14 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyMostly, yes, because they suffer from the problem of induction. I have seen that the sun rises for 32 years, I take this as probable cause that it will happen this way tomorrow. How many rising suns this might take I cannot say, it is an organic and mostly subjective matter. I don't believe there are such things as proofs for synthetic, contingent experiences, I'm a relativist in this.
Ok, so at what point do you have enough evidence to conclude that it is a probable outcome to place your faith in something or someone? If I am not mistaken, these "probable outcomes" are evidences, not proofs, as to why you place your faith in something, no?
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI think it near laughable that you single out only the religious portion
Only 1b and 3 are acceptable to me and then so, only in that they are simplistic definitions.
just to avoid having to acknowledge there are aspects of the word
faith that may apply to you as it is defined. Your dislike for God and
religion actually has you redefining words in the dictionary to suit
yourself; do you think since you are doing this with the dictionary
which does not care one wit about our stances on religion and God
that you might be doing the same with the universe around you too?
Kelly
14 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI have no problem with substituting the word “trust” for the word “reliance” in my post. (I wrote it before I saw the agreed upon stipulation.)
Ok, what about the definition we have arrived at? What is your opinion about trusting? Surely this has nothing to do with whether a proposition is true or false either.
As I noted, in my “personal dictionary,” I use the word faith to refer to an existential attitude—it is, in a sense, a “technical” definition that lies outside conventional discourse (and hence, perhaps, outside the conventional dictionary). Hence my differentiation.
I place trust in the content of a proposition because it seems to reflect an actual state of affairs, because it seems justified by empiricism and reason; that is, not only do I think the proposition is validly stated, I also think that its premises are true. I am not substituting the word “belief” for the word “faith” in that part of my post; that is, I will not use the word “faith” in that sense, though others are free to.
I see no reason for anyone else to accept my “dictionary.” On the other hand, if they do not accept my definition of faith for the purposes of discourse, then we will simply not be talking about the same thing when we use that word.
In the interest of talking about the same thing, I will concur with Dr. Scribbles and accept the stipulation—in terms of the first two paragraphs of my post.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayMy dislike of intangible definitions and my desire for consistency are what drive me to redefine words, religion has nothing to do with it. I find it near laughable that people are happy to take dictionary definitions as absolute and accurate descriptions of existence. I also find it near laughable that I am getting a lecture on language from someone whose own use of it is below average.
I think it near laughable that you single out only the religious portion
just to avoid having to acknowledge there are aspects of the word
faith that may apply to you as it is defined. Your dislike for God and
religion actually has you redefining words in the dictionary to suit
yourself; do you think since you are doing this with the dictionary
which d ...[text shortened]... s on religion and God
that you might be doing the same with the universe around you too?
Kelly
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI am always reminded of a friend of mine, when he was defending his dissertation on some abstruse area of theoretical mathematics—pure theory stuff. The extra-departmental member of his committee was an engineer. My friend, in his dissertation, used the word “torsion”. The engineer, as my friend put it, “got all excited” about how that word was applied. My friend—with the aid of some of the other committee members, had to patiently explain that whatever the engineer understood by that word, it had absolutely nothing to do with the way it was being applied in this case; I daresay it would not have matched up with a conventional dictionary definition either.
My dislike of intangible definitions and my desire for consistency are what drive me to redefine words, religion has nothing to do with it. I find it near laughable that people are happy to take dictionary definitions as absolute and accurate descriptions of existence. I also find it near laughable that I am getting a lecture on language from someone whose own use of it is below average.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyI agree.
So the love you share and have shared has generated such trust? To be honest, I would say that is probably the same answer for all of us...that is if we were all honest with ourselves and with each other. I like what you said about it not being a scienfic experiment. It has nothing to do with proving anything, does it? However, the first step is love, no? ...[text shortened]... is the evidence at hand that is needed, even if it is not proof they will go awry at some point.
Although it probably wasn't love that started the whole thing going, but rather lust.
The love came later.
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyObviously you're trying to get to some sort of religious point here.
Ok, so at what point do you have enough evidence to conclude that it is a probable outcome to place your faith in something or someone? If I am not mistaken, these "probable outcomes" are evidences, not proofs, as to why you place your faith in something, no?
Well, get on with it. Don't leave us all hanging.
14 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionAlrighty then. I was merely giving you all insight into the "religious" mind. Faith in God is not merely proving/disproving his existence or picturing him as some sort of scientific experiment, rather, faith is merely a byproduct of my relationship with the Almighty. I trust him and love him because he first showed love for me. When one asks why we have faith in God and on what empircal evidence do we place such faith, it is like asking you the same in regards to your wife. You can't really put your finger on when the transition occured per sey, rather, it simply was a natural transition that exists in any loving relationship. It really can't be measured and you have no way of proving that your faith in her is justifiable. It is important to realize as human beings, we are all wired to react to things in much the same way in that we are relational beings. Therefore, whether it be your wife or God we all try to relate to each other in much the same way and with much the same needs with love being the first and formost need. This is why God is said to be love whether he be a myth made by the needs of man or a reality in which such a God made man in his image to crave loving relationships.
Obviously you're trying to get to some sort of religious point here.
Well, get on with it. Don't leave us all hanging.
Granted, there is the issue of believing that God exists, no? As for your wife, you percieve her as existing because your five senses indicate she exists whether your five senses are decieving you in some way or not. However, God is not a material being, therefore, one first awaits an introduction from such a God. I can only speak for myself in that I have an innate sense that there is a God. It just makes sense to me and seems right to me. Also, clues as to who and what he might be are all around in various belief systems as well as the very presence of creation itself. If there be a God who wants to be known, then it stands to reason that he has revealed himself to at least some of his creation. If there be a God, such a God is either living in the hearts of men or is dead to mankind if he is not involved in their lives whether he exists or not. It is then the job of those who feel that their must be a God who wants to be known to decipher the different belief systems out there whether they be true or not. Therefore, I view the mere existence of such various belief systems as evidences for a God. Just the mere fact that peers of mine believe in something is evidence to me. For example, if all my friends sware up and down they have experienced a unicorn then it would be considered as an evidence for me to believe similarly. I must then conclude that they are either trying to decieve me, are being decieved themselves, or are right about what they say they have experienced. However, additionally there are the religious texts themselves that are filled with truths and wisdom that are self evident as well as historical and prophetic truths about real people and real events. For me, it is a culmination of such evidences. However, the clincher for me is that God is love. That is what drew me to the Christian God. Love rules our lives and we are nothing without it. It is an abstract phenomenon that cannot be measured and is not logical per sey. It is what gives us our spirituality or what transcends our material world. God is love.
I think the bigger mystery for me, however, is what triggors us to trust God or trust another human being. Some do neither. Some do both. Some do one but not the other. No matter where you stand in the mix, you have neither proof for your position nor a great deal of logic to back up such faith, rather, it all stems from who and what you love. Therefore, I guess the question is what triggors such love?
14 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyWell being someone who looks at things from a largely scientific perspective, the beginnings of love would for me be biochemical. In fact, I guess if it all comes down to it, that's all it is, since my love for my wife and kids is all inside my head and this is all biochemistry.
Alrighty then. I was merely giving you all insight into the "religious" mind. Faith in God is not merely proving/disproving his existence or picturing him as some sort of scientific experiment, rather, faith is merely a byproduct of my relationship with the Almighty. I trust him and love him because he first showed love for me. When one asks why we have f ...[text shortened]... ems from who and what you love. Therefore, I guess the question is what triggors such love?
None of which lessens the importance of this love for me.
As for your comparison with god, I assumed that's where you were leading, and I don't have any problem with your comparing your belief in god with my love for my wife.
In fact, I don't have any problem with your belief in god full stop.
Most of my family are Christians, so how could I? I don't agree, but that's about as far as I go.
My concern is when god and religion is stretched beyond its realm - for example into science classrooms.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdWhat about personal relationships? Do you defend trusting in such relationships with empiricsm and reason? If so, explain.
I place trust in the content of a proposition because it seems to reflect an actual state of affairs, because it seems justified by empiricism and reason; that is, not only do I think the proposition is validly stated, I also think that its premises are true. I am not substituting the word “belief” for the word “faith” in that part of my post; that is, I will not use the word “faith” in that sense, though others are free to.
Also, the interchangible terms of faith and belief are of interest to me. For example, can you place your faith/trust in someone or something that you do not believe in? Is not belief an extension of trust in that one thinks they can trust but can never know for sure?
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by amannionI do not deny biochemical interplay that is involved in regards to our emotions/intellect. However, I would argue that our minds are a gateway from the spiritual realm to that of the physical realm and vice versa. To put it another way, our minds are a gateway from the tangible to the intangible and vice versa.
[b]Well being someone who looks at things from a largely scientific perspective, the beginnings of love would for me be biochemical.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodey[/b]
I do not deny biochemical interplay that is involved in regards to our emotions/intellect. However, I would argue that our minds are a gateway from the spiritual realm to that of the physical realm and vice versa. To put it another way, our minds are a gateway from the tangible to the intangible and vice versa.
Yeah, well to me that's just mumbo jumbo.
To me that's a way of saying, this thing I call love is just so freakin' amazing that I can't believe that it could be just chemical signals in my brain. So, since I can't believe that's all there is to it, there must be more and so I'll call it spiritual or something mystical like that.
Now if you have some sort of physical evidence of this 'spiritual' thing I'd be interested. But of course, you don't since we'd could it physical then wouldn't we. The old catch 22.
There's an invisible dragon in my garage.
How do you know this?
I just do.
15 Nov 07
Faith/Trust they really are interchangeable. Even if not from a religious standpoint. I would acknowledge though that faith is most used in religious terms. People can pour in whatever definition they want but the two words are synonymous. We put are faith/trust in all kinds of thing daily.
Manny
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by amannionThis is interesting because, on the one hand, you say that love is tangible because you believe it to be a mere chemical reaction. Then, on the other hand, you conceed that it is not really all that tangible and insist on me showing physical evidence for something that I claim is not soley of this physical realm and is for the most part intangible. As you say it is a catch 22.
Yeah, well to me that's just mumbo jumbo.
To me that's a way of saying, this thing I call love is just so freakin' amazing that I can't believe that it could be just chemical signals in my brain. So, since I can't believe that's all there is to it, there must be more and so I'll call it spiritual or something mystical like that.
Now if you have so ...[text shortened]... here's an invisible dragon in my garage.
How do you know this?
I just do.[/b]
All I can do is point to love that to me is supernatural. For me, Christ teaching to love your enemies fits the bill. How is this love natural? In fact, it is not natural in that the natural reaction is self preservation which means returning fire or rendering evil for evil. For me it is the completion of the love message and it cost Christ his very life. Only through God is this possible and to my knowledge no one before Christ ever preached such a message.