other possible explanations that don't require the existence of a magical deity?

In other words, respecting what a person is thinking, and respecting the soundness of the conclusions they draw, are two entirely different things.

I would also argue that this is especially true if they are arguing that their conclusion is the only conclusion that makes any sense. In other words, at that point they are attempting to claim that their conclusion (being the only reasonable conclusion) is proof of the conclusion. After all, if they claim it's the only reasonable conclusion, then they are indeed proclaiming that it stands as an absolute truth.

And if you claim to "respect" that position then you have no choice but to agree with them that they have reasonable "proof" that their favorite deity does indeed exist. Because, after all, that is their position which you are claiming to "respect".

I would have completely agreed with that sentiment a year ago, but now I'm not so sure. An idea that can take such a hold over so many people earns my respect...very begrudgingly. Not that I approve of powerful viruses or ideas simple because of its survivability and fecundity. They just earn my respect to a degree for being so successful.

[Divine Insight]

I would have completely agreed with that sentiment a year ago, but now I'm not so sure. An idea that can take such a hold over so many people earns my respect...very begrudgingly. Not that I approve of powerful viruses or ideas simple because of its survivability and fecundity. They just earn my respect to a degree for being so successful.

What you are talking about here is giving credence to Argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum from Wikipedia

Argumentum ad populum. ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

These arguments give much credence to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, any many other popular world religions simple because a lot of people believe in them.

Obviously all these religions cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore any Argumentum ad populum offered for them is clearly fallacious.

Moreover, if you think about this even more critically you'll quickly realize that within each of these major religious paradigms there exists many disagreeing sects and denominations that aren't in popular agreement with each other.

Also, if you examine the historical trail of these religions you see that they haven't been consistent in their beliefs, proclamations, and behaviors over the centuries.

For example, Christianity today is nowhere near the same as it was during the era of the Christian Crusades. In fact, Islam can probably lay claim to being more historically consistent than Christianity. Muslim extremists today hold up the same immoral values as these Abrahamic religions held up in Biblical times.

So if a person is going to give Argumentum ad populum any credence at all it wold actually support Islam over Christianity simply because Islam has been more popular in supporting the immoral extremism of the Bible than Christianity has been.

It just seems to me that giving Argumentum ad populum merit isn't necessarily a rational thing to do.

Also, since you mentioned the current election of Trump as the president of USA. That should show you right there than Argumentum ad populum is seriously flawed.

Although, in truth Trump didn't win the majority vote. But still, he's clearly popular with a lot of people. That is no guarantee that it's a good thing he runs the USA.

In fact, you'll have to excuse me whilst I go throw up again. I haven't been feeling very well since November 8, 2016.

I anticipate extreme bouts of vomiting on January 20, 2017.

It's not just Trump, it's his entire Cabinet choices, etc. This whole thing seems like an episode of Freddy's Nightmares.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

I would have completely agreed with that sentiment a year ago, but now I'm not so sure. An idea that can take such a hold over so many people earns my respect...very begrudgingly. Not that I approve of powerful viruses or ideas simple because of its survivability and fecundity. They just earn my respect to a degree for being so successful.

What you are talking about here is giving credence to Argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum from Wikipedia

Argumentum ad populum. ... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

These arguments give much credence to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, any many other popular world religions simple because a lot of people believe in them.

Obviously all these religions cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore any Argumentum ad populum offered for them is clearly fallacious.

Moreover, if you think about this even more critically you'll quickly realize that within each of these major religious paradigms there exists many disagreeing sects and denominations that aren't in popular agreement with each other.

Also, if you examine the historical trail of these religions you see that they haven't been consistent in their beliefs, proclamations, and behaviors over the centuries.

For example, Christianity today is nowhere near the same as it was during the era of the Christian Crusades. In fact, Islam can probably lay claim to being more historically consistent than Christianity. Muslim extremists today hold up the same immoral values as these Abrahamic religions held up in Biblical times.

So if a person is going to give Argumentum ad populum any credence at all it wold actually support Islam over Christianity simply because Islam has been more popular in supporting the immoral extremism of the Bible than Christianity has been.

It just seems to me that giving Argumentum ad populum merit isn't necessarily a rational thing to do.

Also, since you mentioned the current election of Trump as the president of USA. That should show you right there than Argumentum ad populum is seriously flawed.

Although, in truth Trump didn't win the majority vote. But still, he's clearly popular with a lot of people. That is no guarantee that it's a good thing he runs the USA.

In fact, you'll have to excuse me whilst I go throw up again. I haven't been feeling very well since November 8, 2016.

I anticipate extreme bouts of vomiting on January 20, 2017.

It's not just Trump, it's his entire Cabinet choices, etc. This whole thing seems like an episode of Freddy's Nightmares.

I think we're on different wavelengths.

I'm not talking about believing an idea or considering it valuable or worthy or correct. I'm simply taking about respecting its ability to grasp many minds and compel them to act in a prescribed manner.

A few months ago I was given an article on the reasons people debate and what their goals are. It turns out that humans are "hard wired" to want to "win" in a debate and to "score points." They rarely--very rarely--are seeking the truth. Over 90% of participants would cling to their assigned "side" even after they had been proved completely wrong by facts (this was done scientifically, randomness where required, double blind, all that good stufff). As long as the person had invested a certain amount of time and energy in "building their case," they all cared much much much more about "winning at any cost" versus understanding what was true. The truth no longer mattered to them. Winning did.

The ideas I am most interested in are the ones I hold to be most infallible. I recognize that I need to be focused on what is true, not on winning. Here's an example: I think Islam (and Christianity) are harmful to humanity and I wish no one believe those god's/religions. But, if an argument or mine, somehow, caused all Christians and Muslims to give up their beliefs, then I, alone, became convinced by facts that one of them was true, I would like to have the capacity to admit it and declare my change in philosophy and be the sole, despised Muslim (or Christian) on the planet.

My mission requires that I respect ideas as powerful and, in a way, meaningful because they convince so many to such a great degree.

Btw, Trump lost by almost three million votes. The game is not won by argument ad populum. In my opinion, Teump "won" by appealing precisely to convincing, manipulative schemes rather than being correct or expressing facts. He lies 75% of the time (versus 25% for Hillary). But he won. In my opinion he lost because he lied and bullied his way into the hearts of those who respect lies that they like and bullying that makes them feel valuable.

I respect that dynamic because it changes our planet. Hitler is another example of a figures we must respect. No one on this site has gotten so much support and changed so much, certainly. It's power and undeniable regardless of how wrong we know it to be. We can't "beat" argument ad populum until we understand it. Currently, it deserves our respect for being much more powerful than presentation of fact.

[Divine Insight]

A few months ago I was given an article on the reasons people debate and what their goals are. It turns out that humans are "hard wired" to want to "win" in a debate and to "score points." They rarely--very rarely--are seeking the truth.

These kinds of assessments of what humans are "hard wired" to do need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention recognizing the context and domain they might be addressing.

Also, not all humans are "wired" in the same way. So at best, such a study can only make statements about how the majority of the masses appear to behave. The study may very well be accurate in the domain.

I think we also need to take into consideration precisely what it is being "debated". I debate scientists on scientific matters quite differently from how I would debate theists on matters of religion. I would also debate a pure mathematician quite differently from how I would debate with a physicist.

Different topics require different approaches.

When it comes to debating religions I am not "seeking truth". I already have extremely good reasons to believe that no humans has a clue what the truth of reality might be. I certainly don't claim to know the truth of reality. Yet many theists argue that they do know what is true. Therein lies a problem. Wouldn't you agree?

The only theists I would take seriously in any debate are theists who confess up front that their faith in their theology is precisely that; faith.

In fact, I actually love to debate with theists who confess that their beliefs are based on faith.

When it comes to spiritual and mystical ideas I confess to being agnostic in general. However, simultaneously I have no problem holding to the position that I am 100% certain that the Bible cannot be true as it is writte. And my reason for that is that it contains extreme self-contradictions as it is written thus proving its own fallacy.

Some people will claim that we can't know anything with 100% certainty. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned we can clearly know some things with 100% certainty. For example we can know for certain that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of 2. We have a rock-solid proof of this. There is no room left for doubt. That's 100% certainty.

I feel that the Bible also can be ruled out via it's own self-contradictory stories and claims. Leaving no room for doubt that it is necessarily false as written.

So when I speak with Christian theists I'm not searching for any truth that they might claim to have. They clearly have no truth to offer. What they have is faith in a dogma that can be shown to be self-contradictory.

I respect that dynamic because it changes our planet. Hitler is another example of a figures we must respect. No one on this site has gotten so much support and changed so much, certainly. It's power and undeniable regardless of how wrong we know it to be. We can't "beat" argument ad populum until we understand it. Currently, it deserves our respect for being much more powerful than presentation of fact.

The problem I have with this is that not every human lusts for power. So it's not like all humans are competing to "Rule the World".

So if you're giving someone like Hitler respect for wanting to rule the world, whilst not recognizing the respect someone who lives a solitary peaceful life deserves then you are basing your entire criteria for "respect" on things that have the greatest influence on the most people.

Why should influence over people be respected more than those who just want to live a peaceful life and not rule over anyone?

I have no respect for Hitler just because he was a power-hungry war monger who wanted to conquer and enslave the entire world. Why should I respect that?

I can see what you are saying in terms of pure power. When the sun goes nova we're going to have to "respect" that power whether we like it or not. But is that the same kind of respect we would give to someone who was trying to save humanity from global warming, for example?

It seems to me that all you are basically saying is that power demands respect. I don't think it does. I might FORCE obedience. But that's hardly the same as warranting respect.

A bully does not earn my respect just because he's strong enough to beat everyone else up. In fact, if that's the only method he can employ to obtain power, then he will never obtain my respect.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

A few months ago I was given an article on the reasons people debate and what their goals are. It turns out that humans are "hard wired" to want to "win" in a debate and to "score points." They rarely--very rarely--are seeking the truth.

These kinds of assessments of what humans are "hard wired" to do need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention recognizing the context and domain they might be addressing.

Also, not all humans are "wired" in the same way. So at best, such a study can only make statements about how the majority of the masses appear to behave. The study may very well be accurate in the domain.

I think we also need to take into consideration precisely what it is being "debated". I debate scientists on scientific matters quite differently from how I would debate theists on matters of religion. I would also debate a pure mathematician quite differently from how I would debate with a physicist.

Different topics require different approaches.

When it comes to debating religions I am not "seeking truth". I already have extremely good reasons to believe that no humans has a clue what the truth of reality might be. I certainly don't claim to know the truth of reality. Yet many theists argue that they do know what is true. Therein lies a problem. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. You are correct. I merely allude to what many/most humans find motivational even to the point of torture and/or death at violent and horrible means that you and I would find most abhorrent.

The only theists I would take seriously in any debate are theists who confess up front that their faith in their theology is precisely that; faith.

I am such a theist and I care nothing about convincing you of anything at all.

In fact, I actually love to debate with theists who confess that their beliefs are based on faith.

I do not believe you as much as you believe yourself.

When it comes to spiritual and mystical ideas I confess to being agnostic in general. However, simultaneously I have no problem holding to the position that I am 100% certain that the Bible cannot be true as it is writte. And my reason for that is that it contains extreme self-contradictions as it is written thus proving its own fallacy.

Some people will claim that we can't know anything with 100% certainty. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned we can clearly know some things with 100% certainty. For example we can know for certain that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of 2. We have a rock-solid proof of this. There is no room left for doubt. That's 100% certainty.

I feel that the Bible also can be ruled out via it's own self-contradictory stories and claims. Leaving no room for doubt that it is necessarily false as written.

Again, we agree, completely.

So when I speak with Christian theists I'm not searching for any truth that they might claim to have. They clearly have no truth to offer. What they have is faith in a dogma that can be shown to be self-contradictory.

Such an attitude simply proves that you have nothing to offer, nothing to learn, and nothing of value for any other person to consider within their philosophy. I hope you are lying, for your sake.

I respect that dynamic because it changes our planet. Hitler is another example of a figures we must respect. No one on this site has gotten so much support and changed so much, certainly. It's power and undeniable regardless of how wrong we know it to be. We can't "beat" argument ad populum until we understand it. Currently, it deserves our respect for being much more powerful than presentation of fact.

The problem I have with this is that not every human lusts for power. So it's not like all humans are competing to "Rule the World".

So if you're giving someone like Hitler respect for wanting to rule the world, whilst not recognizing the respect someone who lives a solitary peaceful life deserves then you are basing your entire criteria for "respect" on things that have the greatest influence on the most people.

I had thought my respect for Hitler was obvious: he was able to get millions to act as he wished. You or I have not had such influence.

Why should influence over people be respected more than those who just want to live a peaceful life and not rule over anyone?

Because what motivates millions should be attempted to be understood, if not copied. A true combatant knows that the first rule is to "know thine enemy." Sun Tzu

I have no respect for Hitler just because he was a power-hungry war monger who wanted to conquer and enslave the entire world. Why should I respect that?

You shouldn't. I merely respect his ability to get so many to agree.

I can see what you are saying in terms of pure power. When the sun goes nova we're going to have to "respect" that power whether we like it or not. But is that the same kind of respect we would give to someone who was trying to save humanity from global warming, for example?

Maybe. That sounds like a topic I'd like to discuss. Interesting. I'd not thought of it before!

It seems to me that all you are basically saying is that power demands respect. I don't think it does. I might FORCE obedience. But that's hardly the same as warranting respect.

People respect Yahweh, Allah, and Hitler, and Trump because they admire them and want to be them and be like them and serve them in any capacity. I want to know why.

A bully does not earn my respect just because he's strong enough to beat everyone else up. In fact, if that's the only method he can employ to obtain power, then he will never obtain my respect.

Me too. So what? Do you want to understand how and why such people attract millions of disciples wiling to die for them and wanting to emulate their every thought and desire? Or would you rather just oppose and mock them as they destroy all you and I have ever loved?

[Divine Insight]

The only theists I would take seriously in any debate are theists who confess up front that their faith in their theology is precisely that; faith.

I am such a theist and I care nothing about convincing you of anything at all.

Exactly. And that's most sincerely faith-based theists feel which is why I seldom if ever have an opportunity to debate with them.

In fact, I actually love to debate with theists who confess that their beliefs are based on faith.

I do not believe you as much as you believe yourself.

And that's irrelevant for the point being made.

So when I speak with Christian theists I'm not searching for any truth that they might claim to have. They clearly have no truth to offer. What they have is faith in a dogma that can be shown to be self-contradictory.

Such an attitude simply proves that you have nothing to offer, nothing to learn, and nothing of value for any other person to consider within their philosophy. I hope you are lying, for your sake.

Is it possible that you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here?

If you aren't interested in hearing my perspective on this could it be possible that you are the one who is not interested in potentially learning something new?

A bully does not earn my respect just because he's strong enough to beat everyone else up. In fact, if that's the only method he can employ to obtain power, then he will never obtain my respect.

Me too. So what? Do you want to understand how and why such people attract millions of disciples wiling to die for them and wanting to emulate their every thought and desire? Or would you rather just oppose and mock them as they destroy all you and I have ever loved?

I already understand how they do it.

They deceive and con their followers by outsmarting them. I could do that too if I wanted to deceive people into following me. I have no desire to be a leader.

In fact, I believe that I could get people to follow me using pure honesty and good intentions. I haven't done that simply because I have no desire to become a leader.

I confess that had I realized how screwed up the world truly is maybe I would have gotten into politics when I was younger. I was naive and had faith that decent people who are interested in politics would rise to the occasion. In fact, some have done that already. I think Obama was a very honest and decent leader. I don't buy into Trump's claim that Obama was a lousy president. To the contrary I think Obama was a great president.

I have no clue how Hitler rose to power in Nazi Germany. But one reason Trump rose to power in the USA is simply because so many people hated Hillary's guts. Unjustifiably so, IMHO.

So Trump didn't rise to power because he "won", but rather he rose to power because Hillary lost.

Now you might argue that this isn't making much sense, but the truth of the matter is that Trump was even more undesirable than Hillary in terms of having an unfavorably rating. Plus she won the Popular vote by quite a large margin.

Trump won because he lied to the blue collar workers mainly in PA, WI, OH, MI, and NC. As well as elsewhere.

He managed to "squeak by" in each of those states to win the electoral college.

So I don't need to study how he gets people to support him. He simply lies to them. It's a pretty straight-forward process. I already understand his methods.

[Divine Insight]

Do you want to understand how and why such people attract millions of disciples wiling to die for them and wanting to emulate their every thought and desire? Or would you rather just oppose and mock them as they destroy all you and I have ever loved?

By the way, do you think Trump is on the way to destroying all that you and I have ever loved?

[Plumbus Grumbo]

The only theists I would take seriously in any debate are theists who confess up front that their faith in their theology is precisely that; faith.

I am such a theist and I care nothing about convincing you of anything at all.

Exactly. And that's most sincerely faith-based theists feel which is why I seldom if ever have an opportunity to debate with them.

Good for you! And good for them!!

In fact, I actually love to debate with theists who confess that their beliefs are based on faith.

I do not believe you as much as you believe yourself.

And that's irrelevant for the point being made.

True. It was only relevant to your comment.

So when I speak with Christian theists I'm not searching for any truth that they might claim to have. They clearly have no truth to offer. What they have is faith in a dogma that can be shown to be self-contradictory.

Such an attitude simply proves that you have nothing to offer, nothing to learn, and nothing of value for any other person to consider within their philosophy. I hope you are lying, for your sake.

Is it possible that you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here?

Yes. To the extent that you have been, in your replies, to me, in this thread.

If you aren't interested in hearing my perspective on this could it be possible that you are the one who is not interested in potentially learning something new?

Show me that you wish to grow and learn?

A bully does not earn my respect just because he's strong enough to beat everyone else up. In fact, if that's the only method he can employ to obtain power, then he will never obtain my respect.

As long as you continue missing the point, youll feel you are right without compare. Should it concern me? YOU answer.

I already understand how they do it.

They deceive and con their followers by outsmarting them. I could do that too if I wanted to deceive people into following me. I have no desire to be a leader.

Good.

Now.

Would you like to exist and believe as you always have and do, or do you want to make a difference? Would you like to make a change? Do you want to influence others to believe w and think as you do?

In fact, I believe that I could get people to follow me using pure honesty and good intentions. I haven't done that simply because I have no desire to become a leader.

If you are good, you should lead.

Of course you don't want to lead. No good leader does. Good leaders are FORCED to lead and act. Get with the program.

I confess that had I realized how screwed up the world truly is maybe I would have gotten into politics when I was younger. I was naive and had faith that decent people who are interested in politics would rise to the occasion. In fact, some have done that already. I think Obama was a very honest and decent leader. I don't buy into Trump's claim that Obama was a lousy president. To the contrary I think Obama was a great president.

I have no clue how Hitler rose to power in Nazi Germany. But one reason Trump rose to power in the USA is simply because so many people hated Hillary's guts. Unjustifiably so, IMHO.

So Trump didn't rise to power because he "won", but rather he rose to power because Hillary lost.

Now you might argue that this isn't making much sense, but the truth of the matter is that Trump was even more undesirable than Hillary in terms of having an unfavorably rating. Plus she won the Popular vote by quite a large margin.

Trump won because he lied to the blue collar workers mainly in PA, WI, OH, MI, and NC. As well as elsewhere.

He managed to "squeak by" in each of those states to win the electoral college.

So I don't need to study how he gets people to support him. He simply lies to them. It's a pretty straight-forward process. I already understand his methods.

m

Exactly. Trump won because he apealled to bully racist jerks who believed this was their one chance to be heard.....but he won.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Can I trust the God of Buddhism? Yes, based on my understanding of the God it would be totally trustworthy 100%. So can I then take the extreme leap of faith to actually believe that the God of Buddhism is real? Well, no.

Hello, Divine Insight!
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. Maybe you can help me out. How can you trust the god of Buddhism when you don't even believe he, she, or it is real? How does that work?

To me, that is like saying to someone, "I trust 100% that a stranger is going to give me a big yellow bag full of money today at Starbucks at 2:40 PM." The person then asks, "Do you really believe this person with the money exists?" To which you reply, "Well, no."

Please tell me what I'm missing here. Thanks.

[i777]

[Replying to post 1 by SkyChief]

Faith is a word that was used to describe the voice of God speaking directly in the mind of a prophet. So Adam was the first to experience faith but ever since he stopped listening to the voice of God and listened to the voices of the images instead, Adam lost faith in God to become spiritually dead.

When a faithful prophet spoke for God, some men believed those words were coming from God but most did not. Those who did not believe the prophets were speaking for God because of their faith are called heathens. Those heathens killed the prophets because of their disbelief.

I hope this clears up the difference between faith and belief. Faith is knowing God and belief is something that happens to those who listen to the prophets who know God.