The Value of Faith?

[boatsnguitars]

Reference:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Yet, "Hope is not a strategy."

Theists love to use the "no atheist in foxholes" examples as a way to show that when the chips are down, and people panic, they seek out any straw to grasp, even ridiculous concepts like gods to save them - as if it makes their belief in God more reasonable.

However, I'll give a better example:

When the military is preparing for a battle that will either result in victory or death, they don't use hope as a strategy. It would be absurd to think that hope is something useful, faith even less so as it is the reliance on hope. Faith is subservient to hope. That is, one can hope to win the Lottery and we'd all think that's a nice dream, but if someone said "I have Faith I'll win the Lottery" we'd laugh hysterically. That's because the person isn't just hoping, but placing their trust and reliance on hope to win.

Truly, there is no real value in Faith. Hope, yes, Faith, no.

We all know that people can tread water longer is they have hope they will be saved soon. But let's look at the options:

1. Don't hope to be saved, drown
2. Don't hope to be saved, get saved
3. Don't hope to be saved, save yourself (maybe swim until you find an island)
4. Hope to be saved, drown
5. Hope to be saved, get saved
6. Hope to be saved, save yourself
7. Have Faith you will be saved, drown
8. Have Faith you will be saved, get saved
9. Have Faith you will be saved, save yourself

In each example, the outcome is the same. You either drown, get saved, or save yourself.

Faith has no role in increasing the odds of getting saved, other than the Hope one might have to tread water a little longer - but that is relying on the Hope, not the Faith.

It gets worse, though, because here we are talking about a general Faith. When we talk about Faith in God, it's so much worse:

1. Don't hope to be saved, drown (God let you drown)
2. Don't hope to be saved, get saved (God may or may not have saved you)
3. Don't hope to be saved, save yourself (God didn't help)
4. Hope to be saved, drown (God let you drown)
5. Hope to be saved, get saved (God may or may not have saved you)
6. Hope to be saved, save yourself (God didn't help)
7. Have Faith you will be saved, drown (God let you drown)
8. Have Faith you will be saved, get saved (God may or may not have saved you)
9. Have Faith you will be saved, save yourself (God didn't help)

Only in 1/3rd of the example, does God - maybe - help.

Now, consider this is what people use to believe in the origin of the Universe, Speciation, belief in dying and rising saviors, belief in an afterlife, etc.

Religion teaches that one must have Faith in their respective God, or else (in many cases) suffer for eternity. So, it's not as if one can waver in Faith. You MUST have Faith, or else get denied.

In fact, if a person drowns (or something bad happens), Religionists will often say, "You didn't have enough Faith."
So it's not enough that Faith is functionally useless, but it's required.

Think about how abjectly cruel that is! "You must have Faith to have a chance of getting in God's good graces but God is under no obligation to affirm your Faith."

With this fear of God's rejection, Religionists than use their choice of God's to dictate what they believe about the world, and many try to force their chosen beliefs on others.

Question:
Is Faith useless, cruel or worse?

[boatsnguitars]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

[boatsnguitars]

...
Truly, there is no real value in Faith. Hope, yes, Faith, no.
...

In Bible there is a nice example of faith in the story of Noah. Noah was faithful=loyal to God, it meant he believed what God had told and was loyal to God and built the ark. That kind of faithfulness is what is expected from people. And it has value, because when people are loyal to God, they live by His word and do good things.

\Easy to quote religious stories as fact, isn't it. Every religion known to Man thought so too. Even the ones you think are absurd.

Seems, then, your idea of faith is "believe the stories your parents tell you, and don't question. If something good happens, you can blame it on God, if something bad happens you blame yourself."

What a horrible way to live life!

[Data]

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

Okay. Give me a better one.

[1213]

...
Truly, there is no real value in Faith. Hope, yes, Faith, no.
...

In Bible there is a nice example of faith in the story of Noah. Noah was faithful=loyal to God, it meant he believed what God had told and was loyal to God and built the ark. That kind of faithfulness is what is expected from people. And it has value, because when people are loyal to God, they live by His word and do good things.

\Easy to quote religious stories as fact, isn't it....

The point was to show what faith means in the Bible. The meaning doesn't depend on is the story actually true or not.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is interesting as a discussion about what Faith (of the religious kind) is, and does, and why we have it. What the dogma or theology says about it is irrelevant as also is - as our pal above says - 'what the Bible says'. It is as irrelevant as an investigation into the claims of scientology crediting the claims of Scientology. In another way, as was discussed here a while ago, the claim is not evidence for the claim.

Or another angle might be, Religion is true - in that it exists. But it is irrelevant in a discussion as to why it exists. Obviously, to claim 'it's true' only works for one religion, at most. It is actually the 'prayer' debate; it is done to make the prayer feel good, not to achieve anything practical. That does not prevent the prayer claiming that it was 'answered' in the catch all 'yes, no and 'later', or "Fulfilment' apologetic.
( apologies for the Quotes - as for any wrong formatting. I don't know how to do it differently and it's readable, anyway - but the whole apologetics Method of euphemistic ambiguity and the game =play of equivocation means that more than half the terms need quotes)

I am much aware of the confidence in Faith and Destiny in everything from political leaders to sporting successes. Which I recall was the OP. Belief in success or salvation in extremity, under fire or at sea in a rubber raft. Faith that you will be saved may make for more effort. which may make the difference between success or survival and failure or dying two days before the rescue ship arrives. Perhaps that is why we have Faith, and why religion is so useful in inspiring warfare.

Cue...what about Stalin or Pol Pot? Exactly. Dogma works as well as religious Faith, and so does Patriotism. It means - what we already knew - that it does not have to be true to 'Work' - people only have to believe it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

I get exactly what our pal Data means. "We can know nothing for sure" is true, but invalid as an argument. What we can credibly expect because we see it every day (weather permitting) trumps an unprove or unvalidated claim every time. This is the difference between 'belief' based on understanding, and Faith based on not understanding, let alone rejection of understanding (which is why evolution -denial requires that the subject Not be understood before rejecting it).

[boatsnguitars]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

I get exactly what our pal Data means. "We can know nothing for sure" is true, but invalid as an argument. What we can credibly expect because we see it every day (weather permitting) trumps an unprove or unvalidated claim every time. This is the difference between 'belief' based on understanding, and Faith based on not understanding, let alone rejection of understanding (which is why evolution -denial requires that the subject Not be understood before rejecting it).

The analogy would be "I have faith that aliens will cure my cancer and help my team win the big game."

That seems to be what Faith means to them: "Something completely unproved to exist is going to do miraculous things for ME. I just know it!"

[TRANSPONDER]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

I get exactly what our pal Data means. "We can know nothing for sure" is true, but invalid as an argument. What we can credibly expect because we see it every day (weather permitting) trumps an unprove or unvalidated claim every time. This is the difference between 'belief' based on understanding, and Faith based on not understanding, let alone rejection of understanding (which is why evolution -denial requires that the subject Not be understood before rejecting it).

The analogy would be "I have faith that aliens will cure my cancer and help my team win the big game."

That seems to be what Faith means to them: "Something completely unproved to exist is going to do miraculous things for ME. I just know it!"

Agreed. Especially in the context of the topic. But it has other applications than believing that prayer works even though it doesn't. I fact Faith is the basis for anecdotal claims of healings with prayer, from the ludicrous staged faith - healings to the oft - repeated 'My mutha, she wuz dying o' cancer, see...' story. Faith - claims whether not fact - checked to knowingly false (aside from sheer cynical money - making) are valid because they only 'save people' by fooling them into believing what is known to be true On Faith anyway.

The link being to denying mere hard validated evidence when it conflicts with Faith. Even we have seen, ignoring or denying what the Bible itself says.

[boatsnguitars]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

I get exactly what our pal Data means. "We can know nothing for sure" is true, but invalid as an argument. What we can credibly expect because we see it every day (weather permitting) trumps an unprove or unvalidated claim every time. This is the difference between 'belief' based on understanding, and Faith based on not understanding, let alone rejection of understanding (which is why evolution -denial requires that the subject Not be understood before rejecting it).

The analogy would be "I have faith that aliens will cure my cancer and help my team win the big game."

That seems to be what Faith means to them: "Something completely unproved to exist is going to do miraculous things for ME. I just know it!"

Agreed. Especially in the context of the topic. But it has other applications than believing that prayer works even though it doesn't. I fact Faith is the basis for anecdotal claims of healings with prayer, from the ludicrous staged faith - healings to the oft - repeated 'My mutha, she wuz dying o' cancer, see...' story. Faith - claims whether not fact - checked to knowingly false (aside from sheer cynical money - making) are valid because they only 'save people' by fooling them into believing what is known to be true On Faith anyway.

The link being to denying mere hard validated evidence when it conflicts with Faith. Even we have seen, ignoring or denying what the Bible itself says.

Yep, and always part of that story is, "And all the doctors said it was a miracle!"

When asked to provide a letter from any of the doctors... crickets....

[TRANSPONDER]

Then it sounds like it's worse than trust, since I can trust but verify. It appears Faith is trust but not verify.

If you could verify you wouldn't need faith, but that isn't to say that faith negates verification. One can't immediately verify something they specifically put faith in. I have faith the sun will come out tomorrow but I can't verify it until tomorrow. Once verified faith is no longer needed in that specific instance.

But you have been able to verify it every day, no? Up to that point, you've had proof the Sun exists, "rises", etc.

Seems a bad analogy for religion.

I get exactly what our pal Data means. "We can know nothing for sure" is true, but invalid as an argument. What we can credibly expect because we see it every day (weather permitting) trumps an unprove or unvalidated claim every time. This is the difference between 'belief' based on understanding, and Faith based on not understanding, let alone rejection of understanding (which is why evolution -denial requires that the subject Not be understood before rejecting it).

The analogy would be "I have faith that aliens will cure my cancer and help my team win the big game."

That seems to be what Faith means to them: "Something completely unproved to exist is going to do miraculous things for ME. I just know it!"

Agreed. Especially in the context of the topic. But it has other applications than believing that prayer works even though it doesn't. I fact Faith is the basis for anecdotal claims of healings with prayer, from the ludicrous staged faith - healings to the oft - repeated 'My mutha, she wuz dying o' cancer, see...' story. Faith - claims whether not fact - checked to knowingly false (aside from sheer cynical money - making) are valid because they only 'save people' by fooling them into believing what is known to be true On Faith anyway.

The link being to denying mere hard validated evidence when it conflicts with Faith. Even we have seen, ignoring or denying what the Bible itself says.

Yep, and always part of that story is, "And all the doctors said it was a miracle!"

When asked to provide a letter from any of the doctors... crickets....

Rather, "The doctors had no explanation". They wouldn't say it was a miracle, but science couldn't explain it. That, like NDE's and the Big Three apologetics (morality having lost too much apologetias ground to be the Big Fourth) is the Gap for God that enable Faith to provvide the Onle Answer.

In fact cancer remission is unexplained. But that does not make Goddunnit the only answer, just as with NDEs or Cosmic origins. It is a Faith basic error which ivalidates all the appeals to Unknowns and which Believers can't get and they do not understand or accept the burden of proof or the materialist default. This is why they 100% thik in trms of 'My Faith is true unless they disprove it or prove the materialist theory 100% dow to the last nanoparticle, in real time and so eve I can't deny it.

The more probable argument (sliding scale of evidence) is not how they think. Though they can work that way when it suits them. e.g piling up a heap of bad evidence in order to make a better explanation. But that is just more fiddling of the Method to get to where they want - the Faith claim. I say again, Theist -think (and related cult -think) is......