I suspect ya'll be talkin' 'bout faith more than belief.

In my industry, where we design and build things that have never existed before. We "believe" we can do it. Admittedly, we've done it so often it isn't always that huge leap of "faith". Every couple of decades or so we fail miserably (although that usually means we just change the requirements as oppose to giving up). Belief can be important too in emergency situations. Believing that one will survive, that help will come, that there is a way out. That former monk in the cave with those kids needed alot of belief to keep them alive and get them out. Was that all he needed? No, but it was an important element.

Faith on the other hand is in essence the belief in things that aren't evident, and to some degree never will be.

In those quotes, it is religious belief that is being talked about.

The belief you have in your ability to design and build things is using the definition of "belief" that means "to have confidence in." Very different.

In religion, "belief" and "faith" are often used interchangeably. Since this is posted in the Religion Group, clearly, I'm talking about belief from a perspective of religion.

I have confidence that that difference is clear. I believe you understand me.

Truth is, I'm not sure most of those quotes, other than the one about faith, were talking about that kind of "believing". Dick was a big sci-fi/fantasy writer.

definition of "belief" from a religion perspective. The word does have other meanings, of course, but the venue limits the meaning I'm using, I think. Just plug in "faith" for "belief" or "have faith in" for "believe."

Both words are used in these quotes.

I understand how you are using the terms, but I think a lot of the arguments in religion are unresolvable because people define "belief" differently.

Atheists often say they don't have a belief about gods. Theists say that atheist non-belief is actually a kind of belief. The theological argument can't even get off the ground because it is about what qualifies as "belief," not about what you or they actually think.

Using "faith" instead doesn't help because there are different definitions of faith as well.

Semantics are always getting in the way.

Frankly, I wouldn't care about religion or religious believers at all, except they keep trying to push their way into people's lives. So, I care, because it affects me in one way or another.

For my entire life as an atheist, which is now well over 50 years, religion has been interfering in my life on both a micro and macro scale. I can't afford to ignore it. So, here I am. Right now, even on a national basis, religion is threatening the very existence of the nation in which I live. Screw that noise!

One could categorize a theist as having active belief, an atheist as having an active disbelief, and an agnostic as having neither (or a passive disbelief in the alternative for some).

Others might say it's binary, it's either belief or it isn't. Those also tend to be the folks who think agnostic doesn't really exist and it's all either theists or atheists.

I tend to side with the former idea/concept that belief isn't necessarily a binary concept, there are shades, and nuances.

Speaking only for myself, as someone who believes in God, I also have to admit that there is no empirical evidence to prove the existence of that God (or any God). My belief is based on my faith, which in turn was developed and nurtured by my education (both formal and informal) and my personal experiences.

Could I be wrong?

Absolutely.

All I can do is try my best to lead a life that strives to put the needs of others first, and then assist those in need to the best of my abilities.

And while I don’t think that a belief in God is necessary to do that, I also hope that my belief does not hinder me from doing so.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Thank you.

Tim

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2018, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I differ from a lot of people regarding the validity of education and experience. I regard them as empirical, but not scientific. Empirical literally means "based on observation or experience." Nobody can argue with your own experience, nor can they disprove it. Scientific evidence is a special class of empirical evidence that can be independently verified.

but discuss it and find other ways to explain it.

People have experienced what they think to be paranormal. But though the experience is real, the explanation is always prosaic.

The same could be with people's experience of Faith and God.

I completely agree.

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

same to you.

But the power of the experience can be unshakable. Even though I know that the color red is just a particular wavelength of light, it still looks just as red. I think people who have religious experiences are responding to the emotional character of the experience rather than any rational or irrational explanation of the experience.

but there in lies the problem, because they act in accordance of what they think the experience means and what the God they believe in wants them to do.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2018, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

what is objective fact and not just belief and faith.
Some of us realize our experience alone is not a good barometer of what is right.

It requires a good education plus the lifelong commitment to use it. And even then, you can make a lot of mistakes without realizing it.

is very true.

religious or non-religious, and even the ones that do, can't maintain that 100% of the time.

It's really not how our brains are naturally set up, we fight ourselves a bit when we do it.

but we can keep checking objective facts and act accordingly.

And when facts are presented to show our experience has led us astray, we can correct our ideas.

Or we can ignore those facts and keep relying on "faith" and "belief".

that even logical, intelligent people, once they believe they know an answer, get more, not less locked in when presented with contrary evidence...particularly if they have strong feelings about the subject area.

We simply are not logic machines. We are flawed humans, with emotions, and logical black holes/blind spots. Every last one of us.

My point is, it's not an either/or proposition. It's not all logic over here, and all "faith and belief" over there.
We all fail to some extent in the former, the only difference is the level and type of failure.

I'm a strong liberal. Objectively, I know there are probably some good conservative ideas, but damn if I can think of any, and I'd probably reject most no matter how logically argued.

we can be aware of this and try to stay objective.

Or say faith and belief are just as, or more important than objective facts.

as my point is that your ability to do the first sentence is by definition limited and flawed. You can THINK you are doing exactly that, and not be doing exactly that, because of an inability to get outside of yourself or your hangups or your biases.

that people can't know they have biasis and act to overcome them by seeking more objective truths.

While others don't wish to confront their own biases.

But all by necessity fall short because there is no human alive without bias and blind spots and by definition you can't see the latter to overcome them and the former often causes even the smartest people to reject evidence even as they think they are being objective and scientific in doing so.

The best of us successfully reduce both, the worst of us are mostly unsuccessful and the rest of us are somewhere along the continuum.

What if we all did that to the best of our ability? Wouldn't that be wonderful?

my point is:

1. no one ever does that (and I'm not sure it's even possible)
2. even the best of our abilities doesn't always result in logical results

This is a big reason why I do not agree with libertarianism. That philosophy has to assume that everyone is a rational maximizer of their own self-interest or it does not work. And we know, few people are even routinely in that category, and no one is always in that category.

His post was conditional, not absolute. You cannot change his meaning.

We were discussing things? Where did changing his meaning come into play? My opinions and thoughts have zero impact on his meaning unless he wants them to.

I'm pointing out limitations in his argument IMO.

I appreciate the clarification concerning the term (as I used it)

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

They are too ambiguous, and are used more for the moral weight they carry, rather than their meaning.

For example, recently a poster said roughly "x believes in good because of faith, y doesn't believe in God despite a lack of evidence." Belief, in this context, should instead be acceptance. Such as "I accept that God exists" or the inverse "I reject that God exists." And faith should be seen as "accepting something exists despite a lack of evidence."

This erases any semantic ambiguity, and also so one position isn't seen as better than another due to the weight the terms carry, rather than on it's own merit.

"Belief" and "faith" are crucial to religious apologetics. Without those concepts, I can't imagine that religions would exist at all.

Precision in language is a wonderful goal, which is made impossible to achieve due to multiple definitions for very important words.

You think you're finally making some kind of headway and suddenly they've switched definitions on you mid sentence. Like this current wave of talking about the creator rather than about god. So now we have to go through all the hoops again just to make sure they're actually talking about what they are talking about.

It's really very tiring.

Sort of the Generic Deity. Any name will do, apparently, for some.

but to me the concept of a creator, vice a God can carry two very different definitions.

A God seems pretty clear to me. Such an entity probably has to have, by definition, abilities and powers and knowledge no man has or could ever have. A God is probably immortal, probably omniscient, and probably omnipotent. At least the in the western religions. I suppose in a polytheistic religion, that's not true necessarily. Point being, a God is almost assuredly "supernatural."

A Creator does not have to be. Take for example the scientific concept that we are inside a black hole. That the equations/theories that describe a black hole also describe our universe. Let's assume it's true, that every time a black hole is created, a new universe if formed. Who know's if it is, but it's not outside the realm of the possible. A regular old human being could be "the creator" of that universe.

I suppose a suitably advanced human (say a billion years from now) could even tune said creation into something that has a high likelihood of leading to humans arising in that universe somewhere. Not a God, not supernatural, just really, really, really smart. Point being, A creator to me seems a much, much broader term that can include the supernatural, but does not have to.

Thanks MineralMan. The Mencken quote brings to mind another that has been in great circulation lately:

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

defies description?
Science has done a very good job of describing it.
Much better than the belief systems of religion, which have been unanimously wrong about the Universe.
Is it complete? Not by a long shot, but it accurately describes much of the Universe.

through science, measure things beyond the range of our senses.