05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually - the thread is about "faith". But I agree that the OP didn't specifically mention anything about religion.
This thread is about morality, not about reasons to believe in a deity. Take it to spirituality.
One area that seems to involve a lot of "faith" are people's commitments to a particular political ideology. Do you place a lot of "faith" that government can come up with solutions to society's problems? Or do you place a lot of "faith" in a free market system? Do you have a lot of "faith" that the GOP, Dems, conservatives, or liberals are the one group that has THE answers? Do you have a lot of "faith" in a bipartisan process, or do you have a lot of "faith" in waiting until one side prevails and dominate the process?
Whatever your position on these things, it most likely involves a certain leap of intuitive "faith" that goes beyond mere rationality.
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo that would mean that you feel as though I do not have enough "countable" reasons why I believe the way I do. In fact, the same can be said of government. Many think they have enough "countable" reasons to trust government. Some feel they have enough evidence to place their faith in their political leaders and some feel as though they do not. Imagine that. You have the same data but come to different conclusions. Go figure?
So I suppose that means you don't appreciate the difference between the uncountable noun "reason" and the countable noun "reason".
I suppose those who disagree with your faith or doubt in your political leaders simply are not bowing to reason?
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesAs I have always said, everyone has a god and everyone has a devil. You believe that there are answers to our problems, whether they be government or lack thereof etc, and you have a source of contention that is fighting your solutions. In the case of conservatives the devil is big government and for left wingers the devil is capitalism. God help either one of them if they think that they will find solutions to thier problems in the souls of men who have created all these problems.
Actually - the thread is about "faith". But I agree that the OP didn't specifically mention anything about religion.
One area that seems to involve a lot of "faith" are people's commitments to a particular political ideology. Do you place a lot of "faith" that government can come up with solutions to society's problems? Or do you place a lot of "faith volves a certain leap of intuitive "faith" that goes beyond mere rationality.
05 May 10
1 edit
Just for the record, I think to exercise faith one must first trust. Once you have placed your trust in government, for example, it matters little what ill they may infliect as a result. At that point you can exercise blind faith no matter the evidence at hand. However, it is presumed that you have used evidence for your blind faith to the exercised in the first place.
What we really are discussing here are the effects of belief structures. Belief structures are vital in terms of how we process data we receive everyday. Faith is simply an off shoot of these belief structures. For example, you may believe in someone who everyone may have good reason not to. Perhaps they have been accused of something with evidence that is stacked against them but you have ample prior reasons to place your trust in them anyway. At that point you are free to exercise blind faith in them but I dare say it is NOT without reason.
05 May 10
Originally posted by whodeySo, we're kind of clear here, right? You don't appreciate the difference between the uncountable noun "reason" and the countable noun "reason".
So that would mean that you feel as though I do not have enough "countable" reasons why I believe the way I do. In fact, the same can be said of government. Many think they have enough "countable" reasons to trust government.
05 May 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI intentionally avoided saying anything about religion in the OP but outside that context does anyone really have "faith" in anything. People believe in political philosophies because they've been convinced of their merits and sometimes take them to illogical extremes because they've dug in their heels. Think about it. Other than in the context of religion, will anyone ever defend their position on an issue by pointing to faith?
Actually - the thread is about "faith". But I agree that the OP didn't specifically mention anything about religion.
One area that seems to involve a lot of "faith" are people's commitments to a particular political ideology. Do you place a lot of "faith" that government can come up with solutions to society's problems? Or do you place a lot of "faith ...[text shortened]... volves a certain leap of intuitive "faith" that goes beyond mere rationality.
05 May 10
Originally posted by sh76But what is it that "convinces" people of the merits of a given political philosophy?
I intentionally avoided saying anything about religion in the OP but outside that context does anyone really have "faith" in anything. People believe in political philosophies because they've been convinced of their merits and sometimes take them to illogical extremes because they've dug in their heels. Think about it. Other than in the context of religion, will anyone ever defend their position on an issue by pointing to faith?
Why is it that after much time is spent debating on various issues, it seems like no one's position on anything ever really changes very much? The right wingers are just as right-wing as before - the left-wingers are just as left-wing as before, and those in the middle are just as much in the middle as before. It seems like there are certain underlying beliefs involved that are simply taken "on faith".
If people's positions were based merely on being convinced by "reason", then surely there would be frequent cases of people saying "so-n-so made a really good point there - my position has totally changed on that issue". But this never seems to happen.
05 May 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think that phenomenon is due to the human nature tendency to dig in and defend one's position. People hate admitting when they're wrong even if, deep
But what is it that "convinces" people of the merits of a given political philosophy?
Why is it that after much time is spent debating on various issues, it seems like no one's position on anything ever really changes very much? The right wingers are just as right-wing as before - the left-wingers are just as left-wing as before, and those in the middl ...[text shortened]... here - my position has totally changed on that issue". But this never seems to happen.
in their heart, they know they might be. I don't think it's a matter of faith.
Also, sometimes people may realize they're losing an argument but still
think their overall of general philosophy is correct. Therefore, they feel justified or even obligated to keep fighting on the micro level to defend their macro philosophy.
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Yep. The smart ones will change their position though. It will be a slow process, almost imperceptible, but they will. And when they do finally accept your position, they'll never credit you for being the wave of reason that progressively hit their rock. And the topic will already be on the next discussion...
I think that phenomenon is due to the human nature tendency to dig in and defend one's position. People hate admitting when they're wrong even if, deep
in their heart, they know they might be. I don't think it's a matter of faith.
05 May 10
Originally posted by sh76
I think that phenomenon is due to the human nature tendency to dig in and defend one's position. People hate admitting when they're wrong even if, deep
in their heart, they know they might be. I don't think it's a matter of faith.
Also, sometimes people may realize they're losing an argument but still
think their overall of general philosophy is correct. T ...[text shortened]... ied or even obligated to keep fighting on the micro level to defend their macro philosophy.
Also, sometimes people may realize they're losing an argument but still
think their overall of general philosophy is correct.
This is where the "faith" part comes in -- it seems that in a lot of political debate, people can lose the argument repeatedly (and on rare occasions, they might even openly admit that they've lost an argument), but they still believe deep down that their "general philosophy" is correct.
It seems that for most people, their belief in their "general philosophy" is unlikely to be changed very much by argument alone.
05 May 10
Originally posted by FMFWhen you say "countable" you are referring to your faith in what your 5 senses are telling you as well as your reasoning ability to interpret the data. Right?
So, we're kind of clear here, right? You don't appreciate the difference between the uncountable noun "reason" and the countable noun "reason".
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaReally? So we all assume that you are a "smart" one, unless you have adopted positions that seem unreasonable to you. Therefore, everyone that disagrees with you must be something other than smart.
Yep. The smart ones will change their position though. It will be a slow process, almost imperceptible, but they will. And when they do finally accept your position, they'll never credit you for being the wave of reason that progressively hit their rock. And the topic will already be on the next discussion...
Of course, this type of thinking is not new and leads itself to elitism that we much of both in Washington and the upper regions of religious thought.
Having said that, I recently began a thread on Noah's Ark in the spirituality forum. For me, the only questions are, is the find really on the peak of Mt. Ararat and can it be dated back 4 thousand years? If so, is it "reasonable" to assume that the Biblical account of the flood is accurate?
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyFAIL
Really? So we all assume that you are a "smart" one, unless you have adopted positions that seem unreasonable to you. Therefore, everyone that disagrees with you must be something other than smart.
Like I said, even the smart ones change their opinions SLOWLY over time. Which means, translating for the less smart among us, that smart people can and will disagree at any given day.